John Grady MP: speeches

Speeches

• 24 Apr 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Until the general election I, too, was a solicitor and I had a practice for many years in the energy sector.

• 24 Apr 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I want to ask about coastal Scotland, and I declare an interest: my granddad and several of my cousins were trawlermen in Scotland. Offshore wind represents a big opportunity in Scotland for coastal communities and harbours, which have suffered economic decline over the years. Have I got that right? Beatrice Filkin: Are you asking whether it provides an opportunity to local communities?

• 24 Apr 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Charlotte, some of the projects you are doing rely on Scottish infrastructure. Is it the same in England: more jobs, more activity? Charlotte Mitchell: Yes, more jobs and more activity. Picking up on the point about consenting, we have similar yet different challenges in England and Wales. As you note, the Bill looks to streamline the NSIP regime. That is incredibly important for us at National Grid. We are very supportive of the measures in the Bill, and there are three in particular that I would like to namecheck as helping us to accelerate the projects that we need to move that power around, as we have been discussing. The first one is the commitment to refresh the national policy statements every five years, or more frequently. We really welcome that, because it is incredibly important that we have policy stability for our projects. I would just caution that we do not update them so frequently that the policy landscape moves, but five years feels like the right cadence for refreshing those. Another measure in the Bill that will help is the ability to opt out of the NSIP regime, where that is more appropriate for particular projects. At National Grid, for example, sometimes when we are upgrading a substation we need to move some overhead lines around. You can trip that threshold and end up in the NSIP regime, where really that does not feel like the spirit of the regime—that is not what it was set up to do. The ability to write to the Secretary of State and explain why it is not the most appropriate regime is really helpful for us, and we really welcome that measure. The third one was spoken about by the previous panel: yesterday’s announcement of looking again at the consultation requirements and moving to a non-statutory footing for consultation on NSIP projects. Again, that will help us to engage in a more targeted, effective and proportionate way, so that we can bring projects forward while continuing to engage communities. That will help us to ensure that we have the right projects in the right places.

• 24 Apr 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I have a question for Christianna, Beatrice and Charlotte. To bring this to life, I am a Scottish MP, so if I am building a set of offshore wind farms in the north of Scotland, I also need to build transmission infrastructure from Scotland down to England. The holdouts of this involve connection queues, planning delays in Scotland and planning delays in England. The Bill, with the reforms in England and Scotland, seeks to reduce those delays. I want to unpick what that means for my constituents in terms of jobs and investment. How much money will be invested in the grid in Scotland over the next five to 10 years, because this Bill helps speed that investment up? Christianna Logan: Our programme of projects to deliver for 2030 is a £22 billion investment. It is the biggest investment that we have seen in the north of Scotland probably since the second world war, so it is really significantyou’re your constituents. Our colleagues in ScottishPower have their investments in your area as well. Alongside that, there is a significant number of jobs—we expect around 6,000 jobs enabled through our investments in Scotland specifically. Just this year, we will be recruiting another 600 people into SSEN transmission to help with this transformation of our grid network. All of that, as you say, is dependent on us getting consent to progress all these projects and the necessary regulatory approvals for the investments. We have been working very closely with Government and Ofgem on the reforms, and we believe that the proposals put forward in the Bill will take us forward in that regard. As I said earlier, the secondary legislation and the work with the Scottish Government will be critical to capturing those benefits.

• 24 Apr 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q So this Bill, which speeds up planning and consent for transmission and generation infrastructure, is really important for Scotland’s coastal communities. That must follow, mustn’t it? Beatrice Filkin: Yes. Christianna Logan: Investment in things like ports infrastructure comes directly as a result of the investment in these projects, and that investment is not secured until we achieve consents, whether that is networks or offshore wind as our customer. So absolutely there is a benefit. There is also the community benefit that will come as a result of these projects. Beatrice Filkin: There are also the wider supply chain opportunities. Obviously, we want to see the international and UK supply chain relocating here and providing degrees of the supply chain directly for these projects from our home communities.

• 24 Apr 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I have a quick final question. We need huge investment in infrastructure in the United Kingdom. The capital for that is international, so we need to attract international investors to fund this investment. In your professional view, does the Bill make us more attractive or less attractive to international investors? Catherine Howard: It definitely makes us more attractive to international investors on the nationally significant infrastructure side. I also like the fact that we can now opt out of the DCO regime for nationally significant infrastructure projects, because sometimes it is lighter touch and more helpful to go local. That is helpful as well. As I say, the pre-app stuff is incredibly helpful, and the national policy stuff. The EDP stuff is helpful, and the nature recovery matters in relation to housing. I will flag, however, that I will be making a submission about how I think the Bill could go a bit further on habitats regulation matters with regard to nationally significant infrastructure, because the nature recovery plans are slightly harder to apply—

