Chamber and committees

I commend Joe Fagan on his first speech. I may not agree with all of his politics, but I agree with his passion and intent, so I commend him for an excellent first speech.

It is clear that the different decisions on income taxation levels that were made in Scotland, whereby those who earn a little bit more are asked to pay a bit more, have contributed to securing additional revenues for various desirable outcomes that I would hope most of us in Parliament would wish to see. The Scottish Fiscal Commission estimates that the SNP Government’s income tax decisions since devolution will raise up to an additional £1.8 billion in the tax year 2026-27 compared to the position had the Scottish Government mirrored UK policy.

Scotland’s more progressive income tax system has supported a position in which the average pay for public sector workers in Scotland is notably higher than it is in the UK as a whole. Our NHS, where we have invested strongly in the pay of our healthcare professionals, is a very good example of that. Our tax system has also contributed to funding Scotland’s strong childcare offer, which has resulted in families across Scotland benefiting from the provision of more than 1,140 hours of high-quality early learning and childcare since 2021, which is worth around £6,000 per child each year. It has also contributed to the almost £0.5 billion that the Scottish Government has invested in our Scottish child payment, helping to keep 100,000 children out of poverty here. It is also worth noting that most people in Scotland pay less tax than their counterparts elsewhere in the UK.

There has always been a political kickabout over the expression “free” when it is used to describe the delivery of Scottish Government policies—free school meals, free tuition, free prescriptions, free bus passes and so on. No one pretends that any of that is free.

However, let me set political decisions in context. The Scottish taxpayer has to pick up its share of the tab for spending decisions that are reserved to the UK Government. Examples of that include the £3 billion annual running costs of Trident, the £41 billion cost for the new Dreadnought-class submarines to replace the current fleet, and another £15 billion for replacement warheads—and those are all decisions that have been taken by the UK Government in the current Parliament. I would much rather see our Scottish Government invest in our social protections here, in Scotland, than in the illusory protection allegedly offered by nuclear warheads. There is another way, and it is the Scottish way.

The Scottish Government’s motion supports

“fair, progressive and sustainable taxation to support the delivery of public services.”

It reiterates the SNP position on

“the creation of a private jet tax and a mansion tax”.

I can say to Lord Offord that those policies are not curveballs—they were in the SNP manifesto.

With regard to the jet tax, I welcome the submission that we received from Oxfam Scotland, which strongly supports the introduction of an air departure tax with a higher rate for those choosing to travel by high-polluting private jets. Its analysis showed that,

“in just the first 10 months of last year, more than 10,500 … jet flights took off or landed at Scottish airports”.

This Parliament used to speak often about the polluter-pays principle. Money secured from the new tax could help to support our public bus network, for instance. I acknowledge the good work of the Strathclyde Partnership for Transport in taking forward a bus franchising model, which will not be cost free—it will require revenue support.

The medium-term financial review that Mr McKee has the invidious task of implementing through public service reform has been clearly set out, but every additional penny that is raised here, in Scotland, can help to bolster the social protection dispense that we all want. Bus franchising support could be part of that, as far as I am concerned, but I appreciate the point that Mr Rennie seeks to make.

A substantive part of the motion is on a mansion tax, which is due to be brought forward in 2028. Those proposals will add two additional council tax bands to be applied to properties valued at more than £1 million, with all the funds raised going directly to local areas to support public service delivery. Before Mr Rennie intervenes again, which he might wish to do, I note that those funds will depend very much on how many properties are worth more than £1 million in each local area. It is the revenue grant from the Scottish Government that provides the vast majority of local authorities’ income—I get that. However, in the round, I would say to Mr Rennie and other members in the chamber that additional moneys would be welcome.

I very much support the proposed mansion tax, but it will require careful scrutiny and implementation. It will involve a targeted revaluation, and it will be interesting to see how much each local authority will ultimately benefit.

The new council tax bands on properties worth more than £1 million should not get in the way of work—across parties and across the Government—that needs to be done regarding the council tax more generally. I welcome the reassurances that the Deputy First Minister has given this afternoon in relation to that.

