Chamber and committees

The cabinet secretary opened her comments by saying that the issue is finely balanced and sensitive and that the Government has looked for a middle route. However, it is clear that, in some cases, there is no middle route. I think that many members who speak in this debate will find the bill difficult in that it does not deliver the middle route that the cabinet secretary has talked about.

I thank the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee for its work, and I thank all those who gave evidence and the organisations that provided helpful briefings ahead of today’s stage 1 debate.

I believe that it is important for children to have a say in their education, but any change must also respect the crucial role that parents and carers play in shaping their upbringing. We should never forget that. Too often, debates do not include the supporters of our young people—their parents and carers. Scottish Conservatives are concerned that the bill risks creating confusion and conflict, not only within families, with unclear safeguards around how—

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?

The cabinet secretary has just made that statement following her statement that we do not have data. It seems a bit ridiculous to say that fewer will opt out when we do not know how many are opting in or out—that is the hokey-cokey around this bill, as I described it earlier—and what that means for schools. Who will be responsible for those young people when they are not in either the classroom or in RO? I am not sure that the cabinet secretary really knows what the impact of the bill will be.

I absolutely agree. I will come on to talk about that later in my speech. We are concerned about the impact that the bill will have in our classrooms.

As we have heard, we are making laws without having data available, but we believe that what is proposed is, in effect, already happening in Scotland. When we look at the survey that the Scottish Government undertook in three council areas, we see that, potentially, about 4,000 pupils are currently being withdrawn from RME and RO without any legislation needing to be put in place.

I agree with the point that the Church of Scotland raised in its briefing, which was that the issue that the Scottish Government is trying to address would be better dealt with through training, learning and development, rather than by imposing those duties on teachers.

What is important is how that can work in practice. The work of the committee has exposed that what that means in practice is often contradictory. Having taken a number of interventions, I want to come on to what that will mean in classrooms. I wonder what the cabinet secretary, as a former teacher, has thought about how it would work in practice were she back in the classroom.

I will concentrate on the workability of the proposal in the school environment and the impacts that it will have on the wider school community. As Sarah Quinn of the Educational Institute of Scotland said,

“we have significant concerns about the apparent underestimation of the resources that will be required for implementation and about the potential impact on workload and relationships. We do not feel that the bill fully realises our policy intentions for pupils’ rights”.—[Official Report, Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, 7 October 2025; c 26.]

We have just had a question about less contact time. The bill would put more duties on our teachers.

Dr Douglas Hutchison of the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland said:

“it is difficult to imagine any straightforward or consistent mechanism to make it work that would not be burdensome for the school and onerous for”

the relationship between

“the child and parent.”—[Official Report, Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, 7 October 2025; c 33-4.]

That is where I have concerns over what that will mean for those children who will, potentially, be withdrawn from those lessons. There is a concern—which I also note from the committee’s report—about the isolation of young people in our schools in the model that would be delivered.

Also not touched on are care-experienced young people and the decision making around them. I do not know whether that has been overlooked by the Scottish Government. Is it the case that we have not looked at that very important group of people, as part of the Promise, when it comes to decision making in schools?

I studied higher religious education when I was at school. As the convener has stated, it is very important that we make the case for a greater understanding of different faiths and beliefs and, through learning and experiences in our schools, break down the barriers that debates in the chamber often look towards.

We live in an increasingly diverse and multicultural society. In a world in which global connections and communications are deeply entrenched, we need to understand one another and our religions. I therefore express concern that the bill would create a situation in which some young people could go through their education without having the opportunity to understand other religions and faiths.

I thank my colleagues Tess White and Pam Gosal for their work on the committee. They were consistent in their questioning and in raising concerns in the committee evidence sessions.

As I said earlier, it is important that we look towards children having a say in their education, but any change must also respect the crucial role of parents and carers in helping to shape their upbringing. We are concerned that the bill risks creating confusion and conflict within families, with unclear safeguards on how parental rights and children’s views would be balanced in practice, while placing significant burdens on our schools and teaching staff.