• 24 Apr 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q It is great to have three very experienced councillors before the Committee. We have heard evidence today, including from two former special advisers to No. 10 under the last Government, that the Bill will help with energy security and energy costs, driving forward housing and getting jobs and significant investment. To channel your discussion about the beam in the person’s house, Councillor Clewer, a significant amount of frustration was evinced about where we are with things in planning more generally. Could each of you identify what you see as positive in the Bill? Councillor Clewer: I agree that there are areas at the moment where planning simply delays or blocks infrastructure provision. That needs changing; I absolutely agree with that. I suspect people will judge the extent to which it needs changing based on where they live and the specific infrastructure that they are facing, but I think that that needs unblocking. You need to be very careful with the assumption that the Bill will build more houses. It will not build more houses. The Bill, and the reforms that we have seen to the NPPF, will see more planning permissions. I have 18,837 extant planning permissions in Wiltshire at the moment. Developers told me that they could build only about 6,000 the last time I asked them, which strangely enough was just under the four-year housing land supply under the last Government. I am sure that if I asked them today, they would say that they could build just about 8,000. I have 2,400 houses south of Trowbridge that have been stuck, failing to get the section 106 agreement signed, for something like 14 years. There has to be something in the Bill that forces building. If we are to issue planning, it has to come with the actual development. We have to compel. If developers have signed a commitment that they will complete houses on whatever basis and have fallen behind, they need to start paying the council tax on them or something. At the moment, the Bill is not going to do that, I am afraid. I do not see anything in it that will actually achieve that. Councillor Hug: I support Richard’s point about working for more “use it or lose it” powers to ensure that planning permission does not just go on the books to raise land value and not do much else, although I note the points about hope value and everything. We recognise that there is a whole heap of challenges to delivery that sit outside the scope of the Bill. On the Bill, we support the Government’s general principles about clarification and simplification. We recognise that the strong national growth and infrastructure demands open up some of the opportunities for green energy and all sorts of other things that we are calling for in local government. I want to draw attention to the work being done on planning fees. Ensuring that local authorities have the best possible remuneration for the work to make sure they are covering their costs fully is key to making the system work well to deliver the outcomes that you are looking for. But we recognise that that alone will not deal with it, so we have to look at how we can further strengthen the planning workforce. Again, that is about making sure that the language does not say that the planning system or the planners are the problem. We want people to go into the industry and we want them to do it, but the planning fee stuff is helpful in supporting that. We support the principles, but the key thing is to ensure that the local authorities retain a voice in what goes forward and work with the Government on some of the practical things such as the scheme of delegations. Councillor Wright: I think we have got close to it. As we said, we have nothing against the professional training of planning committees so that the industry knows what it is dealing with and so that the idea that we do not know what we are doing on planning committees cannot be used to beat us over the head all the time. In my district, similarly to Richard’s, 11,500 permissions were put in place between 2016 and 2024 and 5,500 were built out. There is no excuse for the rest not to be built. Unfortunately, the proposals that have been put forward do not include anything at all to mandate that builders will build. There is a proposal over CPO powers, and the missing thing that we would like to see is “build it or lose it”. If there is an allocated site and they have permissions, but they simply do not build on it, give us the CPO powers so we can CPO that. That would help to build houses, because we could then start to control the destiny of those sites. At the moment, there are some really useful things that could have been in the Bill that are missing. Councillor Clewer: But CPO it at agricultural value. Councillor Wright: Yes: agricultural value, not hope value. Councillor Hug: I very much support the planning training. The LGA supports the approach to hope value that the Government are taking. The CPO power is particularly being deployed in urban settings around land assembly, which is the intent behind the Bill.

• 23 Apr 2025 · Sewage · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. At Prime Minister’s questions earlier, the Leader of the Opposition said that Anas Sarwar, the Scottish Labour leader “was whipping his MSPs to get male rapists into women’s prisons”. That is categorically and utterly untrue. Scottish Labour MSPs repeatedly called for the Scottish Government to ensure the safety of women prisoners. Please can you advise me how I can ensure that the Leader of the Opposition corrects the record and withdraws this disgraceful slur?

• 2 Apr 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 2 April.

• 2 Apr 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  This week, the full state pension will rise by £472 a year, putting money in the pockets of pensioners in Glasgow and across the United Kingdom. Does the Prime Minister agree that this rise is possible only because of Labour’s plan for change and our commitment to the triple lock?

• 26 Mar 2025 · Spring Statement · Hansard source

  More

  Reckless management of public finances leads to higher costs of Government borrowing. As any economist will say, that increases the cost of capital across the British economy, putting at risk and increasing the cost of the essential investments in housing and infrastructure that my constituents desperately need. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is a very important reason why it is essential to manage public finances carefully, unlike the last Conservative Government, and unlike the Government in Scotland, who are overfamiliar with emergency Budgets?

