Chamber and committees

I should have said earlier that I welcome Jackie Baillie’s amendments in the group. Given what I said about Ross Greer’s amendments in relation to advocacy services, I will not press amendment 197 or move amendment 212, but I intend to move all the others in the group.

Amendment 197, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 198 moved—[Miles Briggs].

It would have to sit in the NHS. Given the nature of our health service and how it is structured with the different health boards, we want to ensure that Scotland-wide information is provided. It is important that if someone requests information from a clinician, the clinician can refer them to a service with nationally shared information.

Guidance should be developed in partnership with representative bodies. That is why BMA Scotland and RCGP Scotland have asked me to lodge the amendments. I hope that that clarifies that the information would be a national resource. It is important to ensure that we have clarity and that there is no variation.

My amendments 261, 262, 264, 265 and 266 are lodged on behalf of the Royal College of Nursing Scotland. RCN Scotland maintains a neutral position on assisted dying, but the amendments address two separate concerns that it currently has in relation to the bill.

The bill outlines several distinct roles involved in the provision of assisted dying, but it remains largely silent on where legal and professional accountability lies. Care for an individual and responsibility for the approved substance can be transferred between the roles on a number of occasions. In particular, the bill is silent on the legal effects of a co-ordinating doctor appointing an authorised health professional.

The amendments ask three key questions. First, should that be seen as a delegation of a task to the authorised health professional? Secondly, what responsibilities does the co-ordinating doctor retain at that point? Thirdly, does the bill make any reference to whether the authorised health professional is a doctor or a registered nurse or their respective responsibilities?

RCN Scotland members must be clear about those issues if they are to have confidence that they can be involved in the provision of assisted dying. RCN Scotland is of the view that outlining legal accountability in the bill would be challenging. Amendments 261, 262 and 264 propose, as an alternative, that the bill should require Scottish ministers to publish statutory guidance that clearly outlines where legal and professional accountability lies at each step of the assisted dying process.

Given the subject matter, the guidance should have the input of the Lord Advocate, as outlined in amendment 266. In developing the guidance, consultation with relevant trade unions and professional bodies is important and should be required. That is covered in amendment 265.

Amendment 264 would also require the Scottish ministers to set out guidance on how assisted dying services should be arranged by health boards, including, as discussed earlier, through the development of patient pathways. The committee has already considered amendments setting out a stand-alone assisted dying service, and RCN Scotland has proposed that requirement, as it shares the concern that has been expressed by others that adding assisted dying to the workload of existing underresourced teams would not be sustainable.

Along with RCN Scotland, I believe that the amendments would introduce essential legal clarity for health professionals who are involved in each stage of service delivery, and that they would ensure that, if the bill is passed, assisted dying can be delivered safely and sustainably across Scotland.

I move amendment 197.

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 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 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—