Pavement Parking

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship with a 90-second speech limit, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) for securing this debate. In 2023, I met Elaine and her guide dog Tessy and she was able to show me first hand the impact that pavement parking was having on her life. I could see how she was terrified to pass parked cars on the pavement, and where she had to go on the road. She said she was absolutely terrified. I have to say that watching her, I felt absolutely ashamed. I think all of us are here to create a fairer and more equal country, no matter which party we are in. A pavement parking ban is an easy and simple way to make progress.

In Edinburgh, I was proud to be part of a group of councillors who introduced a ban. Of 5,000 streets in Edinburgh, an estimated 500 were going to be problematic, but within a few weeks of the ban being introduced, we were down to just 20 streets where there were outstanding issues. A year later, there are only around 20 streets where actual parking restrictions will have to be introduced to ensure that traffic can move freely. That has been completely transformative, particularly for people who have visual impairments, for people who are disabled, and for parents and grandparents pushing buggies. It has helped to create a more equal city.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that when constituents are concerned about going out, that increases their social isolation? There is a real risk that anxiety about going out and using pavements has a knock-on effect, and that is one of the things that we can resolve.

[Dr Arthur]

I do not speak for RNIB Scotland or Guide Dogs Scotland but people with visual impairments leading isolated lives are a real concern for them. They want those people to be out working, meeting their friends, shopping and so on. Cars parked on the pavement are a barrier to that happening, so this issue is absolutely core to our wellbeing and to creating a more inclusive society.

As the ban came into force in Edinburgh, we got quite a few emails from people who were concerned. The most common question was: “Well, where should I park my car?” I always say, “Look, just don’t park it on the pavement.” I think most people who parked on the pavement knew that it was the wrong thing to do. The ban was actually forcing them in the right direction, and creating a more equal community.

Each time I debate this issue, I fill myself with hope that we will get a positive announcement from the Secretary of State or the Minister. I hope that we get that in this debate.

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) for securing this debate, and for putting another 10p in the meter—that has aged me—to allow the debate to continue. In the interests of time I will limit my comments to two topics. The first is school drop-off and pick-up.

In my community of Surrey Heath we have a major issue with roads and schools that were not designed or built to provide adequate drop-off and pick-up. I am a parent of two children who went to one such school for seven years. I and almost every other parent had to park on the pavement in order to get our kids in and out. That was not because we wanted to be inconsiderate parkers, but because we wanted to keep the carriageway clear to allow vital access routes and roads to remain open.

[Dr Arthur]

Often we are faced with a dilemma between driver convenience and the safety of pedestrians. I think the safety of pedestrians always has to come first. Parking on the pavement is not an alternative to blocking the road to emergency vehicles. You should not be blocking the road to emergency vehicles and you should not be parking on the pavement. Apologies.

[Dr Pinkerton]

I would like to engage with the hon. Gentleman’s point more, but I want to try to finish in my original time allocation.

The second key point I will raise is about planning. I recently had a meeting with representatives of a very large house developer that plans to build 1,000 houses in my constituency. They told me that, in the interests of being green, they were only going to supply one parking space per three, four and five-bedroom house, in the hope of encouraging public transport use. I think we all know that will not encourage public transport use; it will hard-bake pavement parking into the future, and with it all the issues that the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) has raised.

I encourage the Government to pick up this issue, to think about making planning regulations much tighter, and to give local authorities the ability to enforce measures against antisocial parking.

Road Safety Powers: Parish and Town Councils

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Monday 30th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sam Rushworth]

I welcome that intervention. Parish councillors do sterling work, and all who volunteer and give their time for speed watch schemes are making life that bit better for people in their communities. Nonetheless, people get frustrated when often that data is not taken where they want it to be taken.

In the village of Hamsterley in my constituency, the traffic through to Hamsterley forest on the weekend is often a cause of concern. Villagers there have asked if the village could be made a 20 mph zone, which sounds to me like a reasonable request. In fact, they have often asked me, “Why can’t we be more like Wales?” Welsh villages are allowed to be 20 mph zones, and my constituents get frustrated that they do not have that option.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

On that point, why should they be like Wales, when they could be like Edinburgh? Will my hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to former councillor Lesley Hinds? One could never meet a more humble Labour councillor, but back in 2016, she rolled out Edinburgh’s city-wide 20 mile per hour zone. In 2022, independent peer-reviewed research showed that slight injuries had reduced by 37%, serious injuries had reduced by 33% and fatalities had reduced by 23%. Through the leadership of one person, lives had been saved. Does he agree that we should be using such measures right across the country?

