Chamber and committees

Given that the IFS has raised concerns about the Government’s strategy for tax, can the minister expand on when we can expect to see a full strategy for taxation in Scotland? How will that apply to the housing sector, which we are discussing today?

Similar to Graham Simpson, I do not intend to speak to every amendment in the group, because I know that time is becoming precious.

My amendment 132 is a probing amendment on the land and buildings transaction tax. Scotland’s budget for 2025-26, which was published in December 2024, announced an immediate increase in the surcharge in land and buildings transaction tax on the purchase of second and rental homes from 6 to 8 per cent. The Scottish Conservatives were opposed to that.

Interestingly, the Institute for Fiscal Studies has—rightly—stated:

“Despite the publication of a Tax Strategy alongside the Scottish Budget, it is not yet clear what the Scottish Government’s vision for tax policy is—but increases to LBTT are not consistent with any economically sensible strategy.”

We are in that position with various taxes, and it is imperative that the Scottish Government finally comes clean as to what its tax strategy is and what it will be in the future. That will allow us to make clear assessments on what its thinking is and what its objectives are.

Amendment 132 would modify the land and buildings transaction tax to change the number of dwellings from “one dwelling” to “two dwellings”, thereby altering transactions relating to third homes. That would act as a partial relief on LBTT for smaller home owners. My colleague Rachael Hamilton will expand on the arguments about LBTT, as she has lodged amendments 224 and 225.

I want to pick up on the points that were raised by Ross Greer in relation to council tax. I agree with Graham Simpson that it is absurd that we use valuations from 1991. The committee has begun an inquiry on council tax, in which we have heard from various stakeholders and from the minister. However, not enough time has been afforded to the committee to undertake the inquiry or to reach a consensus on what the next stages of council tax reform would look like.

I understand why Ross Greer has lodged his amendments and he has articulated the points that he wishes to raise. However, the bill is not the correct mechanism to make those changes, given that it is such a wide-scale topic and that there are various different views on it, not just among political parties but among stakeholders and groups that would be impacted. A wider piece of work would need to be undertaken, not just by the committee—which we have already tried to do—but by the Scottish Government, which would need to decide whether to introduce legislation on council tax reform.

Does Rachael Hamilton agree that, with rent controls on top of such measures, it will tend to be smaller landlords who will leave the sector? In rural areas in particular, the measures will not allow people to utilise the homes for the local rural economy, which is very important.

We knew about the concerns previously. Whistleblowers at NHS Lothian raised concerns about staff shortages at a maternity unit last year, and an investigation that was launched back in 2024 found that there has been a toxic relationship between managers and midwives. One midwife, who remained anonymous, spoke to STV News last year and said:

“Management didn’t listen to staff concerns—we’d say we’re short staffed and they’d say it was fine.”

I imagine that that will not be the only case of such relationships between managers and midwives in a health board. How do we correct that culture to improve relationships between managers and midwives and encourage whistleblowing, should there be concerns?

It is the SNP that has a war on motorists, and I will explain why in a second.

I represent a commuter region. Many people who live across the central belt of Scotland travel to and from our major cities for work, school and university. Good transport links, affordable prices and reliable public services are essential for those towns and villages. However, whether it be in relation to train, bus or car, the SNP has punished Scotland’s commuters.

Two of the busiest motorways run through central Scotland—the M74 and the M8—and they are designed to be the easiest routes to travel on to reach Glasgow or Edinburgh if people live in North Lanarkshire, South Lanarkshire or Falkirk. However, constituents regularly write to me to tell me how congested those roads are, especially during the rush hour. The journey from the Newhouse roundabout to Edinburgh city centre can take up to two hours in the morning despite the distance being only 31 miles. The SNP needs to announce a plan to alleviate the pressures on our busiest roads. It cannot simply remove the choice of driving from people who want to drive just because it cannot reach its own emission targets.

