Electoral Resilience

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

The review will not have the powers to compel people to submit evidence, but, like my hon. Friend, my view is that members from every single political party represented in this House will want to ensure that the Russian state is not using dirty money to influence and interfere in our democratic processes. I would be shocked if any political party does not subscribe to that view, because it is what underpins the freedom of our democracy.

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

I am really disappointed that none of the Reform MPs who were here at the start—most of them have gone—took the opportunity to utterly condemn Nathan Gill’s treacherous acts. We should all condemn what he did; he is an absolute traitor to our country.

I am pleased that the Secretary of State is taking seriously his duties to build and protect faith in our democracy. He will be pleased to hear that I recently visited Forrester, Firrhill, Tynecastle, Boroughmuir and Balerno high schools in my constituency, to talk about our democracy and opportunities to come here and see it at work. The three most common topics they wanted to talk about were bobbing—I gave them a demonstration, of course; smartphone bans that may be coming towards them; and our electoral system and proportional representation. I know the Secretary of State takes seriously his role in protecting and modernising our democracy, so will he listen to our young people when doing so?

Quarries: Planning Policy

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under you, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) for so fully introducing the debate. It is of real interest to me. I am always amazed, when I go to cities, that so much of what we see above ground was once below ground. I want to speak about two quarries in Edinburgh South West, and my speech might be a bit more positive than some of the others we have heard.

Back in April, I had the opportunity to visit Ravelrig quarry in Edinburgh South West. It is operated by Tarmac, and that site demonstrates what a collaborative approach between operators, planners and the community can achieve. Ravelrig extracts about 450,000 tonnes of stone every year, and that stone has built the foundations of the Queensferry crossing, filled countless roads across the region—I think some more of it may be needed to fill the potholes—and helped to underpin Scotland’s renewable energy infrastructure, including wind turbines.

Behind the impressive scale of that operation, there is an incredible ethos. The quarry’s processes are powered largely by electricity, keeping its carbon footprint remarkably low. About 90% of the stone is used within 11 miles of the site, genuinely minimising the environmental impact of transporting that heavy stone. Not all stone from Edinburgh quarries has stayed so local, however. The stone used for statue of Nelson at Trafalgar Square was extracted in Edinburgh. It is a shame that the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) is not here to hear me say that, because it is from her constituency.

When the city considered the planning extension for Ravelrig, it did so through a framework of conditions—31 in total. That ensured that the community and environment were not afterthoughts, but integral to the decision. The conditions eventually agreed on will limit blasting times, restrict operating hours, cap HGV movements and put rigorous noise, dust and wildlife protections in place. They also set clear restoration timelines, and expect Tarmac to put forward a financial guarantee to make sure that it happens, so that it cannot walk away from it.

I am proud of the work that Balerno community council has done to broker this agreement with Tarmac, and I look forward to working with it to make sure that Tarmac keeps its side of the bargain. I agree with the point made by the hon. Member for South Leicestershire: although those in the community council were not quarry experts, they had to become experts quite quickly—a daunting task, but one they absolutely embraced. That is what planning for quarries should look like; it should be focused on engaging with local residents.

On the issue of restoration, another quarry in my constituency is a great example of what restoration could look like. Hailes quarry was a quarry between 1750 and 1920; at its peak, it employed around 150 people, and its stone was used to construct much of the New Town, as well as the fantastic St Cuthbert’s parish church in nearby Colinton. Thanks to the Wester Hailes community enterprises, it is now a fantastic public park. I find myself there every Sunday to support the local junior parkrun. There have been lots of requests made of the Minister this morning, but I will put a nice one in: it would be great to see her at the junior parkrun. I am sure that she would be very welcome to run it alongside the children, if she has the energy to do so.