[Sam Rushworth]

That important data gives force to my argument. We are not talking not about killing people’s joy but enhancing joy in their lives so that they feel safe to walk in the roads in their villages.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)]

I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) on securing this debate and on making such incredibly good use of the extra time we have had. I thank him for speaking so passionately about road safety. He is clearly a powerful advocate for his constituents. We really had a tour across the many villages and communities that he represents, and I enjoyed his efforts to namecheck them—every single one of them, I think.

I am pleased to be back here for the second Adjournment debate about road safety in less than a week. I am happy to be discussing this important issue again, not just because I am Minister for the future of roads—which should, of course, be a safer future—but because this issue matters to all of us. We, our families, our friends and our colleagues all use our roads, whether as drivers, riders, pedestrians, cyclists, or passengers in buses or taxis, and we all deserve the right to go on our journeys knowing that we will get home safely.

Unusually in an Adjournment debate, we heard from, I think, 19 Members this evening—not only from my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland but from my hon. Friends the Members for Harlow (Chris Vince), for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) and for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan), the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), and my hon. Friends the Members for Northampton South (Mike Reader), for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth), for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur), for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett), for Reading Central (Matt Rodda), for Stafford (Leigh Ingham), for North Northumberland (David Smith), for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law), for Bracknell (Peter Swallow), for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack), for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume), for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury), and for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards). I hope very much that I have not missed anyone out.

We clearly all agree that no one should be killed or injured on our roads, and improving road safety is one of my Department’s highest priorities. In 2023 there were 1,624 fatalities in reported road collisions in Great Britain, and more than 28,000 people were seriously injured. I have not worked out the numbers, but I suspect that means that in the time we have been debating this issue, someone will have been seriously injured somewhere on Great Britain’s roads. Fatalities and injuries resulting from road collisions are simply unacceptable, and this Government are working hard to prevent such tragedies for all road users. Road safety is fundamental to everything that the Government stand for. Safer roads underpin our national missions: driving economic growth, enabling greener journeys through active travel, easing pressure on the national health service, and ensuring that everyone can travel safely. That is why my Department is developing our road safety strategy, the first in over a decade. We will set out more details in due course.

Members referred to the implementation of road safety at a local level. Local government is the main delivery body for road safety. Local authorities have a statutory duty under section 39 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 to take steps both to reduce and to prevent collisions. It is for them to determine what measures are appropriate in individual cases, because they have the local knowledge —many Members mentioned the importance of that this evening—and it is right that they focus on the areas of highest risk, which may be places where tragic collisions have occurred. However, there is nothing to prevent them from implementing road safety measures elsewhere. Indeed, it is entirely right to consider what action can be taken to prevent collisions in the first place.

[Dr Arthur]

Although she lives in Edinburgh South West, my constituent Amanda wrote to me about a power that English councils do not have when it comes to road safety, namely the power to deal with pavement parking. Is that something that the Minister has considered?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I thank my hon. Friend for, once again, raising the issue of pavement parking. As I hope he knows, I am very keen for us to address that issue. It has been far too long since the 2020 consultation on the options, and I look forward to the opportunity to publish that consultation and set out the next steps in due course.

I hope that no local authority would claim that road measures can be considered only at locations where there have been fatalities, because that is simply not the case. I understand the importance of using resources effectively, where they are most needed, but the use of such measures should never be arbitrary. This Government are committed to the devolution of powers to local level, as we have shown through the publication of the English devolution White Paper, but it is important that the right powers be held at the right level. Responsibility for highways and traffic sits at county council or unitary level; that enables local authorities to deliver services in an efficient and consistent way across their areas.

We have no plans to devolve those powers further to parish councils, but it is nevertheless crucial that local highway authorities engage with local partners, including parish and town councils, when deciding on the measures to take, as they can play an absolutely critical role in identifying road safety issues in their area. They are often the first to hear about near misses or dangerous incidents, and act as a vital link with local residents’ day-to-day experiences. As we have heard time and again this evening, local parish and town councils—as well as residents’ associations, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central said, and indeed schoolchildren, parents and a wide range of community groups—have incredibly valuable local knowledge, and they need to be listened to and engaged with.

Numerous hon. Members have talked about the need for action to reduce speed, including by lowering speed limits, and the need to enforce speed limits through police action and the introduction of speed cameras. Hon. Members will know that the enforcement of road traffic law, and decisions on how available police resources are deployed, are the responsibility of chief constables and police and crime commissioners, taking into account the local problems and demands that they face. Local highway authorities have the power to set speed limits on their roads, and it is important that this is done in partnership with town and parish councils, and in consultation with the residents affected.

