Period Products (Free Provision) (Scotland) Bill

The Convener

Agenda item 2 is evidence from two panels on the Period Products (Free Provision) (Scotland) Bill. I welcome Monica Lennon, who has introduced this member’s bill. She might wish to ask questions of the witnesses in each panel, once committee members are finished with their questions.

For today’s first panel, I welcome Nicola Bristow, who is the community and grants co-ordinator at Plan International UK; Eilidh Dickson, who is the policy and parliamentary manager at Engender; Erin Campbell, who is the member of the Scottish Youth Parliament for Midlothian North and Musselburgh, and deputy convener of the SYP’s equality and human rights committee; Siobhan McCready, who is equalities stand-down officer for Scotland at Unite the union; and Erin Slaven, who is co-founder of the “On the ball” campaign.

Thank you all for attending and for your written submissions. We will move straight to questions from members.

Sarah Boyack (Lothian) (Lab)

It is great to see everybody here today. Thank you for the evidence that you submitted in advance. My question is about the extent of period poverty in Scotland. Some of the written submissions provide quite bald statistics about the number of women and girls who experience period poverty. I would like a reality check on the extent of the issue and what it means for young women.

I do not know who would like to start, because you have all given some evidence on that.

Nicola Bristow (Plan International UK)

In 2017, we surveyed more than 1,000 young women, and the broad statistic that we found, which has been widely used, was that one in 10 had struggled with affording period products. We know from work that we have done in England—we also have projects in Scotland—that a lot of localised information and data are missing. Councils that have done surveys have found variance.

There is need: the broad understanding is that the problem exists. When we work at local grass-roots level, we find that the products are being used and education is being accessed. The reporting reflects the findings of our survey.

Erin Campbell (Scottish Youth Parliament)

In the Scottish Youth Parliament consultation before the bill was introduced, 80 per cent of respondents aged 12 to 25 agreed that free sanitary products should be available to everyone. We asked people why they thought that. One thing that really stuck with me was someone saying that because buying sanitary products is very expensive they had gone through times when they were forced to use just a rag, rather than sanitary products.

The SYP agrees that everyone who menstruates deserves dignity; unfortunately, they are not all getting that. Young people also highlighted that people at school are at a particular disadvantage because the lack of flexibility in the school day means that they often cannot nip out to get period products, especially when their period comes unexpectedly.

The SYP agrees that there is a large problem.

The Convener

Are you suggesting that if someone’s period comes on suddenly, they could not leave the class to get products, even though they would not have to say what it was for?

Erin Campbell

The issue is not necessarily that people are not allowed to leave the class. Many would just choose not to leave, perhaps due to embarrassment or stigma. That is a large part of the problem.

The Convener

How would the bill change that?

Erin Campbell

Having free sanitary products in public buildings—especially in schools—would normalise menstruation. It is a normal process that people go through and cannot change. If it were normal to be able to nip out and get period products, a lot of people would be much less embarrassed by it.

Eilidh Dickson (Engender)

I add that we do not have a lot of localised statistics about period poverty, but we have an incredible wealth of knowledge about women’s poverty generally. It is important that we understand the phrase “period poverty” as a useful device to enable us to intervene in the specific problem of lack of access. For example, we know that one parent in 10 has sent a child to school knowing that they do not have with them the period products that they need.

We also know that 20 per cent of women experience poverty. This comes down to lack of income and the requirement on women to make very difficult choices about what they will spend the bare minimum provision that they have on. For example, will they choose to feed themselves or to feed their families? We know that women are poverty managers within their families, so might they be going without period products in order to ensure that their families have the sustenance that they need to get through the day?

Nicola Bristow

We have anecdotal evidence from a project in Newcastle that young people—including young men—are going there to collect products from the free period product scheme to take home for their families. We are finding that younger people have become a bit of a shock absorber. Availability of products in schools means that they can collect the products for their families. Broader provision will therefore tackle a much bigger issue.

Graham Simpson (Central Scotland) (Con)

When we talk about period poverty, we focus on the word “poverty”, which suggests that a person does not have much money and/or that items cost a lot—or too much. I do not think that I have seen mentioned in any evidence the cost of products or what a woman or girl might have to pay per month. I know that there will be a range. Could you tell us a bit about the actual costs?

Erin Slaven (On the Ball)

The cost varies—it depends on the brand. However, from our experience from the campaign that we run, the issue is not affordability, but accessibility. For people who are in severe poverty or are on the living wage, period products are necessities. They are as essential as toilet roll and soap and should, as a general principle, be accessible to anybody who needs them.

Siobhan McCready (Unite)

The general principle is that period products should be free. From talking to members of Unite and working with people in the Unite community who are largely unwaged or on low incomes, the cost of period products for the average family is anywhere between £10 and £20 for the monthly shop—depending on the size of the family. That is a lot of money to a person who is already on a very low income.

Obviously, one can get cheaper products, but sometimes cheaper products are not as helpful; they do not serve the purpose for which they are needed. We find that a lot of women are making the choice not to buy period products for themselves because they are looking after their girls. They are buying for them and making do for themselves, or are simply not buying the products and choosing to buy food instead. It is a real problem.

Nicola Bristow

The issue is also about people having an informed choice about the products that they use. We found that through the “Let’s talk. Period” project, in which people received education about reusable products, plastic-free disposable products and other disposable products. People were making choices that were based not just on cost: we acknowledge that people should have the option to make informed choices.

Sarah Boyack

We have a lot of questions to follow up on accessibility, which Erin Slaven mentioned, and the question of what people need. They might need or want completely different types of products.

I will go back to the point that Siobhan McCready made about cost and the terminology that we are using, because the issue is framed as “period poverty”. There is the wider issue of how that relates to people’s dignity and whether it is the right phrase to use. Do we need the word “poverty” in there in order to shock people out of complacency? I would like to explore the extent to which you think that “period poverty” is the right phrase. Does it help your agenda? Unite argued that “period dignity” would be better. I am interested to hear a range of views on the best way to describe the issue that you want to tackle. What is the right phrase to use for people who experience lack of access to something that most of us take for granted? What phrase would help us to address the issue?

Siobhan McCready might want to start, because she has challenged use of the term “period poverty”.

Siobhan McCready

As a union, Unite deals with women who can work in heavily male-dominated industries such as construction, in which there might not be access to a toilet, let alone one that is comfortable to use for a woman who finds herself suddenly having to go to the toilet. For the union, the issue is very much about employers providing dignity for women workers, which is something that we are campaigning on.

Although we totally support the notion that we are talking about a fundamental human rights issue for people on limited incomes, we wanted to highlight dignity as another layer, because when our members reported back, they told us that what was important was quick access to products when they need them, and being able to change their clothing and so on in a situation in which employers are sometimes pretty unforgiving.

For us, it was a case of raising awareness of the situations that women find themselves in—in particular, women in workplaces that women were not traditionally in. Also, many women are now working later on into their lives: the menopause brings into play another slate of related issues.

I absolutely get why the phrase “period poverty” has been used. It gives people a bit of a shock to realise that a lot of women are making quite undignified choices; they find that idea uncomfortable and deeply unpleasant. For us, the term “period poverty” resonates. As somebody who was working in the community until this week, when I started this job, I know that the pilots that have been rolled out in the community are about raising awareness of the situations that some people are living in at the moment, in which they are having to make horrible choices.

The “period poverty” tag resonates with people—people get it—and it starts a dialogue about the much wider issue of poverty. That is really helpful, but the union is focused on dignity. We want to improve access and reduce stigma. For us, it is a dual approach.

The Convener

I will let Eilidh Dickson in shortly, but I point out that we have a lot to cover and have only another hour or so, because another panel is coming in. It is not the case that everybody has to answer every question, so if we can have slightly shorter answers, that will help us to get through. I do not want us to miss out on important points.

Eilidh Dickson

As I said in my first answer, the phrase “period poverty” is a useful device: we should not ignore the fact that we are talking about poverty. The fact that we are talking about women being unable even to afford £15 a month for their families is quite an indictment of the state of women’s budgets and the choices that they have to make. The issue is about dignity and poverty, but it is also about equality and sending out the message that the natural fact of being a woman should be taken care of by our employers and our public services in the same way that the fact of being a man is.

It is also important that we do not lose sight of the fact that some women do not have control over the choices about how money is spent within their family. We know that financial abuse is a serious part of domestic abuse and of how domestic abuse is understood, but control of reproduction is also something that we see.

In addition, we should not forget that many women are simply caught short; they might plan to take stuff with them but forget to do so. It is a question of ensuring that women have dignity when moving around in the world.

10:00  

Nicola Bristow

Our research uncovered the fact that access to products is one factor, but also that a lack of consistent education about bodies is significant. There is huge stigma, and there is a taboo in society. We call that situation the toxic trio of issues that sit around period poverty.

One of the surveys that we did talked to girls and other menstruators about stigma and taboo, and it found that one in five was being teased or bullied at school about their period, which was quite shocking. People not leaving the classroom could have much to do with the lack of normalisation in society. Access is very important, and it is also important to focus on poverty, but there is a range of issues around menstruation that can be supported and covered. Universal access and exposure to products in the same way as we are exposed to toilet paper would go a long way towards solving some of the bigger issues.

Sarah Boyack

Thank you for that. It is useful because we do not have to agree with use of the term—it is about the discussion that it takes us into.

Andy Wightman (Lothian) (Green)

I note that the term “period poverty” does not appear anywhere in the bill. It is a background policy issue.

I want to explore one of the tensions in the bill. It is designed to develop a scheme for universal provision by making provision mandatory in certain places. I note that, as part of that, ministers may make provisions whereby individuals may get products.

The financial memorandum envisages take-up at 5 per cent, 10 per cent and 20 per cent, with the figures focused on those who are living in relative poverty. Is it important to have a universal scheme whereby everyone who needs it has the easiest possible access, or should we focus either on those who are in relative poverty and need, or on certain places? Some of your evidence suggests that where you find toilet paper, you should also find period products. There are various ways in which the provisions could be implemented, and the bill gives ministers complete freedom in that regard, but I am interested in your views.

Erin Slaven

Speaking from experience, we believe that the scheme should be universal and that the focus should be on people who are really struggling. Our campaign is based on football grounds, so we can only speak from that standpoint. We feel that the products should be made available in public spaces for everyone.

Not everybody who struggles to access period products would identify as being in poverty; Eilidh Dickson talked about people being caught short. I did not get a chance to come in on that question, but I would say that “period dignity” is probably the best term to use.

The scheme has to be universal because the products are a necessity. I know that they are often taxed as a luxury but they are essential and we believe that everybody should have access to them, which may mean focusing initially on those who are in relative poverty and then rolling the scheme out further. That would be reasonable.

Siobhan McCready

From my experience of working in the community, I know that the services that are already out there are not abused. People take the products when they need them. Most women still go and buy their own, but the services mean that there is a dignified choice for people who are caught short or who need to use those services because they are struggling. The majority of women will probably still go and buy things, so I do not think there is a huge cost implication as a result of everyone suddenly going to their local community centre or wherever to access products. The reality is that the scheme will give a lot of women a dignified choice.

Erin Campbell

The Scottish Youth Parliament believes that provision of free period products should be universal. I stress that we believe that they should be available in all public bathrooms, not just women’s bathrooms. They should be available in men’s bathrooms and any gender-neutral toilet facilities.

One of SYP’s key values is inclusivity, so we want to make sure that transgender and non-binary people are also included. That relates to the point of making provision universal. As has been said, at the end of the day, people will take only what they need and it is a big misconception that the service will be abused. That is why we are also against a registration scheme or a card-based scheme. We do not want to put up additional barriers that would prevent people from accessing what they need.

Graham Simpson

On that point, you have probably read the bill, so you will appreciate that it actually says that the products should not be in toilets that are for use only by males. I presume that you disagree with that.

Erin Campbell

On a personal level, yes, I disagree. SYP policy is that people who menstruate should be given dignity. We also have a policy for the creation of gender-neutral toilets, so we really believe in including trans and non-binary people in that experience.

Andy Wightman

I suppose that what I am trying to get at is the witnesses’ view of the importance of the provisions in section 3. Those provisions are not mandatory—ministers do not need to include them in any scheme, so under the bill they could proceed with a scheme that focuses on making period products freely available in a wide range of places, such as public buildings. How important are the provisions in section 3? There are cost implications for what is proposed, which are highlighted in the bill’s financial memorandum. The expectation is that the uptake of the provisions in section 3 would be focused on those in relative poverty and that, hence, uptake would be a maximum of 20 per cent.

Eilidh Dickson

We have to acknowledge that there is a range of different access needs and that this is about making it as easy as possible for people who menstruate to access the products that they need in a variety of ways, such as via postal delivery or in public bathrooms. To add to Erin Campbell’s point about having products in men’s bathrooms, we should not forget that men will have women at home who menstruate and who might not be able to get out and about to access the products that they need. We should therefore not forget that some men might need to access the products on behalf of somebody else. People will have a host of different reasons when trying to access products. They might need just the one product because they have not brought it with them that day, or it might be more systemic and be about accessing products for their family.

Andy Wightman

Engender’s written evidence talks about the c:card scheme for condoms. Are you basically saying that you do not approve of having that kind of scheme for period products?

Eilidh Dickson

Our concern would be that such a system would be used to move away from some of the universal provision schemes that we have seen, particularly if budgets became narrower. Some people will want to access products via a postal service or vouchers, and we should not ignore that. Research from Plan International UK, for example, demonstrates that the most successful schemes are those that are developed with the users. We noted the evidence from the Aberdeen pilot scheme, which suggested that most of the women who accessed the products preferred that approach to getting a voucher or money. We are not ruling out a c:card-type scheme, but it would be a real tragedy if such a scheme was used as a justification for not providing the universal access that has made, and is making, such a difference.

The Convener

There seems to be a bit of confusion here about whether the bill is a period poverty bill or a period dignity bill and whether the bill should be universal or should focus on those who need its provisions most. It would be very difficult to work out the potential financial implications of those different approaches. Kenny Gibson wants to ask a question along those lines.

Kenneth Gibson (Cunninghame North) (SNP)

Eilidh Dickson said that it costs women £15 to £20 a month, or about £200 a year, for period products. The Scottish Government is spending £5.5 million in the current financial year to make products available. If the cost to a woman is £200 per year, that means that there is provision for only 25,000 to 30,000 women. However, we are talking about up to 20 per cent of women potentially requiring products. Are the resources that are being put into the bill adequate? If not, what should actually be put in?

We are also looking at the range of products that are available. What kind of products are we talking about? People say that a variety of products should be made available, but I think there should be more detail about that, given the obvious cost implications. For example, should there be just one type of product in a toilet, or should there be three types, or five? This goes to the nub of the bill. It is one thing to pass a bill, but if it is to be effectively delivered for the people we want it to be delivered for, it has to be adequately resourced. Does anyone on the panel want to comment on those issues?

The Convener

Before anyone comments, I would like Annabelle Ewing to come in.

Annabelle Ewing (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)

I have listened carefully to all the comments and I understand the desire very well; I am just trying to pick through some of the practicalities. The point was well made by, I think, Siobhan McCready that whatever scheme is ultimately in place, a lot of women will not see it as being for them, for whatever reason. That begs the question what kind of scheme legislators are seeking to provide. Obviously, public resources are very tight and we want to ensure that the women who most need the scheme get it.

If we are going to have a scheme with a universal approach, together with all the delivery mechanisms that will need to be put in place, which we have still to discuss, mechanisms will also need to be put in place for the enforcement of the right. That all costs money. However, if we are saying that, within certain parameters, a certain percentage of women will be the main recipients of the scheme—and rightly so—we are putting a whole mechanism in place for a different outcome. That, too, costs a lot of money.

I want to get to the heart of what it is we are seeking to do here. I do not think that the financial memorandum really stacks up, if we take into account the actual cost. That is another issue. What are we seeking to do here? We all have very worthy aims, but we need to ensure that we come up with a piece of legislation that is practical and affordable.

Erin Slaven

To answer Mr Gibson’s question about what is available, we do not want to overcomplicate things. On a much smaller scale, we get football clubs to make sanitary towels and tampons available, and that is it. We can go into environmentally friendly options, menstrual cups and so on, but for us, the main aim is to make sure that people can access products—full stop. After that, we can look at making environmentally friendly products available.

On Annabelle Ewing’s point, I can speak only about public places and from my own experience, or even anecdotally. When I was at university—I graduated earlier this year—the Scottish Government’s plans for higher education were just being rolled out and there was an excess of products in the toilets. I have photographs of that on my phone. We are talking about easily 20 large boxes of products lying in the toilets. In the summer, when we were working with youth groups in the east end and in Royston, it was the same—there was an excess of products. We saw their back rooms and they had boxes upon boxes that the Government had given them. If distribution was a wee bit more efficient and proportionate, that could save money.

Siobhan McCready

On the cost, the figure I quoted of between £10 and £20 is for somebody who goes to Tesco, Asda or wherever and buys a good-quality product. The reality is that the stuff we have been buying for the community is cheaper—it was bought in bulk and unbranded. In pure economic terms, the more you buy, the cheaper you are going to get things. That will also rule out people lifting things, because people tend to like brand names. The reality is that economics have a part to play here: you get what you pay for, I suppose. Given the product’s very nature, people will come in and use it because they really need it. They need to access it and they are using it.

In some of the communities I talk to, there is an issue about targeting, with things not necessarily being done in an accessible way, but there is also an issue about stigma, dignity, embarrassment and almost a feeling of worth—that you are not worthy of helping yourself to the products. I know that, in my community, we had to actively encourage women to come in, because they were embarrassed about asking for basic products.

There is a job of work to be done around building awareness and ensuring that people access the help that is already out there, let alone increasing the number of people who do so. I do not think that you will be inundated by thousands of women expecting a certain brand of product to be delivered to them the next day. That is not the case. We are talking about dignity, access to products and reducing stigma.

10:15  

Nicola Bristow

There is a need to work with the local experts who work in communities. For example, there is a mobile library service that delivers products in rural communities, because they have identified who is in need and have developed relationships and trust in the community. Needs assessments can be done at a local level, and those local experts will know best how to serve those communities in the most efficient way with the resources that are available, because that is what they are already doing.

Alexander Stewart (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)

The Scottish Government has measures in place at present, and we are having this discussion today because of the inadequacy and failure of those measures. If they were effective, they would be playing a bigger role in the process. However, because that does not seem to be happening, we find ourselves considering putting legislation in place. Does anyone have any views on that?

Erin Slaven

As I said in my previous answer, at present there is a focus on higher education. That means that there is a class issue at play, because, as we know, a lot of working-class people do not go to university. We are providing products for people who get into higher education, but what about everyone else? We think that the provision should be expanded. Our primary gripe about the existing measures is that the distribution is not proportionate and could be improved on. I do not think that that is the Government’s fault, because it maybe wanted to roll provision out quickly and did not look at it in a manner that would have ensured that it was proportionate.

Regardless of what happens with the bill, we are concerned that the idea of period poverty or period dignity should not be commercialised. In the past year or so, we have seen that, as the discourse around period poverty has increased, brands have capitalised on it. For example, Always put out a message that, for every new follower that it gets on Instagram, it will donate a tampon. The company should just donate that tampon anyway. It is important that the provision of the products is not seen as a brand deal. It should be visible but discreet, rather than being a big commercial thing. It is a sensitive issue, and the approach should be kept simple—no fouls, no fuss.

The Convener

Could you catch my attention the next time you want to speak, Erin? It is just that you have spoken first the past couple of times, and I want to make sure that everyone gets a chance to come in.

Erin Slaven

Okay—sorry.

The Convener

They were very good interventions, right enough.

Erin Slaven

Thank you.

Erin Campbell

From consultation that we have done with young people, we have found that they are being let down by the current legislation. They raised with us that there are few or no sustainable products available among those that are provided. I do not know whether you know this, but our current campaign is about the environment, which is very important to young people right now.

A lot of our members who participated in our workshop said that the products that were provided in schools were often of poor quality. Obviously, not everyone experiences menstruation in the same way, and they found that there was not a wide enough variety of products.

In my local area, we created period poverty packs to cover the Christmas break, which consisted of enough sanitary products for one cycle. A lot of people came up to us to say that that was helpful, because they were getting to a point at which they could not afford these products. That goes to show that the problem is more common than you might think. A lot of people cannot afford these products and are being let down by the current scheme. It is not always the people who you would necessarily think would be unable to afford the products that find themselves in that situation.

Eilidh Dickson

The focus on places of education was largely because of the evidence base. You can understand why the Scottish Government targeted its initial steps at addressing period poverty in that space. We need more localised data and more data about other groups of women, particularly women for whom English is not their first language. Once we have had a year or two of the Scottish Government’s existing provision, we will be able to better assess where the gaps are and respond to them.

The bill establishes a right for anyone who menstruates to be able to access the products that they need when they need them. That need will differ. Sometimes it will involve only one tampon, which will not cost very much, and sometimes it will involve providing products for the whole family. The monetary costs will differ, but we must not forget that there is also a human cost when we do not tackle the issue of the provision of unsuitable period products—a cost to the wellbeing of women and girls and a cost to their health, through toxic shock syndrome from using the wrong product for far too long because they have had to make what they are using last longer than it is meant to. We should not forget that in these discussions.

Nicola Bristow

The learning from the “Let’s Talk. Period” project that we have been running has shown that, although the scheme has been successful in providing products in mainstream education settings, some of the areas of biggest need—and the biggest successes—were in places such as mother and baby units and sheltered accommodation, where there where drop-in sessions to inform people about products. It was found that, before the sessions, there was just a box in the cupboard, and no one had any education or support, so no one was using the products. However, when people were given the skills and knowledge to use menstrual cups, for example, they did so. There is now a whole group of young mums who only use menstrual cups as a result of those sessions, and support each other to do so. There is a bigger issue there, relating to long-term savings from using such products rather than disposables. There is a range of solutions that have different costs at different times, but the important point is that simply putting boxes of products into places is not always going to work. There might be a different up-front cost, but the issue is not simply about the cost of the products because, in the long term, the non-disposable products will be more efficient.

Siobhan McCready

Some of the best evidence that we have for what works comes from working in community centres, when the local communities have been made aware that such products are there and can be accessed. In our area, we have food banks and clothes banks and there is also provision of nappies. We have found that, where things are accessible somewhere, people find their own way there in order to access them. We have also had situations in which young carers have come in and taken stuff home to their mum, for example, who might not be able to get out of the house, for a variety of reasons.

That model is definitely working. We are in the early days of the approach, and all things take time, but, from my experience in my local area, the model is working and the information is getting out to the right people, through the food banks and so on, and people are becoming aware that the products are available at their community centres. That is a way of getting the information to people that ensures that there is dignity in the process and reduces the stigma. Women in the younger generation feel that stigma less but, for women in my generation—let alone men—it is an uncomfortable thing to talk about.

There is a job of work to be done, but the approach is working. I would not like you to think that the scheme as it stands is not working, because it absolutely is.

Alexander Stewart

You have identified many areas in which the scheme has the potential to be successful. However, the issue also comes down to quality and cost, which have been big considerations in the process.

You have identified the need for the legislation, and have said that it will give us an opportunity to take on board many of the areas that you have identified. The crux of the matter seems to be that the products have been delivered in the wrong place or they have not been of a good enough quality or have been the wrong ones. There are opportunities there.

You talked about the commercialisation of this area. That is a crucially important consideration and we must think about how we manage that, because there is a potential for that to become a problem if the bill goes through.

Graham Simpson

Following on from the response to Mr Stewart’s question, it sounds to me like the scheme that is being rolled out across Scotland, funded by the Scottish Government, is largely working and is getting better, and that the products are becoming more widely available in public buildings. If we accept that—I do not know whether you do—is there a need to legislate?

Siobhan McCready

Yes, because the programme could be stopped tomorrow. If it is in legislation, it has to be continued, reviewed and improved. Legislation is key to the policy. It should not be run just on good will. What we are doing is about improving women’s health and giving them dignity, and making this country a better and fairer one for us all. I feel that this could be landmark legislation for Scotland. We all want better communities and a better way of life and, without legislation, what is to stop the programme being stopped tomorrow?

That was a bit clumsy, but you know what I mean.

Graham Simpson

You are trying to get to the point at which it is normal for these products to be available, as is the case with toilet paper—you would not expect there to be no toilet paper in a public toilet; it should be widely available. However, there is no law that requires toilet paper to be provided in toilets. You do not need a law to ensure that that happens; it is just done. If it can become normal for these products to become available, why do you need a law?

The Convener

Erin Slaven can answer that first, because she put her hand up.

Erin Slaven

Forgive me, Mr Simpson, but, although toilet roll is provided in toilets without there being a law that says that it should be, we are not expected to pay for it. Sometimes, there might not be toilet roll available, but we definitely do not need to pay for it. Period products are available in a lot of toilets, but we have to pay for them. That is not what this legislation is about. It is about making them free, whether that involves products being donated or being available from vending machines free at the point of use. There definitely is a need for legislation.

Earlier, we were talking about the products being provided in places of education and community centres, and I have experience of making them available at football grounds. I and the other two girls who work with me—Mikaela and Orlaith—have been doing this for nearly two years, and we absolutely adore it. It is the best use of our time, but we cannot do it for ever. We are a grass-roots, non-funded group—it is just three of us doing it in our spare time. I am sure that there are loads of other wee activist groups that are doing similar work with gig venues and other groups in the community. For us, our project was a means to an end, and the end was legislation, because the free provision of sanitary products should eventually be the norm. We work from the bottom up, so we work with fans to make the change, and that is where our focus has been. We want to keep this grass-roots movement going, but it cannot go on for ever—it should not, because, at some point, the free provision of sanitary products should be the norm. I hope that, in 10 years’ time, I can say, “Back in my day, we used to have to pay for these, but it is now enshrined in legislation that they are free.”

Graham Simpson

Your campaign is to be applauded. It applies to football clubs, which are not public bodies. This legislation applies only to public bodies. You have had tremendous success—according to your submission, you have managed to get 104 clubs on board in Scotland. You did not need a law to do that; it just happened.

Erin Slaven

That is right, but I would not have been asked here if I did not have insight that was welcome. I know that football clubs are not public bodies, but I have some insight to provide and I am providing it.

I definitely think that social inclusion is just as important as education. It is amazing that people who are living in relative poverty do not have to worry about period products at school, because they are available there. However, come the weekend, those people should not be cooped up in their house; they should be able to go to the football, gigs or their local youth group and get on with their life. They should be able to experience that social inclusion, which is vital for their wellbeing.

From our perspective, the provision of free period products should be universal, in public spaces and privately owned places such as football grounds.

The Convener

Mr Simpson’s suggestion seems to be that we have the option of having legislation or, on the other hand, Erin. [Laughter.] That just seems to be how it works.

10:30  

Eilidh Dickson

I want to underline the point that the bill establishes a right in primary legislation for anyone who needs period products to access them free of charge. That is sending a serious message to women and anyone who menstruates that their time and needs are just as valid as anyone else’s. We have a mountain to climb in tackling stigma, as we have touched on, so we should not shy away from the fact that there is an important step to take just in making even talking about periods a normal fact of life. It is true that the precise scheme and way of giving effect to the right might change, and the bill foresees that, but it is an important first stage in normalising periods.

Erin Campbell

At the end of the day, we absolutely need legislation for free period products. Scottish young people believe that access to free period products is a basic human right. We have SYP policy on the issue, which is based on consultation with thousands of young people across the country. One policy in particular, which was proposed by a previous MSYP in 2017, states:

“The Scottish Youth Parliament believes that access to menstrual hygiene products is a basic human right”.

That policy was passed with 99 per cent agreement, which is the highest-ever agreement to date. I think that all the witnesses would agree that not having access to menstrual products is a breach of basic human rights. As I said, everyone who menstruates deserves dignity and, at the end of the day, they are not getting that, so they need to get it through legislation and law.

Nicola Bristow

I will say a little about the overreliance on donation schemes. The people paying for the products and making donations are women or others in communities. Since the issue hit the headlines, the response has been incredible and vast, but it is inconsistent. I believe that the Government has a responsibility to provide these products at a quality level. If we are working towards the sustainable development goals on gender equality and fighting against poverty, we have to take on that responsibility and accept menstruation and periods into that sphere. The bill would go a long way to doing that.

Siobhan McCready

We have come a long way on the issue in the past few years but, without legislation, things could stall. We cannot just rely on good will or charity or somebody having a change of mind. We need to push through the legislation, because we need to change our whole society’s way of thinking on the issue. We expect to have our toilet paper, and we do not steal toilet paper from places and take it home. That has become perfectly natural. We need to get to a point where providing period products becomes a perfectly natural thing in society as well. Without legislation, that will not happen.

Graham Simpson

I want to ask about the voucher scheme that is mentioned in the bill. I think that Erin Campbell was at the session that I hosted at the Scottish Youth Parliament when we talked about that issue, so perhaps she can kick off on this. Pretty much all the members of the Scottish Youth Parliament at that session were against a voucher scheme. Will you explain your thoughts on that?

Erin Campbell

On the back of our consultation on the issue, we held a workshop that was attended by 24 MSYPs from across the country. We were overwhelmingly against a voucher scheme, mainly because it would make it much more difficult for young people to access the products. For example, somebody with a disability might be physically unable to access them. We believe that vouchers would create additional barriers that we do not need. If there was an online registration service, not everyone would be able to access that, because not everyone has access to the internet.

We believe that, to be as inclusive as possible, the scheme should be an opt-out rather than an opt-in service. Overall, we believe that the legislation should be universal and that everyone should have the right to access period products when they need to. That is why we are against a voucher scheme.

Graham Simpson

Basically, you are saying that people should not have to register and say, “Here I am—I need this,” and then give the Government or whoever their details. The products should just be available. Is that what others think?

Nicola Bristow

The stigma around menstruation, which we have all mentioned and which has been identified in research, and the stigma that exists around poverty and people putting up their hand and saying that they are worried about it and cannot do certain things, will prevent those who are in need from accessing products.

Erin Campbell’s point—that there should be open access and that people should not feel further stigmatised by their own need—is important.

Siobhan McCready

In my experience, those who most need the free products are the ones who are almost guaranteed not to ask for them. They are so embarrassed and depressed about their situation that they are the least likely to register. The bill is about changing society and culture and expectations. A registration scheme risks those who most need the products missing out, because they simply do not register.

Eilidh Dickson

In relation to the women who most need help, there is a risk that having to register online would exclude women for whom English is not their first language, women who are refugees and women who are homeless. Women make up a large percentage of the population that is referred to as “hidden homeless”. It might exclude those who cannot get online or those who experience control within their relationships. As far as possible, we should avoid putting barriers in place.

Graham Simpson

It sounds like everyone agrees that section 3 should go. I will follow up on that. There has been a suggestion that the scheme could have a postal element. If women cannot get to the shops or a facility, we could mail the products out to them. Would you be in favour of that?

Eilidh Dickson

Yes, absolutely. There are those who menstruate who might not want anyone to know that they are menstruating. Women do the vast majority of unpaid care and might not be able to balance their caring responsibilities with nipping out to queue in a pharmacy or go to a public building to access the products that they need. There are a multitude of reasons that people might want to receive the products by post.

Siobhan McCready

In rural communities, people live far away from places where they can access anything.

Graham Simpson

In which case, they would have to say who they were and where they lived, so there would be an element of registration.

Siobhan McCready

It depends on how we do it.

Erin Campbell

I will reiterate those points. The Scottish Youth Parliament would be in favour of a delivery and collection scheme. That would be inclusive of people who have a disability or those who, as Siobhan McCready said, live in rural areas or cannot afford public transport. We believe that anything that we can do to make the service more universal and inclusive can only be good.

Annabelle Ewing

I will pick up on that issue. To provide for a scheme, there would have to be a mechanism in place and people to assess eligibility. The administration of that brings a cost. That goes back to my original point, which is that, if the bill is about period poverty, the women in that position need the product more than anyone else. We have a finite amount of money to spend on things that are good. Therefore, how do we best spend that money? On the issue of delivery, it is all very well to say that a scheme is great, but it has to be paid for. It is a question of efficacy versus the overarching aim of the bill. Would you care to comment on that?

Siobhan McCready

The layers of bureaucracy need to be stripped back as much as possible, so that we do not have to pay people to do things. If we make it an open and inclusive process that does not rely on all that and is not means tested or vetted, we strip away a lot of the costs involved.

I can give my own example. My daughter is severely disabled. When she was a child, she qualified for free nappies. We went to get them once; they were not good quality, so we never got them again. We just bought our own; that was a choice. We could go and use them or not; we chose not to. Had I been on a lower income, I probably would have taken them, because it would have saved us money. That was a choice. Nobody abuses that system either, and it works perfectly well. That is just one personal example.

Annabelle Ewing

I hear what you say, and I understand very well the point that you are making. However, I do not think that any member of the committee was suggesting that we need to guard against abuse. We do not think that there is likely to be any particular degree of abuse. Rather, we are concerned to get an efficacious scheme that gives value for money and delivers to the women who need it most. That is what informs my question.

Eilidh Dickson

You have to factor in the costs of girls missing out on days of education, and of women being unproductive at work because they are not feeling well or because they are not feeling particularly hygienic that day, as they have had to use something makeshift. You also have to factor in the cost of life-threatening illnesses if the wrong period product is used, or if a product is used incorrectly. There is a human cost, and there are further costs that we have to extrapolate. It is really hard to put a cost on what is essentially women’s dignity.

Annabelle Ewing

I know, but the Government has to come up with the money, so someone has to put a cost on it.

Nicola Bristow

If we are talking about using means testing, we will not embed menstruation and women’s needs into different services. For example, someone who suffers from endometriosis or heavy menstrual bleeding will go to a general practitioner, but would not necessarily get support for their period products, because that need is not assessed by the GP as something that they can prescribe for. There are other things that we need to unpick about how menstruation is not embedded in general community needs assessments, so we cannot factor in those additional costs. It is not just about the products, it is about embedding menstruation, and the needs of women and other menstruators, in a much broader spectrum of public life. Those additional costs will start to become apparent.

This is something that needs to happen without means testing for specific access schemes. We have really strong local community organisations that will be able to help us develop and deliver efficient systems and assess need.

The other point is that this is all happening very quickly: the conversation on periods started only about five years ago. There is scope to test, pilot, make assessments and really figure out what works, so that we can make the system as efficient as possible without overburdening it at the start.

Andy Wightman

Following on from Annabelle Ewing’s question about who pays, section 8 of the bill says that the Scottish ministers

“may make such payments as they think appropriate”.

It does not mandate the Scottish ministers to pay for the scheme.

Following up Graham Simpson’s question about toilet paper not being a legal requirement in public toilets, I have just looked up the Workplace Health, Safety and Welfare Regulations 1992 and find that it is a legal requirement—in workplaces—to provide a supply of toilet paper and, for female employees, a means of disposing of sanitary dressings.

Given that workplaces are obliged to provide toilet paper and a means of disposing of sanitary dressings, why should they not also be obliged to provide the sanitary dressings, just as part of what a workplace has to do?

