Chris Law MP: speeches

Speeches

• 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?

• 12 Mar 2026 · Scottish Industry: International Promotion · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Mr Speaker. Of course, I will always welcome the fact that Scotland punches above its weight, whether it be industries abroad or investment in Scotland. Indeed, under the SNP, foreign direct investment has been higher in Scotland over the last 10 years than anywhere else in the UK outside of London—something I would expect the UK Government to also celebrate. Instead, we learned through a leaked memo this week that the Prime Minister told senior Ministers of the Government to go against the wishes of the Scottish Government when taking decisions. Does the Secretary of State agree with the Prime Minister? Does he not agree that Scotland makes the best decisions when it is the people of Scotland who make those decisions, which will happen only when it becomes independent?

• 11 Mar 2026 · Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address Motion · Hansard source

  More

  Like all statements, it is not just what is in but what is left out. We learned today that the due diligence, which has not been spoken about in any detail in the statement, provided to the Prime Minister before Peter Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador, warned that it would pose a “general reputational risk”. This is not just about the Prime Minister sitting down and having a chat with Mandelson and not believing him. He was warned that this would pose a “general reputational risk”. My question to the Minister is very simple. Which failing does he think the Prime Minister suffers from: ignorance, arrogance or both?

• 4 Mar 2026 · China: Foreign Interference Arrests · Hansard source

  More

  The Government will be well aware that, through the united front, the Chinese Communist party has created a global network of individuals and organisations that act as a political weapon to isolate, neutralise or counter Beijing’s critics. Indeed, a Jamestown Foundation report published this month shows that the UK is one of the four most exposed countries, with over 400 united front-linked organisations identified here. Why do the Government continue to refuse to take the necessary action to protect the nations of these islands by placing China on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme? That scheme may be new, but if it is going to be useful, it needs to be used.

• 2 Feb 2026 · China and Japan · Hansard source

  More

  Over the past weeks, thousands of Chinese fishing boats have been trapped, creating a blockage up to 300 miles long in the east China sea off Japan. This is seen by many as a strategy for a future blockade. Given the huge reliance on that route for trade, such action would cause a global economic shock, threaten thousands of jobs in Scotland and dramatically increase the cost of living. What explanation did the Prime Minister’s Chinese counterpart give for this behaviour? What subsequent discussions did he have with the Japanese Prime Minister about maintaining maritime security in the region?

• 2 Feb 2026 · US Department of Justice Release of Files · Hansard source

  More

  The revelations in the press that Peter Mandelson was, while Business Secretary, leaking confidential Government secrets to paedophile Jeffrey Epstein should be more than enough evidence to warrant his expulsion from the House of Lords, yet we hear that this will not happen through legislation. Sadly, this is yet another scandal in the House of Lords. While Labour has promised major Lords reform for over 100 years, time and again it has kicked the can down the road. Does the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister agree with many in this House that rather than our desperately trying to reform an embarrassingly broken system, it is time for the House of Lords finally to be abolished?

• 20 Jan 2026 · Chinese Embassy · Hansard source

  More

  It is.

• 20 Jan 2026 · Chinese Embassy · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister confirm that the UK Government are happy with rewarding and emboldening a nation that has one of the worst human rights records, that conducts espionage on these islands and in our Parliament, that has imprisoned a UK national—Jimmy Lai—on trumped-up charges, that has committed crimes against humanity against the Uyghurs and that is the single most important enabler of Russia’s illegal war machine against Ukraine and its civilian population, which we as parliamentarians have stood united against?

• 19 Jan 2026 · Proposed Chinese Embassy · Hansard source

  More

  The UK Government do not seem aware of the message that disregarding safety and approving the Chinese mega-embassy would send to Tibetan, Uyghur and other exile communities in the UK who face intimidation, surveillance and abduction attempts almost daily. On transnational repression, we have heard warm words about upholding various measures, so let me be more specific: what assessment have the Government made of the risk that the proposed embassy will be used to facilitate transnational repression, bearing in mind that there will be hundreds more diplomats there, and what specific safeguards have been put in place to prevent that?

• 14 Jan 2026 · Science and Discovery Centres · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for giving so much time for interventions. He will not be surprised to hear that I represent one of four science centres in Scotland. Over the last 25 years, Dundee Science Centre has given STEM experiences to more than 2.5 million people, and we look forward to enhancing that through the Eden Project at the city’s former gasworks. He mentioned climate change and environmental degradation, and these things need to be challenged. I am happy to hear that the hon. Member agrees that public funding should be committed to this area. Will he go further and suggest to the Minister that there be a timetable for that funding, so that both the Eden Project and our science centres across Scotland and the rest of the UK can be supported?

• 13 Jan 2026 · Chinese Embassy · Hansard source

  More

  Every single day, people from the Tibetan, Hong Kong, Uyghur and Falun Gong communities here in the UK already face intimidation through transnational repression. Their activities are under constant surveillance, and their families living under Chinese rule face arrest and prosecution. There are $1 million bounties placed on them, and their neighbours in the UK are encouraged to pass on information or deliver them to the Chinese authorities. Given the increased threat to their safety that the mega-embassy poses, what action are the Government taking to counter those actions? What message do the Government have for those communities?