New Build Heat Standard
Over the weekend, several news outlets reported that the Deputy First Minister had committed to a review of the new build heat standard, which bans direct emission heating in new-build homes.
You should put your published question, Ms Hamilton.
I am sorry.
To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on plans to review the new build heat standard. (S6T-02015)
I am pleased that the issue has come up as a topical question, as I was due to issue a Government-inspired question later today on the very topic. I have been listening to the concerns raised by communities and will be reviewing the regulations on wood-burning stoves and biomass boilers with the intention to adapt them to address the issues of inflexibility that have been raised. The outcome of the review will ensure resilience to interruptions of electricity and heating supply and respect for rural communities’ culture, traditions and sustainable systems. I want to ensure that climate-friendly alternatives to direct emissions are promoted in appropriate ways across Scotland, with no unintended consequences with regard to fuel poverty and sustainability, particularly in rural communities.
The review will be carried out in short order and it will be collaborative, including communities, businesses and local authorities, to ensure that it reflects all views. I am just as keen to work collaboratively with colleagues in Parliament.
Surprise, surprise—the Scottish National Party has done another screeching U-turn. Over the weekend, we heard from several news outlets that the Deputy First Minister had committed to a review of the new build heat standard, which bans direct emission heating in new-build homes. We heard it on the weekend, and now we hear it here because the minister was forced into it by answering my question.
My party has long demanded that those rules be changed. They are misguided, ill-formed and fail to understand the realities of rural life. Can the minister give us a timetable for when she will undertake the review, now that she has finally given in to Scottish Conservative demands to review the ban on wood burners?
First, I thank Rachael Hamilton for early sight of her supplementary question. I cannot work out whether she is happy that I am reviewing the regulations or not. I cannot quite make up my mind on that. All I can say to her is that, when I got responsibility for this portfolio, it was obvious to me that issues were being brought up, particularly by rural communities. I am a rural MSP and I will always listen to rural communities. The review will look at previous consultation responses and evidence, at research, and at engagement notes including those that were received after the introduction of the new standard, and I will re-engage with the new build heat standard working group on it.
Ms Hamilton asked for an idea of when the review will happen. The earliest that we can possibly get the results of the review before Parliament will be after recess. That is how long it will take to do that engagement, including with my parliamentary colleagues. I will be able to advise Parliament of the exact timing of that soon.
I thank Kate Forbes for early sight of the minister’s announcement.
The Scottish stove industry is worth approximately £60 million annually and supports more than 2,000 jobs across Scotland. Last week, the Scottish Conservatives met 40 businesses and industry experts to hear about the impact of the ban. One company noted that, since the ban, it has seen its first month with zero installations. Another company echoed that, stating that, since 1 April 2024, it has had three stove installation inquiries, compared to 20 in the same period in 2023. That equates to around £100,000 in lost revenue, based on previous sales.
As we saw with the highly protected marine areas and the deposit return scheme, the Greens and the SNP find it all too easy to ignore rural businesses and communities. Can the minister confirm whether compensation will be afforded to those businesses that have lost out because of the SNP’s misguided approach?
As I said, I always take the impacts on rural communities very seriously. However, I want to address something that Rachael Hamilton and her colleagues have said in public. There is no blanket ban on wood-burning stoves. The regulations are for new builds, and I am doing what a responsible minister and a responsible Government should be doing: looking at potential unintended consequences of what has been introduced.
I should point out to Ms Hamilton that the regulations went through the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee, and every member of that committee voted in favour of them, including two Conservative members. No one raised any of the points that she has raised. However, I have been hearing from people in rural Scotland on the issue, including the organisations that have been mentioned, and I am committed to reviewing the regulations.
What consideration is the Scottish Government giving to the necessity in many communities of using solid fuel, which is due to the energy crisis and associated cost of living impacts that the deliberate policies of the Conservative Party have inflicted on our rural areas?
I am glad that Emma Roddick has raised the issue of rural fuel poverty. Scotland suffered the highest level of fuel poverty anyway, even before the fuel crisis, so that is a very important point. We recognise that homes in rural communities can face additional challenges in decarbonising their properties, including the higher costs that are associated with that. That is why we provide a rural uplift for energy efficiency measures and clean heating systems as part of our generous funding offer. That is also why, in our recent consultation on proposals for a heat in buildings bill, we acknowledged the value of secondary and back-up heating systems to many existing rural homes. We did not propose that any future regulations prohibiting the use of polluting heat should apply to those secondary and back-up systems.
We will continue to support owners in rural areas to make the transition by ensuring that our approach to decarbonising buildings promotes fairness, feasibility and affordability, and is rural and island proof. However, it is true that many people were using gathered wood to boost the heat in their homes, particularly during the fuel crisis. Emergencies are not just power cuts for people in those situations.
