Elections: First Past the Post

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Wednesday 24th June 2026 Westminster Hall

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

This is quite a serious point. There are people arguing for PR to be introduced before the next general election, for the reason the hon. Lady outlined, but she must accept, as a democrat, that we cannot change the electoral system because we are worried about a certain outcome. We have to look at the bigger picture, take our time and do it right.

[Dr Chowns]

All the arguments I have made in the last five minutes have been about the systemic, principled reasons for change; they are not views about one particular party. I will be absolutely clear that I hugely fear the prospect of a Reform Government, and I will do everything I can to stop that. It would be hugely dangerous for this country. But the argument for proportional representation is about the representation of everybody, including people with whose views I completely disagree. If they have a degree of support in the country, they should be represented in proportion to that. The point is that under a proportional system, those of us who want to work together for the common good of the country would be able to do so.

The principle of proportional representation is core to the Green party’s DNA. I have campaigned for it for many years, and I welcome the fact that so many in Labour and other parties campaign for it, too. But there are specific things that this Government can do right now. There is a cross-party call for a national commission on electoral reform, which the Government could take forward today. That would enable us to have a national conversation about how to make our democracy genuinely work for everybody, involving citizens’ voices and the voices of those with expertise, who can bring ideas from international counterparts.

We must have that conversation. We cannot stay asleep at the wheel, drifting into ever-more polarised politics, ever-less representation and ever-poorer electoral systems that do not serve the fundamental principle of democracy that we should all hold dear: every vote should count equally.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I apologise for giving you late notice of my intention to speak. I start by acknowledging that although I am not a fan of PR, it is right that all of us MPs do a great job representing every one of our constituents, whether they voted for us or not.

In Scotland, we have three elections over each five-year period. Two of them use PR and one, the general election, uses first past the post. I want to talk about the single transferable vote system that we use for local authority elections in Scotland, and my lived experience of it as a councillor. I was elected via the STV system back in 2017. I came second out of three councillors who were elected, and was elected thanks to transfers from Green voters. Even though some transfers also came from elsewhere, it was the Green voters who got me across the line, so I always felt an obligation to make sure that those few people were very well represented.

I worked alongside two Conservatives in the ward over that three-year period. The council had 63 councillors in total. An SNP-led administration was formed, supported by Labour in a coalition, but it tended to be Green votes that got things across the line, so those three parties tended to work together. I have to say that the Greens back then were a bit more sensible than they sometimes are today. I hope the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns) is not offended by that.

I must pay tribute to my ward colleague Jason Rust, who is still a councillor in the Colinton, Oxgangs and Fairmilehead ward. He has been there for a long time and he is a fantastic, hard-working councillor—despite being a Tory.

In 2022, I stood for re-election, and on that occasion I managed to come first under the STV system, which was a huge privilege and honour. The SNP managed to take one of the Conservative seats. The SNP candidates’ tricky strategy was that they went around looking for people who were voting for me and asked whether they would give them their second votes. I thought that was quite sneaky, but it got the party across the line. That is evidence that PR leads to a different way of campaigning, in that people look for alignment between parties during the election, not just afterwards.

The formation of the council was a bit trickier in 2022: 63 councillors were elected, and only 13 were Labour councillors. However, Labour managed to run the city, and is still running it, as a minority administration—if my memory serves me right, there are now 12 Labour councillors out of 63—largely because, given the tensions among the other parties, they find ways to support us from time to time. Again, that is a different kind of politics.

I convened the transport committee from ’22 up until I was unexpectedly elected as an MP. On my committee were two Labour, two Green, two Tory, two Lib Dem and three SNP councillors, all elected via the STV system. Each report we had to pass meant creating an individual coalition of votes. By and large, that meant that the other parties, if they were to support my proposals to the committee, wanted something added or taken away.

Reflecting on that after two years, I would say that every deal I did with the other parties made what we were proposing better. Ultimately, I was elected only by a minority of people, even in the STV system; the other councillors were elected by people as well, and it was important that their views were taken on board. The outcome was fairer, and it created a better kind of politics in the council. I am not saying that there were not disagreements—if I am honest, there was sometimes was quite bad behaviour from councillors—but PR works in Scotland.

