Seòmar agus comataidhean

Will the member take an intervention?

Okay. I suppose that Anne’s law has highlighted to us the need to ensure that such things are explored.

Thank you.

I just want to be clear. It has been mentioned that the bill moves towards centralisation. To give me some idea of what would be an alternative to that, will you talk me through what might allow us to get the good integration that we want?

I would like a bit of information about Anne’s law, which is about rights for care home residents. We are interested to understand whether the inclusion of Anne’s law in the bill will make circumstances easier for care home residents to be visited or to visit places during a public health threat. Will the bill provide that balance to ensure safety for residents, carers and staff?

On your last statement, do you think that we need additional legislation around the issue, or more accountability in how we proceed?

The witnesses might have answered some of my questions, but I will ask about local government integration with health and social care.

The Faculty of Advocates has given evidence that there seems to be

“a lack of provision in the Bill regarding the interrelation between the proposed national care boards and local authorities”,

which was much clearer when we introduced health and social care partnerships. Do the witnesses agree that that is the case? I ask them to be honest. There has been some suggestion that health and social care integration was slow and faced a lot of hurdles. I ask them to reflect on that. Are there things that the national care service could bring to the table in terms of integrating health and social care a little more easily or quickly?

I, too, thank Siobhian Brown for bringing this important debate to the chamber.

On behalf of Scottish Labour, I welcome the World Health Organization and the International Menopause Society designating October as world menopause month to raise awareness of the menopause, and I reiterate that we welcome the women’s health plan. We have pushed for action on women’s health throughout this parliamentary session and, indeed, the previous one. It is, of course, welcome that women’s health and health issues, such as the menopause, which was once avoided in public discussion, are receiving some of the spotlight that they deserve in the chamber.

I thank and admire the women across the chamber who have shared their stories this evening.

We have heard that it has been estimated that around 13 million women in the UK are either perimenopausal or menopausal at any one time. That is a massive number of women. Menopause is a major life event that marks the end of the reproductive lifecycle. As we have heard, many women experience very troublesome symptoms related to it, often for a number of years, and that can have a detrimental impact on their quality of life and wellbeing. For many, it can also have a significant impact on their personal relationships and in the workplace—I am pleased to say that we have heard that a number of times.

Considering all the symptoms that other members have raised, it is vital that people in our position speak up for those who are perhaps unable to do so. As Siobhian Brown mentioned, some celebrities have really come to the fore and put effort into ensuring that we can discuss such issues more openly. I know from my constituents about the stigma surrounding the menopause and menstrual and reproductive health. Women such as those celebrities and ourselves feel that we can move forward and that considering those issues is very important in a modern Scotland. We have seen change, but some women have reported to me—and, it seems, to other members—that it can feel that that change is at a snail’s pace.

In my last few minutes, I would like to concentrate my remarks on menopause in the workplace. Every single one of our female colleagues will go through the menopause. As we have heard, it is not a new issue, but, if we are being absolutely honest with ourselves, it is relatively new that is discussed openly, particularly in relation to workplace matters. I think that that is why a number of women have raised that issue this evening.

In 2019, the Scottish Trades Union Congress women’s committee did some pioneering work. Women across the workforce were asked and responded to a number of questions. Some of the results really highlighted the need to make menopause in the workplace a more visible issue. In summary, women said that they often found managing their menopause symptoms in the workplace to be extremely challenging.

Coping with menopause symptoms in the workplace can be hard, especially as many women find it so difficult to discuss them. Ninety-nine per cent of the respondents either did not have a workplace menopausal policy or did not know whether their workplace had one, and 63 per cent said that the menopause had been treated as a joke in their workplace. It is important that we talk about those issues, as that makes women more confident about speaking out if that happens in the workplace.

I fully support the work of the STUC women’s committee and the point that the member has made.

Trade unions are at the forefront of work to ensure that policies in the workplace support employees at challenging times of their lives, and menopause support, menopause policy development and eliminating menopause discrimination are all part of that.

I hope to work with the trade unions and the Government to ensure that we can make a difference for those women. I look forward to more discussions on the issue in the chamber, and I thank members for their contributions.

Good morning, convener, and thank you very much for asking me to speak. I very much appreciate the opportunity.

The petitioners have asked the committee to continue to seek evidence with a view to producing a report for submission to the 2022 review on moving around descriptors within the adult disability payment. In that light, it is only fair that I give a little bit of background on the 20m rule.

Under that rule, which was introduced as part of the eligibility criteria for accessing the personal independence payment, a person who can walk a step over 20m will not qualify for the enhanced rate of mobility support. The rule does not consider the nature of fluctuating conditions or the impact of physical or mental fatigue, and it makes no allowance for people who might be required to go further distances and might have to stop and start in order to do so.

The relevant point here is that the Scottish Government is replacing the personal independence payment with the adult disability payment, but it is keeping the eligibility criteria the same. I know that the petitioner has tried to lobby the Government on that and continues to do so.

I have spoken with a number of people who have been affected by the rule—in particular, people who suffer from multiple sclerosis. It greatly affects that group of people. I have spoken to individuals and to the representative organisation.

Since the rule was introduced, the Multiple Sclerosis Society has done some research, and I think that the findings are relevant for this committee. One in three people with MS has had their support downgraded, and 2 per cent of people with MS have had to give up work altogether because they lost the enhanced rate of mobility support, which they needed to continue with their work. That work is really important not only for them as individuals but for the economy, and people should always be able to have that opportunity if they can. Around 611 people with MS gave up work altogether between 2020 and 2022 as a result of their loss of mobility. The MS Society believes, from speaking to people and from the evidence that it has gathered, that that has cost the Government in terms of support for people with MS, due to the additional cost to the national health service and the rise in claims on other forms of income support.

Having spoken to the MS Society, I felt that its points were very relevant and important.

What difference can the committee make by keeping the petition open? One consideration is that the committee is about engaging with people and ensuring that underrepresented voices are heard by giving them a platform.

The petitioner feels that keeping the petition open would offer that opportunity, certainly until the report on moving about is finalised. They also feel that people who are at the sharp end of the 20m rule want to be able to engage in meaningful debate and to continue that debate. Those people are a very marginalised group due to their disability, and they find it difficult to find avenues by which to participate in the discussion and debate. This committee has certainly allowed them to do that, and they would wish to continue. The committee has already had evidence, so it could continue that work relatively well. The MS Society feels that the Government is quite open to some of the evidence that the committee is collecting, so it would be relevant at that time.

It would seem premature to close the petition when the evidence has been supportive and the MS Society feels that the petition has been a very successful route for it and for its members. We hope that the committee will consider keeping it open, at least until the review is complete.