I was really sorry to hear that in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland, Durham county council has not responded to local calls for lower speed limits on the stretches of road that he mentioned. I urge him, the town and parish councils, and Durham county council to discuss this matter as a priority, and to try to find a way forward. As my hon. Friend described so vividly, dangerous roads have very real impacts on the lives of his constituents, especially children, older people and disabled people. This debate will send a clear message to Durham county council, and perhaps to other highway authorities, about the strength of feeling not only among his constituents, but in his local communities, about road safety issues, and about the need for highway authorities to be accountable to local residents for decisions that they take in fulfilling their duties.

Local authorities have a range of traffic management measures available to them to help improve safety in residential areas and outside schools, including pedestrian crossings, traffic-calming measures, school crossing patrols, and the introduction of a school street, where appropriate. Good street design can help improve road safety, and the “Manual for Streets” is our key piece of street design guidance. It advocates for streets to be designed to support appropriate vehicle speeds from the outset. Let us build the right roads to encourage appropriate speeds, rather than having to deal with problems when they arise later. That will reduce the risk of collisions, and reduce the severity of collisions that do happen.

We expect local authorities to adopt the “Manual for Streets” when setting their own design standards, but that is ultimately a choice for them. We are working to update the manual to ensure that it is still relevant and enables those designing streets to do so in a way that contributes to sustainable, healthy and active communities. It is for local authorities to determine what measures are appropriate in individual cases, because they have local knowledge of their roads, but any authorities that wish to install schemes to improve safety have my Department’s full backing. Obviously, they will want to make those decisions in consultation with local communities and the local police. I welcome the support expressed by so many hon. Members this evening, and agree that sharing local knowledge and working in partnership can be very helpful.

My Department gave councils updated guidance on setting 20 mph speed limits in March 2024, and reminded them to reserve the lower limits for appropriate locations, such as outside schools, with safety and local support at the heart of such decisions. I want to emphasise that we support 20 mph speed limits in the right places. As well as improving safety, they can enhance quality of life, the environment and the local economy, but 20 mph zones and limits are best considered on a road-by-road basis, based on the safety case, to ensure local consent, rather than as blanket measures. As I say, local councils will want to make decisions about local implementation in consultation with local communities and the local police. They know their roads best, and I simply cannot and should not dictate to them from Westminster.

While local authorities are free to make their own decisions about the speed limits on the roads in their care, provided they take account of the relevant legislation and guidance, they are rightly accountable to local people for those decisions. My hon. Friend and his constituents will rightly expect the county council not only to listen to their concerns, but to be accountable for the decisions it makes, whether it decides to install traffic measures or declines to do so, and I think that applies to all hon. Members who have made the powerful case for lower speed limits. The “safe system” approach to road safety acknowledges that even careful drivers can make mistakes, but no one should be killed or seriously injured as a result of a mistake, and we know that collisions at high speeds are much more likely to have tragic outcomes, which is why the argument holds for reducing speed limits in particular circumstances.

The Department will look at what we can do to support local authorities, and we stand ready to work with all those looking to improve road safety locally. My Department recognises the excellent work that parish and town councils do to improve the safety of local roads, including through their involvement with community speedwatch schemes. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Amber Valley for highlighting that valuable volunteering. Police-run community speedwatch schemes enable local volunteers to work with the police and other agencies to address identified road policing issues in their localities. Drivers who are detected speeding are sent letters, and the police may take further action if a driver is detected multiple times. Decisions on when to adopt community speedwatch schemes are operational matters for police and crime commissioners and chief constables, working in conjunction with their local policing plans.

The responsibility for keeping for our roads safe cannot fall solely to central or local government; all road users have a part to play, and they must all comply with road traffic law in the interests of their own safety and that of other road users. As set out in the highway code, the hierarchy of road users places those road users most at risk in the event of a collision right at the top of the hierarchy. The objective of the hierarchy of road users is not to give priority to pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders in every situation, but rather to ensure a more mutually respectful and considerate culture of safe and effective road use that benefits all users. This does not detract from the requirements for everyone to behave responsibly. There is both a legal and a moral duty for all road users to obey the law, both for safety and to create a culture of respect and consideration for all road users. There are laws in place to ensure that unsafe and dangerous behaviour has no place on our roads and is dealt with appropriately, using the most effective sanctions, including educational interventions. Enforcement of the law is a matter for the police, who will decide on the evidence of each case whether an offence has been committed and the appropriate action to take.

I conclude by again thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland for securing this timely and important debate. As I said at the start, the Government treat road safety with the utmost seriousness, and we are committed to reducing the number of those killed and injured on our roads. My Department is developing our road safety strategy, which is vital. For too long, we have tolerated a lack of progress, and this Government are determined to act. I look forward to setting out more details in due course, as indeed we will on my hon. Friend’s ambitions for the A66.