The results in England show the brutal way in which first past the post treats council elections—it looked like cavemen trying to start politics up and get democracy working. Some of the results were anomalous, and we have to reflect on that.

PR for general elections would have to come via a manifesto commitment and a referendum—a manifesto commitment would not be enough. I support the call for a national commission, but I do not think there is any appetite among the public for another referendum on anything. The APPG for fair elections recently had a meeting with John Curtice. He said there was a consensus that the only way to move the UK to PR in a general election would be if a coalition was formed and one of the partners demanded PR in return for the stability of the coalition. Of course, we saw that in the past, in the alternative vote referendum, which I think it is fair to say was disastrous. We heard the other day that the Lib Dems held up the submarine-building programme. The failure to deliver PR back then is a real issue, and we should reflect on it.

Although there is a huge hurdle to installing PR for general elections, we could move much faster on council elections in England. We could consult and then deliver. I have two final points—

[Karl Turner (in the Chair)]

Order. Quickly, if you do not mind. We have an informal five-minute limit.

[Dr Arthur]

I apologise; I have not been looking at the clock.

First, we are the only country in Europe that uses first past the post, and we should reflect on why that is. Secondly, in Scotland we use the d’Hondt—or Jefferson—system for PR for the second votes. Nobody really understands how that works, and we have to be careful about that. We have to be able to communicate how the result has been reached. I apologise for overrunning, Mr Turner.

Legacy of Jo Cox

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Thursday 11th June 2026 Commons Chamber

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

It is an honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack) in this fantastic debate. It was great to hear the speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater). The words were fantastic, but the emotion and the pride in particular she has for her sister is amazing. Ten years on from what happened, which was so awful, it is remarkable to hear so much emotion in what many have been saying. I did not know Jo, but it is great to learn so much more about her—I have to say, the debate has been much better than reading the Wikipedia page last night.

All of us can remember the feeling of shock when it happened. I remember that Kezia Dugdale hastily organised a vigil in Edinburgh, in what has turned out to be my constituency, to which I took along my son and my daughter. Just a few weeks before, my daughter had voted in the Holyrood election, and I think she took the “more in common” message too far: at the vigil she told me that she had voted for the Conservative party in the election.

[Sir Andrew Mitchell]

Hear, hear!

[Dr Arthur]

She has learned since then, and of course she has a fantastic Labour candidate to vote for.

Ten years on, it feels like this is the ideal time to have this debate, because of where the country finds itself. I mean that both in a positive and hopeful way and in quite a depressing way. I find myself getting quite depressed by the situation the country finds itself in.

This debate is about Jo’s legacy, and in my office I am incredibly lucky to have a small part of Jo’s legacy in Evie, an intern who works for us one day per week. She is still a student, but she is also part of the Jo Cox Women in Leadership programme, which is fantastic. She is always telling us about the amazing women she meets on that programme, without realising that she is actually one of them. When she found out about the debate, she was keen to write my speech. This is her speech, though hon. Members will be glad to hear that I will not do a Yorkshire accent.

Today—almost 10 years on from the tragedy in which Jo’s life was senselessly taken—acts as a reminder of the continued fight we face against violence towards women and girls. The testimony of some women Members of the House reminds us of the responsibility we all have to tackle that vile hatred. I have been quite reflective about that as the debate has continued. Further, no man or woman in any public office should ever fear for their safety—and neither should their family—for speaking up for what they believe in.

We are gathered here today, however, to remember much more than that tragic day; we are here to remember the incredible legacy that Jo left behind. As an ardently committed MP, Jo brought an enthusiasm and commitment to public service that we should all aspire to. She was loved by her family, her constituents and all those who had the pleasure of meeting her during her time in Parliament. We have heard that amply: hon. Members’ moving words have been testament to that.

