The final item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S6M-12917, in the name of Jamie Halcro Johnston, on the importance of wood-burning stoves and other direct emission heating in homes in rural and island communities.
The debate will be concluded without any question being put. I invite members who wish to participate to press their request-to-speak buttons now or as soon as possible.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament recognises what it sees as the importance of wood-burning stoves and other forms of direct emission heating in homes in rural, island and remote communities across Scotland; notes that wood-burning stoves are often the only source of heat and hot water, and method of cooking, when power is lost or when bad weather leaves households or communities isolated; further notes that the Non-domestic Technical Handbook: April 2024 Edition states that “in smaller buildings there will be little justification to install emergency heating”; considers that any emergency heating can only be used in emergencies and must be connected to both the normal heating system and an emergency power source, and that the cost and technical implications of this have led to the Scottish Government’s Building (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2023 being described as “an effective ban” on wood-burning stoves in new-build properties; believes that this will put vulnerable households in more remote areas of Scotland at greater risk when cut off or when power is lost, as well as exacerbate already high levels of fuel poverty, and recognises reports of the concern and anger that this has caused in rural and island communities across Scotland, especially in the Highlands and Islands.
17:48
I thank colleagues on all sides of the chamber for supporting my motion, which has allowed this important debate to take place. I also thank representatives from across the industry, and other stakeholders, for their engagement and advice, and I thank my constituents across the Highlands and Islands for sharing their experiences and concerns as to why the ban is so dangerous.
Of course, we now debate the matter with the Scottish Government having committed yesterday to a review of the Building (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2023—a review that was announced just the day before the debate was to be held, and which was forced on the Government by a concerted campaign, led by members on the Conservative benches, to drop the new regulations. We should remember that the Scottish Government brought those regulations into force less than two months ago.
As I said yesterday, I welcome the review, but we still have no real detail on it.
I want to be terribly friendly to you, but I will correct you. There are Scottish National Party members who are concerned about the restrictions on log-burning stoves—we signed your motion, and we are here today.
Ms Grahame, I remind you to put your comments through the chair, please.
I very much welcome that, and I have made that point in the past. Christine Grahame is absolutely right to say that she—along with two former ministers and the current Deputy First Minister—signed my motion. I appreciate that support from members across the chamber; it is very much welcome.
As I said yesterday, I welcome the review. Unfortunately, however, we have no real detail on what it will include; when it will start; how extensive it will be; or when it will conclude. The Minister for Climate Action said that it would not start before the summer recess, which suggests that, even if we assume a September start date, we are unlikely to see it concluded, or action taken, before the end of this year.
I believe that I said yesterday that the review would not conclude until after the recess. I did not say that it would not start until the recess—it has already started.
That clarification is welcome; I am grateful to the minister for that. It matters, because—as I will speak to later—the new regulations are already having a serious impact on the sector and on the future resilience of rural homes.
I described the ban as dangerous, and that is not scaremongering. For many people who live in homes in our rural and island communities, including in my region, wood-burning stoves are not a luxury item but an absolute lifeline, providing heat, hot water and a means of cooking when the power goes out, as it often does. In December 2022, more than 5,000 homes in Shetland were left without power, some for many days. Last December, hundreds were left without power because of storm Gerrit; earlier this month, thousands were left without power overnight because of damage to the network; and only last night, more than 1,300 properties in Shetland suffered an outage—more than 100 homes were still without power this morning.
I have experienced that in Orkney: we were left without power for five days because of extreme weather, and our only source of heat and means of cooking was our wood-burning stove. The roads were blocked, and help, had we needed it, could not have got to us easily. I know that many families across the Highlands and Islands will have found themselves in a similar position.
Those of us who live in rural Scotland know that we will lose power. It could be down to snow or high winds, or even geese flying into lines. Power outages are not unusual, so we have to be allowed to be ready for them. We cannot simply pop next door when we are snowed in, and we cannot always rely on emergency services being able to get to us quickly. That is why the ban shows just how little the Scottish Government understands the needs of rural and island communities, because it will leave families less able to deal with bad weather and power cuts.
I call it a ban—I know that the Scottish Government will be keen to claim otherwise—because that is what it is. Scottish ministers will claim that emergency heating may still be considered, but the guidance in the updated “Non-domestic Technical Handbook” clearly states that,
“In smaller buildings”
—including dwellings—
“there will be little justification to install emergency heating”.
It also says that any appliances that can be used only in emergencies must be connected to the “normal heating system” and must have electrical back-up.
Whereas previously, a wood burner would have been sufficient to provide heat and a means of cooking in the event of a power cut, my constituents in the Highlands and Islands who look to install a wood-burning stove in any new build will now be forced to connect it to their central heating system and to an emergency power source—probably a diesel generator, which has significant technical and cost implications.
That is to presume that permission would be given in the first place, yet we are already seeing wood burners being blocked by local council planning and building standards departments. New homes are already being built with reduced resilience, and that is why the measure is, in all but name, a ban on wood-burning stoves.
I turn to the economic impact. Last week, the Scottish Conservatives met again with the stove industry and others, and heard from them about the damage that the ban is already having on their businesses. One told us that, for the first time in 10 years, they had had no installations in a month. Another reported that footfall was down by 80 per cent, and one was warning staff of potential redundancies. There are more than 2,000 people working in the sector; we were told that if other industries were treated like that, there would be uproar and the Scottish Government would act, but it is this Scottish Government that is causing all the uncertainty.