Other former quarries in Edinburgh have now been converted to fantastic attractions, including what is now an international climbing centre and an outdoor surf arena—I guess the Minister could also go surfing at a quarry while she is in Edinburgh. The standard of restoration that we see across Edinburgh, particularly that of Hailes Quarry Park, is what we should aim for. Quarries are necessary, as we have heard, and they can be run responsibly, but planning policy must always ensure that collaboration, community benefit and long-term restoration are built in right from the start, not treated as optional extras.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Murrison. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) on securing this important debate, which is of real concern to not only his constituents but those of Members around the country. As a child growing up in Somerset, I well remember the occasional roar of the neighbouring Dulcote quarry, which is now worked out. I no longer live near a quarry, so I do not experience the very genuine issues and concerns of those who do. In particular, significant concerns have been raised about respirable silica dust, especially when the particulate matter is PM₁₀ or smaller, which means that it is fewer than 10 micrometres across.

Studies by the Health and Safety Executive have shown that respirable silica dust, inhaled over prolonged exposure—for example, by workers who do not receive proper protection—is potentially carcinogenic. It can lead to silicosis and other respiratory diseases. Environmental impacts from the dust, which could affect local residents, are therefore a concern to those who spend time near quarries.

HSE studies of those environmental effects in 2002 and 2003 led it to conclude that no cases of silicosis have been documented among members of the general public in Great Britain, indicating that the levels of environmental exposure to silica dust are not sufficiently high to cause the occupational disease. Notwithstanding that finding, the impact of dust in residential environments is a genuine concern rightly held by many residents, and a potential hazard.

As we have heard, the new Environment Act targets would reduce PM_2.5 concentration levels to no more than 10 micrograms per cubic metre by 2040. People also suffer wider immunity impacts from the dust, noise, vibration and flyrock that quarries emit. The fact that PM₁₀ and PM_2.5 pollutants can travel further than 250 metres and that IAQM guidance is under review emphasises those effects and immunity impacts.

We must also remember that quarries are vital to the building of homes and other needed infrastructure. According to the Mineral Products Association, UK quarries produce 177 million tonnes of aggregates and support thousands of valuable jobs. On housing, the Liberal Democrats differ from the Government in that our ambition is for 150,000 council and social rent homes per year—but, to the extent that new homes are needed, we agree that quarrying in the UK needs to continue apace rather than be curtailed.

None the less, health and wellbeing of the public is the main priority of the Liberal Democrats, and must be the main concern in this debate. We would therefore pass a new clean air Act to cover not just quarries, but all air pollution, based on World Health Organisation guidelines and enforced by a new air quality agency, including funding for local pollution centres and a new vehicle scrapping scheme for cleaner transport.

Clean air is important not just around quarries, but across all our communities. While life expectancy in Somerset and the south west is higher than in other regions of the UK, in my constituency it differs by 10 years from one side of my hometown, Taunton, to the other.

A report from Public Health England in 2018 attributed 250 deaths to black carbon—unburnt fuel from motor vehicles. As with quarries, there is little people can do about these sort of environmental health factors, but they still shorten people’s lives, sometimes by years. Therefore, as well as controlling quarries, we must do all we can to encourage people to replace their cars with zero emission vehicles at reasonable costs that they can afford. The Government must hold firm against the Conservatives and Reform, who seem no longer to care about that air pollution or the related deaths it causes. Flirting with climate deniers, the Conservatives want to reverse a position they once held, announcing that they will continue burning petrol in vehicles around people’s homes, schools and neighbourhoods.

While it is welcome that the Government have set out a delivery plan for nature’s recovery, we are waiting for a commitment to a new clean air Act and for them to get on with giving regulators the powers and resources they need. Instead, we are seeing unacceptable cuts to DEFRA—and therefore to the Environment Agency, which among other things regulates quarries—of 1.9% in real terms this year.

I turn now to the issue of buffer zones around quarries, which some hon. Members have raised. While imposing a buffer zone on an existing quarry—such as requiring a distance to residential properties to perhaps a kilometre—could detrimentally affect its operations, the imposition of some sort of environmental limit, as planning permissions already do, is an entirely reasonable proposition.

