Chamber and committees

I have one more question on that issue. Section 2 removes the 28-day time limits when a crofter applies for consent to use their croft for another purposeful use or when a crofter applies for permission to be temporarily absent. Why is that being changed? It is the Government’s decision to write the legislation, but what is your understanding of why that is in there? Will that be useful to you or to the process? Will it help to deal with things promptly? Does that just give you more time?

I am not a crofter.

I do not disagree with anything that you have said about the fact that the landscape has changed and that many people want to use crofts and grazings for different things. However, to push back a little, do you recognise the fear that some potential new entrants might have that they could find it difficult to obtain a croft with the necessary grazings to do what they want to do—to keep animals on the common grazings—if, in some places, the trend of separating grazing shares from crofts was to be completely unchecked?

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?

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.

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.