Official Report 973KB pdf
Prostate Cancer Screening
To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the TRANSFORM—trial of randomised approaches for national screening for men—prostate cancer screening trial, including any implications this may have for improving prostate cancer screening in Scotland. (S6T-02767)
The Scottish Government desires a screening test that can improve outcomes for men with prostate cancer and for which the benefits clearly outweigh the harms. TRANSFORM is a vital step forward in making that a reality. It will test the efficacy of different screening methods, such as rapid MRI and DNA testing, in addition to the standard prostate-specific antigen—PSA—blood test. The trial is recruiting participants and is expected to provide its first results in about two years.
Crucially, Prostate Cancer UK designed the trial in collaboration with the United Kingdom National Screening Committee, which will ensure that its findings inform that committee’s review of prostate cancer screening. In Scotland, as in all nations of the UK, screening policy is underpinned by the UK NSC’s recommendations. We are monitoring the on-going review carefully.
In Scotland alone, every year more than 4,300 men are diagnosed with prostate cancer and, sadly, 1,000 men die from it. They are fathers, brothers, uncles and friends. It is the most common cancer in the UK among men.
In July, I met a constituent who had just had the all-clear from prostate cancer following months of diagnostic care and treatment. My constituent told me that his cancer was detected purely because of Sir Chris Hoy’s personal campaign and the support of a very good local general practitioner. Like Sir Chris Hoy and other well-known figures such as David Cameron and Stephen Fry, my constituent wanted to use his experience to raise awareness of the condition.
Although the screening trial is a positive step, the initial results will not be available for two years, which means that thousands of men in Scotland will continue to go undiagnosed. Will the minister outline what the Scottish Government is doing to improve awareness of prostate cancer and encourage men who are at higher risk to get tested?
I recognise absolutely everything that Rachael Hamilton said. Sir Chris Hoy’s sharing of his story—along with those shared by others, such as Kenny Logan—has made prostate cancer much more known in our male population. To add to that, there was a very good phone-in on the topic yesterday morning on BBC Radio Scotland.
As I said in my first answer, the Scottish Government will continue to be guided by the advice of the UK National Screening Committee on population-based screening. A clinically reviewed refresh of our Scottish referral guidelines for suspected cancer was published in August 2025. For the first time, those guidelines now incorporate advice on key groups that should consider speaking to their GP about PSA testing from the age of 45. Those groups include men with a family history of prostate cancer; black men, who are around three times more likely to develop prostate cancer than white men; and those who have a genetic predisposition to the condition, such as men who have BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations.
I appreciate the minister’s response and welcome the good work that is already being done alongside charities such as Prostate Cancer UK and Prostate Scotland, but there is still a long way to go, not only on early detection but on cancer waiting times, for which the Scottish National Party’s target of 62 days has not been met for more than a decade.
It is suggested that early detection can help more than 80 per cent of men to survive prostate cancer, which is why it is important to improve awareness and encourage those who are at higher risk to get tested. Once the short-life working group on prostate cancer has published its findings, will the minister commit to making a statement to Parliament to outline the suggested actions? Will she provide a clear answer on how she aims to meet the 62-day target?
I, too, recognise the important work that Prostate Cancer UK has been doing. The Scottish Government invests in early detection work, with the “Be the Early Bird” campaign specifically focusing on more deprived areas.
I will check with the Minister for Parliamentary Business and Veterans about making a statement to Parliament after the working group has finished its work.
The Scottish Government continues to invest in reducing cancer waiting times. I, too, recognise the importance of early detection, early diagnosis and then treatment.
I note that the First Minister and the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care recently met Sir Chris Hoy and Sarra Hoy to discuss Sir Chris’s experience of prostate cancer. As Ms Hamilton mentioned, Sir Chris has been a great advocate in encouraging men to recognise the signs and symptoms of prostate cancer. What can the minister say about the outcome of that meeting? Following it, what work is on-going to encourage men to get checked if they recognise symptoms?