Some have argued that introducing a buffer zone could be devastating for the thousands of jobs in the sector. If that is the case, it would be equally devastating, not to mention reckless, to suggest no buffer zones or limits at all between quarries and residential properties. Presumably, even the most ardent quarrier is willing to stop when they reach someone’s garden wall or the threshold of their front door. Therefore, in a very real sense, the question is where to draw the line.

The Canadian example has much to commend it. For example, over the 600 metres under the Canadian rule, 100 dB from quarrying—a common level of noise from a building site—would degrade to around 40 dB. That is a typical level for background noise in residential areas—it is a little higher in cities. It has to be recognised, of course, that topography and other factors play a part in those calculations. Subject to assessment, Liberal Democrats would set in planning policy a buffer zone of 600 metres to 1 km for new quarrying consents. Local communities, through their elected councillors, should be empowered to impose such a zone and to make exceptions to it only in wholly exceptional circumstances. Sadly, the Government are going in entirely the wrong direction on the voices of local people being heard in planning.

[Dr Arthur]

In my experience of dealing with Ravelrig quarry in Edinburgh South West, a 600-metre line on a map is not always the best way to proceed, because the impact of blasting on properties varies considerably depending on the underlying geology and so on. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the policy needs a bit more rigour than a simple 600-metre line around a quarry?

[Gideon Amos]

I accept that further assessment is needed before the policy is finalised, but the experience in Canada shows that the distance is appropriate for reducing noise. At the moment, no buffer zone at all is set as standard, as I have pointed out. I am sure the hon. Gentleman would not be the quarrier I described quarrying up to someone’s front door, but a buffer zone of some sort is needed.

Clear and understood safeguards, such as a buffer zone, or something similar to the 21-metre back-to-back standard for houses, give people more confidence in the planning system and enable them successfully to live side by side with development, but under the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, the Secretary of State will remove decisions from local councillors and the people who elect them. A new direction will force councillors to report to the Secretary of State and get his permission before they can refuse anything more than 150 homes, and we are told that there is more centralisation, and more community and nature bashing, to come this week in forthcoming announcements on the planning system.

We need quarries and we need development, but unless the Government change direction, we will have forgotten the most important lesson: that we develop for our environment and for people, not in opposition to them. In a world where a staggering 73% of global wildlife has been lost in the last 50 years, we need to save the remnants of nature for everyone’s sake, and we need people’s voices, and the safeguards they desire, to be heard in the process.

National Plan to End Homelessness

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Thursday 11th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alison McGovern]

My hon. Friend makes his case well. If he would care to send me some details of the case, I will of course meet him.

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

I thank the Minister for her statement. I hope she will accept my apologies for being a little bit late; I missed the first few seconds of her statement, although I have read it.

In a few hours’ time, I will be getting the train back to Scotland. This is a place where Scottish Labour recently forced the Scottish Government to declare a housing emergency, made worse by the fact that they had cut the affordable housing budget in Scotland by 37% between 2023 and 2025. Hundreds of households are in hostels and B&Bs in Edinburgh. We are now in the crazy situation where the council will use tourist tax income to build houses to move homeless people out of B&Bs and into those houses so that tourists can actually get in the B&Bs where they should be—it is absolutely incredible. I am sure that my constituents will be listening to the Minister’s statement with envy and thinking about how that money could be spent in Scotland if the Government there had the same kind of ambition.

The Minister will know that one of the categories of the homeless that people are most concerned about is veterans. She talked about public services and public institutions, and I know the Ministry of Defence is doing great work to prevent veterans from becoming homeless and supporting them when they do. Does the Minister’s strategy connect with what the MOD is doing?

[Alison McGovern]

My hon. Friend is of course right. The great city of Edinburgh deserves a lot better in so many ways, and I support everything he said. I long for the day when we can have a pan-UK strategy, including Scottish Labour, to end homelessness where we work together, which we will do.