Perhaps the most pertinent part of the Scottish Government’s motion is the part that recognises that

“Scotland’s current powers limit the scope of additional wealth taxation”,

with a call for us to

“explore what further steps could be taken either within the current system or with full fiscal powers.”

In another excellent first speech, Martyn Day spoke about inheritance and capital gains taxes. There is also income tax on savings and shared dividends and a whole variety of other taxes—there is a basket of taxes that we could consider.

I am not suggesting that we should tax the rich; that is not my demand or what I am calling for. We must go back to the underlying principles of the SNP motion, that our tax system should be “fair, progressive and sustainable”, and it all has to be balanced.

I am not calling for us to tax the rich; I am calling for a fair taxation system in the round. We must surely be able to do more on that. As the STUC reminded us in its briefing for today’s debate,

“Five families hold more wealth than a quarter of Scotland’s population with the least wealth combined. The wealth of Scotland’s ten richest people is now more than £23 billion, nine times what it was in 1999. This exceeds the Scottish Government’s projected Income Tax revenues for 2026/27”.

As I have said, I do not want to tax the rich; I simply want a fair taxation system and an underlying social contract with the Scottish people that underlines our commitment to social justice.

I welcome the cabinet secretary and her ministerial team to their places, and I also thank the outgoing cabinet secretary, Neil Gray, for his work over the past few years, particularly the work that he did with me to secure the screening of newborn babies for spinal muscular atrophy, an initiative that I championed and which the Scottish Government was able to make happen. I am deeply proud of that.

I have a list of requests for this session of Parliament, which includes better care for those living with epidermolysis bullosa—I usually say EB, because I always trip over the name. It is important that we deliver better care for EB sufferers. We must also look at whole-genome sequencing, particularly for cancer patients. Those are two things that I want to return to—not in this speech, but I have learned to get my asks in early in this place, and I have done that now.

More generally, I welcome the Scottish Government’s motion, which recognises and commends the hard-working staff across Scotland’s NHS and places those staff at the heart of the significant progress that has been delivered, which, of course, includes long waits coming down for 11 months in a row. That is not to say that there are not many challenges. Of course there are, and I know that very well. My wife is a critical care nurse, and I hear from her about many of those various challenges. We are very well aware of those, and they have to be acted on.

However, in this speech, I want to focus on palliative care, and I thank Miles Briggs for his kind words in relation to that. I endorse the work that he has done on the issue, as well as that which was done by Marie McNair. I also thank the former Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health, Jenni Minto, for her work in that area—thank you, Jenni, for everything that you have done.

In the previous session, I chaired the cross-party group on palliative care—I hope that we get it back up and running in this session, as that is an important issue. To highlight that importance, I note that a Scottish Parliament information centre briefing indicated that, in 2021, 89 per cent of those dying in Scotland had palliative care needs. There is also a huge increase in those dying with complex needs and multiple conditions, which is a much more complex situation.

In a report that was published this February, Marie Curie pointed out that a new national analysis showed that almost one in three people in Scotland die with unmet palliative care needs. That suggests that around 18,500 people across Scotland die each year with significant levels of unaddressed symptom control or concerns about timely access to appropriate care. We must address that.

It is estimated that, each year, around £1.3 billion is spent on supporting people in their last year of life, and £1.1 billion of that is spent in hospitals. That includes unscheduled visits to accident and emergency departments, avoidable admissions to acute services and costs incurred due to the lack of a sustainable support package for those in hospitals to return to the community or to secure a care home or a hospice bed. Those are just some of the examples of how the NHS spends its money in a way that does not lead to the best outcomes for those we serve.

Given the scale of the challenge, our health and social care sectors must deliver reform and renewal, as the Scottish Government motion highlights. The challenges may be substantial, but there is cause for optimism. We should not forget that, where palliative and end-of-life care is delivered, it is often done to an exceptionally high standard, with great care, respect and dignity. That can often get lost in the debate.

We also have an excellent hospice network, which has, in recent budgets from this place, received additional moneys, including some to help work towards pay parity with NHS agenda for change staff. That is something that I and other members have championed for some time. Reform and renewal must be done with Scotland’s hospices at the heart.