I thank Alasdair Allan for raising that important meeting, which was held on 8 August. The aim of the event was to discuss how to better raise awareness and increase understanding of prostate cancer. We appreciated Sir Chris Hoy’s participation in that meeting. As a result of it, the chief medical officer will chair an expert short-life working group on prostate cancer, which will meet for the first time next month. The group will consider how to reach those who are at higher risk of developing prostate cancer and how we can take actions to improve diagnosis and care pathways in Scotland.
I have increased my knowledge of prostate cancer and screening for it following my dad’s diagnosis, and I asked the cabinet secretary a question about the issue last year. The Government’s response has been positive, but I am still hearing about too many cases of people asking for a PSA test and not getting one, with their GP advising that it is not suitable for them. If people have concerns, should the GP not allow the PSA test to take place, to either rule in or rule out prostate cancer, because we know that early diagnosis really makes a difference?
I recognise the work that Douglas Ross has been doing to raise awareness of prostate cancer. Yesterday, I was made aware that, in relation to prostate cancer, there are some areas of health where PSA tests are not being offered to men. It is important that they maintain that. I might get this quote slightly wrong, but Kenny Logan and Sir Chris Hoy have talked about the importance of people writing to their GP to request a test, so that that is on their records. If I have got that incorrect, I apologise, and I will correct the record.
Care Provision (Immigration)
To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of the warning from Scottish Care that the United Kingdom Government’s immigration proposals risk destabilising care provision in Scotland. (S6T-02772)
I am deeply worried about the new changes, which fail to reflect Scotland’s distinct demographic needs and pose a significant risk to our economy, communities and public services. Workforce shortages across the care sector are already exacerbated by a significant decline in the number of health and care visas being granted by the United Kingdom Home Office. There was a 77 per cent drop in the number of health and care visas issued in the year ending in June 2025. The UK Government has now gone a step further and closed the social care worker visa route.
Those are uncomfortable truths for the Labour Party. Donald Macaskill, the chief executive of Scottish Care, has said this week that, at best, the Labour Government’s policies
“will have a profoundly negative impact”
and
“will deter much-needed talent from staying in Scotland.”
I am reassured that the minister shares my frustration and disappointment with the proposals, particularly following research that was published last week that showed that up to 50,000 migrant nursing staff could leave the UK if ministers press ahead with plans to extend the qualifying period for applying for indefinite leave to remain. What steps is the Scottish Government taking to support and encourage our international social care staff, who make such a valued contribution to the sector, to make Scotland their home amid these difficult times?
As I stated, the Scottish Government is deeply concerned about many of the planned reforms of the route to settlement that the UK Government has announced. The Scottish Government is taking action to mitigate the devastating impacts of the changes that are being introduced by the UK Government. We have announced a £500,000 package that will provide targeted support to displaced social care workers; enable such workers to come or continue to work in Scotland; and provide information, advice and support to employers, investors and individual migrants through Scotland’s migration service.
The minister will be aware that Anas Sarwar, the Scottish Labour leader, called the callous proposals, which include plans to make people wait up to 20 years to apply for settlement, “very brave” in an interview that he gave on Sunday. Does the minister agree that the language and rhetoric surrounding immigration policies and proposals are dehumanising? Will he join me in calling on Labour to consider the damaging impact that those reforms will have on our health and social care sector?
Clare Haughey has made some very important and powerful points. The reforms seem to be entirely focused on what migrants living in the UK earn, not what they contribute. It is not acceptable that international care workers, for example, now face 15 years of high immigration fees and no recourse to public funds before they are deemed to have earned settlement. That is despite the significant contribution that they make to our communities in providing care for some of our most vulnerable citizens. Indeed, Scottish Care has said:
“These changes will have a profoundly negative impact on the sustainability and quality of care and support services across Scotland.”
That should concern us all across the chamber.
Teachers’ Working Week (Educational Institute of Scotland)
To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the reported concerns and frustration of the Educational Institute of Scotland about its four-day working week proposal for teachers. (S6T-02771)
Last week, the Scottish Government published proposals to deliver a reduction in teachers’ class contact time, including a four-day teaching week, improved maternity pay arrangements and an agreed national minimum learning hours standard for all schools across the country. That will form part of a new national deal for teachers, which is our opportunity to reaffirm the value that we place on teaching and to build a system that truly supports the profession.