• 24 Mar 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. As a Glasgow MP, I emphasise how important this Bill is for Scotland and Scotland’s economy. We have huge opportunities in the form of offshore wind and floating wind, but those opportunities depend on the development of transmission infrastructure in England. This Bill will help to reduce bills in Scotland by getting us away from expensive gas and on to cheaper fixed-price wind. Delays in England cost my poor constituents a lot of money. The Bill does much more than that. It modernises the regime for connections to the electricity transmission and distribution system, speeding up the connection of vital energy projects for energy security. The UK Government have worked closely with the Scottish Government—delivering on their promise to put country first and Scotland first, and party second—to modernise the regime for consenting overhead power lines and generating stations in Scotland. The Bill also makes provision for long-duration energy storage. The House may wonder what that is. There is all sorts of exciting new technology in this area, but I commend to everyone a visit to Cruachan power station to see the hollow mountain in the glens of Scotland. They will see how important it is and what great opportunities it provides for British engineering, and for the children in our schools to pursue careers in engineering. There are also other reforms that are important to the electricity sector in Scotland. This may be a historic moment of some agreement between the SNP and the Labour party in this Chamber, but I would not want to be too gentle on the SNP Scottish Government, which takes far too long to consent projects in Scotland. Far too many projects sit on Ministers’ desks for far too long, and that is holding back investment. The same applies with the SNP council in Glasgow. We need to get going on some of these consents, and the SNP in Glasgow and Edinburgh need to get a move on with consenting projects that will create jobs and assist my constituents. This is a great Bill. It looks to the future. It will create opportunities for Britain. It is a bill of aspiration and ambition for our country. For too long, we have kept on saying no to great developments that create jobs and create wealth. This Bill says, “Let’s go for it. Let’s create jobs. Let’s create investment.” I support it fully.

• 19 Mar 2025 · Ethnic Minority People: Discrimination · Hansard source

  More

  2. What steps she is taking to help end discrimination against ethnic minority people.

• 19 Mar 2025 · Ethnic Minority People: Discrimination · Hansard source

  More

  Glasgow’s Muslim community is characterised by its kindness and public service. Last weekend, I visited my friends at the Hillview Islamic and education centre in Shettleston, and met the convenor of the Muslim Council of Scotland, Dr Muhammad Adrees. I heard about terrible incidents of anti-Muslim hatred and crimes in Glasgow and the west of Scotland. Does my hon. Friend agree that our Muslim brothers and sisters should not have to live with that hatred, and will she set out the steps that the Government are taking to combat that?

• 18 Mar 2025 · Shipyards: Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes and Mid Fife (Richard Baker) on securing this important debate. He spoke very knowledgeably about the topic, and his incredibly successful work to secure the future of the Harland and Wolff yard in Methil demonstrates what a conscientious, hard-working fighter for his community he is. I am proud to call him my friend. Shipbuilding is a growth industry. Between 2019 and 2024, the economic output of the shipyard sector in the UK increased by 72%—I wish we could say that about much more of the British economy. There are almost 39,000 employee jobs in that industry in the UK, with 19% in Scotland, so it is an industry that we must get behind. It is central to Glasgow and the Clyde region. As everyone knows, Glasgow has a proud history of shipbuilding. At one point, more than 100,000 people were working in 38 yards along the Clyde; at the turn of the last century, almost one in four boats sailing in the world was built on the Clyde, so shipbuilding is in Glasgow’s blood. The number is much lower now, but like any Glasgow MP, I have constituents who depend on the shipyards on the Clyde for work, and they make a significant contribution to Glasgow’s economy. We have world-class defence shipyards. We have two shipyards on the upper Clyde and they are operated by BAE Systems. They have a long history of developing first-class ships for defending the United Kingdom, and the new Type 26 frigates at the dockyards will do the same. This creates wealth across Glasgow, including in my seat. We also have a brilliant maritime education sector in Glasgow, and much of this is in my seat, on the Clyde. City of Glasgow college, trains craft apprentices for the BAE Govan and Scotstoun shipyards, and BAE has a brilliant on-site skills academy. City of Glasgow college also trains very many merchant navy officers in the UK, and many of those involved live in my seat, including in the Gorbals, as I find regularly when I knock on doors. We need to keep warship building work in the UK. Make no mistake: this is essential for national security. We may wish for the world to be different, but we have to take it as it is. Skills in military and domestic shipyards are very important as we face this unpredictable world. Civilian shipyards could also provide great opportunities in Glasgow, such as in renewable energy. Of course I would like to see Government support for shipbuilding, but it has to be deployed wisely. Taxpayers and the wider economy expect that money to be deployed wisely. Regretfully, that has not been the case with the SNP Government, who own the Ferguson Marine shipyard in Port Glasgow, just along from my constituency. They have spent more than £500 million on two ferries, which are hundreds of millions of pounds over budget. They nationalised the yard in 2019, but despite it being state-owned, Audit Scotland in December 2024 raised very serious concerns about governance at the yard. It said: “Internal audit has not been able to provide assurance on FMPG’s risk management, control and governance arrangements” and other matters. Yesterday, we learned that Ferguson Marine had lost out to a shipyard in Gdańsk on a £175 million contract to build vessels for the Scottish Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde and Renfrewshire West (Martin McCluskey) is entirely correct that the Scottish Government have prioritised opportunities in Poland over those in Port Glasgow. The outcome of six years of SNP control of that shipyard is hundreds of millions of pounds wasted; it is an absolute scandal. The SNP Government have failed the people of Port Glasgow—some of the most deprived communities in our family of nations—while wasting hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money. Port Glasgow desperately needs good jobs, as does the whole of the Clyde region and Glasgow, and we should be incredibly angry at that SNP scandal. That is another SNP Government failure: they have failed Glasgow and the Clyde region on shipbuilding, education, health, transport and economic growth. After 18 years of the SNP, Scottish shipbuilding and Scotland need a new direction.

