‘Vast Majority' of new homes will have solar panels, says Miliband
It comes a month after Downing Street confirmed the panels should be installed on as many new properties as possible amid speculation that ministers will make them a mandatory requirement on new builds by 2027.
Speaking to the BBC, Mr Miliband described the proposed policy as 'just common sense' and said the panels should be 'almost universal' on English homes.
Changes to regulations will be laid out in the Future Homes Standard, due to be published later this year.
The previous Conservative Government considered a proposal that would have mandated rooftop solar panels to cover 40% of a building's ground area or equivalent.
'The problem about the previous system was that it said you would had to have a certain percentage of coverage of solar panels, but if you couldn't achieve that percentage, you didn't have to do anything at all,' Mr Miliband said.
'Under our plans, we are not going to say that. We are going to say even if you can't hit 40% you will still have to have some solar panels, except in rare, exceptional cases.'
He added that the number of homes fitted with solar panels needed to be 'much higher'.
The policy is estimated to add between £3,000 and £4,000 to the cost of construction, but to then save owners more than £1,000 on their annual energy bills, according to the Times, which first reported the change.
Asked in May whether housebuilders would be legally required to fit the panels, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer's official spokesman said: 'Of course we want to see solar panels on as many new homes as possible.
'The Future Homes Standard, which will be published in the coming months, will include measures to drive this, we're working on the detail of that and will provide an update on that in due course.
'But it's good news for householders who want lower energy bills.'
Under the Government's new proposals, 80% of new builds would reportedly be required to have solar panels covering 40% of their ground area, while 19% would have slightly fewer because of exemptions, including roof pitch and overshading.
Ministers last year rejected a private members' Bill aiming to force housebuilders to install solar panels on the roof of every new home, saying the proposals would potentially slow down construction and add to building costs.Labour's manifesto included a pledge to build 1.5 million new homes over the course of the Parliament.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
Britain is Scottish: a truth from history that's still true today
A couple of examples. James Boswell's diaries for Sunday 21 November 1762 describe his meeting with a fellow Scot Walter Macfarlane who was 'keenly interested in the reigning contests between Scots & English'. Boswell says this of Macfarlane: 'He talked much against the Union. He said we were perfect underlings, that our riches were carried out of the country and that many others were hurt by it.' Switch the date from 1762 to 2025 and some of the language but not much of it, and this is very familiar stuff. Another example. There's been a bit of a fad of late for books about James VI, focusing mostly on what his sexuality might have been, but I quite enjoyed The Wisest Fool by Steven Veerapen and, as with Boswell, there are striking familiarities with now. In the bookstalls of London and Edinburgh in the early years of James's reign, there were pamphlets explaining why unionism was a wonderful idea and pamphlets explaining why unionism was a terrible idea. There were also Brexit-style arguments over what kind of union Scotland and England should have; was the best idea some kind of loose federation or should the countries go for a much closer, Wales-style deal instead? So ancient, so modern. On top of all that, there's now a new piece of work that suggests a more surprising historic take on the relationship between Scotland and Britain. It's by the Glasgow University Professor Dauvit Broun and it concludes that medieval Scottish historians and scholars regarded the Scottish kingdom as equivalent to Britain; Britain as fundamentally Scottish in fact. 'Scotland as Britain can be detected quite clearly in histories of the Scottish kingdom written in Latin and read by Scots between the 1380s and 1520s,' says the professor. Professor Broun says this idea of Britain as fundamentally Scottish will be provocative in today's polarised debates about national identity and I can see what he means. There are some Scots today who think one of the big problems in the debate about national identity is that there are English people who project their sense of nationhood on to Scotland, do not appear to respect the separate Scottish identity, or actually conflate England and Britain. I don't think this happens as much as we think, but when it does, it's irritating. Read more However, what makes the idea of the English projecting their sense of nationhood onto Scotland more interesting is Professor Broun's idea that it's happened the other way around as well and there are Scots who conflated Britain and Scotland. The professor quotes John Mair, sometimes called the father of Scottish unionism, and says Mair's vision was essentially of a Scottish kingdom expanded to include England. Mair assumed a Scottish king would come to rule Britain which is indeed what happened in the end. As we know, the king that did it, James VI and I, was certainly of the Better Together persuasion; 'this kingdom was divided into seven little kingdoms,' he said in an address to parliament, 'Is it not the