Rights must be workable in practice, and many education professionals, from teachers to directors of education, have warned that the bill is unclear and burdensome and that it risks creating conflict. The proposed change cannot come at the cost of damaging relationships at home or overwhelming our schools, which are already complaining of too much bureaucracy within their walls.

Given the uncertainties and the potential impact on families and teaching staff, the Scottish Conservatives will not support the bill at stage 1, and will look to lodge amendments at stage 2.

Will the cabinet secretary take another intervention?

I will.

I do not disagree with some of the points that the cabinet secretary has made. The issue is about balance. Earlier, she outlined a system of opt-in and opt-out for young people—the hokey-cokey system that has been created. Ultimately, it feels like the bill is flawed and not fit for purpose, which is where the committee’s work—

I will.

I thank Clare Adamson for securing the debate once again this year. I sometimes wonder where the year goes between these debates. This has become an annual debate and I hope that that continues to be the case in the next session of Parliament, because these debates are important.

As co-convener of the cross-party group on cancer, I thank the many campaigners who have joined us in the public gallery, not just for joining us but for their advocacy on the issue over many years. Like so many of us, they have had friends and family members who have been devastated by pancreatic cancer, which is what drives their desire for not only life-saving but life-improving healthcare for all those affected by the disease. I also put on record my thanks to Pancreatic Cancer Action Scotland and the Less Survivable Cancers Taskforce for their hard work and the briefings that they provided ahead of the debate.

Today is world pancreatic cancer day 2025. As many of us are aware, pancreatic cancer is one of the six less survivable cancers on which action is still greatly needed to improve outcomes. Less survivable cancers—those of the brain, liver, lung, stomach, oesophagus and pancreas—account for around a quarter of all cancer diagnoses in Scotland, affecting more than 9,000 people a year. That is not an insignificant number. However, in spite of that, the prognosis for those cancers has not improved in the way that we would want—the average five-year survival rate still sits at just 16 per cent.

Pancreatic cancer has the lowest survival rate of all cancers, with just 7 per cent of all patients surviving for five years or longer. In 2010, when Pancreatic Cancer Action was founded, the rate sat at just 3 per cent. Progress has been made, but not fast enough. Every one of us in Parliament wants that rate to improve, which is why so many members speak in the debate every year. Input and support from those with lived experience is crucial in helping us better understand pancreatic cancer. As we know, it is a fast-developing, devastating cancer that needs to be caught early.

Last week, I co-chaired the Scottish cancer conference at the University of Strathclyde, alongside Jackie Baillie. I had a number of interesting conversations about pancreatic cancer that day. There is a real call to ensure that the Scottish Government supports the national HPB pathway—a national approach that aligns closely with the new cancer action plan for 2023-26. The commitment to invest in improving the pathway for less survivable cancers, particularly pancreatic cancer, is really important. I hope that we see that turnaround.

The national model will ensure uniform care across all regions of our country, helping to reduce health inequalities and improve outcomes across Scotland. Therefore, it is a real step forward. It is also hoped that that pathway will address Scotland’s record long cancer waiting times, on which we need to keep a focus as well.

I urge ministers to support the implementation of the pathway to ensure that there is genuine progress on care targets. That call for action has been heard from campaigners for some time and if, as I hope we do, we see that progress, it will very much be down to their hard work.

Scotland has done a huge amount to ensure progress in tackling pancreatic cancer. We cannot forget that and we need to celebrate it. Although outcomes for patients might not be where we want them to be, we have made progress as a country.

I will end on a point of hope. I often come into contact with our former MSP colleague John Scott. Last weekend, I met him on Saturday in Stranraer. He was bouncing around my colleague’s constituency delivering leaflets. John is an example of what I pray and hope that we will all see: a case in which cancer is detected early, it is treated and the person goes on to have good life expectancy and outcomes. For me, he is an example of where we should be.

On world pancreatic cancer day, let us honour those whom we have lost, thank those who are still fighting and pledge to do the very best that we can to ensure a brighter future so that those who are diagnosed with pancreatic cancer will be able to seek treatment and tackle their cancer.