Following the Conservative-led campaign with the industry, and ahead of my members’ business debate tomorrow, I am pleased that a review will be undertaken. However, it is only a review and not a full reversal of the ban, which is what we want. When the Scottish Government finally recognises its mistakes and listens to communities across the area that I represent and across rural Scotland and is forced to drop the proposals, will it commit to undertaking an economic analysis of the financial impact of the disastrous wood-burning stoves ban?
No one is forcing me to do anything. I came into this post with that responsibility and have been concerned about the inflexibility in the regulations. I am doing exactly what Jamie Halcro Johnston accuses me of not doing: I am listening and reacting to the views of rural Scotland, which have been in my inbox since I took responsibility for this area, and reviewing the regulations.
Will the minister consider emergency fuel sources? Under the previous legislation, they were to be temporary and portable. I am sure that she knows that a wood-burning stove cannot be portable—it needs a chimney. Will she also take into consideration woodland crofts, which were created especially to ensure that there is a sustainable fuel source for those homes?
Everything that Rhoda Grant has just said has been in my mind. I am thinking particularly of householders who are building new builds where they want to put in a biomass boiler because they have a sustainable supply of wood for it. That has been brought to my attention, not least through the communication that I have had with Rhoda Grant. I am happy to work with the member to understand some of the reasons why there has been such a backlash from rural communities.
Not that many people are putting wood-burning stoves or biomass boilers into new builds—about 4 per cent of those with new builds have done so over the past 10 years. However, those who are doing so are doing it not thinking that they will be polluting but because they want to use a sustainable fuel and are mitigating some of the impacts of the lack of choice that they have in heating their homes.
The minister is well aware that the new build heat standard did not cover emergency and back-up systems, and that the building standards regime already includes flexibility, such as derogations if new housing developments have to be put in an area where they cannot be connected to the electricity grid and therefore cannot use clean heating systems. Is it not clear from the current situation that all we need is a little bit of lobbying from vested interests and a little bit of misinformation and the SNP will start unravelling even modest measures—[Interruption.]
Members.
—that have been put in place for good reasons?
Given that the cabinet secretary, who previously signed off the measure, was unwilling earlier today to commit to a timetable for introducing the heat in buildings bill to the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, how much confidence can anyone have that the Scottish Government remains committed to that challenging agenda?
I agree with one part of what Mr Harvie said, in that there has been a lot of misinformation around the issue. That gives me the opportunity to state again that the regulations were never a ban on wood-burning stoves. That misinformation has been perpetrated particularly people on the Conservative side of the chamber.
It is also true that people in rural and island communities have brought to my attention areas in which they do not want to pollute and want to live sustainably. Part of that might be choosing a wood-burning stove or a biomass boiler for their new build because they have a sustainable supply. I want to listen to those rural communities and those voices. That is what a responsible Government should do, and I am happy to take Mr Harvie’s views on that as well.
We must move on to question 2.
Flooding Resilience (Edinburgh)
To ask the Scottish Government how it is working to build resilience to flooding, in light of reports that heavy rain and flooding caused drivers to be stranded on the Edinburgh city bypass for hours. (S6T-02009)
I express my sympathy for those who were impacted by the heavy rain last week and my thanks to those who responded to the events. Extreme weather events are increasing as a result of climate change, which is why improving flood resilience is a priority for the Government.
In response to the severe weather on Thursday and, in particular, the flooding on sections of the Edinburgh bypass, Transport Scotland worked with BEAR Scotland to deploy pumps to clear the carriageway, while Police Scotland carried out welfare checks on people who were stuck in flooding, as well as ensuring that diversions were in place.
In the face of increasing challenges as a result of climate change, the Government is taking a suite of actions to build resilience. Those include providing increased investment in flood risk management, funding the Scottish Flood Forum and supporting the Scottish Environment Protection Agency with its flood forecasting service. In addition, Transport Scotland is planning for and investing in adaptation, including in schemes to improve drainage and realign watercourses.
The Scottish Government is also taking action on strategic planning, including the consultation that I opened last week on our flood resilience strategy and our adaptation strategy, which we will publish this year.
This is not the first time that there has been flooding on the Edinburgh city bypass. It should be a high priority for flood protections, but the flood resilience strategy consultation neglects our transport network in building new resilience to flooding. What risk assessment has the Scottish Government carried out? What investment will it make to ensure that our roads and railways are not closed and that people’s lives are not disrupted as we increasingly experience disruptive and damaging extreme weather?
I open my response by pointing out that more than a month’s rain fell in a 36-hour period on Thursday and Friday of last week. The Esk at Musselburgh rose to its second-highest level on record, and the Eddleston Water at Peebles reached its highest level on record. Those unusual events are exacerbated by climate impacts.
