Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

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.

Apologies for being a little late into the chamber, Presiding Officer.

The cabinet secretary wrote to me about the squid derogation and said that there was neither evidence to support it nor evidence to oppose it, and that, consequently, a pilot would be undertaken. Will the pilot be undertaken and concluded in time for next year, so that the squid derogation, if feasible, will be allowed?

Will the member take an intervention?

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.

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?

Will the minister take an intervention?

Will Tess White take an intervention?

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.

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.