Chris Law MP: speeches

Speeches

• 15 Sept 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  On short-notice periods for zero-hour contracts, there was an opportunity in the House of Lords to support the Liberal Democrat amendment that would require employers to give employees at least 48 hours’ notice. Labour peers voted against that amendment and the Government have not come forward with an alternative, suggesting that it will take until 2027 before there will be consideration of those measures. Will the Minister explain why we will have to wait nearly three years before we can get a response to that?

• 15 Sept 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) for her brave and personal testimony, and for sharing the testimonies of many others on the importance of bereavement leave. Let me begin by welcoming the news that the bus manufacturer Alexander Dennis will keep its sites in Scotland open after the announcement by the First Minister, John Swinney, that the Scottish Government have committed £4 million to a furlough scheme while the company obtains new orders over the next six months. I am sure the whole House will welcome the action taken by the SNP Government in giving domestic manufacturing businesses the opportunity to succeed and protecting skilled manufacturing jobs. From the outset of this Bill, we in the SNP have been clear in our support for legislation that will strengthen the rights of workers, having long campaigned for many of its provisions. There are progressive attempts to guarantee working hours and protections against unfair dismissal, and the Bill begins to reverse some of the most damaging and insulting anti-union legislation of the previous Government. None the less, throughout its passage in the House of Commons we have called on the Government to be bolder and to use this opportunity to deliver transformational change for workers. We proposed amendments to be more robust on fire and rehire, to improve statutory sick pay and to strengthen protections for migrant workers in accessing their rights, all of which were sadly rejected by the Government. Disappointingly, none of those issues has returned to this House in the amendments agreed to by the House of Lords. Instead, we see a series of amendments that seek to weaken the Bill and weaken the rights of employees by watering down provisions on protections against unfair dismissal, the right to guaranteed hours, and the capabilities of trade unions. Let me be crystal clear: the SNP will not accept proposals that seek to diminish workers’ rights. One of the most important elements of the Bill is the provision ensuring that workers have rights from day one, a significant change from the current two years. Workers should not have to wait to be protected from unfair dismissal. Unfair dismissal is unfair no matter what time limit is imposed, so there should be none. The Lords amendments would still allow for employees to be dismissed without the right to claim unfair dismissal for the first six months of their employment. Failing to reject this amendment today would fundamentally undermine the principles and objects of the Bill. The provisions on sexual harassment are also significant, particularly those that void agreements preventing workers from making allegations of harassment or discrimination, and void provisions preventing workers from speaking out about their employer’s response to the relevant harassment or discrimination. We have heard some eloquent speeches today about the very reasons why that can never continue. Astonishingly, the Lords are attempting to except parliamentary staff from the protection from non-disclosure agreements. I have not heard that mentioned today, but it is a disgusting attempt by the House of Lords to protect itself from allegations of sexual harassment and to silence those who are victims of sexual harassment in Parliament. What is it about that unelected Chamber, which brazenly seeks to use its power to protect and entrench its own privileges time and time again? This is just another ludicrous example of why the House of Lords needs to be abolished: it is utterly shameless. It has long been recognised that insecure work is one of the biggest problems facing our society. I have been listening carefully to what has been said about zero-hours contracts, and I want to register a few facts. Contrary to what was said earlier, in the past decade there has been an increase in the number of zero-hours contract workers—not a small increase, but a 65% increase. More than a million workers are on zero-hours contracts, including over 100,000 in Scotland, and many more are on very short-hours contracts. Rather than providing flexibility, zero-hours contracts offer little or no control or ability to forward-plan. Let me give an example. A recent report from the Work Foundation noted that when Wetherspoons introduced an option for guaranteed hours—guess what?—99% of its workers opted for guaranteed-hours contracts, with only 1% choosing zero-hours contracts. The Bill seeks to require employers to make an offer of guaranteed hours to a qualifying worker after the end of every reference period, but once again the Lords have attempted to weaken that by taking the onus away from employers and putting it on employees, requiring them to request guaranteed hours. It is important for the Government, as well as rejecting this amendment, to provide clarity on the duration of the reference period and to define what constitutes a “low” number of guaranteed hours. Similarly, the Government seek to reject Lords amendment 8, which defines “short notice” for the purpose of an employer cancelling a shift as 48 hours, with Ministers in the Lords suggesting that when the regulations are made, “short notice” will be defined as a period greater than 48 hours. That is fine, but, as I have pointed out a number of times today, it is cold comfort for those who are currently on zero-hours contracts, who will have to wait until 2027 at the earliest to find out what comes back from the Government’s consultation. One of the biggest problems with the Bill is that so much of it will not be clarified until further down the line, through secondary legislation and regulations, which means that much of it is still uncertain, much of it will avoid scrutiny, and much of it will be easy for future Governments to reverse. Indeed, the Opposition are on the record as having made that last point today. Of course, voters in Scotland know that devolution of employment law is a far better way to protect workers’ rights in Scotland from a future UK Government who might remove those protections. Fair work practices are already being delivered by the SNP Scottish Government, such as supporting collective bargaining, achieving real living wage employer status, and closing the gender pay gap faster than other parts of the UK. Workers in Scotland should never again have to see their employment rights eroded by any Tory-led Government, and we in the SNP will continue to campaign—as Scottish Labour was previously committed to doing—to ensure that employment law is devolved to Scotland or, better still, that Scotland gains independence from consecutive Westminster Governments who seek to erode Scottish workers’ rights.