Question put and agreed to.

Road Safety and Active Travel to School

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Olly Glover]

My hon. Friend gives an excellent example of the benefits of Bikeability. Since 2007, Bikeability cycle training has been delivered to over 5 million children in England. In my Oxfordshire constituency of Didcot and Wantage, 61% of year 6 pupils were booked on a Bikeability level 2 course in 2023-24; we aim for three quarters by 2026. In Oxfordshire, uniquely, Bikeability training is delivered by the fire service, for some very interesting historical reasons.

Following Bikeability training, the proportion of children reporting an intention to cycle one to three times per week for school travel increases, from 5% pre training to 24% post training. However, historical delays in funding and an annual funding model have meant that there has been no increase in Bikeability instructor numbers. That needs to change because there is an ongoing need to train more than 300 instructors a year to maintain numbers lost through retirement.

Another theme is culture and leadership. Pavement parking—

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for giving way with almost perfect timing. Bikeability is not the only non-infrastructure approach. Every school in my constituency benefits from a 20 mph scheme that covers most of Edinburgh and—I think he is about to touch on this—a pavement parking ban. Those non-infrastructure approaches can be delivered cheaply and quickly. Does he agree that we need more of those in the UK?

Zero Emission Vehicle Mandate

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Monday 7th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Members with lengthy questions are just preventing their colleagues from getting in, so please keep your questions short.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for her statement and the leadership she is showing in delivering our manifesto commitments in partnership with industry. The contrast is clear with the Opposition, who are bringing along uncosted ideas for grants, subsidies and tax cuts. I welcome the reaffirmation of the plan to roll out EV charging, but is she sure that that will be able to meet EV demand, and are there any plans for a battery health check to help reassure people buying used vehicles in the second-hand market?

[Heidi Alexander]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. We are working with the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe on the battery health check issue that he raises. I assure him that we are working closely with the private sector on the roll-out of charge point infrastructure. As I said in my statement, a new EV charger is currently installed every 29 minutes, or at a rate of 50 a day. Only a couple of weeks ago, I visited the new InstaVolt charging super-hub in Winchester, which, when one sees it, really is a glimpse into the future. It is imperative that the Government continue to work with the private sector to make sure that the charging infrastructure is there for everyone in the places where they need it when they need it.

Road Maintenance

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Monday 7th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Lamont]

I do agree, and I will develop that point. My concern is that policymakers, whether here in Westminster or in Edinburgh, have an urban outlook to transport. They assume that people have access to buses and trains, but those of us living in rural communities do not, so roads and cars become much more important.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

I have to point out that Edinburgh is Scotland’s lowest funded local authority, looking at the block grant allocation. In preparing for this debate, I checked what the Scottish Government have been saying about the pothole crisis in Scotland, and I found that they have said absolutely nothing. Has the hon. Gentleman been able to find anything from them on this issue?

[John Lamont]

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. Scottish Borders council would be very grateful to receive the level of funding that Edinburgh council receives. Notwithstanding that, it is a problem that the Scottish Government do not invest in roads in the way we would expect.

The hon. Member will be fully aware of the scandal surrounding the A9, which does not affect my constituency or, indeed, his, but the delays and the broken promises that the SNP has made to upgrade that vital road linking the north of Scotland with the rest of Scotland—and the rest of the UK, for that matter—have caused huge frustrations to the rural communities it serves.

My criticism is not only directed at the SNP Government. As Labour Members will realise, the Labour Government are not immune from criticism either. The previous Conservative Government promised to invest in upgrading the A1 between Morpeth and Ellingham, and this Government’s decision to cancel that upgrade has caused great upset not just in my constituency but in Northumberland.

The A1 is a vital road for the local economy in the Scottish Borders, and it is also a vital road in Northumberland. It is unfortunate that the hon. Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) is no longer in his place, but that road supports local jobs and the local economy. Savagely cutting that funding and scrapping the investment to improve that road will undoubtedly cause economic hardship for the communities that rely on that road.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for opening the debate. I think it is the most interesting debate we have had since we debated buses—it is fantastic.

I am proud to call Edinburgh my home, and I love the fact that tourists come from all over the world to see the city. However, I am often ashamed of what they encounter on arrival, particularly the potholes that litter the city—especially, it feels like, in Edinburgh South West. It is not just in Edinburgh, however; Scotland’s roads are in a horrendous state, with more than 400,000 potholes reported to local authorities since 2021. The state of our roads, as we heard earlier, is a great visual way of understanding local Government finances. What we see on our roads is replicated in our schools and our social care.