However, it is not just commuters who have felt the force of the SNP’s war on Scotland’s motorists. Donald MacLeod, owner of Glasgow nightclubs the Garage and the Cathouse Rock Club, believes that Glasgow’s low-emission zone restrictions have had a lasting impact on the night-time economy. Glasgow was once regarded as a retail powerhouse, being a desired location that many of my constituents would regularly visit for social and retail use. However, many parts of the city are now derelict, with boards on shop windows and “closing down” signs outnumbering the businesses that are struggling to stay open.

Since the introduction of the city’s LEZ, the dramatic drop in footfall across the country has turned Glasgow into, in Donald MacLeod’s words, a “low economy zone”. That is the real, lasting impact of the SNP’s anti-motorist agenda. It is bad for business and bad for economic growth.

Donald MacLeod and other business owners have called on Glasgow City Council to lift the low-emission zone restrictions in the city from 6 pm to 6 am to help to revive Glasgow’s struggling night-time economy. That is just one of many suggestions that have been brought forward by business owners who are desperately trying to find solutions to problems that have been created by Governments.

I return to the point that I made at the start of my speech. If there was good, reliable and affordable public transport, it would not only help to reduce emissions naturally but also provide Scotland’s commuters with a choice, and people might make the switch. They do not have that choice at present, and that is why the SNP needs to get a grip on public transport and provide a network that people have confidence in.

To bring some common sense back to the chamber, I echo what Sue Webber said in her opening remarks. The SNP has indeed declared war on Scotland’s motorists. Whether it be low-emission zones, roads crumbling away with potholes being unfilled or proposed reductions in speed limits, the SNP is making life more difficult for people who choose to own a car.

I understand what the minister is saying. We are talking about how the implementation is going to be carried out—a lot of boards are involved, and various different people are being appointed to positions to carry it out. However, this is what parents need to know. If the Government continues with the downgrading of neonatal services and parents have to travel up to three hours to get to Aberdeen, if that is where they need to go, will there be a room for them to stay overnight with their babies, so that they can be close by should anything happen? If the answer is no, we should not be going for the downgrade.

Regarding the points that Jackie Baillie raised in relation to three or five units under the best start model, we have, again, to ask the question: why was the award-winning neonatal department at Wishaw general not included in the redesign?

Oh, this will be good.

Before I begin my remarks, I take the opportunity to thank the team at Bliss Scotland for working with me to lodge the motion in Parliament.

I first raised issues surrounding the best start new model of neonatal care back in September 2023. News had broken of the intention to downgrade Wishaw general hospital’s neonatal department, in my region. That provoked a strong backlash from communities in Lanarkshire, especially from families who had received care and support from the award-winning team at the hospital.

A campaign group, led by the Wishaw neonatal warriors, has said that the plans would be “catastrophic” as expectant mums and their babies will need to travel to other hospitals to receive specialist care. The online petition has now surpassed 25,000 signatures, which is testament to the strength of feeling against this ill-thought-out decision.

At the time, I warned the Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health that

“Lanarkshire mums ... are the feisty type”,

and said that I knew that they would continue to fight against the downgrade

“every step of the way.”—[Official Report, 20 September 2023; c 98.]

They will continue to have my support, as I do not believe that Government ministers have truly considered the lasting impact of this decision on parents and their newborn babies, nor does the national health service have the adequate or sustained staffing levels to achieve the new model of neonatal care.

The best start model was first introduced in 2017, yet, eight years on, the new model has not been fully implemented and the resources that are needed to implement it safely while providing support to families have not been delivered in full. There remains great uncertainty over when or how full implementation of the neonatal model, as confirmed by the minister in July 2023, will take place. That is simply not good enough.

One in seven babies in the United Kingdom require some level of neonatal care after birth, and the care that they receive is vital to their long-term health. Approximately 5,200 babies are admitted to neonatal units in Scotland each year, and the care that they receive is often life-saving, but it can also be deeply traumatic for babies and their families. Babies, who have just opened their eyes for the first time, not only are adapting to their new surroundings but are exposed to stress and pain as a result of requiring additional care.

