John Grady MP: speeches

Speeches

• 9 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Would the hon. Member accept that pension trustees should, in accordance with their fiduciary duties, actively consider investing in such things as private equity, private patient capital and interests in land? The fact that so many people have agreed, under the Mansion House arrangements, to invest in such classes of assets, which have grown exponentially in scope over the last 25 years, makes the basic point that they will yield much better returns for my constituents. The thrust is simply to get better returns for pension savers in the United Kingdom.

• 2 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q With DC—defined contribution—schemes, as you know, savers themselves have discretion about where they put their money. The issue we face, illustrated by Dimson, Marsh and Staunton’s regular review of asset returns, is that people are not saving in things that will get them a long-term return, are they? The other issue we face is that there has been a real shift from public markets to private markets over the past 25 years or so. If you are not investing in those, you are missing out on returns that mean more money when you retire. I was just wondering, Ms Clark, if you could just put into context the work you are doing on the advice guidance boundary review and wider advice to savers, and how that will help pension savers and, therefore, help these reforms succeed? Charlotte Clark: It is important to say that most people who are saving in a pension are probably saving in the default. When you say that they are choosing their investment, most of them are not. Whether it is the trustees of that scheme or whether it is the independent governance committee of that scheme, most people are going into that default, so the importance of the default is really crucial. While it is important to really think about engagement and talk about the advice guidance boundary review and some of the work that is happening there, it is also important that some people will not want to make those decisions. It is only people like us who seem to care about these sorts of things. Getting other people engaged in their investment is quite a challenge. You are right that we are doing quite a lot of work, largely around the ISA area and the at-retirement area. One of the challenges at the moment is people taking money out of their pension and then putting it in cash. That may seem like a really wise decision if you are 55, but if you do not need that money for 20 years, it may keep track with inflation but you are going to miss out on asset returns, equity returns or other aspects of investment. So, we are really thinking about how we engage with people about those sorts of discussions. How can we make sure they are getting the right support? It comes back to the targeted support programme, which goes live in spring next year. So, working with providers at the moment on how they can support people when they are making these sorts of decisions, and just think about whether, if it is not full financial advice—I understand that can be very, very costly—are there other areas where we can give people help that is not as kind of extreme as that but allows people to think about those decisions in the round? Patrick Coyne: I would just add that one of the reforms in the Bill around guided retirement is reflective of that default conundrum we face. We have a brilliant system—11 million more savers—but nobody making an active choice. That means that when people approach retirement, only one in five has a plan to access and when they do, as Charlotte said, half are taking it as cash. That cannot be the right outcome. Within the Bill, introducing a guided retirement duty enables those institutional investors to start to guide individuals or cohorts of members into the right kind of products for them, with clear opt-outs for them to choose a different way. As Charlotte said, the type of support and new form of regulated advice could really help inform savers and make good choices at that point.

• 2 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q This question is for Ms Alexander. A lot of my constituents are driven mad by small pots; they have worked in different jobs and have no idea how much money they have saved for a pension, so please could you outline the benefits of the small pots reforms to people in my constituency, and the practical steps needed to make the small pots regime work—for example, by way of IT? Zoe Alexander: The small pots reforms are absolutely critical. The problem of small pots was foreseen by the Pensions Commission years ago. We all knew we would face that problem with automatic enrolment, and I think people would agree that it has taken too long to grasp the nettle. We at Pensions UK are really delighted to see the measures in the Bill to deliver the multi-consolidator model. It is really important that the pot size is kept low, as is proposed in the Bill, at least initially, to solve the problem of the smallest pots in the market. Pensions UK has undertaken a feasibility study, working with Government, to look at how that small pots system might be delivered in practice. That work is publicly available. It gets quite technical quite quickly, so I will not go into the details of it, but we believe there is a feasible model of delivering the small pots solution at low cost—one that should not involve Government in a major IT build.

• 2 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I apologise: I should say that my wife sits on the committee of the Scottish Government pension scheme. I should disclose that to the Committee. I would like to move on to a slightly different topic: small pots. Ms Singleton, the SPP made supportive comments in its submission about small pots. Would you like to elaborate on why you support the small pots element of the Bill, and are there any practical considerations you would like to draw to the Committee’s attention? Sophia Singleton: Small pots are a challenge for both the industry and for individuals. You have got a much more mobile workforce, and more and more people have small pots and have lost sight of those pots. Obviously, the dashboard will help them to gain sight of them, but actually bringing them together will help them to manage it. We know that it is much easier for people to manage greater-sized pots of money. For the industry, it is a huge cost to manage lots and lots of very small pots of money. I think it benefits savers and it benefits the industry to have this. This is a pragmatic solution that is within the Bill, as far as we are concerned. The industry has considered a number of different ways of addressing this problem, and we feel that this is actually a very pragmatic solution. It does rely on a technology platform, so we were pleased to see that it is further down in the timeline for the Government’s road map for implementation, because we all know that introducing technology platforms can take some time and there are a lot of other things that we need to be working through, including consolidation and so on. We did put forward some small technical suggestions within the Bill. Did you want me to talk to them?

