Chris Law MP: speeches 2025

96 published records · newest first.

Speeches

1 May 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source
More
Modelling by the Scottish Government has shown that Brexit-made barriers are likely to have reduced Scottish exports by £3 billion, compared with continued EU membership. Greater co-operation and a closer relationship with the EU will always be encouraged by SNP Members, but does the Secretary of State recognise that anything short of full single market and customs union membership continues to damage Scotland’s economy?
29 Apr 2025 · Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Visit · Hansard source
More
Two weeks ago, I had the privilege to speak on behalf of the UK Parliament at the Inter-Parliamentary Union, where over 1,200 MPs from 188 countries passed a resolution supporting a two-state solution. No one voted against it. There was plenty of notice of the UK not recognising a nation state. Last night, I asked the Palestinian Prime Minister what difference it would make if the UK recognised a Palestinian state, and he replied that “it would be a paradigm change, a new platform. It all starts with that recognition.” Given the crucial meetings between the UK Prime Minister and the Palestinian Prime Minister as equals, what practical impediment stands in the way of now recognising Palestine as a nation state? I hear repeatedly that we are looking for a practical solution, so will the Minister explain that to the House?
25 Apr 2025 · Devolution (Immigration) (Scotland) Bill · Hansard source
More
The shadow Secretary of State is correct to raise the dire situation at Dundee University. There is a £35 million deficit, £12.5 million of which is a direct result of Conservative policies that have meant a restriction on immigration visas for dependants. We saw an 84% drop the year that that came in, with an 18% drop even among undergraduates coming on their own. Why will he not take some responsibility for the fact that Dundee University is facing such dire circumstances because of his party’s heinous hostile immigration policies?
25 Apr 2025 · Devolution (Immigration) (Scotland) Bill · Hansard source
More
The hon. Member is asking us some valuable questions on things that need to be probed a little bit deeper, such as cost and complexity. Those are all matters we are having to consider under Brexit, which is costing £40 billion a year. [ Interruption. ] I can hear the chuntering, but I am addressing the Member on whom I am intervening. [Hon. Members: “Ooh!”] Are you surprised? That is how a proper adult debate happens. I ask the hon. Member this important question: given that he is asking some legitimate questions that he and we would like to explore, why not bring the Bill to a vote, so that we can take it forward to Committee to explore those questions further?
25 Apr 2025 · Devolution (Immigration) (Scotland) Bill · Hansard source
More
The bedroom tax.
25 Apr 2025 · Devolution (Immigration) (Scotland) Bill · Hansard source
More
The shadow Secretary of State is being generous in giving way. To be clear, this is not a policy that affects just Dundee University, or even just Scotland. It is affecting universities across these islands, in England, Wales and Scotland. Of the top 10 universities that are facing financial problems, due in large part to immigration policies brought in under the last Conservative Government, more than half are in England. Would he like to spread the blame across these islands, rather than making it specifically about Scotland?
22 Apr 2025 · British Steel · Hansard source
More
Despite recent comments by a Scotland Office Minister, may I make it crystal clear that it is not “manufacturing grievance” to suggest that Grangemouth, like Scunthorpe, should be nationalised to protect a critical economic and security asset that has been run down by foreign owners? What we have seen from the UK Government in the last weeks, including today, is that when push comes to shove, they can take bold action in crisis, as they have done in Scunthorpe. Therefore, is it not the case that if the UK Government fail to act in a similar fashion at Grangemouth, highly skilled jobs will be lost, Scotland’s only capacity to refine oil will be shut down and critical energy security will be further diminished?
2 Apr 2025 · Universities: Funding and Employment · Hansard source
More
The hon. Member is making the powerful point that money should be put into staff and students. In my constituency, the University of Dundee faces critical challenges just now, with almost 700 jobs at risk. My thoughts are with those staff, and I thank the Scottish Government for the £22 million package of support for them. Does he agree that the UK Government need to reverse the Tory hostile environment policy for international students that means they cannot bring members of their family here? It has cost our university alone more than £12 million. Does he agree further that the national insurance contributions increase—an additional £3 million that the University of Dundee has to find—needs to be stopped right now?
