Seòmar agus comataidhean

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?

We thank the petitioner for raising the petition with us. I hope that the response is validated by experience, and that the petitioner keeps a note of whether all of that transpires. If not, she could bring the issue back in a future session of Parliament.

That brings us to item 3, which is consideration of new petitions. To those tuning in to see what is happening with a petition that they have lodged, I can confirm that we always seek two opinions. The first is from the Scottish Parliament information centre—the Scottish Parliament’s independent research body—which gives us formal briefings on the issues raised by petitions, and the second is a preliminary view from the Scottish Government. As always, we seek that information from those two bodies in advance, because, historically, that has been the first thing that we have done as a committee. Doing so helps expedite our in-depth consideration of the petition before us.

The first of our new petitions is PE2141, lodged by Luis Robertson, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to improve the support available to the neurodiverse community by providing fully-funded psychoeducation and sensory aids, which allow for greater community integration pre and post diagnosis.

In the petitioner’s view, psychoeducation is crucial for autistic individuals, as it equips them with the knowledge and tools to better understand themselves and their experiences. That knowledge could lead to self-acceptance and enable them to connect with others more effectively.

As noted in the SPICe briefing, psychoeducation interventions are typically structured, fixed-term, condition-specific sessions for neurodiverse people, delivered by a qualified professional. Depending on individual needs, some neurodiverse persons also find use for sensory aids, such as fidget toys, weighted blankets, therapy balls or visual timers. The SPICe briefing also highlights that the evidence base for psychoeducation is still somewhat small, given that it is an emerging field. However, it points to some research that suggests that psychoeducation could play a positive role in post-diagnostic support, particularly if it is co-produced by neurodiverse people.

In its initial submission, the Scottish Government explains how organisations funded through the autistic adult support fund provide support that achieves similar aims to those of psychoeducation. It also explains how existing providers of psychoeducation and sensory aids can apply for funding. The Government further stresses that it supports several alternative initiatives that achieve the aims sought in the petition, while indicating that it is open to exploring the integration of psychoeducational approaches and the use of sensory aids into existing frameworks.

If members are content, I suggest that we write to the Scottish Government to ask for a breakdown of the funding that is due to be made available to the providers of psychoeducation and sensory aids in 2025-26 and beyond and to ask whether that will be made available through the autistic adult Scotland fund. We should also ask for an update on whether the Scottish Government intends to subsidise or distribute sensory aids through the existing frameworks and to integrate that provision with the psychoeducational programmes that are led by neurodivergent individuals. Are members content?

Members indicated agreement.