stronger by their union?' But a Scottish king projecting his sense of self, and nation, and union, onto England wasn't the beginning or the end of it. Indeed, the extent of the Scottish projection or influence on England and the UK makes me wonder how surprising and provocative the idea of Britain as Scottish really is. It seems to me that it still underlines the way the United Kingdom works. Britain was Scottish and still is. Obviously, England remains the dominant partner constitutionally and politically, but even politically Britain has often been Scottish. One of the history books I've opened recently is The Wild Men by my former colleague David Torrance, which relates how Scottish the first Labour government was, but it's continued ever since with Scots often at the top of British government, and not always when it's Labour in power. The history books also tell us it was bigger than that: much of the British Empire is covered with Scottish fingerprints so not only is Britain Scottish, the British Empire is Scottish too. James VI and I (Image: Free) The signs of Scotland as Britain are more permanent as well; they're built in stone. I did a walk round Glasgow recently with Colin Drysdale, the author of Glasgow Uncovered, a book on the city's architecture, and many of the architects we talked about went way beyond Scotland and had a massive influence on England and Britain too. John James Burnet, for example, designed Glasgow's Charing Cross Mansions and lots of other fine buildings in the city. But he also worked on British icons like Selfridges and the British Museum. Visit London and look at the buildings and a lot of what you're looking at is Scottish. The projection of Scotland onto Britain is everywhere else as well, once you start to look for it. Business and trade (the vast majority of our exports are to England). Population: there are more Scots living in England than there are in any single Scottish city. And music, culture, the arts, food, drink, technology. And Lulu of course. All of it, as well as our influence on politics and government – and a Royal family that's arguably more Scottish than English – says to me that the idea of Britain as Scotland is not surprising at all. Professor Broun says it raises fundamental questions about the nature of British identity, so let me suggest an answer. The concept of Britain as Scottish isn't a distant idea in the minds of medieval scholars. It still exists, it's still real, and it's still proving how interconnected we are. And of course, it raises the eternal question, the one that bugged us then and bugs us now: how much would it cost to unravel it all?
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
So now you know, SNP: indy is not what people care about
There may have been little talk of independence in the campaign but Katy Loudon, the SNP candidate, put out a Facebook video on the morning of the by-election which made clear it's all about separating us from the rest of the UK. The unionist parties' share of the vote at the by-election was just short of 66%. If that doesn't send a clear message to the SNP and the Greens that independence is not what is important at the moment, I don't know what will. Maybe if the SNP improved our NHS, our education system, housing, our infrastructure, managed to build ferries and dual our roads on time and improve our economy, it might get more support. That would be novel, would it not? Jane Lax, Aberlour. Nothing short of humiliation It wasn't only the kitchen sink that the SNP flung at the Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by-election. It threw the washing machine, tumble drier and dishwasher as well. Anyone who saw on social media the gangs of SNP enthusiasts roaming the constituency, saturating it with MSPs including ministers, as well as foot soldiers, with a massive intensity, for weeks and especially in the last two weeks, must have imagined that it was a seat they could not lose. I wondered, in the last days, whether the SNP was not engaging in overkill, that the good folk of the constituency might be saturated with SNP propaganda to the point of apathy. The turnout, at 44 per cent, suggested that as a partial possibility. In this by-election, it was possible to utilise all the party's resources, and it did. That would not be remotely a possibility in any one constituency in a General Election. The result was nothing short of humiliation for the SNP. It is also a personal humiliation for John Swinney, who spent much time in the last week campaigning in the constituency rather than attending to First Minister's business. Nothing much will change at Holyrood, of course, but Mr Swinney's insistence that Scotland does not welcome Reform UK looks a bit hollow after it scooped up 26 per cent of the vote. Perhaps we can have a break from his preaching about Scotland being allegedly more moral than England. Ah well, one can but hope. Jill Stephenson, Edinburgh. Read more letters For many, politics is not working It is alarming that, in Thursday's by-election, Reform UK came third with 7,088 votes, a mere 1,471 behind Labour. The victorious Labour candidate, Davy Russell, is quoted as saying that 'this community has [also] sent a message to Farage and his mob tonight. The poison of Reform isn't us – it isn't Scotland and we don't want your division here.' I suspect Mr Russell was speaking from within the excitement of winning and did not realise the significance of Reform UK winning so many votes. The party of Nigel Farage, that enthusiastic Trump supporter, was understood to hold little