There are particular issues in Edinburgh. As I mentioned earlier, Edinburgh receives the lowest per capita funding of any council in Scotland. It is absolutely shameful for a capital city to be treated in that way. Since Labour took control of the city in 2022, we have made real efforts to improve our roads. I spoke to the transport convenor, Councillor Stephen Jenkinson, who happened to be my election agent last year—thanks to him—and he informed me that Edinburgh’s independently assessed road condition indicator has improved by 4.5% in the past year. That is the highest ever improvement in a single year. Of course, that is just a start, and what really matters is what people see when they step out of their house.

The maintenance list for this year was published just last week—pulled together by an excellent council officer called Sean Gilchrist, if we are praising council officers this evening. Among the 500,000 square metres of roads and footpaths that have been resurfaced, I was pleased to see that many had been raised by my Edinburgh South West constituents. We have a pothole probe machine; in Edinburgh, we call it a pothole killer, and I think it tops the league table. It has filled 22,000 square metres of potholes, so it has been busy.

The UK Government have created a dedicated pothole repair fund for councils south of the border. It stands at £1.6 billion, including £500 million of new money, so tens of millions of pounds have made their way to Scotland via the Barnett consequentials to fill potholes. That money was handed to Scottish Government Ministers, but they have set up no similar fund. Instead, they just blame councils for potholes. John Swinney, the First Minister, says that councils already have enough money to fix our roads, despite the fact that, as we heard earlier from my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson), the national backlog is somewhere between £2.5 billion and £3 billion.

It is not just about the cost of filling the potholes; Cycling UK estimates that across the UK, one cyclist dies every week because of a pothole, so the cost is immeasurable. Enough is enough. Scotland’s pothole crisis cannot continue. The SNP Government must show some level of ambition—the same level of ambition as the UK Government—when it comes to potholes. I am disappointed that no SNP Members are here this evening to answer that.

Before I conclude, I will address something even more important than the state of our roads. It is not buses; it is the state of our pavements. In many cases, pavement conditions are worse than those on our roads. I was really pleased that the Secretary of State for Transport mentioned pavements, and I hope that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew), will do so in his summing up, because I did not hear him speak about them. If we are serious about creating a more active and equal nation, we must discuss pavement conditions every time we talk about road conditions. There is an easy and low-cost way in which the Government could improve our footpaths, and that is by giving local authorities the power to introduce a pavement parking ban. A complete ban in Edinburgh last year has transformed the city and will lead to better quality pavements over time. I hope that towns and cities across England will soon have the same powers.

Driving Licences: Zero Emission Vehicles

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Greg Smith]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that point, which I have been making for many years. I certainly did so during my time on the Transport Committee in the previous Parliament, and outside this place, as I have engaged with the classic car sector and all parts of the industry. He is right that there is a big innovative drive for sustainable fuels, if I can call them that. Some of them derive from feedstocks, others from waste matter, and they work in the internal combustion engines that we already have—in jet engines as well as motor vehicle engines.

There are also entirely man-made synthetic fuels that require no such feedstocks. They do not require food to be grown in order to be burned. There are innovators on that in this country and all over the world. For example, Zero Petroleum, just next door to my constituency—just over the Oxfordshire border at Bicester Heritage—has developed a fuel that works in every jet engine and every internal combustion engine that we enjoy today. It is entirely man-made; it is literally made out of air and water. It is a mixture of green hydrogen with atmospheric carbon capture. However, the ZEV mandate and the approach that the Government are taking in this statutory instrument rule that technology out of order, because there is still carbon at the tailpipe. The regulations ignore the fact that the carbon at the tailpipe is the same volume of carbon that is captured out of the atmosphere to make the next lot of fuel. In fact, a whole-system analysis shows that technology to be carbon-neutral—one volume of carbon is in a perpetual cycle. However, no matter how much Ministers and the Government claim to be technologically neutral, the test at the tailpipe, and the test in this statutory instrument, which explicitly refers to zero emission vehicles, rather than alternatively fuelled vehicles, do in fact mean that the Government pick a technological winner at every step, rather than letting our great innovators innovate.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

I am interested to hear about the hon. Gentleman’s knowledge and experience of alternative fuels. He perhaps understands this statutory instrument better than I do, but I understood that it was about the weight of vehicles, and that an alternative fuel going through the internal combustion engine does not result in additional weight. Will any of the technologies that he is describing result in additional weight, and might they therefore fall foul of the limits in the regulations?

