Chamber and committees

For once, I feel confident in saying that everyone who has participated in this debate—from the most ardent bill supporter, through the doubtful, to those who are fervently opposed to it—can all expect the same fate, which, regrettably, is to be met by at least some level of abuse afterwards from some quarter or another.

In many respects, that is testament to the collective failure of all of us, from the Government to the lowliest of back benchers, to ensure that the issue is managed with the mutual respect and seriousness that it deserves. There are far too many people, even among elected representatives, who have felt unable to participate in discussions because of the toxic nature of the debate.

In his poem for the reopening of the Scottish Parliament, Edwin Morgan wrote:

“What do the people want of the place? They want it to be filled with thinking persons”.

I wonder how he would view the quality of discourse around this issue.

The other day, in speaking to my amendment, I revealed some personal effects that the debate has had on me, but, today, I want to set that to one side and to reflect more broadly. I will not debate detail; that time has passed. However, if there is one lesson that I hope that we can all learn from the debate, it is that Edwin Morgan’s remark is truer than ever, and we all need the humility to admit that we have some distance yet to travel.

I fear that the bill has been a missed opportunity. Elements of it would have brought us all together in making life easier and society more welcoming for trans people and in being more respectful of the rights of women. Instead, the bill has created battlegrounds where none needed to exist.

I have long had a professional interest in matters of change and in what basic lessons we can learn from both experience and research. We know that significant change fails in about 70 per cent of cases. Such a failure occurs when people are not collectively taken on a journey. Failures to respect a wide variety of views, to listen and to engage truly empathetically are symptomatic of the types of behaviours that contribute to that situation, and I have seen some of those failings in the debate.

Many issues have been raised over recent days. In my case, I have raised concerns among some women in relation to mental health and trauma issues, which I fear have not been treated seriously enough, let alone understood. Others have raised concerns relating to the interface with the Equality Act 2010, safe spaces for women and the consequences of giving legitimacy to the self-ID approach. It does not matter now whether I agree with some of those observations. For me, what the debate has highlighted is that we have had a less-than-perfect approach to the entire legislative process. When that occurs, it undermines trust in the perception that all of us legislate fairly and effectively.

In all of this, there is, of course, raw politics. Too often, small minorities, both inside and outside the Parliament, have been afforded significantly too much influence at the expense of the ordinary citizens of Scotland. There is a fear among some people that we are on a dangerous path for democracy if we fall into what Professor Elizabeth David-Barrett has called “state capture”, which happens when small groups of the strongly driven capture political debate and discourse at the expense of the people whom we are here to serve. We all need to be aware of the motivations of those people who seek to influence us.

My belief is that approaching the politics of the debate as requiring the dark arts of the whips was wrong. If all political parties in the Parliament had, from the outset, agreed that this was precisely the type of issue redolent of ethics and fundamental rights that should have been dealt with as a matter of conscience rather than being whipped, we would have had a much more open and healthy debate and, flowing from that, a better legislative process and bill. As it stands, the late recognition of different views and the legislative journey that has resulted in a final bill that, regrettably, will bring some unintended consequences—and, arguably, court action—mean that, as a matter of conscience, I cannot vote in favour of it at this time.

The cabinet secretary will be aware that, since 2014 and until 2021, which the most recent survey data covers, global surveys have suggested that the number of women who are employed each year in gaming industries is low. The peak, which was in 2021, is only 30 per cent. Given the importance of the sector and of women to our economy, will the cabinet secretary consider reviewing and monitoring regularly the gender divide in the gaming sector in Scotland?

Before I ask Carolyn Currie a couple of questions, I have a standard question for the other witnesses. Do you routinely disaggregate all data in all surveys by gender?

I have a final wee question. The women in enterprise review, led by Ana Stewart, was launched—I am guessing—in April this year. How actively have you been able to contribute to that?

Why is that?

Thank you very much. Fergus Mutch, I appreciate that you work in one area and are playing two roles here, but I put the same question to you.

Thank you. Stacey Dingwall, I put the same question to you.

The first thing is to put in place the data collectors, never mind moving on to interrogating the data. Of course, you can ask a question even if people do not answer it. I fully understand that. However, asking the question in the first place is at least a start.

Carolyn Currie, you have been in front of the committee before and we share some areas of interest around these matters. A lot of the pressures that are being faced now are international. Inflation is high everywhere, and everyone is being subjected to the same energy restrictions, but the UK has some special and unique challenges, which we have talked about.

What current international best practice in policy could you highlight? Are there creative ideas? It feels to me a bit like groundhog day. Could you give some insight into what is happening internationally?

It is the last day before we all break up for Christmas and Santa has not arrived at my household yet, so could you give a public commitment on behalf of the SCDI that you will action that after this meeting, so that the next time that you come in front of the committee and I ask whether you routinely disaggregate all data by gender in all surveys, you can say, “Yes”?

We know the failure rate for new businesses; most new businesses do not make it beyond the three-year point regardless of who runs them. What is your anecdotal sense of the failure rate for new businesses that have been set up by women over the past three years? I know that we do not have the data, which is why I am asking for a more anecdotal sense.