Beyond Jo’s exceptional campaigning inside and outside this place, her unwavering commitment to confronting those who seek to divide us defined so much of her leadership—she was a leader in this place. Whether through her advocacy on the Syrian conflict or her efforts to combat racial hatred, Jo was steadfast in amplifying the voices of those most in need of being heard and, above all, in leading with compassion. I do not really know what she would make of the rhetoric we hear sometimes in this place.

I am really grateful to the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell) for the points he made about overseas aid. When I was reading about Jo last night on Wikipedia, I drew the conclusion that she would be a little bit concerned about the cut. Because I did not know her, I did not want to put words in her mouth, but the right hon. Gentleman did know her, so I am really glad that he made that point.

I was visiting Bonaly primary school last week, and the young people there raised that cut with me. I am guilty of saying to them that I was not happy with it, but there has not been too much of a pushback against it in this place. However, in reflecting on that today, I think that is perhaps because I have not been pushing back enough on it. There is a lesson there.

Both internationally, through her work with Oxfam and Amnesty International, and in Parliament, where she helped to establish the friends of Syria APPG, Jo made a profound impact that continues to resonate today. It is deeply moving that her values of co-operation, justice and humanitarianism live on through the Jo Cox Foundation, which we have heard about. Its vital work carries forward Jo’s vision of a fairer and more united world—one in which there is no place for hatred.

The Jo Cox Women in Leadership programme empowers the next generation of women leaders across the Labour movement, ensuring that Jo’s astounding commitment to public service continues to shape the future of the party. I started off by talking about Evie, who is a real leader in her office. She is a very modest person, but she has shown leadership outside the office, such as in the students’ union at Edinburgh University. She has also just been elected as the vice-chair of Scottish Labour Students, which is fantastic.

Eleven years ago, Jo said in this Chamber that we have

“far more in common than that which divides us.”—[Official Report, 3 June 2015; Vol. 596, c. 675.]

Those words are more important than ever, and we must hold Jo’s message close to our hearts. It is fitting that we hold this debate in her honour, but the greatest tribute we can pay is to continue to stand against the hatred and division that tragically took her life. In doing so, we keep faith with Jo’s belief in a kinder and more united society.

One of the most powerful elements of this debate is the fact that we are all so concerned about the tensions, if I can put it that way, in communities right across the UK. We are all united in trying to tackle them. On that positive and hopeful note, I will finish.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 21st April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

We have a policy that wherever there are new powers—whether they are conferred to local authorities or combined authorities—the new burdens principle is in place. In designing this policy, we will work really closely with local authorities to ensure that we are doing enforcement in a way that bites for our communities in the way that they want to see.

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

Any progress on banning pavement parking is progress, so I absolutely welcome that. Will guidance be given to local authorities on how that could work? We have a ban in Edinburgh, which has been transformative, so hopefully we can look there for examples of how it could work. The Minister mentioned exemptions. Will the Government mandate any exemptions centrally, or is it entirely up to local authorities to make that decision?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

We will be learning insights from Edinburgh and the other places that have applied the provision, and we will be providing further details and guidance on how it could work. In doing that, we will try to strike a balance between setting out an overall framework that enables places to put this in place and allowing places to use their discretion and local knowledge to make sure it works in their interests.

Social Cohesion Action Plan

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call Steve Witherden—[Interruption.] I mean Dr Scott Arthur.

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

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I think we are easily confused.

Yesterday I attended Open Heavens church in Wester Hailes, and a man told me how he had faced open racism from his colleagues and had been forced to resign, take his employer to court, and win his tribunal—a fantastic achievement. It was a shameful episode, but what made it worse was that he was an NHS consultant, and it was the NHS that he took to court. The point he made to me on the floor of the church was that too often society views hate as a series of events, rather than a culture. Will the Secretary of State confirm that what he has presented today will result in a change of culture, rather than simply addressing events? How will we measure that as we proceed through the remainder of this Parliament?