• 18 Mar 2025 · Shipyards: Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  On the topic of SNP Members being away—perhaps they are all listening to “Desert Island Discs”, although one would not reach the desert island if the SNP were in charge—many of my constituents have family, friends and loved ones on the Scottish islands, but at many times of the year they have terrible difficulty going to see them because of the appalling ferry service. That is because the age of the fleet has increased significantly during the 18 years that the SNP has been in power and the reliability of the vessels is down, which damages businesses, people trying to go to hospitals or travelling, and industry on those islands. Does my hon. Friend agree that the way the SNP has managed the ferry service in Scotland over the last 18 years is utterly contemptible?

• 7 Mar 2025 · Prayers · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the House sit in private. Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 163).

• 7 Mar 2025 · Space Industry (Indemnities) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I could not agree with my hon. Friend more. Edinburgh has a thriving space sector, as does Scotland. My hon. Friend has for many years been heavily involved in work to grow the economy in Edinburgh and the Borders, and I pay tribute to him for that. I must, however, take this opportunity to pick a minor bone with my hon. Friend. He mentioned that Glasgow does not have a castle, and I wish to correct the record. We have a fine ruined castle called Crookston castle. It is the second-oldest building in Glasgow. The first-oldest building in Glasgow is the beautiful cathedral. I will not indulge in a dispute about whether Edinburgh or Glasgow is the better city. They are both beautiful, great cities. Glasgow is slightly better, but there you are. I am obliged to my hon. Friend for his intervention, and I am also glad to be able to correct that point. There is another reason why it is important that we have a thriving space and satellite industry. Space is critical to defence, and we must have a thriving space sector to protect our country. The United Kingdom works with allies to ensure that our interests are defended in space. However, the world is becoming more unstable, and it is essential that we have our own capabilities to launch and operate satellites from the United Kingdom, and this Bill is important in that regard, too. It will help to secure a vibrant end-to-end space industry in the United Kingdom, and that is important for defence. To take one example, having our own domestic launch capability is important, and a vibrant civilian sector will help to cover the costs of that launch capability. This Bill also has a national security theme. Owing to much hard work, including by the last Government, the UK Space Agency and many others, the United Kingdom also has a firm foundation for a thriving space industry. In the time available, I cannot provide a complete survey of the vibrant and growing space industry, but here are some key points. One key task we have had is to develop our own launch capability to put satellites up in space, and then to get them back down. That is why there is so much chat about spaceports—in my life, at least. SaxaVord, the UK spaceport in the Shetland Islands, is one of only two licensed vertical launch spaceports in Europe. That is at the far end of the north of the map of our family of nations. Down in the far south-west, we also have an operational spaceport in Cornwall. That illustrates that space is an opportunity for our family of nations from the very top to the very bottom—I mean that only in a cartographic sense; I am not looking to offend any Members from Cornwall. There are also spaceports under construction and planned in: Sutherland, on the far north of the coast of Scotland, to the west of Thurso; North Uist, a wonderful place, which I commend as I spent much of my honeymoon there; Glasgow Prestwick; Spaceport Machrihanish, on the southern tip of the Argyll peninsula, which I would also recommend for a visit to Scotland; and, Snowdonia. Some may wonder where those places are. They are all wonderful places, and they illustrate that space is an opportunity across the United Kingdom. Let us turn to the satellite or, as Lou Reed sang, “Satellite of Love”. The UK has incredible talents in manufacturing satellites and satellite technology. As a Scottish MP, I focus on Scotland, and as a Glasgow MP, I focus on Glasgow, but let us start in the Moray firth, where my mother came from. It has a fine tradition of engineering. For those who follow highland league football—I suspect I am in a minority of one in the House today—the fact that Forres Mechanics is one of the oldest football clubs in the north of Scotland points to a tradition of engineering there. The Jones shipyard in Buckie is another great engineering industry in the north of Scotland. Of significantly more relevance to this debate is that Forres is home to Orbex, which is developing a rocket called Prime. It will be the first UK-manufactured and UK-launched orbital rocket. Prime is set to take off from SaxaVord in 2025. The UK Government have recently announced a £20 million investment in Orbex—an important investment that demonstrates the opportunities being brought to the north of Scotland, for which we need to redouble our efforts to secure economic growth and prosperity. My home city of Glasgow has a rich history of innovation and an incredibly promising cluster of space expertise. As a Glasgow MP, I am determined that it should have a bright future in space. Glasgow is building more satellites than any other city in Europe. There are fantastic companies in the area including, Alba Orbital, which specialises in PocketQube satellites, AAC Clyde Space, which has expertise in small satellite technology, and Spire Global, which is a leading provider of space-based data analytics and space services. This year is Glasgow’s 850th birthday. The Bill will help secure the prosperity of Glasgow for the next 850 years, creating jobs and economic growth in my great city of hard work, innovation and enterprise. There is clear economic analysis that shows that the space industry is an important opportunity area for growth and jobs. The latest “Size and Health of the UK Space Industry” report estimates that 228 organisations in Scotland generated a combined income of £298 million in 2021-22—almost double that of 2018-19 in real terms. About 6,500 people work in space in Scotland, and the figure for the UK is between 48,000 and 52,000. Income amounts to between £17.5 billion and £20 billion. There are more than 100,000 jobs in the supply chain as well. Let us pause for a moment on that: we have only just got going on this and we have 48,000 or more jobs. There is much potential here for many more good, high-paid jobs of the future, which is what Britain needs.