Siobhan McCready

In every negotiation that we now go into with employers, Unite asks for that as part of the terms and conditions, and we promote it. Many other trade unions are doing that too; the Communication Workers Union and Unison have been very active on it. Certainly, from a trade union bargaining perspective, that is what we are asking from employers. A lot of employers have been really good and are already doing it; we have seen huge progress, even just in the last year.

Andy Wightman

Should there be a statutory obligation on workplaces to provide sanitary dressings? If so, they would have to pay for them. Perhaps you do not know; that is okay.

Siobhan McCready

Is it within the realms of the Scottish Government to do that?

The Convener

There are no other questions from committee members, but I believe that Monica Lennon has one or two questions.

Monica Lennon (Central Scotland) (Lab)

Thank you, convener; it is great to be back at the committee. I thank the panel. There are a couple of points that I can come back on when I give my evidence, but for now I will stick to questions.

It is apparent that there has been fantastic progress in a short space of time and a whole range of people have contributed to that, including the Scottish Government, local government and our partners in education and in the third sector. However, what I have heard today is that unmet need exists, that there is a lot of hidden poverty and that there are fundamental issues about access. You were asked about the extent of that unmet need. Given that there is variability in how schemes are being delivered, does the panel agree that a universal scheme that provides for everyone by right is the best way to meet any gaps in provision?

10:45  

Siobhan McCready

Absolutely. There is already good practice out there, which we have seen even just over the past couple of years. Going out there, talking to people to find out what the good practice is, and rolling out a scheme on that basis and constantly reviewing it, is the way forward. However, we need one scheme that works, that takes account of the various regional and geographical issues across Scotland and that runs without a hugely administrative or overly complex process.

The Convener

Is that the general consensus?

Witnesses: Yes.

Monica Lennon

We have talked a lot about people’s daily needs—for example, being in the workplace, at the football, in school or education and being caught short. However, people also need a monthly supply of products at home. How are they accessing that? How is that need being met in communities?

Erin Slaven

Siobhan McCready correctly said earlier that a lot of that need is being met by community groups. That is certainly our experience of working in communities and youth groups in Glasgow. For example, Royston Youth Action has a supply at the front door and young people and their parents can come in and leave with what they need. However, putting that pressure on such groups is not really fair. Arrangements for access should be clearer. Products should be supplied in other public spaces, such as libraries and other local and accessible places, so that people do not have to travel far to get there. That would avoid putting too much financial or other pressure on smaller groups that are reliant on funding.

Nicola Bristow

It is also worth looking at existing distribution schemes and how they work. I gave the example of mobile libraries, which is a scheme that works in rural areas. The mobile libraries access communities and are able to distribute products.

There are other distribution schemes and smaller, commercial period product providers that often focus on reusable and plastic-free products. I can go online and register and have those products delivered to me every month and pay for them with my credit card.

Distribution mechanisms exist and people are running them successfully, but it is about how to do it at scale. If you are able to assess what works, there is potential to embed period products in those schemes without overburdening smaller community groups.

Erin Campbell

At the workshop, one of our MSYPs mentioned that, particularly in sports clubs, she finds that the products that are available are often of really poor quality and hard to find, as they are not signposted. There is definitely huge room for improvement in how products are made available in local areas.

Eilidh Dickson

It is also worth noting that the use of food banks has increased over the past few years and that period products are increasingly requested at food banks.

Of course, there is a referral mechanism for most food banks in the United Kingdom, so people have to be able to access the food bank in order to access a month’s worth of products for them and their family. That referral process misses huge groups of incredibly vulnerable women, such as refugees. Last month, Bloody Good Period produced a report that looked at the experiences of refugee women, and 75 per cent of the women to whom the organisation spoke had not been able to access period products.

Monica Lennon

I want to ask about the voucher scheme but, before I do, I will pick up on the point that Nicola Bristow mentioned about endometriosis. There has been a lot of discussion about dignity versus poverty, but it is about making sure that there is provision for everyone. We know that around one in 10 women have endometriosis and that it goes undiagnosed for a very long time, which does not help. If women who have very heavy or irregular periods and have additional costs to manage are not being referred to a food bank—they might not be on a low income—and are not in education, where do they access monthly supplies under the current schemes? Do you have any knowledge on that point?

Nicola Bristow

I came across a school scheme in which an individual had to sign for a single pad. Every time a person wanted a pad, they had to sign for it, which was overburdensome and had a huge amount of stigma attached to it for the young person who was accessing the product. Somebody might have to use two pads at a time to try and sit through a lesson or a workplace situation and it is critical that they are allowed to assess their need and access the number of products that they need. When GPs diagnose those conditions, there is no mechanism for them to offer support for products to women or young women or other menstruaters.

The Convener

I am sorry, Nicola—I did not mean to interrupt. Where do people have to sign for products? Was that example from Scotland?

Nicola Bristow

No, it was not. It was a unique example from a small school that developed a mechanism and then came to us for advice and support.

Erin Campbell

In my in local area, the main place where people access products is in schools. That is obviously a problem, because periods do not stop in school holidays, so where would people access products during the Christmas break and the summer holidays? They cannot always be accessed in schools, which is why we believe that there should be a legal requirement on other organisations to provide them.

Monica Lennon

My final question is on the bill’s voucher scheme, about which there has been quite a bit of discussion. It is a framework bill and the scheme is a proposal that ministers might want to use if they feel the need for some trackability. The bill says that the maximum information in the scheme would be a person’s name and the first part of their postcode. There is an appetite to keep the scheme really simple. Is the mood of the panel that there is no need for any kind of voucher scheme or registration, except where people want to opt in for a delivery service?

Erin Slaven

It is important that we keep the scheme as barrier-free as possible. As Erin Campbell said, the stigma can be really debilitating for people who come forward and sign up for something like that. People do not want a big song and dance about the fact that they cannot afford period products. They do not want to sign up for something and get a card and hand it across a desk, wherever that may be. It would be so much simpler to go and get products and leave and that is that—they could get on with their day. They do not want a big fuss to be made about the fact that they may not be in a position to access on their own terms.

Nicola Bristow

In our original Break the Barriers research, which was published in 2018, we identified the potential to test the c:card scheme, which would mirror a condom scheme for young people. In our initial consultation, a group of young people said that that would work. The scheme was implemented by Brook, the sexual health and wellbeing service, through the “Let’s talk. Period” project, but it has found that access to education has been the most critical thing for young people. If they have the education access, they then access a range of products—it is not just about getting a card and going in. There is a much broader, bigger issue about access than whether it is a voucher-based scheme.

Andy Wightman

Erin Campbell made a point earlier about the Scottish Youth Parliament’s approval of the policy that access to products is a basic human right. As you are aware, the Scottish Youth Parliament does not make human rights. Are you claiming that it is a human right under any of the articles of the European convention on human rights or the UN Universal Declaration on Human Rights?

Erin Campbell

I do not know enough about the details of that to comment fully. However, our consultation on our most recent manifesto was based on the views of more than 70,000 young people, so I can say with confidence that there is a clear consensus that young people believe that it is a basic human right.

Andy Wightman

Do you believe that it should be a basic human right?

Erin Campbell

Yes.

Andy Wightman

I just wanted to clarify that point.

The Convener

Andy Wightman has just opened a can of worms. [Laughter.] We have only a couple of minutes left, so please be brief.

Eilidh Dickson

I take the opportunity to point out that today is the 40th anniversary of the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women, so if we wanted to look for a basis for human rights for women and girls, that would not be a poor place to start.

Andy Wightman

I invite those who have views on that point to communicate them, because it is quite important in the context of making legislation that is in the human rights framework.

The Convener

I thank the panel very much for that helpful session. I will suspend the meeting to allow a witness changeover and to establish a video link for the next panel.

10:55 Meeting suspended.  

11:05 On resuming—  

The Convener

For our second panel, I welcome Sheena Stewart, university secretary of Abertay University, from Universities Scotland; Councillor Alison Evison, president of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities; Celia Hodson, chief executive of Hey Girls CIC; Gail Anderson, chief executive of the Orkney partnership, who is giving evidence by videolink; and Carolyn Hope, acting senior manager for facilities management with North Ayrshire Council. We will need to be mindful of the possibility of slight delays in the videolink during our discussion. Obviously, we will have to listen carefully as well.

I thank the witnesses for their written submissions. We will move straight to questions. Will you explain your organisations’ roles in delivering the Scottish Government’s existing programme of free provision of period products?

Councillor Alison Evison (Convention of Scottish Local Authorities)

COSLA is the voice of local government in Scotland, and we represent all 32 local authorities. We have been supporting the local authorities to deliver the services that are currently available through the Scottish Government. The main point on that is that each authority and each community within each authority does things differently to meet their particular local needs—localism is important.

COSLA can bring people together to talk about good experience and good practice. In fact, a meeting is being held tomorrow involving people from across the country who are involved in the issue to discuss and begin to look at the data that has been analysed. Obviously, work has been done and it is important to evaluate and analyse the data to see how effective that is and to review how we go forward. Much of the information that I can give today will be based on an initial evaluation. Members should bear in mind that it is initial and that further work will be happening from tomorrow onwards.

The Convener

It is a shame that you did not have the meeting yesterday, and then you could have answered the next question, but I may as well ask it. How effective have the Scottish Government’s measures been? I ask Alison Evison to answer that and then the others can answer both questions.

Councillor Evison

In some areas, the measures have been very effective and have made a huge difference. One important effect is to get people talking about the issue and seeing the potential of what can be done and how we can move the provision into other areas. The nature of the distribution at the moment means that the service is not available everywhere. There were comments earlier that the current system is not sustainable as it is based on money being given out. We need something that is set in legislation and is more long term and permanent. The money that has been provided has allowed lots of local areas to develop good practice. We need to look at how effective that work has been, learn from it and spread it elsewhere.

Carolyn Hope (North Ayrshire Council)

A key part of my role as a senior manager in facilities management is to deliver the products to primary and secondary schools in North Ayrshire. North Ayrshire started delivery in August 2017, which was ahead of the funding from the Government. That was in recognition of the fact that North Ayrshire is the fifth most deprived area in Scotland and that there was real need in the area. It was difficult at first, because we were a bit of a trailblazer and it was unknown territory. However, the funding the following year was welcome. It has allowed us to expand the number of products that we make available for schools, and we hope to continue to do that and to work with the schools on that.

Our delivery across the wider community has been well received. We now deliver to 29 community centres and 12 libraries in North Ayrshire, which expands the provision outwith schoolchildren and school hours and terms.

There is still a lot to do. We have had some feedback from local community link workers that they are experiencing problems out in the wider North Ayrshire community with people they are meeting through non-medical appointments, who are struggling to access products. We are working across services in North Ayrshire to see what we can do as a council to address that need. Funding is an issue, as we have a limited pot. However, we are trying to explore different ways in which we can fulfil everyone’s needs.

We welcome this discussion today. It is a great step forward. The feedback that we have had from pupils in North Ayrshire has been excellent. We have had people telling us stories that will not be news to anyone in here. They feel more confident, they can go to PE without worrying about leaking, and they can come to school every day and not miss school at all. The impact of that is huge—I do not think that we will ever really understand what that impact is. I am very proud to be part of that in North Ayrshire and very pleased to be here today to help in any way I can. There is a keenness in North Ayrshire to support the bill and to take forward whatever we can do as a local authority too.

Celia Hodson (Hey Girls CIC)

I am the founder of a Scottish social enterprise called Hey Girls. We are a buy one, give one menstrual product social enterprise. We sell our products online, in supermarkets—ASDA, Waitrose, the Co-op and Scotmid—and in small independent eco-stores and retailers. We supply to a lot of corporates, so we deliver business-to-business products to washrooms. Our turnover predominantly comes from supplying the Scottish Government and an increasing number of Welsh councils with period products. We donate for every box that we sell. We have a network of over 200 donation partners across the UK that receive parcels of mixed products every month.

We believe that it is not enough just to give away menstrual products. As you have heard from other witnesses, there needs to be education about what good menstrual health is and what a normal period is, and we need to tackle the stigma, taboos and myths around menstruation and get women to talk about their periods and access products without shame. At the moment, we are developing a finder app so that users can just pop in their postcode and find the nearest free product. We are developing that with the Scottish Government and COSLA. That will mean that all our councils, schools and universities can put in where product can be found and that community buildings such as libraries and leisure centres can mark where product is available.

Sheena Stewart (Universities Scotland)

I represent Universities Scotland, which is the representative body for all 19 higher education institutions in Scotland, which range in size and type and have about 145,000 female students for whom today’s topic is relevant.

We have been very keen on this. I was on the steering group that implemented the Scottish Government scheme, and we have been very positive about that. Students have been campaigning on the issue for a number of years. All the HEIs have collaborated in implementing the scheme.

Funding first became available from September 2018. We have had some feedback from the first, six-month, census point in February 2019. More recent figures for the first year of implementation are coming in now. To give you a flavour of those first six months, by February 2019 the 19 HEIs had purchased 2.3 million products; 64 per cent of those had been distributed across campuses in various ways, which we can probably talk about later; and about 85 per cent of those products had been taken by students. That is an average, and there is a range of experience underneath that. The sector is meeting regularly to discuss implementation, and we are working with student bodies to promote the availability of the scheme, which we welcome. I can talk about that later.

11:15  

Gail Anderson (Orkney Partnership)

Good morning. My role in the Orkney partnership—the community planning partnership—is that I am a member of it. I am chief executive of Voluntary Action Orkney, which is the Orkney third sector interface. My role, along with the partnership, is to provide focused joint working to address the causes of inequalities across our islands, which are often deep rooted.

We were very happy to take part in and be an active member of the scheme by ensuring the free distribution of period products not only in schools, libraries and our college but across our community organisations. Period products are now available right across the islands. By utilising the networks that we have established, we are making sure that those who are furthest from the main points of access on our main island are able to access the products.

We have worked hard to create a delivery method that suits our local area, and I think that we are happy that we have begun to do that. To date, we have had very limited feedback, but I think that we are raising awareness, reducing the stigma that is associated with the issue and making sure that people’s dignity and privacy are respected when they access the products that they need.

The Convener

Thank you very much.

Sarah Boyack

It was great to get your introductory comments and the written evidence that you provided in advance. I want to explore the effectiveness of the existing schemes and where you think there is scope to improve them. A couple of you have mentioned funding, accessibility and reach.

I will start off by addressing who is currently missing out. I think that Sheena Stewart was here for the session with the previous panel, when the comment was made that the provision in universities is great, but we need to consider how people who are not at university could access such products. It is interesting that Sheena Stewart said that 85 per cent of the people who access the products in universities are students. Staff might be on low incomes. If you have information on this, perhaps you could say who you think is missing out in the current schemes. The witnesses have a good range of experience of service delivery that would help to give us a starting point on that.

Carolyn Hope

As well as offering free products in schools, community centres and libraries, North Ayrshire Council provides them for staff in council buildings. You asked about who is missing out. There is a restriction on people who cannot get to those buildings because they do not work or are not in education. We are not getting to people who are at home for whatever reason—they might be a carer or they might have a disability that prevents them from working—and people who, for whatever reason, cannot travel to those buildings.

Community centres will have limited opening times, and people could feel embarrassed to go into them just to go to the toilet to get free products, because people usually go to a community centre for a specific purpose—for example, because there is a club on. They might feel that they would draw attention to themselves if they simply walked in to get products and then walked out again.

We are certainly doing good things in North Ayrshire, but there is a lot more that we need to do, because a huge group of people are not being covered by our current provision. However, there is only so much that we can do as a local authority.

Sarah Boyack

I should have mentioned the debate that we had about poverty with the first panel, which dominated the first part of that session.

Councillor Evison

If we limit our understanding of poverty to financial poverty, we will miss out a lot of people who need access to period products. That is why it is important that the scheme is universal.

Schools are doing what they can—they are designing schemes, often in consultation with the pupils, to do things that are appropriate locally. In many of the discussions that have taken place in schools, it has come up that the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community has particular access needs that need to be addressed in the future. Another issue that has come up is that of cultural differences—some communities find it easier to access certain things than others.

Provision in public buildings is also important. It must be done at a local level so that people can access the products, but we are missing out people who cannot access those buildings.

If we look at poverty as being simply financial poverty, we will miss out people who are experiencing domestic abuse or financial abuse and people for whom there might be a cultural stigma around accessing such products. If we are looking to have a universal scheme, we need to give broader consideration to what that means.

Thanks in the main to the money from the Scottish Government, provision is developing in areas such as community centres. That is a limit in itself. We have been talking about rural areas and rurality—places that are not built up—and there is often no community centre in a rural area, which is immediately a problem for that kind of access. We need to look more broadly at where we can develop schemes.

Mobile libraries have been mentioned and, where they exist, that is very good but, given the pressures on council budgets, they are one of the services that could go, so they are not a sustainable way forward. Some areas are looking at links with local pharmacies. Often, pharmacies are more local than anything else. A scheme that involves partners such as pharmacies is a way of developing it as well.

That comes back to the key point for us in all this—we need locally designed services to improve access for all community groups, including the LGBT community, different ethnic groups, Gypsy Travellers, homeless people, people who access women’s shelters from abusive circumstances and all those who need access. To have access that meets all those groups, we need locally designed services by people who understand the needs of the local area. If we have legislation that becomes too prescriptive in what it is doing and how it is organising, we will have access problems. That localism is key to meeting our aims.

Sheena Stewart

I will follow up on that. Students are not a homogeneous group. We have students who are distance learners who do not come into buildings on a regular basis and students who go out on placement for extended periods, such as nursing students. Universities and higher education institutions have been adapting flexible approaches in implementing the scheme, because there is not a one-size-fits-all approach. In some cases, it might be a non-means-tested grant given to a distance-learning student, or it could be stocks of supplies being given to students before they go on placement. We will continue to have collaborative meetings to find out how the range of HEIs are working with the different scenarios. The variability of type of student and type of organisation requires different types of solution.

The Convener

Would it also work in schools—pupils being given a bundle to see them through periods when they are not at school? That was talked about in earlier meetings.

Sheena Stewart

I assume so. That may happen in some places. Others could probably comment.

Celia Hodson

It is fair to say that we have made a good start. There are some amazing examples of great practice, but some schools and councils have been slower to pick up the opportunity. Stirling, for example, made a campaign around period products. It has Pedro the period panda in a full mardi gras suit, who wanders around and gives out menstrual products in the corridor—there is no shame or stigma around Pedro.

The other extreme is where you still have to go and see Mrs So-and-so, who will get the keys, go to the cupboard and open it, take out your packets of pads and then lock the door and put the keys back. You can imagine the difference in the volumes of products that go out in those two different situations. The previous panel talked about stocks of product sitting in offices and stockrooms, all going out of date. They sit there because there has not been a campaign to make anyone aware that the products are freely available. You go from having posters saying, “Got caught short? Take what you need and take some home for mum,” to people still whispering that, “Someone’s got some product,” but being worried about the budget and just dripping them out as people ask for them. There is still a significant difference between those things. That plays out in communities. We provide 26 of the 32 local authorities across Scotland and some are putting product out in baskets, tubs and red boxes all over so anyone can freely pick them up. In others, you go to reception and fill in a form saying who you are and what product you need and you are given a pack of pads or tampons. There are huge differences.

There is still work to be done on procurement and making those things freely available. We have not been able to supply either public buildings or schools that are ringing up to ask for more products because we are still waiting for a purchase order. Although we have done a great job, it is still pretty sticky to manage all those systems.

The Convener

I will bring Gail Anderson in. I promise not to leave you until last the next time.

Gail Anderson

That is quite all right. It is interesting to hear from colleagues.

On the issue of access and poverty, our experience is that the role of the third sector and community organisations is hugely important. The way we have done it here is that my organisation acts as a distribution centre for third sector organisations and community organisations, including community halls and community schools right across the islands. The products are made freely available in those premises and through those agencies to those who need them. They are in baskets in toilets, they are in men’s toilets and we are looking at making them accessible on the ferries, because there are quite long distances between some of the islands and the mainland. We have tried hard to make them accessible right across the board.

There is obviously still some work to do, and part of that is about promotion and education, but we are slowly getting to the point at which people know where to access these products and are able to do so. Having them available in that way also enables young people who are not at school during the school holidays to access them quite freely.

That is our experience, and the third sector is a key partner in distribution and making the products available to those who need them most.

Sarah Boyack

I want to tease out the accessibility issue. It is about physical accessibility and the people who need support. Who is seeking support and whether there is a stigma around accessing period products came up with the first panel.

I want to tease out the point about physical accessibility. Alison Evison talked about the capacity to localise, and you are all talking about a mix of universality and targeting in the physical sense and in respect of attitudes. What is the mix in terms of homeless people and refugees? Are we talking just about bathrooms, or is it wider than that? Are we talking about all bathrooms and discreet products in bathrooms? To what extent is this about attitudes and physical availability? To what extent have your schemes been designed with that in mind, to enable everybody who needs period products to access them without that lack of dignity?

I would also like to hear a bit of reflection on physical access. Your opening comments were great, but I just want to tease out who is still being excluded and how you are overcoming that.

Sheena Stewart

I will kick off on that from the point of view of the higher education institutions. We obviously have students across a range of ages—young people, peri-menopausal women and other older people, for example. We recognise that the scheme covers the whole range of menstruating individuals. The design principles that we have been applying reflect that and remove barriers by making products available in a range of places—in cubicles, toilets, campus shops, student associations and so on—to make sure that there is no stigma and that there is a variety of ways in which people can access the products.

This was coming from students anyway—campaigns had taken place in many institutions. Menstruating individuals were feeling that they could be prevented from experiencing education by lack of access or poverty stopping them coming to lectures and taking part in classes. They were turning round and going home if period products were not available to them. That is obviously a fundamental barrier to education.

We have a range of types of student—not just young people—so we have tried to make the products accessible in a variety of ways. For example, we might have young people from a care background who do not have a family to help with provision. Those are some reflections from the higher education sector.

11:30  

Gail Anderson

The concept of making period products freely available is very important, as is flexibility in terms of delivering in a way that suits the local area, by people who understand local needs.

In Orkney, as I mentioned earlier, third sector organisations that work with a range of people including people who experience mental health problems, poverty and domestic abuse have a store of products that they can make available to those people. The products are also made available in all toilets—men’s and ladies’—so that they can be picked up by anyone; they can be picked up by a man for someone whom he lives with who needs them. Trans people can access them from men’s, ladies’ or gender-neutral toilets. They are in baskets; there is a variety of products and people can just take what they need. As I mentioned earlier, we are also negotiating products being made available on the ferries.

We are raising awareness and we are making products freely available in as many locations as possible. We are also making sure that those who are most in need can access them through third sector organisations. However, there is more work to be done to promote that.

I have spoken about physical access; the other issue is education. As we promote the approach more, and people get more used to it and begin to understand that it is a right, there will be a gradual process of education and of raising awareness.

Councillor Evison

When the topic was discussed originally at COSLA, and the local authorities came together, they set up some guiding principles. The key principle was to protect students’ dignity by avoiding anxiety, embarrassment and stigma. That has moved on, as we start to work in public buildings. Stigma is a huge issue that prevents access. We have figures that show that 41.8 per cent of young people do not feel comfortable buying sanitary products, even now. There are still young people who do not want to go to a shop to buy period products, let alone access somewhere in the school or community centre where they might have to answer questions about why they need it. We have to deal with that.

As part of reducing the stigma, it is important to provide access for everybody, in all toilets. The bill talks about gender-neutral toilets in particular. They are not available everywhere, and lots of males need to access products, either for themselves or for members of their families. We need to be open to where things are going, and to use that to help reduce stigma.

A key factor that has been mentioned is education. The fact that people are beginning to talk more naturally about periods is good, but it is still something that, in a classroom situation or in a work situation, people feel embarrassed about. People feel that it affects how they can work; they are nervous about how they might appear. Maybe they do not want to go to work or to school, which is a huge problem that we need to overcome.

Overcoming stigma is part of the solution, but educating people in a general sense is important, too. We need to do all those things to reduce stigma, because we cannot have people being unable to access work or education because it is a particular time of the month.

Carolyn Hope

North Ayrshire has a variety of distribution methods within our schools. We started off with a free-vend machine in the communal area of the toilet, but we soon realised that there was a stigma for girls going up and taking something from the machine—it was embarrassing for them—so we put machines in the cubicles, as well. We have also moved to using baskets, which is in order to make it the norm. The more visible the basket, the more it becomes just part of the normal day, and is just something that you would normally find in those locations. That is part of trying to break down the barriers.

I echo what has been said about education being key. In North Ayrshire, there is still a lot of work to be done with our education partners about having open conversations with girls and boys in schools. Let us not underestimate the power of involving the boys in those conversations: they have sisters, mums and relatives for whom they could collect products, but the products are probably not very accessible to them. It is important to include them.

Celia Hodson mentioned Stirling; other authorities have done some great things that we can all learn from. Everyone should be included in discussions—we should open up the conversation and make it more natural. We can do quite a bit of work with our young people; if we get to them when they are young, they will be used to having such conversations.

The language is important because we are not trying to cover anything up. We are talking about periods; let us not call them something else. Let us talk about the subject and get the words out there so that people are not embarrassed when they are suddenly presented with them or the products, but are used to them as an everyday norm.

Celia Hodson

I agree with all that, of course. We created a best practice guide to share all the great stories about how boys and girls and mums and dads have got involved in the conversation. We have initiatives called “Hey boys!” and pads4dads, which is about getting men ready for their daughter to start her period and how to go shopping for products for their partner.

There has to be access for all. We use the terms “period poverty” and “period dignity”. If you use the phrase “period poverty” in communities and, particularly, in education, people say, “They’re for the poor kids. I don’t take them because they’re for the kids who haven’t got anything.” Even though we are providing a beautiful, environmentally friendly and sustainable product, students still think that they are for the poor kids. Giving access to anyone who needs it when they are caught short sends out a different message.

To pick up on the point about being caught short at work, we provide products for everyone from H&M to Brewdog bars. From our surveys we have found that 86 per cent of women have been caught short more than once when they have been at work, and that 96 per cent of those women went home. If we explain that to an employer in terms of lack of productivity, and show how they can, for a minimal amount of money, put products in washrooms and provide dignity for their staff, why would they not do it? It is not a difficult ask for the corporate community.

When the products are freely available to all, you will find that people do not fill their rucksacks—they take what they need. That might be one tampon or it might be three packs; it depends on their personal situation.

Graham Simpson

I have a question for Sheena Stewart, although it could also apply to councils. Section 5 of the bill deals with education providers. We are here to scrutinise the bill, so we have to drill down on every word in it. I will read from section 5.

“In each school, university and college, the education provider must make period products available free of charge for pupils or students who need to use them.”

There is no mention of staff. Sheena Stewart said that, in universities, 85 per cent of products are taken by students. The implication is therefore that 15 per cent are not taken by students but by other people.

Sheena Stewart

I will clarify that. I said that 85 per cent of the products have been taken by students, but we do not have any breakdown of how many students, as opposed to staff, have taken the products.

Graham Simpson

Does that mean that 15 per cent are not taken by students?

Sheena Stewart

Yes—or perhaps it means that they are not taken at all.

Graham Simpson

My point is that, as it is written, the bill mentions only “pupils or students” and nobody else.

Sheena Stewart

In higher education, to our knowledge no analysis has been undertaken of the costs. We are keen to do an evaluation when we get to the end of the two-year phase of the Scottish Government scheme. When we were discussing implementation, there were so many unknowns, so we had to make assumptions about costs.

Graham Simpson

Is the bill too limited? There are not just “pupils or students” at schools and universities.

Sheena Stewart

We have members of staff and visiting members of the public on campuses. The situation will vary in different types of campus and depending on what events are happening on campus. The impacts will be different in different types of higher education institutions.

Councillor Evison

When we started the work, a lot of it was about access to education—stopping women, girls and others from having to leave the classroom and miss out on education opportunities. That was a big spur for what was originally done.

In the discussions today, we have heard various questions about the workplace. Obviously, that includes people who work in a school or university. We have heard that the unions are pushing for workplace expansion, which would be helpful. My brief today is to talk about local authorities and what we are already doing with the money. COSLA does not have students and pupils working in our buildings, but we have free period products for everybody. Workplace expansion would be welcome and would mirror what we are trying to do in public buildings for the community. We have extended access to free period products during the past couple of years that we have been talking about it.

Universality includes people who access education, people who deliver education and people who are out and about in the community. That is not what the bill says at the moment, so expanding provision to the workplace sounds like a positive way forward.

The Convener

Thank you. Andy Wightman has to leave shortly, so I will let him in.

Andy Wightman

I am grateful, convener. I apologise; I have to leave for a 12 o’clock meeting.

I have four brief questions. The first picks up on Graham Simpson’s point about universities and higher education institutions in general. The evidence from Universities Scotland says:

“If a statutory duty is placed on”—

higher education institutions

“it is vital that provision is fully funded, and to ensure this, that dedicated additional funding continues permanently.”

However, section 5 makes it a statutory duty for universities, colleges and schools to provide free period products. Section 8 says that “Scottish Ministers may make” appropriate arrangements for funding, if they so wish. Through the bill, higher education institutions will have a statutory duty. Why do you feel that the Scottish Government must fund that? I presume that you pay for toilet paper and soap.

Sheena Stewart

We do. The context for us is the tight funding environment that we are in, with cuts to higher education funding over the past seven years. As others have mentioned, in order to be sustainable, provision has to be affordable. Part of that will be evaluation of how the provided funds meet the costs of delivering the scheme. Given the environment that we are in, if the duty is statutory, it must be sustainable and funded. The evaluation of the two years of the initiative will be helpful in informing the discussion.

Andy Wightman

Therefore, it is fair to say that your position is that you do not believe that you should have a statutory duty, unless there is statutory funding. Statutory funding is a rare thing, but we will leave that there.

You mentioned evaluation. Section 2(4) of the bill says that a scheme should be

“operational not later than 12 months after Royal Assent.”

For today’s purposes, let us assume that the bill is passed by Parliament and that it achieves royal assent on 31 March. That would mean that we would have to have a scheme in place by March 2021. Given that you are talking about two years to evaluate the current situation, would that be too soon?

Sheena Stewart

There is already some evaluation work in train—for example, with Young Scot. The funding ends in March 2020. The academic year finishes in June, so there will be time for the evaluation to be done, in order to inform the next stages.

Andy Wightman

I have a brief question for Councillor Evison. In your opening remarks, you mentioned the need for local variation in delivery of the scheme. Does the bill provide ministers with sufficient flexibility to deliver a scheme that is adaptable for different parts of Scotland?

Councillor Evison

There is a line in the bill that says “The Scottish ministers may”. It is crucial that the bill emphasises that there has to be local delivery, because that is the only way that the scheme will work. We have been talking about the cost, but the scheme will provide access to everybody who needs it only if it is given local focus. Everything else that we are doing in relation to the national performance framework and what that is trying to do will work only if such things are done locally.

Andy Wightman made point about cost to Universities Scotland. Councils would also need to have everything fully funded. There is no way that local government could take on something else that is not fully funded, so I must emphasise that that would be a key aspect for our work as well.

We worry that the system could be too prescriptive, and that a voucher scheme could be far too prescriptive. The system must be designed locally with local partners in local places as appropriate, taking into account rurality. The islands and city areas are all different, and there are differences in each community. We need to ensure that local design is key to the approach. That will make it more cost effective, because targeting will happen in conjunction with local people.

11:45  

Andy Wightman

Just to be clear, do you agree with the universities that the scheme has to be fully funded in statute? As I have said, that is difficult.

Councillor Evison

It has to be fully funded.

Andy Wightman

So, you do not see yourselves as providing workplaces in which, as I said in the previous panel session, you have to provide sanitation facilities and sanitation disposal facilities by law. You do not see a moral obligation to provide them at your own hand without relying on Scottish Government funding.

Councillor Evison

People in local government feel lots of moral obligations. That is why a lot of people are in that world doing that work. They feel that strongly, as you are very well aware. The bottom line is that our funding is very tight, and we have to live in the realms of what is possible. We cannot deliver what we want to deliver unless it is fully funded. That goes for any scheme that is given to us. We need full funding.

Andy Wightman

I understand the point that you are making, but we will have to reflect on that in relation to the provisions in the bill.

The bill makes no provision for any statutory consultation on the design of such a scheme. We have heard a lot of evidence this morning about various aspects of schemes and how they might work. It seems to me that the Government should consult, and I am sure that it will, if the bill is enacted. Should the bill make statutory provision for that?

Councillor Evison

The consultation is going on anyway. That is how we do things. As I said, there is a meeting tomorrow to do a further stage of the data analysis. We are doing that, and I imagine that most people who are involved in that work want to do that, because we want to be able to make the best system possible with the available resources. That involves reviewing and analysing and moving forward from that. I do not see a need to make that statutory. It is happening.

Andy Wightman

The bill goes further than the scheme that is currently being provided. It refers to powers to make the scheme universal and people applying by post, for example. It seems to me that we will have to reach out even to schemes that might operate in other countries, because we do not do that at the moment for anything.

Councillor Evison

I think that consultation at the local level is better. Evaluating a scheme at the local level shows whether need is being met at that level, and that is the key.

Andy Wightman

Okay. Thank you.

The Convener

I have a question for Councillor Evison. Earlier, there was talk about good practice and bad practice at the local level. Is there a danger that, if there is not a set standard, the approach will not work in some areas?

Councillor Evison

I do not think that it is about good practice and bad practice; rather, it is about very good practice and people learning as they go. I think that good practice will eventually become the norm. Nobody does not want to deliver. We are talking about authorities that are totally involved in what they are doing. Earlier, someone mentioned the pace at which we have moved to get to this stage. That has been very quick. Some authorities have prioritised the issue and others have not, as there have been other issues to talk about. It is not so much about good practice and bad practice as about good practice and developing practice.

The Convener

That was well put by COSLA.

Alexander Stewart

My reading of the comments that have been made is that there is a perception that the current system is not adequately funded to ensure that there are a range of products and opportunities for individuals in different communities to manage it. If that is the case, how realistic are the costs associated with the bill to ensure that we will get a better system across your organisations?

Sheena Stewart

At the moment, we do not know whether the funding is adequate. We are also seeing a change in demand as users become aware of what is available.

In the HE sector, we like to research and evaluate things. As we get to the end of the two-year funded period and test the assumptions that we had at the beginning and look at what the bill says about provision more widely, we will have a better sense of the adequacy of funding and what levels of funding are required to sustain the system for the number of students that we have.

Celia Hodson

Typically, the uptake of reusable products has been low. The number of requests and purchase orders that have come through for menstrual cups or reusable pants has been pretty low. If we give a student a menstrual cup in freshers week, as we have done with City of Glasgow College students, they will have that for the whole of their time in education and probably a further five years after they have left, so there are significant cost savings. With Zero Waste Scotland, we ran the trial period campaign, which involved getting members of the public to try a reusable pad. Actually, once people have switched to a reusable product, they do not go back to disposable products. A greater focus on the environmental and cost-saving benefits of reusable products would be very positive.

Alexander Stewart

You have touched on public awareness and the stigma that exists and on how you educate people and evaluate and manage the system. Do you believe that such education will change the dynamics, and change the stigma and the organisation behind it all, so that women and girls feel much more at ease about the whole process? At the moment, it appears that they do not feel at ease, and there is still a big gap.