Would the member accept that some of the misreporting around the measure, such as saying that it is a ban on wood-burning stoves, which it never was, has perhaps led to the public thinking that they cannot have wood-burning stoves in existing homes, when that has never been the case? That misreporting might have contributed to the issue.
It is interesting that the minister says that. Yesterday, the Deputy First Minister, in welcoming the news of the review, said that people had “got in touch with” her
“expressing concerns about what was essentially a ban on installing wood stoves in new builds.”
Perhaps the minister disagrees with the Deputy First Minister.
I point out to members that I have a stake in the matter. The minister was saying that the measure is about new builds and there was misreporting about it applying to all properties.
That may be the case, but that misreporting has not come from members on the Conservative benches. Perhaps the Scottish Government should be clearer when it presents policies.
I turn briefly to some of the other issues. First, I thank my constituents—including Andy Wightman, formerly of this parish—for sharing some of their personal experiences. They have highlighted how the ban could actually block low-emission heating, including biomass; I am sure that colleagues will say more about that. Other constituents of mine have raised concerns that it will leave households reliant on new technologies, such as air source heat pumps, which can be expensive to install and prohibitively expensive to replace when they break. One constituent wrote to say that their heat pump had broken twice and that it had taken eight months for expensive parts to arrive.
We did not have to be here. The Scottish Government ignored concerns that were raised during the consultation process, and pushed ahead with the regulations because its disastrous—now thankfully defunct—Bute house agreement with the Greens was more important to it than the rural communities of Scotland.
I appreciate that the minister is new to her position, and she may not want to take responsibility for this mess, but her Scottish Government has to do so. The ban is opposed by members on all sides of the chamber, and opposed by key stakeholders because of the damage that it is already doing. It is opposed by the industry, which has worked so hard to build businesses and work with Government on emissions but has now been left wondering whether there will even be an industry in the future. It has been opposed by the Scottish Conservatives and by our constituents across rural Scotland, who know just how dangerous it could be.
I urge the minister to save the industry and save lives—that is how serious it is. She should not simply review the ban on wood-burning stoves, but drop it entirely. Until then, given the timescales around the review and how long it might take to conclude, and given the uncertainty that is being caused right now, I urge the minister to suspend the new regulations relating to wood burners until the review is carried out.
There is an awful lot of interest in the debate, so I ask all members to stick to their speaking time allowance, or take even less time if that is possible.
17:57
I extend my thanks to Jamie Halcro Johnston for securing the debate. I also declare an interest, of sorts, as someone who cuts peats for my own use.
There is no doubt about the importance of stoves in those areas of the country that are off the gas grid, and in housing types where there are few workable alternatives to choose from as heating sources. Those are, of course, the same areas of the country, and the same housing types, which currently endure some of the worst fuel poverty.
First, however, it is vital, in the interests of accuracy, to recognise that there is not, and never has been, a proposal to ban stoves in any existing house, nor—despite some efforts to sow confusion on this point—is there any proposal for an effective ban on peat cutting.
Nonetheless, all that said, very many reasonable questions have been asked, by me and many others, about what the new regulations on new-build houses actually mean in practice. Currently, the proposed guidance would allow people to install a stove as an “emergency” heat source in a new house, provided that
“the size, complexity or heat demand ... makes portable solutions”
unsuitable. As I understand it, it would be down to local authorities to decide whether a potential property meets those criteria.
While I remain confident that rural local authorities would understand the unique requirements of rural heating solutions, I was very pleased to hear the minister indicate in the chamber in recent days that the Scottish Government will be reviewing and reassessing those criteria in order to make them more readily workable, in particular in rural and island areas. I thank the minister for her correspondence with me on these issues in recent weeks; I know that many of my constituents are also grateful for her engagement on the matter.
I think that most members in the chamber accept that decarbonising our homes is an essential part of ensuring a greener future. However, the importance of ensuring the suitability of these policies for rural and island communities is paramount in order to ensure that they are workable and do not have the unintended consequence of increasing already high rates of fuel poverty. Many of the houses in my island constituency differ radically from urban homes in their type and construction. Land ownership types vary, as does the prevailing local climate, and the energy infrastructure also varies widely from that in other parts of the country.
Only 22 per cent of Western Isles homes—all of them in one town—are connected to gas, with the rest currently relying on heating oil, solid fuel, air-source heat pumps and electric heating. Unpredictable power cuts are part of island life and, in many parts of my constituency, solid-fuel options are often essential, at the very least as a back-up.
While I understand that most people will use the stoves to burn wood, peat remains one of the most common fuel sources in the Western Isles. Peat cutting remains a culturally significant aspect of island life, as well as being an affordable option for many.
All of that said, nobody—including me—is suggesting that either peat or wood should be the only or even primary means of heating new homes in the future; the point is merely that there should be provision for the use of solid fuels where that is appropriate, and the guidance should accommodate that and do so more simply.
The perfect can be the enemy of the good in writing guidance, and I welcome the fact that the Government is willing to recognise that.
18:01
I thank my colleague Jamie Halcro Johnston for securing the debate. I welcome many members of the stove industry to the public gallery this evening.
On 1 April, the SNP-Green Government’s new build heat standard came into force, which, in effect, constitutes a ban on direct emission heating systems in new-build homes, whichever way we want to say it. Yesterday, it was confirmed that the new regulations were under review—I will quote from the Scottish Government’s website—
“to consider the treatment of woodburning stoves and the wider use of bioenergy systems in more detail.”
That is a clear admission that the policy was misguided. It was ill informed, and it lacked the necessary detail and understanding of rural communities from the start.
The Scottish Conservatives have strongly campaigned on this issue since the new regulations were introduced, and our petition campaign has amassed more than 950 signatures.
