John Grady MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 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?

• 25 Feb 2025 · Defence and Security · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Prime Minister for his statement, with which I agree. Does he agree that Clement Attlee and Ernest Bevin showed that the defence of the United Kingdom and Europe against totalitarianism is at the core of this House’s values and those of our party? Does he also agree that what we can learn from their great political lives is that we will face very many difficult public spending decisions over the next decade, and that our moral duty as a Government is to take those decisions, however difficult or heartbreaking they may be?

• 29 Jan 2025 · Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  2. What recent discussions she has had with Cabinet colleagues on increasing economic growth in Wales.

• 29 Jan 2025 · Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  I, too, wish Wales luck in the Six Nations, but I wish Scotland more luck. Scotland, like Wales, is set to benefit from significant tax incentives and investment, under the UK Government’s freeports scheme. Does the Secretary of State agree that the scheme offers an excellent opportunity for economic growth?

• 22 Jan 2025 · Competition and Markets Authority Chairman · Hansard source

  More

  I should declare that before entering the House, I advised, as a competition lawyer, on various CMA matters, including investigations and panels. Some of the criticisms from Conservative Members seem half a world away, to channel Oasis, from both the topic in question and economic reality. Will the Minister confirm that yesterday’s announcement does not change the independence of the individual CMA panels that deal with matters before the CMA?

• 22 Jan 2025 · Competition and Markets Authority Chairman · Hansard source

  More

  rose—

• 20 Jan 2025 · Office for Value for Money · Hansard source

  More

  Value for money in public spending is important to my constituents, who work hard for their money. In Scotland, under the Scottish National party, we have higher rates of income tax for anyone earning more than £29,000. The Government in Edinburgh and the UK Government that we have just finished with have indulged in some shocking wastes of money. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is essential for the Office for Value for Money to set out its suggestions for ways of securing value for money for future reference in both London and Edinburgh?

• 14 Jan 2025 · UK-China Economic and Financial Dialogue · Hansard source

  More

  The Chancellor may be able to learn a bit about emergency spending cuts from the Scottish Government in Holyrood, who have had three years of emergency spending cuts. Does the Chancellor agree that it is essential to engage with large economies like China so that we can export our brilliant financial services sector and whisky from Scotland? In the real world, we have to trade with large economies like China.

• 8 Jan 2025 · Scotland: Transport Links · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Lewell-Buck, as you are from South Shields—I have some family there too and it is a wonderful place. I thank the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) for securing today’s important debate; he spoke eloquently about transport in his constituency. I gently remind him, as he mentioned net zero, that it was the Conservative Government who had an offshore wind allocation round that secured no bids when we desperately need clean, cheap and fixed-price electricity. I also gently remind him that, last time I checked, many of these transport links were under the supervision of the Conservative Government from 2010 to 2019, with some art and part assistance from another party in the early years. Improving connectivity between Glasgow and the rest of the UK is a topic that is deeply important to my constituents and one that I have been working hard on since I was elected in July. Glasgow is Scotland’s largest city, and as we head into its 850th anniversary celebrations this year, we have much to celebrate: a vibrant city with so much economic and cultural potential. Improving connectivity in Glasgow and England is crucial to realising that potential; a high-quality inter-city service attracts investment and talent. It is critical for people in our vibrant creative, scientific, cultural and energy sectors; for people coming to Glasgow to work; for people coming to enjoy our city’s brilliant cultural, sporting and night-time economy; and for people visiting friends and family. I will first deal with links to cities in the east served by the east coast main line. Previously, Glasgow had an excellent direct train service heading to the east of England, connecting it with cities such as Newcastle, Durham and York. In 2010, there were 10 direct trains running on the service, run by both LNER and CrossCountry; now there is only one service per day. Under the Tory regime, nine out of 10 services have been cut—yet another blow to getting economic growth into Glasgow. I got in touch with CrossCountry to ask about the severe reductions to its service and to have a chat about increasing the frequency of that service. I am disappointed and a little surprised that I have yet to receive a reply, and I trust I will receive one soon. I did, however, meet the chief executive of LNER to discuss the decision made back in April to scrap the last remaining service connecting Glasgow and the north-east that it operates. I was clear that I was in full favour of any attempt to revive this service, and I would be keen to engage with the Minister on this matter. I am aware that Lumo has made an application to run a service, extending from Edinburgh to Glasgow Queen Street. I am keen to hear more about that proposal, as it fundamentally demonstrates that there is untapped demand for direct travel from Glasgow to the north-east of England and Yorkshire. I am interested in anything that increases connectivity between the north and north-east of England, and Glasgow. With nine out of 10 direct train services cut over the last few years, we need improvements. The Conservatives’ record of connectivity for Glasgow is, I am afraid, nothing short of abysmal. May I say to hon. Members from Scotland that it is not just a question for Glasgow? It affects people across the west coast of Scotland, including those in the countryside, who rely on those services. Let us talk briefly about connectivity to the north-west, the midlands and London, which is also very important for Glasgow. For many years, Avanti West Coast has operated that service, and it has—to be charitable—left a lot to be desired. Even the last Conservative Government accepted that the performance was appalling. Their response to that appalling service has always puzzled me somewhat; in autumn 2023, they awarded Avanti West Coast a nine-year extension. Avanti’s response was to cut the services in the run up to Christmas—I thought it was only good children who got presents at Christmas, but there we are. Problems persist. Between July and September 2024, only 41% of Avanti services were deemed to be on time. Reliability is crucial for such an important service, and currently it is not acceptable. Our Labour Government have inherited an absolute mess of a transport system, after years of neglect and poor policymaking. The Government are absolutely committed to boosting economic growth in all areas of the UK, including Glasgow and Scotland, and that is something I am 100% proud to support. In order to achieve this, we must be ambitious in our plans to improve transport. It is essential that Glasgow is not left behind due to poor transport links with the major cities in England. It will take time; 14 years of Tory failure have left our transport system in a mess. I am reassured that the Government are committed to working hard to get our railways back on track. I fully support those efforts, which will take time to yield results, but we must stick with them.

