Seòmar agus comataidhean

When I refer to complaining, that goes for complainers of all characteristics.

There is nothing in the interim stance that will take away from the rights of anybody entering this Parliament. We await the full guidance from the ECHR on what can and cannot be done. This is simply the interim stance. I ask those concerned to bear with the corporate body until we are able to do a full consultation. We aim to balance fairly and with justice and sensitivity the rights of all users of this Parliament.

Will the minister take another intervention?

I would have to write about how the complaints procedure works on the face of it; I have not accessed it. However, I can certainly tell you that it has previously been used by a member of the public to make a complaint about somebody accessing facilities in the public area, which was dealt with appropriately by the officials and the corporate body. Certainly, if there was any sense of its being used for abuse, the corporate body would be mindful.

No one is asking anyone for any proof of anything. I fully intend to use the gender-neutral toilets.

The letter that was written is a private matter. I am not in a position to disclose it. The recipients may disclose the contents of that letter if they wish.

Decisions by the corporate body do not ever go to a vote; they are made simply by consent.

Officials consider the SPCB’s various responsibilities as an employer, workplace provider, service provider and public authority, which adds to the complexity of fulfilling our obligations in ensuring that Holyrood is as inclusive as possible for all. Many of our staff use facilities in the public areas of the building and many members of the public use facilities in the private areas, particularly during events, meetings and evening receptions. The SPCB’s interim stance as set out in the EqIA seeks to balance those different requirements.

I do not know about you, Deputy Presiding Officer, but I have certainly had a long afternoon.

I congratulate Elena Whitham on securing the debate. Some time ago, the cross-party group on animal welfare had an informative briefing on Scotland’s deer population and management—and I should declare an interest as convener of the group.

There are more than 1 million wild deer in Scotland, with no natural predator. Although deer are free ranging and belong to no one, the right to take or shoot deer is associated with land ownership, so whoever owns the land that the deer are on has the right to shoot them.

Red deer might travel long distances in search of food, however, often covering more than one land ownership area. Therefore, managing red deer sustainably in the uplands requires collaboration, as has been mentioned, and that is made possible by voluntary deer management groups. NatureScot works with the Association of Deer Management Groups, local deer management groups and others.

The deer in lowland and urban areas are predominantly roe deer, which are more solitary, secretive and territorial than red deer. Land ownership patterns are more fragmented in those areas, and managing roe deer there is very different from managing the red deer in the uplands. Although deer management across Scotland is a voluntary and collaborative activity, NatureScot has statutory duties to intervene in specific circumstances.

Fences are sometimes used to manage deer, say, for road safety or to protect woodlands in the short term while they recover. However, depending on the situation and the area, fences are expensive and do not always work. They can damage other animals, and they simply move a large deer population from one area to another.

The fact is that there are too many deer, and they need to be managed. I am not talking about some stereotypical rich foreigner swanning around a landed estate in his plus fours, having a poor beast practically lined up for him to shoot. I am talking about sensitive, selective culling for the health of the animals, because gone are the wolves that would have predated on them.

Such an approach protects the landscape, too. The Deer (Scotland) Act 1996 sets out when, where, how and by whom deer can be shot, and it also defines the periods of the year when the killing of deer is or is not permitted. Those periods are known as open and closed seasons, respectively, and the dates vary according to the deer species. Following consultation, the Scottish Government removed the closed season for male deer of all species in Scotland, with effect from 21 October 2023. The 1996 act also requires that only certain specifications of firearms and ammunition can be used to kill deer, to ensure that the deer are shot as humanely as possible.

On the broader issue of deer culling, I should say that I take no pleasure in deer being culled, but the situation with the deer population means, unfortunately, that it is a necessary evil. There are 1 million wild deer in Scotland, up from around 500,000 in 1990, and that increase in the deer population has led in some areas to overgrazing, which can strip the environments that other species need to thrive. Indeed, the 2023 “State of Nature Scotland” report found that, since 1994, when the monitoring of 407 species of plant and animal life began, the abundance of such species has declined by an average of 15 per cent. In the past decade alone, there has been a decline of 43 per cent. I am not saying that the decline is all attributable to the deer, but it is a fact.

