Chris Law MP: speeches 2026

Speeches

• 9 Sept 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q11. In response to my question last week, the Prime Minister stated that he was “very aware of every word in the Good Friday agreement, and I will stick to it 100% as Prime Minister.” —[ Official Report , 1 September 2026; Vol. 790, c. 50.] He will therefore know that the Northern Ireland Act 1998 contains a provision for a referendum on leaving the United Kingdom, but no equivalent provision exists in the law for Scotland. Does he recognise that the people of Scotland have an equal right to choose their own future, and that the conditions for a second independence referendum should be set out in law?

• 1 Sept 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T5. It is beyond doubt that Israeli settlements in Palestinian territories are illegal, and the Foreign Secretary has stated that sanctions for those who participate in illegal settlement expansion will be brought forward. Sadly, Labour MPs in this House are trying to prevent that on the basis that it could result in retaliatory measures from the US. Can the Foreign Secretary assure the House that the UK’s adherence to international law will not be traded away, that the rights of the Palestinian people are not bargaining chips, and that he will not be bullied by Back Benchers or President Trump into allowing continued settler violence and the deliberate destruction of the two-state solution?

• 1 Sept 2026 · Direction of Government · Hansard source

  More

  The Prime Minister has spoken about his desire for a written constitution, arguing that a formal legal framework is necessary for the devolution agenda, yet in his short time in office he has already attempted unilaterally to defy the legally binding Good Friday agreement by declaring that a border poll is “off the table”. Does the Prime Minister recognise that he has no mandate to defy the constitutional wishes of the people of Northern Ireland, the people of Scotland or the people of Wales, and that any written constitution or devolution agenda must include a pathway for each of those nations to choose their own future?

• 1 Sept 2026 · Direction of Government · Hansard source

  More

  Yes!

• 9 Jul 2026 · Israeli Settlements: Trade Ban · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with the hon. Member, who pre-empts a point that I am about to come to. Again, the options are there. The Government are either unwilling or unable to deliver what other countries are already preparing to do—including bans—and to look at legalities later. Secondly, touching on the point made by the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton), the Government repeatedly claim that other countries have been unable to bring forward a ban. That, too, is nonsense. For example, Spain is implementing a ban, and the Netherlands, Belgium and Ireland are enacting legislation to do similar. Again, are the Government either unable or simply unwilling to abide by their own obligations under international law? Thirdly, I welcome the UK Government’s position—after having been dragged by their own Back Benchers—on recognising the state of Palestine, but we all know that that is utterly meaningless if there is not a viable state where the Palestinians can live.

• 9 Jul 2026 · Israeli Settlements: Trade Ban · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. I represent the city of Dundee, which is twinned with the city of Nablus in the west bank—I am also a member of that twinning association—and I have had thousands of constituents write of their disgust at the continued trade we do with illegal settlements and their continued expansion. Thirdly, as I said, I welcome recognition of the state of Palestine, but that is meaningless unless there is a land to live in. While the Government permit the existence of illegal settlements and continue to trade with them, they must acknowledge that that makes their stated policy of a two-state solution unachievable. After all, in case there were any doubt, Israel’s Defence Minister Katz stated that settlement expansion was “a strategic move that prevents the establishment of a Palestinian state”.

• 9 Jul 2026 · Israeli Settlements: Trade Ban · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome my Celtic cousin’s remarks and I agree with her. On arms sales, one suggestion would be a recommitment to the Committees on Arms Export Controls that we once had and that I served on for seven years, which were dissolved two or three years ago. Such a Committee needs to be reinstated and what better opportunity than now, when we really need to scrutinise and examine what is being exported and in whose name. Returning to the two-state solution, Prime Minister Netanyahu declared that as a result of the E1 settlement expansion plan “there will be no Palestinian state.” No need for clues, no need for second-guessing. I put it to the Minister yet again: are the Government unable or unwilling to take action? Their inaction only emboldens further settlement expansion and makes the UK complicit in Israel’s criminal behaviour against the Palestinian people. My fourth and final point is that it is all very well for the Minister to issue his condemnation, for the UK to “call on the Government to reverse these decisions” and for the Foreign Secretary to be “very clear” with Israeli Ministers, but without actions, as a result of the Israeli Government repeatedly ignoring these words, nothing will ever be achieved. Dithering must end and action must begin. What we are witnessing is the trading in misery, mayhem and murder of Palestinians, and their homeland continuously being stolen from them. When we do nothing, we are telling Israel that we support it wholeheartedly, and it shows how little we value Palestinian life. That is unconscionable and it is certainly not in my name or my party’s name, or those of the many thousands—indeed, millions—across these islands.