• 2 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  No. Sophia Singleton: Good. We are positive that this will help, and we are also positive about the timeline for it.

• 1 Sept 2025 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  I explain to my constituents every week how hard the Foreign Secretary and his ministerial team are working in this context, but every day women and children are killed and are starving. What is happening is a moral outrage of the first order. The International Criminal Court is a key pillar of international justice. Will my right hon. Friend reassure me that he is doing everything possible to protect and enhance its independence from political interference, and to ensure that it is more than properly resourced to carry out its important work in this conflict?

• 21 Jul 2025 · Independent Water Commission · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the independent water commission’s report—it is a serious piece of work. The water companies were privatised with no debt, yet following years of dividends, excessive debt and opaque financial structures, the financial stability of the water sector is a cause of very serious concern. Recommendations 56 to 59 engage substantially with that topic, as do other recommendations. Will the Secretary of State commit to carefully reviewing whether the implementation of many of the recommendations dealing with financial stability can be accelerated ahead of legislation, to protect both resilience and bill payers?

• 16 Jul 2025 · Financial Services Reform · Hansard source

  More

  The reforms are targeted at getting greater investment into British infrastructure and cutting red tape. Does my hon. Friend agree that it was a little bit rum for Opposition parties to criticise our Government for introducing red tape when they voted against the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which creates projects that people can invest in and provides houses, which are a key restraint on house price inflation?

• 15 Jul 2025 · Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  I cannot recall saying anything disparaging about Scottish education. I did criticise the Scottish NHS—[ Interruption. ] Well, the reality is that businesses are absolutely petrified of the way the SNP is dealing with Scottish education. We have insolvent universities and colleges in crisis, and education standards are plummeting. Those are the facts, and they are why the Scottish SNP Government will lose in 2026 and we will have a new First Minister. The Conservatives are meant to be patriotic and pro-defence. How is the investment in defence to be paid for? Would they reverse the record settlement for the Scottish Government given that we have Scottish elections next year? I think they should explain.

• 15 Jul 2025 · Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  I will make some progress if I may. Our debt to GDP ratio is almost 100%, and we inherited that from the previous Government. Conservative Members object to tax rises while wanting tax cuts and increases in public spending and objecting to spending cuts. That is not realistic. We know from the disastrous Budget of Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng that we must manage finances carefully. Some Opposition Members suggest that we should get rid of the Office for Budget Responsibility. The Conservatives shunned the OBR when Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng put forward their Budget and we know what happened then. I find it quite surprising therefore that we still have Conservative Members who want to get rid of it. The Conservative approach to the economy simply does not grapple with the serious state of the public finances; it inhabits a world of wishful thinking—a world of higher inflation, higher Government borrowing costs and higher interest rates.

• 15 Jul 2025 · Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  I am very happy to reflect that the covid pandemic happened, but I also reflect that Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng’s mismanagement happened. The Conservatives lost the last election because they made a mess of the economy. They have lost their reputation for economic competence, which is why they have lost so many MPs and suffered an extinction event. I read in today’s Times that it was thought that the common crane had been extinct for more than 500 years in Scotland, but it is now reported that there are six or seven nesting pairs in Scotland—more than we have Conservative MPs, and there may be a reason for that. The Opposition motion implies a reversal of more than £20 billion in taxes. The Opposition need to explain how they would fund that. What cuts would they make, and what effect would that have on the businesses they claim to support? They need to explain whether they would reverse the investment in the NHS, which is essential to businesses. Many businesses have said to me that they want to see investment in the NHS in order to get the waiting lists down and reform the service. That is exactly what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health is doing. The disruption caused to businesses by NHS waiting lists is significant, but they are now coming down—if only the same could be said for Scotland. The Opposition must explain whether they would reverse the investment in education, because businesses say to me every week that they want to see investment in skills. They need skilled workers to grow their businesses. It is essential for economic growth.

