Chamber and committees

Yes. This is all fairly fresh, because the UK Government’s announcement was at the beginning of February and the Scottish Government’s announcement was in the middle of March. Given that the bill is going through the Parliament just now, we would, as suggested, want to see the provisions of the petition incorporated into the bill.

I think that we are all agreed. We will keep the petition open and we will progress on the basis that has been suggested. We thank Mr Clerkin for lodging the petition; it remains open, and we hope to advance its aims. Thank you for joining us in the gallery for the discussion of both your petitions, Mr Clerkin.

That brings us to the end of our formal business. We will next convene on Wednesday 18 June. We will now move into private session.

Okay, but we do not have a lot of time. Professor Masterton absorbed some of the time that we had with his lengthy remarks.

Thank you. That was all very enlightening and academic, so let me now be pejorative. You referred to Kenneth Clark’s television series “Civilisation”, which was all very high-falutin’. At the end, you talked about developers who might have ulterior motives. I would say that I have never met a developer who does not have an ulterior motive. And when has a developer ever had a motive in the national interest? I can see that there are architects and others who aspire to create something wonderful, but the developers that I have met are looking for bang for their buck, which is why they are in business.

The impression that many people have is that, although the United States might ring out the old, ring in the new and have a complete lack of sentiment about absolutely anything—one only has to look at New York City to see all the buildings that have been ripped down and replaced with whatever could make the most money—people in this country have an attachment to a number of buildings.

For the sake of argument—I will bring in the other witnesses, too—let me say that there is a sense that developers’ interests come first and that, sometimes, our local authorities are inclined to set aside the love of buildings that might have a future purpose within a development because they are keen for the development to proceed, which it does, regardless of the building’s worth. Sometimes, it seems that the demolition has happened before anybody has had time to blink. Examples of that come up all the time, depending on which part of the country you live in. If you are in Glasgow and drive up Sauchiehall Street, you see the old ABC cinema, with its art deco frontage, being hacked to pieces. There are other examples of buildings that were not knocked down. As a boy, I remember looking at the Odeon cinema, with its art deco frontage, on Renfield Street. It is all still there, with all the office buildings and everything built on to the back.

It seems to many people that the safeguards around the assessment of the need for demolition are mysteriously bent in such a way as to make it the quick option for developers to pursue. That is what underpins the petition’s aims and the representations of our colleague Paul Sweeney, who has now joined us online. Good morning, Mr Sweeney; I am sure that we will bring you into play in due course.

I do not know how the other witnesses want to respond, but before we get to a detailed question, how would you respond to my pejorative opening gambit?

Is the committee minded to accept Mr Torrance’s proposal?

Members indicated agreement.

I do not even know whom I would ask to find out how many cats there are that would require to be microchipped. Would the measure be retrospective, or applied to each new cat that is to be launched into the domestic environment?

In any event, the Government is considering the issues, and it is perfectly reasonable to try to establish when those considerations might lead to a recommendation. Are colleagues content to support Mr Choudhury’s recommendation?

Members indicated agreement.

Are colleagues content with that?

Members indicated agreement.

I read again the response from the petitioner and Mrs Muir—it was not a happy experience. However, the Scottish Government seems resolute in its view. Do colleagues accept Mr Torrance’s recommendation at this point?

Members indicated agreement.

PE2111, lodged by Julie Fraser, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to provide families with financial support for early learning and childcare when their children reach nine months. The petition was last considered on 30 October 2024.

In its response, the Scottish Government highlights its work with local authorities on a national improvement project that will not only take focused action in five local authorities but seek out and promote good practice to increase uptake of such care for eligible two-year-olds.

The Scottish Government’s work on early adopter community projects has continued, too, with the aim of tackling poverty and helping families give their children the best start in life by expanding access to childcare services. The response confirms that some projects will directly support children from the age of nine months, but firm data will be available only through future grant reporting and evaluation activity.

In light of that response, do members have any suggestions for action?