Chris Law MP: speeches

Speeches

• 5 Jan 2026 · Middle East and North Africa · Hansard source

  More

  Madam Deputy Speaker, it will not surprise you that I will more or less echo what many hon. Members across the House have said on Gaza, which is that 1.6 million people are facing starvation, winter floods, winter storms and freezing temperatures. Aid has been totally blockaded, with 37 non-governmental organisations including Médecins Sans Frontières, the Norwegian Refugee Council, ActionAid, Oxfam and others denied access, and less than 10% of the aid that was received before October 2023 is now getting through. The question that keeps getting asked in the House is this: what is the next concrete step that the UK Government are prepared to take if we cannot discuss sanctions? Can something other than talk be offered to all of us in the House who are desperate to hear that some further progress will be made?

• 16 Dec 2025 · Electoral Resilience · Hansard source

  More

  Of course, the appalling crime carried out by Nathan Gill, with a £40,000 bribe to speak about Russia, is not unique. Although that bribe is the one that we know about, eight other members of Reform UK also parroted pro-Russia narratives, sometimes line by line and word by word. I have two questions: first, given that the timeline is for the review to report by the end of March, if there are parts of the electoral system that are not robust, will the Government introduce legislation before May? Secondly, given that loopholes have already been exploited, particularly on moneys entering this country, will the Government be applying the legislation retrospectively?

• 16 Dec 2025 · Africa: New Approach · Hansard source

  More

  Warm words offer cold comfort to those facing brutal aid cuts this winter. While the Scottish Government remain fully committed to their global partners, the UK is in full retreat. While Scotland’s First Minister has personally visited Malawi in recent weeks to see at first hand the impact of the lifesaving partnership we have, the UK Government leak to the press that they are likely to cut all their aid to Malawi, which is one of the poorest countries in the world. In the spirit of Christmas, will the Minister do the right thing and halt all those aid cuts until the Government have carried out full country-by-country impact assessments on the African continent?

• 15 Dec 2025 · Sudan: Humanitarian Situation · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) on securing the urgent question. Major aid cuts have happened, and a peacebuilding programme in Sudan was cancelled, which led to our failure to respond to the emerging civil war and the resulting genocide. Will the Minister confirm that any future aid cuts will come with a proper plan in advance? Will the conflict prevention unit be fully restored?

• 15 Dec 2025 · Jimmy Lai Conviction · Hansard source

  More

  I associate myself and the SNP with the Foreign Secretary’s comments on the appalling attack on Bondi Beach. I welcome the statement condemning what the CCP has done with the political sham of a trial, simply for Jimmy Lai expressing his belief in democracy and freedom. However, the statement does not go far enough. I would like to ask two very short questions. First, the US, Canada and Australia are able to secure the release of their nationals. Why is it that the UK has not been able to secure a release from China in this case? Secondly, what message does the inability to secure the release of Jimmy Lai send to other British citizens who may be held in arbitrary detention by regimes who do not respect the rule of law, democracy or freedom of speech and assembly?

• 11 Dec 2025 · St Andrew’s Day and Scottish Affairs · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Gentleman is making a clear case about recruitment in Scotland, which is a fair point, but a key issue that has caused recruitment difficulties, not just in Scotland but in the rest of the UK, is Brexit, which his party supported—and now we are in this state today. According to the Royal College of Nursing, the UK Government’s new visa rules will mean that the NHS would “cease to function”. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there needs to be a bespoke visa system for Scotland, so that we can get adequate resources and people into the places that need to be filled in Scotland’s NHS?

• 11 Dec 2025 · US National Security Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  Whether Trump’s White House is parroting pro-Russian narratives around the peace plan or using abhorrent language such as describing Europe as facing “civilisational erasure”, what is clear is that a strong transatlantic relationship is no longer critical to US national security. Chatham House has described this national security strategy as being about “commercial deals and authoritarian accommodation”. Does the Minister agree that the idea of this being a special relationship, which has endured for many decades, has now come to an end?