• 15 Jul 2025 · Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  No, I will make some progress. The huge inflation unleashed by the previous Government caused immense misery to my constituents. The interest rate rises made life a misery for hard-working families who had bought their homes in Glasgow East. That is why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is right to focus on appropriate management of the economy and not wishful thinking. The real question is this: what has the Conservative party come to. Will it ever return to seeing things as they are, rather than proposing policies that bear no relationship to reality? Its proposals, as I understand them, are a form of magical realism, which is why the electorate have cast them into 100 years of solitude.

• 15 Jul 2025 · Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  All I will say, Madam Deputy Speaker, is the plain fact is that North sea oil and gas will be produced for many years to come, and the Government support that. The Government are also supporting investment in the industries of the future, such as offshore renewables. Under the Conservative Government, there was a contracts for difference auction with no successful bids, setting back our access to fixed-price, cheap electricity. That is the Tory economic policy on energy: turning up their noses at cheap, fixed-price energy. It is little wonder we are in such a mess.

• 15 Jul 2025 · Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak against the Opposition motion. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has raised taxes. She has done so to stabilise the public finances, because the public finances that the Labour Government inherited were in a shocking state; she has done so to invest in public services, in particular the NHS and schools, because public services were left in a shocking state by the previous Government; she has done so to invest in national security; and she has done so to invest in Scotland. My right hon. Friend has raised taxes because public finances need to be managed carefully. We cannot keep pretending that we have money when we do not.

• 15 Jul 2025 · Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  I would like to make some progress, because there are many speakers, but I will give way.

• 9 Jul 2025 · Industrial Strategy: Impact on Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  The industrial strategy identifies defence as a key industry. It is a big employer in Glasgow, and could create many good jobs for my constituents. However, the SNP has banned the Scottish National Investment Bank and Scottish Enterprise from investing in defence companies. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this shows that the SNP Government are weak when it comes to defending Scotland, and are denying Glaswegians many good jobs?

• 9 Jul 2025 · Industrial Strategy: Impact on Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  4. What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the potential impact of the industrial strategy on Scotland.

• 7 Jul 2025 · Government Performance against Fiscal Rules · Hansard source

  More

  My constituency faces a housing crisis, and inflation and out-of-control borrowing costs make it much more expensive to build social housing, and those costs are passed on to tenants. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is precisely why the fiscal rules are critical?

• 7 Jul 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I hope the right hon. Gentleman would accept that diversification is critical here. Of course, illiquid private assets are not something that one holds for a couple of years and then sells, but the funds are designed to be large enough to bear the risk from diversification. That is the critical point. Pension funds are a statutory arrangement, with significant taxation and other legal benefits. That creates a business opportunity for pension providers—and quite right, too. Against that background, it is right that the Government review whether, under the existing arrangements, savers are getting a fair return from that special statutory and legal arrangement. Given the tax breaks, it is not unreasonable to address the question of whether there is sufficient investment in the United Kingdom. Let me turn to our attitude to risk in the UK, on which the success of pension arrangements turns, as does our desire for more economic growth. We will not get more economic growth unless we take more reasonable risks, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer and others have made clear. It is essential for banks and fund managers to consider whether they take enough risk. The chief executive of the National Wealth Fund, John Flint, made the point last Tuesday at the Treasury Committee, when he said, “I would encourage the stewards of private capital to go back and challenge themselves on their risk appetite…the country’s growth outcomes are, for me, largely consistent with the country’s risk appetite generally.” I venture to say that our great fund managers and banks need to turn their minds to whether they are taking enough risk, because that drives economic growth and drives successful outcomes for savers. Another aspect of pensions reform and risk taking is the individual savers, as was brought home to me in a quite different context, when I was on a football history tour organised by Football’s Square Mile, which promotes the history of football in Glasgow East. As we stood mainly in Glasgow East—I must admit that some of it was in Glasgow South—the guides explained to us that when Queen’s Park decided to organise the first international football match between Scotland and England in 1872, the club had just over £7. It had a choice: the low risk was to hold the match at a rugby club, free of charge; the higher risk was to hold the match at the West of Scotland cricket club at Partick, an old, closed ground where tickets could be sold and there was potential revenue. The problem was that the West of Scotland cricket club wanted more by way of rent than the Queen’s Park had—much more than £7. The guides put the choice to us all as we stood just in Glasgow South constituency, and just outside my constituency. The vast majority of people on the tour picked the low-risk option: an indication, at the end of the week, of how risk-averse we have become in Britain. Encouraging sensible risk taking is critical to pension saving and if we want more economic growth. In fact, Queen’s Park took the higher-risk option: it rented the cricket ground and made a huge profit. The game transformed the profile of football and was the foundation for Queen’s Park’s building the first international football stadium in the world, which opened a year later in 1873 in my constituency. Queen’s Park took a risk that was pivotal to the development of modern football, and modern football contributes billions to the Exchequer. My point is that risk is essential to economic activity, as Mr Flint explained and as was illustrated later in the week. The Bill is critical for economic growth. It takes active steps to ensure that money flows to the entrepreneurs and risk takers who will create wealth across Britain. It ensures that working people have access to better pensions. On that basis, I support the Bill.