• 3 Sept 2025 · Hospitality Sector · Hansard source

  More

  Apart from my hon. Friend the Member for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey (Graham Leadbitter). I thank the Minister for highlighting the V&A museums, one of which is in my city of Dundee, which has numerous hospitality businesses. Scotland makes a £9 billion contribution to the UK Exchequer through hospitality, and 200,000 jobs depend on it. There are consequences from the national insurance contribution rises; for example, just this year, one third of venues in Scotland have reduced their staff numbers and almost one fifth have shortened their opening hours, which means fewer jobs, less income tax and less tax from profits.

• 3 Sept 2025 · Hospitality Sector · Hansard source

  More

  rose —

• 2 Sept 2025 · Recognition of a Palestinian State · Hansard source

  More

  12. What discussions he has had with his international counterparts on the recognition of a Palestinian state.

• 2 Sept 2025 · Recognition of a Palestinian State · Hansard source

  More

  The United Kingdom Government should never have placed conditions on the recognition of the state of Palestine—there is no place for it in international law. However, given that it is clear that Israel has failed to comply with these conditions, can the Secretary of State confirm that the UK will unconditionally and immediately recognise the state of Palestine at the UN General Assembly next week?

• 2 Sept 2025 · Speciality Steel UK: Insolvency · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister was right to come here today to make a statement on such an important part of the national infrastructure. It is just a shame that no Minister has ever made a statement in this House on Grangemouth. We have now learned that the Chancellor met INEOS chair Jim Ratcliffe just three weeks ago—just three weeks before Petroineos Grangemouth closed—but she did not do so much as raise the refinery with him. In her statement, the Minister said: “the Government stand with the affected steelworkers in Rotherham, in Sheffield and in Wednesbury. We stand with their families”. That is quite right; so do we in the SNP. But why have this Labour Government never stood with the workers of Grangemouth?

• 1 Sept 2025 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  This morning, the Scottish Labour leader told a press conference in Glasgow: “there is a genocide happening in Gaza. I believe Benjamin Netanyahu is a war criminal and he will have to face further sanctions.” Does the Foreign Secretary agree?

• 22 Jul 2025 · Prax Lindsey Oil Refinery · Hansard source

  More

  With the Grangemouth refinery in Scotland having closed, and Prax Lindsey facing the same fate, there is clearly a missing element in the UK Government’s just transition policy. There can be no just transition if skilled jobs are lost when that transition is made. What assurance can the Minister give that the Government have taken a wider view, in order to stem these closures and address what is clearly a deeper issue with policy?

• 21 Jul 2025 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  Twenty-nine arms export licences were suspended in September due to the possible breaking of international law, yet between September and December we saw a further 34 licences. Will the Foreign Secretary explain that decision? How many licences have been granted this year? What is the UK Government’s red line for a total arms trade embargo?

• 17 Jul 2025 · Trade Agreements: Implementation · Hansard source

  More

  The United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 is a restrictive piece of legislation that centralises power to the UK Government and allows them to override the Scottish Parliament. Yesterday, the Labour Government confirmed they would not repeal or amend that Tory Act. Indeed, the Secretary of State for Scotland previously said that the Act was “bad and damaging” and undermined devolution, and the Business and Trade Secretary voted against it when in opposition. Will the Business and Trade Secretary confirm whether he would vote against it again now? Does he agree with the Secretary of State for Scotland that this Tory Act is an attack on the integrity of the Scottish Parliament?

• 17 Jul 2025 · Strategy for Elections · Hansard source

  More

  The SNP welcomes that the UK Government are catching up to Scotland, where we have had votes for 16-year-olds for the last nine years. However, it is clear that real change also requires looking at this Parliament’s electoral system. Recent polls have shown that the leading party currently would win a majority of seats in the next election on less than 30% of the vote. Is it not long overdue that this Government reformed the UK Parliament’s broken electoral system and introduced proportional representation, as Welsh Labour is doing in the Senedd?

• 8 Jul 2025 · Post Office Horizon Inquiry: Volume 1 · Hansard source

  More

  The Government have been told routinely by organisations such as Scottish Postmasters for Justice and Redress that compensation for victims of the Horizon scandal is taking too long and that the application process is akin to the trauma of a second trial for victims. We have also heard today that Sir Wyn Williams’ report illustrates that victims continue to face an “unnecessarily adversarial attitude” from the Post Office and that the UK Government continue to drag their feet in offering full and swift redress. Given that the Minister previously stood at the Dispatch Box and said that “justice delayed is justice denied”, —[ Official Report , 18 December 2024; Vol. 759, c. 373.] and given the human toll of the scandal revealed today, will this Government finally and immediately end these obstructive processes so that redress can be tackled straight on without waiting for the second volume?