The proposals will be consulted on via the Scottish Negotiating Committee for Teachers and a paper has been shared to that end. Last week, I was pleased to meet with the EIS in the Parliament to discuss the proposals in more detail. It is also imperative that the views of parents and young people are listened to through consultation.
I was also very pleased that the Scottish Government was recently able to settle the teacher pay dispute, which means that Scotland’s teachers remain the best paid in these islands. Scotland’s teaching profession will now expect the Government to move forward at pace on delivering a reduction in teacher-class contact. That is what the proposals seek to deliver: improved working conditions for our educators in order to unlock better outcomes for our pupils.
The cabinet secretary said that she was very pleased a number of times, but the teaching unions have reacted with utter fury and have said that the proposals are deeply disappointing. They have accused the Government of imposing a diktat. The SNCT, which she referred to, has expressed dismay and the unions are still threatening to strike by the end of January. Why does the cabinet secretary think that her positive announcement has gone down like a cup of cold sick?
I do not necessarily think that the language that Mr Rennie has just used is appropriate.
I met the EIS in Parliament last Thursday, the day that I announced the proposals. I listened to the concerns that Mr Rennie has outlined today—I will not repeat the language that he used—and I will tell him exactly what I told the EIS. I share the teaching unions’ frustration that the reduction in teachers’ class contact time is moving too slowly and that discussions to date have focused too much on the technocratic barriers to delivering the change that we all want to see and too little on what our vision should be for the teaching profession.
On Thursday afternoon, our detailed proposals were sent to the EIS and the other teaching unions. I have not heard commentary on the proposals themselves. I have heard a mixture of responses from some of the other professional associations, which I note welcomed them.
My language is nothing compared with that used by teachers when they told me about the reaction to the cabinet secretary’s proposals.
In answer to my parliamentary question, the cabinet secretary said:
“I am pleased that earlier this year the SNCT subgroup on Reducing Class Contact Time agreed with the Scottish Government proposal to develop a workplan to deliver a route map towards reducing class contact time, at pace.”—[Written Answers, 24 November 2025; S6W-41769.]
Is not the truth that, five years on, nothing is being done “at pace” by the Government and that it is moving towards the next election having failed to deliver that important policy and promise for teachers?
I do not recognise what Mr Rennie has just iterated. It is important that we reflect on the progress that has been made in the past year.
I observe that the teaching unions in Scotland take the position that there should be separate negotiations on pay and conditions. That matter is entirely within their gift, but it is important that we move forward with the improvements on reducing teacher-class contact time that we need to deliver, because that is what will make a difference at the chalkface.
Unfortunately, I did not hear Mr Rennie comment on the differences in maternity pay that Scotland’s predominantly female teaching population experience currently. Teachers in Scotland get 13 weeks’ full pay, unlike local government staff, national health service staff and civil servants who get better maternity pay than teachers, so I thought that Mr Rennie would welcome the proposals for his constituents.
The problem is that the cabinet secretary has complete disrespect for the Parliament. She is lifting her eyes to the ceiling as though I should not be bringing this matter to her attention, but we are talking about a press statement. Where is the detail? Was something distributed to the convener of the Parliament’s Education, Children and Young People Committee? I do not think so. Was anything shared with the committee members? Nothing at all. This just smacks of a gimmick, because the cabinet secretary is failing to deliver a manifesto commitment—a number of such commitments were made on education.
My question to the cabinet secretary is very simple. She has already admitted that the ideas that she has floated will have major implications for parents, councils, pupils and, as Willie Rennie said, teachers. When exactly will she respect the Parliament sufficiently to publish detailed proposals? When will we have sight of the rationale for them? When will we see the evidence for this set of ideas? When exactly will she come to the Parliament to make a statement or hold a debate on the issue, so that we can properly scrutinise her actions?
“She” is not the cat’s mother, and “she” is not looking to the ceiling—I am looking directly at Mr Kerr currently while I address him in the chamber, showing respect to this institution.
You were doing that.