Where culls are necessary, it is essential that they are carried out in a way that minimises suffering and takes animal welfare into account. For example, I would want culls to be undertaken by experienced shooters, who are more assured of a quick kill and know how to identify animals that might be diseased than an inexperienced shooter who would run the risk of maiming. Moreover, I want culls to be restricted to areas where there is evidence that the number of deer is a problem.

I understand that culling is a highly emotive issue, and I do support animal welfare, but appropriate—and appropriately monitored—culling is about animal welfare, too. I hope that that provides some context.

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

In taking all reasonable steps to ensure that customers are no worse off, should there be a discount on the bill if, to use my example, white metering means that customers will pay more than they paid under the old metering system? Should there be a discount on their bill, once it has been compared with previous bills?

I congratulate Beatrice Wishart on securing this debate on the motion, to which I was a signatory. Much has been said about smart meters—often about their unreliability—but, as has been said, at the end of June, the radio teleswitch service that connects to some people’s meters is being switched off.

Now I take myself and my head into the uncomfortable area, for me, of technology. Here we go. The difference between the position in Scotland and the north of England and that in the south of England is that in the midlands, Wales and southern England all smart meters use cellular technology, similar to mobile phones, to send data to energy providers. In the north of England and Scotland, the situation is different—I say to Tim Eagle that it is the same in the north of England. Here, as in the north of England, there is a long-range radio signal. What I do not understand is why, when the radio teleswitch service is switched off at the end of June, it will be replaced with another long-range radio signal. In Scotland, smart meters will run on that new radio signal and not on the public internet or wi-fi. I hope that that is so far so good, because my head is already birling.

What is the impact? Currently, more than 6,000 households in the Borders and more than 700 in Midlothian have yet to switch. That is bad enough. Besides that, the impact on too many of my constituents is that, even if they want to, they will not be able to connect to a smart meter system, because they cannot receive the new radio signal in their location. I have many constituents in that position. Scottish Power, for example, has advised that it will install instead a white meter. Meters must change because, without a new meter, people’s heating and hot water will be affected. They may find that their heating and hot water are always on or off, or that charging happens at the wrong time of day. Their electricity supplier will not be able to confirm how much electricity they have used for heating and other uses, which means that electricity costs could be much higher for them than before.

If someone’s area has a poor signal, their supplier must still replace their RTS meter to ensure that their heating is not disrupted. I am back in the technical maze again. If someone does not have a smart meter and currently has an RTS meter, they may be on a tariff that charges them a different price for the electricity that they use for their heating and hot water than it does for the rest of their electricity, such as for lighting and appliances. Some tariffs also offer lower rates at specific times of the day. That is a good thing, but it all changes after June.

After June, without a new meter, people’s heating and hot water will be affected. A smart meter would ensure that their heating was not disrupted but, if that is not possible, the provider—Scottish Power, for example—can install a white meter with the tariff pre-programmed. I emphasise that it is pre-programmed. People will have to send in manual readings and will not get the full benefits of a smart meter or any other kind of meter, but at least their heating will continue to work.

The trouble is that most white meters charge a slightly higher daytime price compared with a standard tariff, so it is very likely that people will end up paying a lot more. That brings us beyond the technology to the fact that Scotland is doing badly out of this different system. In the event that it is not possible to install a smart meter, people will perhaps be paying more on the pre-programmed tariff. They have to be the kind of person who does not mind cooler water in the evenings. The system will heat most of their water at night and store it in a storage heater, so their hot water will be hot in the morning and coolest in the evening. However, as I said, most white meters charge a higher tariff for daytime usage, which will apply to many older people and disabled people.

We end up with this technology, with too many of my constituents having to opt for a metering system that is more expensive. That is a bitter pill when the wind turbines around them are producing four times more electricity than the south of Scotland uses. They endure a landscape of pylons, but they pay more for the electricity that is generated on their doorstep.