Minister, I would like to say on the record that we have not been given sufficient time. I have some key questions that I want to raise with you but that I have not been able to raise, about the balance of rights—the fact that one person’s rights are outweighing another person’s rights. I would like to say for the record that I told the committee that it was not enough time. I asked the committee if we could have a follow-up, and I think that this item has been squeezed in, which is disrespectful to the inquiry that we did. I would like to register my complete dissatisfaction that I have not been able to ask you, the minister, the questions that I want to ask. Sending them to you in writing is just not good enough.

Thank you. This report is bringing it to your attention. We will leave it with you and we do expect follow-up.

Thank you, convener. Thank you again for coming today, John and Jennifer; it is appreciated.

A huge amount of work and feedback—I think that there were 58 submissions—went into the report.

My final question is this: if the EHRC is truly independent, and if it is the duty of all public bodies—I have given the example of some in my own region—to comply with the Supreme Court ruling, why is the EHRC not telling the Scottish Government to just get on with it? You have mentioned the lack of leadership.

That is fine; that is a private sector example. However, there are more than 100 public sector organisations in Scotland, and I would have expected the EHRC to do a gap analysis against the nine protected characteristics, because it is quite clear that many of those public bodies are not following the law.

I will give you a local example that has generated much of my caseload over the last year and which concerns two swimming pools in my own area: one in Aberdeen City and one in Aberdeenshire. One of the swimming pools—Bucksburn swimming pool in Aberdeen—was the only swimming pool in Aberdeen that had single-sex changing. The issue concerns people who fall under three of the protected characteristics: women, women with disabilities and women who are elderly. When the pool was threatened with closure, the local community fought tooth and nail to keep it open, because people from all around Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire came to use the pool, because they wanted to change safely and in privacy. For some, that was important because it can take someone with Alzheimer’s or other disabilities extra time to change. The community, including mental health workers, said, basically, that the pool was a lifeline, both physically, for those with disabilities, and psychologically. The community got together and kept the swimming pool open but it had to take the council to court to do so. One of the guarantees was that it would keep the single-sex changing facility—bear in mind that it is the only pool in Aberdeen City with such a facility, and one of the few in the north-east.

The other pool, in Stonehaven, got a refit that involved mixed facilities. Women complained about that, as did I—I even took it as far as the chief executive of the council, and the head of legal was here in front of our committee, giving feedback on the PSED. However, the council said that it was still going ahead with the refit. Women and women with disabilities have protested against the proposal, and even some of the men have said that they do not feel comfortable changing in front of little girls and using mixed showers. However, the complaints, including mine, were just dismissed. When I raised the issue with the director of the council, he said that the council was waiting for the outcome of the Sandie Peggie case, which has now happened.

You talk about your enforcement powers, but this issue concerns something as basic as swimming. The issue has hugely negatively affected many people’s lives, yet we, including me as the MSP, are being dismissed, and the council is just saying, “We are waiting, we are waiting”. Aberdeen City Council has kept one pool and Aberdeenshire Council says that it is not breaking any laws, and it is not listening to the community or to me as the MSP. There is a separate issue in Angus Council, where teachers say that they like the mixed-sex changing facilities because they can keep an eye on all the children. However, what about the young girls?

My final point concerns an inquiry that was conducted while I was on the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee—if you have not read the report, I would be happy to share it with you—that looked at why women and girls exclude themselves from sport. You can overlay the other protected characteristics, and it is not rocket science to observe that women and girls are self-excluding. However, that report has not been taken forward, and it is obvious why.

I am coming to my question. I know that I have rambled a bit, but I am here speaking passionately about the women, the women with disabilities, the children, and the men who do not feel comfortable when they are in the mixed-sex facilities. A report by the Women’s Rights Network, which I am happy to share with you, said that only six of the 31 local authorities that responded to a freedom of information request said that they offer any form of women-only swimming sessions, and that, of those, only three sessions—just 10 per cent—are guaranteed to be genuinely single sex.

Here is my question. Given that the public sector equality duty requires public bodies to advance equality of opportunity between women and men, what steps, if any, has the EHRC taken to understand the problem that I have outlined and give guidance, so that local authorities such as the three that I have mentioned—and leisure trusts, because councils give over a lot of their management to leisure trusts—provide lawful, clearly advertised and genuinely single-sex swimming sessions and changing facilities for women and girls and men, especially those with disabilities, particularly in the light of evidence showing widespread inconsistency in relation to what I have said about people following the old rules and misunderstandings of the 2010 act, not just in my region, but across Scotland?

10:30

The website says that the EHRC is a key stakeholder—my definition of a key stakeholder seems to be different from the one that is being used there—and that MSPs will be kept updated. However, we have not been kept updated and it is quite obvious that you are not seen as a key stakeholder. The website said that the group was going to meet every two weeks, but it has started to meet monthly. You have mentioned one meeting—

Thank you.

I am conscious of time, so I want to turn to the report. We have 11 weeks of the parliamentary session to go. If I were to come to the EHRC with examples of what is happening in the north-east, along with the data from the FOIs, would you work with me and consider enforcement measures where that was appropriate?

So I would not be dismissed, as I have been for the past few years by local authorities. I will come to you. Thank you.

John, should I address you as John or as Mr Wilkes?

Thank you. Is it the same for you, Jennifer?

Thank you.

This has been a long-awaited evidence session—we have been waiting for almost a year—so thank you for coming this morning.

What is the EHRC doing to help public authorities to focus on outcomes rather than processes? You talked about having good-quality leadership, but why is it so difficult for public bodies to deliver on their duties?