31 Mar 2025 · Myanmar Earthquake · Hansard source
More
The earthquake in Myanmar could not have come at a worse time, given that millions are already displaced and needing humanitarian assistance as a result of the ongoing civil war since the military coup in 2021. I welcome the Minister’s condemnation of the multiple airstrikes that have taken place since the earthquake and the £10 million of assistance that has been announced. However, numerous charities have come forward with emergency appeals to support those affected, and I have heard some warm words about how we can build on that. Will the UK Government support those appeals—as mentioned by others across this House; we are speaking with one voice—through aid match, so that for every pound donated by members of the public, the Government will contribute a further £1 of UK aid?
25 Mar 2025 · Terms and Conditions of Employment · Hansard source
More
Increases to the national living wage and national minimum wage will always be supported by Scottish National party Members. Indeed, we have been pushing for the UK Government to adopt the real living wage for those of all ages since 2011. Disappointingly, we have to continue to do so, as the Labour party has failed to take the opportunity to do that, now that it is in government. While we support the changes that are being introduced today, the SNP’s position is clear: we want the real living wage for all workers, not just a politically convenient definition of the living wage that falls short of meeting the actual costs of living, and not just for those who are 21 and over. The Resolution Foundation has the real living wage set at £12.60, whereas this regulation increases the national living wage for workers aged 21 or over from £11.44 to £12.21 per hour. It is evidently still short of where it needs to be. Furthermore, for those aged between 18 and 21, the national living wage is 18% lower, at £10 per hour. Given that the Minister today said that there would be a consultation looking at the cost of living, can he tell me if rent is 18% lower for those under 21? Do 18-year-olds get a special rate on their electricity bills, or on petrol for their car? Do supermarkets give them an 18% discount?
25 Mar 2025 · Terms and Conditions of Employment · Hansard source
More
I will not, as I would like to make this point very clear, because it is important. The answer to my questions is obviously no. While I welcome the Minister’s comment that the national living wage may be looked at next year, and may be increased so that there is parity for everybody, we are not there yet. I would like the Government to go further, and I look forward to hearing more about how they will consult on doing so next year. It is worth noting that in Scotland, the SNP Government have taken proactive steps to ensure that the real living wage is implemented wherever we have control, particularly in our public sector. The Scottish Government have paid all staff within their pay scheme, including NHS staff, the real living wage since 2011—that is 14 years ago. Scotland has the highest proportion of employees paid the living wage of any nation in the UK, with 25% of accredited real living wage employers in the UK based there. The Scottish Government are also providing funding to enable adult social care workers to be paid the living wage, benefiting up to 40,000 care workers, and they are working to ensure that all staff in private nurseries delivering our childcare pledge are paid the real living wage, too. The Labour Government should demonstrate similar willingness to tackle the scourge of low pay. In their manifesto, they pledged to make changes in line with the real living wage, and to take into account the cost of living, but they have failed, at least today, to do so. They were voted in with a mantra of change, and it is in their power to legislate for the introduction of the real living wage for all, but so far, they have chosen not to. They must go further and adopt the living wage for people irrespective of their age, as the SNP has called on successive Governments to do for the past 14 years.
20 Mar 2025 · Conflict in Gaza · Hansard source
More
I begin with a quote: “Annihilate, smash, eradicate, erase, crush, shatter, burn, be cruel, punish, ruin, crush. Annihilate!” That is the genocidal voice of the Israeli Government as posted on X only last night by Itamar Ben-Gvir as he was reappointed as a Cabinet Minister. The Foreign Secretary recognised this week that Israel is in breach of international law. What further evidence does the Prime Minister need to recognise that, and for the UK Government to end their complicity in these crimes by stopping support for the Israeli Government committing atrocities against the Palestinian people?
13 Mar 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source
More
Dundee University in my constituency has one of the world’s leading life sciences departments, but it faces a significant deficit that is being compounded by nearly £3 million of employer national insurance contributions. May we have a statement from a Treasury Minister as soon as possible, and might a pause be put in place for establishments facing serious financial difficulties that will be seriously compounded by the rise in employer national insurance contributions?
