Seòmar agus comataidhean

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?

The issue has been raised with the committee on trips. I am not trying to pretend that it is apocalyptic, but questions have been raised with us about who might acquire shares in common land and why.

I will move on to the other scenario that you mentioned about the future. The bill gives crofters and grazings committees new opportunities to use common grazings for environmental purposes. At present, are common grazings committees resourced, equipped and able to hold money to the extent that might be needed to do all those things? Does the bill assist with any of that?

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.

Thank you, convener. I will do that, but I will first make an observation on something that Vicki Swales and others have said. It is interesting that people talk about the contradictions that are probably not there and about the tensions that are there in some of those questions. It occurred to me, when people were talking about that issue, that there is a lot of consensus, too. It is interesting, for instance, that Scotland is the only country in the UK that still recognises production through basic payments. It is interesting that there is a recognition by all parties that agriculture is a biological process and that there will be some emissions from it. It is also interesting to have a conversation like this, which can build on some of the areas where there is consensus.

My question is about indicators, and my interest is in less favoured areas, given how much of Scotland is less favoured areas. People will not be surprised to hear that I am specifically interested in the issues that have been raised by crofters. For instance, are the indicators that we have flexible enough to cope with the different land types in Scotland? I am talking about those people who work in less favoured areas who might be crofters and certainly those who are working in the production of store animals.

My question continues the discussion that we had when I kicked off about less favoured areas. Clearly, change will come to the agriculture sector over the coming years, and everywhere will be part of that. Do people have a view about whether the options that exist for change in agriculture are more limited in some of our less favoured areas than in other places? Do we have to talk about change in a different way in those parts of the country?