Scotland: concerns over whether system fails sexual harassment victims

Concerns have been raised over whether the system is failing victims of sexual harassment in Scotland as warnings intensify over the impact the Alex Salmond saga has had on the momentum for change brought about by the #MeToo movement.

Those close to the recent inquiries into the handling of sexual harassment complaints against the former first minister stress the need to hold the Scottish government to account over promised policy changes, while a Guardian survey has found the Scottish National party (SNP) is the only party in Scotland that cannot provide evidence of overhauling its sexual harassment policy following the #MeToo revelations of November 2017.

The Scottish parliament introduced an independent support service in March 2019, which was noted favourably in this week’s highly critical Holyrood report into the handling of the allegations, but no complaints have been recorded since then.

This is despite efforts to promote a zero-tolerance approach within Holyrood, and after a confidential survey conducted in 2018 found that one in 10 staff had experienced sexual harassment, 45% of whom said that the perpetrator was an MSP.

Similarly, the First Division Association, which represents the country’s most senior civil servants, is not aware of any complaints of sexual harassment since two female civil servants came forward in January 2018 with their concerns about Salmond.

Andy Wightman, who sat as an independent member on the Holyrood inquiry, acknowledges the chilling effect: “It was damaging to the complainers and damaging to other people. The longer it is played out in public and sensationalised, the more likely [another potential complainer] is to bury it within themselves. But these reports should prompt improvement and confidence can be rebuilt, although that will take some time.”

He said he welcomed John Swinney’s pledge on Wednesday of “speedy action” to improve the Scottish government’s sexual harassment policies but added that scrutiny of this delivery was essential.

He said that while the independence of any new process was paramount, another key area for improvement was confidentiality – given evidence published alongside the Holyrood report from Ms A and Ms B, the two women who originally complained about Salmond, about how many colleagues knew about their complaints.

The 10 pages of testimony from Ms A and Ms B powerfully focused attention on the manifold deficiencies they faced throughout the process: they described a culture of complicity around Salmond’s allegedly inappropriate behaviour during his time as first minister where a “blind eye” was turned and “making complaints was simply not the done thing”.

They also related how they felt “basically just dropped” by the Scottish government after the initial inquiry, and left with no support during the subsequent police investigation and trial, after which a jury acquitted Salmond of all charges.

“We still need to address cultural issues within the Scottish government,” said Dave Penman, head of the FDA, though added it is impossible to know whether other sexual harassment complainers have been put off. “How do we create an environment where the powerful in an organisation feel they will be held to account. And why is it happening more often in Scotland?”

In evidence to the inquiry last autumn, Penman said there was a “quite remarkable” number of complaints against Scottish ministers in comparison with elsewhere in the UK, revealing that about 30 senior officials had raised complaints or flagged concerns about bullying and misconduct involving ministers in five offices since 2010.

Penman said his union was pleased that the Holyrood report was so strongly in favour of an independent support service for sexual harassment complaints – as now exists in both Holyrood and Westminster – but was disappointed that the recent policy review by Laura Dunlop QC only suggested this for historic cases.

“All parties have a role to play,” said Aamer Anwar, the human rights lawyer who first drew attention to the scale of sexual harassment at Holyrood in October 2017.

All other parties apart from the SNP have confirmed to the Guardian that they introduced revised procedures after 2017, with the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives, for example, adding some independent elements to the process.

The SNP did not provide detail on changes made after 2017, but said it “continually looks to improve [its] policies and processes” and plans to introduce trained sexual harassment advisers in Westminster, Holyrood and within the party.

The SNP is also the only party which does not display its code of conduct and relevant harassment policy on its website, or offer an easily searchable contact phone number or email to make a complaint. As Wightman pointed out during the inquiry evidence session with the SNP chief executive, Peter Murrell, the SNP’s code of conduct does not mention sexual harassment specifically.

“The starting point should always be that the complaints procedure is visible and transparent,” said Anwar, who also suggests that all parties should be more open about the complaints they have received under their refreshed procedures in order to foster confidence.

“It’s disheartening to think that three years on, things haven’t moved on. I’ve spoken to women who have left politics for good because when they tried to raise concerns they were told they were troublemakers or asking for it. And I know other women who have not come forward because they are too scared about the impact it will have on their careers, reputation, anonymity and even mental health.”