Celia Hodson

There has to be awareness raising. The sort of conversation that we are having now raises the subject of stigma and taboos. Our campaign involved Michael Sheen. To get him talking about periods on STV during an England-Scotland rugby match broke down some pretty big taboos right there. It is important that we have campaigns that raise awareness of menstruation and the products that are available to people who have periods.

Councillor Evison

I want to pick up on the costs. We have concerns about the finances. The cost projections for the bill are based on a cost of 9p per unit, whereas the work that we have done in local authorities suggests that it is 17.6p per unit, which is almost double that. We have to be aware of the costs and ensure that the bill is fully costed. There are also issues with administration and running costs, which would perhaps be magnified if we used a voucher scheme, although we do not want to use that anyway, for various reasons. We have to be careful to take into account all the costs that are involved.

We need to consider that costs might be higher at the beginning and then decrease. The figure of 17.6p comes from our review at six months of delivery. That might decrease as we move forward and work more with local partners, develop more appropriate schemes and understand needs. The representative of the on the ball campaign talked about boxes of products sitting around. That happened because there is a learning process to find out what is needed in particular areas. As we move on, we will not have boxes of products sitting around, because the provision will be more appropriate to what is required. However, we need to be realistic about the costs at the moment.

We want the provision to be universal and available everywhere, but we need to do the costing carefully. If we start worrying about the costs, we should think of the costs of not doing it, and what we are losing in terms of productivity, which we have heard about. We need to balance those issues, and we need to be realistic.

Alexander Stewart

So the costs that are in the bill appear not to be realistic in the short term, although potentially things may improve in the medium and long term.

Councillor Evison

In our experience, in the first six months, the cost was 17.6p per unit. We must be realistic. We want to make this happen, but we have to be realistic about the cost.

Kenneth Gibson

Most of my questions will be for Carolyn Hope, and not just because I am a representative of North Ayrshire but because North Ayrshire has the most experience and has been leading on the issue. North Ayrshire has about 2.5 per cent of Scotland’s population, so one would think that it would be fairly easy to extrapolate the costs. In the past year, how much has it cost to deliver the service? I did not see that figure in your submission.

Carolyn Hope

We spent roughly £55,000. There has been a change in some of the feedback that we have had about the products, which goes back to what Alison Evison said about the situation changing. When we started to provide free products in North Ayrshire, we had a lot of heavy initial set-up costs for rent, vending machines and so on. However, those costs came down in the second year, because a different framework was available for us to use.

We are thinking about the longer game and hoping that costs will come down over time, because we are promoting reusable products. That work is in the very early stages in North Ayrshire. We are unsure about how that will pan out and about whether costs will come down, but we hope that they will. Students and pupils are keen to move in that direction, but there is also a wee bit of a fear factor about reusable products, and we need to have conversations about that. I am optimistic that there will be a reduction in costs, because we are using more reusable products.

We have a bit of education to do with senior primary pupils. It is important to get in touch with them and to have conversations about the range of products that are available as soon as we can, so that when pupils move into secondary school it will perhaps be more of the norm to use reusable products. The market is continually changing. Different products are going out, and prices will change.

I echo what everyone has said about it being difficult, at this stage, to say what the costs will be. We will need to continually review the funding levels that are available and how we can work better with other partners to provide a more efficient service. I am sure that we will all be keen to do that in order to maximise our funding and ensure that it goes out further to people who need it most.

Kenneth Gibson

North Ayrshire Council has been a trailblazing local authority on the issue, and it is important that its experiences are shared with COSLA and others so that other local authorities do not need to reinvent the wheel. You talked about vending machines being in cubicles rather than in toilets, which is very important. I do not know whether local authorities are planning to do this, but it might be possible to roll out the service to primary schools, because girls menstruate, on occasion, before they go to secondary school.

In its submission, North Lanarkshire Council says:

“Fluctuations in usage is evident across the secondary school estate however the average uptake based on the number of female pupils for the last school year was 45%.”

What is the level of fluctuation? That is really important, because I imagine that there will be differences in relation to the socioeconomic backgrounds from which schools draw their pupils. The council says that 45 per cent of pupils use the service. Does that mean that 45 per cent of pupils use it routinely, or does it mean that 45 per cent of pupils have used it, with some girls dipping in and out? It is important to try to get as much information as possible so that the Scottish Government can provide the appropriate funding.

Carolyn Hope

That was a pretty crude figure. We looked at the number of female pupils in the school and at how many months we had products in vending machines. We looked at how many products were used over the full year, and there were huge fluctuations, as you said. However, across the nine secondary schools that we looked at, the overall uptake equated to 45 per cent. At the top of the range, there was huge usage—120 per cent—in some schools, but the usage in other schools was as low as 20 per cent.

More work is needed involving talking to girls in schools about why there is such fluctuation in the local area, what the needs are and whether we are getting it right with the products that we are offering. Different schools want different products, so there might be low uptake because we have not got the products quite right in the school. There also might not be a huge need in a school because of the economic situation in the local area. As a local authority, we need to do some of that digging.

Kenneth Gibson

Do staff in the schools take a uniform or an autonomous approach to the issue? We are talking about a range between 20 per cent and 120 per cent but, knowing North Ayrshire as I do, I do not think that the socioeconomic disparity is quite that huge across that area. What role is played by the approach that staff take? We want to get that right as the service is rolled out to more and more schools across Scotland.

12:00  

Carolyn Hope

I agree. There is a stronger case for us to be working more closely with our education partners. Within North Ayrshire, facilities management—my service—is a key driver for the provision of the products and the communication with the school. We need more of a buy-in from the education department in order to have more open conversations with the schools to facilitate that. In January, we will work with education to conduct some more working groups—recently, the department has been more forthcoming in that regard, which is positive.

We have done a lot in North Ayrshire, but we cannot stop there, because there is a lot more that we can do. Sharing best practice with colleagues in other organisations is the way forward, because everyone has different ideas and things work differently in different areas. I support what Alison Evison said about local design. The pupils and communities are telling us locally what they need, and we need to respond to that because, if we do not, they will not use the service and there will continue to be a gap.

Celia Hodson

I want to make a point about vending, because that is an interesting part of this. Nobody wants to walk up to a vending machine and make it go, “clunk, clunk”, and get themselves two plastic pads. Getting two plastic pads in a cardboard box from a vending machine is not the most environmentally responsible thing that you could do. It is also expensive—that, together with the stigma and the noise, puts people off using a vending machine.

If you start to not take a vending-machine approach, you can make a wider range of products available. Also, the usage will go up but the cost will come down, because you will not be tied into a contract that involves expensive vending machines. That is an interesting shift that will start to come through in some of the statistics.

Kenneth Gibson

Earlier, we heard that products are now being placed in baskets in toilets, which normalises things. That is important.

I have a question about rurality. My constituency, in North Ayrshire, includes the islands of Arran and Cumbrae. Carolyn Hope talked about distributing these products not only in secondary schools but in 12 libraries and 29 community centres. Have you found any differences in uptake in the rural and island communities as opposed to the mainland and urban communities? In Orkney, how does the uptake in Kirkwall compare with the uptake in the more outlying island areas?

Carolyn Hope

Arran high school has a 118 per cent uptake, which is one of the highest rates. We also supply baskets to primary schools, and some of the primary school headteachers in Arran have requested more products. It seems that there is a slightly higher demand in Arran—the statistics certainly show that, and, anecdotally, that is what we hear from the headteachers and education partners.

Gail Anderson

In Orkney, we are in the process of evaluating the service, but we have had repeat demands for products from our island communities. At the moment, all that I can say is that the situation seems to be equal across the communities—that is anecdotal, however, as our evaluation is just beginning and we do not have actual figures yet.

We have taken great pains to make the products available in all those areas. As far as we are aware, the uptake is uniform across Kirkwall and the mainland and in our outer isles.

Councillor Evison

There was mention earlier of posting the products to rural areas that have issues with accessing the service. Many local authorities have huge reservations about whether that is possible. Many local authorities do not post anything at the moment, so doing so would require the setting up of a whole new administration system from scratch, which would involve huge costs. When we talk about widening access in our rural areas and islands, we should be thinking about working locally in areas through pharmacies, pubs or other such places where people can access the service. That is a better approach than posting things out, which might cause problems.

Kenneth Gibson

I completely share your concerns on that issue. During the break between our panels of witnesses I was speaking to other committee members who share that view, and I think that we should discuss it formally.

It seems to me that posting products would open a door to the scheme being bureaucratic and highly expensive. People in rural areas sometimes have to have food and other supplies, such as pharmacy items, delivered. However, having period products posted out—especially if it were to be done on request—could significantly increase the scheme’s costs, which would place a disproportionate burden on those being asked to deliver the products. I do not know what other panel members think about that aspect, but I am certainly quite concerned about it.

The Convener

We need to move on.

Kenneth Gibson

Indeed. I have no more questions; I am just making a comment. I am not sure whether any other member wants to add to that.

Graham Simpson

I want to stick to the question of costs, which I think is the big issue here. The bill would create a scheme that would impose costs on public authorities and other public-facing bodies. The public-facing bodies are not named, so we do not know what they might be. My understanding is that there could be up to 120 of them in Scotland, but I have no idea what might actually be included under that heading. However, it is clear that the bill would impose costs on each and every one of them.

Section 8, which Mr Wightman referred to, says:

“The Scottish Ministers may make such payments as they think appropriate to the ... councils, bodies, persons and education providers obliged by or under this Act”.

The key phrase there is “as they think appropriate”. I can foresee there being an annual stand-off between councils and the Government—a situation with which you will be familiar, Councillor Evison. If such a scheme were to be set up, I can see councils or universities saying, “We need £X”, and the Government saying, “No you don’t. We are going to give you £Y”, which would be lower, so there would be a gap.

Is section 8 fit for purpose? Clearly, it does not tick the box that you want to be ticked, which would make the scheme fully funded.

Councillor Evison

We need such a scheme to be fully funded. That is important. You referred to the possibility of an annual stand-off over the appropriate funding level. If we are all working with the same aim in mind—that is, working within the terms of the national performance framework to develop schemes that we want to deliver between us—that aim should be to fund the scheme fully. We need to ensure that that is the way forward. If we share the aim and want the same outcome, surely it should be appropriate to fund such a scheme for our communities.

We also need to think about the costs of not fully funding the scheme, such as children missing out on their education and people leaving the workplace. Such costs are very hard to quantify. We have heard various figures, such as the figure of 96 per cent of people going home because they do not have the resources that they need at work. That situation exists, and if we are concerned about productivity, educational opportunities and equity, such a scheme needs to be put in place.

Graham Simpson

Would anyone else like to comment?

The Convener

There seems to be agreement on that across the panel.

Councillor Evison, you said that such a scheme needs to be put in place. By that, do you mean that everything that is in the bill as drafted needs to be put in place? You have said that the scheme should be fully funded, but if the required funding turned out to be much more than the Government felt that it could afford, that would be difficult. What exactly do you mean when you say that the scheme has to be put in place?

Councillor Evison

This conversation is about looking at the bill and analysing what can be done to strengthen it.

The Convener

It is indeed.

Councillor Evison

We question some of the bill’s provisions—in particular, the idea of a voucher scheme, which would involve costs in putting it in place and administering it. We consider those administration costs unnecessary, because a voucher scheme would not be the best way of delivering what we want the bill to deliver.

We want access to period products to be universal. Getting even the minimum amount of information from people—such as their names and addresses—would create a barrier to universal provision of such products, because people would feel that they did not want to give that information.

We already have problems with free school meals in relation to whether—for various reasons—everyone who is eligible takes them up. The voucher scheme would be in danger of creating such problems as well. It would not achieve universality; requiring even a minimum of detail for a voucher scheme would put people off and create a barrier.

The Convener

To be fair, that was not the question.

Councillor Evison

The point was about the bill as it is, and we would like to see things such as that amended. That was the point of the question.

Graham Simpson

My question on section 8 was about the phrase

“Scottish Ministers may make such payments as they think appropriate.”

Presumably, you are saying that that is not strong enough. If it is not strong enough, we need to know what the cost is, which we do not seem to know. You quoted a figure per unit that is way higher than the figure that is in the financial memorandum accompanying the bill. In addition, the Scottish Government has its own figures, which are higher than those that are in the financial memorandum. Therefore, the figures are disputed. We are here to make good law.

Councillor Evison

I also said that the figures that we have are for after the first six months. In addition, several of us have commented that there are ways of bringing the figures down over time. They will not necessarily be that high in future, because, as the scheme develops and as we learn, we will change what we do.

I also made the strong point about local development and local organisation in relation to how the scheme is done. If it is done at the local level, the money will be far more effectively used, because we will address need in a local area taking into account local circumstances. Such localism is key to addressing what might seem to be huge costs.

Annabelle Ewing

Good afternoon, panel. I have listened carefully to all your interesting contributions. I know that we are running out of time, but I want to pick up on the cost issue that was just discussed.

I do not want to paraphrase—if I do so incorrectly, please jump in—but it seems to me from what Councillor Evison said that she does not think that the financial memorandum is 100 per cent realistic. Is that a fair assessment?

Councillor Evison

I said that our figure of 17.6p per unit is for the first six months.

Annabelle Ewing

That is not the price-per-unit basis that is used in the financial memorandum, which is 9p. That is a quite a diversion. Very briefly, do the other panel members consider that the financial memorandum is not 100 per cent realistic, or are they happy with it?

Sheena Stewart

I will give some further figures from HE. At the 12-month point, our average price per product was 19p, which is—obviously—adrift from the initial assumptions. On the provision in the bill about placing products in every facility, in some campuses, there will be key facilities, and if that provision were to be rolled out to every toilet, the costs would increase. Those are the two elements from the HE perspective.

Carolyn Hope

It is a moveable feast, and so it is hard to pinpoint the costs at the moment. I mentioned how much we spent last year, but that is based on all things being equal. We may increase or change that provision as we move forward; we will continually adapt it. That goes back to my point that it is difficult to pinpoint the costs. Obviously, the figures that we put out are, perhaps, more operational and realistic at this point in time; however, they are subject to change. It is difficult.

Annabelle Ewing

I take that point. However, at the end of the day, the bill will have the provisions that it will have, subject to parliamentary approval, and in turn they will have cost implications. You are all saying quite clearly that you expect the money to come from somewhere else, and so a figure will have to be arrived at. I take the point that it is a moveable feast and that things can change over time. However, I presume that, if one were coming at it from the perspective of local government, one would err not on the side of costs going down in relation to the ask of central Government, but on the other side.

It is a fair point to make as a matter of rationality, but as a matter of budgetary practice, it is probably not the way that local government would proceed in its discussions with central Government. As such, it is important to ascertain a realistic figure, because somebody has to find the money, which has to come from somewhere. If it is being spent on the scheme, it is not being spent on something else.

Sheena Stewart made a really important point. If we take the financial context into account, what is the priority for the bill? I raised that key issue with the previous panel. At the moment, the bill has a very wide potential scope. The cost of the bill is unclear, but what we hear is that it will be much higher than the financial memorandum leads us to believe. That begs a fundamental question: what is the scheme to be, within a cost envelope that can be afforded and is sustainable? As the bill undergoes parliamentary scrutiny, might COSLA contribute to the debate by coming up with a more realistic figure? I am looking at Alison Evison.

12:15  

Councillor Evison

You first asked what we are trying to do. The overall purpose of our work on the scheme is to create period dignity. That is why the scheme is so important. In doing that, we will open the doors to educating people and to getting them to participate better, longer and in more diverse ways, such as through dance and physical education. We are looking at greater productivity in our workplaces. People will be able to concentrate on their work if they are not worrying about the product that they do not have in their bag the minute they need it.

As you know, the bulk of council funding—85 per cent—comes from the Scottish Government, so that is where we will look for funding for the scheme. We cannot possibly fund it ourselves from other resources.

You asked whether we have come up with any figures—

Annabelle Ewing

Are you planning to look at the figures in more detail?

Alison Evison

The figures that I have quoted are for the first six months. We have another meeting tomorrow, when the second stage of analysis will begin. We heard about Carolyn Hope’s experience in North Ayrshire, and how the issue is a moveable feast as things change and as we get better at assessing local need. That takes us back to the issue of working with local partners, which means that the scheme will be far more appropriate to an area and the cost will come down.

We need to be realistic about what the scheme could cost, and ensure that funding is available. We also need to review what we are doing. However, if we are working locally to address local need, what we are looking at is entirely possible. In fact, as I have said, the scheme is crucial in terms of education, equity and better productivity. It is therefore crucial to economic development, inclusivity and all the things that we are working towards through the national performance framework.

Gail Anderson

The partnership’s view is very similar to that of my colleagues on the panel. We feel that it would not be possible to participate in the scheme if the Government chose not to fund it. Many organisations face a challenging financial situation that would make it difficult to deliver the scheme in the manner in which it should be delivered.

Another point is becoming clear through the conversation. Many of us are reviewing the scheme and gathering information and have not yet had the opportunity to analyse properly the cost, the benefits and how the scheme could be improved. Without that information, it is difficult to make clear statements about the cost benefit implications of the scheme, its financing and the effect on people’s dignity. We are maybe at too early a stage to provide a clear response, because we do not have enough information.

The Convener

I suggest that it is not a case of the Government not funding the scheme, but of the Government not knowing what it is being asked to fund. To be fair, it is early in the process, so at this stage the Government cannot make such a decision.

Celia Hodson

I want to pick up on the cost per unit. We won the Scottish Excel washroom solutions contract. As you will know, those contracts are won predominantly on price, and then on environmental impact and service. Our unit price is 7.5p for a pad and 9p to 13p for a tampon, so I am not quite sure where the other costs are coming from. If local authorities used the washroom solutions framework, that would instantly bring down the cost of the products.

Our products are environmentally sustainable. We have to give costs and choice, but in a pack of 10 well-known branded products there is the equivalent of four or five carriers bags of plastic. We are eradicating one problem and creating another for ourselves. We need to look at sustainable biodegradable and environmentally friendly reusable products, rather than buying whatever people used to buy.

Kenneth Gibson

That is a really important contribution. I think that we are talking about two different issues in relation to cost. There is an issue about setting up that involves ensuring that the areas where the products will be available are fully fitted-out. The on-going cost is likely to be less, because it will involve replacing only what is used. Over time, there will be a much more accurate reflection of the cost of uptake.

Carolyn Hope mentioned a cost of £55,000 in the past year. What was the set-up cost? You had to get all the stock initially. It might be that the Scottish Government will have to make a one-off payment of several million pounds to roll the scheme out across Scotland, but after that the figure might be closer to what the financial memorandum says.

Carolyn Hope

You are right; the set-up costs are heavy. Much of that came from installation and rental costs of free-vend machines, which we are trying to move away from. We were tied to a vending-machine contract that we are now coming out of. That is where we see cost savings coming through. Our costs were heavily weighted towards installation and rental, so I am confident that they will come down. We will just be replenishing and will be looking at alternative products.

Kenneth Gibson

You are not putting a figure on that. Obviously, we hope that other local authorities will learn from what has happened in North Ayrshire and will move to a different system. Are you saying that the initial cost in the first year was higher than it will be in subsequent years?

Carolyn Hope

Yes.

Monica Lennon

I congratulate North Ayrshire for being a trailblazer and for getting out of the traps early. We all appreciate that there were initial heavy costs in going first without support, but we can see that need is being met.

Many of the witnesses have talked about a rights-based approach, and about trying to achieve equity across Scotland. I take Councillor Evison’s points about localism being absolutely key. The way in which the bill—which is a framework bill—has been drafted leaves a lot of prescription to come later, through dialogue with partners. Is that the right approach?

Alison Evison

COSLA thinks that that is the right approach. Schemes must be designed locally. Schemes that are effective in addressing local need will have been designed locally and will have involved the people. We have seen the brilliant effects of pupils having been involved in designing systems in their schools. The learning and understanding from that, and the contribution of that discussion to reducing stigma, have all been great. If we design a scheme locally, we bring in local partners. Someone mentioned food banks, and we have talked about community centres. Designing a scheme by involving all kinds of different people is the way forward. That is crucial to us as a principle for the bill.

Monica Lennon

Does the rest of the panel agree that the benefit of legislation is that we can future proof the rights and build on the good practice that already exists?

Carolyn Hope

I think so. The bill places a duty on people to make provision. That is something that we do not have now, so it is a massive step forward. We are reliant on other organisations doing it voluntarily. Locking in that duty will benefit a huge number of people and the impact will be immeasurable; I do not think that we will ever fully understand it. The local arrangements that are in place now are great. They are a positive step, but we recognise that there is lots more to do. The way forward is through legislative duty.

Celia Hodson

It is important that collection is from a regular place. If a person goes to their local library for pads, a dependency is created because they know that they can get their products there. If, after six months, that provision just stops, where do they go? It is important that provision is written in and continues so that we can support communities.

The point about local delivery is fantastic. The community champions—the women who drive around with their car boots full of menstruation products and deliver them to leisure centres, citizens advice bureaux and young mums groups—are absolutely amazing.

Sheena Stewart

In higher education, we are supportive of the bill’s aims, with the caveat that I mentioned earlier about funding. We are fully behind the need to eradicate stigma and the barriers that we know prevent people from fully taking part in education.

Gail Anderson

I agree totally with my colleagues. We welcome the flexibility and scope for localism, which is really important. In the spirit of subsidiarity, decisions on local criteria for the scheme should be devolved to local bodies. For island communities, an impact assessment of the bill, if one has not already been done, would come to that same conclusion.

Monica Lennon

Another point that was raised by a couple of members and the panel, and in some of your written submissions, is that the bill provides that ministers could extend the duty to other public bodies. Sheena Stewart said that your students are not a homogeneous group, and that you have, for example, nursing students out on placement, so there is a challenge in getting products to them. I noticed that, in the Hey Girls submission, Celia Hodson picked up on the fact that the duty could extend to health boards. At the moment, there is an informal policy commitment from Government, but you have said that provision of free products in health boards is still uncommon and is often not supported by a budget commitment. That is an option for the Scottish ministers, so is it important for other public bodies, including the national health service, to do that? In my research, health boards said that they do not have a policy and that some nurses give their own products to patients. Do nursing students on placement struggle to access products, too?

Sheena Stewart

It should be borne in mind that nursing students on placement go to a variety of clinical settings, some of which will be public NHS and some of which will be private sector. Under the scheme, universities allow provision to take place in a variety of ways, but I do not have detail of the range of ways. The university ensures that students have products whatever the setting, because we cannot guarantee that they will always be in public sector settings.

Carolyn Hope

I would echo that. In my preparation for our submission, I spoke to North Ayrshire health and social care partnership. Its community link workers told me that they in local general practice across North Ayrshire they increasingly get requests for period products from patients, but there is no provision in GP surgeries. The community link workers asked me how they could access the provision that my service has for North Ayrshire. The sad story is that some of those employees have been buying products to give to patients. That should not be the case, and hits home on how big the problem. We do not really see it all—we just see the people who are brave enough to speak out and say that they need the products and do not have the means to get them. We have been helping to signpost people to where products are available in various buildings in North Ayrshire. There are a huge number of public bodies out there that could make a big difference.

The Convener

We must come to a close, so can you make answers brief please?

Alison Evison

I will be quick. It makes sense to develop place-based approaches to make every public body deliver, because people do not see a difference between a local government area and a health service area.

12:30  

Monica Lennon

I was in Aberdeen on Monday and spent time with Community Food Initiatives North East, which led the Government pilot scheme. I went back on Monday and people were queued up at the food bank, which was very distressing to see. However, on a positive note, CFINE is very proud of the work that it has done. There is interest not just in Scotland, but internationally. When that project began, CFINE was inundated by journalists from all over the world who were looking to Scotland to see what we are doing with the legislation. Councillor Evison talked about the cost of not passing the bill. What message would it send out if we, as the Scottish Parliament, were not to pass the bill?

The Convener

Will you ask a question relating to the bill? Leave the press releases for later on.

Monica Lennon

If the bill is not passed, what message does that send?

Alison Evison

We have perhaps already answered that. In terms of education and workplace productivity, the cost of not passing the bill would be huge. The benefit of increasing dignity is also huge, so in that sense, we need to do it. That is a quick answer.

The Convener

We will finish there. I thank the panel very much for their time and their useful responses. Gail—I hope things were okay for you in Orkney.

Gail Anderson

They were absolutely fine, thank you.

The Convener

Thank you for your patience.

12:31 Meeting continued in private until 12:55.  

The Presiding Officer (Ken Macintosh)

Our next item of business is a stage 1 debate on motion S5M-20756, in the name of Monica Lennon, on the Period Products (Free Provision) (Scotland) Bill. I call Monica Lennon to speak to and move the motion in her name.

14:47  

Monica Lennon (Central Scotland) (Lab)

This debate is possible only because we are standing tall on the shoulders of previous generations of feminists, trade unionists and equality campaigners. Because of them and today’s activists, we have the chance to pass pioneering legislation on free universal access to period products. Too often, this Parliament is defined by division, disagreements and discord, but the bill shows what Parliament can do when we put aside our legitimate political differences and work together.

Women and girls are too often left behind in the political process. This is a chance to put them first and to do something that is truly groundbreaking on gender equality. The bill will ensure free universal access to period products for anyone who needs them, and it will place a duty on schools, colleges and universities to make free period products available in toilets. Menstruation is normal; free universal access to tampons, pads and reusable options should be normal, too. Period dignity for all is not radical or extreme, but is simply the right thing to do.

Evidence shows that one in five women across the United Kingdom will face a struggle to access period products at some point in her life. The public consultation on my bill attracted 96 per cent support for the proposal.

I am proud that I played a part in the introduction of free period products in the Parliament building. MSPs, staff and visitors to Holyrood benefit from that and do not have to worry about being caught short.

The public want period equality, too. Today, campaigners held a rally outside Parliament, asking MSPs to vote for the bill. Grass-roots campaigning has sparked a culture-changing movement. We see that with the trailblazing “On the ball” group, which has persuaded football clubs to put free period products in their toilets. The group is part of a growing coalition of more than 50 organisations that endorse the bill and the principle of universal free access to period products. To all those campaigners I say, “Thank you.”

The bill will be subject to further scrutiny if it passes stage 1. I will be happy to work with colleagues from across the chamber on amendments to strengthen it.

Already, the bill has been shaped and influenced by women, girls, trans people and non-binary people from every corner of Scotland—not as passive observers, but as architects of the kind of Scotland in which we want to live. We should be proud that our citizens, especially our children and young people, are politically engaged and passionate about equality. I have worked with people from all parties and none, and I have learned from them all, especially during times of disagreement. I hope that those lessons have made me a better MSP.

I led Parliament’s first-ever debate on periods, in 2016. I want to repeat tributes that I gave then, to Gillian Martin and Women for Independence, which includes campaigners Julie Hepburn and Victoria Heaney. Success has many mothers, and I am delighted that Victoria addressed the rally today and is in the gallery.

Gillian Martin shone a light on domestic abuse being one of the hidden drivers of period poverty. Her influence on the Government spearheaded a pilot scheme in Aberdeen. Angela Constance deserves credit for leading that work, when she was Cabinet Secretary for Communities, Social Security and Equalities. I went to Aberdeen to meet Dave Simmers and the phenomenal team at Community Food Initiatives North East, which ran the pilot.

In Aberdeen and elsewhere I have heard personal stories that have motivated me. A change in circumstances can quickly push anyone into period poverty. People sharing that they have had to rely on food banks for period products so that their children could have food to eat, or that they missed college because they could not afford both a travel ticket and a tampon, are not easy conversations.

I record my thanks to everyone who shared their experiences with me and with the Local Government and Communities Committee. I am grateful to the committee, and to the clerks, especially for outreach work with communities and young people. I was disappointed that the committee was split in its decision, with a majority of members exercising caution over some aspects of the bill and not recommending support at stage 1.

I am eternally grateful to the non-Government bills unit staff, who have been on this rollercoaster journey with me.

I thank my wonderful team, especially Kirsty-Louise Hunt, who has worked on the bill from the beginning, and who was not able to fully celebrate her birthday yesterday because of preparations for today. I wish Kirsty-Louise a happy birthday.

Back in 2016, when I first raised access and affordability issues with ministers, my questions referred to “feminine hygiene products”. Journalist Daniel Sanderson, at The Herald, spotted the questions on the Parliament’s website, and called me to ask where I was going with them. Ministers at that time had advised that no work was planned on access to period products, or on stigma, but had confirmed their awareness that food banks in Scotland often provided sanitary products. I told Dan that I believed that action was required, and that I had reached out to organisations including the Educational Institute of Scotland, Scottish Women’s Aid, Engender and the Trussell Trust, which all agreed with me.

It is good to look back on that time and to see how far we have progressed together. Since 2016, my language has evolved away from “hygiene” or “sanitary” products. Overall, discussions are much more inclusive and focused on dignity.

Cross-party working has been key: 51 MSPs from all parties signed the final proposal for the members’ bill. In particular, I want to thank Jackson Carlaw, the new leader of the Scottish Conservative Party. He has worked across and beyond party lines to fight for women who have been injured by mesh, and he approached my bill with the same desire to do what is right. I was grateful when he signed the members’ bill proposal back in 2018, and for his firm support in recent weeks when it looked as though the Scottish Government might not back the bill, at this time.

However, the Scottish Government has taken big strides since 2016. I congratulate ministers for working with a range of partners to roll out free period products in education settings and in many community venues. Aileen Campbell, the Cabinet Secretary for Communities and Local Government, should feel very proud of the work that she and her team are committed to, and are leading on, and I look forward to continuing to work with her on our shared objectives.

We have strong foundations to build on. The First Minister has put on record that access to period products should be a right: I agree with the First Minister. The bill provides a legal framework that will give ministers a considerable degree of flexibility to design the scheme through regulations, and to work in consultation with partners. Of course, no one will be required to take free period products; however, if a person needs them, they will be cost free and reasonably easy to access.

We must get on and do this, because we have constituents who are worried today about where their next pad or tampon is coming from. I firmly believe that Scotland can be proud of our actions so far, and of the fact that our intentions mark us out as a global leader on period equality. The world is willing us to go further, and to back the general principles of the Period Products (Free Provision) (Scotland) Bill tonight. I am proud to move the motion in my name.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Period Products (Free Provision) (Scotland) Bill.

14:55  

James Dornan (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)

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.

Neil Findlay (Lothian) (Lab)

Will the member give way?

James Dornan

I am just about to close. I will take an intervention if I have the time.

The Deputy Presiding Officer (Linda Fabiani)

I can give you the time.

Neil Findlay

How did James Dornan feel when Murdo Fraser’s member’s bill was included in its entirety, without having been through any consultation, in the legislation that included provisions on parking?

James Dornan

I am speaking as convener of the Local Government and Communities Committee. Given that we are talking about the Period Products (Free Provision) (Scotland) Bill, I should concentrate on it. That was a red herring.

I am proud of the report that the Local Government and Communities Committee has produced. It is honest, well produced and absent of all political bias. It is for that reason that tonight, I will abstain on the motion on the bill.

15:03  

The Cabinet Secretary for Communities and Local Government (Aileen Campbell)

I am immensely proud that Scotland is a world leader on providing access to period products. Thanks to this Government’s actions, without waiting for legislation, we have invested about £15 million to make free period products available in our schools, colleges and universities; in community settings, such as libraries, community hubs and grass roots sports clubs; and in services that are most likely to be accessed by people on low incomes. We are reaching more than 530,000 women and girls through this groundbreaking work right across the country, so that roughly a third of those in Scotland who menstruate now have access to those products for free, thanks to our actions.

Free products are also increasingly being made available by public bodies—including this Parliament, which was one of the first to take action—and also by the private sector, with football clubs, pubs and construction companies making products available for staff and visitors. That is set to increase, and the momentum should be welcomed as an outcome that we can all be very proud of. We are going to acknowledge that outcome through the introduction of period-friendly certification.

We are also working in partnership with FareShare to ensure even wider availability, specifically for those on low incomes. Our £1 million investment in the past two years has allowed FareShare to buy products to distribute through over 800 partners and it is also supporting community development workers in FareShare’s four hubs to work with grass-roots organisations to break down barriers and address stigma and embarrassment.

Access to free period products through FareShare and its partners is through a variety of routes, including food banks, support groups, advice centres, family centres, hospices and care homes. I heard how valuable the service was when I visited one of FareShare’s hubs last year. One beneficiary said that

“getting free products has been a godsend and a weight off financially when we are already struggling on benefits”.

That comment highlights that many of the people we are supporting are in need because of austerity and the benefit cuts introduced by the Westminster Tory Government and that, once again, the Scottish Government is having to step in to support those families as poverty makes it difficult for them to meet their basic needs. This is one of many measures that we are taking to mitigate those cuts, including the investment of £110 million in the next financial year to protect people from those cuts.

We have also supported local authorities with the provision of products and they have been able to decide where to place products based on local knowledge and local need. One local authority identified locations in which to provide access to free products, including libraries, community centres, leisure centres and churches. Each partner received a box containing products, a poster with financial support information, and a digital code for restocking. In another authority, products have been placed in a range of places where there is high footfall and in locations that are likely to be accessed by those who may need the products most, including the jobcentre and places that host community fridges.

One of the concerns that I raised with the committee is about the need to ensure that the flexibility that we have given to local authorities is maintained so that the delivery of local provision is right for each community. That is one of three major concerns with the current legislation that I have continued to highlight. The other concerns are around the cost and the actual design of a scheme to deliver on the proposed right to free products.

Many who support the principle of legislation are strongly opposed to the preliminary procedure for delivery that is proposed in the bill. Despite that, no alternative suggestion for a different delivery route for the national scheme that is mandated in the bill has been proposed. Extensive work carried out by Scottish Government officials over the past two years suggests that that is because it is almost impossible to devise one that is not overly bureaucratic or costly.

My third main area of concern is that the proposed costs have been significantly underestimated. As I outlined to the committee, the Scottish Government’s best estimate of the cost of delivering a universal scheme, as proposed in the bill, is an annual cost of £24 million—over two and a half times the cost estimated in the bill’s financial memorandum. As members know, if the Parliament agrees to the bill at stage 1 today, the Scottish ministers will be expected to introduce a financial resolution to allow the bill to move to stage 2. However, as Monica Lennon said when giving evidence to the committee, it is impossible to say definitely what uptake would be. We would have to introduce a financial resolution before we knew what the delivery of universal free access would look like and, by extension, how much it would really cost. I therefore welcome the committee’s conclusion that more work to clarify the potential cost is needed and I will seek agreement across political parties on the detail to allow us to better estimate costs before lodging a motion for a financial resolution.

Monica Lennon

I thank the cabinet secretary for the tone of her speech so far. It is important that we continue to work together. North Ayrshire Council launched free provision in schools a year before the Government scheme rolled out nationally and, in oral evidence to the committee, the council official talked about the savings that had been made because they had become more efficient and there was less bureaucracy. That gave me hope that we can continue to learn and improve. Does the cabinet secretary acknowledge that?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

There is extra time available if you need it, cabinet secretary.