• 9 Jul 2026 · Israeli Settlements: Trade Ban · Hansard source

  More

  In the interests of time, I will focus my speech on four key areas, having waited nearly 10 months for a response to a letter that I sent to the Minister in which he neglected to answer the questions posed. First is the issue of complexity. The Government argue that it is just too complex to differentiate between goods produced in green-line Israel, legitimate Palestinian goods and those from illegal settlements. However, the Minister is acutely aware that the UK free trade agreement with Israel already requires settlement goods and those from green-line Israel to be differentiated. At the same time, the UK’s trade agreement with the Palestinian Authority means that Palestinian goods have completely different import codes, so the UK should already be distinguishing between goods. Therefore, why is it too complex to implement a ban on illegal settlement goods when, as was mentioned, the Government can apply complex trade sanctions relating to territory in Ukraine illegally occupied by Russia, including an outright ban on goods imported from Crimea?

• 9 Jul 2026 · Israeli Settlements: Trade Ban · Hansard source

  More

  I completely agree with the hon. Member. That point could be made the other way round: if Israel cannot differentiate its goods—or it is hiding goods among others—why do we not just ban all goods until Israel proves otherwise? That would be a way to deal with it.

• 6 Jul 2026 · Foreign Interference in UK Politics · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the modest measures announced today. However, Thai-based billionaire and Reform party donor Christopher Harborne has already insisted that these new rules will not stop him donating. Billionaires, oligarchs and all those who wish to subvert our democracy believe that they are untouchable, so these measures must be rigorously enforced with severe punishments for anyone found breaking them. Given that the ex-leader of Reform in Wales is serving 10 and a half years in prison for taking Russian money during his time as an MEP, will the Minister ensure that anyone found guilty of undermining the integrity of our democracy is dealt with with the same severity?

• 11 Jun 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  The democratically elected majority of the Scottish Parliament has once again voted in favour of holding a referendum on Scottish independence. Therefore, the UK Government cannot simply continue to ignore the demands of Scottish people and hope that they will go away. Can we have a statement from the Government on how they plan to implement the democratic wishes of the people of Scotland, outlining the democratic route and timetable for the independence referendum that they voted for?

• 10 Jun 2026 · Defence Investment Plan · Hansard source

  More

  The extraordinary delays to the defence investment plan have left our armed forces, defence industry and allies in limbo. Only in April the Government warned that they had shown “corrosive complacency” towards defence, leaving our national security “in peril”. Does the Minister recognise that the DIP delays are illustrative of that complacency and have given our adversaries the time and opportunity to explore and exploit our weaknesses? The failure to agree and fully fund our defence requirements is jeopardising the safety of our citizens.

• 1 Jun 2026 · Lord Mandelson Humble Address: Government Response · Hansard source

  More

  Given that the key person in this scandal, Lord Mandelson, refused to hand over his personal WhatsApp messages, how can the Government guarantee that Parliament and the public have seen the full truth? Was the Prime Minister misled, or are the Prime Minister and the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister accepting partial disclosure?

• 21 May 2026 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  I almost sympathise with the Minister, because really everybody in the House is exasperated by the lack of action. I represent Dundee, which has been twinned with Nablus on the west bank for the last 45 years. The members of the Dundee-Nablus Twinning Association write to me regularly about positive things that could be done; I will give one example. Given that entirely illegal expansion of the occupied west bank is continuing—there were 34 settlements planned in April alone—the International Court of Justice has directed states not to trade with Israel in relation to the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and other European countries such as Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands and Ireland are taking unilateral steps to ban trade with illegal settlements. The Minister said that he does not want to put things out early, but I think these steps are already under way—why are we not doing this? There is a precedent in UK law and policy for not trading with those who have illegally occupied lands such as Crimea and other illegally occupied parts of Ukraine. Will he please stop making excuses, and outline when the Government will finally uphold their international legal obligations and ban that trade?

• 21 May 2026 · Ticket Reselling · Hansard source

  More

  As artists and songwriters gather today for the Ivor Novello awards, fans across the country are still being ripped off by ticket touts, despite the Prime Minister’s promise to act “as soon as possible”. It is incredibly disappointing that the Government have proposed only a draft ticket tout ban Bill in the King’s Speech. Does the Minister accept that any further delay simply benefits those touts and secondary ticketing platforms, and will she give us a date for when proper legislation will be brought forward to protect fans?