However, it is not just about hospices. Our vibrant hospice-at-home network also needs to be nurtured. Our care home staff and home care workers are all fundamental to the network of support that is required.

Hospice UK is concerned about challenges in retaining current hospice beds at a time when we need to look at expanding provision, not just maintaining it. The Scottish Government has committed to working with the sector to secure a sustainable hospice network, and I understand that there remains an ongoing positive discussion between hospices and the Scottish Government about how we work towards that. That will require a longer-term and refreshed funding model for hospices that is less reliant on charitable donations.

A new palliative care strategy was launched in September 2025, and there is much in it to welcome. How those ambitions are funded, by whom, and how they are delivered and monitored, will be crucial. The strategy’s initial delivery plan includes a 24/7 palliative care helpline to give people confidence and support whenever they need advice about palliative care or what to do when someone is ill or dying. It also includes the integration of specialist and general palliative care services, to get appropriate care more quickly to those who need it and, crucially, ensure that health and social care staff who provide general palliative care for people of all ages with life-shortening conditions also have access to 24/7 specialist palliative care advice and support for them to do their job properly on the front line.

In delivering all those things and more, the role and funding of integration joint boards will need to be considered carefully. There may be an important role for the national care service advisory board in driving through some of those changes, but change there must be.

In the few seconds that I have left, I note that, in the previous session of the Parliament, irrespective of whether people supported Liam McArthur’s Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill, which he took forward with great dignity, everyone on all sides of the debate believed that we must do better on palliative and end-of-life care. We promised to do that during this parliamentary session. This parliamentary session has been convened, and we must deliver for people who are approaching end of life.

I specifically mentioned the PVI sector, which shows that I think that we have to acknowledge the sector’s growing importance and fund it as effectively as possible. I will say more about that in the latter part of my speech, but I appreciate the member’s intervention.

Our councils will, and must, remain the cornerstone of successful delivery. However, it will be vital that we have a truly meaningful, respectful and constructive partnership with the private, voluntary and independent sector, as well as with childminders. I welcome COSLA’s acknowledgement of that in its briefing to members for this debate. Although that partnership has often worked well, we should also acknowledge that the issue of councils paying PVI providers a sustainable rate has been the subject of much debate by those in the sector, who do not always feel that that has been forthcoming from councils. That must be addressed—I hope that that will reassure Mr Rennie. I very much hope that that key relationship can be developed and that the matter is addressed.

The success of our transformational childcare offer will also require a major uplift in the early years and childcare workforce, and that has to be considered strategically. It is a great opportunity to develop a pathway back to employment for some, often women, and to support others to increase their working hours, given that underemployment, as well as unemployment, is a challenge for society. It is ironic that the absence of affordable childcare when required might have been a barrier for some who might now, with the policy, be able to consider employment. That new workforce might require specific additional and transitional support.

I will need to mind my Ps and Qs with Mr Kerr for using the word “earmarked” in the chamber. If Mr Kerr is more comfortable with the term “ballpark figure”, let us go with that and move along with a degree of consensus.

I very much hope that the policy will command strong cross-party support, receive constructive and meaningful scrutiny along the way and have the good will of Parliament. Achieving the ambition to have as much childcare as necessary to fit around family needs and circumstances will be challenging—it will also be expensive, I suspect. It will require innovation, flexibility and a mixed-model approach to delivery. Our councils will and must remain the cornerstone of successful delivery.

I am pleased to hear it, Presiding Officer. I welcome you to your position and the Cabinet Secretary for Education, Culture and Gaelic to her position.

This may surprise you, Presiding Officer, but this is by no means my first speech in this place. However, it will be my first speech as the MSP for Glasgow Kelvin and Maryhill, with the substantial boundary changes that were put in place ahead of the 2026 Scottish Parliament elections. It was a privilege to represent areas such as the Garngad, Springburn and Milton, but that now passes on to Ivan McKee MSP. I look forward to continuing to represent my constituents across the wider Maryhill corridor, however, and the many new communities that were formerly part of the Glasgow Kelvin constituency.