Aileen Campbell

Thank you very much, Presiding Officer.

I know about the fantastic work that is being done in North Ayrshire. I visited Ardrossan academy to see some of the good work that is being done there. It is being led by the headteacher who has created a culture that allows those who need support to get it and to be treated with the dignity and respect that they deserve. That work is changing the culture, not just for the generation of pupils who are going through that school, but for generations to come, and is all the better for it.

In my evidence to the committee, I was clear that we believe that the financial memorandum underestimates the costs. What we stand to lose through the lack of flexibility could prove to be costly. We will have to work together to try to find a way through that, because there is no getting away from it that the costs that the Government is incurring now are more than the costs that are set out in the financial memorandum. That is just a fact. We will need to work through that and, if we want good legislation, a lot of hard work and endeavour will be required to make sure that the bill is fit for purpose.

It is clear that as a Parliament, across the political parties, we are collectively committed to ensuring that everyone who needs to access period products can do so. We should always remind ourselves of that. We have made huge progress in the past few years, and while we know that delivery of our policies is still in the relatively early stages, we are clearly seeing a change in culture. That has been recognised by the committee. We must ensure that the good practice that is already in place is not lost through the introduction of legislation, and that any scheme is workable and deliverable, does not have unintended consequences and offers value to the public purse.

I sincerely thank Monica Lennon and the wider stakeholders who have been so visible in this campaign for the work that has culminated in the introduction of the bill. I also thank the Local Government and Communities Committee for its careful consideration of the bill. The committee and the Scottish Government have made their concerns clear and I have made it clear that legislation could slow our progress and could prove to be costly. In the spirit of this debate and in pursuit of good legislation, Parliament will now need to pull out all the stops and work hard on the bill, collectively and collaboratively, so that it achieves everything that we across the chamber want it to, and to enable our country to emerge through this and continue to set an example that the world wants to follow.

I am proud of our work so far, although I want to make sure that we can protect it by working together across the chamber, so that we have a bill that all of the Parliament can be proud of and that we secure a legacy for generations to come.

15:12  

Graham Simpson (Central Scotland) (Con)

I associate myself with the words of Aileen Campbell. I agree with every word—well, most of what she said; not quite everything.

I congratulate Monica Lennon on her work on the bill, on her tireless tweeting and on managing to persuade all parties to go against the committee’s recommendation that the bill should go no further. I have known Monica for what feels like a long time—probably for both of us. When we were both councillors in South Lanarkshire, she was as quiet as a mouse, but not now

I have treated the bill as I treat any bill: with an open mind and a great deal of diligence about what is in front of us. What looked to be fairly straightforward has proved to be anything but. I have swayed between thinking that the bill had some legs, to thinking that it should go no further and was not required. I remain to be convinced about it, but my party leader, Jackson Carlaw, who was mentioned previously, was ambushed on Facebook, so here we are. I have been informed of the error of my ways. If only I had briefed him in advance.

It would be easy to say that because of what the Parliament is about to do, we might as well rip up the committee’s report; that we might as well not have bothered to take any evidence or to do any work. However, the Parliament is entitled to disagree with a committee’s conclusions and there has been great value to our work on this subject. I have certainly found the whole thing educational.

I represented the Local Government and Communities Committee at a meeting with the Scottish Youth Parliament in Dunfermline. I thank all those who attended that meeting for their keen interest in the bill. Three of us also met groups in Perth. That led to one of our recommendations, which I will come to.

The bill would become

“An Act of the Scottish Parliament to secure the provision throughout Scotland of free period products.”

Section 1 of the bill says:

“Everyone in Scotland who needs to use period products has the right under this Part to obtain them free of charge.”

Loads of questions arise from those opening lines alone. How? At what cost? Why everyone? Where? What products? What quality? After that, the bill really starts to unravel. My big concern was picked up in the committee’s report. It described the bill as

“legislation that would impose a duty on, as yet unidentified, public bodies which would have a cost but would not compel the Scottish Government to fund it, should it choose not to.”

In other words, bodies such as councils would be saddled with spending that might or might not be covered by the Government. That could be bordering on irresponsible when councils are making cuts in core services.

The bill requires the Government to draw up a scheme to implement that universal provision, but it would apply only to the public sector. To be fair to the Government, it has pretty much done that already without the need for legislation, and it is surely only fair to see how that works. Monica Lennon was not happy with that, though.

The committee’s other concern was that we have no idea at all about what any of it would cost. There is a huge disparity between what Monica Lennon said and the ludicrous figures that have been quoted by the Government.

Alex Rowley (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)

I know that, across the country, people have been writing to members of the Scottish Parliament—they have certainly contacted me—to say that they want what has been proposed to happen and that the situation is absolutely unacceptable. Somebody recently said to me that, if it was men who needed those sanitary products, they would have been free years ago. There is real support for the bill in the country. Do all MSPs not have a responsibility to try to work our way forward not just to approve the bill at stage 1 but to ensure that it becomes legislation and that Scotland leads the way across the world? [Applause.]

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Those in the public gallery should not show appreciation or otherwise in any of the proceedings of the Parliament, please.

Graham Simpson

Nobody in the Parliament disagrees with what Monica Lennon is trying to achieve. The question is whether the bill is the right approach. The committee asked legitimate questions; that is the committee’s job, and that will be our job at stage 2. That is what we are here to do.

I did my own, unscientific, research into costs. I asked family members about their use of period products and checked the costs in supermarkets. It was clear to me that tampons and pads are not expensive. They are extremely affordable to most women, and somebody could quite easily get their monthly supply for under £5—although I fully accept that everyone is different and that people have varying needs. Monica Lennon accepted that most women can afford the products that they need. If that is the case, we would be entitled to ask why we need a universal scheme.

Monica Lennon

Will the member give way?

Graham Simpson

No. I am coming to an important bit of my speech.

When the three of us committee members visited Perth, I had my eyes opened. I asked what people were paying every month and a very impressive young lady who suffers from endometriosis told me that she pays £50 a month. It struck me that, if somebody suffers from a medical condition that makes them bleed a lot, there is an argument that they should be able to get the products that they need on prescription. The committee accepted that, and I am delighted that the Government is looking at how that might be implemented. That would supply period products to those in most need.

Through the committee, I also asked whether there was legislation on providing toilet paper. The Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 say that toilet paper should be provided in workplace toilets and that, in women’s toilets, there should also be suitable means for the disposal of sanitary dressings. It seems to me that a simple tweak to that regulation could add in the requirement also to supply sanitary products in women’s toilets. That would be in all workplace toilets. We have asked colleagues in Westminster to look at that and I encourage the Scottish ministers to take that up with Westminster as well, or investigate whether that change can be made from here.

Monica Lennon rose—

Graham Simpson

I will take an intervention if I can get the time back.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I can give you the time back.

Monica Lennon

I thank Graham Simpson for his contributions and for his work on the committee. I wonder whether he agrees that we have to be careful that, in asking questions and setting criteria, we do not ask women to prove that they bleed enough or that they bleed in the right way in order to receive an entitlement to any product. Although I am glad that there is recognition of a range of medical conditions that can make periods more difficult, we need to make sure that we are not asking women, or anyone, those very personal questions about how much they bleed, how often and how long for. Women have told us that they are embarrassed by those questions, and that is why a universal approach is the most dignified way forward.

Graham Simpson

One thing that should come out of this debate is that people should not be embarrassed about talking about those issues. If women have a particular medical condition, which endometriosis is, surely that should be tackled medically. If they need products, those should be available on prescription. It is absurd that somebody should have to fork out £50 a month and not have that covered by prescription.

Monica Lennon rose—

Graham Simpson

No. I am almost finished.

As we head to stage 2, I say to Monica Lennon that the committee has a huge job to do. We must work with her. If we are going to make laws, they must be workable and necessary. I am afraid that at this stage the bill is neither. It will be for the committee to knock it into shape—if that is possible.

15:21  

Pauline McNeill (Glasgow) (Lab)

Scotland is on course to introduce the world’s most comprehensive legislation on free period products. That is thanks to Monica Lennon and her supporters, members of this Parliament, the equality movement and all those who have stuck with the issue from the beginning.

I say to James Dornan that most of the bills that I have scrutinised have had loads of amendments, and I do not really see why this one would be any different.

James Dornan

Will the member take an intervention?

Pauline McNeill

Not yet.

The Tories are giving very mixed signals as to whether they support the general principles of the bill, and I was astonished at some of the arguments that Graham Simpson used—I have never known Jackson Carlaw to be ambushed by anyone or anything.

I want to talk about breaking the taboo of periods, not just dealing with their cost to women and girls. Mr Simpson says that women should not feel embarrassed, but women on all sides of the chamber will tell him that not being able to talk about their health has been an issue for generations of women. I will say something about that.

We might disagree, and I accept that the committee must scrutinise the bill closely, but I hope that the tone of the Tories’ contribution to the debate will change. If it did not, that would be a tragedy. I whole-heartedly welcome the change of heart that the Government has made in supporting the bill—Aileen Campbell, who gave the reasons for that today, should be congratulated—albeit that we will discuss the bill’s serious and legitimate implications as we go forward.

It is a shock to every young girl when she finds out that her body is going to change as she enters puberty and adulthood—even more so when she finds out that her period is going to arrive every month. That is life altering for most women. A new form of pain and discomfort arrives in the form of the blood and moods, and, although everyone is different, there are many associated health issues. Whether women have endometriosis, get pregnant or are not pregnant, there are implications for women’s health.

In many countries, young women are not told about their periods and are frightened when they have one for the first time. Sheh was 15 when she bled for the first time. She thought that she was sick and confided in her aunt, who told Sheh’s mother. Her mother said, “You are a woman now.” She lives in a small village near Delhi, in India, and she now works in a sanitary pad factory in that small village. A documentary has been made about the campaign in which students crowdfunded for a pad-making machine.

The taboo around periods still exists around the world. In the rest of India, periods are still a taboo topic and, in some countries, menstruating women are still considered to be impure and are barred from entering religious places. They are often also excluded from social events. In Nepal, nearly eight out of 10 girls in the Mid-Western region still sleep in dangerous outdoor menstruation huts during their periods, and, when women are on their periods, it is forbidden for them to take part in a range of everyday activities. We are talking about a global issue of equality. I should say that, after a string of high-profile deaths, the practice in Nepal was criminalised in 2018.

The need for the bill in Scotland is apparent. All the written submissions to the committee recognised that period poverty is an issue in Scotland. It is an issue of poverty.

Sandra White (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)

I am not on the committee, but I have read the bill and I absolutely agree with what the member says about period poverty. However, does the member agree that a number of amendments need to be made to the bill? For example, I am concerned about the proposal for a voucher system and the fact that a person must provide sufficient proof of their identity, which is addressed in section 3. I see a lot of homeless people in the streets, and I would hope that they would be able to access the free products, too. Those issues are a bit of a worry for me. Can the member clarify the position on those issues? Might Monica Lennon lodge amendments on them?

Pauline McNeill

That was quite a long intervention.

I agree with the member that there are issues with the registration schemes. However, this is a stage 1 debate in which we are discussing the general principles of the bill. As is the case with every bill, every member is entitled to lodge amendments, and I would like there to be a fuller discussion of the point that the member raises.

For me, the case for universal provision is worthy of consideration. With tight local government budgets, we must be convinced of any need for a universal benefit, but I was particularly swayed by the witnesses who rejected the suggestion of any kind of registration scheme. They argued convincingly that any such scheme risked stigmatising those who are least able to afford period products. Unite the union pointed out that those who need free products are the ones who are almost guaranteed not to ask for them. They are embarrassed and depressed by their situation, and they are the ones who are least likely to register. That speaks to Sandra White’s point.

What does the bill do? First, it places a duty on Scottish ministers to ensure that period products are available free of charge on a universal basis; secondly, it requires education providers to make period products available free of charge in toilets on site; thirdly, it enables the Scottish ministers to place a duty on other specified public bodies to provide free period products.

If ever there was a time to recognise that women and girls have not been encouraged to openly discuss the fact that they menstruate, it is now. It is time for the remaining taboo to end. Let Scotland be the world leader in breaking those taboos by talking about women’s health issues, whether they be periods, the menopause or anything else. Let this Parliament at least agree today the general principles of the bill, which concern the universal free provision of period products, and then let us get down to the scrutiny of the bill, as we would with any bill at stage 2.

15:28  

Andy Wightman (Lothian) (Green)

I commend Monica Lennon for bringing forward the bill. She has been campaigning on this topic since her arrival in Parliament and has worked hard to get it to this stage. I also thank members of the Local Government and Communities Committee and the clerks for their scrutiny.

As a member of the Local Government and Communities Committee, I was struck by the widespread support for the principles of the bill on the part of witnesses. I also commend the Government, which has been undertaking work over the past few years. That work has been incredibly valuable, and I commend the cabinet secretary for her commitment on this topic.

I was part of the minority of the committee that did not recommend rejection of the general principles of the bill. The central argument of the majority was that legislation is not required because the executive branch of Government is delivering and because it is too early. On the face of it, that is a reasonable argument, but the bill is fundamentally about the creation of a statutory right. When I asked the cabinet secretary whether she agreed that access to period products should be a right, she was unwilling to provide a straight answer, but she said that a lack of access can inhibit the realisation of other rights such as the rights to education and work.

The Scottish National Party’s position is clear. In an SNP council meeting a year or two ago, the following resolution was passed:

“SNP council ... believes every woman should have access to sanitary products, as of right.”

Reasonable people can disagree on whether that should be a right. However, it is not an argument against creating a right to say that the executive branch of Government is delivering, because the Government does not have the authority or the power to create rights—only Parliaments and laws can do that.

Members of the Scottish Parliament are here to represent constituents, not the Government, and large swathes of people are saying yes to a rights-based approach. The only way that that can be delivered is via legislation that we pass on behalf of the constituents who elect us.

Greens believe that access to period products should be a right enshrined in law. Do we believe that the bill as drafted is correct in every respect? No, we do not, although we disagree with the Government’s argument that the bill lacks flexibility. Some aspects of what is proposed lack flexibility, but they can be dealt with, and fundamentally the bill gives the Scottish ministers substantial freedom to devise a scheme that is as flexible as they wish it to be. Nevertheless, it would be prudent to await full evaluation before implementing a scheme. The 12-month operational target in section 2(4) is probably too ambitious.

James Dornan

Will the member give way?

Andy Wightman

I am just about to close.

We need a statutory scheme that underpins the existing work, that provides a guarantee to the public that access to period products is, indeed, a right and that puts it beyond doubt that that is the will of the Parliament.

Today’s vote is on the general principles of the bill, and Greens support the general principles of the bill. I have no doubt that difficult conversations lie ahead for Ms Lennon. We wish her well and remain committed to playing our part in seeing the bill get on to the statute book in a form on which we can all agree.

15:31  

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Edinburgh Western) (LD)

I do not sit on the lead committee considering the bill and was not involved in the evidence taking at stage 1, so my involvement up to now has been peripheral. However, I have watched in awe as Monica Lennon has dragged the bill by its bootstraps through the Parliament, and I commend her for that. She has been an inspiration to watch.

It says a lot that Monica Lennon’s debate on period products in 2016 was the first such debate in 17 years of the Scottish Parliament’s history. That tells us something about the stigma that surrounds the issue. Our laws are almost totally silent on this most natural aspect of everyday life for every woman whom we represent. Currently the only explicit mandated provision of sanitary products in Scotland, in law, is for female prisoners. The only other reference to periods in statute relates to the provision of disposal units for sanitary waste in bathrooms. The provision of sanitary products themselves is otherwise entirely absent from the law.

Gillian Martin (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)

The member is right to say that nothing is enshrined in the law. However, does he recognise that Scotland is leading the world in the provision of period products for those who need them?

Alex Cole-Hamilton

Nothing in my speech is incompatible with that proposition; I recognise it and I salute the Government for it.

As Monica Lennon said, the bill is not about hygiene; it is about human dignity. I am proud to have supported it from the outset, when I was a signatory to the bill proposal. The bill asserts that access to sanitary products is a basic human right—a necessity and not a luxury. It also carries a secondary policy aim that is most welcome, which is to end the silence and stigma that surround menstruation, removing gender barriers and creating a more equal society.

It is estimated that a woman in Scotland will, over her lifetime, spend approximately £5,000 on tampons, pads and other sanitary products. On any given day in Scotland, there are 1.3 million women in the age group in which menstruation is likely. This is not a peripheral issue and the statistics speak to the universality of what is proposed, which I will speak about.

Poverty in Scotland is growing—there was an increase of 2 per cent in 2017 alone. So, too, is period poverty. The manifestation of that reality is striking. It is estimated that nearly 13,000 girls missed a day of school in Scotland last year because they were not able to access or afford menstrual products. Research by Plan International shows that 17 per cent of girls have struggled to afford period products and 12 per cent have been forced to improvise period products, due to affordability issues. The same research shows that 49 per cent of girls have missed school because of their period and 64 per cent have missed a physical education or sports lesson. Again, that speaks to the stigma around the issue.

Three quarters of people who were surveyed by the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations feel that it is necessary to hide sanitary products at work. The hope is that this legislation will help, as Engender put it, to normalise periods and the discussion around periods, and work to end workplace-based period stigma.

It should be normalised, because when we boil it down, sanitary products are a staple of female human existence. It is no coincidence that across Scotland, tampons and sanitary pads are seen as a necessary staple in food banks. Just yesterday I visited North Edinburgh Arts in the Muirhouse area of my constituency, which is one of the most deprived communities in Scotland. It is not a food bank, but it has a sharing shelf with DVDs, foodstuffs and a dedicated section for sanitary products. Such organisations realise that sanitary products are about more than hygiene—they are about dignity, social mobility, body confidence and mental health.

I welcome the Government’s movement on the bill. It is now finally in step with the 96 per cent of people who, in responses to the consultation on the bill, expressed support for the proposal as a whole. Those people recognise that period poverty disrupts the everyday lives of women and children. In some instances, it prevents them from attending work or school, which affects their individual rights, including their right to education.

Those who lack frequent access to sanitary products through period poverty are more likely to use a product for longer than the recommended usage time. That puts them at a higher risk of experiencing toxic shock syndrome. Although that is a rare condition, it can be life threatening. Between 2007 and 2016, 67 women in Scotland were admitted to hospital with toxic shock. For me, that is the most harrowing reality related to this issue.

Notwithstanding such extreme examples, the bill will have a cost benefit for the national health service because it will reduce hospital admissions, other medical appointments and prescriptions. The arguments that we have heard in the debate about endometriosis are, I believe, unanswerable. If a person has a condition that makes them bleed uncontrollably, the NHS should step in.

Monica Lennon

On that point, one of our areas of work has shown that endometriosis is very difficult to get a diagnosis for; in fact, on average, a diagnosis takes about seven and a half years. Does Alex Cole-Hamilton agree that, given that people can wait a long time to be believed or to get a name for their condition, a universal system in which women could opt in would be preferable to limiting benefits to people who have been diagnosed with that condition?

Alex Cole-Hamilton

I absolutely agree, and that point brings me nicely on to the universality of the bill. If we do not make provision universal, and if we rely on people getting a diagnosis for endometriosis or fitting a set of social criteria, we will simply replace one stigma with another. We need to recognise this as a basic human right; it is about basic access to dignity. As such, universality is an essential part of the bill.

I can see that my time is up, but I will say this: not being able to keep oneself clean and to keep one’s clothes unsoiled adds a level of degradation to poverty that this Parliament has the power to remove. Period poverty can compound social isolation, economic inactivity and poor mental health. However, the bill is about so much more than removing a highly embarrassing and stigmatising barrier to work, employment or socialisation. It is about normalising discussions around menstruation in a public policy context. The bill, and the work that underpins it, are about fundamental human dignity, and we applaud Monica Lennon for it.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

We move to the open debate. I remind all members and their respective groups that, if a member is taking part in a debate, they should be here for all the opening and all the closing speeches.

15:38  

Angela Constance (Almond Valley) (SNP)

Given that the move to provide access to free period products is grounded in tackling poverty and gender inequality, I will be very proud to support the general principles of the bill tonight. I look forward to hearing more from both the cabinet secretary and Ms Lennon about how we can all work together to iron out the issue of deliverability.

These days it is fashionable to label the consequences of poverty. We have food poverty, fuel poverty, funeral poverty and, at the heart of today’s debate, period poverty. However, at the end of the day, the grinding struggles and indignity of living with low or no income, of navigating one’s way through a punitive benefits system or of paying over the odds for rent and heat is just plain, old-fashioned poverty.

If we are to end poverty—irrespective of how it might be labelled—folk need to have enough money to live on, and they also need not to be ripped off over their essential living costs.

I want to put the period poverty debate in the broader context of ending poverty in this country, given that everyone in the Parliament unanimously supported legislative targets to do so. It is not easy for any Government to end poverty—indeed, as yet, no United Kingdom Government has met that challenge. With devolution, there can be different choices, albeit that, sometimes, those are limited and come with strings attached.

Consequently, we need to be forensically clear about which actions and investments will lift people out of poverty by dealing with its causes and, in contrast, which ones will address only its consequences. To meet our targets to end child poverty, the overall thrust of our endeavours and investments must be to lift families and young people out of poverty. The overall thrust of the bill, as it is currently drafted, is to address the consequences and not the causes of poverty, because it will not reduce the growing numbers of people who live in it. Nonetheless, supporting the bill is the right thing to do, because, quite simply, it aims to makes life more bearable, protect dignity and reduce inequality.

However, if we are to progress with the bill—which I hope we will do—we will need to do so with our eyes wide open and acknowledge the challenges that, together, we will need to face. For example, the bill’s financial memorandum attributes a cost of nearly £10 million per annum to the scheme, but the Scottish Government estimates it to be £24 million. The reality is that we do not really know, because there are still so many questions to answer about the final scheme.

However, more fundamental questions concern where the money should come from and who should pay. What I am about to say might alienate half of the Government, but I will say it nevertheless. I do not want to see our Cabinet Secretary for Communities and Local Government being forced to make a choice between addressing period poverty or feeding hungry weans, or our Cabinet Secretary for Social Security and Older People having to take money from hard-pressed families or disabled people, or our Minister for Local Government, Housing and Planning having less to invest in warm, affordable homes. Therefore we all need to help ministers to protect the budget lines that tackle poverty, which might mean our accepting reductions elsewhere.

It is to the Government’s credit that it did not sit back and wait for legislation on this subject to be introduced; instead, since 2017 it has invested £15 million in a wide range of world-leading activity that is now reaching half a million people.

I concede that I have an attachment to the issue from my time in the Government, when I took the ball from public health and kicked it on to the park as a gender equality and poverty issue. I have to say that, in large part, I did so because of lobbying by Gillian Martin and Monica Lennon. From my experience at that time, I also know that issues of deliverability are genuine. Measures that we might imagine to be comparatively simple—such as voucher schemes—are hideously complex and costly to implement.

If we focus collectively on principles and pragmatism, we can get the bill into shape for stages 2 and 3. In saying that, I mean absolutely no disrespect to Monica Lennon. It is not always easy to put rights into practice and deliver them in the real world. However, we have learned much from the successful Aberdeen pilot and the initial scheme’s implementation in schools, colleges, universities and community settings. Giving local authorities, voluntary organisations and other partners the flexibility to deliver the best local solutions will be key to meeting our national priorities.

The best argument for the bill is that it could lock in and build on the progress made thus far. Although it will be a magnificent moment—or, as Ms Lennon put it, a “pioneering” one—when Scotland becomes the first country in the world to pass such legislation, I want us to keep close to our hearts the women who most need such support, including those with medical conditions such as endometriosis.

There is a strong argument for our national health service, as well as local government, being part of any statutory framework—if it is good for the goose, it is good for the gander.

We need to keep close to our hearts the 320,000 women of menstruating age who live in poverty after they have paid housing costs, because we are reaching only 11 per cent of such women now. The barometer of our success should, at its core, be how we support those women with the consequences of poverty.

15:45  

Alexander Stewart (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)

I am delighted to take part in today’s stage 1 debate, and I am pleased to congratulate Monica Lennon on her endeavours with the bill.

It is absolutely right that no one should find it difficult to access sanitary products due to poverty. The real questions are whether the bill is the right way to address inequality and whether a universal scheme that is underpinned by legislation is the right approach.

Over recent months, the Local Government and Communities Committee, on which I sit, has taken evidence from many individuals, and I commend them for that evidence. I am grateful for the support that we received during our deliberations.

We will support the general principles of the bill at stage 1, but we have some real concerns about the practicalities of its provisions and the specific type of scheme that is proposed. We will seek to address those concerns—I have no doubt that they will be addressed—through discussion and debate at stages 2 and 3. Although my party and the Scottish Government have now decided to support the general principles of the bill at stage 1, despite having some reservations and there being previous opposition, there remain some concerns about the deliverability of the scheme. The period products scheme that is set out in the bill is ill defined.

The bill would give the Scottish ministers significant control over which scheme was implemented and over its delivery. Although ministers sometimes need to be afforded an element of flexibility for practical reasons, given that the scheme is integral to the aims of the bill, it is important that we are clear about how any scheme would work in practice. As it stands, the bill leaves too much to be dealt with later, but I am sure that those issues will be dealt with during stages 2 and 3.

Many women can afford to purchase their sanitary products. Although the majority will continue to do so after the introduction of the scheme, there could be a cost associated with providing products to those who can afford them. We do not want that to happen, because the bill is meant to help and assist. As one contributor to the committee’s report said:

“those who most need the free products are the ones who are almost guaranteed not to ask for them.”—[Official Report, Local Government and Communities Committee, 18 December 2019; c 18.]

It is therefore clear that there are some problems with a universal scheme that require to be ironed out. We need to go beyond simply providing free products for everyone. We also need to ensure that the support that is provided addresses the associated stigma and tackles the root causes of poverty relating to sanitary products.

There is a lack of understanding about which public bodies will be required to supply period products, and it would be unwise to pass a bill that has such a wide scope. Will it be only schools that are required to provide period products for free, or will the requirement apply to all council-owned buildings, to leisure and arts facilities that are run at arm’s length from councils, to general practices or to hospitals? We need clarity on those issues.

We have no guarantee that there will be a funding uplift from the Scottish Government. In that vein, there seems to be genuine confusion about the cost of implementing the scheme. The financial memorandum that accompanies the bill mentions a unit price of 9p, despite the fact that that would allow only certain products to be provided. Individuals have said that they want a range of products to be provided, and the financial memorandum, which suggests a cost of £9.7 million, does not cover that. As we have heard from the cabinet secretary and others, £24 million might be required.

Monica Lennon

The 9p unit cost of pads and tampons was drawn from the earlier Aberdeen pilot scheme, which has been referenced. The member will recall that Hey Girls, which is a key partner, also gave a similar figure at committee.

I accept that people have genuine questions, and I hope that, when we get to stage 2, we can have more discussions on those points.

Alexander Stewart

I think that the whole process needs to be clear, because of the difference in cost per unit, which Monica Lennon is right to identify. That issue could be looked at and the matter ironed out as we progress.

Without that clarity, there is a real concern about what the scheme would cost and who would end up paying for it—or not, as the case may be. COSLA came before the Local Government and Communities Committee and made that point in its submission on the bill. It is very mindful about where the financial burdens would lie—they would fall on public bodies and local authorities—and wants to ensure that the proposals are fully funded directly by the Scottish Government. If that does not happen, councils will simply have to make cuts in other service delivery areas to compensate. We do not want that to be the case.

It is important to note that the Scottish Government has made significant progress on the issue. We need to recognise that and commend it.

Although some councils have introduced their own free sanitary product schemes, all will soon be required to make sanitary products available in schools. Additional funding has already been made available to support some free sanitary products at colleges and universities.

As Graham Simpson said, the Scottish Government, with clinicians, is looking at how people with conditions such as endometriosis could use prescriptions to access period products. That is very much the right way to go.

Monica Lennon should be congratulated on her work and in particular on raising awareness about the negative effects that inadequate access to sanitary products can have on individuals’ mental and physical health, as has been indicated to us by women and girls.

Period poverty is inexcusable. The bill and the issue more generally require careful consideration, which is why we support the general principles of the bill at stage 1.

15:52  

Neil Findlay (Lothian) (Lab)

I am delighted to speak in the debate and to continue to offer my support to Monica Lennon’s bill. I have supported it from day 1, as have a number of colleagues across the chamber.

This is a very important bill. It is about health and wellbeing, women and girls, men and boys, equality, education, dignity, decency, and the type of society that I want to live in and that I want us all to live in.

Since coming into the Parliament, I have been astonished by how we deal with issues to do with our personal health, reproductive health and women’s health. When I got involved with the mesh campaigners, we could get not get anyone, including journalists, to listen to what the women were saying. Back in the early days of the campaign, I remember calling a press conference that two journalists turned up to. When I asked a senior journalist why they did not come, they said, “Well, we just don’t want to talk about women’s bits.” Actually, they did not use those words—I am too polite to say how they described it. That was in 2012.

One thing that the bill has done is break down the barrier of our inability to discuss such serious issues about our health and wellbeing in the media or in public without embarrassment, reticence and discomfort. It has allowed people to talk about the issues without embarrassment or stigma, which is a very good thing.

It was absolutely fantastic to see male industrial workers from Unite the union—members of my own union; I see some of them in the gallery—out there campaigning on period poverty. Long may that continue. They have been joined by a wide range of organisations, including football clubs and supporters groups, Engender, the Scottish Youth Parliament, the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland and NUS Scotland, building a very broad, very effective coalition in support of the bill.

Progressing a member’s bill is a big task. A number of us have done it, so we know how hugely time consuming it is. I recall that, way back, my then researcher Tommy Kane and I had a conversation with Monica Lennon, in which we encouraged her to take the matter forward as a member’s bill. As we move forward today, I am pleased that we had that conversation. Her parliamentary team—Kirsty-Louise Hunt, Alyson Laird, Lynsey Hamilton and Correne Fulton—must be given great credit. We all know that parliamentary teams do tremendous work behind the scenes, but getting a member’s bill to this stage is a very big task, and they have played a blinder.

I am pleased that political realities kicked in last week and that the Tories and the Scottish National Party have come on board. When I heard arguments about cross-border tampon raids, I knew that the case against the bill had evaporated—I am pleased that it has.

Aileen Campbell

Will the member give way?

Neil Findlay

Yes.

Aileen Campbell

I want to put to bed the spin about the so-called “tampon raids”. Will the member acknowledge that Monica Lennon’s bill, which we had a duty to respond to, raised the issue of preventing abuse? Section 4(7) states that further provision made by the Scottish Government

“may include measures to ensure that a person may not obtain quantities of period products that are greater than reasonably commensurate with the person’s use of them.”

We responded to section 4(7) and said that such measures would be disproportionate to the cost of the products.

Neil Findlay

I will take that point for the record. When that came out in the past week, we knew that opposition to the bill had evaporated.

I believe that universal provision, funded by progressive taxation, is the best way to provide public services. No one who saw “I, Daniel Blake” could fail to be moved by Katie’s plight, when she was forced to steal sanitary towels from her local shop because of her poverty. If we claim to be a civilised society, we should not have people resorting to such levels of indignity. Maybe when we pass the bill, we can move on to eradicating food and fuel poverty and, ultimately, homelessness. We would then really become a civilised society.

Arguments have been made today that the bill is just so complicated, that we will never be able to do this—that we will have to work so hard to do it. We have a universal health service, universal education and universal benefits, we provide universal baby boxes and free prescriptions, and we can put men and women on the moon—yet people are suggesting that, somehow, this is just all too difficult. It is not all too difficult. We can easily—

James Dornan

Will the member give way?

Neil Findlay

No, thank you. Let us not bring Mr Dornan back into the equation.

It is nonsense to suggest that this is all too difficult. I will happily work with anyone in the chamber; I always make that offer. We can take the bill forward and introduce a progressive scheme that deals with the indignity of period poverty and makes the Parliament shine.

15:58  

Annabelle Ewing (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)

I am pleased to speak in this stage 1 debate. As a member of the Local Government and Communities Committee, which is excellently chaired by its convener, James Dornan, I have had an opportunity to reflect in detail on the important subject of period dignity and access to period products. It is important to place the debate in the proper context of the world-leading action—which we have heard about—that our SNP Government has already taken to address the issue.

We have seen the roll-out of free period products in our hospitals, schools, colleges, universities, and community settings including libraries and local sports clubs. Notwithstanding inaccurate media reports to the contrary, that is the Government’s position. There is, of course, no means testing for access to the products. Considerable sums of money have been expended in support of roll-out: as the cabinet secretary said, £15 million has been spent since 2017.

I think that we all recognise that the non-legislative route has, to date, facilitated speedy delivery and—which is important—flexibility to respond with delivery that reflects how things are working on the ground and what could be done better. The non-legislative route has allowed roll-out to take place apace, and has ensured that more than half a million women across the country have access to free period products. That is a tremendous achievement by the Scottish Government, and is very well done.

The Scottish Government should also be commended for working hard to address, at the same time, the important issue of the stigma that attaches to periods, which has been mentioned by members. I welcome the current “Let’s call periods, periods” campaign in that regard, which is doing a power of work to break down that stigma.

That is where matters currently stand. Thanks to the efforts of our cabinet secretary and SNP Scottish Government, Scotland is a world leader in promoting period dignity and access to period products.

How does the bill fit into the comprehensive network of action that has been taken? That is what the majority of the committee members had concerns about. First, there is concern that this so-called framework bill is, in fact, a bill without a framework. Secondly, a number of the key premises that underlie the bill—for example, the voucher-scheme delivery mechanism that Monica Lennon currently proposes—do not appear to have much support. Sandra White raised some obvious concerns about proceeding down that route.

Thirdly, of particular importance is the total lack of clarity about costs, with Monica Lennon having suggested, as we have heard, annual costs of around £9.7 million, whereas the Scottish Government has suggested that costs are likely to be in the region of £24.1 million per annum. Hence, notwithstanding that every member of the committee supports the intention of the bill, the majority of committee members feel that more work is needed to clarify the final costs before legislation should be contemplated.

Curiously and rather worryingly, on the key issue of costs, in these times of great Tory austerity, Monica Lennon suggested at committee that the moneys to pay for what is proposed could simply be shaved off something else. I asked Monica Lennon at committee what was the something else that was to suffer, but I did not get an answer. Her current approach does not appear to reflect her admission at committee—this is what she said verbatim—that actually

“most women and girls ... can afford”—[Official Report, Local Government and Communities Committee, 15 January 2020; c 4-5.]

period products. However, that approach does not appear to be the one that she is currently pursuing.

Since publication of the committee’s report on 5 February 2020, many comments have been made. I have listened to the voices of young women who have expressed strongly the feeling that, at the end of the day, the signal that is sent is of paramount importance, and that the signal can be delivered only by way of legislation. I, for one—as the Deputy Presiding Officer might recall—well understand the importance of legislation as a signal.

On that basis, I will support the general principles of the bill at stage 1. However, I note that not to reflect on the significant concerns that have been raised about the bill in its current form would serve no one. Those concerns must be allayed in the work that is to come. I am up for that work and hope that Monica Lennon and, indeed, other members of Parliament are, too.

