John Grady
MP for Glasgow East · Labour · United Kingdom
“Q4. The Family C official report, about the most depraved sexual abuse of children, identifies serious failures by Glasgow city council and other bodies. The report says that one child victim “banged on the windows shouting at the health visitor not to leave”,but this was treated as “streetwise”, instead of a desperate cry for help.”
“The Roma have suffered centuries of prejudice and hate. Under the Nazis, they were subjected to concentration camps and genocide. Roma people have made their home in my constituency and in Northern Ireland, and should be treated with decency, yet they have been subjected to terrible racist violence in Northern Ireland.”
“Businesses trading with unlawful settlements can be under no illusion that the settlements are unlawful and that the majority of Members of this House view them as utterly morally repugnant. Nor can they be under any illusion that the UK Government’s position is that people should not trade with unlawful settlements.”
“People across Glasgow East welcome the proposed ban on social media for under-16s. I thank the Secretary of State and the Minister for AI and Online Safety for their excellent work, which means that young people across Glasgow and Scotland will be much safer.”
“The RSF have slaughtered children and used rape as a weapon of war. As we return to our constituencies, we should reflect on how we would act if this were happening in them—to our mothers, our sisters, our partners and our children. The UN Security Council says that there will be no impunity for those committing war crimes.”
“The long-term strength of the economy depends on long-term investment in the UK. UK growth companies still struggle for capital, while UK savers’ money flows to trackers, which are concentrated on a small number of US stocks. That is bad news for our future. My right hon.”
The complete record
Every one of 346 lines we hold for John Grady, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 7.
“Yes. The UK Government have invested in Orbex, in Forres in the north of Scotland. It remains important to give grants to earlier-stage companies because they cannot get the equity and debt funding that more advanced companies can, so I welcome that important investment. The space sector and satellites are central to almost everyone’s day-to-day lives. When we tap in and out of the underground on the way home or when we purchase things, that relies on satellite technology. Space is also a key focus for the national wealth fund, as confirmed by Lord Livermore, who is Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and John Flint, the chief executive of the national wealth fund, when we discussed the fund at the Treasury Committee this week. Space is an important future business for Britain, and an important economic opportunity.”
“So, four words to the Bill, with two swapped, but it is absolutely critical for the future of an industry that could be brilliant for the United Kingdom and all our constituents for years to come.”
“We can have a claim for legitimate expectations and a breach of those, but that is a very difficult class of claim to run, and there has not been a huge number of successful cases of that sort in the courts. It is a difficult area of public law. Business quite properly says, “You could change this policy and expose our existing investments to additional risk.” Business could also fairly go and look elsewhere for investment. Investors will not invest in the same way in the face of a lack of statutory protection, so the critical thing the Bill does is to include a statutory protection. It requires the Government to cap the liability and encourages people to invest, and that puts us on a par with our principal competitor nations for space investment.”
“The current legislation does not require the Civil Aviation Authority or the Government to include a cap in the licence; it makes it optional. Section 12(2) of the 2018 Act provides: “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 critical thing that my Bill will do is quite simply to swap “may” for “must”, and as a consequence the word “any” in section 36 is changed to “the”. That is consistent with long-standing Government policy that the liability should be limited—there is a clear, documented policy that it is limited. However, the problem with documented policies as opposed to statute—as a recovering lawyer, I go back to my legal career here—is that Government policies are ultimately much easier to change than statutes.”
“The UK Government can make claims against operators, which take place under section 36 of the 2018 Act. That is quite proper. Operators have to assume and bear risk, and the Government need to ensure that operators can pay out on claims made against them—as we are quite rightly adopting a cross-party spirit today, I commend the previous Government on their work on space law—which is why the regime under the 2018 Act makes provisions for space operators to put in place compulsory insurance. The businesses have to insure themselves and are regulated by a very competent regulator. The question is: what happens if a claim exceeds the amount of insurance that can be put in place on a sensible basis? That is really what we are addressing here.”
“There is day-to-day scrutiny of their safety from an expert safety regulator—the CAA is one of the best regulators in the world—so we are concerned with small risks that are reduced to the very minimum extent possible by a very strong regulatory regime. One of the reasons why our family of nations has a great advantage in space is that because we are right at the end of Europe, we have a great place to launch, because we do not launch over big urban areas. If we go right up to Shetland, there is nothing for hundreds of miles. There are treaties under international space law, and the UK Government have a long-standing legal liability for damage caused by UK spaceflight-related operations. Despite the space safety regime, there is a residual risk that things go wrong and the UK Government face claims.”