On veterans, it will be important to us all to know that people who have served our country are supported in every aspect of their life afterwards, and it is an absolute disaster if a former member of the armed forces experiences homelessness. That is why the MOD has played a full part in the creation of the strategy. I have spoken about it directly with my hon. Friend the Minister for Veterans and People. Through her work on Operation Valour and other things, we are ensuring that we have in place the necessary care and support for veterans, because they deserve the absolute best.

Supporting High Streets

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)]

Every MP in this place thinks that they have the best constituency in the United Kingdom, but I am afraid that only one of us can be correct. Perhaps with the exception of Romsey and Southampton North, Madam Deputy Speaker, the best constituency must be Windsor, with its beautiful towns and villages.

As well as our green spaces, including the Great Park, which has been in the news slightly more than we might like of late, and our heritage, we also have our high streets, our small businesses and our hospitality crown jewels, which range from Ascot racecourse, Royal Windsor racecourse and Legoland to smaller attractions, such as the Windsor Museum, French Brothers boat trips along the Thames, and Windsor Carriages. Because of the Windsor constituency’s exceptional features, it has some of the greatest high streets anywhere in the country. Our hospitality businesses turn over £600 million every year—one of the highest figures outside London—and the industry employs over 10,000 people locally. A huge part of that is down to tourism. People come from all over the world to walk through our town, and to enjoy refreshments after exploring Windsor castle or working up a thirst on a long walk.

The most recent statistics from the excellent Visit Windsor team highlight that 12.2% of the borough’s population are employed as a result of tourism. It is no surprise that one in 10 people in Windsor rely on the industry to make a living. There is a whole ecosystem of retail, hospitality and hotels that makes up the economic background of my town. All that stimulates the brilliant high streets and venues that make up our towns and villages. They are the subject of the debate, and I am afraid that all of them are feeling the pinch under this Labour Government.

My constituency goes well beyond its namesake town. That was evidenced in my most recent “best pub” competition. Over 32 pubs were put forward from across the constituency, and hundreds of my constituents voted. It is only right to give special mention to the winner, The Swan in Clewer village, which is a great example of a community-led pub. I will not have time to talk about everything that makes The Swan special, but it has the Green Room school for special needs pupils, the Windsor cycle hub, a “chatter and natter” to tackle loneliness and social isolation, board games, the Stitch Gang for knitters, and a dog walkers’ group. However, the landlord, Mickey Foden-Andrews, whom I have met multiple times, stressed that while The Swan is well loved and used by the whole community, it is feeling all the pressures on our treasured pub industry, including from increased VAT, beer duty, business rates and now the extended producer responsibility tax.

I am sure that we have all been guilty of complaining about the cost of a pint, but we must recognise the huge overheads that pubs face just to keep their doors open, which include paying their staff, soaring electricity prices and alcohol duties. The increase in national insurance in last year’s Budget compounded all those pressures and hit the hospitality sector hard. The sector has suffered more than half—85,000—of all British job losses since the last Budget.

Pubs like The Swan provide a public service by bringing people together, letting neighbours check in on one another, hosting events and being a place to hash out ideas or discuss the politics of the day. On all my visits to pubs, hospitality and other high-street businesses, I hear that they are struggling, and Windsor is a relatively prosperous place with a clear unique selling point, so I am sure that such businesses will be struggling everywhere. That should come as no surprise. The increase in the minimum wage and national insurance, and the so-called new workers’ rights that are being brought in, are all incompatible with thriving high streets.

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

The hon. Member is talking passionately and making many points that I agree with, but which constituents would he tell that they will not get that rise in the minimum wage? Will he tell his constituents that he opposes their getting that rise?

[Jack Rankin]

The point was well made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) that there are people who benefit from the minimum wage and new rights, but thousands of jobs will never exist as a result of the measures. We have to be cognisant of that in this House. All those measures are incompatible with a thriving high street and any aspiration to bring down welfare spending, as they are all job killers.