• 11 Dec 2025 · Foreign Interference · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for Lewes (James MacCleary) for raising the existential threats from Russia and China, as well as more recently from the US with its national security strategy, which we heard of last week. I said earlier today on the Floor of the House that the special relationship is now well and truly over. Foreign interference is not a new phenomenon, but it has undoubtedly become an increasing and urgent concern in recent years. Heightened aggression from hostile states and increased economic competition is creating a more polarised world in which those who seek to increase their power and influence are looking to maximise every possible avenue. Our increased reliance on digital infrastructure and the rise of social media and artificial intelligence, combined with an erosion of trust in established political systems and traditional media has opened up a significant space to be exploited. Whether it be through espionage, cyber-attack, intellectual property theft, transnational repression, disinformation, electoral interference, foreign political donations or bribery, we are under attack on a daily basis. Regrettably, we have not responded quickly and coherently to that, and in some cases many remain naive to the threats posed. Let us look at the behaviours of those who seek to undermine our society and our values, create global instability and remould the world on their own terms, and at how the Government have reacted in response. Russia’s war against Ukraine did not begin in 2022; it began in 2014 when Russian-backed militants seized towns and cities in the Donbas and Russian forces illegally annexed Crimea. The strategic defence review called Russia “an immediate and pressing threat” but that has been the case for decades. When I visited Ukraine in 2018 for the first time as a Member of Parliament, I found a real and live war, and was shocked that there was so little discussion of it in our own media, and certainly within this Parliament. In fact, shockingly, the language used was of a “frozen conflict”, all because we wanted to continue to have supplies of oil and gas—business as usual. Despite the murder of Alexander Litvinenko in 2006, it took until the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal and the death of Dawn Sturgess in Salisbury in March 2018 for the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019 to be introduced to detain people at ports and borders to determine whether they are engaged in hostile state activity. The Intelligence and Security Committee’s Russia report warned us as far back as 2020 of disinformation, political influence and aggressive cyber-operations. It criticised the UK Government’s response as playing catch-up, with unclear responsibility for defending democracy. Despite Russia’s malign intentions and behaviours, for years Russian state-funded broadcasters such as Sputnik and RT—Russia Today, as it was known—were given licence to disseminate disinformation during crucial elections and referendums. Yet, despite that, the UK Government continue to underfund the BBC World Service. It is time to step up and fully fund it again, because Russia is stepping into its place. Russia has reportedly invested over $1 billion into ongoing disinformation campaigns aimed at diminishing western support for Ukraine, while recent events such as the 2024 Southport attacks and the summer race riots were both amplified by foreign interference. Of course, we now know that one of those recent investments was over £40,000 in bribes to the former leader of Reform in Wales, Nathan Gill, who is now spending more than 10 years in jail. We know through recent reports that at least eight other members of that party have made pro-Russia statements. That is able to happen because of a fragmented institutional response from the Government. Their time- frames for handling disinformation are painfully slow. Each recent regulatory advance, such as the Online Safety Act, which the SNP does welcome, relies on reactive content takedowns that cannot match the speed at which hostile actors manipulate and spread disinformation. As was mentioned, the strategic defence review identified disinformation as a new top-tier threat across the UK, but there is still no single entity fully accountable for national cognitive security. My first question is simply this: now that the threat has been identified—in fact, the evidence is overwhelming —what tangible steps are the Government taking to implement the shift from reactive responses to sustained strategic resilience? Will the establishment of a national disinformation agency be considered to enable a whole-of-society institutional response? Furthermore, Russia has rightly been placed on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme, yet China, despite clearly meeting the criteria, has not and remains on the lower “political influence tier”, along with most other countries. I am pleased to hear that more voices from across the House are starting to raise this issue, because the UK Government are clearly not currently budging. Shockingly, Members of this House have been sanctioned and spied on—I consider myself, among others, to have been spied on in that process. When that was exposed, we were not defended by the Government of the day or, indeed, by the Government currently in place. It was the Speakers of this House and the other House who banned Chinese diplomats and the ambassador from coming into Parliament.

• 11 Dec 2025 · Foreign Interference · Hansard source

  More

  I have not had a chance to read that report, but I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised it, because it is now clearer than ever that we need a separate Minister and Department. That is a key point. A cross-party Joint Committee on Human Rights report describes China as a “flagrant” perpetrator of transnational repression. The strategic defence review states that China is “likely to continue seeking advantage through espionage and cyber-attacks, and through securing cutting-edge Intellectual Property through legitimate and illegitimate means.” Why, then, have successive Governments continued to let China get away with this behaviour? Put simply, failing to put China on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme leaves a systemic gap in the UK’s national security and defence, and ignores the fact that the criteria have already been fulfilled. Can the Minister explain why the Government continue to refuse to close the gap, and why they will not make this urgently needed change? Instead, this Government seem intent on appeasing China. Not for the first or second time, but for the third time, they have reportedly delayed their decision on whether to approve a controversial new Chinese embassy in central London, after they were expected to approve the plans for a vast mega-embassy. It cannot go ahead. Uyghurs, Tibetans, Hongkongers, local residents, US security and US financial services all demand to have the decision revisited. Surely China’s continued harassment and bullying over services to the UK embassy in Beijing, for example, is not a reason to kowtow. In conclusion, foreign interference is a daily reality that touches our security, our economy and the integrity of our democracy, but warnings from parliamentary Committees and the intelligence community have simply not been translated into policy. They cannot continue to be ignored, and the Government cannot continue to hide from the uncomfortable truths about hostile states and their escalating interference against us all.