“I recently met Professor Malcolm Macdonald from the university, who is the director of the centre for signal and image processing and the applied space technology laboratory. He outlined to me with great enthusiasm and knowledge the amount of innovation in the space sector in Glasgow and across the United Kingdom. This is a critical industry that we must invest in and for which we must create the conditions of investment. Around 52,000 people work in the space sector across the UK, so this is a big opportunity. Let me turn to talk about precisely what the Bill does, albeit with four words: it seeks to limit space operators’ liability. I emphasise that spaceflight activities are heavily regulated by the UK Civil Aviation Authority for safety.”
“My hon. Friend makes an important point. The UK Government have committed to investing in defence and in advances in tech defence. As we develop defence, investing in space is utterly critical and central to that. It is a matter of some regret that Scottish companies that invest in military matters are not funded by the Scottish National Investment Bank or Scottish Enterprise, because they have the view that we should not invest in defence, even though it will create jobs and is important for defending the north of Scotland, which is where my mother came from and which is now very important for defence. I am an MP for Glasgow, which has a rich history of innovation and an incredibly promising cluster of space expertise. My seat has the fantastic University of Strathclyde.”
“My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, as she does regularly. The space sector creates enthusiasm for young people. When I met young students at the University of Strathclyde, I could see that it had engendered excitement about the future, and that is a good thing.”
“I thank you for your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I also thank the voters and residents of Glasgow East, because it is a privilege to be here representing them. I love every minute of my time representing my seat. Question put and agreed to. Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.”
“I will keep my remarks short. I thank all Members for their support today, on Second Reading and in Committee. I also thank the Department for Transport civil servants who assisted me. The Clerk of Private Members’ Bills puts in a lot of work to help us all with our Private Members’ Bills, and I give thanks to them as well. This Bill will now go to another place, where Baroness Anelay of St Johns has kindly agreed to take it on, and I thank her for so doing. I should also thank the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), who has been nothing but enthusiastic about this Bill from the off. It is good to hear enthusiasm, and speaking as a new Member—or a year-old Member—it is always very helpful to have advice from Members from across the Chamber. Of course, I thank my team for their help with the Bill.”
“T6. First Bus is axing the critical 65 bus, which runs through Dalmarnock, Bridgeton and the Gorbals in my seat and into the seat of my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Michael Shanks). Without the 65, Dorothy, who is in her 90s, will not be able to visit family and friends. That is a loss for everyone, because Dorothy is brilliant company. Does the Minister agree that bus operators must take into account the needs of people such as Dorothy before axing critical bus services?”
“I welcome today’s announcement and in particular the focus on housing and transport, because Glasgow has a real housing crisis. In my constituency, the busy Bridgeton train station does not even have lifts for disabled people. All taxpayers are concerned about value for money, particularly given the huge overspend and utter chaos of HS2 under the last Government. In Scotland, there is the absolute scandal of the Arran ferry. Will my right hon. Friend reassure me and set out the steps that the Government are taking to ensure value for money in this infrastructure spending? Will he commit to sharing the learnings with the Scottish Government, who desperately need help on that?”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I believe that you studied law at the University of St Andrews, and I very much hope that you feel at home with a room full of Scottish MPs.”
“That puts the UK at serious risk of competitive disadvantage at a time when we are trying to grow the economy and focus on this important sector. The Bill, and these two simple clauses, confront the problem and make the UK, Scotland and, of course, Glasgow a much more attractive place to invest in space. Clause 2 deals with the extent, commencement and short title of the Bill consistently, as one might expect, with the 2018 Act.”
“The UK Government have a clear policy that licensees’ liability will be capped, but the issue for investors is that this is set out in a policy document and not in statute. This means that the Government and regulators could change the policy with comparative ease, which could mean that investors would find that they had exposure to unlimited liabilities. That deters future investment. The issue is causing investors real concern and investors in the space industry have raised it with Government many times. It is a long-standing unresolved issue, on which I believe there is cross-party consensus. All our competitor nations limit liabilities or provide a state guarantee for launch activities of the type that take place from their territory.”
