I welcome the opportunity to give evidence today, and I thank all members of the committee for their work on the bill so far.
Sadly, we know that period poverty is real and that period dignity is a struggle for too many people. The aim of the bill is to ensure that all those who menstruate have the right to free access to period products. The bill has widespread support across Scotland, and 51 MSPs from every party in this Parliament signed the final proposal that helped the bill to get to this stage. I am grateful to the committee, the clerks and the Parliament’s outreach team for their engagement with a wide range of organisations and individuals. I have heard good things about the Scottish Parliament workshop that was led by Graham Simpson, and the committee’s visit to Perth this week, which I know was well received.
Last week, I listened carefully to the Cabinet Secretary for Communities and Local Government when she gave evidence in response to your questions. I note her reservations about the bill, and I am pleased to be meeting her next week to work towards what I hope will be a positive outcome.
Despite her reservations, yesterday, the cabinet secretary confirmed in writing to the committee that the Government believes that period products should be made available
“to all those who need them.”
I welcome that and agree that this is an issue of equality and dignity. I also congratulate Aileen Campbell on the initiative that she has taken forward already, in collaboration with local government, colleges, universities and the third sector, and I pay tribute to her predecessor, Angela Constance.
On the fundamental question of a universal scheme versus a targeted approach, it has become clear that the Scottish Government prefers a targeted approach that prioritises people on low incomes. However, I believe that that risks missing out some of the people who struggle to access products but do not fall easily into the low-income bracket.
The committee has heard a range of evidence about how poverty can make it difficult for people to access period products. However, you have also heard about a range of factors that impact period dignity. For example, health conditions such as endometriosis involve heavy and irregular bleeding, which can result in a need for more products.
Similarly, women with disabilities are more likely to be pushed into poverty. It is also important to consider women who have experienced a miscarriage and baby loss, as well as children and young people who do not have access to their own money or are not financially independent.
Furthermore, in December, we heard from Engender about women acting as poverty managers, buying or sourcing products for other family members. All those people, as well as trans men and non-binary people, women and girls who are affected by gender-based violence and coercive control, and people in insecure work and on zero-hours contracts could miss out under the Government’s approach. That is why I believe that we need to introduce a legal right of access for all.
Although the bill is in my name, it is empowered by people outside Parliament and their grass-roots campaigning. Today, more than 30 leading organisations have published an open letter in support of the bill, which I believe is a constructive call to action to all MSPs to support the general principles of the bill at stage 1.
The bill goes further than current initiatives by proposing a statutory right to access free period products, as well as an obligation on key public bodies to provide the products for free to those who need them. I want to build on the progress that has been made so far. The bill will enhance that work, not hinder it. Legislation is the only guarantee that current initiatives will continue and will not be undone by a future Administration. We can send a clear message that Parliament takes period dignity and access to period products seriously.
The bill sets a minimum standard for a universal scheme and for specific provision in schools, colleges and universities. It does not prevent those bodies from doing more than the minimum, and it does not prevent others from acting voluntarily. It gives Government the freedom to design a universal scheme in the way that it thinks will work best, and to vary it over time to reflect experience.
The Government says that the bill would be much more expensive than the financial memorandum suggests. I am more than happy to discuss costs but, to be clear, the financial memorandum sets out in detail my costings, which were drawn from Scottish Government information. In contrast, the Scottish Government has not set out workings for how its higher estimated costs have been arrived at.
I am happy to look at amendments at stage 2 to address concerns that have been raised about some aspects of the bill. I have already indicated to the cabinet secretary changes that I would be prepared to make. For example, I would be prepared to remove from the bill the requirement for postal delivery.
Ultimately, this boils down to whether we are willing to do everything possible to ensure that no one is denied period dignity. Are we willing to support a universal scheme that would be easily accessible by everyone who needs period products? The bill is ambitious, because we would be the first country in the world to take that step, but it is the right thing to do. I remain hopeful that Parliament will agree to back the principles of the bill at stage 1.
Thank you, convener. I look forward to the committee’s questions.