Chamber and committees

Thank you for your final point—I hear you strongly.

I have a final wee question, and I will let Helen Martin come in as well. To what extent is all the data that is collected routinely disaggregated by sex? Although I fully accept your final comment, do you and all the agencies see that data? Perhaps you could answer that and then Helen Martin can add any final considerations.

I know that Helen might want to come in, but I will follow up on the discontinued survey that you mentioned. How much appetite for that data do you anticipate from other agencies—including the UK Government—that are responsible for undertaking services and collecting data? I am talking about some of the data that you highlight is necessary for us to measure whether we are on target to be a fair work nation and exploring the appetite for that data from the UK Government and other agencies, such as the ONS, which you mentioned.

Good morning. Thank you for attending. Underpinning a lot of the discussion thus far is the data and what it means.

The Scottish Government has stated that the research that you commissioned helped to inform its “Fair Work Action Plan: the Scottish Government’s Evidence Plan on Fair Work”. To what extent does that evidence plan provide an effective framework for measuring whether Scotland is on track to be a fair work nation? If it does that, how does it do so in terms of data items and measures? If it does not, where are the gaps?

Thank you.

I welcome the debate and am pleased to have signed the well-worded motion. I will concentrate briefly on three themes, the first of which is the safety of women and girls. The United Nations special rapporteur has already been quoted, but I add to Tess White’s comments that female athletes are also more vulnerable to sustaining serious physical injuries when female-only sports spaces are open to men. We know that male puberty develops significant physical advantage. Put simply, male bodies are bigger, faster and stronger than female bodies. That advantage is not removed if testosterone is lessened over a short timeframe, such as 12 months.

The physical differences between men and women are easiest to demonstrate by comparing performance levels in athletics. We have two former 400m runners in the Parliament, most notably former Olympian athlete Brian Whittle, but also cabinet secretary Neil Gray. In their event, we find that elite and club-level men run 400m approximately on average five seconds faster than women—that is a very considerable difference, although I suspect that both Brian Whittle and Neil Gray would beat me by a lot more than five seconds. Thankfully, World Athletics is now studying the issue, but multiple other bodies will also need to recognise that that performance difference is true for all sports where physical attributes are significant.

My second theme is fairness. It is ironic that male sport has long recognised that fair competition can work only if there is differentiation between age, weight and other factors. I have no experience of sport at an elite level, but I have considerable experience of giving up many hours to hone my skills in music. I can only begin to fathom the anger, disappointment and distress that many female athletes feel about being asked to compete against men who identify as women. Fair competition is fundamental in sport. It allows the best to be their best, and if the basis is changed where women cannot be their best, there will be no women’s sport.

Despite the motion being well written, there is one part with which I disagree—where it refers to “inclusion policies”. I do not think that it is correct to characterise what has been happening as an inclusion policy. It is at least as much an exclusion policy, denying many female athletes in a wide range of sports the opportunity to compete.

My final theme is the wider cultural problem that has been created in recent years by the policy capture of the debate around sex and gender, which has already been alluded to. It has even got to the stage where some elected politicians feel that they cannot openly debate the issues. Cultural oppression needs challenging, and I am therefore delighted that the motion recognises that.

Coming to a close, I think that the fundamental issue is that sex is a far more meaningful and scientifically exact determinant of who should be allowed to take part in women’s sport than gender. If the situation is not challenged, the consequence will be that participation in sports will become even less attractive to women, which will undermine much of the good work of recent years. When biological men are given access to female-only changing rooms and take part in women’s team sports, they violate the rights of women, remove fairness and pose an increased risk of harm. Is it not about time that we whole-heartedly and unequivocally support the rights of women? Surely that is what a truly progressive Parliament should do.

I imagine that the scale of that fiscal risk is such that the Government is unlikely to take it, given the lack of long-term projections over funding.

At the start of the meeting, the convener made a throwaway comment when she alluded to, I think, a relatively modest further commitment to Grangemouth in the light of the recent announcement. There are two sets of £10 million on the table, because the £80 million is for the Falkirk growth deal—for the wider district. What are your thoughts about that £20 million fiscal contribution from both Governments, in the light of the predicted possible closure of the refinery? Is that enough money?

My last wee comment is that, as you know, I was very complimentary about the commission’s “Fiscal Sustainability Report”, because I felt that discussions thus far—without factoring in the wider fiscal considerations—were doomed to failure because of a significant lack of funding. Obviously, there is public and private capital and so on. Do you think that I am right about that? As a result of your report, is there more understanding that how we get there cannot be totally fleshed out until we understand some of the opportunities and risks around the funding? Am I right?

Good morning. I apologise again for not only not attending in person but my connection freezing when it did. If any of my questions have been covered, please just say so.

Professor Roy, I want to finish off the item on the existing fiscal framework. Earlier, you alluded to the fact that there is an anticipated 20 per cent cut in the Scottish Government’s capital budget over the next five years. You also made the worthy point that, fundamentally, the fiscal framework is not set up to deal with the kind of challenge that we face. Have you managed to—or, indeed, been invited to—have any discussions with the UK Government so that it can understand that? You have clearly had discussions with the Scottish Government. If so, do you think that it is understood that the fiscal framework will simply not be fit for purpose when we have funding issues of such nature and scale?

I imagine that the scale of that fiscal risk is such that the Government is unlikely to take it, given the lack of long-term projections over funding.

At the start of the meeting, the convener made a throwaway comment when she alluded to, I think, a relatively modest further commitment to Grangemouth in the light of the recent announcement. There are two sets of £10 million on the table, because the £80 million is for the Falkirk growth deal—for the wider district. What are your thoughts about that £20 million fiscal contribution from both Governments, in the light of the predicted possible closure of the refinery? Is that enough money?

Good morning, everybody. I am so sorry that I cannot be with you in person.

Professor Roy, I will carry on with that theme and dig a little more into your—[Inaudible.]