• 21 May 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  May I take this opportunity to congratulate both the SNP in Scotland on an historic fifth landslide election and Plaid Cymru on its historic win in the Welsh Senedd elections? That brings together the north of Ireland, Wales and Scotland as being represented by Governments who believe not only believe in the people, but in unlocking the nations’ potential by being independent nations in the future. The north of Ireland has a legal mandate to hold a referendum on its future. However, Scotland does not share that legal mandate. That is a glaring omission from the Scotland Act 1998, so can we have a debate on the constitutional crisis the UK now finds itself in, where Scotland has spoken with the highest ever majority for independence parties but is denied the democratic route— [ Interruption ] I’m sorry, but I think we are in a democratic Chamber here—to express the will of the people of Scotland?

• 22 Apr 2026 · Draft Asylum Seekers (Reception Conditions) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 Draft Immigration and Asylum (Provision of Accommodation to Failed Asylum-Seekers) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I am not supporting illegality; the question is the scale of the illegality. To go back to the 0.3%, 0.05% are found to be guilty, and the cost to the entire United Kingdom per year—bear in mind that we are talking about £4 billion in asylum costs at the moment—is roughly £277,000. Can the Minister not agree that although there are cases, the Government are not allowing people to work and at the same time they expect everybody to be abiding absolutely within their system? That is already leading to ill health and near destitution. The level of crime that I have—

• 22 Apr 2026 · Draft Asylum Seekers (Reception Conditions) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 Draft Immigration and Asylum (Provision of Accommodation to Failed Asylum-Seekers) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 22 Apr 2026 · Draft Asylum Seekers (Reception Conditions) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 Draft Immigration and Asylum (Provision of Accommodation to Failed Asylum-Seekers) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. Where to begin? The regulations brought by the Government today are a depressing illustration of the Labour party’s failure to challenge an immigration-obsessed far right and are a shameful surrender to the Conservatives and Reform in demonising and scapegoating one of the most vulnerable groups in our society. Asylum seekers deserve protection from the dangers they have fled. They deserve our care and they deserve and are entitled to support. We should begin by dispelling the myth disgracefully repeated by the Home Office that asylum seekers are somehow abusing British hospitality. Qualifying for asylum support is far from straightforward, with applicants having to prove that they are destitute or will become destitute within 14 days. Assets held and past earnings are considered. Accommodation is provided on a no-choice basis. Financial support is less than £50 a week if they are in self-catered accommodation or less than £10 if they are in catered accommodation. That money is meant to fund essential needs such as toiletries, laundry, non-prescription medicines, clothing, travel and communications over the course of the year. I would like to see if anyone on the Committee could manage with that. Given that almost all people seeking asylum are not allowed to work, as the hon. Member for Woking mentioned, is it any surprise that most of them live in poverty and experience hunger and poor health? Asylum seekers rely on that support to avoid destitution. A compassionate Government would realise that existing support should be a floor, not a ceiling, when it comes to what is provided to people seeking safety in the UK, yet the Government have decided that their priority is removing the legal duty to provide that meagre, minimal support. What are the risks of withdrawing the duty to support? The Government do not know, because they have not conducted an impact assessment, although some of the answers should be obvious. Depriving a person of accommodation and the very baseline of financial means to support themselves will only increase the likelihood of their becoming homeless, working illegally or being exploited by criminals and gangs. This is happening on the Government’s watch. It will increase that person’s likelihood of falling ill, being a victim of violence or, tragically, dying prematurely. These are people’s lives, and the Government view them as expendable for what they see as a political win. What a complete disgrace! In such circumstances, the Government run a serious risk of breaching their international legal commitments under article 3 of the European convention on human rights, on preventing inhuman or degrading treatment. It is worth noting that we were not just a signatory to the refugee convention; we created it. We wrote and drafted it, and now the Government are about to go against it. Indeed, in 2005 a landmark House of Lords ruling established that denying subsistence support to asylum seekers who were forbidden from working breached article 3, as it created “an imminent prospect of serious suffering” regardless of statutory discretion. Does the Minister not recognise that discretionary removal of accommodation and subsistence support to asylum seekers, as proposed by this legislation, would result in serious suffering and could be deemed inhuman or degrading treatment? How can he seriously say that these regulations are compatible with the ECHR, given the suffering they are likely to cause? How can anyone on the Committee vote in favour of forcing already vulnerable people into destitution? Protection is a right, not a reward; moving from right-based support to a more selective discretionary model fundamentally undermines that. The Government have referenced similar models in countries such as Denmark, the Netherlands and France, although those comparisons have been disputed on the basis that some of those systems still retain statutory duties to prevent destitution. As we have heard, in Denmark they have the right to work after six months. The Government have instead said that they will operate a system based on “genuine need”, but given that they have not published a full replacement framework, there is no clarity about how the new system will operate—particularly about how genuine need will be defined and assessed. Bizarrely, in what circumstances will an asylum seeker facing destitution not be considered in genuine need? Will the change from a legal entitlement to a discretionary system in which decisions are made case by case not simply add to bureaucracy, increase costs and add delays and frustrations for all those involved? As has already been mentioned, the House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee pointed out that only “0.3% of all asylum seekers receiving support” have been investigated for fraud and that only “0.05% of those receiving support” have had support “discontinued, reduced or withdrawn”. This is a straw man: the Government are bringing forward these regulations to tackle an extremely marginal problem. What are the Government actually seeking to achieve? The explanatory memorandum states that they are bringing forward these regulations to provide “flexibility to design an asylum support system aligned with domestic priorities”, but the reality is that they are to provide a system aligned with political priorities. This can be best described as coming from the ideological handbook of the far right. Cowering at the threat of the Reform party and dog-whistle politics, the Home Secretary has launched a disgusting assault on asylum seekers, refugees and immigrants, which has been lapped up by the very people the Labour party is meant to stand in opposition to. Last month, the Home Office press release announcing these draft regulations proclaimed: “Asylum handouts and accommodation removed for illegal migrants abusing Britain’s generosity”— a headline more suited to the right-wing tabloid press or a Reform party election manifesto commitment. These regulations are about jeopardising the lives of vulnerable people for the cheapest, most untrue headline. To those on the Labour Benches, I say this: before it is too late, realise that you cannot out-reform Reform. Stand in solidarity with asylum seekers and vote against these cruellest-of-the-cruel regulations today.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Antisemitic Attacks · Hansard source