I hope that Ms Hamilton understands that I had very similar concerns. The regulations went through the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee, with its two Conservative members. Did they raise concerns or, indeed, ask for the regulations to go to a vote before they were passed?
Absolutely. My colleague Miles Briggs raised concerns, and we were the only party on the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee to raise them.
Last week, we held a round-table event to discuss the impact of the new regulations, which was attended by 40 significant and key people from across Scotland and across the industry, representing stove businesses, chimney sweeps and industry experts.
I would like to share a few of the key issues that were raised at that event. Many of the participants were disappointed by the lack of clarity and detail in the guidance, which left people questioning the practicalities of the new rules. It was noted that the regulations were open to interpretation by local authorities, leaving the risk of regional differences. Moreover, and as I noted in my question on the matter yesterday, the new regulations have had a significant impact on the industry, which is worth about £60 million and employs more than 2,000 people.
One company noted that, since the ban, it had taken zero inquires, compared with 25 in the same period last year. Another business shared the information that, since 1 April 2024, it had had three stove installation inquires, versus 20 in the same period in 2023, which equates to £100,000 in lost revenue, based on previous sales.
The impact of the measures on rural communities was widely raised. One member of the round-table event noted:
“Scottish winters in many rural and island areas”
are different from those in
“the central belt ... electricity can be lost for days, and with no back up heating source people’s health and well-being could be compromised.”
That perfectly sums up the realities of the new regulations, which reach directly into the heart of homes, depriving rural people of reliable access to heat.
I welcome the fact that the SNP has now admitted that the new build heat standard lacked the necessary detail to ensure that it worked for rural communities. However, what is happening is a review, not a reversal, which is what we will continue to call for.
The Deputy First Minister suggested on social media yesterday that the review shows that the SNP now understands rural communities, but if the SNP really understood rural communities, it would never have introduced the ban in the first place.
Let us not be fooled—the review represents a screeching U-turn, which has taken place only two months after the former Minister for Zero Carbon Buildings, Active Travel and Tenants’ Rights, Patrick Harvie, resolutely defended the policy in the chamber, with the SNP’s backing. The Bute house agreement might be over, but its legacy continues to cast a dark shadow over rural Scotland. The SNP must listen to rural communities by committing to reversing the ban and to categorically ruling out any similar ban in existing homes.
18:05
I, too, thank Jamie Halcro Johnston for securing the debate, and I welcome the review of the policy that the minister announced yesterday. We all know that we need to reduce emissions and move to sustainable heating, but there needs to be a just transition, and there was nothing just in the way in which this matter was handled.
We need to develop sustainable heating for rural areas, as simply imposing urban solutions does not work. I ask the minister to give some thought to those who are currently on the cusp of installing efficient and sustainable wood-fired heating systems, and who have been stopped in their tracks. It seems perverse that a person can have a grant for installing such a system but now cannot get a building warrant in order to do the work. I ask the minister to perhaps put in place a derogation for those new builds in order to allow them to be completed, given the time that will pass before the review is complete. As she said, it will not be completed until after the summer.
In addition, guidance to local authorities needs to be consistent. Comhairle nan Eilean Siar’s planning department has deemed it unlikely that applications would warrant an exemption in any instance, whereas, in Highland Council, there has been a different interpretation, depending on the specific location of the new build. Councils need to know what they can and cannot approve. Perhaps renewed guidance could be issued in the interim so that much-needed homes can be completed.
A modern urban house can withstand a power cut of a few hours, which, in truth, is probably as long as an urban power cut lasts. However, the same modern home in a rural community needs to be able to withstand a power cut for a number of days and even, in extreme conditions, for weeks. No house can hold heat for that long, and those homes therefore need a secondary source of heat.
Weather patterns also have an impact, as Alasdair Allan mentioned. That means that it might not be possible to heat a house from an ambient heating source alone and that, realistically, a direct source of heating might be needed to work alongside that.
What was even more perverse about the standards was that we were told that emergency wood-burning and peat-burning stoves needed to be “portable”. A solid fuel burner needs a chimney and cannot, therefore, be temporary or portable. Again, that displayed total ignorance of the impact that the policy would have if it was pursued. I was having visions—as, I am sure, many others were—of people having to take their fire pit or chimney inside from the garden, coughing and spluttering through the smoke. It was absolutely senseless.
We need to rural proof policies and have them developed by people who understand the conditions in the rural areas in which our constituents live. It adds insult to injury that the areas that already suffer the highest level of fuel poverty are also suffering the worst excesses of urban-centric policies, given that, as things stand, heating their homes is far more expensive.
A Changeworks report from 2023, entitled “A Perfect Storm: Fuel Poverty in Rural Scotland”, highlighted that one in four houses in the Highlands and Islands is in “extreme fuel poverty”. The same report highlighted that, in the Highlands and Islands, the fuel poverty gap—that is the amount by which fuel bills need to be lowered to lift a household out of fuel poverty—was £1,260, in comparison with £750 to move urban homes out of fuel poverty. We need to address that.
You need to conclude.
We need to have rural policies for rural heating and to look at things such as hydro-treated vegetable oil as well as wood-burning sources of heat.
18:09
I thank Jamie Halcro Johnston for securing this debate. First, let me put on the record that I am the owner of a very old property that benefits from a wood-burning stove, which provides highly effective space heating and helps to prevent condensation, mould and damp. It has been a game changer for the gable wall of my house. It has also helped us to heat our sandstone home during periods of loss of power, and I know that, during a prolonged period without mains power, it would enable us to heat water and cook food. It has also given us a degree of control during the period of volatile energy prices over the past two winters.