• 7 Mar 2025 · Space Industry (Indemnities) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time. It may be of interest to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that Bradford, part of which you represent, contains a centre of space expertise, namely the University of Bradford. I will return to that later. I am privileged to introduce a Bill that will help to push forward investment in the UK’s critical space sector. It will amend two sections of the Space Industry Act 2018 to provide legal certainty that all space flight operator licences must include a limit on the amount of the operator’s liability to the Government under section 36 of the Act. What are space flight activities, one may ask? They cover launching spacecraft, such as satellites, into space, operating spacecraft in space—for example, allowing a spacecraft to orbit Earth—and bringing spacecraft back down to Earth. Under the international law applicable to space, Governments, including ours in the UK, are liable for damage to property, death or personal injury caused by their space activities or by their nationals. That is a key reason why section 36 of the 2018 Act requires people carrying out spaceflight activities to indemnify the Government against such claims. The Bill provides legal certainty over the need to limit liability because that will encourage desperately needed investment in the sector. The space sector and satellites are central to almost everyone’s day-to-day life. Let us take something simple like a trip to a football match. Middlesbrough fans—I’m afraid I am not among them—have a famous fanzine called “Fly Me To The Moon”. That is not a reference to Sinatra, but they might buy it using contactless. People will make their way to the match with the use of maps and travel updates on their phones and use Google Pay or Apple Wallet to store tickets and get into the stadium. All this depends on satellite technology. One may ask why the Boro fanzine is called “Fly Me To The Moon”. It is because Bruce Rioch, a great Scottish manager, then manager of Middlesbrough, said of his captain: “If I had to fly to the moon I’d take Tony Mowbray, my captain, with me. He’s a magnificent man.” Both men played a significant role in saving that magnificent football club. Suppose, Madam Deputy Speaker, you wanted to read on your device “The First Men in the Moon” by H.G. Wells. That requires satellites. The protagonist in that novel is a Mr Bedford. I was brought up in Bedford, a wonderful town in Bedfordshire, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin) is a fine friend. Suppose you wanted to stream “Breakfast at Tiffany’s”, famous for Audrey Hepburn singing “Moon River”. Streaming music depends on satellites. I confess that “Moon River” was one of my lullabies of choice when my children were younger and I was desperately trying to get them to sleep. I did not think that “Subterranean Homesick Alien” by Radiohead would be an apposite choice or, for that matter, Lou Reed’s great song “Satellite of Love”, so I stuck with “Moon River”. The House will be pleased to know that I do not propose to sing “Moon River”, because I am appalling at singing. The critical point is that satellites and related technology are critical to modern life, and they will become even more so. There is a significant economic opportunity for the United Kingdom here. European demand for satellites up to 2033 is forecast to be worth $50 billion. Even 2% of that would bring around $1 billion in revenues for the UK economy alone. This provides a serious economic opportunity to the United Kingdom, and we must seize it with both hands, because we must get growth back into the British economy, and that is what our Government are determined to do. Space is an industry of the future—a future of hundreds of years—and it is critical that we invest in and support industries that can bring our family of nations prosperity for decades to come. As President John F. Kennedy said, “man and his quest for knowledge and progress is determined and cannot be deterred. The exploration of space will go ahead, whether we join in it or not. And it is one of the great adventures of all time.” President Kennedy said that in 1961, and in 2025 I say it is high time that the United Kingdom got stuck into this adventure and seized the opportunities it will provide.

