Chamber and committees

Is there anything that could be improved?

That is helpful. I will bring in Tony Wilson.

The evidence session has been an informative and engaging start to the inquiry. I thank all the witnesses for your evidence and giving us your time. We intend to continue taking evidence in November before we hear from the Deputy First Minister at our meeting on 8 December. If witnesses would like to raise any further evidence with the committee, they can do so in writing, and the clerks would be happy to liaise with you on how to do that.

The committee’s next meeting will be on 10 November, when we will continue our inquiry by considering the drivers behind long-term illness in greater depth. That concludes the public part of our meeting.

To ask the Scottish Government whether it can provide an update on Prestwick airport’s contribution to the South Ayrshire economy. (S6O-01487)

Prestwick was one of the few airports in the world to make a profit during the pandemic, and it has played a major part in cargo distribution across the United Kingdom. With the Brexit chaos and the backlog of cargo at Heathrow, it was actually quicker to send cargo to Prestwick and then down to London than it was to get it out of Heathrow. Prestwick airport is also an integral part of the aerospace industry, which currently supports more than 4,000 jobs locally. Does the minister agree that the continual Conservative criticism in the chamber of Prestwick airport is bizarre?

What impact are policies such as the two-child cap, the benefit cap, the five-week wait and the lower universal credit payments for parents under 25 having on people who face challenges with debt?

As convener of the COVID-19 Recovery Committee, it is my pleasure to speak about such an important topic, and I commend the Social Justice and Social Security Committee for bringing the debate to the chamber.

I will shortly talk about some of the COVID-19 Recovery Committee’s work within the context of the cost crisis. First, though, it is important to stress that the impact of the cost crisis is a cross-cutting issue that affects everyone. This debate is an excellent opportunity to highlight parliamentary committees’ welcome scrutiny of the issue.

Like other committees, we have just completed our pre-budget scrutiny. Last week, we wrote to the Deputy First Minister with our recommendations, which included calling on the Scottish Government to clarify whether the cost crisis will affect the funding of the Covid recovery strategy. As members are aware, the strategy was published in October 2021, well before the scale of the cost crisis was apparent. During evidence, we heard how the impact of the cost crisis could affect the funding and delivery of the strategy, with stark warnings that it will pose significant challenges for organisations, service providers and individuals that are even greater than those faced during the pandemic. The Scottish Government’s budget is worth roughly £1.7 billion less than it was last December, and we asked whether the Government intends to refresh the strategy to reflect any policy changes in the light of the cost crisis.

In a similar vein, at a recent Conveners Group meeting, I asked the First Minister whether the Government’s priorities for recovery had changed in the light of the cost crisis. She confirmed that its aims and objectives for recovery had not changed but that the context had. The First Minister spoke of the importance of focusing on inequalities made worse by the pandemic and the cost crisis, particularly for ethnic minorities and those who are less well off.

Among many other things, the report considered bankruptcy and digital exclusion, both of which have been impacted by the cost crisis. The COVID-19 Recovery Committee also considered those areas as part of our scrutiny of the Coronavirus (Recovery and Reform) (Scotland) Bill. Put simply, the bill was introduced to make permanent some provisions that were introduced through emergency Covid legislation in relation to public health and public service reform, which covered the remote delivery of public services. The aim was to retain service improvements that had been brought in during the pandemic and support resilience against future public health threats.

We heard about the experience of delivering public services remotely, including increased flexibilities and resource savings. However, witnesses highlighted some of the barriers to accessibility that exist for some users. The committee recommended that the bill be amended to ensure that all local authorities provide a choice of remote or in-person services, including the provision of hard copy documents where required.

We also considered the bill’s provisions on bankruptcy. Before I go on, it is worth explaining that people can only be forced into bankruptcy by their creditors if they owe more than a certain amount of money. Covid emergency legislation increased the debt threshold at which a creditor could make someone bankrupt, to protect people from harsh outcomes during the pandemic, and the bill set it permanently at a higher rate. The committee heard mixed views on what the debt threshold level should be, and it noted that the cost crisis had escalated considerably since the bill was introduced. The Government subsequently acknowledged the need to keep the threshold under review, particularly in the light of the current economic situation.

I turn to the committee’s future work. We are about to look at the impact of Covid on the labour market, focusing specifically on the proportion of economically inactive people who are on long-term sickness absence, as well as those who have chosen early retirement.? I am sure that issues relating to the cost crisis are bound to come up over the course of our inquiry.

As has been the case with Covid itself, this issue is a complex one that will not go away any time soon. As other members have said, addressing it will require actions from both the UK and Scottish Governments. Today’s debate highlights the strong parliamentary scrutiny that is being carried out to ensure that we can respond appropriately to the fiscal pressures that we all face.

I thank every member who has supported the motion. This is such an important issue that affects so many women, so I really look forward to hearing contributions from members from all sides of the chamber.

“Menopause”, “the change of life” and “being a woman of a certain age” are just some of the terms that are used to describe a time of life that happens to every woman, regardless of race, colour, social status or background. A total of 51 per cent of Scotland’s population are women, and will go through it. Although some are lucky enough to breeze through it, others have negative experiences.

In general, menopause happens between the ages of 45 and 55, when periods stop as a result of hormone levels dropping. The phase before that is called perimenopause, when women might experience night sweats, hot flashes, joint pain, migraines and trouble sleeping. Those are just some of the physical symptoms; we can add to them mental fog, anxiety, panic attacks and depression.