All that said, I am very aware that the recently published new build heat standard would not, in fact, have prevented someone who had the same house type as me—an older existing property—from installing a stove. However, I am also aware that the Scottish Government has recently consulted on creating a pathway to 2045, which could require those purchasing a home or business premises to end their use of polluting heating systems within a fixed period following the completion of the sale. I assume that that would include direct emission heat sources, such as stoves and boilers, potentially leaving many homes such as mine, built in the 1800s, with poorer heating outcomes.
We all need to play our part in reaching net zero, and that will include radically rethinking many of our ways of working and living. However, we need to take into account variations in geography, topography, grid connection and capacity and, conversely, our increasingly volatile climate. We need to think about that, because our climate is increasingly volatile and we must ensure that what we do does not exacerbate that.
There is no doubt that the burning of fossil fuels contributes to climate change and that addressing that via legislation is necessary. However, I also understand, as the MSP for the large and predominantly rural Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley constituency, that grid connections can be tenuous for outlying rural communities and isolated farms and cottages and that the stopgap for many of those, for heating and eating, is a wood-burning stove. During the horrendous weather event known as the beast from the east back in 2018, many folk in my area were snowed in for weeks and relied heavily on their stoves. That was not just a power cut for a couple of hours—it lasted for weeks. People who live in rural properties or properties that are remote from the grid infrastructure would still have a need for wood-burning stoves in such emergency situations, and those cannot be portable—they need to be fixed.
I understand that the new build heat standard made some provision for such emergency situations, but, as we have heard, I and many others felt that that was a bit vague and open to local interpretation, so I am keen to hear from the minister exactly how a house builder is able to demonstrate the need for a stove, because, in my mind, that need is almost a given in rural settings.
I have a degree of sympathy with the arguments that burning dried wood from sustainable sources in a modern efficient stove or boiler has a lower carbon emission calculation than some grid resources, and we need to remember that. Indeed, many crofters and those living in rural areas have factored access to sustainable forestry for energy provision into their way of life. We must ensure that we do not exacerbate fuel poverty in any way. I am glad that the minister has taken our collective concern seriously and is urgently reviewing the standard, and I am keen to hear from her on that when she winds up the debate.
It is really important that we start to break down silos in this Parliament. Perhaps if the standard had come to the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee for consideration, we would have been able to flag up those concerns. I take on board the fact that Miles Briggs did that in the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee, but we need to square that circle a bit.
I am keen to bring to the minister’s attention the plight of one of my constituents, who raised an issue in light of this debate. She recently had a wood burner installed but found out only when it was later inspected by a Heating Equipment Testing and Approval Scheme engineer that it was dangerous. She is very concerned about the lack of regulation for stove installation in Scotland and has asked that the Scottish Government considers changes to legislation to allow stove fitting to be carried out only by installers who are accredited by HETAS. If we are going to make changes and ensure that there is a place for stoves in the future, we could look at that type of accreditation.
You need to conclude.
Thank you.
18:14
I, too, thank Jamie Halcro Johnston for securing this evening’s debate on the banning of wood-burning stoves in new-build homes. It is an opportunity for MSPs to scrutinise the Scottish Government’s ill-conceived policy and, crucially, to raise constituents’ concerns about its impact.
Yesterday, as we heard, Gillian Martin announced a review of the guidance. A review is not the same as a reversal. It should not have taken a public outcry and pressure from the Scottish Conservatives—
Does Tess White agree that it is important that I take the time to reach out to the stakeholders who are involved and hear their views, rather than just taking knee-jerk action, as she suggests?
Gillian Martin raised the word “knee-jerk”. I call that pot and kettle. It is evident that Gillian Martin has not even listened to her own back benchers or members of her own party. My point is that it should not have taken a public outcry and pressure from the Scottish Conservatives to sense-check this sorry episode.
The new build heat standard is not just an ill-conceived policy. It is another example of wokerati wine-bar politicians being totally blinkered to the needs of rural Scotland. It was crafted by a central-belt-obsessed SNP Government that was in hock to the Scottish Greens before Patrick Harvie was unceremoniously told to get on his bike by the former First Minister. The Government has shown utter contempt for rural communities the length and breadth of Scotland. It has totally disregarded the financial impact of the policy on the stove industry and the sustainable biofuel companies that rely on that.
The SNP has completely underestimated the realities of rural life. Need I remind the SNP Government of storm Arwen in November 2021, and the countless communities—some 4,000 people across the north-east—that lost power for days? One resident of Sauchen in Aberdeenshire said that the village was without power for a week.
“Luckily”,
he said,
“we have a wood-burning stove, so that kept us warm in one of the rooms.”
For thousands of people, such stoves are a feature of rural resilience. The SNP can try all that it wants to qualify, mitigate and dilute the policy, but when experts such as the Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland say that a
“more nuanced approach is needed, tailoring heating specifications to rural circumstances and real-world use scenarios”,
the SNP needs to act.
One stove industry representative from Angus said:
“When cars were deemed pollutants, no one suggested banning them, the industry was allowed to address the issues”
through improvement and innovation such as catalytic converters and hybrid technology.
The new build heat standard is a knee-jerk reaction.
Will Tess White take an intervention?
Yes.
I ask Jamie Halcro Johnston to be brief.
I am sure that Tess White is aware that the industry has worked extremely hard with the Government to reduce emissions. All that effort seems to have been ignored in the new regulations. That is part of the great disappointment.