Indefinite Leave to Remain

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Monday 8th September 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a delight to serve under you today, Mr Pritchard. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) for introducing the petition, and I thank all my constituents who signed it. I make my comments in the context of my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

I acknowledge the need to fix our broken immigration system—the one we inherited from the previous Government—but we have to do that in a way that focuses on measures that work, not ones that make life difficult for all of us. Whether the changes to indefinite leave to remain apply retrospectively is unclear, and that is at the core of what we are discussing today. The Government have indicated that it may be retrospective, but legal precedent suggests that retrospective application could be unlawful, and that may well be challenged in court.

Before I entered politics, I worked in higher education. Since the proposals regarding indefinite leave to remain were announced, former colleagues across our universities in Edinburgh have been in touch with me, concerned about the impact on both their current staff and the ability to recruit new staff in the future. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) made clear, if we are serious about growing our economy, we have to support our universities as much as possible, and ensure that they are able to attract the best minds from around the world. I gently ask the Minister—he is sitting right next to me, so I can say it very gently—are any other western nations making it harder for their universities to attract the best minds from around the world? Of course they are not.

It is not just about academics: I have also heard from many constituents, all of whom contribute to Edinburgh, who are deeply worried about these changes, and what they would mean for them, their families, and their futures. I will share two stories to illustrate what I have heard. The first is from Sarah, who came to Scotland from Canada in 2018 to study physiotherapy. She graduated during the pandemic, when she worked in hospital placements at the height of the crisis, facing, let us be honest, unknown risks. Since then, she has stayed and worked in our NHS, one of more than a quarter of a million immigrants working in the NHS across the UK. She has treated patients in some of the toughest circumstances imaginable. She talked about how she supported patients fighting for their lives in intensive care. Physiotherapy is on the shortage occupation list.

I feel grateful that Sarah has chosen to live in Edinburgh South West, but if these changes were to go ahead, her route to settlement would be pushed back until 2033. That means that she would be faced with another five years of expensive visa renewals, which we have heard about, and of insecurity and uncertainty. Sarah was clear that, if that happens, she may well think about leaving the UK and settling elsewhere. That would be to the detriment of us all, particularly the people waiting for physiotherapy.

Sarah’s is not an isolated case; right across many industries in the UK, workers are facing that uncertainty. I was going to give a second example, relating to Calvin, who is here on a BNO visa, but I think that others have spoken better than I can about the impact on that group of residents in the UK. However, I will say that I am proud that so many people came from Hong Kong to live in my constituency, and I am always humbled by the contributions that they make, but I am ashamed by what they are facing in these proposals.

Whether it is a Hong Kong family or a physiotherapist from Canada, we have to be serious about supporting people who contribute to our economy and our communities. Settlement is about trust, stability and fairness. Extending the pathway does not just damage individual lives; it damages our international credibility, our economy and our ability to recruit the best staff. I will end by saying that I welcome the Minister to his place—I know that lots of Ministers are at new desks today, and I welcome that—but this is his chance to start his career with a big bang, grab the headlines and really make a difference, so I look forward to hearing his response.

Strategy for Elections

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rushanara Ali]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to my previous answer. The Government have no plans to change the electoral system for UK parliamentary or local elections.

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

I welcome this announcement, and I can only speculate about why the Conservatives did not decide to clean up party funding when they were in Government. I want to echo some of the comments about proportional representation. Personally, I feel that it is at the heart of many of the problems the country has faced in recent times. I absolutely accept that proportional representation is not part of the Government’s proposals, but will the Minister keep an open mind and look at how other strong democracies around the world have been able to use PR to both strengthen their democracy and create a more collaborative political culture?

[Rushanara Ali]

I refer my hon. Friend to my previous answer on the Labour party’s position: the Government have no plans to change the electoral system. He is of course right that we should always learn from international experience. We are certainly doing that on a range of different agendas, including some of the themes of this strategy, and we will continue to do so.