• 7 Mar 2025 · Space Industry (Indemnities) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am obliged to my hon. Friend for his intervention. That is a very important point. Every week, we can pick up the paper and look at the discussion about where we need to invest in defence. We must invest in space, and we must have our own capability here in the United Kingdom—that is critical. Over my lifetime, the domain of warfare has, sadly, expanded from ground, sea and air to space as well as online. It is critical that we invest in our capabilities here. The Bill is important for that. It is critical that we continue to pursue investment by the Ministry of Defence and the UK Government, which I believe has cross-party support. It creates economic opportunities for the United Kingdom, too. The lesson of history and technological development is that investment in defence has significant civilian spin-outs, so it is quite right and proper for us to invest in it. In summary, we have a huge opportunity and it is one that we must seize. The Bill has one, sole objective: to help get investment into the space sector so that we seize this opportunity. With that in mind, I now turn to provide more detail about the legal and commercial background to the proposed Bill. I must admit that, given my previous career as a lawyer, I find this bit the most interesting. However, I quite accept that for others it may have a more treacle-esque quality to it. I beg forgiveness, but I am afraid I must proceed! As I have explained, the Bill seeks to limit space operators’ liability. I start by emphasising that there is a very, very strong safety regime in operation here. Spaceflight activities are very heavily regulated by an independent regulator, the Civil Aviation Authority, to ensure that they are safe. In order to carry out spaceflight activities, one must obtain an operator licence granted by the CAA, which is independent of Government. It has a clear legal duty to secure the health and safety of the public and the safety of their property. That trumps all the CAA’s other duties. It must put safety first. A range of tests applies to the granting of licences. The applicant must be able to demonstrate that it has taken all reasonable steps to ensure that the risks to people and property are as low as possible, and that the level of those risks is acceptable. More generally, there is a detailed and robust safety regime governing spaceflight activities operated by the CAA. So, here we are concerned with small risks that are reduced to the minimum extent possible by a strong regulatory regime. Under international space law, the UK Government have a long-standing legal liability for damage caused by spaceflight operations. There is, despite the safety regime, a residual risk that things can go wrong and that the Government can face claims. The UK Government can make claims against operators under section 36 of the 2018 Act. Again, that is quite proper. Under the regime, operators have to assume risk and under the Bill, although it limits liability, operators continue to bear risk. Of course, the Government need to ensure that operators can pay out on claims made against them, which is why the 2018 Act regime and the licences make provision for compulsory insurance to be put in place by the operators. And, of course, it is usual for businesses to insure against foreseeable risks. Under the regulatory regime, the risks must be properly assessed and appropriate levels of insurance put in place. The policy for that is set out in a detailed guidance document published by the Department for Transport, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy—as it was then—the UK Space Agency and the Civil Aviation Authority. I think everyone will be relieved to hear that I do not propose to give a detailed exposition of the regime or take them through the documents, but the critical point is that the regime requires appropriate levels of insurance to be in place that protects the taxpayer and is supervised by a strong independent regulator. The risk for spaceflight operators is that claims from the Government under section 36 exceed the carefully assessed insurance. The current legislation does not require the CAA and the Government to cap operators’ liability. The relevant section makes it entirely optional. Section 12(2) of the 2018 Act provides that “An operator licence may specify a limit on the amount of the licensee’s liability under section 36 in respect of the activities authorised by the licence.” The key word here is “may”. My proposal is that “may” is changed to “must”, and that an “any” in section 36 is changed to “the” as a consequence. The Bill simply swaps two words with two other words. The Government have a long-standing policy, as did the preceding Government, that liability should be limited. However, the issue for investors is that that is not set out in statute. This means that a future Government and regulators could change the policy with comparative ease, and that could damage existing investments and could lead to investors finding that they are exposed to unlimited liabilities. This is deterring, and will continue to deter, investment in the United Kingdom. The issue is causing real concern to investors. This is a point that the space industry has made to the Government. In 2020, a cross-departmental consultation took place on the insurance and