Exactly. I hope that the minister is listening carefully. Members of the industry are in the public gallery. As other industries have that are transitioning as part of net zero, the stove industry must have the opportunity to evolve and adjust.
Regulations such as these are not simply a legacy of the disastrous Bute house agreement, as Kate Forbes would have us believe; rather, they are due to the way in which policy is made and imposed on rural and remote communities by the SNP Government.
As Scottish Land & Estates has called for, the Scottish Government must change its approach to policy making. It must take account of rural proofing and improve consultation and communication. In the meantime, the Scottish Conservatives will keep standing up for the interests of our rural communities.
18:18
I thank Jamie Halcro Johnston for securing the debate.
Yesterday, we heard the minister commit to the review of the new build heat standard. The new build heat standard is necessary to directly cut emissions from new homes and buildings, and it will help to stimulate the supply chain for zero-carbon heating. It has been praised, and the United Kingdom Government has been urged to bring forward its own measures to match Scotland’s timetable.
We are here today to debate this topic due to significant lobbying from manufacturers as well as some misinformation. That has caused understandable concern for people who can make use of the flexibility that exists in the building standards or who have existing biomass systems and have been misled into thinking that they will have to remove them.
Off the back of that lobbying and misinformation, I have heard from woodland crofters, design and build contractors, architects, self-builders and community woodland groups, all of whom are concerned about the potential impact of the new standard on their projects. I met members of Isle Of Eigg Heritage Trust, who are concerned about their need to install wood stoves as a primary source of heat for their new builds while they develop electric grid capacity in their move to net zero by 2030. I thank the minister for her reassurance that wood-burning stoves can be installed for off-grid communities such as Eigg.
The Scottish Government supports the creation of new woodland crofts. A key feature of such crofts is their self-sufficiency in heating fuel. More widely, occupiers of land, such as crofters, farmers and owners of forests, could sustainably grow all their own fuel from their own land with minimal fuel miles, with corresponding benefits arising through managing that land for fuel in respect of shelter, biodiversity and improved timber quality.
To put people at ease, we must communicate that the standard is not a ban on biomass heating in existing homes. It is for new buildings and major rebuilding projects.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am sorry, but I do not have time to take an intervention.
The standard does not ban biomass as an emergency back-up system in situations in which the electricity supply fails, for example. It is implemented through the building standards regime, which already includes flexibility for local authorities to take account of special circumstances—for example, where homes need to be built in a place where they cannot have a reliable electricity supply. I ask the minister to provide clear guidance to local authorities to apply a flexible approach where appropriate.
A highly efficient wood-fuelled heating system that minimises emissions and captures gases for additional burning, especially if powered through locally grown and harvested timber, could well have lower overall lifetime emissions than some zero direct emissions systems.
The standard will have a small impact on biomass, as very few new homes are built with biomass as their main heating system. The number of situations in which that is necessary is, as I have described, so small that the flexibility in the regime will be able to cope. Again, I ask the minister to provide guidance on the standards to local authorities.
Energy efficiency standards have also been increased in the building standards regime, and further changes will put in place a Scottish equivalent of the Passivhaus standard. That means that the energy demand for heating in all new homes will be very low, which will further reduce the already rare instances in which zero-emissions heating is not viable.
Biomass has a role to play in home heating. That will be most relevant for existing homes that have characteristics that make them especially difficult or expensive to retrofit for energy efficiency and zero-emissions heating, and where a sustainable supply of feedstock is readily available and can be relied upon for the long term. However, putting it into new buildings still generates avoidable gas emissions. Doing so out of necessity in circumstances in which no zero-emissions option can be made viable is justified.
The concerns that have been raised are understandable, but they result from a lack of clear commitment from SNP ministers reconfirming the direction of travel—
You need to conclude.
—on the wider heat in buildings strategy and the intention to introduce legislation this year. Only that clear signal will create the conditions for the investment that is needed in skills, the supply chain and innovation.
A large number of members still wish to participate in the debate. On that basis, I am minded to accept a motion without notice, under rule 8.14.3 of the standing orders, to extend the debate by up to 30 minutes. I invite Jamie Halcro Johnston to move such a motion.
Motion moved,
That, under Rule 8.14.3, the debate be extended by 30 minutes.—[Jamie Halcro Johnston]
Motion agreed to.
I call Alexander Burnett. You have up to four minutes, Mr Burnett.
18:23
I promise to be brief and not to use the 30 minutes that the debate has been extended by.
I thank Jamie Halcro Johnston for bringing this very important issue to Parliament for debate, and I note my entry in the register of members’ interests relating to renewable energy, biomass and forestry.
As we have heard from colleagues throughout the debate, the issue deeply impacts people in our rural communities along with anyone who would enjoy the freedom of having a wood-burning stove for heat and comfort. Many of my constituents in Aberdeenshire West have expressed concerns about how they will stay warm during future power cuts. Sadly, extreme weather events are becoming too frequent. Power cuts can last for days, if not weeks. I was without power for 10 days during storm Arwen.
However, my additional concern with the ban from a renewable energy perspective is that it sends a message that biomass and wood fuel will become prohibited down the line. With thousands of people, including myself, having been encouraged to invest in various wood fuel systems, the ban is extremely concerning. Many public authorities have also gone down that route. For instance, dozens of schools in Highland Council use wood fuel and I hope that the minister will assure all who rely on wood fuel that support and encouragement for the sector still exists.
The effective ban on wood-burning stoves for new homes is the start of a slippery slope to wiping out the sector altogether. Colleagues have raised the significant economic impact that that will have on jobs and local businesses, the livelihoods of the 2,000 people who work in the sector, and the £60 million that it contributes annually to our Scottish economy.