“Section 36 provides for spaceflight operators to indemnify the Government in certain circumstances and the current risk for spaceflight operators is that claims from the Government exceed the carefully assessed insurance that is put in place by the spaceflight operators, following significant regulatory oversight by the Civil Aviation Authority. The current legislation does not require the Government and the CAA to cap operators’ liability; the Bill changes that, in essence by changing “may” to “must”. Investors are unwilling to invest in companies that hold unlimited liability. It is not generally possible to insure against an unlimited liability in the space insurance market and there is very limited capacity in this specialist sector.”
“I do not want to cause some sort of inter-university fight first thing in the morning. The purpose of the Bill is to help push forward vital investment in the UK’s space sector, which is vital for economic growth and also for the defence of the UK and Scotland. The UK, Scotland and Glasgow have great opportunities in the sector, which already employs more than 52,000 people with 126,000 jobs across the supply chain. It is worth over £18.9 billion to the economy. It is now possible to launch satellites from the UK, and Glasgow, my home city, builds more small satellites than anywhere outside California. Clause 1 amends two sections of the Space Industry Act 2018 to provide legal certainty that all spaceflight operator licences must include a limit on the amount of an operator’s liability to the Government under section 36 of the Act.”
“I am also concerned that the panel process does not provide a clear role for people who love and care for the person seeking an assisted death. Amendment 8 would require the panel actively to consider hearing from such people, which addresses a serious gap in the Bill.”
“One matter that has not been addressed satisfactorily is how the relationship between Scots and English law and the Scottish and English Bills will be worked out. I suspect that that will require further primary legislation in this place and in Holyrood if both Bills pass. I turn to the remainder of the amendments. Amendment 13 is very sensible and would introduce much-needed scrutiny and oversight to the appointment of a commissioner. The right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) has set out in detail the very sensible reasons for the introduction of his suite of amendments. Amendment 86 is particularly important, because the panel faces real difficulties in compelling people to come before it if they have relevant evidence. It seems manifestly reasonable that the panel should hear from people who have relevant evidence.”
“I rise to speak to amendments 8, 13, 82, 83, 85 and 86, but first I turn to amendment 77, which would extend some of the provisions of the Bill to Scotland. My review of the Bills in Scotland and England that are proceeding at the minute suggests that if someone moved permanently from Glasgow to Bradford or Newcastle, they would lose their right to an assisted death in Scotland and would have to wait a year to acquire their right to an assisted death in England. Imagine the heartbreak if somebody was diagnosed as terminally ill three or six months into their permanent move to Newcastle. That is a natural consequence of the law of habitual residence; there is long-standing case law on that.”
“I have anxiously scrutinised those protections, and I do not believe that they will achieve their aim. That is why the amendments are so important.”
“I am obliged to my hon. Friend—that is precisely why I joined the Labour party as a 16-year-old. Faced with terrible circumstances, some people will seek an assisted death. I find it hard to accept that those will be truly autonomous choices. We must be clear that the very same circumstances that have denied people dignity and robbed them of autonomy throughout their lives will drive them to an assisted death. I find that deeply troubling, and I worry that we are placing too much confidence in concepts of capacity, autonomy and self-determination. Everyone accepts that coercive control is common—indeed, it is incredibly common, as is domestic abuse and elder abuse. There are very clear risks of coercion. I recognise that the supporters of the Bill have sought to improve protections, and to protect people in those types of circumstance.”
“I think everyone in the House debates this issue in good faith, and in the courts there is a general view that one should be reluctant to attack otherwise. I am sure that question was meant on that basis. However, one must not lose sight of the fundamental point that the protections in the Bill will not address the profound societal pressures that people will face. One must not lose sight of the fact that, whatever protections are included in the Bill, it will not protect people against coercion.”
“Reform’s economic policies appear to have been cooked up after a heavy night at Moe’s bar in “The Simpsons”. In 18 years, the SNP has failed to invest in Glasgow’s transport infrastructure. We have no airport rail link, and no Parkhead station. We do not even have lifts at Bridgeton station. I contrast that with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor’s firm commitment to transport. There is also £50 billion extra for the Scottish Government to sort out the SNP’s NHS waiting lists; record investment in the defence industry and the Clyde to defend our nation, which the SNP objects to; investment in clean energy, which is critical for jobs in Glasgow; and continued support for the Glasgow and Clyde Valley city deal. Does she agree that those things demonstrate that Scotland is at the heart of this Labour Government?”
