Chamber and committees

Great. I am not going to go into it—do not worry.

This disproportionately affects women with religious or cultural requirements, survivors of trauma and women who simply need privacy from the opposite sex, so this does directly undermine the Scottish Government’s efforts to increase female participation in sport and physical activity. I quoted the inquiry that the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee did, and it has a section on this very subject. What is happening is, in many cases, incompatible with the public sector equality duty. My question is: how will the Government measure whether current leisure provision is advancing equality of opportunity for women and girls, particularly those who require single-sex spaces for cultural, religious and both physical and psychological safety reasons?

You have enforcement powers. Will you be considering those enforcement powers?

Jennifer, we will cover the outcomes later, so perhaps we can focus on the immediate question for now. As a region MSP, I cover several educational authorities, IJBs and council areas, and I have had extensive meetings with all of them. I want to discuss a local example with you but, before I do, I would like to ask about the Scottish Government short-life working group that was established in April 2025 on taking forward the Supreme Court judgment. Last night, I went to the website to look at the composition of the group and I noticed that it talks about the EHRC as a key stakeholder and that the minutes suggest that the EHRC is active in engagement. I could not find out what advice the EHRC gave to the working group, so could you tell me? I note that there have been no minutes since last August.

But the Supreme Court judgment was just a clarification of the law. The legislation has been in place since 2010. Under the Equality Act 2010, there are nine protected characteristics.

I have given three examples: one in Angus, which relates to changing facilities for schoolchildren; one in Aberdeen city; and one in Aberdeenshire. I recognise that the EHRC has only 20 employees in Scotland, but the issue is about enforcement and equality of opportunity, and politicians who represent the community are being dismissed. What enforcement have you been doing since 2010, including in relation to leisure centres and swimming pools?

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.

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—

Right, okay. Thank you for putting that on the record.

I am building on my colleague Pam Gosal’s questions in terms of justice. I talked to the EHRC about the short-life working group—I looked at it on the website last night, but it seems to have stalled. It was supposed to meet every two weeks, then it met every month, and then nothing. The minutes have not been shared since August. What is your role on that short-life working group, minister? Have you met it? No.

On justice and the overlap with the PSED, minister, have you met the Cabinet Secretary for Justice in relation to the requirements of the PSED? Have you had separate meetings with Angela Constance about this? No. Okay, thank you.

I want to talk about justice, but first I want to mention the swimming pools and leisure centres example and focus on that. We covered it at some length earlier, and I am assuming that you have watched the session this morning. I quoted Stonehaven swimming pool as an example. Women and girls self-exclude from swimming when they cannot access single-sex spaces. I gave an example from Stonehaven. This disproportionately affects women—

12:30

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.

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