I promised that I would be brief, so I will finish on a specific point. Managing forestry is a long and costly process and any wood products that can be extracted are critical for what is a very difficult economic sector. Firewood is the lowest value-added product and there has been support for schemes such as woodlots—the forestry equivalent of allotments—to maintain small areas of non-commercial forestry. If we want to support the forest sector and the environmental benefits that stem from it, we must understand its economics. Sadly, the Parliament has a reputation for pursuing ideological ambition with ignorance and disregard for the people and sectors that it impacts. Yet again, it is clear that this legislation must be rethought.
Will the member take an intervention?
I have just finished.
18:26
I am a wee bit peeved that the SNP is being accused of being anti-rural. Many of my colleagues have spoken up for rural communities for generations, and I have done so for 25 years. I just had to get that off my chest.
I congratulate the member on securing the debate in the chamber, and I was pleased to sign the motion for debate. As the minister will be aware, I raised my concerns about the limitations and restrictions on log-burning stoves for new builds, as that would impact many households and, indeed, businesses in my rural constituency. We are not talking about the fashion for wood-burning stoves in the city, but the fact that, for centuries, people in rural Scotland have warmed their homes with a ready and inexpensive—sometimes free—supply of logs.
When I lived in Minnigaff near Newton Stewart, I would, during the summer, have a trailer deliver a supply of logs that we could stack and dry for the winter. We had no mains access to gas and, after many a storm, the electricity supply would cut out. Candles were easily located and, not for the first time, I had to cook on the open log-burning fire. That remains the case in many rural areas in my constituency.
Some of these details are historic, but I will refer to them anyway. I raised my concerns at First Minister’s question time on 25 April, when I said:
“There is a well-established business in West Linton that supplies log-burning stoves and accessories. I am very concerned that, after 30 years, the business may very well be under threat. I understand that clean, eco-designed wood-burning stoves that use locally supplied wood can be used in conjunction with other renewable energy heating options, and that that position is supported by a Government study that was done a few years ago. Will the First Minister ask the appropriate cabinet secretary to revisit that study, as the issue may affect other small rural businesses?”
The then First Minister, Humza Yousaf, replied:
“I will ensure that we continue to keep those regulations under review. I say to Christine Grahame that there are appropriate exemptions in place and we take account of unique circumstances, particularly in rural and island Scotland.”—[Official Report, 25 April 2024; c 25.]
I followed that up on 22 May during portfolio questions, when I asked the Scottish Government:
“what discussions it has had and will have with rural communities, such as residents and businesses in the Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale constituency, regarding the restrictions on the installation of wood-burning stoves.”
The Minister for Climate Action, Gillian Martin, replied:
“The new-build heat standard currently applies only to new buildings and certain conversions. Wood-burning stoves can still be installed to provide emergency heating where justified”.
One of my concerns with that response is the use of the word “emergency”. The minister went on to say:
“I am new in this post. We are urgently reviewing the position in light of those concerns and ensuring that we work with and communicate with all concerned parties, including businesses, as we do so. I believe that I have already said that I would go to Ms Grahame’s constituency to speak to one such business.”—[Official Report, 22 May 2024; c 6.]
I had forgotten the minister’s invitation, which is typical of me. However, she has agreed to come. She then said the following:
“Christine Grahame makes a good point about sustainable supply of fuels for these forms of heating. I assure her that I take very seriously the concerns that she and many others have raised. I am happy to reiterate the commitment to urgently review our position”—
which she is doing—
“which was made in the letter of 16 May.”—[Official Report, 22 May 2024; c 7.]
She also accepted my second invitation to come to the constituency.
I should say that the first invitation was to Dryden Aqua—I do not want the minister to get confused, as that was about recycling glass—and the second, which still stands, was to visit The Fire Side shop in West Linton. I know that that invitation is in the post to the minister.
I want to add a third invitation—I am very good at invitations—to Baddinsgill farm, which is near West Linton and also trades as Treeline Woodlands. It sells bagged logs, kiln-dried hardwood and what it calls “wee wonky wood” for log burners. That is local wood that is burned locally and which, simply by being local, reduces emissions. We could tackle those issues at the same time.
It is important that we work with rural communities, domestic communities and business communities, because we all want to play our part in reducing emissions, but we have to do it together through a nuanced and flexible approach.
18:30
I thank my colleague Jamie Halcro Johnston for bringing this debate to the chamber.
As we have heard, the stove industry in the UK and here in Scotland makes a valuable contribution to our economy, financially and in employment terms. The most recent figures show that the sector contributes £750 million annually and supports 25,000 jobs, which absolutely should not be ignored in the debate. Nor should we ignore the fact that log-burning stoves have been a vital mainstay of many communities in rural Scotland down the generations, especially as many homes have no access to the mains gas supply and some are so remote that they have no reliable electricity services during the winter. That situation will be no different for new builds.
In recent years we have witnessed a string of devastating storms that have left many rural and island communities without power, on some occasions for several days, often amid chilling temperatures. Unexpected interruption of power is no longer a rarity and Highland Council now recommends that, in the winter, people might need to be self-sufficient for 72 hours. It has been well publicised that, after storm Arwen, as many as 4,000 people were without power for a whole week.
Consumer Scotland has highlighted the issue of infrastructure resilience in rural parts of Scotland, such as my Galloway and West Dumfries constituency and Christine Grahame’s old home in Minnigaff. Wood-burning stoves have proved a godsend in many emergency situations, as they give families and others back-up warmth as well as cooking facilities.