[Greg Smith]

The hon. Gentleman is right that this is fundamentally about weight, but on the point about synthetic fuel, which my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) drew me on to a moment ago—I rarely need asking twice, given the number of years I have spent talking about this—it is true that there would not be an addition of weight. However, there would be for some alternatively fuelled systems. For example, in the case of hydrogen, the fuel tanks have to be much more robust. They certainly are in a hydrogen combustion vehicle, of which there are very few. As far as I understand it, it is only JCB that has developed the technology for a construction plant, but there could be an application to road vehicles in the future. Hydrogen runs at about 700 bar in the fuel tank, so we obviously would not put it in an existing car’s fuel tank; it simply could not take the pressure. There would be weight implications for such a system.

Space Industry (Indemnities) Bill

Scott Arthur Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 7th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

It may be of interest to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that Bradford, part of which you represent, contains a centre of space expertise, namely the University of Bradford. I will return to that later.

I am privileged to introduce a Bill that will help to push forward investment in the UK’s critical space sector. It will amend two sections of the Space Industry Act 2018 to provide legal certainty that all space flight operator licences must include a limit on the amount of the operator’s liability to the Government under section 36 of the Act. What are space flight activities, one may ask? They cover launching spacecraft, such as satellites, into space, operating spacecraft in space—for example, allowing a spacecraft to orbit Earth—and bringing spacecraft back down to Earth.

Under the international law applicable to space, Governments, including ours in the UK, are liable for damage to property, death or personal injury caused by their space activities or by their nationals. That is a key reason why section 36 of the 2018 Act requires people carrying out spaceflight activities to indemnify the Government against such claims. The Bill provides legal certainty over the need to limit liability because that will encourage desperately needed investment in the sector.

The space sector and satellites are central to almost everyone’s day-to-day life. Let us take something simple like a trip to a football match. Middlesbrough fans—I’m afraid I am not among them—have a famous fanzine called “Fly Me To The Moon”. That is not a reference to Sinatra, but they might buy it using contactless. People will make their way to the match with the use of maps and travel updates on their phones and use Google Pay or Apple Wallet to store tickets and get into the stadium. All this depends on satellite technology. One may ask why the Boro fanzine is called “Fly Me To The Moon”. It is because Bruce Rioch, a great Scottish manager, then manager of Middlesbrough, said of his captain:

“If I had to fly to the moon I’d take Tony Mowbray, my captain, with me. He’s a magnificent man.”

Both men played a significant role in saving that magnificent football club.

Suppose, Madam Deputy Speaker, you wanted to read on your device “The First Men in the Moon” by H.G. Wells. That requires satellites. The protagonist in that novel is a Mr Bedford. I was brought up in Bedford, a wonderful town in Bedfordshire, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin) is a fine friend. Suppose you wanted to stream “Breakfast at Tiffany’s”, famous for Audrey Hepburn singing “Moon River”. Streaming music depends on satellites. I confess that “Moon River” was one of my lullabies of choice when my children were younger and I was desperately trying to get them to sleep. I did not think that “Subterranean Homesick Alien” by Radiohead would be an apposite choice or, for that matter, Lou Reed’s great song “Satellite of Love”, so I stuck with “Moon River”. The House will be pleased to know that I do not propose to sing “Moon River”, because I am appalling at singing.

The critical point is that satellites and related technology are critical to modern life, and they will become even more so. There is a significant economic opportunity for the United Kingdom here. European demand for satellites up to 2033 is forecast to be worth $50 billion. Even 2% of that would bring around $1 billion in revenues for the UK economy alone. This provides a serious economic opportunity to the United Kingdom, and we must seize it with both hands, because we must get growth back into the British economy, and that is what our Government are determined to do.

Space is an industry of the future—a future of hundreds of years—and it is critical that we invest in and support industries that can bring our family of nations prosperity for decades to come. As President John F. Kennedy said,

“man and his quest for knowledge and progress is determined and cannot be deterred. The exploration of space will go ahead, whether we join in it or not. And it is one of the great adventures of all time.”

President Kennedy said that in 1961, and in 2025 I say it is high time that the United Kingdom got stuck into this adventure and seized the opportunities it will provide.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for introducing this Bill—he is reaching for the stars with it, quite literally. I am proud to have a company in my constituency called Alpha Data, which is just 50 metres from my constituency office, but the products it designs are 250 miles above us. It has a sensor outside the International Space Station that measures atmospheric heating and cooling. Alpha Data employs 30 people in its office, but its supply chain stretches from inside the city to Kilsyth, the Scottish Borders and nearby Livingston. Does my hon. Friend agree that this company is evidence that the space sector is thriving in Scotland, and that this Bill should help it to go “To infinity and beyond”?