I hear Mr Kerr commenting from a sedentary position. I often hear him comment about behaviour in schools. I think that he could set a better standard for our young people than the standard that we are experiencing today.
On the Government’s detailed response, this is not a matter for the Education, Children and Young People Committee or the Parliament; it is a matter for the SNCT to negotiate on. That is why the proposals are in draft form. A detailed paper has been put to the SNCT. I see Mr Kerr looking as though he wants to be a member of that negotiating committee.
No, I want the Parliament to be respected.
I am sorry to hear that he is not a member currently, but that committee needs to negotiate these things. The tripartite agreement is hugely important.
I would have thought that Mr Kerr would have welcomed the idea of considering, for example, a national approach to learning standards and learning hours across the country, given that there is variation all over the country. I would have thought that, as a democrat, Mr Kerr—who respects this institution so much—would have welcomed the move to democratise the approach to the hours that are taught in our schools in order to ensure fairness across our curriculum system and for all our children and young people.
I welcome the cabinet secretary’s proposals. Ensuring the wellbeing of the teaching workforce is key to improving educational outcomes for children. Tackling workload is, quite rightly, a key aspect of that, and remuneration is another. Will the cabinet secretary update us on the outcome of this year’s pay negotiations for teachers?
I am delighted that teachers have accepted a new pay deal that ensures that Scotland’s classroom teachers on the main grade scale continue to be the best paid in the United Kingdom. The agreement shows what can be achieved through constructive dialogue. The deal means that the starting salary for a qualified teacher in Scotland will increase to more than £41,900, with further increases in April and August. Furthermore, the salary for classroom teachers at the top of the main grade scale will have increased from £37,575 in April 2018 to more than £52,600 by August 2025—an increase of 40 per cent.
Teachers have been waiting for action on workloads since the Government made them promises four and a half years ago, yet there was no movement until, in a desperate attempt to act at pace, it made a rushed announcement. The trade unions have said that the announcement appears to
“undermine the established SNCT negotiating machinery”,
and has caused dismay on the teachers’ panel, which says that the cabinet secretary has circumvented
“the well-established collective bargaining structures of the SNCT”.
What does the cabinet secretary intend to do about that, or will collective bargaining be the latest casualty of this Government’s incompetence?
I am surprised that Ms Duncan-Glancy did not listen to the answer that I gave to Mr Kerr, whereby I set out that, on the day that the announcement was made, a paper was shared with the SNCT. Of course, it is for the SNCT to consult on that tripartite arrangement and its basis. There have been no changes on how that will be agreed to.
It is important that the Government commits publicly to its vision for how we might reduce teacher-class contact, and I want the teaching profession to hear the ways in which that might be delivered. That includes a four-day teaching week, which would help to reduce teacher workload. I know that that is a matter that Ms Duncan-Glancy takes seriously, so I hope that she will engage with some of the proposals and share any thoughts that she has about how we can lighten the load on our teachers and let them get on with teaching our children and young people.
The cabinet secretary says that it is important that the Government commits publicly. It committed publicly four and a half years ago in its manifesto, but it has not delivered on that promise.
Last Friday, Pam Duncan-Glancy, Willie Rennie, Ross Greer and I attended the conference of the Association of Headteachers and Deputes in Scotland, in Glasgow. I have to say that teachers are cynical about what the Government can or will deliver.
When will the pilot project that the cabinet secretary announced report, and will it be before the election?
On Mr Briggs’s final point, that would be my expectation. I was at the same conference and discussed the matter with all the attendees, probably before Mr Briggs arrived on Thursday.
Mr Briggs asked about how the pilot project might be delivered. I remind him that, in last year’s budget, we put in an extra funding uplift for teacher numbers to recognise inflationary increases to teacher pay. That would allow councils to go back to 2023 levels. From our modelling, which was published last year, we think that there are enough primary teachers in the system at the current time to deliver on reduced class contact. That is predicated on the 2023 numbers. The funding in last year’s budget allows local authorities to move forward at pace with the pilot; I look forward to working with them through the SNCT to get it up and running in advance of the election.
That concludes topical questions.
Previous
Business Motions