• 11 Dec 2025 · Small and Medium-sized Businesses · Hansard source

  More

  The Scottish Chambers of Commerce has said that this Labour Budget “falls short of reassuring business owners” and that SMEs in Scotland are being left “on the brink”. I have met a range of businesses in the Scottish whisky and hospitality sectors and the crucial energy industry, and this Budget is a missed opportunity to reverse cack-handed Labour policies, such as national insurance contributions, which are hurting our SMEs. Will the Minister explain to Scottish businesses why Labour has gone out of its way to let them down so badly?

• 8 Dec 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Since Maximus began the contract to provide work capability assessments in September last year, nearly 1,000 people have had their assessment appointments cancelled. However, a whistleblower has been in touch with me to state that cancellations are a regular occurrence largely because of IT services provided by the DWP. Shockingly, one of my constituents had their assessment cancelled five times in my city of Dundee. What action is the Minister taking to monitor and improve the service provided by Maximus so that no one has to suffer the distress of such cancellations?

• 2 Dec 2025 · Gaza: Humanitarian Situation · Hansard source

  More

  The death toll in Gaza now exceeds 70,000 people. Since the ceasefire, at least 357 Palestinians have been killed and 903 wounded. Israel has committed close to 600 violations, and there is recent video evidence of extrajudicial murders. Does the Secretary of State agree that this suggests that it is a ceasefire in name alone?

• 24 Nov 2025 · Ministerial Code · Hansard source

  More

  The former Environment Secretary and now Housing Secretary, the right hon. Member for Streatham and Croydon North (Steve Reed), claimed at the Dispatch Box just a few months ago that water pollution levels in Scotland are worse than they are in England. When it was pointed out that this is completely untrue, rather than apologising he doubled down repeatedly. Now the UK Statistics Authority has rebuked him, saying his claims “lacked enough transparency” and “run the risk of misleading the public”. The ministerial code is clear that he should correct the record. Does the Minister agree?

• 18 Nov 2025 · China Espionage: Government Security Response · Hansard source

  More

  Our devolved nations, local authorities and educational institutions are not being made adequately aware of the risks that China poses, as is evidenced in Sunday’s report by David Leask. The Minister has mentioned briefings with devolved Governments, guidance for candidates and a closed event with university vice-chancellors, but will he ensure that those are not one-off events, and that they will be continual and offer up-to-date information from this day forward? Will he meet me and the SNP group urgently?

• 3 Nov 2025 · Video Games: Consumer Law · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is making an excellent case. I represent the city of Dundee, otherwise known as the gaming capital of Europe. Given that we are the city that created “Lemmings” and “Grand Theft Auto”, and that we have the world’s first university degree in computing gaming, it should come as no surprise that the highest number of signatories for this petition came from Dundee. By not amending the law to protect the future for consumers and for those who create the games, we are putting our courses—for example, our degrees—and the jobs of those who work domestically in computer games, both in Scotland and in the rest of the UK, at risk.

• 30 Oct 2025 · Sudan: Protection of Civilians · Hansard source

  More

  In relation to the atrocities that have been committed by the RSF in Sudan, Amnesty International has said that “the UK kept approving arms sales to the UAE, even when the risks were staring it in the face. This raises serious questions about the UK’s…complicity in mass atrocities.” This is not the first time that the UK has sold weapons to those accused of genocide. Does the Minister agree that arms export licensing is broken, and that we need to immediately re-establish a stand-alone Committee on arms export controls, which was abolished here two years ago? Given the atrocious risks that the UK Government faced, why did they choose to ignore them?

• 30 Oct 2025 · Trading Relationships · Hansard source

  More

  In taking steps to improve our trading relationship with other countries, I welcome the new sanctions announced by the UK and the US targeting Russia’s two largest oil companies: Rosneft and Lukoil. However, despite pointing out to Ministers on several occasions that hundreds of billions of pounds have been generated for Russia as a result of oil and gas being shipped under British companies with British insurance, no action has been taken to stop this. Given that every vessel transporting Russian liquefied natural gas is financing the destruction of Ukrainian villages, towns and cities and the deaths of Ukrainian soldiers and civilians, when will this Government act to end the complicity of UK companies in this?

• 30 Oct 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Local newspapers and media outlets often break the most important stories for our constituents, but their ability to do so is increasingly at risk. In the last month alone, we have heard of a proposed restructure of Reach PLC that puts over 300 editorial jobs at risk, while STV has decided to close its Aberdeen office and axe its northern news offering, which includes coverage of my city of Dundee. May we have a debate on the future of local journalism and on job cuts in local media leaving communities without a trusted local voice?