[John Grady]

I could not agree with my hon. Friend more. Edinburgh has a thriving space sector, as does Scotland. My hon. Friend has for many years been heavily involved in work to grow the economy in Edinburgh and the Borders, and I pay tribute to him for that.

I must, however, take this opportunity to pick a minor bone with my hon. Friend. He mentioned that Glasgow does not have a castle, and I wish to correct the record. We have a fine ruined castle called Crookston castle. It is the second-oldest building in Glasgow. The first-oldest building in Glasgow is the beautiful cathedral. I will not indulge in a dispute about whether Edinburgh or Glasgow is the better city. They are both beautiful, great cities. Glasgow is slightly better, but there you are. I am obliged to my hon. Friend for his intervention, and I am also glad to be able to correct that point.

There is another reason why it is important that we have a thriving space and satellite industry. Space is critical to defence, and we must have a thriving space sector to protect our country. The United Kingdom works with allies to ensure that our interests are defended in space. However, the world is becoming more unstable, and it is essential that we have our own capabilities to launch and operate satellites from the United Kingdom, and this Bill is important in that regard, too. It will help to secure a vibrant end-to-end space industry in the United Kingdom, and that is important for defence. To take one example, having our own domestic launch capability is important, and a vibrant civilian sector will help to cover the costs of that launch capability. This Bill also has a national security theme.

Owing to much hard work, including by the last Government, the UK Space Agency and many others, the United Kingdom also has a firm foundation for a thriving space industry. In the time available, I cannot provide a complete survey of the vibrant and growing space industry, but here are some key points. One key task we have had is to develop our own launch capability to put satellites up in space, and then to get them back down. That is why there is so much chat about spaceports—in my life, at least.

SaxaVord, the UK spaceport in the Shetland Islands, is one of only two licensed vertical launch spaceports in Europe. That is at the far end of the north of the map of our family of nations. Down in the far south-west, we also have an operational spaceport in Cornwall. That illustrates that space is an opportunity for our family of nations from the very top to the very bottom—I mean that only in a cartographic sense; I am not looking to offend any Members from Cornwall.

There are also spaceports under construction and planned in: Sutherland, on the far north of the coast of Scotland, to the west of Thurso; North Uist, a wonderful place, which I commend as I spent much of my honeymoon there; Glasgow Prestwick; Spaceport Machrihanish, on the southern tip of the Argyll peninsula, which I would also recommend for a visit to Scotland; and, Snowdonia. Some may wonder where those places are. They are all wonderful places, and they illustrate that space is an opportunity across the United Kingdom.

Let us turn to the satellite or, as Lou Reed sang, “Satellite of Love”. The UK has incredible talents in manufacturing satellites and satellite technology. As a Scottish MP, I focus on Scotland, and as a Glasgow MP, I focus on Glasgow, but let us start in the Moray firth, where my mother came from. It has a fine tradition of engineering. For those who follow highland league football—I suspect I am in a minority of one in the House today—the fact that Forres Mechanics is one of the oldest football clubs in the north of Scotland points to a tradition of engineering there. The Jones shipyard in Buckie is another great engineering industry in the north of Scotland.

Of significantly more relevance to this debate is that Forres is home to Orbex, which is developing a rocket called Prime. It will be the first UK-manufactured and UK-launched orbital rocket. Prime is set to take off from SaxaVord in 2025. Prime is set to take off from SaxaVord in 2025. The UK Government have recently announced a £20 million investment in Orbex—an important investment that demonstrates the opportunities being brought to the north of Scotland, for which we need to redouble our efforts to secure economic growth and prosperity.

My home city of Glasgow has a rich history of innovation and an incredibly promising cluster of space expertise. As a Glasgow MP, I am determined that it should have a bright future in space. Glasgow is building more satellites than any other city in Europe. There are fantastic companies in the area including, Alba Orbital, which specialises in PocketQube satellites, AAC Clyde Space, which has expertise in small satellite technology, and Spire Global, which is a leading provider of space-based data analytics and space services. This year is Glasgow’s 850th birthday. The Bill will help secure the prosperity of Glasgow for the next 850 years, creating jobs and economic growth in my great city of hard work, innovation and enterprise.

There is clear economic analysis that shows that the space industry is an important opportunity area for growth and jobs. The latest “Size and Health of the UK Space Industry” report estimates that 228 organisations in Scotland generated a combined income of £298 million in 2021-22—almost double that of 2018-19 in real terms. About 6,500 people work in space in Scotland, and the figure for the UK is between 48,000 and 52,000. Income amounts to between £17.5 billion and £20 billion. There are more than 100,000 jobs in the supply chain as well.

Let us pause for a moment on that: we have only just got going on this and we have 48,000 or more jobs. There is much potential here for many more good, high-paid jobs of the future, which is what Britain needs.