attraction for the Scottish voter compared with his standing with the English electorate. The Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse voters have demonstrated otherwise. The UK political establishment, Labour in particular, has one important lesson to learn, that being that politics in our country is not working for a significant element of our population. The vote for a disastrous Brexit was the first warning sign of a significant discontent with the inequalities and injustices in our society and economy. Uncontrolled neoliberalism has done untold damage to our social contract with our politicians accepting unquestionably the words of Mrs Thatcher, 'there is no alternative'. John Milne, Uddingston. Reform will be a Holyrood force The most interesting thing about the Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by-election for Holyrood is not who won, Labour, nor the fact that the voting was a three-way split between it, the SNP and Reform UK, but where Reform's votes came from. Compared to its vote share in the constituency in the last Holyrood election four years ago, the SNP vote dropped by almost 17% of the votes cast and the Tory vote by 11.5%. Labour's vote share actually went down by 2% as well. This means that Reform UK's 26% of the vote came more from parties of the left than the Tories. Clearly Reform is not just a threat to the Conservatives. In the climate of dissatisfaction with the established parties, Reform is on track to be a force at Holyrood next year. Otto Inglis, Crossgates, Fife. • After all the ballyhoo, the result is in and the real winner is Reform UK. John Swinney talked Reform up too effectively. Labour's candidate was nearly invisible. The result speaks volumes. The SNP lost. Labour just limped home despite being helped a huge amount by the SNP's travails. Reform UK came from a near-zero base to gain over 7,000 votes and run both other parties close. This by-election was a real test of public opinion for the shape of Holyrood in 2026. Reform could still founder given frequent party in-fighting. Equally the Tories could re-assert their desired position as defenders of the Union. John Swinney has made another major SNP blunder and released the genie from the bottle. Is he going to be the architect of the SNP's downfall? Dr Gerald Edwards, Glasgow. Labour far from home and hosed While Labour's victory in the Hamilton by-election seemingly points to the party winning the Scottish Parliament elections next year, if I were Anas Sarwar, I wouldn't be sizing up the curtains of Bute House just yet. The seat was won comfortably by the SNP in the last Scottish Parliament election in 2021 and is just the sort of seat that Labour needs to win if Anas Sarwar is to become Scotland's next First Minister. The SNP has made little progress in restoring its fortunes following its heavy defeat in last summer's Westminster election, with polls suggesting that the party's support across Scotland is still 15 points down on its tally in 2021. In the event, the fall in the party's support in Hamilton was, at 17 points, just a little higher than that. However, Labour's own tally was also down by two points on its vote in 2021, when overall the party came a disappointing third. That drop was very much in line with recent polling, which puts the party at just 19 per cent across Scotland as a whole, while the SNP has around a third of the vote. In addition, Labour is losing somewhere between one in six and one in five of its voters to Reform since last year's election. After nearly two decades in the political wilderness, there is little sign that Labour, as it currently stands, is set to regain the reins of power at Holyrood. Alex Orr, Edinburgh. Now flesh out the policies All the pundits initially claimed the Hamilton by-election would go to Labour, given local circumstances. Now a Labour win is described as a 'shock' after even some in Labour were describing their own candidate as not up to the job. But Labour needs to up its game for the next election. Criticism is easy, but Labour needs more fleshed-out policies for government, beyond centralising health in Scotland. The SNP needs to drop all the 'student politics' stuff; it was embarrassing to see a squabble over £2 million when it should be asking why Scotland does so poorly on defence procurement and jobs. Formulate a proper industrial policy for Scotland, and back any project that would enhance jobs and prosperity for Scotland. Refuse nothing and put the onus on unionists to explain their plans in detail. Trident: are the unionist plans for keeping Trident in Scotland similar to those for Diego Garcia? Nuclear power: why do they think Scotland should have it, given its high-cost electricity and the extensive lags on construction? What of waste disposal and site security? The SNP should be in favour of local pricing for electricity as a draw to attract jobs, and for North Sea oil/gas production (until Scots are empowered to decide its future). A Labour/SNP coalition? It looks like the only feasible outcome. GR Weir, Ochiltree. • For all the fuss about the Hamilton by-election, it should be noted that almost 56% of the electorate really don't care who represents them in the Scottish Parliament. Malcolm Parkin, Kinross. Russia claim is baseless Brian Wilson ("Yes, we should stand firm over Putin, but let's not make Russia our implacable foe", The Herald, June 5) tells us today that the rights of the former Soviet republics to seek security (membership of Nato) should have been balanced against Russian fears of encirclement. This raises