[Steve Reed]

We will measure the outcome of the report through new measures as part of the social cohesion framework that is described in more detail in the action plan, and we will be engaging directly with major employers, including the national health service, to ensure that they are taking every possible action to eliminate discrimination in the workplace, whichever groups might be targeted.

Holocaust Memorial Bill

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 20th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

There is universal recognition of the gravity of the Holocaust. It is widely and wisely regarded as the greatest crime in human history, which is precisely why this memorial should proceed only on the basis of broad consensus. No one wishes to create division around Holocaust commemoration, yet there is demonstrably no consensus in the Jewish and local community about the learning centre, or how it should be used. That was evidenced by the 2018 letter in The Times, signed by eight Jewish peers, expressing deep reservations about the current proposal.

The decision to site the memorial in Victoria Tower Gardens was made with good intentions—the proximity to Parliament was in recognition of the importance of the Holocaust—but it was taken without prior consultation or proper investigation, and it was opposed by the local council. Subsequent scrutiny has revealed serious flaws in the choice of site, and we cannot have a discussion of what the learning centre will be used for without understanding that. I have taken part in several debates on the subject, including the previous one, in which Sir Peter Bottomley, the former Father of the House, spoke. That was on the day the general election was called. No satisfactory answers have ever been given.

The plans are for a substantial underground structure on ancient marshland beside the Thames. The water table is known to rise sharply after heavy rainfall. Significant flooding occurred on the site within recent memory. Do we want to have to wet vac our Holocaust memorial every few years? We have had no answers on that point. Victoria Tower Gardens is a public park, protected by statute. It is maintained by the Royal Parks, which has never supported a memorial on the site. The chairman of the Royal Parks warned that it risked damaging one of the area’s few open green spaces and set a dangerous precedent. Statutory protections dating back to a 1900 Act of Parliament are being undermined with little debate.

The park can realistically accommodate only a modest memorial without destroying its character. The current design would fundamentally alter the park. There would be an 80-metre ramp and a wide moat dividing the space, and large areas of grass would be replaced with paving. Rightly, the intention is for large numbers of visitors, particularly schoolchildren, to attend the national Holocaust memorial. No credible plans exist to manage coach traffic, drop-off points or parking, so the pressures on Millbank would be compounded. Local opposition is well documented, including from the Thorney Island Society. For residents and regular users, the park would largely cease to function as a neighbourhood green space; ordinary activities would become inappropriate in such a situation. Victoria Tower Gardens may also be needed to support the ongoing restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster. Reducing flexibility now risks increasing costs and constraining future options.

Let us talk about the purpose of this memorial. I have been to Holocaust memorials. The most impactful Holocaust memorial internationally is the Washington model, which I visited. That Holocaust Memorial Museum is immensely successful, because it prioritises education through a dedicated museum that confronts the scale and the reality of the crimes. The most meaningful memorial we can offer is sustained education, to ensure that young people understand the Holocaust fully, and that its memory is never diminished. Had the learning centre been established years ago at the Imperial War Museum, as we have constantly suggested, and as the Imperial War Museum wants, hundreds of thousands of visitors could already have benefited from it, and there would have been no delay.

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

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I will finish, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind.

The House of Lords has wisely passed an amendment clarifying that

“The sole purpose of any Learning Centre must be the provision of education about the Holocaust and antisemitism.”

It is a mystery to me why the Government oppose that, and why they have imposed strict time limits on debate. This much-desired memorial should be the result of clear consensus, not imposed in a way that stifles discussion. I am suspicious of why the Government are opposing this wise amendment from the House of Lords.

One of the reasons why an underground learning centre is inappropriate is that it is not a proper museum. I have been to the memorials in Israel and in Washington. They are huge structures, where people are taken through the whole process. We cannot understand the Holocaust unless we understand its beginnings, and how people came to be filled with such horrible hatred. This is basically just a bunker. It is totally inappropriate. It is also a security risk: there will have to be armed guards and railings. Just imagine the terrible nature of any appalling atrocity, perhaps a terrorist atrocity, that might be committed there. It is simply an inappropriate location. I do not know, but I suspect that the reason why the Government are resisting the amendment is that they are worried that this bunker—this totally inappropriate underground structure, which is not a proper museum—might become a target.

