Chamber and committees

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.

Presiding Officer, your presiding over the chamber is absolutely paramount and really important to me, although I know that it is perhaps not important to the members sitting to my left. I seek your guidance. Thank you.

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.

With regard to rural affairs policy development, will the cabinet secretary provide an update on how the proposals to create a new national park are progressing? Will she provide commitments that, should any new national park be created, including in Galloway, its focus will be on food security, food production and agricultural activity; that she will include the communities that will be most impacted by the proposals for the park; and that national parks will not be a barrier to rural communities?

Good morning, everybody.

The amendments in my name in the group are not controversial, so I hope that members will agree that they are useful in helping to provide clarity on established safe access zones in Scotland.

Amendments 44 and 45 would remove the need for the Scottish ministers to publish the list of safe access zones after updating it with new protected premises, because the list will already be published. The amendments would ensure that the Scottish ministers are required to maintain the list and ensure that details are up to date. That will ensure clear and proper communication with the public so that everyone is clear about where the safe access zones are.

Amendment 45 would also strengthen the requirement that a safe access zone cannot take effect until at least 14 days after the list is updated, by adding a new subsection to make that easier to identify.

Similarly, amendments 47 and 48 would remove from sections 7 and 8 respectively the need to publish the list when the list is updated following an extension or reduction of safe access zones. That is, again, because the list is already published. The timescales for revised zone sizes taking effect remain unchanged, but they are put in a new subsection in both sections 7 and 8, and are at least 14 days after the list is updated for an extension to the zone size but on the day of the list being updated for a reduction in the zone size.

Although my amendments do not have a policy impact, they are, nonetheless, important changes to make the bill clearer and more easily understood. It is always a guiding principle that this Parliament must pass laws that are accessible and comprehensible by the people whom they impact. However, in this case, where the issues are so challenging and of such personal significance, that duty must be at the forefront of our minds.

Finally, during stage 1 scrutiny of the bill, I was interested in ministerial oversight of the creation, extension or reduction of safe access zones, and I welcome the conversations that I have had with Gillian Mackay in that regard. I hope that members can support my amendments, which will help to make the bill clearer.

I was going to bring up the issue of the Republic of Ireland and the traceability that it has put in place. Greyhound racing is quite central and important for people in the Republic of Ireland. Down the line, I am interested in following up work on having one microchip database for the whole of the UK, because I am interested in that part of it.

I have another question about the licensing. The GBGB has anti-doping guidance and it has set percentages for how many dogs will be tested for amphetamine, cocaine and other banned substances. Would a licensing scheme have guidance to require vets being on premises to test X number of dogs to be tested for banned substances, for instance?

Some retailers now sell vapes to customers who order pizzas to be delivered to them. My understanding is that their age is not verified when vapes are delivered along with the pizza that they have just ordered.

Good morning, cabinet secretary. A couple of different points have come to mind while I have been listening to all the questions and responses. I am interested in issues around digital technology and innovation, and in how remote and rural areas can or cannot benefit from that.

During Covid, we saw that the use of NHS Near Me and the attend anywhere service was beneficial. How can we harness what we have learned so far from the use of digital technology in order to support remote and rural healthcare?

Good morning to you—and I see that we also have online engagement this morning.

I declare an interest: I am a registered nurse, and I am the co-convener of the cross-party group on lung health in the Parliament.

I am interested in the data. If you are suggesting that vaping is how people quit smoking, I would comment that I know people who have been vaping for 10 years. Is there a tail-off in some of your data? My understanding is that vaping is not good for the lungs. It causes asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Nicotine is addictive—it is bad for you and it can cause hardening of the arteries. There are some issues around blood pressure increase and so on. I would be interested to hear about data on how long people vape for once they stop smoking cigarettes.