13 Mar 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source
More
rose—
13 Mar 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source
More
T5. Thank you, Mr Speaker. The US President said that the EU was created to “screw over the US”. However, while the EU stood up for its economy and imposed a $28 billion counter-tariff, the UK is being screwed by the US, which has made it clear that the UK will not be an exception to its levies, despite the Prime Minister’s pleading. Will the Secretary of State tell me whether the Government are content to remain a bridge between the EU and the US if it is a bridge that the US continues to walk all over, risking the UK economy with every single step?
12 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source
More
I listened to the hon. Member with interest, but I suggest that she has that debate in the Scottish Parliament. After all, we are talking about the devolution of powers here in the UK Parliament. A framework for collective bargaining in the adult care sector has been developed by the Scottish care unions—Unison, the GMB and Unite—along with the Scottish Government and care providers, with a Scottish social care joint council proposed. The Scottish care unions have intimated that the constitution, composition, remit and function of the Scottish social care joint council is preferable and should assume the role of the Adult Social Care Negotiating Body for England. Scotland already has a 10-year history of joint commitments to fair work, whereas England is only embarking on that journey. Furthermore, there is a need to extend sectoral bargaining to all sectors of the economy, not just adult social care. Measures such as creating a single status of worker for all but the genuinely self-employed, strengthening protections for those with unfair contracts and increasing the minimum wage to at least the national living wage, and then in line with inflation, are all missing from the Bill. The SNP Scottish Government would support those measures if employment law were devolved, and they would be delivered if this Government respected the votes of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Labour manifesto. Just as the Bill should be the first stop rather than the terminus, devolution is a process, not an event. Not only has devolution moved at a glacial pace, but we live in the world’s most asymmetrical political union, where each nation has differing devolved powers. Why is it that employment law is devolved in Northern Ireland but not in Scotland? I want to see employment rights strengthened continually rather than in a cycle of piecemeal progress when Labour is in power, only to be reversed when the Tories next get their turn. The gains for workers’ rights in the Bill must therefore be protected. That is why the SNP remains committed to advocating for, at a minimum, the urgent devolution of employment powers. That is the best way, short of independence, of protecting workers’ rights in Scotland.
12 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source
More
I thought I was asking a question of the Scottish Labour MPs, only to be asked another question. The hon. Lady will be well aware that the Scottish Government have worked collectively with both unions and other bodies to ensure that the living wage in Scotland is higher than in any other part of the UK. I remind her that it was Scottish Labour in November 2023 that voted with the SNP for employment rights to be evolved through the Scottish Parliament. Throughout its existence, when powers are devolved to the Scottish Parliament, decisions are taken in the interests of the people of Scotland and outcomes improve: publicly owned rail and water, higher per-head education and health spend, free prescriptions, free tuition, a more humane welfare system and a progressive taxation system. Fair work practices are being delivered already by the SNP Scottish Government, such as supporting collective bargaining, achieving real living wage employer status and closing the gender pay gap faster than anywhere in the rest of the UK.
12 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source
More
Although I have broadly welcomed the Bill as it has progressed through the House, I have caveated that by stating that the Labour Government should be bolder and must go further in future for the rights and protections to become entrenched rather than rolled back. Indeed, on Second Reading I quoted the Scottish Trades Union Congress general Secretary, Roz Foyer, who summarised the Bill by saying: “the Employment Rights Bill isn’t the terminus. It’s the first stop. This can be the foundations on which we can build.” I agree.
12 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source
More
I care about the people of Scotland and what they say. Will Scottish Labour MPs listen to trade unions and deliver on the promises made by their party by supporting the new clause, or will they continue to follow instructions handed to them from No. 10? Silence. I thought so. They are too scared to stand up for the people of Scotland.
12 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source
More
The hon. Member shakes her head, but I am speaking to Scottish Labour MPs.
