Chamber and committees

Does anyone else want to come in?

I thank the member for his intervention. I am not quite sure what the figure is, but I think that it is only 500.

Again, many of my constituents will agree that the base has done nothing to make us feel safer; instead, it has made us feel more on edge. Obviously, these weapons are wrong, statistically, morally and financially; they cost billions of pounds, and that money would be much better spent on healthcare, education, housing, welfare and building a better future for our children. It puts the debate about the level of social security in a different context.

Critics might argue that a Europe free of nuclear weapons undermines our security, but the reality is quite the opposite. They do nothing to keep us safe in the current geopolitical landscape; in fact, it is more likely that they put us at risk. When we debate having nuclear weapons in Scotland and across Europe, I think that we must all remember the scale of damage that they can cause. We know that their existence is something that we can unite against. Indeed, it was a proud moment when, by an overwhelming majority in 2015, the Parliament united in opposition to Trident renewal.

Not only would an independent Scotland be a way of seeing nuclear weapons removed from our country, it would be a significant boost towards removing these weapons of mass destruction from the rest of the UK. It is clear that rehousing nuclear weapons elsewhere would be a significant challenge—hopefully, it will prove impossible. By advocating for disarmament in our own country, we send a strong message that we must work collectively to achieve a nuclear weapons-free Europe and world.

A nuclear weapons-free Europe is about the protection of humanity and the provision of a safer world for our children. At its core, it represents a dedication to peace, co-operation and a world in which dialogue prevails over destruction. That is a world that we should all want to live in.

I congratulate my colleague Bill Kidd on securing this important debate on a nuclear weapons-free Europe, and I thank him for his commitment to the issue and his work as the convener of the cross-party group on nuclear disarmament.

As has been mentioned, Bill will be one of the main speakers at Saturday’s festival of survival. The event will bring together many campaigners for peace and focus on the twin threats of climate destruction and nuclear annihilation. I wish it every success and thank the organisers for their endeavour. In doing so, I also pay tribute to the Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons and all others who oppose nuclear weapons across the world.

I am sure that many of us in the chamber and across Scotland saw the global blockbuster “Oppenheimer” over the summer. The film, which was utterly harrowing, brought greater awareness to younger generations of the sheer destruction and death caused in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. However, it was able to illustrate only some of the horror—the reality was far more gruesome than can be depicted in film.

What was important, though, is that the film drew people’s attention to the real and present danger of nuclear weapons. Scottish CND estimates that there are 13,000 nuclear weapons in the world; their power is even more destructive, and their use will be more catastrophic than ever. That is why we must be passionate about achieving a nuclear-free Scotland, first and foremost in a Europe where nuclear weapons are a thing of the past.

Scotland’s nuclear weapons base at Faslane is only 40 minutes’ drive from my constituency, and I am sure that many of my constituents will agree that it has done nothing to make us feel safer. Instead, it has made us feel more on edge.

Thank you. Does anyone else want to share their views?

Thank you.

Do you agree with the requirement to consult, report and review schemes, including the need for the 18-month lead-in time? The tourism sector would like the lead-in time to commence only if and when the bill is enacted. Can we start with Kathlene Morrison, who is online?

In the submissions, a number of local authorities shared that view. Councillor Lobban, do you want to come in on that?

How do local authorities and providers check that exemption claims are legitimate?

Thank you.

Good morning, panel. Some businesses believe that local flexibility will make the regulatory landscape more complex. Last week, one witness said that there is

“so much localism for localism’s sake”—[Official Report, Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee, 24 October; c 13.]

Councillor Lobban, you have touched on this but can you expand on why you feel that it is important that local authorities have freedom to decide on exemption rates and remittance issues, rather than having those imposed on them?

Does anyone else want to comment on that?