Hansard

I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Local Government and Communities Committee. Today’s debate reflects the findings of the committee’s scrutiny, which we began last September. We published our report on 5 February this year, and commended Monica Lennon’s work and her collaboration with the cabinet secretary. That joint work has helped to highlight the issues of access and affordability in relation to period products, and the stigma that goes with them.

Following a call for views, the committee took oral evidence during three evidence sessions. We heard from a number of organisations, the Cabinet Secretary for Communities and Local Government, and Monica Lennon. We also went to Perth and to a Scottish Youth Parliament workshop in Dunfermline. On behalf of the committee, I thank all those who engaged with us for their interesting, constructive and often passionate contributions

The term “period poverty” is not specifically referred to in the bill, but has been used by the press and others to describe the inability to afford period products. The committee discovered that the problem is as much one of access as it is one of cost. We found that it can impact on people who have health conditions or a disability, young people who might not have their own money, and women who are in coercive relationships. On our visit to Perth, we heard that women who have been diagnosed as suffering from conditions including endometriosis can spend £50 per month on products, but are not entitled to them on prescription.

We learned, too, that there is still a lot of stigma and embarrassment around periods, particularly for girls in school and for women who work in male-dominated workplaces. Witnesses told us how important education and campaigns that raise awareness are in combating that. Many witnesses also promoted a move away from the term “period poverty”, which they think creates more stigma; they prefer the term “period dignity”.

The bill has at its core the principle of universality and will create—if it becomes law—a universal right of access to period products. The committee heard the view that the majority of people who are able to afford products will continue to buy their own. A focus of our scrutiny was therefore on whether a universal right of access is preferable to a more targeted approach. The bill requires ministers to set up a “period products scheme”, but gives them a lot of flexibility in how they might choose to do that. We were keen to hear witnesses’ views on what such a scheme should look like.

Section 3 of the bill provides a mechanism for a voucher or registration scheme to be introduced, which could be similar to the c:card scheme that distributes free condoms. We explored whether there is support for that and found that although we saw some support in written evidence, none of the witnesses whom we heard from thought that it was a good idea. They felt that it might create more stigma and be an additional barrier to access. On balance, the committee did not think that a voucher scheme should be adopted.

Section 4 of the bill provides that the scheme must give individuals the option to have products delivered. We explored witnesses’ views on postal delivery—in particular, how it could be balanced with the lack of support for the voucher model that we heard. We heard arguments for and against the postal-delivery option. Arguments for it included that it would benefit hard-to-reach communities, including people in rural areas and disabled individuals. However, we were more persuaded by the arguments against it, which cited additional bureaucracy and costs, and noted that postal deliveries would require information sharing of some kind. We agreed that alternative solutions, such as working in partnership with local services, would be preferable.

We asked witnesses how effective they were finding the non-statutory measures that have been undertaken by the Scottish Government, which take a targeted approach to providing free period products in educational establishments, sports facilities and other local authority buildings. All the witnesses whom we heard from were extremely positive about those measures, and it is clear that they are having an impact in tackling the problems of access, affordability and stigma. We were impressed by the work that is being done by local authorities, third sector and grass-roots organisations, which continue to promote and implement the measures.

Many witnesses welcomed the range of products that some organisations have made available. Although that is welcome, we heard from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities that each local authority takes its own approach, which depends on local needs. As a result, witnesses told us that there can be a lack of consistency in how products are distributed and promoted in schools, which has had an impact on uptake in some areas. We understand that measures are in their early stages and that full evaluation is still to be done, but our scrutiny highlighted concerns in some areas about the poor quality of products, about lack of availability of products during holidays and about some people still missing out. We heard how important it is that the scheme is promoted so that individuals can find products easily.

Many witnesses suggested that providing reusable products could provide more long-term, cost-effective and sustainable options, while acknowledging the greater up-front costs. The financial memorandum that accompanies the bill acknowledges the financial implications in setting up and administering a universal scheme; the committee explored those costs in detail. The financial memorandum estimates that the annual costs for a universal scheme would not be more than the £9.7 million to which the Scottish Government has already committed, but we heard from the cabinet secretary that a more realistic estimate is £24.1 million. That figure was reached using a higher unit cost, based on data from local authorities that are implementing the current scheme. The majority of the committee felt that not enough clarity was available on why there is such a difference between the figures.

The committee acknowledges that affording and accessing products is still an issue for some people, so we will follow with interest how the Scottish Government will address the issues that we have raised in our report. The committee is unanimous in its support for the intentions of the bill. A majority, however, had concerns about the disparity between the costs that were presented in the member’s financial memorandum and the costs for a universal scheme being rolled out that were estimated by the Scottish Government. The majority of the committee considered that more work to clarify the final costs is needed.

The majority of the committee was also concerned that the flexibility that Ms Lennon allowed in the bill for ministers to devise a scheme meant that there was a great deal of uncertainty about how Ms Lennon sees the bill being put into practice. It was clear that the majority of the committee thinks that considerably more work will be required before the bill is fit for purpose. It is also clear, given public pronouncements from parties across the chamber, that the bill will pass stage 1 today. However, having, as convener, sat through the evidence and heard Ms Lennon’s questioning of witnesses and her answers to our questions at committee, and because of the lack of detail on finance and practical suggestions on how the admirable purpose of the bill can be achieved, I have no doubt that the bill will need to be the subject of a considerable number of amendments to make it anything like workable.

The truth is that I was surprised to see a member’s bill with such lack of detail and clarity coming before my committee. I have certainly never seen one like it before. After the bill has passed stage 1 this evening—as it will—I will look forward to the sizeable challenge at stage 2 of trying to make it workable legislation.