• 28 Oct 2025 · China Spying Case · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is making a good case about cross-party consideration of the threats China poses. I want to ask a very simple question, which I have asked in this place before: does he think that China should be on the foreign influence registration scheme, as Russia is—yes or no?

• 28 Oct 2025 · China Spying Case · Hansard source

  More

  In 2023—we are going back a couple of years—Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee report on China warned “that China’s view of an ideal future…would be antithetical to the UK’s interests”. In its conclusion, China was detailed 11 times as a “threat”, an “acute threat” or a “grave threat”. Why can the UK Government today, based on a report from more than two years ago, not describe China as a threat?

• 28 Oct 2025 · China Spying Case · Hansard source

  More

  Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

• 28 Oct 2025 · China Spying Case · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. China is a real and serious threat. I say that not just as an individual who happens to chair the all-party parliamentary group on Tibet, who is anxious about being spied on too, but on behalf of my party and of colleagues across the House who feel the real and present threat not only to ourselves but to our constituents. Why has this position come as a response to an embarrassing political crisis, rather than as the principled position and proactive strategy for which so many of us have been calling for so many years? Why is it, as Luke de Pulford, executive director of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, put it that “the Chinese Communist Party’s progress towards the ‘Great Rejuvenation of the Chinese Nation’…has met formidable resistance, not from governments, but little ole’ constituency MPs.”? That is a really good question to consider. The Government and the Opposition will squabble over who met with whom when, about who said what when, and about who they can blame to squeeze as much political one-upmanship from this case as possible, but the Chinese Communist party must be laughing at this House right now, as we ping-pong when it is clear that we need national security to be taken very seriously and we need to see China placed on the foreign influence registration scheme. Public trust and the confidence of international allies are wavering, and the ongoing threat to our national security, democratic institutions and economic infrastructure remains. To conclude, it is time to end the inertia, caution and self-censorship from Whitehall and from Government when it comes to China, and to acknowledge, address and act on the threat that we continuously face.

• 28 Oct 2025 · China Spying Case · Hansard source

  More

  I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), and I think he hit the nail on the head. I have been thinking throughout the debate that this is not just about the failure of the prosecution, but about our approach to China—not just this year, last year or during this Government; this has gone on for years and years. The sanctions were imposed in March 2021, which is four and a half years ago. Interestingly, neither the Government of the day nor the official Opposition demanded sanctions; it was the Speakers of the House of Commons and the House of Lords who responded by banning the Chinese ambassador from entering. It has been reported that at the time, the Government attempted to overturn that decision. The key point, as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central has said, is crystal clear: all of us need to work on our lines and we need cast-iron assurances that, no matter where we have been in the past, going forward we will be very clear about the real threat that China poses. China’s history tells us that already: six decades of military occupation in Tibet; the mass detention, re-education and forced sterilisation of the Uyghur population; we have witnessed democracy come under attack in Hong Kong time and again; and there is the ever-present threat against Taiwan. China runs a global influence operation and it has been acknowledged in this House that the united front has penetrated every sector of the United Kingdom’s economy. We have been well warned. As I said earlier, and as has been repeated many times, in 2023 the Intelligence and Security Committee said that China was a “threat”, an “acute threat” and a “grave threat”. In 2022, the head of MI5, Ken McCallum, said that the Chinese threat “might feel abstract. But it’s real and it’s pressing. We need to talk about it. We need to act.” That is what we have failed to do until now. If one of the key hinderances to the prosecution appears to be the concern that the Government would not be able to convince the jury that China was an enemy, how would the Minister describe a state that conducts long-term, large-scale espionage operations, including recruiting those who work in Parliament, and that poses a serious national security threat on these islands? Why has it taken the failure of this case for the Government to definitively state that China is a threat? Why has this position come as a response to an embarrassing political crisis?

• 13 Oct 2025 · Security Update: Official Secrets Act Case · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister states: “we will take all necessary action to deter those who seek to do us harm,” and that includes threats “emanating from China”. Despite ongoing transnational repression of Tibetans, Uyghurs and Hongkongers, continued cyber-security attacks on this country, and Members of this Parliament being sanctioned and spied upon, there appear to be no consequences for China. Instead, the UK Government give in to its coercive, bullying behaviour. I have a straightforward question: if the Minister is serious about deterring this behaviour and these threats, will he take the necessary action and include China on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme—yes or no?

• 15 Sept 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The challenge is that we are waiting years before we have any response to what the numbers might be. Does the hon. Member find that reasonable? In the meantime, we have no protections whatsoever for these people who we are all trying to protect.