Seòmar agus comataidhean

The Scottish Government, in choosing to invest more than £19.5 billion in health and social care in 2024-25, is giving our NHS a real-terms uplift in the face of UK Government austerity. I understand that NHS funding comprises almost 40 per cent of the Government’s budget. It has more than doubled under the present Government, and staffing is at a record high, as colleagues have said, with far more doctors and nurses per head in Scotland than in England. By working with the trade unions, the Government prevented a single day of strike action over pay in our health service, unlike elsewhere in the UK. We all know that Scotland has an increasing ageing population and, therefore, increasing demands on health and social care, and the fallout from Covid continues to add pressure to NHS services.

I now turn to the financial context, which Sandesh Gulhane and Jackie Baillie conveniently sidestepped. There is a perfect financial storm, which started with austerity under the Tories, following the 2008 bank crash, and continues to this day. There was Covid; Brexit, with its costs; the raging inflation, which peaked at 11 per cent, that was brought about by the disastrous Liz Truss budget, and the natural wage demands that followed as a consequence; and the energy inflation that resulted from Ukraine’s invasion by Russia, which was compounded by a failure of UK Governments to invest in home-grown energy over decades, having squandered North Sea oil revenues, unlike independent Norway.

Before we tackle reform, let us lay to rest some myths. A good place to start is to follow the money. If any UK Government makes public sector cuts, because of Barnett consequentials, we suffer, too. That is significant when I refer to Labour’s plans, should it come to power. For example, if more health is delivered through the private sector, public funding decreases in England, so funding that is devolved to Scotland decreases when the Scottish Government is determined to keep the NHS in public hands.

Yes, I will take an intervention.

[Made a request to intervene.]

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.

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.

I find this very difficult. Because the Scottish Government amendment specifically references a referral to the Scottish Parliament Corporate Body, I, as an elected member of that body, identify a real or perceived conflict of interest, and will therefore recuse myself and will abstain on the amendment. If the motion is amended, I will abstain on that, too.

During the autumn, a golden eagle mysteriously vanished in the Borders and is now believed to have been shot. Named Merrick, she was part of the prestigious south of Scotland golden eagle project. I have visited the project and know about the time and dedication that are required to bring chicks to maturity and gradually introduce them to the wild. A satellite tag, blood and feathers were found where Merrick was last tracked—near Heriot, in my constituency—indicating that she was shot, bled badly and was killed, with her body and her tag removed. Police Scotland has worked with land managers, raptor workers and the public as part of the investigation, but can the minister advise whether any progress has been made in identifying the culprits?

I add that most gamekeepers and land managers are good folk and that it is the bad guys and women whom we want to get. If no progress has been made, what other steps can be taken, for example, through whistleblowing?

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My phone would not connect. I would have voted no.

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.

That was a very interesting response.

On triage, I know that the cabinet secretary is aware of the distress brief intervention project, which is a triage service involving agencies including the police, the national health service and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. Vulnerable individuals are directed to the correct pathway to help them to deal with issues. I can advise members that the Scottish Borders was one of the first places where that has been rolled out. I am sure that the cabinet secretary welcomes the development of that project.