One of the main issues that I wish to raise concerns facilities for parents. I have just mentioned how deeply traumatising neonatal care is for parents and babies, yet, moments after giving birth, mums are routinely separated from their babies for extended periods, as most hospitals do not provide sufficient facilities to enable parents to stay overnight. That is undoubtedly detrimental to the health of not just the newborn baby, but of worried parents, who just want to be close so that they can comfort their child. The lack of that early contact can disrupt bonding and heighten stress, with an impact on both emotional wellbeing and physical development such as breastfeeding initiation.

Why, therefore, do we not have overnight accommodation for parents on neonatal wards? It is not easy for parents having to travel long distances to stay with their baby in a hospital overnight, especially when more than one child is involved. Indeed, the Bliss families kept apart campaign in Scotland found that for one in every 10 babies who need to stay overnight on a unit, there is only one room for a parent to stay with them. In 2025, that is scandalous.

Alternative arrangements are considered, but that usually comes at a cost to parents, who might not be able to afford to stay in a nearby hotel. There appear to be no solutions to provide parents with the reassurance that they will be able to stay by their newborn’s side. Regardless of whether the Scottish Government continues with what I feel is the wrong move in downgrading neonatal departments across Scotland, it must still ensure that there is overnight accommodation to enable parents to stay with their babies. Otherwise, it is willingly advocating for the sickest newborn babies to be separated from their parents. That would be not only morally wrong, but unforgivable, should any parent learn of a deterioration in their baby’s health without being close by.

Therefore, I call on the minister to commit today to ensuring that every hospital that is currently specialising in neonatal care has the appropriate accommodation for parents. That is essential for any new model of neonatal care. I cannot believe that we are even having this discussion today—it is just basic common sense.

The implementation of the best start model recommendations in the report “The Best Start—A Five-year Forward Plan for Maternity and Neonatal Care in Scotland” has been painfully slow. Even if people do not agree with all of those recommendations, the fact is that families who might be affected in the future—and, critically, the staff working in neonatal services departments across Scotland—deserve to know how long the new model will take to implement. If the Scottish Government is truly committed to providing high-quality care to the sickest babies, it needs to get a move on.

Ministers cannot continue to bury their heads in the sand over the downgrading of neonatal services. Regardless of whatever evidence they say has been produced, it is clear that communities are against the move, and ministers have ignored the fact that receiving care further from home can reduce parents’ ability to be partners in their baby’s care. In addition, ministers cannot overlook the need to ensure that overnight accommodation is provided to parents so that they can always be with their babies.

The minister must set out what the Government sees as essential criteria in the best start model, including adequate staffing provision, and the timescale for full implementation. Uncertainty causes alarm, and this debate provides an opportunity for the Scottish Government to outline those next steps today.

In my previous contribution on this topic, I said that the reason that I feel so passionately about the issue

“is because I am a mum.”—[Official Report, 20 September 2023; c 96.]

I will continue to push the Scottish Government to improve neonatal services across Scotland.

We all accept that changes to homelessness prevention will have an impact on the provision of housing services and people who provide advice on homelessness. Jeremy Balfour and others have recently spoken about information sharing and the need for clarity from the Scottish Government on public bodies and how we begin to join up the system and streamline resource, not only in relation to homelessness data but so that any individual who is experiencing or is at risk of homelessness can share information and access any additional support networks that they might need.

In order to maintain that high-level and consistent service approach for anyone who is seeking help, advice or support when they are experiencing or at risk of homelessness, there needs to be a continuous professional development plan for key housing practitioners to ensure that they remain skilled and knowledgeable. I appreciate that housing services already have good training practices in place, and I am not attempting to patronise those who deliver them. However, the level of training that is needed when introducing the ask and act duties will expand throughout the many levels of public services, public bodies and person-facing services.

I have lodged amendment 1011 in order to probe the minister on how that training could be rolled out and whether it could take form in legislation or be followed up in guidance. I want to ensure that, when we introduce something new, such as the ask and act duties, the service is streamlined and all services are aware of what the duties mean for the person they are supporting who is experiencing homelessness.

I move amendment 1011.