liability regime under the 2018 Act. In summary, many respondents raised concerns with the lack of a legally firm guarantee in the policy to limit liability. That caused concerns that operators would be exposed to unlimited liability in future. The then Government accepted the point but explained that introducing a provision to require a cap on liability would require primary legislation—and that is what I am proposing today. The Government also made it clear that, in the meantime, all operator licences would include a limit of liability. I agree with that decision. The issue was also discussed in the 2021 report prepared by the taskforce on innovation, growth and regulatory reform, which proposed the introduction of a mandatory cap on the liability of licence holders, to encourage investment in the sector. Respondents to a UK Space Agency consultation in 2021-22 reiterated calls to make the limit of liability in section 12(2) of the 2018 Act mandatory. This is a long-standing unresolved issue. The space industry and potential investors are right to be concerned. As some hon. Members know, I am a recovering lawyer. In my past career, I had to deal with complex liability issues—I reassure Members that none of them was of my own making. I learned that investors are happy to accept risk, but if they are investing millions or billions in a high-risk industry, they want to know that they are not exposed to unlimited losses beyond what they can reasonably insure. The investors are correct to state that a Government policy can be withdrawn with much greater ease than a statute. Indeed, the plain fact, in my experience, is that the scope for legal challenge when Government policies are withdrawn is often quite limited. In such a situation, many investors simply will not invest. They want to know that risks are clearly and fairly allocated, manageable and covered by insurance, and they want to understand that the liability regime is legally solid. In contrast to a guidance document, a statute will provide much greater protection. Investors accept that it will not provide absolute protection, but a statutory protection will give much more comfort. That is a reasonable position for potential investors to adopt. It is important to understand that investors have a choice of places in which to invest. Many countries want this space investment, and the United Kingdom has to be attractive to investors. These investments are long term and investors need to be sure that they are covered on a firm legislative basis—they need some security. My understanding is that all other launching nations—that is, nations with launch capability—limit liabilities or provide a state guarantee for the type of activities that currently take place from their territory. At present, faced with this massive economic opportunity, we are at a disadvantage. There is a clear risk to the competitiveness of our space industry and, as a result, to its growth. The unlimited liability of the indemnity to Government is damaging investor confidence and makes the United Kingdom a less attractive place from which to launch. That will undermine our ambition for growth in the sector, and our ambitions to ensure that we can keep our country safe and to grow our defence in this area. The Bill confronts the problem and will make the UK a much more attractive place to invest. To sum up, Madam Deputy Speaker—I suspect some people will be glad, given the dry topic, although I am happy to keep going—the space sector is central to almost everyone’s life. How could we check our emails in this Chamber without it? There is a significant economic opportunity for the UK here. The space sector is critical to our defence. The United Kingdom has a firm foundation for a thriving space industry, and we must build on it, including in Scotland, south Wales, Cornwall and the south-east of England. There are even people on the Isle of Wight who work in space. There is a robust safety regime governing space operated by an incredibly highly experienced independent regulator. Operators have to put in place compulsory insurance, but there is a concern for investors that above that insurance, they will have unlimited exposure. That has been repeatedly explained to Government. The investors’ position is reasonable. The proposed change would limit liability and make the UK a more effective place to invest. The Bill will help create economic growth, jobs and prosperity for decades to come from Cornwall to Shetland. It is good news for the great cities of Glasgow and Edinburgh and for great south Wales, and for growth and jobs across the United Kingdom. It is time to resolve this issue; jobs and investment depend on it—including in Bradford, Madam Deputy Speaker, which is a real centre of excellence for space. The Bill changes two words: “may” to “must”, and “any” to “the”. It may be one of the smallest Bills in recent memory. I have not done the research into the smallest Bill in Parliament’s history—I guess we are looking for a one-word Bill—but this Bill has one big objective: to ensure further investment in the UK space industry. I could say that this is one small step for Parliament, but a big step for the space industry, if I was any good at puns and humour. But, as I suspect some of the hon. Members from Scotland could tell us, I am no good at puns and I am humourless. Nevertheless, I commend the Bill to the House.