Grenfell Tower Fire: Eighth Anniversary

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Tuesday 10th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Joe Powell]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that very valid point. It is good news that the Government have accepted all of Sir Martin Moore-Bick’s recommendations, and I applaud them for taking the time to come back in detail rather than rushing a response. However, it is absolutely vital that timelines are met. The example of the slow pace of change on remediation is a warning to us all that this matter has to be gripped from the centre if we want to see systemic change.

In another example, shared ownership leaseholders in my constituency at Shaftesbury Place—a property managed by Notting Hill Genesis—saw their building insurance soar by more than 2,000% after a fire safety inspection. That is an increase of £5,000 a year in individual service charges. Those residents contest the report and the recommendations, and I hope that Notting Hill Genesis will work out a reasonable solution, but that is an example of what has to be fixed. The building insurance market may require Government intervention, as we did with flooding.

I know the Minister agrees that we must quicken the pace of remediation, and I urge him to consider what more the Government can do to underwrite the major works now, so that people do not have to wait. The best example of such action would be to widen access to the building safety fund to social housing providers so that they can put more capital into maintaining the condition of their current homes and into building new homes. I know the Government are also focused on giving the Building Safety Regulator the resources it needs so that we can rightly enforce higher standards post Grenfell, as well as accelerating house building and avoiding unnecessary delays.

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

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. I hope we will continue to debate this matter in the years to come, and that we can start to talk about the positives that have come out of it in terms of the recommendations and the lives that will be saved and changed. Eight years on, in Scotland—my hon. Friend might be surprised that that is what I am going to talk about—there are 5,500 properties affected by flammable cladding, with 25,000 people living in them. I sense my hon. Friend’s frustration over the pace of remediation in England, and in particular in his own constituency; in Scotland, after eight years, just one building has been remediated. Hopefully in England, the pace is faster than that.

[Joe Powell]

I thank my hon. Friend for sharing those statistics. I think the reality is that the money is there; what we need to do is go building by building and solve the problems. That is where I welcome the Government’s emphasis on devolving some of the decision making, for example, to a London remediation board, which might be something to look at for other parts of the country.

I am sure the House would appreciate an update on the Prime Minister’s welcome commitment on 4 September that all the companies found by the inquiry to have been part of these horrific failings will stop being awarded Government contracts. As the inquiry said, the companies that made the cladding and insulation products—Arconic, Celotex and Kingspan—behaved with “systematic dishonesty” and

“engaged in deliberate and sustained strategies to manipulate the testing processes, misrepresent test data and mislead the market.”

New Homes (Solar Generation) Bill

Scott Arthur Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 17th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Kevin McKenna]

I wholeheartedly agree. I gave the example of a power generator on a roof not working, and that came down to the fact that the local community was not involved. The residents on the block saw no benefit from it, but it was causing them problems, including leaks in the roof and all sorts of other stuff. It is vital that we have not just a circular energy economy but a circular economic and monetary economy so that people see the benefits in their pockets as well as in the lights and heating in their homes.

I am keen to hear from the Minister what the Government plan to do to change the building regulations, meet the aspirations in the Bill and ensure that we have a comprehensive strategy to progress towards a zero-carbon, net zero future, while ensuring that that does not get in the way of tackling local environmental problems—biodiversity and so on—or the housing and cost of living crises. Those things are all joined up. That is how developers will work and deliver, and how we can ensure that that happens.

We all know that implementation is the tricky part of policy. The intention is very straightforward—and this Bill is full of great intentions—but getting the implementation right will be the challenge. We have had 14 years of hot and cold climate policy. Sometimes the previous Government went hell for leather on tackling climate change; at other points, they did not seem so certain. As well as developers, businesses and households have struggled with that, because they have not been sure of the direction of travel. I am hopeful that our new Government will now focus on stability as a key plank of our growth agenda, giving developers, communities and households the certainty they need to plan together. Everyone is looking for that framework.

Some areas and towns face greater challenges on housing and housing need. In Sheerness in my constituency, for example, the housing stock is of deteriorating quality. Much of it is post-war council housing, which, unsurprisingly in a coastal area, is not lasting and has high maintenance costs. We need a comprehensive renewal that brings in not just better housing, but the opportunity to leapfrog several stages in environmental learning and energy production, and ensures that energy production is brought into the heart of towns in my constituency and those of other hon. Members.

