Chamber and committees

The member might be about to explain this, but my understanding is that these matters are in the public domain thanks to some pretty dogged efforts by journalists, rather than any willingness on the part of the United Kingdom Government to tell us anything.

It was my intention so to do. My apologies, Presiding Officer.

I declare an interest as a long-term member of the Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. I thank Bill Kidd for his work in bringing an important motion to the chamber, and I recognise his long-standing personal commitment to the issue.

The unusable—I pray—nature of nuclear weapons means that they consistently fail to deter wars of aggression, even when that aggression involves nuclear powers, as recent years have shown only too clearly. For many people, the real terror that is presented by nuclear weapons is their capacity to be used as the result of a misunderstanding, an error or, as very nearly happened in the Soviet Union in 1983, an information technology fault.

My party has opposed the use or storage of nuclear weapons in Scotland since 1963, and I acknowledge that people in a number of other parties take the same view; indeed, that would be the majority position in this Parliament. It is therefore relevant for the Parliament to take an interest in the wider risks that may be presented by any radioactive incidents at nuclear bases.

Since coming to light, the numerous reports of radioactive contamination have proved concerning for many residents across western Scotland. The UK Ministry of Defence’s attempts to downplay those concerns leave many questions unanswered. The reality is that the incidents that prompted today’s debate have not come to our knowledge through the transparency and willingness of the Ministry of Defence. Instead, a six-year freedom of information battle has been waged by various journalists. Thanks to their hard work, we now know that incidents occurred in 2010 and 2021 and that there was a major leak of a radioactive isotope in August 2019. The Scottish Environment Protection Agency concluded that those leaks were due to shortfalls in maintenance. Perhaps even more worryingly, the plans to replace piping to maintain our expensive nuclear deterrent were, it seems, slow and inadequate.

I understand that some members will have differing views to mine on whether the nuclear deterrent works. However, I hope that, as Mr Kidd set out, we can all agree that the public in Scotland, who are host to a truly terrifying nuclear arsenal, have a right to be convincingly reassured on safety matters. I believe that it is not unreasonable, therefore, that the UK Government, which is ultimately responsible for the UK’s weapons of mass destruction—I use the phrase that describes them in the Scotland Act 1998—takes action to address the concerns that clearly exist about recent incidents and does so correctly and transparently. Given that Scottish taxpayers are expected to contribute towards the £3 billion annual maintenance bill for those weapons, I do not believe that it is an unreasonable ask that sites be maintained in a way that commands some degree of public confidence.

Will the member give way?

Alison Turnbull, I am conscious that there has been a lot of interest in the internal workings of HES. You will be more than aware that there is also a lot of interest in the outcomes in communities from the money that is being spent. Specifically, people are keen to see much-loved historic buildings in their communities reopen. I am conscious that there has been a high-level masonry survey and all sorts of other things going on, but there is an awful lot of interest in finding out what the outputs are and whether those buildings are reopening to the public.

What I am driving at is this: how many buildings that were open pre-pandemic are still to reopen?

I want to pick up on the point that was made about mainstreaming and the point that was made about health by Anne Lyden, who anticipated my question. In the past, the committee has taken an interest in what more we can do to more fully mainstream funding in the sector, so that we reap not only the health benefits but the benefits relating to people being actively involved in their communities, volunteering and so on.

In Norway, there is a word for the moral sense of responsibility to volunteer that all Norwegians feel: dugnad. I am not sure that we have quite reached that point in Scotland, but are we making progress in that direction? I am thinking about big public agencies, such as the national health service, remembering culture in the way that they structure what they do. I address that question to anyone who feels that it is relevant, but the point was first mentioned by Anne Lyden.

I want to pick up on what Tony Lankester said about the economic and tourism benefits of arts events. I hasten to add that I do not believe those to be the only benefits that culture provides. I will also pick up on Anne Lyden’s point about 97 per cent of collections not being on display. I offer no criticism of that, because I understand that that is how museums and galleries have to work.

I am curious to know whether you all feel that the financial or budgeting climate in which you operate promotes loans of art, whether it be of art works or objects in museum collections on loan around the country, or on tour around the country, in a way that brings cultural benefits, and the economic benefit that you described, to other bits of the country.

You mentioned exhibitions, but I was also thinking about the long-term loan of objects and artwork around the country.

I thank Sarah Boyack for bringing this important debate to the chamber, and I congratulate the Scottish Youth Parliament on its work. The local representatives for the Western Isles, Ellie Denehy and Alannah Logue, are each at their respective ends of my constituency.

As I am the MSP for an island constituency, issues such as flights from island airports, ferry services and rural bus services are often raised with me, but the debate reminds us that issues of connectivity have a specific impact on Scotland’s young islanders. I express my thanks to the Scottish Youth Parliament, especially the rural and island representatives, for their hard work in producing the 2026 to 2031 manifesto, which sets out, inter alia, the Scottish Youth Parliament’s transport priorities on behalf of all young Scots.

I am certainly encouraged by the fact that many of the Scottish Government’s transport policies have been welcomed by the Youth Parliament. In my constituency, policies such as the introduction of free interisland ferry travel and two free round-trip ferry crossings a year to the mainland for under-22s have been welcomed. I realise that the Youth Parliament would like to see that entitlement grow and develop, and perhaps the minister, in summing up, will respond to the asks made by the Youth Parliament on that.

Improving connectivity and tackling island depopulation are closely interlinked challenges. Understanding the challenges that young people face is essential not only to improving our current transport network in the islands, but to building a future transport network that will help to encourage younger islanders to stay in or return to their island communities. Getting our transport infrastructure right can make the islands a more attractive place for young people once they finish university or college, and it can help them to think about entering the workforce or starting a business. I hope that today’s debate will encourage young islanders to get involved in local conversations and debates about transport services at national and local levels.

Later this month, HITRANS will launch its rural transport strategy in Holyrood, and I hope that members will find ways to bring the Scottish Youth Parliament’s views on transport issues into our discussions. In my constituency, the Western Isles ferries group meets monthly to find solutions and to work constructively to sustain and improve ferry connectivity. Following recent conversations and its attendance at this debate, I hope that the group will share my view that inviting a young representative to a forthcoming meeting would be a good way to kick off the conversation.

To summarise, young islanders require good connectivity links. Members of the Scottish Youth Parliament can provide us with unique insights into how we can continue to improve our transport network and make our islands, as well as the whole of Scotland, a more attractive place for young people in the future.

I agree entirely with what the member has said about the need to tackle antisocial behaviour and the problem that it causes on transport. However, I am sure that she would wish to put on the record that antisocial behaviour on public transport is not restricted to people who are under the age of 22.