Seòmar agus comataidhean

My predecessor, Patrick Harvie, made it clear that that particular target was not achievable. I agree with Mr Harvie on that. It is as well that the Government comes to the Parliament and presents targets that are achievable. It is not honest to do anything else.

I will bring you in, Gareth. The figures that I have for annual heat pump installations are as follows: 2,448 in 2019; 2,993 in 2020; 4,667 in 2021; 5,146 in 2022; and 6,388 in 2023. The importance of heat pumps in our effort to decarbonise and improve Scotland’s housing stock is increasingly significant as the years go by.

As you mentioned, the cleaner air for Scotland 2 strategy review is probably the place where those issues should be mentioned. I am perhaps overemphasising the point about the numbers, but we can only go by the evidence that we have on new builds.

The 83 new-build houses that have wood-burning stoves as their main fuel are, as I mentioned, outside four cities and scattered across the rest of the country. I think that I am right in saying that there are four houses scattered across the rest of the country that use wood-burning stoves as a secondary fuel.

I do not say any of that to be complacent. The Government would certainly want to act if there was evidence that the problem that you describe was happening.

I will bring in officials on that point. We always seek to ensure that any measure that we take is effective. From our point of view, “effective” would mean that our amendment had taken account of the concerns that were brought to us, which were that there are rural parts of Scotland where—because of the prevailing climate, off-grid gas and limited opportunities to install various types of heating—wood-burning or peat-burning stoves represent a realistic option for people. Even in those areas of rural Scotland, most new homes are not reliant on such forms of heating. Officials may want to come in on how we would measure that.

Yes, in urban areas.

I will keep my remarks as brief as I can, in the light of the reasons for the meeting and the committee’s existing familiarity with the Scottish statutory instrument and its amendments.

It is important to say that our review and its conclusions responded to concerns that were raised by members of the committee and beyond. Our purpose was to ensure resilience by enabling people whose circumstances mean that wood-burning stoves and wider bioenergy systems should remain available and eligible choices of heating system. We listened to stakeholders in workshops and discussions that were held with those who were considered likely to be most affected. We also listened to the views that were expressed in the Parliament, including during the members’ business debate in May, in which you spoke, convener.

I do not intend to minimise the questions and concerns about air quality, which are the focus of today’s meeting, when I observe that none of the members who spoke in the debate in May raised any such issues. I say that simply to underline that the focus of those who wish to see the change that we have proposed has been to ensure resilience where it is needed. I believe that the SSI delivers that.

I take fully on board the concerns that have been raised by stakeholders over recent days, which are summarised in the committee’s paper. However, those concerns—which are as applicable to use of such heating systems in existing homes as they are to their use in new builds—need to be addressed through the most appropriate channel and process. It is therefore worth stressing again that the measure that the Government has laid before the Parliament—the amendment regulations—will, contrary to much of the speculation in the media, have no impact on existing houses with a stove, as was the case with the preceding measure that the SSI amends.

Undertaking further analysis and consultation to explore possible solutions and avoid unintended consequences would risk there being a potentially lengthy delay to the SSI, and it would risk causing tremendous confusion among those who have pleaded for such a change. Instead, I propose that we use the forthcoming review of the “Cleaner Air for Scotland 2—Towards a Better Place for Everyone” strategy as an opportunity to identify areas in which further progress might be needed.

In that context, the Government takes seriously the questions that have been raised about burning wood in urban areas by some of the people who have been in touch with the committee. However, I emphasise that there is no evidence that that is a significant feature in urban houses—at least, not in new builds in urban areas, and new builds are the subject of the measure that we are discussing. Scotland enjoys good air quality compared with that in much of Europe, but we are not complacent, and the review of our cleaner air strategy will focus on continuing to target action to protect human health.

Therefore, I believe that the review will present the most appropriate and effective means of ensuring that the health-related concerns that have been raised with the committee are addressed. I will be discussing the next steps in this area with the Acting Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero and Energy.

I hope that my remarks have provided some context for members and have been helpful. I am happy to respond to questions.

The Government continues to look at the 1,600 responses or so that have come in on the consultation that we did on heat in buildings. As I have said, the Government is more than keen to keep in touch not only with rural communities, but with other stakeholders from whom the committee has taken evidence on the SSI.

Do you want to say anything about that, Neal?

Yes, you are reading me right. I would not in any way seek to minimise the scientific evidence. However, much of that evidence is predicated, to some extent, on smoke outside houses, although some of the evidence is about smoke inside houses. Many of the scenarios that have been considered are about conurbations where solid fuel is burned. I do not wish to be complacent, but we do not have evidence of conurbations where that is happening.

I am happy to try to respond to that, and I will ask officials to respond if they wish to come in on this.

I come back to the point that the measure that we are considering relates to the regulations on the building of new houses. I take seriously the learned reports on air quality—I do not dismiss any of that work—but it is important to be clear that you will struggle to find a new-build house in an urban area that has a wood-burning stove as the primary means of heating. In fact, statistics show that in the past three years, even before there was any talk of changes to the regulations, there was one new-build house in Aberdeen that had a wood-burning stove as its primary source of heating, none in Dundee, none in Edinburgh and none in Glasgow. There were 83 scattered across much of Scotland, many of which were, I take it, in rural areas, but certainly outwith all the cities.

Even with new-build houses, which again are what the regulations are about, you would be looking at between 12 and 16 in each of Scotland’s four biggest cities where a wood-burning stove was a secondary source of heating. It is important to draw the distinction that the regulations—this measure—is about new-build houses, and there is just no evidence that the concerns that have been expressed about new-build houses with wood-burning stoves are based in reality, in the sense that there are no such houses in any significant numbers.

All that I would add is that the evidence that has been presented to the committee and is now on the public record will, I am sure, be available when the review of the cleaner air for Scotland 2 strategy review is done. I do not do not know whether it is likely to formally feature in part of that work, or not.