The Deputy Presiding Officer (Christine Grahame)

I remind members that there is some time in hand, if they want to extend their speeches a little. I call Annie Wells, to be followed by Gillian Martin.

Ms Wells, please. Oh—there you are.

16:03  

Annie Wells (Glasgow) (Con)

I know I am wee, but come on.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to talk about how we ensure that everyone has access to sanitary products. First, as other members have done, I record my thanks to Monica Lennon for introducing the bill. She deserves credit for all her fantastic work in getting the bill to this point.

The evidence is that we need to do more to make sure that no one is denied access to sanitary products through poverty. Across the UK, one in 10 girls cannot afford to buy menstrual products. Plan International UK’s survey on period poverty found that one in seven girls has struggled to afford sanitary wear, and that one in five girls has changed to a less suitable sanitary product due to cost. Girlguiding Scotland’s “Girls in Scotland 2018” survey report stated that 13 per cent of girls aged 13 to 25 knew a girl of their age who had experienced period poverty. So, we know that there is work to be done.

I and a number of Scottish Conservatives have supported the aims of the bill from its early stages. It has support among our councillors in Glasgow, Edinburgh and across Scotland. They have signed a letter calling on all MSPs to back the bill. They note that the bill will be an important step towards normalising menstruation and helping to end the stigma around periods.

In particular, I pay tribute to Lauren Bennie, who is one of our activists in the Glasgow Conservatives. She has consistently pushed the issue within our party and has fought to make sure that we support the bill. Lauren has organised support and has worked hard to bring the Scottish Conservatives to this point. I am delighted that we have in our party people like Lauren who are so willing and enthusiastic to stand up for what they think is right.

However, we have concerns about the practicalities and the type of scheme that is proposed in the bill. The Local Government and Communities Committee did not support the general principles of the bill for several compelling reasons. Its report stated that although committee members are unanimous in their support for the intentions that underpin the bill, they are not persuaded that legislation is required. Their concerns also focussed on the lack of clarity around the true costs of a universal scheme, and what that scheme would look like.

Concerning the voucher scheme, the committee noted that such a scheme could create stigma and an additional barrier to access, and it does not support that as a method of accessing products. As we have also heard, Unite the union said that

“those who most need the free products are the ones who are almost guaranteed not to ask for them. They are so embarrassed and depressed about their situation that they are the least likely to register.”—[Official Report, Local Government and Communities Committee, 18 December 2019; c 18.]

There are also concerns about section 6—about passing legislation that would impose on additional, as yet unidentified, public bodies a duty to provide products, and the cost of doing so. The Scottish Government would be expected to meet the cost, but the exact figures have proved to be difficult to establish. The written submission from the Scottish Government said that the financial memorandum’s stated cost of £9.7 million for delivering the scheme was significantly underestimated. Its own calculations showed, as we have heard, that estimated product and delivery costs, on the same uptake levels, would be about £24 million. That is a significant difference. The majority of committee members are concerned about that disparity on costs, and about the fact that there is little clarity, at this stage, on what the scheme would ultimately cost if the legislation were to be passed.

While COSLA supports the overall aims of the bill, it, too, has concerns about the cost. In a written submission, it stated:

“the full cost of delivering the intent of the Bill maybe significantly higher than outlined in the financial memorandum.”

It is also worth acknowledging the work that has already been done by the Scottish Government. Its scheme has ensured that millions of free sanitary products are available in schools, colleges and universities across Scotland. It is very positive that every local authority is taking part, and that extension of the scheme beyond term time and into the school holidays is being sought.

At UK level, we are seeing similar progress. This year, the UK Government announced a new scheme to give pupils easy access to period products at schools and colleges. The scheme is about making sure that young people do not miss out on lessons because of periods. However, it is also about breaking down stigma, which I think is just as important.

I am pleased, therefore, that there is consensus across Parliament at this stage, and I look forward to trying to improve the bill so that we can send a message that no one in Scotland should go through period poverty.

16:09  

Gillian Martin (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)

What a long way we have come. We have a substantial squad of period dignity warriors; some of them are in the public gallery, some of them are in the Parliament, and lots of them are out in civic society. Collectively, there is no one person who should be congratulated for doing all the work in the area; it is an endeavour that has crossed parties and society. A lot of people should be giving themselves a pat on the back, not least Monica Lennon, who has pursued the bill.

Annabelle Ewing talked about sending a “strong signal”, and the very fact that we are talking about period dignity in our national Parliament sends a strong signal that goes a long way towards breaking the stigma and taboo around periods, which is just one of the issues that women and girls have to deal with in their everyday lives.

I am really proud of the work that we have already done to address the lack of access to period products in this country. I am hugely proud of it, and it has all happened very quickly in the past three years. When I entered this Parliament, one of the first things that I did was arrange to meet Government ministers to explore how we could expand on our manifesto commitment to provide period products in all education settings in order to address the gaps in our society where women have limited access to these products, which are fundamental to our health, self-esteem, hygiene and dignity.

As was mentioned earlier—Andy Wightman alluded to it—my colleague Julie Hepburn and I worked to put in place policy and delivery mechanisms around the policy motion that we tabled at SNP national council on a targeted measure that would mean that anyone who had periods could access products. As we took the arguments to Government, we had huge help and support from colleagues in Women for Independence, Scottish Women’s Aid and beyond. I believe that some of the colleagues who helped me with that work are in the public gallery today.

We based our idea on a scheme similar to that for access to condoms, but with an s:card rather than a c:card. We took that to Government to start the discussion, and I pay tribute to my colleague Angela Constance, who, in her speech, was characteristically modest about the work that she did. She, along with her officials, worked hard to explore the policy ideas and mechanisms that Julie and I brought to her. As we had those discussions, we very quickly found that the s:card would be administratively onerous and expensive. However, the Government did not shut the door on us but worked with us to find better ways of achieving our overall goal of ending period poverty. I thank Aileen Campbell for the substantial work that she has done to deliver on that early work, taking the CFINE pilot—which Ms Constance oversaw—and rolling it out across the country with great success.

I firmly believe that, as a result of those mechanisms, virtually no woman or girl need go without period products. We are already world leaders in this area. I see the delivery of that policy in my constituency, where women and girls can go into a wide range of community spaces—not just schools—and find the products that they need at no cost. I also think that privately run public spaces have followed on voluntarily as a result of our talking about the issue and opening up the conversation around periods, which we should all be very proud of.

Moving on to the bill, I have to be honest and say that—as Monica Lennon knows—I remain unconvinced that legislation will achieve the goal of ending period poverty, and I worry about the lack of delivery mechanisms in the bill. If I thought that legislation would work, I might have pursued it myself. I was really interested to see what Monica Lennon would come up with in answer to some of the delivery problems that I encountered. I am slightly concerned about the costs, which others have mentioned, and the lack of delivery mechanisms in the bill. I am also slightly worried that our looking at those issues could slow down the very effective measures that have already been put in place by the Scottish Government. I hope that that will not be the case.

Nevertheless, I believe in the general policy intent and in the general principle that everyone who menstruates, regardless of their circumstances, should have access to these essential items. As some members have mentioned, it is not just about poverty; domestic abuse could also be a barrier for people. It is for those reasons that I will support the bill at stage 1, but with a view to lodging a number of amendments to it at stage 2, which I hope will tackle some of the significant and substantial concerns that the committee has. I look forward to seeing what changes Monica Lennon makes to her bill in the light of our discussion of the issues in this debate and the committee’s report.

As someone who has taken a member’s bill successfully through the Parliament in their first year, I am under no illusion about how hard it is to draft legislation that will stand up to scrutiny and, more important, that will provide a sound platform on which to deliver its goals. It is very easy to come up with a good idea; it is much harder to put it into law in a way that delivers. Ms Lennon has pushed on with legislation, and I took another path that has led to half a million women now having access who previously did not. The Government has delivered on that commitment.

There is merit in putting something in legislation to prevent future Governments from policy change or budget commitments that would reverse good work. However, as members across the chamber know, laws, too, can be changed—we saw that recently when the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012 was reversed. Nevertheless, I understand the messaging on the call from girls and women for period dignity to be enshrined in law as a fundamental right. It is a good signal to society that we are serious about tackling the issue.

Ms Lennon has a lot of work to do at stage 2 to make the bill achieve those aims, but, if there are still women out there who will benefit from the bill’s proposals and we can fill in all the gaps, it is incumbent on all of us to try to find a way of making that happen. I will not only give my support at stage 1; I will try my best to be part of what will be a team of people to make this work.

16:16  

Elaine Smith (Central Scotland) (Lab)

I thank the Presiding Officer for fitting me in for a short contribution to the debate on the Period Products (Free Provision) (Scotland) Bill, which Monica Lennon introduced on 23 April 2019. It is undoubtedly bold, landmark legislation, which has reminded me of when the Scottish Parliament, in 2004, passed my member’s bill on breastfeeding, which became the Breastfeeding (Scotland) Act 2005. It was the first member’s bill in this new building, and questions about cost were also asked at that time, most notably by the Conservatives. As with the free provision of period products, the legal protection of breastfeeding in public places was important to women’s lives, as voluntary codes had simply not worked. That was why we needed legislation then and it is why we need legislation now on this issue.

In 2004, I said:

“Devolution gave us the opportunity to mould a different kind of politics in Scotland. The success of this bill indicates that this parliament with its critical mass of female members, is capable of operation without the traditional adversarial approach of older parliaments such as Westminster.”

With all parties, if not all members, set to support the bill today, I feel that those words are still relevant.

My bill was originally deemed by the Presiding Officer at the time, David Steel, to involve a reserved matter, but Mike Dailly and I rewrote it to make it deal with a devolved issue, and the Presiding Officer agreed its competence. Originally, tackling period poverty was decreed by some to be a reserved matter, but Monica Lennon has persisted in introducing a bill that is competent and should be supported.

It is vital that the bill will place a duty on ministers to ensure that period products are made available free of charge on a universal basis. Problems with access to period products have a detrimental effect on the health and wellbeing of women—I am talking not just about women with endometriosis but about women with thyroid problems and women at the menopause. Furthermore, some women have very light periods for three days, just because that is how they are, whereas others have heavy periods for a whole week. How are we going to police such differences in prescribing period products?

Plan International UK has referred to a survey in 2017 that found that one in 10 of 1,000 young women had struggled to afford period products. I think that most—if not all—of us agree that that is wrong, but some people have struggled with the concept of universal provision. Universal provision is important because there are too many ways in which women can be missed by targeted provision. They might not be poor enough, they might not have access to their own money or they might work in a male-dominated environment in which no one thinks about access to period products. Whatever the reason, we need universal free provision.

When I visited Malawi on behalf of the Scottish Parliament, I bought period products and pants to take with me, as well as the usual pens, pencils and notebooks, because I had been advised that that was a reason for girls to miss school. It was shocking to find that it was also a reason for girls in modern-day Scotland to miss school. I applaud the fact that there are now free period products in their schools.

Monica Lennon has worked hard to make the case for tackling period poverty and providing dignity and practical help, and she is to be commended for that. I hope that the Scottish Government is committed to making the bill work. I trust that the bill will be improved at stage 2, using all the expertise of the civil service and its knowledge, and that the bill will not be wrecked at stage 2.

I thank Monica Lennon for all her hard work, passion and commitment in getting the bill to stage 1. I hope that, at the end of this process, the legislation gets on to the statute book.

16:20  

Alison Johnstone (Lothian) (Green)

I congratulate Monica Lennon and her team on getting her important bill to this stage; its principles are admirable and it has my support and that of the Scottish Green Party.

The right to sanitation has been recognised as a human right by the United Nations since 2010 and that right obliges Governments to ensure that their citizens can enjoy clean, available, acceptable and accessible sanitation. If someone does not have access to period products, they cannot have dignified and sanitary menstruation, so access to period products is absolutely key to that right.

Alex Cole-Hamilton and Elaine Smith mentioned Plan International UK, which said that 10 per cent of girls in the UK—in this wealthy country—have been unable to afford period products. For some reason, period products are regarded by some as a luxury—a luxury for which women should be charged. Why is it that, in 2020, toilet paper is seen as a necessity, but period products are not?

Elaine Smith

Does the member agree that period poverty can often mean that some girls have to use toilet paper as a period product, which is shocking in itself?

Alison Johnstone

Absolutely—it is shocking and it is wholly unacceptable. This is so often characterised as a women’s issue, but it is not; it is a social justice issue, an equalities issue, and a rights issue. It is estimated that a woman will, over her lifetime, spend approximately £5,000 on period products. Being financially penalised for a natural bodily function is neither equitable nor just. Being unable to afford or access period products denies women access to education, work, sport and so much more.

The Scottish Government’s efforts to provide period products are hugely welcome, but many individuals—who have contacted all the members in the chamber, I am sure—and organisations such as Engender want this targeted approach to be broadened to meet the needs of all who require access. The experiences of older women, trans and non-binary people, disabled women, women for whom English is not their first language and refugee women, for example, must also be taken into account.

Embedding the principle of access in legislation would mark real progress. It would send the message to women and girls that their health and wellbeing are important and will be protected by this Parliament. On the Bloody Good Period website, an asylum-seeking woman living in London gets right to the heart of the matter. She says:

“It is something that women have to go through every month. It is discrimination, everyone should have access.”

The work done by that website revealed that 75 per cent of the asylum-seeking women it spoke to struggled to obtain period products, often for an extended time.

The bill presents an opportunity to improve the lives of women and girls in a meaningful way. Too many women and girls are being denied a basic human right. The fact that we are discussing this issue in the chamber and the fact that we have been discussing it in Parliament and in meetings and debates for some months will do much to take forward this agenda. I really hope that we bring about a cultural change, and I think that it is fair to say that there are organisations out there that are getting on board.

We need to get to the stage where, no matter where we go, access to these products is something that we take for granted, so that whether we are in a hotel, a restaurant, or a sports club changing room, these products are just there when we need them, because when they are not there, it really hampers our ability to go about our daily life in any sort of meaningful way.

The committee report states that Unite, Engender, Plan International UK and the Scottish Youth Parliament

“agreed that a universal scheme that provides for everyone by right was the best way to meet any gaps in provision.”

Unite said:

“we need one scheme that works, that takes account of the various regional and geographical issues across Scotland and that runs without a hugely administrative or overly complex process.”—[Official Report, Local Government and Communities Committee, 18 December 2019; c 22.]

I am absolutely certain that this Parliament has the ability to deliver such a scheme. It is often said that politics is the art of the possible. This Parliament can commit to work together to deliver a right to period dignity in Scotland.

16:25  

Sarah Boyack (Lothian) (Lab)

I congratulate Monica Lennon and recognise the tremendous amount of work that she has done, not only in bringing this bill to the Parliament, but in helping to open up the discussion about periods and the reality of menstruation in Scotland. The fact that we are openly debating periods in the Parliament and not speaking in hushed tones while we do so is testament to the cultural progress that we have made in removing the absurd shame and secrecy around women’s reproductive health, which has prevailed for far too long, as Alison Johnstone just eloquently said.

There have been a series of eloquent and passionate speeches, which is absolutely appropriate, because this is about how we make progress from today onwards.

I welcome the investment put in place by the Scottish Government to date to support the provision of free products in our education facilities. I am very glad to see that the cabinet secretary has now signed up to helping us to agree to the general principles of the bill at stage 1, so that we can work together to put the current provisions into law and discuss how we build on them.

I pay testament to the fact that, in the run-up to the Scottish Parliament being established, we had a women 50:50 campaign to make sure that women made it into this place. We have had support from men, but the debate has been led by women. We have had women leading in this Parliament. Elaine Smith talked about the breastfeeding legislation, and there has been work on violence against women and access to childcare. We have made sure that these are mainstream issues that deserve funding and are acted on by the Government and supported across the parties. That is what we have seen today. We should all celebrate the effective and tireless campaigning that we have had in the past few weeks, because it has brought us to this point. I hope that the bill will get to stage 2, so that we can make it fit for purpose. As Angela Constance said, we should lock in the progress that we have made thus far.

That is exactly why, alongside Andy Wightman, I committed to supporting the bill as a member of the Local Government and Communities Committee. I have been fortunate to be able to follow the progress of the bill through stage 1. I join others in thanking our committee clerks and the range of organisations that not only gave us written evidence but met the committee to discuss the issue and to give us a reality check on what women’s lives are like now and why the bill is needed. I commend in particular the trade union activists and the Scottish Youth Parliament, who have done so much to bring this issue to the centre of our political debate.

Our committee report states:

“We heard that disabled people, those not currently in education or work, individuals living in rural areas, homeless people, refugees, trans and non-binary individuals and those suffering from mental health issues or in coercive relationships may be most at risk of missing out.”

There is more work to do. When we get to stage 2, we need to make sure that we get a bill that will take us forward. It will not do everything from day 1, but I hope that it will bag the progress that has been made to date and look at where we go next.

I will focus on funding, the voucher issue and the design of the bill. We need analysis of the impact of current schemes, especially in relation to costings. The committee received evidence that different costings were available. We need to learn from the experiences of North Ayrshire, Aberdeen and Hey Girls in making products available to those who need them and to make sure that, where there have been cost reductions, they can be built in.

I was really struck by the sheer cost, which has been mentioned by several members today, including Graeme Simpson. There is an amount that we think is the cost, but then we hear the range of experiences. The fact that we have to have period products in food banks really brings home that this is something that we need to act on.

We need to look at procurement and the types of products. The benefits of more environmentally friendly products have been well articulated. Although those products are more expensive to buy in the short term, they are good for the environment and more cost-effective in the long run. There are funding issues that we need to look at.

I want to pick up on the voucher issue, which one or two members have mentioned. I have certainly discussed that issue with Monica Lennon as we have debated what should stay in the bill and what should go. It is worth reflecting on the fact that the bill does not require there to be a voucher scheme—that is an option that ministers could, but might not, use. They could consider it. It is also not the case that people would be required to provide identification to access products.

We need to consider the details of the bill. I turn to one of the reasons why I was keen to support it. Although there is work to do to get the bill right, it is critical that its design enables the Scottish Government to look at the details of the regulations that come after the primary legislation. Like other members, I have been advised not to put too much detail in a bill because things will be done by regulations, and civil servants and key stakeholders will discuss them afterwards.

Sandra White

I, too, have tried to put bills through the Parliament, and that is very difficult—I take that on board. Sarah Boyack raised the issue of the voucher scheme. The bill mentions a voucher scheme and identification; it says that a person must provide sufficient proof of the person’s identity. We need to look at that issue at stage 2. I realise that Sarah Boyack recognises that, but that has to be mentioned.

Sarah Boyack

Absolutely. If members look at the details of the bill, they will see that the words “Ministers may” are used. How things will be designed is a key issue.

It is critical to listen to the evidence that we have received. Although I support the bill going through stage 1 and reaching stage 2, that does not mean that I agree with every element of it. After today, there is a need for us to get together and discuss the evidence. Getting it right is a tough job for the committee, but I am convinced that we can do it.

We need to challenge one of the things about the design of the bill that has been criticised. Details are left to regulations, and we have a precedent for that. The Transport (Scotland) Act 2005 did that. It gave certain categories of people a right to access free transport, but the details were left to regulations. The role of ministers and civil servants is absolutely crucial, because there is expertise that we all need to listen to. However, not everything goes in the bill.

Over the next few weeks, the critical issue for us will be agreeing what will stay in the bill. Whatever form the bill takes, it is up to us to ensure that it includes the key principle that no one’s dignity is compromised by a service that does not help those who desperately need help and have missed out for far too long. Let us hold on to all the passion that there has been in the chamber today and hold on to the reality check.

Even though we have seen some excellent progress, we are not there yet. We can build on delivery in the country by communities and key organisations. Over the next few weeks, let us pull out all the stops collectively and collaboratively and work together across the Parliament so that we have a bill that we can all “be proud of”—to quote Aileen Campbell’s opening remarks. I agreed with her 100 per cent; that is rare, and that will be in the Official Report. There are times when we in the Parliament can agree on the principles of bills. Let us pass the bill at stage 1, work constructively, look at the evidence and ensure that, when we come back to the chamber at stage 3, we can all agree to the bill because we have amended and strengthened it and put the principles into it. That is the job that we need to do over the next few weeks.

16:33  

Miles Briggs (Lothian) (Con)

Overall, this has been a useful debate. As other members have, I pay tribute to Monica Lennon for all her hard work and passion in campaigning on period poverty since she was elected. I also pay tribute to other members across the chamber who have done that. I welcome to the public gallery and the chamber those who have helped to support Monica Lennon’s campaign and have campaigned for action for some time. It is also important to recognise what all committee members have done to try to take forward constructive work on the bill.

I know from my time trying to move forward Frank’s law and the campaign to end age discrimination in free personal care that building alliances across the chamber is often not easy and that it is often a major challenge for MSPs to get the Government’s attention, get it to listen and to come on side. I pay tribute to Monica Lennon for what she has achieved.

The debate has highlighted issues about non-government MSPs introducing bills to the Parliament. Our non-government bills unit does a fantastic job, but it can provide only limited support to MSPs, who have to do all the consultation—I know; I did that—and use our limited resource to pull together the consultation responses. The debate has highlighted that.

Sarah Boyack gave an excellent speech. It is important that we do not forget that we are at stage 1. This is how our system develops legislation and gets it right and I hope that the debate presents an opportunity. I am pleased to have seen and heard a constructive, cross-party approach emerge from the debate. I hope that we can take that forward at stages 2 and 3, as the bill progresses.

I will use my time to pay tribute to a number of organisations that are leading the work on the issue in my Lothian region. Gillian Martin outlined the progress that has been made. It is also important to put on record the work of some of the supermarkets and private companies that have made things happen on the ground.

The Oxgangs community centre in the south-west of the capital has already taken the positive step of making free period products available to centre users. It has had that in place for some years. I pay tribute to the centre management’s forward thinking in helping to fund and deliver access to period products.

James Dornan highlighted the committee evidence. I know from a number of conversations that I have had with young girls that asking parents or guardians for money for, or access to, period products can often be hugely embarrassing and difficult. That is an important issue to consider as we work on the bill. How do people find out about accessing products that they may still be embarrassed about, even though the products are free and available?

Monica Lennon outlined how the bill will make sure that the voluntary schemes and provision that we have seen develop in recent years now lead to wider provision in communities across Scotland. That is at the heart of the bill that we must see improved as we go forward to stages 2 and 3.

During the debate, members raised a number of health issues related to the bill and it is important to look at some of the very specific health aspects that were highlighted. Alex Cole-Hamilton mentioned toxic shock syndrome and Graham Simpson mentioned endometriosis. Elaine Smith outlined her work on breastfeeding. The Parliament must have more opportunity to debate women’s health. I have spent a number of years discussing heart health for women. It is still the case in Scotland that a high number of women die from sudden cardiac arrest. The death rate in that area is increasing and must improve outcomes.

The menopause, including access to services and treatment, has become something that many members and people outside this chamber are discussing. Mandy Rhodes is one of the journalists who has led that discussion. This week, I met a constituent to discuss access to collagen replacement injections and she said how difficult the waiting times make access to a treatment that can make a huge difference to her menopause. I hope that the debate on the bill will give us opportunities to debate more women’s health issues in future.

Graham Simpson outlined a number of issues and the further significant work that will be needed on the bill. I welcome Aileen Campbell’s constructive comments on the bill. We must acknowledge the concerns highlighted in the committee’s report when it described the bill as

“legislation that would impose a duty on, as yet unidentified, public bodies.”

That is important. There should be a wider consultation with the NHS about how this can be taken forward. The work that it is already undertaking in some health boards is also important.

It is important that stages 2 and 3 present a constructive opportunity for clarity and to take forward the regulations, guidance and frameworks that will be needed, and to identify any new public bodies—beyond schools, councils, public toilets and council facilities—to which the bill allocates responsibilities so that the resulting spending commitments that the Parliament will be placing on those bodies are also identified.

The committee report points to the important issue of sustainable finance, and I think that that is probably what all of us have highlighted throughout the debate. I hope that, as the bill progresses, the issue will be addressed. It certainly needs to be dealt with in the financial memorandum for stages 2 and 3. The final emphasis on who will pick up the bill for the service is vital.

I was pleased to support Monica Lennon when she first brought her outline proposals for the bill to the Parliament. It is important for MSPs to hear those arguments and add value to them. I am more than happy to support the bill at stage 1. More than one in five women face period poverty at some point in their lives but no one in Scotland, in this day and age, should have to.

I believe that the bill—once we have worked together to make it workable—has the potential to end period poverty and deliver period dignity. I hope that we in the Parliament can work together to deliver just that.

16:40  

Aileen Campbell

I thank all members who have spoken in the debate, largely suspending party politics and, instead, seeking to build on the cross-party consensus around ensuring that everyone who needs to access period products can do so. That ability to rise above party politics will be essential as we work to get the bill into shape and, in the words of Angela Constance—although I might be paraphrasing—ensure that we are guided by the needs of the women we all seek to help.

I am unashamed of the pride that I feel about the groundbreaking action that we have taken in the past two years. We are setting an example to the world, and countries within and beyond the UK have sought our advice and learning in considering their own action. More than 400,000 pupils and students are able to access free products in their place of learning; 60,000 people use services provided by FareShare and its vast range of partners; and around 70,000 individuals can benefit from the availability of free products in their local communities. I think that the impact of that is summed up well by a school pupil from Dundee who said:

“Girls ... know where to get the things they need. Now they don’t miss classes ... and they are more confident because it is not something they have to worry about.”

Many members across the chamber have made important and effective speeches about why action, whether through legislation or not, is essential in terms of tackling period poverty and period dignity. Pauline McNeill captured far more than the dry facts and figures around the bill when she reminded us of the often traumatic experience that young girls go through when their period starts—body changes, pain, mood shifts and the realisation that that will go on for most of their adult lives. It is a massive thing for a young person to cope with. The fact that that can be compounded by a sense of embarrassment or shame or by a lack of access to products is why we must do more to support our young people.

Gillian Martin powerfully outlined the speed of the shift in culture across Scotland in the past two years. I pay tribute to her for her commitment and for the role that she has played in that culture shift.

Angela Constance also deserves recognition for her work on the pilot and for reminding us that period poverty is fundamentally about a lack of income, and we must not forget to tackle that as well.

The members of the committee—Annabelle Ewing, Kenneth Gibson, Graham Simpson, Sarah Boyack, Andy Wightman and Alexander Stewart, led by James Dornan—also deserve a huge amount of recognition for their work with regard to ensuring that we have good legislation. Their expertise and commitment will be required to help to shape the bill as it progresses through stage 2. I sincerely look forward to seeing a lot more of them in the months to come, throughout that process.

I am pleased that the committee has commended the world-leading progress that has been made by the Scottish Government in enabling access to free products. It also agrees with our partnership approach, promoting local responses to meet local need—an agility that is essential and must be protected, and which could be undermined by the bill as it is drafted. We will all need to work hard to address that.

I share the committee’s view that there are aspects of the bill that require improvement, such as those around the issue of whose needs may not be being met, and that that can be addressed through gathering evidence of uptake, costs and best practice—that is, of course, always going to happen when a programme such as this is being rolled out for the first time ever.

That is why we will continue to work with local authorities and FareShare to ensure that gaps in current provision that are identified through our planned review are addressed, to maximise availability to groups who find it harder to access current provision. I remain ambitious about Scotland continuing to lead the way internationally on making access to free products widely available, for all who need them.

The debate has made it clear that we will need to compromise and work together if we are to find a way to agree legislation that will meet everyone’s aims, ensuring that no one struggles to access period products, whatever the reason, and maintaining our world-leading, locally flexible approach, in a cost-effective way.

As I have indicated, we recognise that there is more to do in our drive for period justice. We are not resting on our laurels. Forby today’s debate on the bill, we have plans in place for further work to build on our existing policies, while we work to agree on suitable legislation.

The first action in that regard is a locator app, which is due to go live in April and will enable people easily to see where products are available nearby and whether products are available for emergency single use or bulk supply. That means that, wherever someone is in the country, they should be able to find somewhere nearby where free products are available. Last week, I attended a development session for the app. I was impressed by its potential to further embed our world-leading position in this policy area.

We are also planning work, in partnership with the education arm of Hey Girls CIC, to develop training, online learning resources and period-friendly certification for organisations, including private sector organisations.

There was discussion in the committee about people who need a more-than-average amount of period products. A recommendation was made on the issue. In response to that recommendation, and in response to points that Alex Cole-Hamilton, Elaine Smith and Angela Constance made, I can say that we commit to consider what additional access to free products can be provided for women who have particular health needs that lead to excessive bleeding.

Finally, we recognise the success of our initial action to make period products available, free, to people in education. According to the survey that Young Scot published last month, more than 80 per cent of pupils and students who had accessed free products in their place of learning said that they could access their preferred product and that the availability of products had a positive impact. We accept the desire to protect that progress, which is why we commit to bring forward regulations that will place a duty on local authorities to make period products available in schools by the start of the next academic year. That will lock the approach into law, as Monica Lennon and stakeholders have requested.

We continue to believe that the bill poses significant risks, which include the potential cost, the lack of clarity on delivery and the potential loss of flexibility. We cannot suspend reality and ignore those risks—however much some people would like us to—lest we undo the good work that we have done to date, which members of all parties in this Parliament have recognised.

Having said all that, no one in Government disagrees that there is a need to ensure that period dignity exists in our country. That is why the Scottish Government is delivering right now, and it is why we have agreed to build on our work by supporting the bill’s principles at stage 1, as a symbol of good faith and in recognition of the broad consensus on the bill’s general principles.

I hope that the consensus that we have heard—mostly—in the debate remains as we work together to fix the bill and emerge as the world leader that we all want Scotland to be on the issue. The debate should set the tone for the rest of the work that has to come. A lot of work will have to be put into making the bill fit for purpose so that it can deliver on the aspirations that I think that members share. Judging by today’s speeches, we are all up for that. When the debate concludes, we will have to roll up our sleeves and work together to make something of which Scotland can be proud.

16:48  

Monica Lennon

I enjoyed the debate more than I expected to. I thank all members who were in the chamber today and all members who spoke in the debate. Their speeches were very thoughtful.

I hope that the people who watched the debate from the public gallery and at home also enjoyed the debate and feel encouraged and represented. I hope that they feel that we have listened to them and taken their views on board.

I am pleased that everyone agrees that, in 2020, it is unacceptable for periods still to be a taboo subject.

Annabelle Ewing highlighted the initiative #TalkPeriods, which the Scottish Government has rolled out. It is an important campaign that is trying to address stigma, and I encourage everyone to get on Twitter and other social media, use the hashtag #TalkPeriods and take part in the conversation.

I am genuinely grateful for everyone’s contribution today, but I am grateful to the cabinet secretary in particular. It is very significant that the Scottish Government has already invested £15 million in the provision of free period products. We have seen progress made in other parts of the UK, but I believe that Scotland is leading the way.

I agree with the cabinet secretary that we should support local flexibility. That is key. What will work in South Lanarkshire might not work well in the Highlands and Islands, so any scheme that comes forward has to respect localism. I believe that we can work constructively to meet our shared objectives.

I also put on record my thanks to the Local Government and Communities Committee and to the members of that committee who have spoken in the debate. James Dornan referenced the welcome shift in narrative from period poverty to period dignity for all, which is an important step forward. Many campaigners who have sent us briefings and, in particular, Unite the union, which has its own period dignity campaign—I even have the T-shirt—make that point very well.

Andy Wightman hit the nail on the head when he said that the bill is fundamentally about the creation of a statutory right that can be delivered only through legislation. That is what we are being asked to support. I also agree with him that we need to properly evaluate the schemes that have been rolled out. He made a fair point about the timing of commencement as it is set out, I believe, in section 2(4) of the bill—Andy is nodding and keeping me right—and I am happy to look at his suggestion that we give the Government a bit more time before further roll-out and to address it in an amendment. These are the kinds of discussions that we need to have, and I am sure that we can address that matter at stage 2.

Alex Cole-Hamilton talked about the issue as being also one of human dignity and said that we have to end the silence and the stigma around menstruation. He also talked about the cost benefit to the NHS of getting this right. Toxic shock syndrome is rare, but it is a real issue. A couple of years ago, while I was working on the campaign, I read about a student at a university in Glasgow who was studying in the library and, because she was concerned about how much money she had, had a tampon in her body for far too long and ended up in intensive care for five days. There was a human cost to that, because she almost died, but the cost to the NHS was around £5,000 a day. Alex Cole-Hamilton also talked about the mental health benefits of ending issues with body confidence and isolation. That is the value in doing this: there is a cost to not taking the bill forward.

Angela Constance’s speech was excellent. I absolutely agree with her that we have to address poverty and its root cause—full stop. In her passing the baton to Aileen Campbell, we have seen fantastic progress. As a feminist, I find it amazing to see other feminists in Government doing the right thing for women and girls across the country. Neil Findlay also made the point about addressing poverty at its root.

The debate leading up to the bill has largely focused on whether a targeted approach that focuses on low incomes is better than a universal approach. I make no apology for the fact that universal free provision of period products is ambitious—it is at the heart of the bill for a very good reason. The policy intent of the bill is clear: access to period products should be a right and they should be available to all who need them. With the bill, we can eradicate period poverty and, in doing so, normalise menstruation and smash stigma.

I want the good work that has been rolled out already to continue. The Government’s current approach has been an important step, but, in committee, all of us recognised that some gaps still exist and that some groups are being missed out. None of us want a situation in which we are discussing who is more deserving of period products than others, or discussions about how much people are bleeding. None of us want to go down that route. Access to period products is a necessity, therefore I believe that free access should be an option that is open to all.

If the bill proceeds to stage 2, I will, of course, work with all members and listen further to their concerns and ideas.

Graham Simpson

Monica Lennon refers to the recommendation in the committee’s report that women who have specific medical needs should have access to period products on prescription. If we do not provide that, how does she think that women who need a lot of products should be able to access them?

Monica Lennon

The committee has highlighted some important issues, but I have also looked at BMA Scotland’s briefing and have listened to Dr Alison Scott, a clinical gynaecologist who advises the Government on the women’s health plan. Their argument is that a quarter of women experience heavy bleeding—if that is the right term—and that their making GP appointments to get a prescription for that might not be the best use of GPs’ time. Of course, if women are concerned about their periods or cycles, we want them to be able to have conversations with their GPs if that is the appropriate route for them. Again, I would welcome further discussion of that subject at stage 2.

In her intervention on Pauline McNeill’s speech, Sandra White mentioned the voucher scheme. I can clarify that the only reference to that scheme in the bill is about putting a limit on the information that could be collected if the ministers wanted to go down that route. I pay tribute to campaigners such as Gillian Martin and Julie Hepburn, who had pursued that policy approach initially. However, I think that we have all realised that we have moved on and that a voucher scheme might not be the best approach. A similar scheme is in place for access to condoms, but, if we were to take a different approach for access to period products, I would absolutely support that. Again, I would be willing to discuss appropriate amendments on that subject with the cabinet secretary.

I thank Annabelle Ewing for her contribution, which she made through her tough, forensic approach to questioning at committee. It is right that we put ourselves through such questioning, because the legislation that we make must be fit for purpose. Ms Ewing’s legal background certainly shone through at the committee stage. I also thank her for continuing to listen to campaigners—especially the women and girls who told her that they would benefit from the legislation.

