Chamber and committees

With something so important as a new national care service, there should be clarity if it is going to cut through and deliver. In your original submission, you said:

“it could be several years before areas which are ... worst served by social care services could hope to see any improvement”

and

“there are no interim measures proposed for areas or services which are recognised as being currently badly served.”

I suppose that the point is that, even if those concerns are addressed, the worst-served areas will not feel any impact for several years. If we are talking about shared accountability at the top, I will just go back to the discussion that we had with the previous panel, during which the word “fragmented” was used. If there is fragmented leadership, added to the concern that has been expressed by your organisation, which is that it will be years before the bill will have any impact, that suggests that the process is going to be fraught with issues.

I accept that your area of expertise is not social care, but I have a question on an area that does lie within your expertise. Do you have a legislative point of view on how, in the bill, the Scottish Government has approached the detail about the board?

That is helpful—thank you.

My final question is for Jennifer Paton. We have heard that there is no detailed form, and the witnesses in the previous session talked about fragmentation. Do you have any views on that in respect of the legislative process?

Yes. What is your view on how the Scottish Government is approaching the detail of the board’s creation in the bill?

I am delighted to lead the debate during Scottish women and girls in sport week 2024. I thank all members who have supported my motion, which addresses the importance of safe and fair sport for women and girls. Above all, it calls for single-sex categories for women in sport to be protected from grass-roots to elite level.

At the outset, I should say that I have worked in human resources for more than 30 years. Inclusion is therefore in my professional DNA. As I am a second-dan karate black belt, so, too, are safety and fairness. From parkrun to the Paralympics, though, we are seeing the erosion of fair and safe sport for women.

In her recently published report on violence against women and girls in sport, Reem Alsalem, a United Nations special rapporteur, cited evidence that the average punching power of men is 162 per cent greater than that of women. She referenced one study that asserts that, even in non-elite sport, the least powerful man produces more power than the most powerful woman.

How can anyone justify putting women and girls in harm’s way? Male advantage exists in sports. The fact is that males have around 40 per cent more muscle mass. Men have larger hearts, lungs and haemoglobin pools, which can feed them more oxygen. They have longer legs and narrower pelvises, which lead to better running gaits. That is why biological sex matters in sport. It has always mattered in safe and fair sporting competitions, just as weight, age and disability matter. It is about safety, fairness and creating equality of opportunity.

Society has become so captured by so-called inclusion that, rather than the playing field for women in sport being levelled, women are being marginalised even more than before.

Reem Alsalem’s report found that more than 600 female athletes in more than 400 competitions have lost more than 890 medals in 29 different sports when competing against biological males. So-called inclusion is leading to the exclusion of women from sport. It is the height of hypocrisy when we are working so hard to close the gender gap in sport and to encourage the participation of women and girls.

Thankfully, some sports governing bodies such as World Athletics, FINA and World Rugby have pressed pause on trans inclusion. This week, the World Darts Federation agreed that the women’s competition is for biological women only. I particularly commend the World Athletics president, Sebastian Coe, for doubling down on that policy earlier this year, saying:

“it is absolutely vital that we protect, we defend, we preserve the female category.”

I could not agree more. For every male in the female category, a female is excluded. Other international and national governing bodies must follow suit, and we need greater clarity on policies around differences in sexual development.

I accept that this is a sensitive and complex topic, but it should not be a taboo topic, with women being bullied and silenced for speaking the truth. I am deeply concerned that women in sport are having to put their heads above the parapet to challenge so-called inclusion policies. One female athlete even told the BBC elite British sportswomen study 2024 that “your career is over” if you speak on it. We must be able to question the implications of trans inclusion in sport for women without condemnation or recrimination. We must be able to call for the preservation of women’s sports and challenge institutional cowardice—because that is what it is: institutional cowardice. The Equality Act 2010 is on our side.

I pay tribute to sportswomen such as Mara Yamauchi, Martina Navratilova and Sharron Davies for refusing to be silenced. Charities and campaign groups such as Sex Matters, Fair Play For Women, For Women Scotland and the Women’s Rights Network should also be applauded for their work on this issue. Some of their members are in the public gallery today.

I asked former Olympian and international swimmer Sharron Davies to contribute some words to this afternoon’s debate. Drawing on her own experience of competing against testosterone-enhanced athletes in the 1980 Olympics, she said:

“Speaking up has cost me dearly ... Over the last few years, with the inclusion of males in sports categories specifically created to give females equal opportunities, thousands of males have stolen female places ... Not one single peer reviewed study can show us we can remove all male advantage ... No woman should have to die to prove the obvious ... In a combat sport, this is a huge accident waiting to happen. In any contact sport, it is gross negligence ... Men would not tolerate this inclusion if it affected their sports, but women are just expected to give up what is theirs by right ... A female protected category and an open fully inclusive category is the only answer ... Please do not throw the dreams of young girls away. They are no less worthy than our sportsmen.”

Thank you, Sharron.

We must not stand by and take away the hope from young girls in having female role models. They have to see it to be it. We must stand up for women and girls. We must protect women’s sports.

Despite councils withdrawing support and NHS chief executives blasting the SNP’s proposals, the Government continues to push forwards with its unpopular and unworkable plan for a centralised care service. A total of £28.7 million has already been spent in the current session of Parliament on work relating to the national care service. As we have heard, the care sector is on its knees. When will the cabinet secretary commit to directing future funding to improve social care now, instead of continuing with this disastrous policy?

I have two questions, minister. First, do you believe that we should be able to discuss this openly and calmly, as women and men, without fear of recrimination or condemnation? Secondly, do you agree with the president of World Athletics, Sebastian Coe, that we must preserve the female category?

Good morning. My first question is for Keir Greenaway. In your opinion, what impact would shared accountability arrangements have on the workforce?

I ask Simon Macfarlane, who is speaking for Unison, whether he has something to add on the impact on the workforce.

What about the impact of the shared accountability of the NCS board?