A Labour MP has mocked the SNP Government for raising fears of cross border "tampon raids” in opposing a period poverty Bill.
Ian Murray, who represents Edinburgh South, teased the Government after their suggestion had been roundly dismissed on social media.
Under the Bill tabled by , the Scottish Government would have a legal duty to develop a universal scheme for free period products.
Schools, colleges and universities would also have to provide access in toilets, proposals that have been welcomed by campaign groups and trade unions.
However, the SNP Government has raised a number of objections to the proposal.
Aileen Campbell, the Communities Cabinet Secretary, flagged up possible abuses of the scheme:
“Preventing abuse may be costly and very difficult to deliver in practice. We can envisage that such a provision could be to prevent people outside Scotland seeking access to the products or people accessing them to sell at a discounted rate outside Scotland.”
Lennon characterised the fear as “cross border tampon raids”, a point picked up by Murray today at Westminster.
He asked Tory Secretary of State Alister Jack: “Labour MSP Monica Lennon has introduced the Period Products Bill to the Scottish Parliament to give free provision to women in Scotland. It’s being opposed by the SNP Government because of “tampon raids” from the English into Scotland to steal the products.
“If that is the case, what kind of border does the Secretary of State believe will be required in the event of an independent Scotland with a separate currency, a different regulatory environment, and different provisions on trade?”
Earlier in the week, a Scottish government spokesperson said: “In trying to determine the potential outcomes of the Bill if it becomes law, the Scottish Government must give due consideration to all the clauses it contains. This quite rightly includes the consideration of possible misuse of provision.
“This particular clause is just one of a number of areas in the Bill which we have concerns about. We remain concerned that at this time legislation is premature and the bill lacks clarity on purpose, costs and flexibility."
