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.