  More

  The arson attacks targeting synagogues in recent days are sadly part of a pattern of escalating antisemitism designed to intimidate Jewish people, leaving them fearful for their safety. This vile form of racism can never be tolerated, and we must act collectively to defend our Jewish communities. Given the potential links between recent attacks, will the Minister keep the Scottish Government updated on this developing threat so that we can work together to protect the Jewish community in Scotland?

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  Given that it is widely known that Peter Mandelson maintained a friendship with the convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, had close business links in both China and Russia, and was sacked from two Government posts, what I really want to ask the Prime Minister is this: what are the unique and defining human qualities of the man I have just described that so attracted the Prime Minister to the idea that he should be politically appointed as ambassador to the US, and why is he still defending him behind process, instead of calling out what is wrong, taking responsibility and resigning?

• 19 Mar 2026 · International Development · Hansard source

  More

  The UK was once regarded as a world leader in international development, yet today UK aid cuts are the steepest, deepest and most brutal of any G7 country—astonishingly, they are going further and faster in withdrawing support from the world’s most vulnerable people than even Donald Trump’s US Administration. It is utterly shameful. We are not hearing today how deep and where specifically those cuts are, but we know that they will deny children education and prevent access to lifesaving medicine, while also hitting those who live in extreme poverty hardest. In short, they are death-sentence cuts. With no separate Department now, or even an elected international development Minister for us to scrutinise and ask these detailed questions, how can the Secretary of State expect anyone to seriously believe that this Government remain committed to international development in an era of acute global instability?

• 19 Mar 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  In January, the UK Government announced that the listed places of worship grant scheme, which has allowed congregations to reclaim VAT on repairs to listed places of worship, would close at the end of March. While a replacement scheme was announced for England, I understand that the Scottish Government were not informed in advance of this change, leaving both the Scottish Government and places of worship in the lurch following this sudden, unexpected decision. [Hon. Members: “They were given the money!”] Can we have a statement from the UK Government, explaining this total disregard, and confirming that funding will be made available through the Barnett formula for a similar scheme in Scotland?

• 19 Mar 2026 · UK Steel Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State has made great efforts to make the point that investing in steel production is crucial to the strength of the economy and to our national security, which is true. It is also true that Brexit has been disastrous for our steel industries, as he is aware. It is stark that the UK Government are willing to invest in those critical industries in England and Wales, but have continually failed to do so in Scotland. Despite their election promises to save Grangemouth, it was allowed to close; Mossmorran slammed shut its doors; and Labour’s damaging energy policies have cost 1,000 jobs per month. Will he apologise to the people in the east and north-east of Scotland who feel utterly betrayed and abandoned by the UK Labour Government?

• 19 Mar 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The fishing and coastal growth fund saw an utterly meagre £28 million devolved to Scotland and £304 million allocated to England, even though Scotland represents 60% of fishing capacity in the UK. Despite the Government’s inability to understand basic arithmetic, is the Minister considering mitigations to ensure that Scotland’s fishing industry and coastal communities can thrive?