I recognise that we need to have further discussion on and consideration of costs. I sincerely advise members that, in drafting my proposals, I had looked at all the information on public record about the cost of rolling out in education settings the pilot scheme that has been conducted in Aberdeen. However, I will work closely with the Government to ensure that nothing has been missed out in the figures and that we identify savings where we can.

I do not know about other members, but I get lots of emails from people who are very keen that we help to promote access to reusable period products. I know that Michelle Ballantyne and others—especially the Scottish Greens—have made that point well. Right now, it costs up to £25 to buy a menstrual cup, depending on the brand, which is quite expensive for a young person to afford. I know that the Government work does this just now, but if the bill proceeds, we can look at making savings for our scheme and doing our bit for the environment, too. [Interruption.]

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Just a minute, Ms Lennon. I ask members to keep the mumbling down completely. I cannot hear any more, and it is important that I do.

Monica Lennon

Thank you, Presiding Officer.

I also want to pick up on the Scottish Government’s recent—and welcome—announcement that it plans to work more closely with employers to ensure that they, too, are doing their bit. That does not fall within the scope of the bill, but I say to the cabinet secretary that I hope that the Government will work closely on that with the trade unions. Representatives of the Scottish Trades Union Congress spoke at the rally that took place outside the Parliament today, and I know that Unite the union is doing lots of good work in that area. On that point, I should refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests in that I am a member of both Unite and the GMB.

I also thank the Parliament’s cross-party group on construction—probably not the first place that we would think of in which to discuss the subject of periods—for its work. Again, I stress that the issue crosses portfolios and I hope that we can all work on it.

I hope that members will indulge me for a moment by allowing me to talk about the good work that is going on in my local region. In 2016, just after our members’ business debate on period poverty, South Lanarkshire College, which is based in East Kilbride, approached me and said that it would just get on with providing free products. It would not wait for legislation or national guidance—it would just do it. Such early pioneers have made possible all the progress that we have seen. I also thank Lanarkshire Carers Centre, whose representatives were at today’s rally, and Women’s Aid South Lanarkshire for doing their bit early on.

Further, I thank my colleague Joe Cullinane, in North Ayrshire, for his leadership. Early initiatives such as the one in that area have paved the way for the Government-backed initiatives that have been rolled out so successfully. It is important to acknowledge that we have strong foundations to build on, which is why I believe that the bill will be a success.

I am incredibly proud of the work that all of us have put into the bill and the wider campaign. The Scottish Government has shown great commitment, which I know will continue. Agreeing to the general principles of the bill will be a milestone moment for normalising menstruation in Scotland and will send out a signal to people in the country about how seriously the Parliament takes gender equality. We have more work to do but, together, we can put Scotland on the map as a true world leader in period dignity and equality. I look forward to continuing that work with MSPs across the chamber, and I thank them for their support.

The Presiding Officer (Ken Macintosh)

The first question is, that motion S5M-20752, in the name of Bill Kidd, on a proposal for a committee bill, be agreed to.

Motion agreed to,

That the Parliament agrees to the proposal for a Committee Bill, under Rule 9.15, contained in the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee’s 2nd Report, 2020 (Session 5), Scottish Parliament (Assistance for Political Parties) Bill (SP Paper 669).

The Presiding Officer

The second question is, that motion S5M-20756, in the name of Monica Lennon, on the Period Products (Free Provision) (Scotland) Bill, be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

Abstentions

Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 112, Against 0, Abstentions 1.

Motion agreed to,

That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Period Products (Free Provision) (Scotland) Bill.

The Presiding Officer

I propose to put a single question on the three Parliamentary Bureau motions.

The question is, that motions S5M-21001, S5M-21002 and S5M-21003, in the name of Graeme Dey, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, be agreed to.

Motions agreed to,

That the Parliament agrees that—

Gordon Lindhurst be appointed to replace Alexander Stewart as a member of the Culture, Tourism and External Affairs Committee;

Oliver Mundell be appointed to replace Donald Cameron as a member of the Culture, Tourism and External Affairs Committee;

Gil Paterson be appointed to replace Tom Arthur as a member of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee;

Bill Bowman be appointed to replace Graham Simpson as a member of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee;

Gordon Lindhurst be appointed to replace Jeremy Balfour as a member of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee;

Alison Harris be appointed to replace Jamie Halcro Johnston as a member of the Economy, Energy and Fair Work Committee;

Michelle Ballantyne be appointed to replace Gordon Lindhurst as a member of the Economy, Energy and Fair Work Committee;

Alex Neil be appointed to replace Jenny Gilruth as a member of the Education and Skills Committee;

Alison Harris be appointed to replace Jamie Halcro Johnston as a member of the Education and Skills Committee;

Jamie Greene be appointed to replace Liz Smith as a member of the Education and Skills Committee;

Annie Wells be appointed to replace Rachael Hamilton as a member of the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee;

Alison Harris be appointed to replace Annie Wells as a member of the Equalities and Human Rights Committee;

Maurice Golden be appointed to replace Oliver Mundell as a member of the Equalities and Human Rights Committee;

George Adam be appointed to replace Gordon MacDonald as a member of the Finance Committee;

Donald Cameron be appointed to replace Adam Tomkins as a member of the Finance Committee;

Alasdair Allan be appointed to replace Jenny Gilruth as a member of the Justice Committee;

Jeremy Balfour be appointed to replace Alexander Stewart as a member of the Local Government and Communities Committee;

Tom Mason be appointed to replace Brian Whittle as a member of the Public Petitions Committee;

Rachael Hamilton be appointed to replace Jamie Greene as a member of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee;

Tom Arthur be appointed to replace Alasdair Allan as a member of the Social Security Committee;

Graham Simpson be appointed to replace Michelle Ballantyne as a member of the Social Security Committee;

Alexander Stewart be appointed to replace Tom Mason as a member of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee.

That the Parliament agrees that—

Rachael Hamilton be appointed to replace Dean Lockhart as the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party substitute on the Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Affairs Committee;

Oliver Mundell be appointed to replace Bill Bowman as the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party substitute on the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee;

Maurice Golden be appointed to replace Tom Mason as the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party substitute on the Economy, Energy and Fair Work Committee;

Liz Smith be appointed to replace Oliver Mundell as the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party substitute on the Education and Skills Committee;

John Scott be appointed to replace Maurice Golden as the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party substitute on the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee;

Miles Briggs be appointed to replace Jamie Greene as the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party substitute on the Equalities and Human Rights Committee;

Gillian Martin be appointed to replace George Adam as the Scottish National Party substitute on the Finance Committee;

Adam Tomkins be appointed to replace Jamie Halcro Johnston as the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party substitute on the Finance Committee;

Rhoda Grant be appointed to replace Sarah Boyack as the Scottish Labour Party substitute on the Finance and Constitution Committee;

Alexander Stewart be appointed to replace Tom Mason as the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party substitute on the Local Government and Communities Committee;

Pauline McNeill be appointed to replace Anas Sarwar as the Scottish Labour Party substitute on the Local Government and Communities Committee;

Adam Tomkins be appointed to replace Finlay Carson as the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party substitute on the Public Audit and Post-legislative Scrutiny Committee;

Dean Lockhart be appointed to replace Finlay Carson as the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party substitute on the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee;

James Dornan be appointed to replace Jenny Gilruth as the Scottish National Party substitute on the Social Security Committee;

Brian Whittle be appointed to replace Gordon Lindhurst as the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party substitute on the Social Security Committee;

Liam Kerr be appointed to replace Edward Mountain as the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party substitute on the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee.

That the Parliament agrees to the following revisions to the remits of committees:

Name of Committee: Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Affairs Committee

Remit: To the remit set out in Rule 6.8 shall be added—Culture and tourism matters falling within the responsibility of the Cabinet Secretary for Culture, Tourism and External Affairs.

New remit: To the remit set out in Rule 6.8 shall be added—culture matters falling within the responsibility of the Cabinet Secretary for Economy, Fair Work and Culture; tourism matters falling within the responsibility of the Cabinet Secretary for the Rural Economy and Tourism, and migration matters falling within the responsibility of the Minister for Public Finance and Migration.

Name of Committee: Economy, Energy and Fair Work Committee

Remit: To consider and report on economy and fair work matters falling within the responsibilities of the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Economy and Fair Work; matters relating to the digital economy within the responsibilities of the Minister for Public Finance and Digital Economy, and matters relating to energy falling within the responsibilities of the Minister for Energy, Connectivity and the Islands.

New remit: To consider and report on economy and fair work matters falling within the responsibilities of the Cabinet Secretary for Economy, Fair Work and Culture; matters relating to the digital economy within the responsibilities of the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, and matters relating to energy falling within the responsibilities of the Minister for Energy, Connectivity and the Islands.

Name of Committee: Finance and Constitution Committee

Remit: To the remit set out in Rule 6.6 shall be added—Constitutional matters falling within the responsibility of the Cabinet Secretary for Government Business and Constitutional Relations

New remit: To the remit set out in Rule 6.6 shall be added—Constitutional matters falling within the responsibility of the Cabinet Secretary for the Constitution, Europe and External Affairs.

Name of Committee: Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee

Remit: To consider and report on matters falling within the responsibility of the Cabinet Secretary for the Rural Economy and the matters falling within the responsibility of the Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Infrastructure and Connectivity.

New remit: To consider and report on matters relating to the rural economy within the responsibility of the Cabinet Secretary for the Rural Economy and Tourism and matters falling within the responsibility of the Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Infrastructure and Connectivity.

The Convener

Under agenda item 3, the committee will consider the Period Products (Free Provision) (Scotland) Bill at stage 2.

I am pleased to welcome to today’s proceedings Monica Lennon, the member in charge of the bill, who is present to speak to and move her amendments. I am also pleased to welcome the Cabinet Secretary for Communities and Local Government to speak to and move amendments on behalf of the Scottish Government.

This is the committee’s first experience of stage 2 proceedings at a hybrid meeting. For information, I point out that if there are any votes on amendments, I will call the vote alphabetically by roll call, to aid recording and transparency. I will put the question on the amendment and ask each member in turn whether they agree or disagree to the amendment or wish to abstain, with my vote being recorded last. The clerks will then record the result.

I will call those who have amendments being considered today in the usual order. If any member who is attending in person wishes to contribute to a debate on a group—even one in which they do not have an amendment—they should catch my eye in the usual way. Any member who is attending remotely should catch my attention by typing “R” in the BlueJeans chat function or in the WhatsApp group for members.

I hope that that is sufficiently clear. If so, we will proceed.

Section 1—Right to free period products

The Convener

We move on to consideration of amendments to section 1 of the bill. Group 1 is on the duty on local authorities. Amendment 17, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is grouped with amendments 18, 7 and 19. I invite the cabinet secretary to move amendment 17. [Interruption.]

I suspend the meeting.

09:35 Meeting suspended.  

09:39 On resuming—  

The Convener

I apologise for having to have that brief suspension. We were having some technical difficulties, but we are now back.

Before I bring in the cabinet secretary to speak to her amendments in the first group, I wish to mention John McCluskie, who drafted the Period Products (Free Provision) (Scotland) Bill. John was a much-respected former chief drafter for the Scottish Executive. In his retirement, he offered his expertise to the Parliament’s non-Government bills unit in drafting bills for back-bench members. He died suddenly this summer, and we pass on our condolences to his family for their loss.

Amendment 17, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is grouped with amendments 18, 7 and 19.

The Cabinet Secretary for Communities and Local Government (Aileen Campbell)

I am sorry to hear that news; we, too, pass on our condolences to John McCluskie’s friends, family and colleagues.

I extend my thanks to the committee for its stage 1 consideration of the bill and for its patience in reaching this stage. The time that we have taken between stages 1 and 2 has allowed the Government to lodge amendments that take into account, as far as possible, many of the concerns that were raised by the committee and the wider Parliament during stage 1, in particular on avoiding a costly national scheme and providing local flexibility.

As I committed to do back in February, I have worked in collaboration with Monica Lennon to ensure that the changes do not deviate the bill from the general principle that anyone, whoever or wherever they are in Scotland, should be able to access free period products in a dignified way in whatever circumstances they need to do so. I am pleased that we have been able to reach agreement that the Scottish Government’s approach meets our joint aims of continuing to build on Scotland’s world-leading position on period dignity. In practice, that has meant that the Scottish Government has had to develop significant amendments to the bill as a whole, particularly in part 1, which this group of amendments covers.

Amendment 17 is a significant amendment. It will replace section 1 with a duty on local authorities to make period products available free in Scotland for anyone who needs to use them, thereby protecting universal access to period products in law. Placing a duty on local authorities in that way means that we can avoid the need for subsequent regulations to set out how a right to products should be delivered.

The duty requires local authorities to put in place arrangements to ensure that anyone who needs to obtain period products can do so. The approach takes account of the view of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities at stage 1, that delivery of universal, open and free access to period products should focus on localism, thereby allowing the way that duties will be fulfilled to take account of local circumstances and the views and needs of local people.

In recognition of the fact that some people might struggle to access products themselves, amendment 17 retains the flexibility for products to be obtained by someone on behalf of another person.

Amendment 17 also provides in law that, if arrangements include postage of products, local authorities are able to charge for packing and delivery of products. However, if that is the only way in which a person can access free products through local authority arrangements, packing and delivery must also be free. In both instances, the products themselves must be free of charge.

Amendment 17 has been drafted to ensure that the duty will apply only to individuals within Scotland. However, the duty is flexible enough to allow for persons who are resident in Scotland who leave the country for a short time to take sufficient products to meet their needs while they are outside Scotland.

Amendments 7, 18 and 19 are consequential. They will remove sections 2, 3 and 4 from the bill. The provisions in those sections related to the original section 1, so they are no longer required. Amendment 7 was lodged by Monica Lennon in recognition of the fact that there was little support from either stakeholders or the committee for the preliminary procedure for a national voucher scheme. The Scottish Government welcomes and supports that amendment.

Taken as a group, amendments 7 and 17 to 19 will simplify the bill. In the bill as introduced, the duty that was required to give effect to the right that would have been conferred by the original section 1 would have required a bureaucratic national scheme and would, possibly, have involved a number of different types of body. In the bill as amended by the amendments in the group, responsibility will now lie with only one type of body: local authorities. The amendments will also reduce the cost of the bill through avoiding the need for complex national bureaucratic arrangements.

I move amendment 17.

Monica Lennon (Central Scotland) (Lab)

Thank you, convener, for your opening remarks and your tribute to John McCluskie. I am very grateful to John for his hard work on the bill. Of course I, too, express my condolences to his family and friends.

I am pleased that the cabinet secretary and I have been able to work together to lodge amendments to the bill as introduced, which will result in a piece of legislation that meets my original policy intentions. I am grateful to the members of the committee for their work in considering the bill.

As has already been mentioned, I have indicated my support for all the amendments that were lodged in the name of the cabinet secretary, and I am pleased to note that, following our discussions, she is prepared to support all the amendments that I have lodged.

As the new provisions in amendment 17 should protect universal access to free period products in law, I am content to support it. As the cabinet secretary outlined, amendment 17 will shift the approach from a direct duty on ministers to a duty on local authorities, which reflects the current arrangements. I am satisfied that the amendment will achieve the same outcome of guaranteeing free universal access to period products.

Amendment 7, in my name, will remove section 3 and was lodged to address concerns that members raised in relation to possible use of a voucher scheme and the preliminary procedure. Amendment 17 will make section 3 unnecessary, so my amendment 7 is still required even though the context has changed. I will therefore move the amendment when we reach that point.

I have nothing to add to what the cabinet secretary said on amendments 18 and 19.

09:45  

Andy Wightman (Lothian) (Green)

I congratulate Monica Lennon and Aileen Campbell on their obvious hard work over the past few months.

I have a question about amendment 17. The proposed new subsection (4) states:

“For the purposes of subsection (2), the needs of a person who lives in Scotland are to be regarded as all arising while in Scotland.”

Is that what gives effect to the cabinet secretary’s policy intention that someone who leaves Scotland for a short time can take products with them? What is the meaning of subsection (4)?

Aileen Campbell

That is just to make it clear that the intention is to provide support for people who reside in Scotland while they are here. I guess that it also enables people to take products away if they need to when they will not be in Scotland, which was the last point that I made in my opening remarks. Therefore, yes, the subsection gives effect to that.

The Convener

As no other members want to contribute, I invite the cabinet secretary to wind up the debate and to say whether she wishes to press or withdraw amendment 17.

Aileen Campbell

I again thank the committee for its recognition of the work that Monica Lennon and I, and the teams that support us, have done to get to this stage. I also record our thanks to COSLA for its support. We have sought to simplify the bill and to ensure that it delivers our shared intention to have universal provision of free period products. We propose a straightforward way of doing that, and I am pleased that the committee appears to agree with it.

The Convener

I apologise; it appears that Annie Wells wants to say something, too.

Aileen Campbell

I am sorry.

The Convener

It was not your fault; it was mine.

Annie Wells (Glasgow) (Con)

I want to comment on amendment 17 and on sections 1 and 2. To provide products free of charge, it is vital that the bill be properly financed. I highlight COSLA’s concerns that there is not enough clarity regarding financial planning. Without clear evidence that the bill can be properly funded, it will be difficult to implement and for local partners to deliver. That is especially true given the current circumstances around the pandemic. I just wanted to highlight COSLA’s feedback.

The Convener

Would you like to add anything, cabinet secretary?

Aileen Campbell

We deal with finances in the financial memorandum, but there are some amendments that perhaps point to that and that might give Annie Wells a further chance to raise the issue. We recognise the point, and we have committed to continue our engagement with COSLA on the finances. The situation will, of course, develop over time and will change as policy develops. We have made a commitment to continue our dialogue with COSLA and to work with it to ensure that the bill comes with the right support to enable it to give practical benefit across the country. I reassure Annie Wells and COSLA that we will continue to work with it.

Amendment 17 agreed to.

Section 1, as amended, agreed to.

After section 1

The Convener

Amendment 36, in the name of Sarah Boyack, is grouped with amendments 34, 24, 24B and 24A.

Sarah Boyack (Lothian) (Lab)

I am very glad that we are debating amendments at stage 2 of the bill. At stage 1, we could never have imagined the circumstances that we are currently living through, but having had that debate, we all truly appreciate how vital the bill is for anyone in Scotland who menstruates. I thank Monica Lennon again for the work that she has put into the bill, the grass-roots activists who have enabled us to get us here to debate the amendments today, and the cabinet secretary for working with Monica Lennon so that we can have the discussion.

The bill is vital for underpinning policies that might already be in place on the ground to ensure that they are not eroded by, for example, any efficiency savings or financial challenges that come about in the future. For that reason, I was very keen to encapsulate in my amendment 36 what I consider to be the key principles that need to be at the heart of the bill—namely, choice, eradication of stigma, protecting privacy, and ensuring that products are free, with no need to prove economic circumstance, and directly accessible.

I developed amendment 36 alongside Engender, which I thank for its input into and support for the bill from the very beginning. I also thank the clerks who helped me to draft the amendment.

Many local authorities across Scotland have already implemented schemes that fit local need. That is fantastic and reflects not only the versatility of our councils but the different options for access that are available across Scotland. That is great, because how services are made available in Edinburgh is unlikely to work in Orkney, and vice versa. Through amendment 36, I have tried not to prescribe how councils roll out their schemes but to ensure that somebody in Edinburgh and somebody in Orkney can expect to have equitable access to products.

In their letters to the committee, COSLA and the cabinet secretary said that they felt that amendment 36 would somewhat limit councils’ flexibilities. I do not think that it will limit the establishment of online ordering options, but I recognise that methods such as topping up free school meals payments could be affected. However, I do not think that there would be anything to prevent period products from being incorporated into the system, so I am keen to get the cabinet secretary’s views on that.

I also note COSLA’s fear that local authorities will be expected to provide expensive high-end products. I do not accept that, but there should be plenty of options—pads, tampons and reusable products where possible—and that should be combined with education about the choices. Although I accept the concern that amendment 36 could mean that there would be an expectation of expensive branded products, I do not think that, in reality, the concern would be an issue in practice.

I hope that my amendment 36 will be supported. I am using it to test and to ensure that we get the principles not just in the bill but delivered in practice, because this is all about what happens in communities across Scotland after we pass the bill.

I move amendment 36.

Monica Lennon

I will speak to amendments 34, 24A and all the other amendments in the group.

The Scottish Government’s amendment 17, which was debated in the previous group, replaces the whole of part 1 with a single new section. Although I am largely content with that, my concern is that the new section omits a number of important safeguards. My amendment 34 reinstates safeguards to ensure that products can be obtained “easily” and in a way that respects “dignity”, and that a “reasonable choice” of product types is provided.

I listened carefully to Sarah Boyack’s intentions in relation to amendment 36. I, too, am grateful to Engender and all the other organisations and grass-roots campaigners who have helped to shape and influence the bill. Although I am largely supportive of Sarah Boyack’s amendment 36, my amendment 34 provides a more comprehensive package that covers all providers in the bill rather than just local authorities. For that reason, I ask members to support my amendment 34.

If we agree to both amendments 34 and 36, the bill could get a little bit untidy—the cabinet secretary might say more about that—but I hope that we can clear that up.

Amendment 24 will create a new section that requires ministers to issue guidance to responsible bodies on how to fulfil their duty to provide period products and how to publicise the availability of those products.

I understand that amendment 24B, in the name of Alexander Stewart, whom we have not heard from yet, relates to guidance to local authorities on delivery models for period products. On balance, I do not believe that it is necessary for that issue to be covered by guidance, because it will be for local authorities to decide when postal or other types of delivery are included in their arrangements.

Amendment 24A is consequential to amendment 34, in my name, and will ensure that guidance that is issued by ministers also covers the new requirements about safeguards.

Aileen Campbell

Sarah Boyack’s opening remark about the fact that, during the stage 1 debate, we did not fully recognise where we might be when deliberating at stage 2 was an understatement. Nonetheless, that has not prevented Monica Lennon and me from working hard to try to ensure that we commit to what we pledged at stage 1, which was to lodge amendments at stage 2 to make the bill work.

I will first deal with Monica Lennon’s amendment 34. The Scottish Government believes that it is important that, in fulfilling their functions under the bill, responsible bodies have a duty to put in place a high standard of delivery that will continue to build on existing world-leading policies that have dignity and choice at their core. I thank Monica Lennon for her commitment to retaining dignity, ease of access and choice in the bill. That is important. I agree that those are principles that someone who needs to access free period products should expect to be met, which is why I supported the amendment when it was lodged. Inclusion of those provisions will support a high standard of delivery in any setting.

Amendment 36, in the name of Sarah Boyack, seeks to add provisions that are similar to those in amendment 34, but only in relation to local authorities. I thank Sarah Boyack for the work that she has done on the amendments and the recognition of the need for local flexibility. I do not think that she intended this, but amendment 36 seems to suggest that education providers or other public bodies do not need to consider the issues of dignity and choice in their delivery.

The Scottish Government broadly supports the intent behind the majority of the content of amendment 36. With regard to proposed new subsection (2)(d), access to products may, in some circumstances, be linked to particular services—for example, homelessness services—but linking all access to products to a person’s entitlement to another service or benefit would be non-compliant with the duties placed on local authorities by section 1. In our view, proposed new subsection (2)(d) is therefore unnecessary.

Proposed new subsection (2)(e) causes problems and raises concerns. It seeks to impose a restriction on how local authorities meet their duties under section 1 by mandating that those can only be met specifically through provision of physical products. The effect of that subsection would be to remove the flexibility that local authorities have requested and that the Scottish Government has sought to maintain. During the Covid pandemic, many local authorities have adopted innovative ways to ensure that people have had access to free products, including the provision of voucher codes for online redemption via suppliers. Following consultation, some local authorities may wish to put in place similar approaches, which would be stifled by proposed new subsection (2)(e). We are particularly concerned about that unintended consequence, which would erode flexibility.

On balance, amendment 34 appears to be the better option, so I urge Sarah Boyack not to press amendment 36. If that amendment is pressed, I ask the committee to reject it. To reassure Sarah Boyack, I point out that tackling stigma has been at the heart of policy development and the approach that we have taken over the past three years. If it would help, I can commit to working with Engender on guidance that we will develop to ensure that it takes on board some of the points that Engender may have raised with Sarah Boyack.

My amendment 24 will place a duty on the Scottish ministers to publish guidance for responsible bodies to support them to fulfil their functions under sections 1, 5, 6 and 7. I note that additional steps in support of that are laid out in the amendments to be debated in group 5.

In preparation of the first set of guidance, the Scottish ministers will have a duty to consult relevant bodies and will also be able to consult individuals to ensure that experience to date informs the content. We already have considerable best practice to draw on. That was commended by the committee and stakeholders at stage 1. The guidance will be of interest not just in Scotland but internationally, as others seek to follow in Scotland’s path. However, despite the considerable progress that we have already made, the guidance will not be static. It will evolve over time to reflect changing good practice so that all responsible bodies and other interested parties can benefit from the experience and learning of others.

In addition, to address points that were raised during stage 1, we expect the guidance to be clear that it is particularly important that responsible bodies consider the needs of those who may face particular difficulties in accessing free products—for example, disabled people or those with caring responsibilities.

Monica Lennon’s amendment 24A seeks to ensure that the guidance specifically makes reference to the particular requirements on choice, ease of access and dignity that will be added by amendment 34. We believe that that is important, so that responsible bodies fully understand what those particular requirements mean in terms of their delivery arrangements. The Scottish Government therefore supports amendment 24A.

10:00  

Amendment 24B, in the name of Alexander Stewart, seeks to mandate that the guidance must also specifically include guidance in relation to section 1(3)(b). That provision was included in section 1, as local authorities would otherwise be legally obliged to bear the cost of the packaging and delivery of products under section 1. It is a permissive rather than a directive provision that is only for where local authorities choose to include postal delivery as part of their arrangements. However, the guidance will cover all duties under sections 1, 5, 6 and 7, and we do not consider it necessary to mandate that it specifically covers that issue. The Scottish Government therefore does not support amendment 24B.

Alexander Stewart (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)

I acknowledge the work that Monica Lennon has done on the bill, the engagement that has taken place across communities and society, which has been vital, and the message that has gone out about the whole process. That has given individuals and organisations a much better understanding of the whole process, of where we can support, and of how we can move forward with choice and dignity.

My amendment 24B seeks to mandate that the guidance must also specifically include guidance in relation to section 1(3)(b). The amendment would help to ensure that clarity is achieved for local authorities in order that the likely uptake and cost implications of the delivery models are better able to be understood. Those provisions are included in section 1.

Mechanisms to enable the delivery of products may have to be established and maintained. I note the concerns that were raised by COSLA, which indicated that flexibility should be applied. I also note the comments that were made by the Scottish Government and the cabinet secretary, who does not believe that it is necessary to mandate. I take on board the views that have been expressed by the cabinet secretary and Monica Lennon this morning.

There is an understanding of what Monica Lennon’s amendment 24A would achieve. I acknowledge that, in reality, my amendment might not achieve the same. I think that there is room for that to be achieved. I therefore may not move my amendment, as I acknowledge the work that has already taken place between the member and the cabinet secretary.

On the other amendments in the group, Sarah Boyack’s amendment 36 is possibly too progressive. I acknowledge Monica Lennon’s work in relation to amendment 34, which may be more appropriate in the circumstances in which we find ourselves to ensure that there is capacity and opportunity.

Andy Wightman

On the way forward, as far I can see, the bill now incorporates a clear duty, which is important, and the principle of flexibility, which is also important. It is also focused on local authorities as the delivery vehicle, which is an important step forward. Given the need for flexibility and the need for the bill to focus on local authorities, which are, principally, the duty holders, it would be inappropriate at this stage to agree to amendments 36 and 24B.

I recognise the intention behind Sarah Boyack’s amendment 36 and I do not rule out the possibility of further amendments at stage 3 to incorporate some of what is at the heart of what is intended in amendment 36, but the amount of work that has been done on that to date is impressive. The fact that COSLA is, by and large, on board and has been engaged in those conversations is incredibly important. I am mindful of what COSLA said in its evidence in relation to the amendments, so I am not minded to support amendments 36 or 24B. However, I will support the rest of the amendments in the group.

Sarah Boyack

I very much welcome the comments that colleagues have made. One thing that we get to do at stage 2 is test proposed legislation to see how we think that it will work. Through us, other people get to test proposed legislation, as well.

I very much welcome the cabinet secretary’s commitment to consult Engender on the guidance. The guidance will be critical to the successful implementation of the bill, just as such guidance is for other legislation.

Good work has been done. I spoke to COSLA after it considered my amendment, so I understand the concerns. Amendment 36 is not about limiting flexibility; it is more about ensuring that the issues that I have raised are addressed and are at the forefront of people’s minds in implementing the legislation, regardless of which part of the country they are in.

Monica Lennon’s comment was appropriate. I very much support the cabinet secretary’s comment about wanting to promote best practice. It is definitely worth learning from our experiences during the pandemic and the different measures that were put in place when young people were not able to go to schools. It is worth capturing that in the guidance.

I certainly do not want to limit flexibility; I just want to test what will happen. I note that the cabinet secretary said in her written submission that she supported the intent behind what I was trying to do. I want to check that I will not miss out if I do not press amendment 36. However, I see that Monica Lennon’s amendment 34 picks up some of the key points in it, so I am happy to support her amendment.

At this stage of the process, we are trying to ensure that the proposed legislation is as good as it can be. I will not press amendment 36. I hope that, perhaps in the next few weeks, before we get to stage 3, if there is anything in my amendment that could be brought back, we will do that.

Does the cabinet secretary want to intervene?

Aileen Campbell

Am I able to do that, convener?

The Convener

Yes.

Aileen Campbell

I simply want to commit to working with Sarah Boyack, if that would be helpful to her. I give her the reassurance that, if she does not press the amendment but has concerns that there will be gaps—Monica Lennon will also want to ensure that there are no gaps—it is in all our interests to make sure that we get the legislation as good as it can be. We will also need to ensure that there are no unintended consequences if we progress with any element of amendment 36.

We all want to make sure that flexibility, local circumstances and local context are recognised to enable the best approach to be taken for particular areas. Orkney might not be the same as Edinburgh, for example—I think that Sarah Boyack picked out the two authorities in those areas.

We want to ensure that the guidance is as good as it can be. Lots of people and organisations must be involved in its production. Again, I underline the commitment to work with Engender, and I give my assurance to the member that we will happily work with her on the issue.

Sarah Boyack

I very much welcome that.

On Alexander Stewart’s amendment 24B, there are similar issues in terms of what he is trying to achieve. He also wants to make sure that we get the legislation right. Therefore, I welcome the comments that have been made in support of the principles behind that amendment, even if we do not support it today.

Amendment 36, by agreement, withdrawn.

Section 2—The period products scheme: general

Amendment 18 moved—[Aileen Campbell]—and agreed to.

Section 3—Using the scheme: preliminary procedure

Amendment 7 moved—[Monica Lennon]—and agreed to.

Section 4—Use and operation of the scheme

Amendment 19 moved—[Aileen Campbell]—and agreed to.

Section 5—Education providers to supply period products for pupils and students

The Convener

Amendment 20, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is grouped with amendment 20A.

Aileen Campbell

Section 5 sets out additional provisions over and above the universal duty set out in section 1, to provide an additional safety net for pupils and students to access free period products while in their place of learning. That is an important element to the duties that the bill will introduce. Indeed, in 2018, the Scottish ministers introduced a policy to ensure that no one has to miss out on education due to not being able to access period products where and when they need them.

However, the Scottish Government believes that the requirement in the bill for education providers to make products available in toilets is overly prescriptive and that, as with amendments to part 1, education providers should have the ability to build on existing voluntary arrangements based on local need. Therefore, we have sought to introduce a broader duty on meeting the needs of people who menstruate that allows for flexibility of arrangements.

Amendment 20 therefore replaces section 5 and places a duty on education providers to make period products obtainable for pupils and students on their premises. It makes it absolutely clear that, where there is more than one campus, the arrangements must ensure that products should be obtainable at locations in each campus. It will ensure that if students are studying a course that falls outwith traditional term times, products must be obtainable by them while they are on campus. However, the amendment does not require education providers to make products available during holiday periods for a course, nor is there a requirement to put in place arrangements to make products available for students studying outwith Scotland, which is in line with current voluntary policy. Outwith term times, pupils and students in Scotland will be able to obtain products via local authority universal provision.

Amendment 20A, which has been lodged by Monica Lennon, seeks to go further and mandate that every building that is normally used by students must have free period products obtainable. I understand the sentiment behind that amendment and recognise that it is a change from the original requirement. Although it will limit some of the flexibility of delivery that the Scottish Government has sought to introduce through its amendments, in practice, in the majority of cases, we would expect that products should be obtainable wherever students might need them, so, on balance, I am supportive.

However, I note the concerns that have been raised by COSLA and the Scottish Funding Council that there might be a small number of buildings where it is not appropriate for products to be obtainable, and that the requirement might be particularly burdensome for institutions such as Scotland’s Rural College or the University of the Highlands and Islands, which have many, often quite remote, locations that are spread out over a large area. Therefore, I am willing to support the amendment, but I caveat that by saying that I will seek an amendment at stage 3 to change the absolute nature of the requirement. I will, of course, work with Monica Lennon on the issue and seek consensus on it, as we have done with other issues.

Finally, I note that the Scottish Government has already taken action to protect in law access to period products in schools, through the Period Products in Schools (Scotland) Regulations 2020, which came into force earlier this month. However, when the provisions under section 5 are commenced, those regulations will be revoked, bringing all relevant provisions in relation to free period products in education settings into a single piece of legislation.

I move amendment 20.

Monica Lennon

As we have heard, section 5 places a duty on education providers to make period products available free of charge in education institutions for pupils or students who need them. I was pleased to note in the cabinet secretary’s recent letter to the committee that the Government will support my amendment 20A, although I note her additional comments today in light of recent submissions from COSLA and the Scottish Funding Council, to which I listened carefully.

Amendment 20 does not go far enough to ensure that pupils and students can obtain products whenever they need them. It sets a statutory minimum of only one location on each campus. Amendment 20A would replace that with a stronger minimum requirement of one location in each building on the campus. Like the cabinet secretary, my intention is not to stifle flexibility, and no one wants products lying in buildings where they would never be used, but the principle is that buildings that would normally be used and accessed by students should have free provision. Therefore, I will press amendment 20A, but I will continue discussions with the cabinet secretary and stakeholders on the matter ahead of stage 3.

I move amendment 20A.

Andy Wightman

On amendment 20A, I note that COSLA says that there might be scenarios in which specific buildings are unsuitable for the purpose or where it would be inefficient to have the products available in certain buildings, although it also says that the guidance could say that that approach should be considered as a default. However, we are being invited to consider a statutory provision that the products must be available from

“at least one location in each ... building.”

If we agree to the amendment, there is no scope for the flexibility that COSLA is looking for. The cabinet secretary has said that she will work with Monica Lennon to refine the provision between now and stage 3, so I do not think that there is an imperative for us to agree to amendment 20A now.