two issues. Firstly, the Soviet Union consisted of 15 republics: the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (Russia itself) and 14 others. Of these, only three (the Baltic states,which were independent between the wars) have joined Nato. I am unclear as to how this constitutes encirclement. Does Mr Wilson envisage the Central Asian former republics (Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan etc) expressing a wish to join the alliance at some point, thus making encirclement a reality rather than a baseless claim? Secondly, does Mr Wilson not wonder why these small countries wished to be under the umbrella of the Nato alliance? To avoid the current fate of Ukraine perhaps? Alan Jenkins, Glasgow. • Brian Wilson expresses the hope that we should not categorise the Russian people as being inevitably in the enemy camp. He concluded his article by observing that narratives about Russia should have "due regard to past history and also future potential for peaceful co-existence". Such narratives should certainly not fail to take account of the contribution made by Russian armed forces and the civilian population during the Second World War, which is estimated to have resulted in some 25 million Soviet deaths. It is clear that the Russian effort during that war was profoundly influential in assisting toward the eventual defeat of Germany. The Russian people at the time called upon impressive levels of love of country and perseverance in the fight toward victory over a formidable enemy. Once we were allies. While Russia remains in the firm grip of the dictatorial, ambitious and ruthless Vladimir Putin, it is difficult to see to what extent meaningful steps can be taken to pursue the "potential for peaceful co-existence". Ian W Thomson, Lenzie. A Pride rally in Glasgow (Image: PA) Pride needed now as much as ever Gregor McKenzie (Letters, June 6) suggests that LGBT Pride has had its day. In fact, since the end of the pandemic restrictions, more people have been going to more Pride events across Scotland than ever before. Why? I think it's in part because people see how, after several positive changes in the law for LGBT people in the past 25 years, things are now starting to get worse again. Mr McKenzie asks why we can't all just let people be, and I wish we could. But the increased restrictions being introduced on trans people in the UK are quite the opposite of that. Trans people just want to get on with their lives, but the new rules make that much more difficult. And trans people are constantly maligned currently by some parts of the media. So Pride events are needed as much now as ever. They are a celebration of how far we have come in the 30 years since the first Pride Scotland, and they are a protest against the regression we're seeing now. One day perhaps Pride will be solely a celebration, but that day still seems some way off. Meanwhile people join together in the streets to say "Not going back". Tim Hopkins, Edinburgh.
Scotsman
2 hours ago
- Scotsman
The 6-point plan Scottish Labour must seize on to ram home the advantage against 'confused' SNP
Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... Against, the odds, depressing poll numbers and barely believable claims of Nigel Farage's invincibility, this was a significant victory for Labour and a boost for the leadership of Anas Sarwar. The phrase often attributed to Mark Twain seems appropriate - 'reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated'. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Anas Sarwar, leader of the Scottish Labour party, celebrates with deputy leader Jackie Baillie. | Lisa Ferguson This by-election is also a timely reminder that after 18 years in government, the SNP look weary, divided and lacking momentum. The reality for most Scots is a governing party that has become less concerned with fighting Westminster, but is still not tackling with conviction the many policy areas impacting the everyday lives of the electors. Farage and Reform remain a threat. They are eating into the Scottish Tory vote and act primarily as a party of protest with a populist, ultranationalist (English) and isolationist agenda. The achievement to date, in the form of Ukip, was Brexit, an act of national insanity, more recently their barely concealed racist attack on the Scottish Labour Leader on social media and yesterday the offer of a referendum to ban the burka. The Reform party has no pedigree, or political creed, or positive policies and is Trumpian in it's behaviour and political outlook. Its appeal reflects protest, opportunism, cheap patriotism and a claim to be on the side of working people and a dislike of elites. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad This is a poisonous fraud, a vulture party exposing predatory behaviour, and an amateur version of populist parties elsewhere in Europe. But because they represent the 'anti-politics' lurking in the minds of many in the UK, they are dangerous, especially under the first-past-the-post electoral system. Their sickening addiction to barely concealed racism, hatred of immigrants and contempt for the European Union are unfortunately helping to divide and possibly destroy a once respected Conservative Party. For the SNP, the picture is more confused. Scotland is stalled as a nation. Scotland is bitterly divided on its constitutional future, where many Scots see campaigning on Independence as a major distraction from the effective governance of the nation. John Swinney in Hamilton ahead of the Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by-election (Photo by Jeff) | Getty Images For the SNP, the drive to independence has lost momentum. This has led to much soul searching over the party's immediate tactics and to what extent there should be a more enthusiastic push towards their primary purpose as a party. It is a curious irony of politics that Scottish Labour now faces two nationalist parties that represent protest as a political weapon against the UK government. This provides an opportunity for Scottish Labour to project a more unified approach to our politics and hammer home the point that, as happened between 1999 and 2007, that rebuilding a critical harmony between Holyrood and Westminster and building on devolution is long overdue. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad This is 'Unfinished Business', representing a journey, not a destination - opening up a new era of devolved government that makes more of Scotland's potential and places our priorities much higher up the Westminster agenda and the public agenda. This, of course, requires the UK government to waken up to the wisdom of four-nation governance and make much more significant concessions, opening up the possibility of a more Federated form of Union in the future as even England opens up to the benefits of decentralisation, which may then evolve into something more significant. This would help allay the fears of many Labour politicians and supporters that being more Scottish would be equated with support for independence. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The remark from President Roosevelt seems appropriate. 'The only thing we have to fear is fear itself,' he said. But for all the new opportunities facing Labour in Scotland, the fact the SNP has been in government for 18 years is hugely significant. Being in government is hard work and the pressures and never-ending challenges of office can be draining. But for the SNP, the constant turmoil of competing priorities is clearly taking its toll. Despite John Swinney steadying the ship after the Sturgeon era, the conflict between governing and campaigning is taking its toll as are the divisions within the SNP about priorities. This affords Labour the opportunity to become once again the party of choice for an ambitious Scotland. For the labour Party in Scotland, there is, of course, more work to be done after a period of stress in the first year of the new Labour government at Westminster. Policy missteps, the impression that Scotland was slipping down the Westminster agenda, and proposed changes in welfare and cuts in benefits have concerned traditional Labour voters and supporters, and Mr Sarwar. These darker days are easing and a more progressive agenda looks likely. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Scottish Labour Deputy leader Jackie Ballie, Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar and Davy Russell, newly elected Scottish Labour MSP for Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse yesterday (Picture: Jeff) First Scottish Labour should continue to value distinctive Scottish perspectives on UK issues and be confident in emphasising differences with Westminster, when appropriate. Second, the Labour Leader should follow the example of the Welsh Senedd Leader who does contest unpopular Westminster policies publicly in her role of defending Wales. Third, Labour should intensify their assault on SNP policy failures in areas such as, education, health, prisons, industrial strategy and poverty - the peoples agenda. Fourth, there is a pressing need to break the tribalism in the Scottish Parliament and accept that 'coalitions of the willing' could achieve more consensus as happened with a real coalition in the period 1999 to 2007. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Five, assert a greater degree of willingness for dialogue and action with the other nations and the UK where issues and differences are resolved between governments, not in the Supreme Court. Warfare provides good copy but poor policy. Six, there is a need for the Parliament to be freed from the tyranny of the Scottish Government who are suffocating innovation. The boundaries have become blurred. The legislature should represent all parties. As 2026 approaches, Labour can offer a new deal for Scots and realise the potential of a remarkable idea, devolution, which is still in its infancy. Sir Keir Starmer must work to better understand that devolution can't stand still and accept that further change is essential not just because it makes sense, but because it is the only way for Scotland to be content within a changing Union and knowing there are attractive alternatives to independence. Scotland is a remarkable nation; it is also unfinished business. The next phase of devolution is long overdue and is required to set out a vision for the next quarter of a century. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad More Britishness will not answer the 'Scottish Question', but Gordon Brown's idea of a 'Union of the Nations' could work if Westminster accepted the fact the debate about Scotland has a long way to go. This article started with my description of Labour's victory in Hamilton being significant, but it is more than that. Spectacular would be more appropriate in relation to the victory in difficult circumstances, but mainly because of the potential it provides for Scottish Labour to once again be at the heart of how Scotland is governed. Sarwar's rallying call should be, 'the chance to serve our country – that is all we ask', which were the late John Smith's last words.