“The provision is important for decarbonisation, energy security and jobs across the British Isles; I therefore support it.”
“I rise simply to support the provision. The first point to note is that this sort of technology has always been critical for the electricity system, which is why we have plants such as Cruachan in Scotland—which I commend to everyone as a great place to visit on their summer holidays—and Dinorwig in Wales. We need more investment in this. As someone who has been involved in the energy sector for almost 30 years, the simple fact of the matter is that this technology will not be invested in without additional support. The plan for a cap and floor mechanism is well worked through, and has a reasonable pedigree in the electricity industry for supporting investment. Clause 21 seeks to introduce that. Quite properly, it is technology-agnostic, because there is a great deal of innovation in this sector.”
“Our Employment Rights Bill tackles the evil of in-work poverty, with the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in a generation. Our Government have increased the living wage well above inflation. Our Government have been in power for 10 months; the Tories were in power for 10 years and the SNP have been in power for 18 years—at the helm of an incredibly powerful devolved Administration blessed with significant powers. The SNP have run Glasgow city council for eight years.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Maureen Burke), who is my neighbour, for securing this important debate. Glasgow has disgraceful levels of absolute poverty, with families who cannot afford the essentials to live: food, heat, school uniforms and clothes. We do not help those in desperate poverty by making unaffordable promises. But despite the constrained public finances, our Government have taken action. Our last Budget raised billions in extra taxes to fight poverty. In Scotland, that means an extra £4.9 billion for the Scottish Government, so that they can tackle record NHS waiting lists and arrest the alarming decline of Scottish education.”
“On Sunday night, there was a boy—just like my boy—with his dad, a teenage boy with his mum, and a girl perhaps the same age as my daughter. If the shelter is closed, where will those children and their mums and dads get a hot meal? Where will the most vulnerable in my city get a safe bed for the night? I hope that Glasgow city council delivers on its promise.”
“Homeless Project Scotland has a food and night shelter in the Merchant City in Glasgow. It serves free hot meals and provides an immaculately clean shelter for homeless people. However, it has had its planning permission refused. The shelter is at serious risk of closing, but I am heartened to hear that Glasgow city council has said: “We are available to engage...and do whatever we can to help them secure suitable property”. I hope that the council does that. It has two golden keys to a resolution. It has an extensive property portfolio and it is the planning authority. I cannot think of an organisation better placed to help. I helped at the shelter on Sunday night. That night, it served over 100 men and women, but because children are also homeless in Glasgow, it serves them too.”
“On disability health checks, following a successful pilot in 2019-20, the Scottish Government committed to carry out annual health checks for people with learning disabilities in 2022. It was to be completed by 2023, but as of 2023-24, only 6.9% of eligible people had been offered a health check. The SNP’s record in Holyrood on health is absolutely shameful. Education is an essential pathway out of poverty. However, the attainment gap in Scotland is widening, which means that kids in my constituency and others with large working-class populations have fewer life chances, and they are getting worse—it is an absolute scandal. College education is in crisis. Again, this should be a source of anger. Glasgow city council has an opportunity to help some of the most vulnerable in Glasgow.”
“I agree. Local government has been emasculated by the Tory Governments in England and Wales and the SNP Government in Scotland. I must say that they are pretty non-discriminatory in their emasculation, because they have failed to properly fund the SNP council in Glasgow for years. In Scotland, one cause of poverty is the shocking state of the NHS. Record waiting lists do not just delay people getting back to work; the delays mean that their conditions deteriorate to a point where they cannot return to work, and we should be incredibly angry about that. In 2007, the Scottish Government promised to establish a ministerial taskforce on health inequalities, yet Scotland continues to have the worst health inequalities in western and central Europe.”
“On failed Budgets, my constituents go to the shops with terror at the rising prices that followed the Budget of Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is the very definition of a failed Budget—one that plunged many of my constituents into poverty?”
“Does the hon. Gentleman agree that people are also very concerned about the anaemic economic growth in the United Kingdom over the past 14 years, as well as the housing and energy crises, and that the Bill seeks to strike a balance between all these competing considerations? At the moment, we do not have a balance—the balance is against development—and we desperately need developments such as Hinkley that create brilliant, well-paid jobs, including for many young people in south-west England.”