12 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source
More
No, I have not had the chance to look at the Government website, but I thank the hon. Member for raising that. As I have broadly said, I support the Bill, but there are reasons why I am contributing to the debate, not least because of a lack of devolution to the Scottish Parliament, which I will come to shortly. On Second Reading, the shadow Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and local Government, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), made it explicitly clear that the foundations will not be built upon in the long term, as a future Conservative Government would simply repeal protections. He declared that “many of the measures will be brought in through secondary legislation, therefore making it easier for a future Government to reverse some of the catastrophic changes.” —[ Official Report , 21 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 58.] Employment rights for workers in Scotland cannot be dependent on the merry-go-round of Westminster politics. They have seen their rights attacked and diminished by years of Conservative Governments, and where the Bill reverses some of the worst excesses of those Governments’ policies, that must be protected and strengthened in the long term. Westminster cannot guarantee that for the people in Scotland, so I have tabled new clause 77, which would amend the Scotland Act 1998 to devolve employment and industrial relations to the Scottish Parliament. Back in 2014, all Unionist parties, including the Labour party, promised maximum devolution for Scotland, as displayed on the front page of a national newspaper days before the independence referendum, in which Scotland voted no. This Labour Government have failed to devolve a single power to Holyrood since coming to power in July—not a single one—despite the Scottish Parliament voting for employment rights to be devolved. In November, the STUC called on the UK Government to “end the excuses and devolve powers over taxation, migration and, importantly, employment law from Westminster to Holyrood.” Moreover, Scottish Labour’s 2021 election manifesto stated: “We support further devolution of powers to Holyrood including borrowing and employment rights”. Here is a question for Scottish Labour MPs: will they respect the wishes of the Scottish Parliament?
11 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source
More
I rise to speak to new clause 75 and to other new clauses and amendments in my name. Last year, the Labour party committed to “strengthen statutory sick pay, remove the lower earnings limit to make it available to all workers and remove the waiting period.” Although the removal of the lower earnings limit and the waiting period are welcome, the fact remains that the UK’s statutory sick pay does not meet the needs of working people. The miserly increases to the rate—it has just been increased by £2 after five years—are far from the transformative change that Labour promised and will not help to deliver a healthier population and a growing economy. Indeed, only a few years ago, during the covid period, the Minister noted that the then Health Secretary had “admitted that he could not live on statutory sick pay”. —[ Official Report, First Delegated Legislation Committee Delegated Legislation Committee, 25 January 2021; c. 7.] To be clear, the UK is lagging behind in its provision of SSP, offering one of the least generous systems in the OECD. While the Labour Government propose a rate of £118.75 a week, or 80% of average weekly earnings—whichever is lower—numerous other European countries, such as Austria, Germany, Iceland and Luxembourg either provide full salary payments or cover a portion of earnings ranging from 50% to 90%. Amendment 272 would bring the UK into closer alignment with other OECD countries. With limited coverage and relatively low rates, many workers and particularly low-income and part-time employees are left without sufficient financial support when they fall ill. Such a gap in sick pay provision impacts workers’ wellbeing, exacerbating financial stress during illness, and can discourage people from taking the necessary time off to recover. It contributes to poorer health outcomes, undermining longer, healthier working lives across the UK population. Surely no one in this House wants that to continue. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation states that the most effective way of strengthening sick pay is by increasing the rate. There are numerous amendments that would do that, including new clause 76 in my name, which would gradually increase the rate of statutory sick pay over the next five years, taking it to at least 80% of the rate of the national living wage, and others that propose SSP to be the higher of a prescribed rate or percentage of usual weekly earnings. Moreover, a report by WPI Economics shows that sick pay reforms could result in a net financial benefit to this country of more than £4 billion. It also found that the positive effects of sick pay reform would particularly help the increasing proportion of the British workforce who manage long-term conditions and ensure that fewer workers fall out of the job market entirely. As an example, many people with multiple sclerosis need to take time off work for varying lengths of time for reasons related to their condition. Some people with MS are well supported by their employers through occupational sick pay—of course we support that—and can take the time off work that they need on full pay. When people with MS can get the financial support they need while they are off work, they can often stay in work for longer, as they can better manage their symptoms in the long term. This needs to be the same for all those with MS and other long-term conditions who rely on SSP. New clause 75 would require the Secretary of State to consider such a change, with the aim of properly reforming this outdated and inflexible system. Changes for those with such conditions could include SSP being paid at an hourly rate, rather than a daily rate, to enable people to work half or part days on a gradual, phased return to work, or changing the restrictions on how people can claim and use SSP so that it is fairer for people with fluctuating conditions by extending eligibility timeframes. Sadly, however, I suspect that the Labour party is looking to slash welfare spending, as has been reported today—700,000 disabled people being pushed into poverty will be no joy to many—and that it has little interest in making such supportive and progressive change. I look forward to hearing from the Minister. The Labour Government’s lack of gumption in their approach to SSP is illustrative of the timidity of their approach in this Employment Rights Bill. Yes, the Bill makes improvements to the rights of working people and, yes, it reverses some of the worst excesses of the Tory Government, but it could have done so much more. Where is the straightforward system defining a single status of worker to replace the maze of confusing classifications, designed to limit protections, that continue to exist? Where are the increased provisions for collective bargaining to alleviate low pay? Where have the promises disappeared to of the right to switch off, which would ensure better work-life balance? This was the opportunity to legislate to entrench employment rights and to ensure a fairer deal for workers and a healthier, more equitable and more productive economy and society. Unfortunately, this Bill is left wanting. I hope that, if the Labour party is serious about its manifesto commitments, the Minister will look at these new clauses and amendments.
