Chamber and committees

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?

We are a little short of time, so I ask that you try to be concise in responding.

Are members content? For the Scottish Government to have said that it expected to produce a report before the summer recess last year but to then say that it has taken a bit of time to drive some consensus as we head into the summer recess of 2025 does not inspire one to the view that there is any pressing urgency being given to producing the required information to help the issue to progress.

Oh, I am sorry, Mr Choudhury—I do apologise.

That is an option that we could perhaps explore but, as you know, Mr Choudhury, there are fewer weeks left in the parliamentary session than there are items of business to deal with. Therefore, maybe we could write in the first instance and see what the quality of the response is, before we commit to further action.

PE2041, which was lodged by John Ronald, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to encourage local authorities to exempt staff working at community healthcare facilities who do not have access to free on-site staff parking from on-street parking charges and to allow them to care for vulnerable and sick people in our country without it costing them thousands of pounds per year.

We last considered the petition at our meeting on 9 October 2024, when we agreed to write to NHS regional health boards. We have received responses from 11 boards, and three boards have not responded. As we have learned from the evidence that was received previously, the NHS terms and conditions of service stipulate that parking charges that are incurred as a result of attendance at an employee’s normal place of work will not be reimbursed. Many of the responses that we have received from NHS regional boards have recognised that limitation. However, most board responses highlight that there is already free parking for staff across board premises. In some cases, that extends to patients and visitors. If they are limited, parking spaces are allocated on a first-come, first-served basis.

Respondents reiterate that, as per the NHS terms and conditions of service, where staff travel as part of their duties and have to pay public parking charges, they can reclaim those costs through expense claim processes, with the caveat that no parking offences have been committed.

That seems to address the issue of the petition directly.

Thank you. Mr Ewing, do you want to come in?

In closing the petition, therefore, would the committee, in the time that is left to us, like to write to the Scottish Government, illustrating the work that we have undertaken and noting that we have identified inconsistencies? We could note that, although the broad statement that charges can be recovered will indeed allow some people to be recompensed, others are escaping through the net. That is unreasonable, and it would perhaps be useful for the Scottish Government to be aware of that. If possible, if nothing further happens, the petition might resurface in the next parliamentary session, which would present the opportunity to do a bit more work on it at that time.

Thank you, Ms White. You referred to the petitioner as Tracey White; I note that the petition has been lodged by Margaret Tracey White, but I take it that Tracey White is the petitioner’s given name, so I am delighted that Tracey White is with us in the gallery today.

Mr Lumsden, would you like to say a few words?