“–– [ Official Report, Planning and Infrastructure Public Bill Committee, 24 April 2025; c. 67, Q86.] She explained that investors welcome this change. The pre-application process, in the mind of investors who want to invest in clean energy projects that lower carbon emissions and other critical infrastructure, is a very material source of delays, according to that witness.”
“I am grateful. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. Is the hon. Member disagreeing with the evidence that we heard from Catherine Howard, one of the most eminent planning lawyers in the United Kingdom? Catherine Howard said: “We cannot magic up more comms consultants, lawyers, environmental impact assessment consultants and planning consultants in that period, so we desperately need a way to apply those professionals most efficiently in a really focused way across all the projects we need.” She then went on to talk about the pre-app process, which has gone up from 14 months to 27 months: “I suspect it is even longer now…The pre-app is always something I feel I have to apologise for and explain, and give the best story about how quick it might be”.”
“The clause, along with the rest of the package of reforms to the development consent order regime, will create the opportunity for significant additional employment in Scotland, jobs for our young people, and great net zero and housing projects.”
“Such appeals can lead to significant delays, depending on the business of the Court of the Appeal, which has many pressing priorities. Some mention was made of costs. I will briefly describe the cost to developers, because the Labour party is a pro-business, pro-environment party. If someone has a development that is subject to a judicial review, they have planned their contracting strategy, and what it will cost to build the development, and their financing. If there is an indeterminate delay, and a series of additional delays of unpredictable length—as a lawyer, I could never tell people how long litigation would take—they are then exposed to significant fluctuations in the financial and commodities markets. There are therefore real costs, so I naturally support clause 8.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. This clause and the other clauses in this chapter are good news for Scotland, because we in Scotland depend on projects in England to proceed. Many projects are cross-border and need consent in both countries. That is important for jobs, particularly jobs for young people. I have had the misfortune to be involved in infrastructure projects for many years. From time to time judicial reviews without any merit are brought solely to delay and frustrate projects. It is right and proper that the law is changed to make it clear that, once the High Court has made a decision, following argument—because the right to an oral hearing is retained—further appeals are prevented.”
“The Minister for Energy has addressed the issue, and the reform is to be applauded. It may seem a rather arid and dry topic, but ultimately the reform is of significant benefit to industry in the United Kingdom.”
“I rise simply to add my support to this provision. There is an extensive requirement to develop the electricity generation industry in Scotland and England, and this will give rise to great long-term jobs and apprenticeships for young people, as well as move us on to cheaper, secure, lower-carbon energy. Such queues have been a long-standing issue in the electricity industry, as any developer will tell you, and half the time it is absolutely impossible to know when their project will be connected. That is no basis on which to attract the significant investment we need in our industry in this country, because developers can go to other jurisdictions and get much quicker connections. This reform has been carefully put together by the ministerial team and Ofgem.”
“The Minister is right to have worked closely with the Scottish Government on reforming the provisions, which in many cases predate 1989, because the 1989 Act was a consolidation. He is right to have worked productively with the Scottish Government, putting Scotland first, because that will give rise to significant investment and jobs—jobs for our young people and high-quality jobs—as well as access for the people of Great Britain to greater volumes of fixed-price electricity that is not subject to fluctuations in wholesale markets, as we have seen over the last few years.”
“I will make a couple of brief remarks as a resident Scottish MP. The Minister has referenced co-operation between the Scottish and UK Governments. That is to be welcomed; it reflects this Government’s determination to do right by Scotland and to work productively with the SNP Government in Holyrood. These provisions will help to unlock significant investment in Scotland. We heard last week how SSE’s programme of projects, which these provisions help to unlock, will lead to £22 billion of investment by 2030. That is the biggest investment we have seen in the north of Scotland since the second world war. Just think what we could achieve if we had a Labour Government in Scotland as well as in England.”
“I thank the Minister, although he must feel awfully lonely as the Front-Bench Scotsman. As the Member for Rutherglen just on the other side of the Clyde from me, does he agree that the charging of fees for necessary wayleaves is a rather odd way to relitigate the referendum that took place in 1999, and a rather odd way to relitigate the questions of devolution? I know that the Conservative party has some trouble, from time to time, in accepting the devolution settlement. We seem to have moved from the West Lothian question to the Hamble Valley question. It is remarkably confusing.”
“As I said earlier, the secondary legislation and the work with the Scottish Government will be critical to capturing those benefits.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”