[Dr Arthur]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way, on that point?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

All right, I will.

[Dr Arthur]

It is not that the Government are not giving way. The Government are showing leadership by negotiating with other parties to find consensus in this Chamber, and that is something we should celebrate. I am ashamed that, 81 years after the end of the second world war, we still do not have a national memorial. The Father of the House is talking about more debate, more time-wasting, and more Holocaust survivors dying before we even start work. Does he not recognise the need for this memorial? It makes absolute sense to place it next to the home of democracy in the UK, to celebrate what we did well during the war in terms of protecting the Jews, but also to mark what we got wrong.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

The point is that we—it is not just me, by the way, but a large part of the Jewish community—want a proper museum of the type that exists in Washington, and this, I am afraid, is not a proper museum. It is a small underground structure in an inappropriate place, difficult to secure. If this Government and the previous Government had proceeded with consensus, and had wanted to build an aesthetic memorial that paid proper tribute to the people who died, this could all have been passed years ago. The whole debate has been about the underground learning centre, not the memorial. Everyone accepts that there should be a memorial. Everyone wants a proper museum, but this is not a proper museum, and I am curious about why the Government are resisting the perfectly sensible amendment from the House of Lords. There is a real danger that in order to allay security concerns, the whole purpose of this learning centre may drift from the Holocaust, which would be extremely regrettable. I am sorry if I have irritated the hon. Gentleman, but this is a debate, and we are all entitled to express a point of view.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

I rise briefly because I agree with both the tenor of the debate and the tone in which colleagues across the House have quite rightly highlighted the sheer horror of the Holocaust, the importance of remembering its sheer scale and the challenges particularly, as the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) highlighted, in the context of rising antisemitism, and as the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) mentioned, in having fewer survivors with lived experience here to share their stories.

I want to address two points raised by the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). First, he raised a point that I surmise was on security, and I say to him that I simply do not know where the best site would be from a security perspective. It may be that somewhere between Parliament, which is obviously heavily secured, and MI5 would be an appropriate location for a site that will always carry security risks. It may be that other sites are better, and I defer to those with far more expertise than me.

I note that the current Father of the House—like the previous Father of the House— has spoken about his concerns with the design of the memorial, which I think reflects the fact that he is a former Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, but I always have a slight concern. We obviously all agree on the principle, because it is important, and as the Member for Chelmsford said, after 11 years there is a need to make progress. I am not calling for delay—I certainly am not—because this is important, and we need to get on with it and to deliver it. However, it is fair to say that when the House is agreed on an issue, there is a danger that that issue is not sufficiently scrutinised.

As I have said, the current Father of the House, like the previous Father of the House, has raised concerns. He speaks as a former Chair of the PAC; I currently chair the Finance Committee. The Finance Committee is not responsible for restoration and renewal—the House will come on to debate that—but I have already seen very serious concerns emerging around the challenges of the programme. You, Madam Deputy Speaker, have huge experience of the programme. Indeed, the programme has been repeatedly delayed and seen significant cost overruns. The design before us includes a significant proportion of construction underground in a very constrained site. I think the Minister opened the debate extremely well and I agreed with much of what she said, but it seemed to me that she is giving the trustees quite a lot of discretion, so I simply want to say how important it is, on this programme, that there is very real transparency about some of the challenges that I fear will emerge with the design, the construction, the risk of cost overruns, the constraints and the compromises.

Can I bring that alive with one example? This site was constrained, and Parliament, as is its right, chose to vote to remove that constraint. On the R and R programme, I am told that the children’s education centre has to move because of an identical constraint. I suspect that the interaction of this programme with the R and R programme will come before the House in due course and raise some challenges. Indeed, the House has not even decided about such matters as what will happen to the education centre under the R and R programme.

The importance of remembering the unbelievable horror of the Holocaust cannot be overstated—

[Dr Arthur]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

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.