10:15  

Subsection (3) of the new section that the cabinet secretary’s amendment 20 seeks to insert in the bill says:

“Where an institution operates over a number of campuses in Scotland, the locations specified in the arrangements established and maintained under subsection (1) must include locations within each such campus.”

It specifies the plural—“locations”—so there must be more than one such location on a campus. Those locations could be in the same building, but I think that the sense of the provision is that they would be in different locations on the campus—at the east end of it, the west end of it and so on.

The relevant provision in amendment 20 could be amplified a bit, but I do not see the necessity for amendment 20A at stage 2. I agree with the sentiment behind it, but I do not see why we need to vote to include what it proposes now, given that the cabinet secretary has admitted that she will seek to amend it at stage 3. Therefore, I am inclined to vote against amendment 20A at this stage.

Sarah Boyack

I get the points that Andy Wightman makes, but I also get why amendments 20 and 20A have been lodged. Some of our higher education institutions have very large campuses. It is not a question of their being in different parts of the country—they sometimes cover large areas in the same part of the country. The campus of the university that I used to teach in covers a very large area, and we would want several buildings to be covered.

Perhaps the issue could be picked up through consultation. I would have thought that student associations are important stakeholders. We would want them to be consulted by higher education institutions to ensure that we get this right. I was not thinking of it as a rural issue; I was thinking of large urban campuses. Depending on where students’ classes are held, accessibility is not necessarily possible across the whole campus.

I agree with the sentiment behind amendment 20A. I would like us to get a solution that would address the fact that, on a large campus, provision in just two locations might not be appropriate. We need to think about how we can get this right on the ground. I am glad that the issue has been raised, and I would like the proposal to be tested further.

Aileen Campbell

It is clear that there is a consensus on the need to get the provision right so that the appropriate locations are covered, while being cognisant of the points that COSLA and others have raised. That is why we have pledged to refine the proposals at stage 3. As Sarah Boyack mentioned, we must ensure not only that the minimum provision is there but that we meet people’s needs, and consultation will be critical. We have pledged to work with members on further refinement before stage 3 to ensure that we do not end up with a minimum and that we meet the needs of students on campuses, whatever those might look like and whatever the configuration might be. We also need to be cognisant of the points that have been raised by building in a bit of flex to the approach that is taken in amendment 20A. However, in general, we are supportive of Monica Lennon’s intent.

Monica Lennon

The discussion has been helpful. I can offer some clarity. Amendment 20A would not lay down an absolute requirement. It would apply only to buildings that are normally used by students. For example, on a typical day, a student would move from their hall of residence to the department where they study and to the library. Those are the areas where students are normally found. Sarah Boyack’s remarks were helpful.

There might have been a slight misunderstanding on Andy Wightman’s part, which is unusual. Amendment 20A does not seek to impose a requirement to provide products in each building; they would have to be provided only in each building that is normally used by students. I accept that there is a need for further discussion and consultation with the key stakeholders that have been referenced today, and I am happy to engage in that work.

There has been a lot of discussion on the issue, and there is a lot of good practice that we can draw on. We have seen an example of that in recent weeks during the pandemic, when students who have had to self-isolate have had period products brought to them.

No one wants period products sitting in cupboards or empty buildings where they will never be needed, but equally we do not want students to go about their learning throughout the campus and find that they cannot access products when they need them. My aspiration is to ensure that students, in places where we would normally find them, will have easy access to free period products.

The Convener

On that basis, I take it that you wish to press amendment 20A.

Monica Lennon

I will press the amendment, convener.

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 20A be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Brown, Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)

Against

Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 5, Against 1, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 20A agreed to.

The Convener

Gail Ross is absent at the moment, so unfortunately she could not take part in that vote.

I ask the cabinet secretary whether she wishes to press amendment 20, as amended.

Aileen Campbell

I will press the amendment.

Amendment 20, as amended, agreed to.

Section 5, as amended, agreed to.

Section 6—Specified public service bodies to supply period products for persons in their premises

The Convener

Amendment 21, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is grouped with amendments 15, 22 and 23.

Aileen Campbell

Section 6 makes provision for public service bodies to be specified to make period products obtainable for free in their premises through future regulations. Scottish ministers have no plans at this point to specify any bodies via section 6, but we believe that it is an important power to allow for future expansion of the scope of the act if that is deemed necessary. Amendments 15 and 21 to 23 will make changes to that section.

Amendment 21 provides that any future specified public bodies have to make free products obtainable to meet the needs of a person only while they are on the premises of that body. There will be no obligation on such bodies to make available bulk volumes of products for wider use, which is provided for in section 1. In addition, in line with section 5, if a body operates over different sites, products must be obtainable for free at locations at each site.

Amendment 21 will also leave out the current section 6(2), which would give the Scottish ministers the power to specify how, where and when bodies should make products available. Instead, under the new provisions to be introduced by amendments that we will come to in a later group, bodies that are specified under section 6 will follow the same process as local authorities and education providers.

Amendment 15, in the name of Monica Lennon, will adjust the wording of section 6(5) to ensure that all bodies that are specified are individually consulted in advance of specification. The Scottish Government supports that technical amendment.

Amendment 22 will bring provisions in relation to the regulations that are required to specify a public service body under section 6 within that section. It states that the regulations to specify a body under section 6 should be

“subject to the affirmative procedure”,

and it aims to ensure sufficient scrutiny of the specification of any new public service body under that section.

Amendment 23 is a technical amendment, the purpose of which is to move the definition of “public service body” from section 10 to section 6.

I move amendment 21.

Monica Lennon

On amendments 21 to 23, I have nothing to add to what the cabinet secretary said.

Further to her comments on my amendment 15, I reiterate that it is a technical amendment for clarification. Section 6(5) is there to ensure that, if ministers wish to specify a class of public service body in regulations, they must first consult every body that is a member of the class. The current drafting of section 6(5) wrongly suggests that those bodies are first specified and then consulted. The amendment would adjust the wording of the subsection to make clear the order in which things are to happen.

Aileen Campbell

The amendments in group 4 relate to minor but important sections of the bill. They will allow ministers to expand the list of bodies that have duties to make free period products obtainable, and they will provide the necessary scrutiny if that is to happen. I would be grateful for the committee’s support and I will press the amendment.

Amendment 21 agreed to.

Amendment 15 moved—[Monica Lennon]—and agreed to.

Amendments 22 and 23 moved—[Aileen Campbell]—and agreed to.

Section 6, as amended, agreed to.

Before section 7

Amendment 34 moved—[Monica Lennon]—and agreed to.

Amendment 24 moved—[Aileen Campbell].

Amendment 24B not moved.

Amendment 24A moved—[Monica Lennon]—and agreed to.

Amendment 24, as amended, agreed to.

The Convener

Amendment 25, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is grouped with amendments 25A, 26, 27 and 35.

Aileen Campbell

The Scottish Government wants to see as high a standard as possible of delivery of the duties under the bill. The guidance that will be introduced through amendment 24 will set the high-level framework for local delivery, but it will be for responsible bodies to develop their own local arrangements to fulfil their duties.

The next step in the quality assurance process is set out in amendment 25, which will place a duty on responsible bodies to produce and publish a statement summarising how they will exercise their functions under sections 1, 5 and 6, and including how they have had regard to the guidance.

Amendment 25A, in the name of Monica Lennon, will add a requirement for responsible bodies to ensure that that statement makes specific reference to how the arrangements that they have put in place take account of the particular requirements on choice, ease of access and dignity that were added by amendment 34. I fully agree that it is important for the purposes of local accountability that statements should specifically set that out. The Scottish Government therefore supports amendment 25A.

The final step in the process is possibly the most important, as it will ensure that local needs and views are taken into account when responsible bodies are putting in place their arrangements. Amendment 26 will do that through placing a duty on responsible bodies to consult with persons who will need to access free products through their duties under sections 1, 5 and 6. Without first carrying out that consultation, responsible bodies will not be able to produce a statement on how they will exercise their functions. The guidance under amendment 24 is likely to include guidance on that consultation process. However, amendment 26 sets out a number of specific issues that must be covered in the consultation, including where, how and which free products should be made obtainable.

It is also important for people who need to access free products that information is widely available on where, how and when they are obtainable for free. Amendment 27 will replace section 7, which would have placed that duty on Scottish ministers. That duty now falls on all responsible bodies with duties under sections 1, 5 or 6.

Taken as a whole, amendments 25 to 27 along with amendments already debated in an earlier group set out practical details to ensure that existing high standards of delivery are maintained and built on.

10:30  

I understand the reasoning behind amendment 35, in the name of Annie Wells, but it raises a number of concerns. It seeks to impose duties on all responsible bodies to report on the exercise of their functions under the act. It mandates reporting annually. However, in practice, that would mean that local authorities would have to report twice: once at the end of the financial year in relation to section 1 duties and then again at the end of the academic year in relation to section 5 duties. Responsible bodies must consult individuals in the local authority area, students, pupils and product users, as appropriate, in preparing their reports. Having to undertake such an exercise and produce a report every year would be a significant burden on responsible bodies, particularly local authorities, specifically when considered alongside the duties that the bill places on them around consultation and the publication of a statement of the exercise of their functions.

I also note that subsection (1)(c) of the section that amendment 35 would introduce would not sit well in the bill, which seeks to put in place universal access to free period products for anyone who needs them and is therefore framed around equality and not around tackling poverty. The consensus at stage 1, as set out in the committee’s report, was that we should view the policy and the bill through a lens of period dignity, rather than period poverty. Putting in place a duty to make free period products widely obtainable is not in itself likely to be a key driver in reducing poverty, so seeking to mandate reporting on how the act is contributing to tackling the root causes of poverty relating to period products is not appropriate, even if well intentioned.

I urge Ms Wells not to move amendment 35. However, as we understand the broad intent behind the amendment, we are happy to consider whether a Scottish Government amendment at stage 3 would be appropriate.

I move amendment 25.

Monica Lennon

I have nothing to add on amendments 25, 26 and 27. Amendment 25A is consequential to amendment 34 and would require the statements to include responsible bodies’ plans for ensuring that products can be obtained easily and in a way that respects dignity and that they provide a reasonable choice of product types. I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for her comments on amendment 25A.

On amendment 35, in the name of Annie Wells, on the requirements regarding the publication of reports by responsible bodies, I agree with the cabinet secretary that such a requirement could represent a significant and disproportionate burden on responsible bodies. However, I would be happy to discuss with Annie Wells any amendments in that area that might be proposed well in advance of stage 3.

I move amendment 25A.

Annie Wells

I thank the cabinet secretary and Monica Lennon for understanding the intent of amendment 35. I have listened to feedback from stakeholders such as COSLA. I will not take the amendment any further at this stage, but I would welcome the opportunity to discuss the issue with the cabinet secretary and Monica Lennon further, ahead of stage 3.

Aileen Campbell

As I said in my opening remarks, the Government understands—as, it is clear, does Monica Lennon—the intent behind amendment 35 and what Annie Wells seeks to achieve. I am grateful that Annie Wells does not intend to move the amendment. We will continue the dialogue and endeavour to take on board any concerns that are outstanding that she may have.

Monica Lennon

I echo what the cabinet secretary said. I thank Annie Wells for her interest in the bill, and I would be happy to have further discussions.

Amendment 25A agreed to.

Amendment 25, as amended, agreed to.

Amendment 26 moved—[Aileen Campbell]—and agreed to.

Section 7—Scottish Ministers, councils and others to publicise the availability of period products

Amendment 27 moved—[Aileen Campbell]—and agreed to

Section 7, as amended, agreed to.

After section 7

Amendment 35 not moved.

Section 8—Payments by Scottish Ministers

The Convener

Amendment 28, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is grouped with amendments 29 to 31.

Aileen Campbell

This group contains a number of amendments, all in my name, relating to general provisions in the bill.

Section 8 makes provision for the Scottish ministers to make payments in relation to any act of the Scottish Parliament arising from the bill. During stage 1, the committee raised concerns about that provision, such as its permissive rather than mandatory nature. In addition, existing mechanisms already allow for the Scottish ministers to make payments to public bodies that are specified under the bill—or likely to be specified in future—namely local authorities, education providers and other public service bodies. We have a concern that the provision would set a precedent for placing local authority funding requirements in legislation, when the funding required does not require additional statutory basis. The Scottish Government’s position is that the provision is unnecessary, and amendment 28 will remove it.

Amendment 29 is a technical amendment to remove section 9. Regulations are no longer required under section 2, because the section has been removed by amendment 18. The relevant provisions in relation to section 6 will be included within that section via amendment 22, which has already been debated in an earlier group.

Amendments 30 and 31 cover the definitions of terms used throughout the bill. Amendment 30 will add a new section that sets out key definitions that apply throughout the bill. Those definitions are of sufficient importance that they merit their own section, so that people can easily find them.

The definition of “period products” that is used in the bill will encompass all types of products that are commonly used by people who menstruate, including reusable period products. Responsible bodies are already making reusable products free in a large number of cases through the voluntary provision, but setting that out specifically in the definition reflects the importance of them considering reusable products in fulfilling their functions.

As already mentioned in the debate on group 2, the definition of

“references to a person’s needs”

makes it explicit that anyone who menstruates can have needs arising under the bill, and there is no further test of need to be applied, which protects universality.

Because of the number of changes that the Scottish Government has proposed to the definitions, it is clearer to submit amendment 31 to replace section 10 in its entirety, rather than a large number of individual amendments. Amendment 31 will restructure section 10 to reflect other amendments. Some of the changes are technical, including the removal of a number of definitions because they relate to sections removed by other amendments. Definitions of “further education institution” and “higher education institution” are added to replace “college” and “university” in the amended section 5. The definitions that are used are consistent with other legislation.

One effect of amendment 31 is that private further education institutions are no longer within the scope of the bill. Those private institutions take varied forms, so it is difficult to assess or identify which bodies fall within the original definition. The inclusion of those institutions within the scope of the bill would lead to lack of clarity as to which had to comply with the duties that are set out in section 5, because Scottish Government officials do not hold a comprehensive list of such institutions, so the Scottish ministers would not know which institutions to issue guidance to. Of course, students at such institutions will be able to access free products via section 1 of the bill.

I move amendment 28.

The Convener

Does Monica Lennon want to add anything?

Monica Lennon

I have nothing to add to what the cabinet secretary has said.

The Convener

Does Andy Wightman want to come in?

Andy Wightman

Maybe.

The Convener

If it is “Maybe”, we will call it yes and you can have your say now.

Andy Wightman

Yes. I intended to speak on amendment 28, in the name of Aileen Campbell, to leave out section 8. She has given some of the rationale for leaving out section 8, but I just want some clarification. She is right that there is no need to place in the bill separate statutory provisions for local government funding. However, the bill adds to local authorities’ statutory duties, and the cabinet secretary will be aware of on-going debates, particularly in this committee, about local government funding pressures.

Putting aside debates about what ring fencing means, local authorities have a range of what they regard as protected funding and protected functions—in other words, things that they must do by law. For example, local authorities must provide an education service; they have no choice about that. The bill will add to the matters that local authorities have no choice but to deliver.

The funding of local government is not set out in any statutory framework; at the moment, it is subject to annual negotiations and a funding formula. I would like the cabinet secretary to say a little more about what thought has been given to how the new statutory duty on local government will be funded. How will the Government assess the quantum of funding? Will the funding formula be adjusted as a consequence?

Aileen Campbell

We got into this territory with Annie Wells’s comments on the first group of amendments. We have already committed to baseline funding for local authorities and for the local government settlement in order to protect future delivery, and that commitment stands. We will continue to engage with COSLA on the policy. Funding will be subject to the evolution of the policy. It is about ensuring that we understand how the policy develops, whether further input is needed and whether we need to rejig things. That will be further reflected in those discussions.

The estimates in the current approach have been based on current data. There were a lot of discussions about finances in the initial stages of the bill. We published the financial memorandum, which is based on the current evidence and data that we have. It is important to recognise that we have committed to baseline funding for local government in recognition that the delivery of such products will be new for local authorities.

Andy Wightman

Is thought being given to whether, for example, such funding will form part of the general revenue grant, or whether it will be a ring-fenced pot? I have views on that, but I want to know whether it is intended that the funding will form part of the general revenue grant.

Aileen Campbell

It will be part of the local government settlement, so it will be. That is for the future, but we have already committed to baseline funding at the moment. We have committed to that again through the bill process. We published the financial memorandum, which is based on the current estimates of take-up, but it is important to recognise that the policy will evolve and adapt over time. We will need to reflect that through the discussions that we will have with COSLA. We have committed to ensure that we adequately and appropriately support local authorities in the delivery of the policy. That is why we have already committed to baseline funding, and we will further commit to that as the bill progresses.

The Convener

Do you have any further comments in winding up?

Aileen Campbell

We recognise that the financing of the policy is important to ensure that it delivers universality and enables the flexibility that we know is so important. We have already invested and provided a lot for local authorities, and we have worked with them in a practical sense. The bill will not disrupt the approach that we seek to take.

I take on board the relevant and legitimate points that Andy Wightman has made; others will no doubt want to make similar points at stage 3. I give the commitment that we will continue to work with COSLA and that we have baselined funding. That commitment will continue.

The Convener

Gail Ross has joined us again, from wherever she is.

Amendment 28 agreed to.

Section 9—Regulations

Amendment 29 moved—[Aileen Campbell]—and agreed to.

After section 9

Amendment 30 moved—[Aileen Campbell]—and agreed to.

10:45  

Section 10—Definitions etc

Amendment 31 moved—[Aileen Campbell]—and agreed to.

Section 10, as amended, agreed to.

Section 11—Commencement

The Convener

Amendment 32, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is grouped with amendment 33.

Aileen Campbell

There was discussion at stage 1 about it being unrealistic to require the scheme that is proposed in the bill to come into force within a year of the bill gaining royal assent. Although the scheme has been removed through Scottish Government amendment, we believe that a reasonable amount of time is required before the key duties in sections 1, 5 and 6 come into force.

That time will allow the Scottish ministers to issue guidance to responsible bodies to consult and publish their statements on exercise of functions, and to provide information to the public in advance of the substantive duties that are set out under sections 1 and 5, in the first instance, coming into force.

Amendment 33 therefore changes commencement of the provisions in the bill, giving the Scottish ministers the power to commence duties on local authorities and education providers by regulations within two years of the bill gaining royal assent. Consequently, only technical provisions need to come into force the day after royal assent, which is covered by amendment 32.

If I may, I would like to make a point about the bill’s structure. It is a short bill, and our view is that the original three-part structure does not lend itself to the bill as amended. Amendments that simply leave out part headings are not permitted, but my officials have discussed that with the relevant parliamentary officials, who, I understand, are able to do that by printing points. I mention that simply in the interests of maximum transparency.

I move amendment 32.

The Convener

There are no comments from committee members. Would the cabinet secretary like to wind up?

Aileen Campbell

Even while we wait for royal assent for the bill to kick in, the provisions are already there and we will continue to support the policy intent. I hope that that gives reassurance that there will not be any gap before things become legal. I press amendment 32.

Amendment 32 agreed to.

Amendment 33 moved—[Aileen Campbell]—and agreed to.

Section 11, as amended, agreed to.

Section 12 agreed to.

Long title agreed to.

The Convener

That ends stage 2 consideration of the bill.

The bill will now be reprinted as amended at stage 2. The Parliament has not yet determined when stage 3 will be held. Members will be informed of that in due course, along with the deadline for lodging stage 3 amendments. In the meantime, stage 3 amendments can be lodged with the clerks in the legislation team. Congratulations, Monica.

That concludes the public part of the meeting.

10:48 Meeting continued in private until 11:46.  

The Presiding Officer (Ken Macintosh)

The next item is stage 3 proceedings on the Period Products (Free Provision) (Scotland) Bill. In dealing with the amendments, members should have with them the marshalled list and the groupings of amendments, as well as the bill as amended at stage 2. I remind members that the division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for five minutes for the first division of the afternoon. The period of voting for each division will be up to one minute.

Section 5—Education providers to ensure period products obtainable free of charge by pupils and students

The Presiding Officer

Group 1 is on “Duties on education providers—buildings where provision of period products mandatory, and consultation”. Amendment 1, in the name of Monica Lennon, is grouped with amendments 2 to 6.

Monica Lennon (Central Scotland) (Lab)

I am pleased to speak to the first of my stage 3 amendments.

Amendment 1 and the other amendments in the group that are in my name relate to section 5, which deals with period product provision in education settings, and specifically to the number of locations on student campuses where products should be available. At stage 2, the cabinet secretary initially proposed a statutory minimum of only one location on each student campus, but, after further discussions, I lodged an amendment that provided for a stronger minimum requirement of one location in each building that is normally used by pupils or students. I was pleased that that amendment was agreed to at stage 2 and is now section 5(3) of the amended bill.

At stage 2, concerns were raised that the amendment could make it necessary to provide period products in inappropriate buildings, such as farm buildings in an agricultural college or buildings in rural areas that are not frequently used. I acknowledged those concerns and gave a commitment to lodge amendments at stage 3 to try to improve the drafting.

Amendments 1 to 3 are minor drafting amendments that adjust section 5(3) to make it clear that the requirement to provide period products in a building that is normally used by pupils or students applies even if that is the institution’s only building.

The main amendment in the group is amendment 4, which makes it clear that products do not have to be provided in a building, even if it is normally used by pupils or students, if that building is not suitable. For example, that might be because there are no toilets or changing facilities in the building. Amendment 4 also makes it clear that education providers must consult on the question of what makes a building suitable or unsuitable before a decision is taken, so that the views of students are paramount.

Amendments 5 and 6, which are in the name of the cabinet secretary and which I support, are consequential amendments to section 6D as a result of the consultation requirement in amendment 4.

I move amendment 1.

The Cabinet Secretary for Communities and Local Government (Aileen Campbell)

I would first like to say that it is testament to good and positive co-operation and the level of agreement that we have reached on the bill that there are so few amendments to consider today.

The amendments in the first group relate to section 5. Stage 3 gives us the chance to further fine tune provisions following amendment at stage 2. In order to create the best possible legislation, further improvement to drafting is sometimes required, even when the original intent is agreed. That is why the Scottish Government agrees with and supports amendments 1 to 3, in the name of Monica Lennon, which make the provision in section 5(3) clearer and simpler. As Monica Lennon said, the wording of section 5(3) was debated during stage 2, as concerns had been raised by stakeholders that, as drafted, the requirement was too restrictive. During stage 2, Ms Lennon and I committed to considering that further. Our teams have worked together to better understand stakeholders’ concerns, and I believe that amendment 4 addresses them proportionately.

The Scottish Government strongly agrees that any exception to section 5(3) must be acceptable to pupils and students rather than education providers being able to unilaterally decide that the building is not suitable for the provision of free products. I am pleased that amendment 4 ensures that that is the case, and so we support it.

Ensuring that local voices are heard during the development of local arrangements to make period products obtainable free of charge is a cornerstone of the bill. The essential element of the consultation that is required by section 6D is consultation on where period products should be made obtainable free of charge. The changes to section 5 that are brought about by the addition of section 5(3) at stage 2 and the qualification of that by amendment 4 mean that a consequential amendment to section 6D is required. Taken together, amendments 5 and 6 in my name will do that.

Amendment 5 is a technical amendment that amends section 6D(3)(b), which will now refer to the new subsection 6D(3A) that will be inserted by amendment 6. The new subsection contains all the provisions relating to consultation about which premises and where in those premises period products should be obtainable. Amendment 6 sets out revised consultation requirements in relation to buildings that are normally used by pupils or students, mandating that consultation covers the locations within those buildings where free period products should be provided.

Consultation under new section 6D(3A) is also required before building can be deemed to be unsuitable, as referred to in amendment 4. It also requires education providers to consult on whether free period products should be provided in any additional locations in the premises.

Finally, amendment 6 sets out separately in sections 6D(3A)(a) and 6D(3A)(c) the consultation requirements for local authorities and specified public service bodies with regard to the premises from which free period products should be obtainable. They are largely unchanged from the requirements that were originally set out.

Taken together, amendments 5 and 6 bring the consultation requirements for education providers into line with the amendments to the main duties under section 5, and I urge members to support them.

The Presiding Officer

No other member has indicated that they wish to speak on the group. I encourage all members who are joining us online to make sure that they type an R into the chat box if they wish to contribute on a group.

I invite Monica Lennon to wind up the group if she has anything further to say.

Monica Lennon

I am grateful to the cabinet secretary and her team for working closely with me and my team, and I am happy that we have made progress with the amendments.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Amendments 2 to 4 moved—[Monica Lennon]—and agreed to.

Section 6A—Arrangements under sections 1, 5 and 6: particular requirements

The Presiding Officer

Group 2 is on additional requirements as to arrangements under sections 1, 5 and 6. Amendment 8, in the name of Sarah Boyack, is grouped with amendment 9. I call Sarah Boyack to move amendment 8 and speak to the other amendments in the group.

Sarah Boyack (Lothian) (Lab)

Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I apologise that I was not in for the earlier amendments.

Amendment 8 is all about protecting privacy. In a letter to the Local Government and Communities Committee, the cabinet secretary argued that amendment 8 would be detrimental to the aim of reducing stigma around periods. That is in no way my intention. With amendment 8, we are trying to make sure that there is “reasonable privacy”, which are the words that I put in my amendment. To me, that ensures that a person who needs products can get some privately if that is how they would prefer to get them. The lack of stigma does not need to override a personal preference for privacy.

From what the cabinet secretary has said, my understanding is that she believes that that would be covered under the dignity principle that is already in the bill, so I am keen for her to put on the record this afternoon how she thinks that would be ensured so that, when people are accessing period products, they do not need to be concerned about it.

The intention of amendment 9 is to ensure that at no point will receiving products free of charge be linked to receiving other benefits, both because that undermines the principle of the bill and because doing so would put additional burdens on people by requiring them to prove that they are entitled.

In her letter, the cabinet secretary explained that the wording of the amendment may hamper existing schemes that are linked to other services but not contingent on them, such as health visitor visits. I get that, but I want reassurance that people who need the products will not need to be concerned about it—that they will not have to prove their need or miss out on getting the products. I hope that the cabinet secretary will come back to me on that.

These are key issues and I am keen that the guidance for the public authorities that will implement the legislation encourages them to consult women who need the products, whether they are students—as previously discussed for the earlier amendments—or women more generally. It is critical that getting that feedback is built into the system and encouraged in the guidance, which we will be able to change over the years in the light of experience.

With those comments I will move amendment 8. However, I am keen to hear what the cabinet secretary says and I may not press my amendment, if she gives me the right answers—no pressure!

I move amendment 8.

Aileen Campbell

I understand the thinking behind both of Sarah Boyack’s amendments, but we cannot support them. I will set out why and hope that it is the right answer for Sarah Boyack.

In relation to amendment 8, the requirement that was introduced to the bill at section 6A(a)(ii) for the arrangements that are put in place by responsible bodies to respect dignity already introduces protection in relation to privacy. That requirement will ensure that, if privacy is essential to ensuring dignity in certain circumstances, the need for it will have to be met. Therefore, a separate requirement for privacy is not necessary.

In response to the points that Sarah Boyack raised, we will make sure that we cover some of the issues around privacy in guidance and make it part and parcel of our approach in terms of hearing people’s voices to shape and hone the approach that we take going forward. I hope that that gives some reassurance. Although we will not support the amendment, the points that Sarah Boyack raised will be critical to the practical implementation of the provisions.

Including privacy in the bill also risks stifling potential delivery models that may not meet a requirement for privacy. For example, having a stand in a student union or a stall in a community centre may not be considered to meet the requirement for “reasonable privacy” but would, nonetheless, probably be considered acceptable by most people. It is the unintended consequence of hindering the development of the policy that we are particularly concerned about, but we hope that we can give some reassurance in terms of the guidance that I mentioned.

More fundamentally, I believe that a requirement for privacy may inadvertently perpetuate the belief that periods and period products are something to be embarrassed by or ashamed of. My hope is that the work that we are doing to reduce the stigma means that accessing free period products becomes normality, so privacy would be unnecessary in every situation. We understand that that may be some time off, so I hope that the reassurance that we have given to Sarah Boyack is understood.

Turning to amendment 9, I understand that Sarah Boyack is seeking to ensure that the universality that underpins the bill is protected. We agree with that intent. Protecting universality was at the heart of the Scottish Government approach to amending the bill. However, we do not agree with this specific amendment.

Sections 1, 5 and 6 all clearly state that the duties on responsible bodies are to make period products obtainable by anyone who needs them, with “need” defined in section 9A as the need

“arising from menstruation by the person”.

Therefore, the bill already makes it clear that anyone who menstruates must be able to obtain products. Trying to impose additional qualifying requirements, such as being in receipt of a benefit or accessing a service, would be in breach of those duties.

Amendment 9 could, unfortunately, have unintended consequences by stating that in no way can access to free period products be linked to entitlement for a service, goods or benefits. There is a real risk that local authorities could be prevented from making period products obtainable via services that are limited by eligibility—for example, services for homeless people—and we believe that that would be a backward step. I am sure that that is not what Sarah Boyack wants to see, regardless of how well intentioned the amendment is.

We therefore do not support amendments 8 and 9, but I hope that Sarah Boyack will accept our reassurance that we want to ensure that the universality principle is protected and that voices shape and hone the approach that we take regarding the dignity principle, which is so fundamental to the successful implementation of the bill.

17:00  

Monica Lennon

I am grateful to Sarah Boyack for her amendments, and to Engender, which has worked with her to lodge them.

Amendment 8 provides that all responsible bodies should ensure that products are made obtainable not only “reasonably easily”, as the bill now states, but “with reasonable privacy”. Section 4 as introduced required products to be made available

“reasonably easily and with reasonable privacy”,

so I understand why Sarah Boyack has lodged her amendment. However, the bill has already been amended to ensure that products are obtainable

“in a way that respects the dignity of persons obtaining them”.

The reference to dignity was proposed by the cabinet secretary, on the basis that it not only covered the issue of privacy but applied more widely. I supported that approach at stage 2. I am confident that the aspirations behind amendment 8 can be achieved in the statutory guidance.

Amendment 9 partly replicates an amendment that Sarah Boyack lodged at stage 2. I fully support the intent behind the amendment but, having consulted the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, I understand that using the language of “linked ... to” rather than “contingent on”, for example, may create some unnecessary barriers, which I do not think was intended in drafting the amendment. As the bill already allows any person to obtain products free of charge if they need them, there is no longer any reason to ask people who need products to go through any sort of prior process to establish their eligibility.

Sarah Boyack

With these amendments, I was attempting to test the wording in the bill. That is important work for us to do as legislators who are given this responsibility.

I wanted to pick up the issues that Engender had raised with me, as Monica Lennon highlighted. I also wanted to be sure that different approaches in different parts of the country, for example, would still be possible and that the guidance would enable different types of delivery while at all times ensuring dignity. I wanted to test the bill on the issue of privacy, and I am reassured by the cabinet secretary’s comments this afternoon. With her assurance on the record that the issues that I have raised will be dealt with in guidance, I am minded not to press amendment 8.

I also welcome the comments from Monica Lennon. The bill is hugely aspirational, and it is important that people feel that it will deliver for them. That is what I was trying to test with amendment 9. People do not have to prove that they need these products—they merely need to turn up, and the organisations mandated by the bill will have those in place for them.

We would want to encourage feedback from, and consultation of, those who use the facilities. Like Monica Lennon, I welcome the fact that local authorities have been trying different ways to ensure that products are available. That is great, and they can learn from each other.

With those reassurances on the record, I seek to withdraw amendment 8, and I will not move amendment 9.

Amendment 8, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 9 not moved.

Section 6B—Guidance

The Presiding Officer

Group 3 is on guidance on delivery models. Amendment 10, in the name of Alexander Stewart, is the only amendment in the group.

Alexander Stewart (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)

I acknowledge the work that Monica Lennon has done on the bill and congratulate her on the achievements that she has secured so far. I look forward to the bill progressing further.

My amendment at stage 2 looked at the role of guidance, and my amendment at stage 3 seeks to require the first guidance that is issued to clarify the delivery model that local authorities could use for period products under the duties in section 1(3)(b).

I am aware that, once again, the cabinet secretary is not minded, and does not intend, to support my amendment, as she feels that it could and would be difficult to predict the uptake and costs associated with the option of postage. However, I acknowledge her support and her commitment to work with COSLA and councils on the implementation costs of the bill, and I note the reassurances that have been sought and discussed during the process. I also welcome the cabinet secretary’s commitment to ensuring that the guidance is as helpful as possible for all the responsible bodies involved in the process.

I move amendment 10.

Aileen Campbell

Amendment 10 is very similar to the amendment that Mr Stewart lodged but did not move at stage 2. It seeks to mandate that the guidance that will be issued to local authorities under section 6B must specifically

“include guidance on delivery models that could be used by local authorities in relation to their functions under section 1(3)(b)”.

That permissive paragraph (b) was included in section 1(3) to cover the eventuality that local authorities choose to include postal delivery as part of their arrangements as, otherwise, authorities would be legally obliged to bear the costs of packaging and delivery of products in all cases. Following consultation, local authorities will have the flexibility to decide to include an option for postal delivery of products among their arrangements to fulfil their functions.

Section 1(3)(b) allows local authorities in law—if they choose to include this option in their arrangements—to charge for the packaging and delivery of products. However, if postal delivery is the only way in which an individual might be able to access the free products through the arrangements that have been put in place, posting and packaging should be free. In both those instances, the products themselves must still be free of charge.

The effect of amendment 10 would be to mandate Scottish ministers to issue guidance in a manner that is disproportionate in relation to the existing guidance requirements, which cover all duties under section 1.

Although I sincerely appreciate Alexander Stewart’s amendments and his interest in the bill, we do not support amendment 10. However, we can give him reassurance that we will continue to work with COSLA and local authorities on the issues that he has raised today.

Monica Lennon

I am grateful to Alexander Stewart for his support and his interest in the bill, and for allowing the issues covered by amendment 10 to be debated, but I am of the view that those issues can be addressed in the statutory guidance, rather than being required to appear in the bill.

Amendment 10 replicates the amendment lodged by Alexander Stewart at stage 2, whereby the guidance to local authorities would include specific guidance on the delivery of period products. At stage 2, I did not support his amendment, and I continue to be of the view that the issue should be adequately covered in the guidance that will be issued to local authorities. Indeed, it will be for local authorities to decide where postal or other types of delivery are appropriate and included in their arrangements.

On that basis, I ask Alexander Stewart not to press amendment 10.

Alexander Stewart

I acknowledge the responses from the cabinet secretary and from Monica Lennon. It was my intention to clarify the situation, and I have been assured that the matter will be looked into at council level and that COSLA will be involved in the process. That gives me the reassurance that I need in order to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 10, by agreement, withdrawn.

Section 6D—Consultation

Amendments 5 and 6 moved—[Aileen Campbell]—and agreed to.

After section 7

The Presiding Officer

Group 4 concerns reports on exercise of functions. Amendment 11, in the name of Annie Wells, is the only amendment in the group.

