Chamber and committees

I thank the cabinet secretary for that reassurance, but will she please reaffirm the Scottish Government’s priority to ensure that anyone who is accommodated in Scotland is treated with dignity and compassion, that they receive the wraparound support that they require and that local communities are engaged in the process?

Good morning. We have heard about the issues that people in rural areas have with housing and childcare, and we have heard from some that transport, which is not very reliable at the best of times, can cost as much as £20 a day. To add to the mix, women also find accessing employment particularly challenging, as they are often the main carers and finding a job to fit around caring responsibilities is never easy, although some employers recognise that challenge and offer flexible shifts. What is the Scottish Government doing to address that specific employment challenge for women in rural areas? Is joint work being done by the Scottish Government and local employers to address the issue?

Thank you. I welcome all of that, but it would be great if you could write to us with details on what the Scottish Government is doing to tackle data poverty. I know about certain initiatives, such as local banks offering folk free SIM cards, but it would be good to see what joint work is happening. If you would not mind following up on that, that would be helpful.

The committee also heard about the complexity around accessing social security benefits, and digital connectivity is a factor in that. You have heard about the recent digital challenges affecting Tiree. What measures are in place to assist people with poor digital access, and what has been done to assist those experiencing data poverty? If you do not have that information to hand, could you follow up with the committee in writing? It would be helpful for our report.

Jobs are available, and people want to work; we just need to put in place the support that makes the system work for them.

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)