Historically, the menopause and, indeed, the perimenopause have rarely been talked about. The subject was mentioned with embarrassment, in hushed tones, and was most certainly never discussed in public or around men: it was taboo. That has left women with questions—sometimes with no answers—such as, “What are the symptoms?”, “How do I know if I am going through the menopause?” and “Where can I get help?”

That has been the case until now. The conversation has started, which has been branded “the Davina effect”, as celebrities and women in the public eye such as Davina McCall have been sharing their experiences of menopause symptoms and treatments. Davina and others like her, including Penny Lancaster, Carol Vorderman and our own First Minister, have become increasingly willing to share their stories. Some are part of a wider menopause movement down south and are challenging the notion that women should just shut up, put up and carry on.

The conversation for me starts on a very personal note, as I recently started menopause treatment. To be honest, I investigated it only after having discussions with colleagues. I am 51 and I believe that I have been perimenopausal for several years without even knowing it. About four years ago, I started to get pain in my lower back. It would wake me up at night, and every morning, when I got up, I was totally crippled. As the day went on, things got better, but the pain always returned at night. I went to the doctor—I even had a magnetic resonance imaging scan, but everything came back clear. I just put it down to getting older, and I learned to live with the pain.

I also did not feel like myself. I was not the person that I used to be and did not have the energy that I once had; I felt that I was always in a constant low. I put it down to age and dismissed it as perhaps being down to the stress of being in politics—we all know how stressful it can be, at times. A few months ago, however, I made an appointment at my local surgery to discuss treatment for menopause. I was lucky that my general practitioner recognised the symptoms straight away, and a treatment plan was put in place. It is still early days for me, but the first thing that I noticed, after one night, was that my night pain had improved instantly. I only wish that I had known more about the symptoms and had asked for help sooner.

It is worth stressing that hormone replacement therapy is not the answer for everybody—-there is no one-size-fits-all solution for menopause. Since that diagnosis, I have heard from many women who have experienced the same symptoms as I did. Such symptoms are often never recorded—they are simply put down to age and are pushed aside. Those women were struggling through each day—miserable, anxious and in pain, thinking that they had dementia or arthritis. They believed “This is just my lot.”

Last weekend, I spoke at a local ladies event in Prestwick, where menopause was definitely a hot topic of the day. One lady, who is a local dentist, told me that she had gone to a doctor and was “diagnosed” with “stress”. After persevering, she found out that it was not stress, and she was put on HRT for menopause. However, I highlight her story because when she renewed her income protection insurance, her premium went up because of the misdiagnosis of her symptoms as being a result of stress. That should not be happening.

In August last year, we welcomed the publication of “Women’s Health Plan: A plan for 2021-2024”, which outlined ambitious and bold plans to improve health and reduce inequalities for women in Scotland. That is great, and the plan is so important.

I will tell members a personal story about a flippant remark that I heard many years ago from a doctor in Australia, and which haunted me for a long time. When I was 27, I was diagnosed with polycystic ovaries. I remember being told by the doctor, in a really dismissive way, “You’re probably not going to have any kids.” I questioned that—I said, “What do you mean, I won’t have any kids?” He said, “Well, are you planning on having kids? Do you even have a boyfriend? If not, you’d better hurry up.” I did have a boyfriend at the time, but that dismissive attitude had a huge impact on me for years afterwards, because I thought that I was never going to have children. Thank God the diagnosis was wrong, and I went on to have my three children, which was always part of my plan.

That happened a long time ago, but it shows how such important women’s health issues were so misunderstood and were just not seen as a priority. In the “Women’s Health Plan”, a priority for menopause is to ensure that there is

“access to specialist ... services for advice and support on the diagnosis and management of menopause”.

In October last year, the Scottish Government launched the NHS Inform menopause information platform to bust myths and highlight symptoms and the treatment and support that are in place. More than a year later, there is a specialist service for menopause in each mainland health board.

It would be remiss of me, as an employer, to ignore the issue of menopause in the workplace, especially given that the majority of my staff are women between the ages of 45 and 55. Around 320,000 women in Scotland are of that age, which is working age for many of them. I recently attended the launch event of “Let’s talk about menopause”, which was hosted by NHS Ayrshire and Arran at University hospital Crosshouse. The board is one of the largest employers in the area, and is actively putting in place menopause support for its staff. Half the board’s staff are women over 45. As we know, that is the age at which, for the vast majority of women, menopause symptoms manifest themselves and can last for up to 12 years.

Finally, I urge women to act—to seek help, advice and treatment. I also remind employers to show compassion and understanding towards those women. There is no one-size-fits-all approach to menopause—what works for me might not work for someone else, and my symptoms might not be like theirs. That is why we need a meaningful dialogue, and when menopause awareness month comes around, we can discuss, and keep on highlighting, all the issues.

The main message that I hope members take from the debate is that it is good to talk about menopause to friends and family and in the workplace, and it is good to seek professional help, because help is out there. The genie is out of the bottle, and it is time that we women of a certain age told our stories.

It is obvious that we must do everything that we can to make displaced Ukrainians feel secure and supported—not only upon their arrival, but in the longer term. What plans have been made for people who are at the end of their time with private hosts?

Out of genuine interest, I ask whether the member agrees with the position that was put forward by Ross Finnie, formerly Minister for the Environment and Rural Development for the Lib Dems, who supported the idea that mutualising Scottish Water—which is really like privatising it—is the way forward.