The real reason for mentioning the changes is that it allows me to mention Glasgow Kelvin. I pay tribute to Kaukab Stewart, who was the MSP for Glasgow Kelvin from 2021 up until the election. Kaukab was the first woman of colour elected to the Scottish Parliament, and she served diligently as a hard-working constituency MSP and as a Scottish Government minister. She will be a loss to this Parliament.

I turn to the substantive debate on the Scottish Government’s ambition to expand early learning and childcare provision. The Scottish Government has already presided over a more than doubling of free early learning and childcare for three and four-year-olds in Scotland, as well as eligible two-year-olds. Although that doubling has not been without its challenges, some of which I hope to refer to during my speech, it is still a tremendous achievement, and that should not be forgotten in the debate. That achievement was driven and secured by an SNP Government. However, it was delivered on the ground not by politicians but by early learning and childcare professionals employed by local authorities or by providers in the private, voluntary and independent sector, which is often referred to as the PVI sector.

The 1,140 hours have been in place since 2021, by and large, and have been worth more than £6,000 for every eligible child each year. That has benefited my family, and we have used our hours mixed between a local authority provider and an independent provider as we have tried to best match our family needs with the available provision.

That mixing and matching of provision to best meet family circumstances will be a common experience for families. Flexibility is essential. The Scottish Government is, of course, aiming to move towards year-round childcare provision for children from nine months old up to the end of primary school. It was a central manifesto commitment. More than £0.5 billion has been earmarked for expenditure on that endeavour, and that will have to be kept under review as we plan for the next five years.

I think that we can all agree that achieving that aim would be hugely welcome and transformational.

Will the member give way?

I very much welcome that intervention, as it allows me to put on record that, as the cabinet secretary said, there is no compulsion for a parent to put their child into a childcare establishment at nine months old.

I acknowledge Mr Dunlop’s expertise, however, and if he has concerns in that area, he is absolutely right to bring those to the Parliament and work through them as part of the positive, constructive scrutiny of this policy proposal.

I understand that the childcare workforce increased by 8,000 to 46,000 individuals to support the doubling of early years provision, and that colleges were supported to assist with the upskilling of the sector. I hope that those statistics are right, because they are on the Scottish Government website. Many more will now be needed to expand early years childcare further. Well-paid and supported workers will be central to the delivery of the commitment, and anything that we can do to address the associated costs and make it more affordable would be very welcome.

I will make one suggestion. Perhaps the Scottish Government could reach out to the UK Government to look at changing rules over employer national insurance contributions where employers seek to expand their early years workforce. Such dialogue and potential co-operation between the Scottish and UK Governments should be the norm, and should be supported cross-party in this place, irrespective of our constitutional positions. I hope that, on these types of things, we can start to make common cause. After all, moving someone into employment or providing someone with further hours reduces the benefits bill and bolsters the tax base, and it is a better outcome for all involved. The cost to an employer of NI contributions, however, can be as much as £2,800 each year.

In closing, I will say a bit about wraparound childcare and all-year-round childcare for young people of primary-school age. Breakfast clubs, after-school clubs and holiday clubs have been a mainstay for many years now. Some provision may look like a more traditional after-school club, but there is also the growth of emerging additional provision that is based around various activities such as football and dance, in particular during the summer holidays.

In my constituency, I am lucky to have various providers such as Summerston after-school care, Maryhill mobile crèche, Achieve More! Scotland, and North Kelvin Sports Development Group, to name just a few. There are huge opportunities to expand provision in exciting, innovative ways; however, how and when delivery will take place will have to be co-ordinated. That also applies to funding, which can come from different pots of cash—for instance, for the Scottish Football Association’s extra time initiative partnership with the Scottish Government. Local organisations offering different opportunities and models of delivery, often with very different cost bases, must be seen as partners, not competitors. Planning will be crucial.

Given the time that I have taken, I will draw my remarks to a close. I hope that we can come together as a Parliament and deliver this transformational Scottish Government policy.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I was unable to connect to the voting app. I would have voted yes.

I, Bob Doris, do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles, his heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.