Putting aside all the resilience, climate and economic factors, I wonder whether members know that wood-burning stoves or open fires are good for people’s health and personal wellbeing, with as many as 93 per cent of users reporting an advantageous effect. According to research, the warmth, light, sound and smell of a fire can have direct benefits for an individual’s blood pressure and stress levels, and I absolutely need to get one installed.
The circulatory system is complex and is influenced and managed by mental images and emotions. The presence of a flame in stoves, fireplace inserts or candles in a household can connote homeliness and safety. That is well documented in Scandinavian countries, where residential combustion is more commonplace and where the term “hygge”—I think that I pronounced that right—is used to describe that ambient mood.
In fact, the use of a fireplace or stove, often in a central living space, provides a central focal point within a household, and encourages communication between family members, leading to a friendly and creative discussion. The next time the other half, the weans or the dog is getting stressed, simply turn on the fire or stove and watch those troubles melt away. The minister can thank me for that advice later.
In conclusion, if someone is looking for a stress-free, healthy life in their traditional or new-build home, wood-burning stoves are the answer.
18:34
I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate. I will keep my contribution brief, as colleagues have already described the issues really well. In fact, I have scratched out loads of what I was going to say.
I thank Jamie Halcro Johnston for bringing the debate to the chamber. I also thank the Stove Industry Association, architects and Scottish Land & Estates for briefings that we have received ahead of the debate.
We have heard that some of the content of the heat in buildings strategy has been controversial, particularly for people in remote, rural and island communities. Indeed, we have heard that from rural colleagues across the parties.
My inbox has had muckle contact from people across Dumfries and Galloway and the Borders. Elena Whitham mentioned grid connection; according to the Scottish Government’s estimates, 34 per cent of dwellings in Dumfries and Galloway are off the gas grid. That is a higher percentage than that for the whole of Scotland, for which the average is 16 per cent. In many of those homes, my constituents rely on wood-burning stoves and biomass boilers for heating, hot water and cooking. Others have said the same already.
At Tuesday’s topical questions, the minister confirmed that she had listened to rural communities’ concerns and stated that she was willing to review the regulations on wood-burning stoves and biomass boilers, with the intention of adapting them to address the inflexibility that has been raised. That will be welcome news to my constituents who have contacted me about the matter.
For people in rural Wigtownshire, Dumfriesshire and the Borders, there exists deep concern about the current proposals. In particular, constituents contacted me about the cost of having to change their whole heating system from wood-burning stoves and biomass boilers, particularly at a time of energy poverty and a Westminster-inflicted cost of living crisis. The minister’s announcement is, therefore, an example of how the Government listens to the views of rural Scotland and ensures that policy works for everyone.
I agree with Elena Whitham that the proposed regulations could have come to the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee as well as going to the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee. In fact, that brings me to an issue that I raised recently about cross-committee and cross-portfolio working. We saw the same thing with the Good Food Nation (Scotland) Bill, which went to the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee and did not come to the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee. I am a member of both and see a warrant for cross-portfolio working.
I agree with Emma Harper on cross-portfolio working and with Elena Whitham on her point about silos. I recognise that this is perhaps not a mess of the minister’s making but, less than two months after the regulations were introduced, they have to be reviewed. It is not the case that the Scottish Government is listening to rural communities—it should have done so before the regulations were introduced.
My understanding is that the review has already started, but the situation highlights the need, sometimes, for more cross-portfolio working. My colleague Brian Whittle said as much in a recent debate.
As I have said, the minister is already undertaking the review and I look forward to it. We need to decarbonise heating in our homes, and I look forward to progress being made as we take that forward.
18:38
I am conscious of the time constraints but, as we have extended the debate by 30 minutes, I think that I have 15 minutes left. I will not talk for that long.
I thank Jamie Halcro Johnston for bringing the debate to the Parliament. It is important. Every time that I go home, some of the more rural constituents that I face ask what I do down here. I cannot believe that I have been forced to argue the defence against a ban on wood-burning stoves. I do not need to remind the minister that, in 2012, for three and a half months, no lorries could come anywhere near my home to deliver oil or gas and the electricity was pretty shaky on occasions in the area where I live, so the log-burning stove was critical.
My constituents ask me what I will do with all the wood that is left up in the forestry. I tell them that we cannot chip it any more, but they say, “Oh, yes, you can chip it, Edward. You can send it down to the local CoRDe plant in Rothes, next to where they are building these new houses. They can get a Government grant for burning it, but we cannot burn it in our own houses.” That is what my constituents do not understand. They do not understand why the ban was introduced without considering rural areas.
I could bang on for ages about the issue, but I am not going to. I am glad that we are having a review, that we think that the ban is probably not a wise idea and that our party and other members across the chamber have pointed that out to the Government. I am also glad that, without Mr Harvie, the Government is now in a position to consider reversing the idea.
I am glad that you did not take 15 minutes, Mr Mountain. I call Gillian Martin to respond to the debate.
18:40
I really welcome the debate. I thank Jamie Halcro Johnston and members across the chamber for the nearly 100 per cent constructive tone. I found myself nodding along to most of the points that have been made, although, obviously, I will shrug off the anti-SNP stuff.
The concerns that have been highlighted echo my own, and they echo those that I had before I had responsibility for this. When I had responsibility for fuel poverty and just transition, I was particularly aware that the regulations did not hit the mark on those two areas and, as a rural MSP, I am acutely aware of the importance of having the options of wood-burning stoves and biomass boilers, not just for existing homes but for new builds.