Annie Wells (Glasgow) (Con)

I am extremely supportive of the aims of this landmark bill. Having said that, I have sought reassurances since the beginning of the process that the programme will be adequately funded, fully costed and supported by a robust reporting mechanism to ensure that the bill fulfils its objectives. That is important to ensure the bill’s success, which is something that all parties across the chamber want to see. I believe that it would also be welcomed by many stakeholders who have been involved in the creation of the bill.

In collaboration with stakeholders, I lodged amendments at stages 2 and 3 on the issue. Local authorities and other providers must have confidence that costings have been fully considered. That is necessary, as they require assurances that they can fulfil their duties to support individuals who need access to period products.

I move amendment 11.

Aileen Campbell

Amendment 11 seeks to place a duty on responsible bodies to publish a report on the total cost of meeting their duties under sections 1, 5, 6 and 7 in the first three years following commencement of those duties.

Although we absolutely agree that financial reporting is important, we do not consider that amendment 11 is necessary. That is because the Government has already reached an agreement with COSLA that local authorities will provide, for a period of three years following commencement, data on the costs arising from implementation of the legislation to ensure that they can be appropriately resourced based on the evidence as far as possible. There will also be a review 10 years after implementation. We will seek to reach a similar agreement with colleges and universities. We would expect the data to go into an agreed level of detail on the costs—for example, it should be split into how much was spent on products and how much was spent on administration and delivery of the duties.

There is a risk that, if the amendment were agreed to, local authorities will comply only with the minimum of what is legally asked, which would not allow the Government to fully assess the suitability or otherwise of the funding that they provide and the allocation method for that. More important, it would not enable future improvement of the policy.

Amendment 11 risks undermining our agreement with COSLA, which is practical and proportionate. Therefore, we do not support the amendment.

Monica Lennon

I am grateful to Annie Wells for her contribution and for her explanation behind amendment 11. Although I am sympathetic with the intention behind it, I am satisfied that the arrangement reached with COSLA to publish data will be more satisfactory than what is proposed in the amendment.

The key point for COSLA is that there must be transparent funding and sufficient flexibility to allow the great work that is already happening in many local authorities to continue and to allow the opportunity for good practice to be embedded across the country.

I am content with the commitments given by COSLA and the Scottish ministers on funding and on reporting costs. Like Annie Wells, I want the legislation to be successful in the long term and for the policy to be sustainable. I welcome her scrutiny and her support, but I am not in favour of amendment 11.

Annie Wells

As I said, I lodged a similar amendment at stage 2, and I worked with COSLA to try to ensure that we could get the right wording to allow the amendment to be supported. However, I am absolutely content with the cabinet secretary and Monica Lennon’s remarks that what I am proposing will be done through work with COSLA. Therefore, I will not press my amendment.

Amendment 11, by agreement, withdrawn.

Section 11—Commencement

The Presiding Officer

Group 5 is on commencement. Amendment 7, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is the only amendment in the group.

Aileen Campbell

Amendment 7 is a minor amendment to correct an inconsistency arising from the insertion of section 9A by amendment at stage 2.

As drafted, section 11 provides that section 9A, on “Key definitions”, and section 10, on “Interpretation”, will come into force on different days. It will be preferable for all sections that contain definitions to come into force at the same time. Amendment 7 corrects that inconsistency and will ensure that section 9A will come into force along with section 10 on the day after the bill receives royal assent.

I move amendment 7.

The Presiding Officer

Does Ms Lennon want to add anything?

Monica Lennon

I have nothing to add on that technical amendment.

Amendment 7 agreed to.

The Presiding Officer

That ends consideration of the amendments.

As members may be aware, at this point in proceedings, I am required under standing orders to decide whether, in my view, any provision of the bill relates to a protected subject matter; that is, whether it would modify the electoral system or franchise for Scottish parliamentary elections. In my view, no provision of the Period Products (Free Provision) (Scotland) Bill relates to a protected subject matter; therefore, it does not require a supermajority to be passed at stage 3.

The Presiding Officer (Ken Macintosh)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S5M-23328, in the name of Monica Lennon, on the Period Products (Free Provision) (Scotland) Bill. I invite all members who wish to contribute to press their request-to-speak buttons, and I call Monica Lennon to speak to and move the motion.

17:15  

Monica Lennon (Central Scotland) (Lab)

I opened the stage 1 debate by saying:

“we are standing tall on the shoulders of previous generations of feminists, trade unionists and equality campaigners”.—[Official Report, 25 February 2020; c 20.]

Nine months on, I am delighted to be standing here to open the final debate on the Period Products (Free Provision) (Scotland) Bill. We have got here because we have worked together. We have shown that this Parliament can be a force for progressive change when we collaborate. Our prize is the opportunity to consign period poverty to history. In these dark times, we can bring light and hope to the world this evening.

We have come a long way on this journey since 2016, when I first asked questions in Parliament about period poverty. Parliament has already supported the principles of universal access to free period products. If we pass the bill into law at decision time, nobody in Scotland will ever have to go without period products again. That matters now more than ever, because periods do not stop in a pandemic.

There are places around the world where campaigners and politicians have taken important steps to improve access to period products, but there is not yet a country in the world where gender equality has been achieved. Globally, the struggle for equal rights for women and girls continues. On the issue of period dignity, I am beyond proud that Scotland is leading the way and that we have moved at a fast pace in a short space of time.

When I posed questions to the Scottish Government in 2016 about what was being done to address period poverty, it was clear that United Kingdom-wide austerity was having an impact. Sadly, we know that, in times of economic crisis, women and girls are too often disproportionately disadvantaged. The thought of anyone having to go to a food bank for food, toiletries and essential period products remains unacceptable, and we have huge work to do to address wealth inequalities in our society. Four years on, that economic struggle has not got any better. In fact, the impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic on public health and incomes only make the case for the bill even stronger. Periods do not stop for pandemics, and the work to improve access to essential tampons, pads and reusables has never been more important.

I am grateful that the bill has reached this final stage. For that, I pay heartfelt tribute for her collaboration to the Cabinet Secretary for Communities and Local Government, Aileen Campbell, and to her officials and my own team, who have worked together tirelessly on the bill, particularly in recent months and weeks. We have worked closely on amendments and achieved consensus.

I also express my thanks to the Local Government and Communities Committee and the exceptional non-Government bills unit, especially Andrew, Mary and Claudia. I also thank the president of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, Councillor Alison Evison, for her support and leadership. The dedication and hard work that are already happening on the ground across Scotland’s councils has made progress possible. The bill is built on an equal partnership, and local authorities and education providers have demonstrated their commitment time and again.

Finally, I pay tribute to each and every one of the grass-roots campaigners who have brought periods out of the shadows. Instead of hiding tampons and pads up their sleeves, young people in Scotland in 2020 are more likely to be talking about periods on social media and lobbying their sports clubs, schools and workplaces for essential supplies. In contrast with the vibrant supporters’ rally that energised Parliament and filled the public gallery just nine months ago, the heroes of the campaign are at home today, but their voices remain loud and clear—that Parliament should pass the Period Products (Free Provision) (Scotland) Bill.

Periods should never be a barrier to education or push anyone into poverty. Women, girls and all people who menstruate deserve period dignity. The bill is practical and progressive, and I hope that all MSPs will support it.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that the Period Products (Free Provision) (Scotland) Bill be passed.

The Deputy Presiding Officer (Christine Grahame)

Thank you very much, Ms Lennon. I now call Aileen Campbell to speak on behalf of the Scottish Government.

17:20  

The Cabinet Secretary for Communities and Local Government (Aileen Campbell)

It is a great privilege to be here on the day on which we will commit to Scotland becoming the first country in the world to legislate to ensure that free period products are available to all who need them. The legislation will do much to advance equality and social justice here in Scotland—and elsewhere, as other countries seek to follow our path.

At stage 1, I committed to working to make the bill one that we could all support—MSPs and our partners, who will deliver the legislation, just as they have been delivering free products to pupils, students and those on low incomes in the past few years. I believe that we have accomplished that.

As Monica Lennon said, tonight the Parliament can be proud of collaborative working across parties to deliver ambitious and realistic legislation. It is a day on which we can all agree that devolution is working for the people of Scotland. The important lesson is that we can achieve great things in the Parliament when we work together and focus on what unites us.

I sincerely thank Monica Lennon and her team for working so closely with me and my team to make sure that Parliament will—I think—unanimously pass the bill. The pandemic did not get in the way of the phone calls that we often had as we tried to make sure that we got the bill to a place where we could all unite to support it.

I thank the convener and members—past and present—of the Local Government and Communities Committee for their diligence in getting us to this stage. I thank the clerks of the committee and the parliamentary staff who have helped to steer the bill through during a challenging pandemic. I extend my thanks and appreciation to my bill team and my private office staff, who have worked so hard throughout the process. In particular, I thank Elaine Moir, who has done an inordinate amount of work to make sure that we could get to this place.

I also thank some early campaigners, including Julie Hepburn and Gillian Martin, who tabled the motion at our Scottish National Party conference that set the ball rolling on the Scottish Government’s work to introduce free period products. I thank my predecessor, Angela Constance, for overseeing the Government’s first steps on the policy, with a pilot project in Aberdeen in 2017. We can see what we have achieved a few short years on from those first steps. Since the success of that pilot, we have rolled out provision nationally for those on low incomes; we have implemented free period products in educational establishments; and we have enabled local authorities to ensure that products are available within communities.

We have also made real progress in tackling the stigma and embarrassment that some feel when it comes to periods through our let’s call periods, periods campaign earlier this year. The bill cements Scotland’s world-leading approach to period dignity.

Others have also played a critical part, such as the on the ball campaigners who have had success in persuading more than 100 football clubs to provide free period products in stadiums and the countless businesses that have started to do the same in workplaces, shops, bars and restaurants.

We have worked with the social enterprise Hey Girls to develop training materials to encourage period dignity in the workplace and a period products locator app, which, although delayed due to Covid, will be a vital resource in the future. Other organisations, including Young Scot, the Scottish Youth Parliament and Girlguiding Scotland, have also campaigned for period equality. The guides even introduced a period poverty badge.

We are seeing a real change in culture—a move away from stigma. It is becoming normal for period products to be available in a range of spaces. Monica Lennon’s bill will lock in that progress. Despite the challenges of Covid, we have worked in collaboration with her and with stakeholders to ensure that the bill retains the general principle that anyone, whoever they are and wherever they are in Scotland, should be able to access free period products in a dignified way when they need them, whatever the circumstances, and in a cost-effective and deliverable way.

The bill will place a duty on local authorities to ensure that period products are obtainable in their areas free of charge to anyone who needs them. Local authorities are best placed to make that happen in their communities, but, importantly, the bill mandates consultation, ensuring that local voices are also heard. The principles of dignity and choice, which have underpinned all our work so far and are now protected by the bill, will help to maintain high standards in meeting that duty.

The eyes of the world have been watching us and learning from us. The insights that we have gained from implementing our policies have been shared with other UK nations and beyond. They directly informed New Zealand’s provision of free products in high schools, which was announced in summer.

The bill is a world first in ensuring that, by law, anyone who needs free period products can access them, wherever in the country they live. It is a significant moment for gender equality. I sincerely hope that members of all parties will support the bill. I again pay tribute to Monica Lennon for her work in getting us to this place.

17:25  

Annie Wells (Glasgow) (Con)

I sincerely welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate on this important issue and I thank Monica Lennon and her team for their determined efforts to introduce this trailblazing bill in the Parliament, in collaboration with the Scottish Government, members of the Scottish Parliament and other partners.

Let me say from the outset that the Scottish Conservatives support the bill’s overarching aims. It is essential to the dignity of those who use period products that products are made accessible when they are required. As many groups and organisations made clear during the bill process, there are obstacles that hinder many individuals’ ability to access essential period products. We must tackle the issue head-on.

Obstacles to access to period products have a detrimental effect on the wellbeing of people who use them. More significant, not having such access can lead to serious health complications. Along with members across the Parliament, I am clear that no individual in Scotland should see their health, work or education suffer because they cannot, for whatever reason, access the products that they require to function as a human being. Therefore, the Scottish Conservatives and I will welcome any steps that are taken to improve accessibility.

I am pleased that a core provision of the bill will ensure that people who require them will be able to obtain period products free of charge. That is a positive step forward, as it will ensure that the appropriate products are available to people regardless of their financial circumstances.

Although I have supported the aims of this important bill throughout the bill process, I have sought assurances that the programme will be adequately funded, fully costed and supported by a robust reporting mechanism, to ensure that the bill meets its objectives. The amendments that I lodged at stages 2 and 3 aimed to ensure that that would be the case. Local authorities and other providers must have confidence that the costings have been fully considered, and I continue to believe that a strong reporting mechanism is essential.

I was glad to hear the commitments that were made in that regard this afternoon, and I am glad that, in the latter stages of the bill process, the Government took stock of the debate and had discussions with stakeholders, including COSLA, which agrees with me that financial reporting is important, albeit that the Government did not support my amendment 11. It is encouraging that reporting is being considered as seriously as it deserves to be. At the end of the day, we want the bill to succeed and to support those who require period products. That is why I decided not to press amendment 11; agreement had been reached on the issue, which I welcome.

We have a chance to demonstrate Scotland’s intention to champion period dignity and, I hope, inspire others to do the same. I again thank everyone who engaged constructively with this landmark bill, which demonstrates what the Parliament is capable of when members of different parties come together to fight a common battle for the betterment of Scotland’s people. I am sure that we all welcome and would like to see more of that collaboration and consensus.

17:29  

Sarah Boyack (Lothian) (Lab)

Today, we are doing what this Parliament was designed to do: we are improving the lives of people in Scotland. We are also making history. I congratulate my Labour colleague Monica Lennon on getting the bill to this stage, and I recognise the tremendous amount of work that she and her team put into making this possible, over not just months but years.

It is also important to recognise the vital work of grass-roots campaigners, who made a fantastic contribution by pushing hard to influence the Government’s approach to the bill. We heard from a range of trade unions, the Educational Institute of Scotland, Endometriosis UK, Children in Scotland, Barnardo’s, the Poverty Alliance and Disability Equality Scotland. Many organisations wrote to us to say, “This issue is central to people’s lives now—please get on and put the bill through Parliament.”

I thank the Parliament’s clerks for their assistance in drafting amendments for several of us to test the detail of the bill. Even if those amendments were not always passed, the test was important for us. The evidence that we scrutinised at stage 1 convinced me that this was a really important bill—not just symbolic, but one that would lead to a real increase in opportunities to access period products for many who were excluded. Even the fact that we have been discussing the bill is important, because it sends a clear message that we can and should not only think about access to period products but directly tackle the stigma.

Scottish Labour and the trade unions have been campaigning for legislation not just to eliminate period poverty but to deliver dignity and accessibility to period products across the country. The Scottish Trades Union Congress video on Twitter today is inspiring and brings home how the bill will impact people’s lives.

I put on record my thanks for the contribution that our local authorities and universities and colleges have already made by getting out there, experimenting, seeing what works and making products available. I hope that that will encourage other employers to make period products available—not just those who will be required to by the legislation but more widely. Some of the trade unionists pointed out the difficulty in accessing period products.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary for Communities and Local Government, Aileen Campbell—she will not hear me say that every time I speak in a debate. Her constructive work, following stage 1, with my colleague Monica Lennon ensured that we ended up with a bill that, hopefully, the whole Parliament will support. The bill has been tested and was endlessly debated between the two of them, and when it came to committee we could support it. That was really important.

The pandemic has made the bill even more important, because people have lost incomes and their livelihoods, and many are struggling financially. The charity Bloody Good Period—what a good name—reports that it is now providing six times the amount of products that it did before the pandemic. That is because people are struggling. The charity has had to supply products to food banks, community support groups, women fleeing domestic violence, asylum seekers and refugees, homeless shelters and even NHS front-line workers who could not access products because of the hours that they were working and shortages in the shops. The bill will make a difference now. As Monica Lennon said, it reinforces the importance of local authorities working in our communities to deliver equality on the ground.

I hope that, when the cabinet secretary is involved in discussions for the upcoming budget, she will push for a harder, fairer long-term settlement to enable our local authorities to continue to be radical and deliver the ambitions in the bill not just now but in the future. Let us celebrate the passing of the bill today and the success of grass-roots campaigners in building the political and cross-party support to get us to this stage. Let us also work together to ensure that those responsible for implementing the legislation are given the financial support that they need.

17:33  

Andy Wightman (Lothian) (Green)

I, too, congratulate Monica Lennon for her spirited determination in pursuit of the bill, for her persistence in the face of difficulties and obstacles, and for her infectious enthusiasm and cheery disposition all along the way, which I am sure must have masked some disappointing moments.

I also commend the cabinet secretary for her constructive role in lodging amendments to the bill in order that it is capable of securing all-party support tonight, which I hope it will. I also congratulate all those who have supported Monica Lennon, many of whom have been mentioned by Sarah Boyack, from the trade unions to the sassy, smart and creative social enterprise Hey Girls.

The bill as introduced provided for a duty to be placed on ministers to create a scheme of universal provision of period products. It has ended up as a bill creating a duty on local authorities. I believe that that is a far more elegant solution, and I commend COSLA, in particular, for its commitment, hard work and engagement in what has been a slightly difficult conversation at times. The bill enshrines local flexibility and delivery by councils and their partners in the manner best suited to their demographics, geography and needs.

In many pre-modern societies, menstruation was celebrated and revered, but world religions and their associated patriarchy have condemned women and girls to a life of taboo, shame and indignity in far too many countries and cultures across the world. According to the World Bank,

“At least 500 million women and girls globally lack adequate facilities for menstrual hygiene management”,

and it is well established through a growing body of evidence that

“girls’ inability to manage their menstrual hygiene in schools results in school absenteeism, which in turn, has severe economic costs on their lives”

and on their communities. So I am proud that, today, the Scottish Parliament will—I hope it will—agree to Monica Lennon’s bill. It not only provides a new rights-based framework for everyone who needs period products but sends an important signal to other societies, communities and countries that it is possible to break the taboos, end the patriarchy and uphold human dignity.

As a father, a husband and a son, I sincerely hope that, for all those girls in school today who are in some distress or suffering from shame, what we do today will be of some comfort, hope and justice. The Scottish Greens will be delighted to support the bill at decision time.

17:36  

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Edinburgh Western) (LD)

I will start on a personal note. Monica Lennon and I entered the Parliament on the same day, and we have had many of the same jobs. She is currently a shadow health spokesperson, as am I, and I cannot understand where she has found all the time to realise this important piece of legislation. She has driven it relentlessly, practically since the start of our term in office, and I salute her for that tremendous achievement and what it means for women, girls and everyone in this country who menstruates.

Unquestionably, the Liberal Democrats will support the bill at decision time. I was a signatory to the original draft member’s bill, because strengthening the basic human rights and human dignity of our people is what the Parliament is primarily for and it is why, like colleagues across the chamber, I entered politics.

Forgive me for stating the obvious, but I am not a woman and I have never experienced the panic of being caught out by the onset of my period in a public place. Nor have I been in poverty to the extent that I have had to line my underwear with socks or toilet tissue because I could not afford to buy basic sanitary products, and I have never had to miss work or school because I could not afford those products. However, my lack of understanding of those experiences does not mean that I do not care passionately about ensuring that the bill is passed and that free sanitary products are provided across Scotland. I do not think it should take first-hand experience of menstruation or period poverty to understand that the bill is about basic human dignity, and I salute Monica Lennon for that.

It is estimated that the average period costs around £8 per month in sanitary supplies for one person. One charity has calculated that the average lifetime cost of a period is £4,800. As I heard Monica Lennon say on the radio this morning, no one would go into a public building and expect to have to bring their own toilet paper, so why should women be expected to bring their own sanitary products? For too many, the opportunity cost of period poverty presents impossible choices—it is £8 that does not go towards nappies for a young child or feeding the family, and it is £8 that cannot be used for the basic necessities of daily life. No one should be forced to make those choices.

The bill will make huge strides in addressing period inequality, but beyond that we need to start talking about periods as a part of everyday life that too many in society are uncomfortable discussing. We need to bring the subject out of the shadows. That, in turn, needs to be part of a wider commitment to opening discussion and understanding of even the most sensitive aspects of health and wellbeing.

It is with great pride that my party and I will support the bill at decision time. Once again, I heartily congratulate Monica Lennon on her achievement.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I think that I am calling James Dornan next. Yes—I am.

17:39  

James Dornan (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)

I am delighted to hear that, Presiding Officer. Thank you.

As the only MSP who did not support the bill at stage 1, and as the convener of the Local Government and Communities Committee, I am delighted to speak today about my support for the bill as it is now, and about the committee’s work in scrutinising what has become a truly collaborative piece of policy making. It is always good to see members and the Government working together across the political divide to create important legislation. The bill shows what can be achieved when we do that.

The Local Government and Communities Committee was the lead committee for scrutiny of the bill at stage 1 between September 2019 and February 2020, when we published our report. At the time, we commended Monica Lennon’s work and her collaboration with the cabinet secretary. That joint work helped to highlight the issues of access and affordability in relation to period products, and to highlight the stigma that goes with them.

Following our stage 1 deliberations, we concluded that, although we unanimously supported the bill’s intention to end the stigma of unequal access to period products, the majority of the committee could not support the bill as it was drafted, because of a number of concerns. The concerns were about the disparity between the costs that were presented in the financial memorandum and the costs that the Scottish Government estimated for implementing a universal scheme; the imposition of a duty on as-yet-unidentified public bodies that would have a cost that the Scottish Government was not compelled to fund; lack of support for the initially proposed voucher scheme; and the additional administrative burden and costs that were associated with postal delivery.

It has therefore been welcome to see a completely different picture emerge at stages 2 and 3. Many of the concerns were addressed, largely through collaboration between the member in charge of the bill and the cabinet secretary. Many of the stage 2 amendments that the committee agreed to had previously been jointly agreed by the cabinet secretary and the member in charge. There was only one vote during the committee’s proceedings.

As a result, a far more workable bill is before us. It keeps Ms Lennon’s principal aim of making period products available free by law to anyone who needs them, but it does so by allowing local authorities the freedom to do what is most appropriate locally to meet that stated aim. The principles of choice, privacy and removal of stigma have been maintained, but a flexible and sensible approach is being used.

It is worthy of note that a revised financial memorandum from the cabinet secretary has been finalised in collaboration with the member in charge. That is a welcome addition, given the committee’s significant concerns about the costings.

I congratulate Ms Lennon again on introducing the bill, the cabinet secretary on her determination to ensure that the good work that had been done was built on, and all the organisations and individuals who have campaigned for the aim for so long, some of whom the cabinet secretary has mentioned. Today is a good day for all of them, it is a good day for women, young girls and all others—however they identify—who menstruate, and it is a good day for the Parliament.

17:42  

Mary Fee (West Scotland) (Lab)

There are many people and organisations to thank for bringing the bill to stage 3. My colleague Monica Lennon has worked hard and diligently to secure the bill’s passage, and women and girls across Scotland will be grateful to her for her commitment to ending period poverty. I thank colleagues from across the chamber for their contributions to this short but nonetheless important and historic debate.

With the backing of a wide range of campaigners, third sector groups and trade unions, the bill has justifiable and widespread support across Scotland. It should be welcomed as a positive step towards the achievement of equality and social justice.

Entering work or education comes with many fears and anxieties, and lack of access to period products should not be one of them. No longer will one in four young women and girls, and trans boys and young trans men, struggle to access period products. That figure is from Young Scot’s survey of 2,000 young people. No longer should anyone’s physical health be at risk because of lack of access to period products. No longer should anyone feel shame or stigma about their period and the affordability of period products.

I thank the Scottish Government and many local authorities for voluntarily funding provision in areas across the country. The bill will make such provision a legal requirement. It shows again that Scotland can lead on equality and social justice.

The coronavirus pandemic has exposed poverty and job insecurities across Scotland. At a time when people are worried about their incomes and job security, the last thing that they should be worried about is having to afford period products. Food banks have been tremendously supportive in providing a range of sanitary products throughout the pandemic, and long before it, but the legal requirements in the bill should help food banks to focus more on making sure that no one goes hungry. That is the sad reality that we have faced in the past decade of austerity.

Again, I offer my support and congratulations to Monica Lennon on the progress of the Period Products (Free Provision) (Scotland) Bill, and I look forward to Parliament voting to end period poverty at decision time today.

17:45  

Alexander Stewart (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)

I am pleased to close, for the Scottish Conservatives, this afternoon’s debate on the important matter of free provision of period products.

First, I pay tribute to Monica Lennon for her tireless campaign to raise awareness of the issue and for seeking a positive solution.

We all agree that no one should struggle to access sanitary products due to poverty. However, many people in Scotland face that problem today. A survey for Plan International UK found that a significant one in seven had, at one time or another, struggled to afford sanitary products.

Period poverty has had a severe impact on the health and wellbeing of many women and girls, and affects their attendance at educational or vocational establishments. That issue needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency, and we are doing that today in Parliament.

As we discussed at earlier stages of the bill, I and other members of the committee had concerns about whether legislation would be the most appropriate way to address the issue. There were also concerns about a universal scheme and how to meet its costs, so I am delighted that the Government, Monica Lennon and other members worked together to ensure passage for the bill.

I am pleased that some of the concerns—which were addressed at stage 2 through amendments that were lodged by the cabinet secretary and Monica Lennon—were addressed, and that we now find that there are possibilities to ensure that many of them are allayed. In my view, many of the changes are to be welcomed.

My amendments at stage 2 and 3 sought to require clarity in the guidance, so I am delighted that the cabinet secretary took on board concerns and liaised with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and local government to ensure that that is included in the bill. I also welcome her commitment to ensuring that the guidance will ensure that the responsibilities of other bodies are taken on board.

I also welcome the agreement that the cabinet secretary has reached in relation to my colleague Annie Wells’s amendment on reporting gathering more detail than simply the costs. Financial reporting is vitally important in ensuring that councils are properly funded to carry out the duties in the bill. It is important that we got that clarified.

There has been exceptional work, collaboration and co-operation among MSPs and across parties to ensure passage of the bill. I pay tribute to Sarah Boyack for what she brought forward in relation to dignity, access, privacy and guidance. That has now been secured and we look forward to seeing that work progressing and being discussed.

In conclusion, I say that the Scottish Conservatives are happy to support the bill at stage 3, and we welcome the improvements that were made to ensure its passage through Parliament, to this evening. Period poverty is an increasingly serious issue that must be addressed, and the bill will go far in ensuring that.

17:48  

Aileen Campbell

Today, the Scottish Parliament takes an important step to protect in law the good work that the Scottish Government has already put in place.

I thank members for their many excellent contributions to the debate and their reflections on the importance of access to free period products. It is clear that everyone in the chamber agrees that no one in our society should have to suffer the indignity of not having the means to meet their basic needs, and that being able to access period products is fundamental to equality and dignity.

The legislation shows what can be done when the entire Parliament recognises a need to act and build on cross-party consensus and collaborative work. In particularly challenging times, it has been an example of the Parliament at its best, and I am proud to have been a part of that work.

Since the successful Aberdeen pilot, we have rolled out national provision for those on low incomes. We have also implemented the provision of free period products in education establishments around the country, enabled local authorities to ensure that such products are available in communities, and made progress in tackling the stigma and embarrassment that some people feel when it comes to periods.

I do not think that, a few years ago, any of us could have imagined a campaign to tackle the stigma that still surrounds periods in the way that our “Let’s call periods, periods” campaign did earlier this year. It included posters on bus stops and even a cinema advert that challenged the existing stereotypes. However, as Andy Wightman recognised, the social taboo and stigma associated with periods are still global challenges. Such recognition is right, and we must work collectively to tackle such challenges.

Of course, we all know that the bill whose passage we have been debating today is not the end of the hard work. I know that members will be interested in the next stage, as we seek to implement the act. As quickly as we can after royal assent, we will act to consult stakeholders to produce clear guidance, which will reflect all the views that we have heard today, to ensure that the duties and obligations on local authorities and education providers in respect of the legislation are understood, and so that all such bodies can strive to achieve the excellent examples of delivery that we have seen across the country.

In my opening remarks, I mentioned the global attention that has been focused on Scotland in relation to free period products. The passage of the bill will send a very important message about the kind of country that we want Scotland to be. It is a gender-equal Scotland, in which no one has to go through the indignity of using unsuitable materials to manage their periods, or to go without products in order to stretch household budgets further to enable them to buy other items for their children, or to miss out on education. It is also one in which no one has to hide a tampon up their sleeve. We want to create a country in which everyone is able to participate in society and achieve their potential.

Many people have played their part in getting us to this point. Before I close, I again pay tribute to those who have who have led us to this point: our delivery partners, individuals, campaigners, organisations, members across the Parliament and, of course, Monica Lennon. I thank her and her team for their collaborative working. They should rightly be proud of their achievement—just as we can all be proud that, today, Scotland remains a world leader in period dignity and the Parliament is united over the provision of free period products. As Chelsea Clinton tweeted in response to our landmark provision in education settings,

“Thank you Scotland ... for leading the way ... Hopefully Scotland is only the first country to do this, not the only”.

This year, 2020, has been a horribly traumatic one. As it comes to an end, by voting to support the bill we can look to a future in which lives will be improved and Scotland’s world-leading role will be continued.

I again thank all members who have taken part in the debate for helping us to make the bill what it is. I pay particular tribute to Monica Lennon for her work, and for working with us to ensure that we have a bill of which we can all be proud.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I call Monica Lennon, the member in charge of the bill, to wind up the debate. Ms Lennon, you can take up till 6 o’clock if you wish. That is not imperative; it is just if you wish.

17:53  

Monica Lennon

Thank you, Presiding Officer. As always, you are very kind.

I am so grateful to members for their contributions to the debate. I again thank the cabinet secretary for her comments and her commitment to the bill, and I associate myself with her remarks.

There are so many people to thank for their support for the legislation. There is so much to say, but so little time in which to do so, even though I might have an extra minute or two on the clock. Early pioneers such as South Lanarkshire College and North Ayrshire Council were among the first organisations to provide free period products before it became a welcome Scottish Government policy and when the parliamentary process for the bill was still very much in its infancy. I will be eternally grateful for their vision and commitment. They showed that this could be done. I am grateful, too, to the cabinet secretary’s predecessor, Angela Constance, for her initial work to get the pilot scheme under way in Aberdeen before she passed the baton on.

Over the years, I have visited dozens of amazing organisations, the length and breadth of Scotland, that have been playing their part to end the cycle of period poverty: the University of Dundee, Forth Valley College, Community Food Initiatives North East—CFINE—in Aberdeen, Lanarkshire Carers Centre and Community Links (South Lanarkshire) in my region, and too many more to mention in the few minutes that I have left. It is thanks to the energy and belief of Girlguiding Scotland, which has been a champion of the need for legislation, and to the pupils at Larbert high school, in Falkirk, who are behind the lady business group in their school. It is thanks to the Scottish Youth Parliament and the Children’s Parliament, and to Erin, Orlaith and Mikaela, who spearheaded the on the ball campaign, which put period products into football stadiums.

I thank the Equality Network and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender organisations for their solidarity and for ensuring that trans men and non-binary people will benefit from the bill, too. I thank campaigners such as Victoria Heaney, whose research helped people to see that period poverty is real. I thank Women for Independence for its passionate campaigning. I thank Perth and Kinross Association of Voluntary Services, which invented the iconic tampon taxi, for transporting period products to those in need throughout lockdown.

I thank Simon Community Scotland for its innovative period-friendly points and its work on homelessness. I thank our local authorities, which have embraced change and made free period products more widely available in libraries, leisure centres and community halls.

I also thank the incredible campaigning from trade unionists across Scotland who believe in period dignity for all workers. The STUC continues to break down barriers around menstruation and menopause, and I am delighted that Roz Foyer and Mary Senior are committed to continuing that work.

Thanks to that amazing grass-roots activism, universal access to free period products has become a mainstream campaign that every political party in the chamber has embraced. We all agree that no one should have to worry about where their next tampon pad or reusable is coming from. We are on the brink of passing this world-leading bill. Scotland will not be the last country to consign period poverty to history, but we have the chance to be the first. This has been a long time coming, and I hope that Parliament will unite behind the bill.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

That concludes the debate on the Period Products (Free Provision) (Scotland) Bill. There will be a short pause before we move to the next item of business.

The Presiding Officer (Ken Macintosh)

I am minded to accept a motion without notice to bring forward decision time to now. I invite the Minister for Parliamentary Business and Veterans to move the motion.

Motion moved,

That, under Rule 11.2.4, Decision Time be brought forward to 6.00 pm.—[Graeme Dey]

Motion agreed to.

The Presiding Officer (Ken Macintosh)

There are two questions to be put at decision time. The first question is, that motion S5M-23342, in the name of Lewis Macdonald, on supply and demand for medicines, be agreed to.

Motion agreed to,

That the Parliament notes the conclusions and recommendations contained in the Health and Sport Committee’s 6th Report 2019 (Session 5), Supply and demand for medicines (SP Paper 774).

The Presiding Officer

The next question is on a bill, so there will be a vote. I will suspend the meeting for a few minutes to allow all members, both in the chamber and online, to access the voting app.

17:59 Meeting suspended.  

18:03 On resuming—  

The Presiding Officer

Colleagues, we will move straight to the vote. The question is, that motion S5M-23328, in the name of Monica Lennon, on the Period Products (Free Provision) (Scotland) Bill at stage 3, be agreed to. Members may vote now. This will be a one-minute division.

The vote is now closed. If any member had any difficulty in voting they should indicate that with a point of order made here in the chamber or in the online chat function.

Daniel Johnson (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would have voted for the motion to pass the bill.

The Presiding Officer

Thank you, Mr Johnson. I note that you would have voted in favour of the bill; your name will be added to the voting roll.

Fergus Ewing (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would have voted for the bill. I did not get the pin number.

The Presiding Officer

Thank you, Mr Ewing. I note that you would have voted for the motion.

Clare Adamson (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I am afraid that I had problems with BlueJeans again. I would have voted yes.

The Presiding Officer

Thank you, Ms Adamson. You would have voted yes—and we all heard the dog in the background. Your name will be added to the voting roll.

I confirm that Fergus Ewing’s name will also be added to the voting roll.

Maurice Corry (West Scotland) (Con)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I, too, did not get the pin number. I would have voted yes.

The Presiding Officer

Thank you, Mr Corry. That is noted. You would have voted yes and your name will be added to the voting roll. Thank you for that confirmation.

For

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Ind)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division on motion S5M-23328, in the name of Monica Lennon, on the Period Products (Free Provision) (Scotland) Bill at stage 3 is: For 121, Against 0, Abstentions 0.

The motion is agreed to and the bill is passed. [Applause.]

Motion agreed to,

That the Parliament agrees that the Period Products (Free Provision) (Scotland) Bill be passed.

The Presiding Officer

That concludes decision time. We will move shortly to members’ business in the name of Rona Mackay. I encourage all members who are leaving the chamber to do so carefully, to observe social distancing, to wear their masks and to follow the one-way system that is in operation around the chamber.

18:10 Members' business will be published tomorrow, 25 November 2020, as soon as the text is available.