Chamber and committees

As a member of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate. I thank the clerks for their assistance in drafting the stage 1 report. I am also grateful to all stakeholders and witnesses for taking the time to submit their views on the issue and for their helpful briefings.

As has been mentioned, the bill has two main objectives: first, to require schools to consider pupils’ views when parents withdraw them from religious observance and religious and moral education; and, secondly, to amend the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Act 2024 so that public authorities do not face a conflict between complying with the act and adhering to other Scottish legislative duties.

To give some context, section 9 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 gives parents the right to withdraw their child from both religious observance and religious and moral education in schools. The purpose of the bill is to give greater autonomy to young people when a parent has made a request to withdraw a pupil from instruction in religious observance or religious and moral education. When that occurs, the school must inform the pupil about the request and must consider the pupil’s view as part of the withdrawal process.

I will touch first on part 1 of the bill, which focuses on withdrawal from religious observance and religious and moral education in schools. We received helpful evidence from many different stakeholders, and the committee is of the view that religious observance and religious and moral education should be separated in the bill. Most of the committee agreed that they are distinct, with RO being about worship and RME being about education.

With the rise of political figures who are intent on division, it is of the utmost importance that young people continue to be educated about different cultures, faiths and practices. That is not the same as worshipping in accordance with those faiths. I believe that it is essential that young people learn as much as they can about different historical events and about different countries and cultures, so that they can transition into a diverse world. Claire Benton-Evans of the Scottish Episcopal Church put it best when she stated:

“our children need to understand other faiths, beliefs and cultures if they are to grow up in the diverse, inclusive and tolerant society that we want in Scotland.”—[Official Report, Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, 30 September 2025; c 10.]

Indeed, the evidence from stakeholders across the board was clear on that point, as both faith-based and secular organisations argued for removing the option to withdraw from RME from the bill.

As a result, the committee has urged the Scottish Government to

“reflect further on this approach and to bring forward amendments at Stage 2 to provide that withdrawal only applies to RO.”

Nevertheless, the purpose of the bill is to increase children’s rights, and it was noted that the majority of those who offered a view on whether the bill should be amended to include an independent right for children to opt out of RO and RME supported giving children that right. However, respondents to the Scottish Government consultation differed in their support for an independent right to withdraw from RO, so most of the committee felt that

“it would be more appropriate ... to progress with the right for children to object to their parents withdrawal of them for RO/RME alone.”

We would welcome the cabinet secretary giving further consideration to that point.

On the bill’s compatibility with the UNCRC, a majority of the committee recognises that it would have been preferable if the bill had been drafted in such a way as to bring its provisions within the scope of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Act 2024.

On part 2 of the bill, which seeks to amend the 2024 act so that public bodies do not face a conflict between complying with the act and other Scottish legislative duties, the committee notes that there are very strong concerns about the rationale for it, the precedent that it would set and whether the bill is an appropriate vehicle for the provisions.

Overall, the committee supports the premise of the bill, which is to improve young people’s rights, and a majority supports the general principles of the bill. That said, significant amendments will be necessary, as serious points have been raised on both part 1 and part 2. Therefore, I support the bill progressing to stage 2 but note that much work requires to be done on the bill to further the rights of children.

My question is about the financial implications that are associated with introducing another commissioner. The convener has covered that, but I will spin it on its head.

You touched on this earlier, Sarah, but can you give examples of how the bill could ultimately lead to long-term cost savings and how those would be measured? Could you expand on your earlier comments?

I very much agree with your comments. We need to have more preventative spend and look at how we can save money going forward.

I am grateful to my colleague Clare Adamson for bringing this important debate to the chamber during pancreatic cancer awareness month to mark today’s world pancreatic cancer day.

Since being elected in 2021, I have spoken in all the debates that my colleagues Clare Adamson and Willie Coffey have brought to the chamber on this topic—it is one on which I will always speak up. I extend my sincere thanks to the amazing charities, such as Pancreatic Cancer Action and Pancreatic Cancer UK, to the Less Survivable Cancers Taskforce and to other dedicated organisations. I welcome them all here today. They are at the forefront of raising awareness and fighting for better outcomes for those with pancreatic cancer, and I thank them for that.