• 8 Jan 2025 · Scotland: Transport Links · Hansard source

  More

  As my dear friends tussle, I want to make a minor point. The Conservative Government were in power for 14 years until July, and the SNP Government have been in power in Holyrood for about 18 years. It is quite remarkable for the hon. Member to criticise a Government who have been in power for just six months and have been clearing up a mess left by the Tories. Might I gently ask him to bear in mind those different periods as he proceeds?

• 7 Jan 2025 · Budget: Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Gregor Poynton) for securing this debate, and for his excellent survey of the considerable benefits of the Budget for Scotland. On economic forecasts, I am a somewhat boring Member of Parliament—I like to read the Financial Times . It wrote a leader a few days ago that was, in some parts, somewhat critical. However, the article pointed out that “Britain’s economic outlook in fact looks quite robust compared to other advanced economies. According to the Financial Times’ annual poll, economists reckon that the UK will outgrow France and Germany this year…Labour’s strong parliamentary majority is another positive for investors as political uncertainty ramps up elsewhere.” I could go on. I simply point out that this Government are pro-growth and pro-industry; people understand that and economists understand that. The Budget delivered by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor delivers on our commitments to the electorate. It adds VAT to private school fees, providing more funds to state schools, including in Glasgow; it tackles poverty by increasing the national living wage, giving thousands of my constituents a pay rise; it provides pensioners with over £400 this year due to our commitment to the triple lock; and it reduces the level of deductions that can be made for universal credit payments—a boost to struggling families in Glasgow. If one were to listen to the SNP, one might think that the Budget was terrible news for Scotland and an absolute disaster. In fact, it delivers the largest settlement ever for a Scottish Government, with £4.9 billion of additional funding over the next two years—a UK Labour Government and 37 Scottish Labour MPs delivering for Scotland. That significant boost to Scotland’s public finances is critical, with nearly one in six Scots on an NHS waiting list. As we heard just before Christmas, there are many people who have been waiting for more than two years for NHS treatment in Scotland—many more, proportionally, than in England. One in three Scots children is regularly absent from school, and there are declining police officer numbers on the street at a time when people are petrified about crime. Scotland’s public services are in utter crisis after almost 18 years of SNP misrule. This Government have provided the SNP Government with the money. They have no excuses; they must use the funding wisely to clear up their mess. SNP and Tory colleagues have repeatedly criticised the Government’s Budget, but failed to offer a credible alternative. Time and again, they say we should spend more money but fail to explain where the funding should come from. That is not credible. One hears about “magic money tree” economics—here we have a whole forest of magic money trees. Yes, we have made difficult decisions in our Budget, but government is about confronting difficult decisions to manage public finances carefully. Independent experts are clear that the SNP has failed to manage the Scottish public finances. There have been three years of in-year emergency budget cuts due to their mismanagement and £5 billion wasted on failed SNP pet projects, while, for example, ferries do not sail and the islands suffer from appalling connectivity.

• 7 Jan 2025 · Budget: Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  No, I will not. Time is marching on, and many people wish to speak. The SNP cannot be trusted with public money—remember that this is the public’s money. People in Glasgow East face much higher income tax rates than their counterparts in England because of the SNP Government’s mistakes. As my friend, the Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar, set out yesterday, after nearly two decades of SNP failure in government, Scotland needs “a new direction”. It needs a new Government, with “new hope, new thinking, new solutions”, not more of the same divisive politics of the last two decades. On 4 July, the people of Glasgow made a choice: that our great city, in its 850th year, shall be represented by a Labour Government. That Labour Government have delivered for Scotland by providing a record funding settlement. Scotland chose a Labour Government, electing 37 Labour MPs. This Budget, with its record increase in funding for Scotland, demonstrates this Labour Government’s absolute commitment to Scotland.