Airport Expansion

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mike Kane]

I could not agree more with the right hon. Member, though it pains me to say it. We have five great northern runways stretching from John Lennon to Manchester, Leeds Bradford and Newcastle, and we should be focusing on regional connectivity in particular. On Leeds Bradford, my recollection is that because of the lack of decision making by the last Government, confidence was lost in its development. Let us see if we can get a framework for improving connectivity at Leeds Bradford, including for those in the constituency of the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood).

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

I came to London yesterday by rail, as usual, and I must say that both Lumo and London North Eastern Railway are doing a fantastic job of getting people out of planes and on to trains between Edinburgh and London. [Interruption.] I always like to talk about trains. I am concerned that any increase in air capacity will take people off trains and help them make less sustainable transport choices. Will the Minister commit to speaking with the Rail Minister to understand any impacts of airport expansion on that service?

[Mike Kane]

My hon. Friend is exactly right: we have to join up the modes of transport. We have had a broken transport system as a result of 14 years of complete under-investment. Whether we are talking about rail connectivity to Glasgow, what will happen if a Heathrow development consent order comes forward, or just getting Northern trains working across the north of England, linking up Leeds Bradford, Liverpool, Manchester and Newcastle will be a key start to improving jobs and growth at those airports.

Road Safety: Young Drivers

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair today, Sir Desmond. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Julia Buckley) on securing the time for this debate today and also for reading Crystal’s testimony, which was incredibly moving.

This is a timely debate, because the road safety strategy is currently under development. Like this debate, I hope that strategy takes the approach that we should never see deaths or serious accidents on our roads as an acceptable consequence of the perceived freedoms that car ownership can bring. For young drivers in particular—although this applies to all drivers when learning—there is a focus on passing the test rather than learning how to drive. That is why the graduated approach to learning to drive is so important, because it slows things down and forces those who want to drive to focus on learning.

Globally, the graduated driving licences work. In New Zealand, they have reduced accidents for people between the ages of 15 and 19 by 23% and for those between 20 and 24 by 20%. That is quite incredible and is within the context, as has been repeated here today, that one in five new drivers will crash in their first year—an absolutely incredible statistic, if we are honest with ourselves. There will be arguments against this approach, but it should never be the case that the implementation of a graduated driver's license is framed within that argument about restricting young people’s liberty, because poor public transport should never be an excuse for exposing our young people to danger. I know action in this area will be difficult, but I really hope that the road safety strategy presents us with an opportunity to do something.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

In a few moments, I will come on to the measures that I think would protect the freedom to drive far better, as well as the safety of those who do so. There will perhaps not be agreement with every single point that hon. Members have made in the debate, but I repeat the point. Central to how I would like to look at this issue is not how we can restrict people more, but how we can make people safer in the first place by ensuring that they have the skills required to drive safely, be it in our cities and towns, on our rural roads and motorways, or indeed abroad, where often the rules can be very different. We all know the example of the German autobahns, many of which have no speed limit. It is vital to equip any British citizen going to Germany with the ability to handle a car at very great speed and be safe on those roads.

The challenge before us is how to make everybody—young people, for sure, but also old people, for whom the statistics are just as stark, as the hon. Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) mentioned—safer and able to handle a vehicle in all conditions on our roads.

[Dr Arthur]

Back in 2020, an older driver caused a fatality in Edinburgh, killing a three-year-old boy. The fatal accident inquiry found that drivers over 80 should perhaps be subject to cognitive tests if they want to continue driving. That inquiry is currently with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. Will the shadow Minister support action in that area?

[Greg Smith]

It is important that we look at all evidence suggesting a problem and explore the basis for solving it, but I am no fan of knee-jerk legislation. This House is at its worst when we jump to knee-jerk solutions to any problem presented. It is important to look at all the evidence, practical outcomes and potential unintended consequences. The case that the hon. Gentleman raises and the point that he makes are important and should be looked at—as he referenced, it is being looked at by the DVLA at the moment. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s response to that point.

I double-underline that we should bear in mind that every death on our roads is a tragedy, but there has been significant improvement in road safety over recent years.

Oral Answers to Questions

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Thursday 9th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

Pavement parking is a massive issue in many of our towns and cities, particularly for people faced with sight loss and for parents trying to push buggies. All of us here benefit from the pavement parking ban in London, but given that it is over four years since the consultation closed, is it time to give towns and cities across England the power to enforce a pavement parking ban if they so wish?

[Lilian Greenwood]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this problem. We will publish a formal response to the consultation, which the previous Government shamefully failed to act on. We will announce next steps for pavement parking policy in England in due course.