• 7 Jul 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak in favour of the Bill. On a policy basis, the Bill addresses a number of very important challenges. The first is ensuring that the pension system delivers good outcomes for the millions of pension savers in Britain. That is absolutely critical. In my lifetime, the risk of pension savings has shifted from the employer to the employee—in other words, to our constituents. At the heart of the reforms is one essential fact: investment in a diverse set of assets leads to better returns and better outcomes than investment in a narrow set of assets. We need to move away from a focus on cost in the industry and on to a focus on overall value and the outcomes that savers get, so they have comfortable retirements. I am determined that the working people in Glasgow East have comfortable retirements and are properly rewarded for their hard work. Therefore, the Bill’s objective of ensuring that savers in Glasgow East and across the United Kingdom ultimately have access to a wider pool of investments, which have historically been restricted, is a good outcome and a good policy. The second challenge the Bill seeks to address is growth. People in Glasgow East are very ambitious, as I know they are in Aberdeen North and in Hampshire. As I knocked on doors ahead of last year’s election, people would say to me, “Britain has lost its way.” And many people said that they felt their children would be better off working abroad, or that there were more opportunities for their children abroad. That is the challenge the Bill plays a part in addressing. We do not invest enough in our productive capacity so we have lower, sclerotic economic growth. Pension savings are an essential source of finance for British industry and infrastructure. In that regard, the Bill includes, in chapter 3 of part 2, something that seems to be causing anxiety: the backstop mandation of investment by defined-contribution pension funds into private asset classes linked to the United Kingdom. Private non-listed shares and debt are now central to investment in a way that they were not when I started off as a junior lawyer many years ago. Growth companies in areas such as medicine, AI, technology and, of course, space remain in private hands for much longer, and list on public markets much later, if at all. The mandation power must be viewed in that context. If UK pension funds do not invest in those classes of domestic assets, working people may miss out on significant returns, and we risk losing the opportunity of growth and of developing the great innovations from our fantastic universities, including the University of Strathclyde.

• 4 Jul 2025 · Space Industry (Indemnities) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 4 Jul 2025 · Space Industry (Indemnities) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time. I will start with a short summary of the Bill. Which will amend 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 the operator’s liability to the Government under section 36 of the Act. The reason for that is that under international law applicable to space, Governments including the UK are liable for damage to property or death or personal injury caused by space activities. Section 36 passes on that liability to spaceflight operators and requires them to indemnify the Government. Without legal certainty over a cap, much-needed investment in the UK space industry, which is critical for defence and civilian purposes, will be held back, and that investment will go elsewhere. That is the purpose of the Bill: to encourage vital investment in our space sector, of which we should be proud. I realise that parliamentarians in this place have not always been enthusiastic about space. When the Soviet spacecraft Luna 2 reached the surface of the moon on 13 September 1959, the Foreign Secretary Selwyn Lloyd, who went on to be a Speaker of this place, reacted with great enthusiasm. He said: “I don’t think many people are terribly interested in the Russian rocket”, despite it being historic. Harold Macmillan, on the other hand, was much more enthusiastic. When Armstrong and Aldrin were waiting in the lunar module, and we had had a man on the moon, Harold Wilson said: “We must all be filled with a profound sense of wonder and admiration in witnessing this historic event.” In fact, the UK played an important role in that space mission, and UK industry was involved, too. There was somewhat of a stooshie—a Scots word for a row—about the failure of the British ambassador to attend the launch, and his letter in the National Archives explains why. His explanation basically boils down to the fact that he had been to one previously, and that once you have seen one space launch, you have seen them all. It just goes to show that the importance of the special relationship is nothing new, but it did cause somewhat of a stooshie. Of course, nothing in 1969 was as important as Newcastle United winning the Inter-Cities Fairs cup.

• 4 Jul 2025 · Space Industry (Indemnities) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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. Another reason why it is important to invest in space is for defence—it is critical to the defence of the United Kingdom. If we have a vibrant space industry in the United Kingdom, that will support the technological innovation we need to defend our country and our allies as we move into a much more difficult foreign policy context.

• 4 Jul 2025 · Space Industry (Indemnities) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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. 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.

• 4 Jul 2025 · Space Industry (Indemnities) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.