Mr Choudhury raised the issue of transport planning and the actions that Transport Scotland is taking. In 2023, its strategic framework was published, which looked explicitly at adaptation on Scotland’s transport network. In my opening response, I mentioned some of the practical investments that are being made to build resilience to climate change on our transport network, including in the previous financial year, when £2.5 million was spent on 17 drainage improvement schemes and on one watercourse realignment. That is just one example of how Transport Scotland is investing to adapt our system.
During the heavy rainfall this week, constituents again raised concerns with me that sewage could be discharged into the Water of Leith. When the Scottish Government ditched its 2030 climate target, I warned that inaction on the climate would result in more heavy rainfall and flooding, and potentially more sewage in our waterways. I requested a meeting to discuss those combined sewage overflows with the cabinet secretary, but I was told that such a meeting would not be useful. Will the cabinet secretary show that the Scottish Government is taking the issue seriously and restore the public’s confidence by meeting me and the campaigners on the issue?
The tenor of that question pertains to water quality as opposed to flooding, but I am happy to answer it and to give an update to Parliament. On the one hand, 87 per cent of Scotland’s entire water environment is assessed by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency as having good or high classification. That is up from 82 per cent six years ago.
We are not complacent, however. For example, Scottish Water is committed to installing 1,000 new spill monitors by the end of this year, and its “Improving Urban Waters—Route Map” demonstrates the work that is under way. To give some figures, 230 new spill monitors had been installed at priority locations by the end of 2023 and, by the end of March 2024, more than 800 of the promised 1,000 spill monitors had been installed, so Scottish Water is well on track to deliver that commitment. Detailed solutions are currently being developed to address 104 high-priority unsatisfactory combined sewer overflows.
I hope that that information and the further information that I am happy to provide to the member will give him some reassurance.
It is important that the cabinet secretary acknowledged how distressing last week’s situation was for families. I spoke to constituents who had young children and who were stuck on the bypass for hours. I, too, pay tribute to our emergency services for the work that they did.
Edinburgh city bypass has been desperate for investment for many years. I have raised the issue throughout my time as a member of this Parliament. Sadly, we are seeing delay after delay to investment—for example, that is the case with the delivery of the new Sheriffhall junction. Will the Scottish Government undertake a full review of the bypass to look at the impact that such incidents are having and ensure that we get on and deliver the investment that Edinburgh needs?
I echo Miles Briggs’s comments about the hard work that our emergency services did last week and the impact that being stuck in traffic and flooding can have on people and families.
On the question of transport infrastructure and the bypass transport infrastructure in particular, I will have to defer to my colleague the Cabinet Secretary for Transport, who I am sure will be happy to update Miles Briggs on that issue.
I declare an interest as a regular user of the bypass to get to my constituency, which is what I was doing on Thursday night, when I got stuck on the bypass. Going east to west from Sheriffhall, the first slip road off is to Penicuik, and it took me more than an hour to get there. Has any consideration been given to opening up the central crash barrier temporarily, stopping the west to east traffic and allowing those going in the opposite direction who are stuck to turn around and get off the bypass?
I add that I certainly did not see any police during my time on that road.
I am very sorry to hear that Christine Grahame was caught up in the events of last week. The question that she poses is not in my portfolio responsibility as it is largely about transport; it is also an operational question about what is best in the circumstances. The question is probably one for experts in Transport Scotland, BEAR Scotland and Police Scotland. I am sure that Fiona Hyslop, who is sitting to my left, has heard Christine Grahame’s question and will be glad to look into those matters for her.
The now frequent occurrence of extreme weather events demonstrates the changing climate in Scotland and the difficulties that our communities face in adapting to it. Does the cabinet secretary agree that Opposition parties must work with the Scottish National Party, as the flood resilience strategy for Scotland develops, to ensure parliamentary consensus on the issue in order to confront our climate challenges?
I do. I mentioned previously that improving flood resilience is Scotland’s largest climate adaptation challenge. Our communities are facing increasing threats of climate change and want to see their parliamentarians working together. I ask all members across the chamber not only to engage with the consultation on the resilience strategy but to encourage their constituents to do likewise. I look forward to working with members from across the chamber on that.
I, too, thank the police and other emergency services, which reacted so quickly last week. Does the cabinet secretary agree that one of the issues is that drains are no longer being cleared and thus there is a blockage in that regard? Will she encourage the City of Edinburgh Council and other local authorities to take a more regular approach to clearing drains so that they are not blocked when there is flooding?
Again, those are operational matters. I would not propose to circumvent the responsibility of not just the City of Edinburgh Council but BEAR Scotland and Transport Scotland. From my constituency experience, I know that BEAR Scotland has been excellent in responding when drains have required clearing in my area because of flooding or the threat of it. I am sure that those organisations will have heard Mr Balfour’s comments and will consider all that in the light of recent events.
Previous
Business MotionsNext
Business Motion