Unfortunately, pancreatic cancer is the deadliest common cancer and is often referred to as a “silent killer”, because its early symptoms are difficult to spot. As has been mentioned, around 900 people in Scotland are diagnosed with pancreatic cancer each year, with most being diagnosed too late for effective treatment. Sadly, half of those who are diagnosed with that deadly disease will die within three months and 93 per cent will die within five years.

Those extremely low survival rates are largely due to late-stage diagnosis and limited access to robust diagnostic and treatment resources. That is why I reiterate the common symptoms for the benefit of anyone who is listening: the whites of the eyes, or the skin, turning yellow; itchy skin; darker pee; poo that is paler than usual; loss of appetite; losing weight without trying to; feeling tired or having no energy; and having a high temperature or feeling hot or shivery.

It is vital that we push for long-term investment in research to ensure that we can beat those low survival rates. Currently, pancreatic cancer receives only 3 per cent of UK research funding. More investment and time are needed so that we can ensure fast identification of those who have pancreatic cancer.

We can all agree that more must be done, because this remains one of the deadliest forms of cancer. However, despite those challenges, advances have been made. According to the Less Survivable Cancers Taskforce, Scotland is leading the way on such cancers by identifying them as a strategic priority in the 10-year cancer strategy. If we can translate that into action that results in earlier and faster diagnosis, I hope that we will see significant improvements.

I also welcome the Scottish Government provision of funding from April 2022 to March 2024 for the then pancreatic cancer and hepatocellular carcinoma pathway improvement project. According to Pancreatic Cancer Action, the data from the project has been encouraging and improvements have been demonstrated.

Where do we go from here? Given that time really is of the essence for those who have this cruel and devastating disease, it is crucial that we support and get input from those with lived experience and expertise. As stated by Pancreatic Cancer Action, it is essential that the work and learning from developing and delivering the pancreatic cancer and hepatocellular carcinoma pathway and the Scottish hepato-pancreato-biliary service are incorporated and built on as fast as possible. We must ensure that we focus on the next steps and urgently consider how the benefits demonstrated can be delivered as a priority.

Finally, I pay tribute to my constituents who have, sadly, lost their lives because of pancreatic cancer. Helen, Donald, Billy and Christine will forever be missed by family, friends and loved ones, but they will never be forgotten, and that applies to many others, too. We must work together in their memory to do everything that we can to raise awareness of that disease and to save lives.

Again, I thank Clare Adamson for bringing the debate the chamber.

To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to encourage businesses to implement the real living wage, in light of reports that Scotland’s level of real living wage employers is, proportionately, five times that of the United Kingdom as a whole. (S6O-05155)

The payment of the living wage is a huge step in tackling in-work poverty. Will the minister join me in acknowledging the businesses in Clydebank and Milngavie that are paying the living wage?

Furthermore, businesses are looking to the UK budget that is on the horizon. Last time, Labour hammered businesses. Will the minister join me in calling for a budget that reverses Labour’s previous punitive approach?

I appreciate getting the opportunity to speak early on in the group, convener, which will enable me to get back to the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee.

My amendment 244 goes to the heart of the wider debate about assisted dying. Those who are in favour of the bill have consistently said that it is about allowing someone to end their own life and not about another person ending it for them. However, the bill as drafted does not clearly rule out that possibility. There is no clear prohibition on another person administering the life-ending substance on behalf of the patient, and that omission matters. If another person can administer the substance, we are not talking about assisted dying but about euthanasia. That is a very different act in moral and legal terms. If the Parliament allows that ambiguity to remain, we risk crossing a boundary that even many supporters of assisted dying do not wish to cross.

My amendment would bring clarity. It would strengthen section 15 to make it explicit that the substance must be self-administered by the terminally ill adult, and that no one else may do so on their behalf. It would preserve the distinction between assisted dying and euthanasia—a distinction that supporters of the bill believe is fundamental. It would ensure that assisted dying remains in law and in practice an act of personal agency, rather than the taking of life by another. Proponents of assisted dying say that they oppose euthanasia. If that is truly the case, they should have no hesitation in supporting the amendment.

Good morning. I want to cover the bill’s definition of “sustainable development”, which seems to align very closely with the Scottish Government’s suggestion in its own consultation. However, in our evidence sessions we have heard that the bill’s proposed definition could be strengthened. What is the Scottish Government's view on that?

Thank you. I was going to ask a follow-up question, but it has been covered.

To ask the Scottish Government when it last met with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities or the education trade unions to discuss concerns about the presence of asbestos in school buildings. (S6O-05149)