We trust that the minister will commit to taking the review forward in a different way from two months ago, but why were the industry bodies not initially consulted, particularly the stove industry? Will they be consulted? Will Gillian Martin commit to meeting cross-party members and stakeholders?
As I said to Ms Hamilton yesterday when she asked me a topical question on the issue, there will be a review. However, as I said to Tess White, who wants me to do it tomorrow, it is important that I listen to stakeholders. I am happy to meet the Stove Industry Association; a member of the association is a constituent who came to see me, as a constituency MSP, a couple of weeks ago.
We are already looking at what can happen in the interim. A review must take place in order to allow conversations like the one that Ms Hamilton has mentioned. I am conscious of the fact that there must be interim solutions, which is a point that Rhoda Grant brought up, too, so my officials are meeting the Local Authority Building Standards Scotland officers tomorrow and will report back to me. It is about guidance at the moment; obviously, there are regulations, but there is guidance and flexibility there. Rhoda Grant made a really important point about building warrants, too. I will see what that conversation brings out around what I can do in the interim.
I am pleased to hear that your officials are looking at the issue. Could those considerations include a suspension of the regulations or at least a removal of the presumption against wood-burning stoves? As damage is already being done to the sector, will you, as I asked yesterday, consider doing an economic impact assessment on the impact of the regulations so far?
Through the chair, please.
My biggest concern at the moment is ensuring that the unintended consequences of the regulations will not have more of an impact. The regulations must go through a parliamentary process—Mr Halcro Johnston knows that well. However, the question is what I can do in the interim.
I made representations about the emergency situation that many people found themselves in during power cuts. In all honesty, I do not think that people put a biomass boiler in for an emergency—they will not spend that money just for that—and the question is what constitutes an emergency. I am alive to the fact that people put in biomass boilers for primary and secondary heating.
Will the minister take an intervention?
I will not take another one, because I have loads to say, and I might even answer Mr Halcro Johnston’s question. I had and still have those concerns; the guidelines around emergencies needed to be looked at, and they will be. I heard the range of concerns that communities have; I am actively working on interim solutions and am actively involved in the review. I raised the issue as soon as I got responsibility, and Mr Halcro Johnston heard my response to Ms Hamilton yesterday.
The debate has highlighted the unique challenges that rural communities face, including the need for resilience around power cuts. Storm Gerrit was mentioned by Mr Halcro Johnston, and a few people mentioned storm Arwen, which also impacted my constituency. Interestingly, after storm Arwen, a lot of people who were not affected and who did not have a wood-burning stove thought about putting one in, in case anything like that happened again. We are talking about existing homes, as well as new builds, and people thinking about how they can be future proofed.
Alexander Burnett mentioned extreme weather events. Extreme weather events are a result of climate change, so we must act proportionately. The problem is that the regulations did not quite take into account the need to be flexible in rural areas, for all the reasons that members have mentioned. Chris Stark, the former chief executive of the Climate Change Committee, said on X that he agreed with the regulations on the whole but admitted that
“The wood burner proposals are far too inflexible—I agree.”
I agree with him.
Will you give us a commitment today that you will also look at the future of wood-burning stoves in new builds? We currently have myths peddled by the Green Party that there is significant impact on the climate from those wood-burning stoves. The industry has invested millions to ensure that wood-burning stoves are one of the most effective ways to heat homes. Why should new homes not have the advantages that I set out, including in relation to wellbeing, with little impact? The Greens would have us banning air fryers, which have a significantly greater impact on the climate than wood-burning stoves ever would.
Speak through the chair, please.
Bizarrely, for a debate about heat generation, I ask that we take the heat out of it. We need to work cross party on the matter. What Mr Carson has asked me to do is what I am doing. It is about new builds, which are a very small part of the regulations. It is not about throwing out all the regulations; it is about looking at the very small part that is causing such concern in rural communities.
I will talk about fuel poverty. I have had responsibility for fuel poverty since I was made a minister last year, which Elena Whitham mentioned. I want to reassure members that we continue to follow the principles that are set out in our heat in buildings strategy to ensure that people are not pushed into fuel poverty in the process of doing things to decarbonise homes. That is really important—again, it is a just transition issue.
The regulations do not exist in isolation. They build on a recent uplift in energy standards and ensure that new buildings have high levels of energy efficiency. However, it is about recognising that, in some areas, people are doing everything that they can to decarbonise and to be sustainable. Many people have their own sustainable wood supply, which Edward Mountain, Alexander Burnett and Elena Whitham mentioned. I need to consider that aspect as we review the regulations.
We also need to support grid upgrades to make sure that more communities have sustainable electricity supplies. Extreme weather events are one thing, but we also have a grid infrastructure for electricity that needs dramatic investment. We have to look at the issue in the round and stop using it as a political football.
The context of the debate is the reality of a climate emergency. It is the Government’s clear priority to take urgent action to reduce emissions. However, the number of new builds in Scotland that put in wood-burning stoves is a fraction. We cannot throw the baby out with the bath water here. With regard to the emissions that are being created by those homes, we are not talking about a substantial number of homes. The people in those homes are not making those decisions to pollute; they are making those decisions for the good of their families and for the circumstances that they find themselves in. We have to be alive to that. I am alive to that, as are Emma Harper and Christine Grahame. I take offence when people say that I do not understand rural Scotland. I am a rural Scotland MSP, and I have consistently stood up for rural Scotland. I am now in a position to review the guidelines. I hope that everyone will take me at my word when I say that I am treating it as an urgent matter.
Thank you, minister. That concludes the debate.
Meeting closed at 18:49.Previous
Decision Time