11 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source
More
I apologise to the Minister because he has moved on, but I want to come back to the new level of statutory sick pay, which is £118.75 or 80% of an employee’s weekly earnings. An employee with weekly earnings of £125 would at present get £116.75, but under the new model, they would receive only £100. Is that correct?
5 Mar 2025 · Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office · Hansard source
More
Like everyone in this House, I stand in full solidarity with Ukraine and recognise the threat posed by hostile actors such as Putin. I agree that UK defence spending must increase to enhance our national security. However, the decision to raid the development budget does not increase security. It does the very opposite. Decreasing overseas development assistance is utter folly, and it fundamentally undermines efforts to bring about justice, peace and security in the world. The Prime Minister knows that. He stood in this Chamber and criticised Boris Johnson and the previous Conservative Government when they made their first cuts. He made these very points. He was elected on a manifesto that pledged to rebuild Britain’s reputation for international development, with a new approach based on genuine respect and partnership. We all agree with the need for that. Instead, in a fashion that has become typical of his leadership, he has U-turned on his promise, and went even further in making cuts than the Conservatives were willing to go. Put simply, this decision by the Prime Minister is a death sentence for hundreds of thousands of people. It will have a devastating impact on millions of the world’s most vulnerable and marginalised. Children will go hungry and will miss out on lifesaving vaccinations. They will die as a result. Girls will lose access to education, family planning and reproductive health clinics. As a consequence, they will be forced into early marriage and will have an increased risk of being victims of gender-based violence. Refugees will lose access to accommodation and vital support services, and will be displaced once again. The Prime Minister has reneged on his promises, and the UK Government have abandoned their moral duty, all without any impact assessment whatsoever. They have done this with a callous disregard for the lives of others throughout the world. It does not have to be like this. In 2023, Germany, our G7 European ally, spent 0.82% of GNI on ODA, while others such as the Netherlands, Ireland, Denmark, Sweden and Norway spent greater percentages than the UK. We are all facing the same threats, so why is the UK the only one cutting back? I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to that. The Prime Minister has once again sought to appease President Trump, and to follow the leader of Reform and short-sighted right-wingers who believe that those in the rest of the world simply do not matter, and that our actions abroad have no impact at home. It is wrong. The UK’s role in the world is built on hard power, soft power and diplomacy. As a former member of the International Development Committee, I travelled around the world, and heard of the devastating impact of the UK’s first cut to ODA in 2020. I heard how trust in the UK has been eroded, and I heard directly from leaders of countries who are increasingly turning to others, such as China and Russia, to fill the void left by the UK’s absence. The threats that we face are interconnected and disregard international borders. We have faced a global pandemic and we will encounter more. We are in the midst of a climate emergency, which is not going away. We are experiencing war in Europe and a challenge to the rules-based system. These issues should be a catalyst for increasing development aid and for solving these problems collectively, but tragically, this Labour Government are following in the footsteps of the Conservative Government, who used covid as an excuse to make cuts. Labour is using defence spending as its excuse to step away when it should be stepping up. This madness must stop. All of us in this House must come together and find another route for financing defence spending—a route that is in our national interest. This simply cannot come to pass without a fight.
5 Mar 2025 · Department for Business and Trade · Hansard source
More
Will the hon. Member give way?

Published records only — not a full account of an MP’s work. How we work →