• 7 Mar 2025 · Space Industry (Indemnities) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The Bill applies across the United Kingdom, and obviously there is a space industry in south Wales, too. It will encourage investment in south Wales by protecting investors against unlimited liability. I see this as critical for the space industry in south Wales as well as in Scotland. Naturally, I focus on Scotland because I am obsessed with the place, but, I would add, Madam Deputy Speaker, that it is very important for Bradford, too. It is important to note that the space industry is a source of good jobs, and not just for people with PhDs in astrophysics. Last year, the Scottish Affairs Committee heard that there were great opportunities for many different people in the space industry. It will provide jobs for school leavers, graduates and PhDs across the spectrum. That is something that is brilliant about space.

• 7 Mar 2025 · Protection of Children (Digital Safety and Data Protection) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes a very important point. In this debate, we are focusing a lot on children, but the reality is that these scars will endure for the rest of their lives. This access to pornography will scar their relationships and their ability to form relationships for the rest of their lives, which is another reason why the Bill is so very important.

• 6 Mar 2025 · English Football: Financial Sustainability and Governance · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang) for securing this excellent debate. Last year I met representatives of Hampden bowling club and Football’s Square Mile who are working to preserve football heritage in my seat, which includes the birthplace of Alexander Watson Hutton, the founder of Argentinian football. Glasgow East is the start of the story that leads to Messi, Maradona and River Plate and Boca Juniors, which are the Oxford United and Reading of Buenos Aires. Their project points to something profound. Football is our history and culture. It is part of our families’ history, and is a tie that brings us together. All that draws us to football and more, in particular the emotion of hope. We all feel that hope at the beginning of a season that we might win something: the hope in the bleak midwinter that a team can win a derby—not my team Newcastle—or win a cup game. We lose this at our peril. I wonder whether football has lost sight of it. For example, in my lifetime, Rangers, Aberdeen and Celtic have won the European cup winners’ cup and the European cup. Dundee United remains unbeaten against Barcelona. We heard mention of Leeds; we could also mention Forest and so on. Could that happen now? Not at all. The chance of success is concentrated on a small number of clubs. Many fans say that they have less interest in football as a result. This poses a profound challenge to our game. As Sir Bobby Robson said, football is about “the noise, the passion, the feeling of belonging, the pride in your city.”

• 4 Mar 2025 · Church of Scotland (Lord High Commissioner) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O’Hara) has provided a most eloquent job application. I was very pleased to read of the upcoming appointment of Lady Elish Angiolini. Not only would Lady Elish be the first Roman Catholic to hold the office of Lord High Commissioner, but she is incredibly well qualified—speaking as a recovering Scots lawyer, someone who has held the posts of Lord Advocate and Solicitor General with such accomplishment is clearly incredibly well qualified for the role. She is an example, as are some Members of this House, of the excellent education you can get from state schools in Glasgow. The current law means that, at present, a Roman Catholic cannot be Lord High Commissioner. The Bill removes the legal impediments to that, and therefore I fully support it. Lady Elish Angiolini is a practising Roman Catholic, and much work has been done to build closer links between the Catholic Church in Scotland and the Church of Scotland, including the St Margaret declaration signed in 2022. However, as importantly—if not more importantly—much work has taken place between local Catholic and Church of Scotland congregations. I have seen much of that work in Glasgow at first hand, pretty much every Sunday, and it is an absolute joy to behold. More widely, Lady Elish’s appointment is another very good example of the progress made between the two Churches. She has said the following of her appointment, which is something quite profound that we in this House should pause and reflect on: “It is really important that people of all religions and faiths come together. The world is a scary place these days and it is important that people of all faiths meet, share, and promote peace and harmony. This is a good example of that.” I could not agree more. I say that this Bill is important, because it is a demonstration of people of different religions and faiths coming together in Scotland and putting aside their differences. In Glasgow, in Scotland and across our family of nations, people of different faiths, and of no faith, work very well together for the good of our communities. In Glasgow, we see many examples of that. We have one of the oldest Muslim populations in Scotland, which gives greatly to people in Glasgow; we have a vibrant Sikh population, which dedicates itself to the service of the poorest in Glasgow; and the annual Holocaust memorial lecture at the University of Glasgow brings large and diverse audiences, including many of our Jewish brothers and sisters, to reflect on the terror of the Holocaust. People in Glasgow and in Scotland work hard to understand each other, and religious diversity is a source of joy, energy, strength and beauty in Glasgow’s 850th year. The appointment of Lady Elish is a profound moment in this year. All this speaks to the words of the St Margaret declaration: “what we hold in common is often greater than what divides us.” In these times, as Lady Elish suggests, it is important that we redouble our efforts for dialogue and understanding between people of faiths, as well as people of no faith. At this moment, we should also celebrate the real progress we have made in that regard across our family of nations. This Bill is one very good example, and I for one am proud to live in a family of nations that has had a Muslim First Minister and a Hindu Prime Minister. I am proud to see this Bill make progress through this House.

• 26 Feb 2025 · Grenfell Tower Inquiry: Phase 2 Report · Hansard source

  More

  In my constituency, tenants in social housing are regularly treated as second-class citizens, and it is a shame and a stain on our society that that is so. Many of my constituents are desperately worried about cladding remediation following the terror of Grenfell. The Scottish Government received about £97 million from the UK Government for remediation, but it was confirmed later last year that virtually none of it had been spent for that purpose. This year I sent the Scottish Minister responsible a detailed set of questions about progress. I asked how many high-rise buildings—buildings at least 18 metres in height—with aluminium composite cladding had been identified, how many of them had been identified as requiring remediation, and how many had been remediated. My questions continued, but not one of them was answered with data or numbers. These are people’s homes, the homes of mums and dads and children. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that the Scottish Government must get a grip on this topic, and will she undertake to provide such advice and assistance as her Department is able to supply?