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

My hon. Friend is speaking with great passion about his constituents—that is always great to hear. When it comes to new homes, we must consider their efficiency from top to bottom. The Bill will add solar panels to new homes—we all welcome that, and I am happy to support it—but we must go further by ensuring that our homes are as efficient, warm and cheap to heat as possible. In Scotland, the private Member’s Bill introduced by Alex Rowley MSP could mean that all homes in Scotland are built to the Passivhaus standard, which I think is the gold standard right now. Does my hon. Friend think that we should aspire to that?

[Kevin McKenna]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for coming in on that point, and I very much agree. Although my constituency is generally not quite as cold and damp as parts of Scotland, it is pretty cold and damp, and when the wind comes along the Swale it can get quite cold, as people who live in north Kent will know. The quality of housing stock, including insulation, needs attention. That is what I mean by a comprehensive picture; it is about not just power generation, but ensuring that we do not waste power and that the effect is ultimately felt in people’s pockets.

I know that other Members will talk with greater expertise and in greater depth about things happening in their constituencies and the opportunities that they see, and I look forward to listening to them. As we move forward, we must learn from past mistakes and from current great practice, and ensure that these policies actually work, unlike in the false starts of the past.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) on his Bill. I do have some reservations about it, which I will go into shortly, but I am minded to support it today because this is a much better policy than the current Government line about having large-scale solar farms on all our farmland throughout the United Kingdom. I would much rather solar panels were put on new builds, and councils already have some powers enabling them to do that. Broxbourne council, which I used to lead, has engaged in extensive negotiations with developers, particularly at High Leigh, where we have managed to get solar panels on some of the houses. A large data centre is also being built, and we have managed to put some solar panels on that.

As I have said, I do have some concerns. I am all for taking on developers and ensuring that they pay for their section 106 negotiations and do their community work, and standing up for the residents we all represent. However, during many of the negotiations when I led the council, developers told me that they wanted to put solar panels on more houses but the distribution network operator had told them that there was not enough capacity. I said that no one would be able to see the top of the data centre, so why not cover the whole thing in solar panels? Why would anyone not want to do that? Why would anyone not support it? That was my negotiating position. The developers went away and had discussions with the DNO, which said that they could have only 25% because there was not enough capacity for more and the system would not be able to cope. We need to have a discussion about the capacity of the grid if we are going to do this. I know that the Bill focuses specifically on new build properties, but surely it is a good thing to be able to use the rooftops of all the large data centres and warehouses that are already available.

[Dr Arthur]

The hon. Gentleman is speaking passionately about his constituency, but does not cheaper battery technology mean that people do not have to sell their electricity back to the grid any more? They can keep it within their boundaries and use it themselves.

[Lewis Cocking]

I was about to mention battery technology, so I ask the hon. Gentleman to wait just a few seconds.

The Bill does go quite far in that its ambition relates to all houses, but I think we should go further. If we are putting solar panels on houses, we should require those houses to have battery storage as well, which might solve some of the problems involving grid connection and there being sufficient capacity. Battery technology is a bit behind solar panel technology in terms of efficiency, and it is not quite there yet on cost-effectiveness, but we are definitely getting there. For example, it is more cost-effective to use the electricity in an electric car than to send it back to the grid. I urge the hon. Member for Cheltenham to consider that, because if we are taking this one step in installing solar panels, perhaps we should take one further step and require people to have battery storage as well.

I am concerned about the red tape we are going to create for new development. As I said, I am all for taking on developers—I see some councillors and former councillors in the Chamber, who have probably all had vociferous discussions like the ones I have had with developers about them doing their bit—but I am concerned about the pushback we might get in discussions on section 106 agreements. There are issues around viability, which I will not go into now, but I would not want to see developers telling their local councils and communities, “We can’t give you money for the new school or the doctor’s surgery because we’ve got to put solar panels on housing.” We need to give some thought to how that will work, because we all want the most community money possible for the roads, schools and GP surgeries that must come with new developments.

There will be some homes for which solar panels are not suitable. I am fully supportive of panels being installed on buildings that have an east-west facing roof, or on a block of flats. Where it is practical to do that, of course we should do it. As other Members have said, it is increasingly frustrating when we drive past a development to see a roof with only two solar panels on it, after the developers have gone through the whole cost of putting up the scaffolding and building the house. I suspect that is because of the issues around capacity, which we definitely need to look into, but come on. If they are already putting solar panels on half the roof, they should fill the whole roof with them, because that does not just help them; if they can sell the green electricity back to the grid, it helps everybody.

I have some reservations about where the money will come from. I would not want it to come from the resources that would have gone on schools, education and roads through section 106 agreements, so we need to look at that. We also need to look at distribution network operators and capacity, to make sure we can really harness the energy, but as this proposal is much better than having large-scale solar farms plastered all over our green belt and the countryside, I am minded to support the Bill’s Second Reading.

Absent Voting (Elections in Scotland and Wales) Bill

Scott Arthur Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 17th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Martin Rhodes]

I agree with my hon. Friend. An issue raised during the election was that the period for applying did not allow much time for many families to apply who had booked to go away at the beginning of the school holidays. The Bill would make online applications easier and speedier.

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

As ever, my hon. Friend speaks passionately about his constituency, but the Bill benefits us not just in the summertime. My constituency has a by-election for Colinton, Oxgangs and Fairmilehead next week on 23 January—I will not mention our candidate’s name, Madam Deputy Speaker—but it is wintertime; the days are short, and it is cold. A lot of people, particularly older people, would benefit from the ability to vote by post or proxy when the weather is so cold. Does he agree that people would also benefit from the measures in wintertime?

[Martin Rhodes]

I agree that there are benefits from the Bill in all seasons. I realise that I have now set Members the challenge of intervening to speak about spring and autumn. In winter, there are fewer daylight hours and it is colder, and people may not want to go out in the dark. The Bill would make it easier for them to access postal and proxy voting.

There was reference in an earlier intervention to those who are blind or partially sighted and use screen readers. Applying online is much easier for them; it lifts barriers to their involvement and engagement in the electoral process.

Those are just some of the groups who would benefit if we passed this legislation, modernised access to the electoral system for the devolved Parliaments, and provided the ability to introduce such measures for local government elections, too.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ruth Cadbury]

We were all aware and deeply conscious of how many Scottish voters were disadvantaged in the July 2024 election. As Scottish summer holidays start some weeks earlier than in England, many Scottish voters were disenfranchised. The Bill in itself will not change that, but like a broken record, I go back to the point that the easier we make applying for postal and proxy votes, the more people will do it, not when an election is imminent but at some point well before that. Then they will not be disenfranchised.

The Bill will make life a lot easier for electoral registration officers in Wales and Scotland, who have a terrible time dealing with two different sets of elections. Scottish and Welsh voters are able to apply for general election votes in the same way as English voters, but for some reason—I am happy to be corrected if I am wrong—a different application form is needed for the different levels of election, such as the Scottish Parliament election versus the UK general election.

[Dr Arthur]

It is more confusing than that. It is actually the same form with several different options, which explains the different scenarios. I recently applied for a postal vote, because there is a by-election in my constituency next week, and it is not a straightforward process. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is even more confusing than having two separate forms?

[Ruth Cadbury]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. It is not just confusing for the voter; it is more difficult for the already stressed-out EROs. They have a difficult enough job, they often do not have enough colleagues with them, and if they do not do their job absolutely perfectly, there is the potential for mistakes to be made, which becomes challengeable. I endorse the Bill, because apart from anything else I want to make sure that every voter in every area gets an equal chance to apply for and get a postal vote or a proxy vote.