Chris Law
MP for Dundee Central · Scottish National Party · United Kingdom
“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.”
“Their inaction only emboldens further settlement expansion and makes the UK complicit in Israel’s criminal behaviour against the Palestinian people.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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?”
The complete record
Every one of 611 lines we hold for Chris Law, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 6 of 13.
“I thought there was a doppelganger in the Chamber for a second, Mr Speaker. A new Government can make political choices, and one would have thought that, in the week before Christmas, they would be positive choices—things that people could take home and feel grateful and happy about on Christmas Day. However, as has just been mentioned by the hon. Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck), millions of women throughout the country, 1950s-born women, have been affected, quite adversely, in respect of their state pensions. Many are in ill health, and are continuing to work in ill health. They lived in hope for many years during their protracted, passionate and very reasonable campaign for fairness and justice, and on Tuesday this week they were told that they were getting none of it.”
“Secondly, I have listened to what has been said about future contracts. We know that both yards in Scotland will be protected for the next two years, but can the Secretary of State tell us a little bit more about the longer-term sustainable footing, not least because this company has changed hands three times in the past four years?”
“I take this opportunity to wish you a merry Christmas, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the Secretary of State very much for what is wonderful news for all four sites across the UK. Obviously, I am going to be slightly biased towards the two in Scotland, one in Arnish on the Isle of Lewis and the other in Methil in Fife—that is very welcome news in the week before Christmas. I also thank the Government for their co-operation with the Scottish Government over the past months, particularly in the early days when UK Labour had come into government, and I put on record the work that the Deputy First Minister of Scotland, Kate Forbes, has contributed. I have a couple of questions. First, given that we are moving forward, are the workers’ current terms and conditions going to continue as they are?”
“More specifically, we have a loophole in the law just now that allows British shipping and shipping insurers to work outside the UK to deliver gas from Siberia to other parts of the world, which aids and abets Putin in his war of aggression against Ukraine. I would like an update on those things.”
“We on the SNP Benches stand united in that cross-party support for Ukraine and welcome the package that has been brought forward today. I have a few specific questions for the Minister. First, he talked about the profits that have come from the frozen assets. What discussions has he had with EU counterparts on that? Some have been quite vocal about the sale of those assets, which could rapidly accelerate the strength of the Ukrainian forces. Secondly, on sanctions, more than 50% of the components of Russian drones come directly from China. There are negotiations next month between the Minister’s own Government and China on increasing economic co-operation.”
“What are the UK Government’s thoughts on the technical and forensic assistance provided following previous genocides, not least in Rwanda and the Balkans? What support could we provide? The University of Dundee is a world leader in forensics, and I would like it to have the opportunity to hear the Minister’s response.”
“I have several short questions. The Minister has already touched on sanctions; the new Syrian leader, Ahmed al-Sharaa, has said that sanctions must be lifted, and that that is not up for negotiation. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s thoughts on how we can move forward. On behalf of the SNP, I welcome the £61 million of support, particularly for healthcare and nutrition, but who will deliver it, and how can we ensure that it is delivered to the people who need it most? Over the last week or two, we have all seen the unfolding news about the horror of what happened, and not just in the prisons. This week, Channel 4 News has reported that hundreds of thousands of civilians have been buried in mass graves.”
“I am listening in detail about the processes you are going through looking for more information on Horizon. You have mentioned Capture, which goes back to 1992—30 years ago. You have mentioned a lack of information and that you are looking for more detail—”
“Bad habits—must get rid of them. My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am concerned about the Capture system, which is more than 30 years old and had 19 different versions. We do not know who used it, and we do not know who has been convicted for it. The people who have been convicted are probably dying every other week just now. The Minister talks about working at pace, but can he make a flying sprint to get to those people urgently, to ensure that investigations are carried out and that compensation deserved is duly received?”
“The United Front Work Department is said to have 40,000 members globally, and Mr Yang Tengbo is surely the tip of the iceberg in the UK. The department is tasked with cultivating relationships not only with high-level figures that extend an influence to British nationals, but with those in all walks of society. That means the public need to be much more aware of the risk to themselves. What is the Minister doing to assess the number of those members in our society, and what public awareness campaign will he make for my constituents in Dundee and constituents across these islands?”
“Can the Minister be very specific today and tell us what cast-iron guarantees he has for the 11,000 people employed in Scotland and those who are employed elsewhere across the UK?”
“I welcome many parts of the statement, not least the part on quality assurance. I would like to know a little more about that because one issue in Dundee, which has the largest teaching hospital in Europe, is that appointments letters often arrive too late, which of course has an impact on the NHS. I want to focus specifically on the question not yet answered, which is about jobs. In Scotland, 11,000 people are employed by the Royal Mail, and they will be listening today to find out what cast-iron assurances there will be for their jobs. Mr Křetínský recently completed a takeover of a French supermarket, promising in 2023, in the run-up to that deal, that there would be no job losses, but one year later there were plans to cut 3,000 jobs.”
“After all, if an employer is struggling with his company, we cannot have the managerial class carrying on as if it is not affecting them while others have their contracts reduced and their terms and conditions worsened. Does he agree that the employer should have stopped paying dividends to shareholders, buying back shares, or making loans to partners, directors or shareholders, as soon as the financial difficulties became apparent, and renegotiated, to the greatest extent practicable, loans to third parties? If the Minister does agree, will he give assurances that he will support such amendments being made to the Bill?”
“Does the Minister agree that the employer should take all reasonable steps prior to cutting workers’ wages and altering other terms and conditions? Does he agree that all material information should be provided to each union and that as much time as possible must be made available to consult? Does he agree that the employer must comply with any procedural requirements for varying contracts of employment or collective agreement? Critically, does the Minister agree that the employer should have reduced the remuneration of partners, directors and managers at least to the extent equivalent to that which applies to the workers subject to variation of contract?”
“These are important questions we need to ask. In the absence of the detail and guarantees sought, the amendment seeks to remove the loophole altogether. We cannot allow this aspect of the Bill to pass without cast-iron protections against fire and rehire. We cannot wait and see how it plays out in reality, with people’s jobs and lives at stake. If the provision is to remain—I can clearly see and many others so far have seen that it is a loophole—it is important that further amendments are proposed, not just to clarify definitions of financial difficulties and processes on establishing their veracity, but to ensure that there are further protections to strengthen an employee’s position in relation to any consultations and negotiations that take place when the employer is in financial difficulty.”
“131, Q135.] That is twice this Committee has heard evidence that should make us really think about the purpose of the Bill, which I totally agree with on fire and rehire, to ensure that it is watertight. Can the Minister outline what changes the Government will make to the Bill and what regulatory regime will be put in place to prevent the provision from being exploited in the manner described? For example, will employers have to evidence the financial difficulties before making any decisions on firing and rehiring, or will they need to be evidenced only if an unfair dismissal claim is brought forward? We can clearly see now who holds all the cards. If it is the latter, and claims of financial difficulties are discovered at a tribunal to be unfounded, will employees who have been affected be reinstated on their original terms?”
“Can the Minister explain how many of the high-profile fire and rehire cases known since 2010 would fall foul of the requirements within the Bill, and how many would be exempted under this loophole? I think we all know that although the Bill is well-intended—and we fully support it—if it is not revised, it will fail under that loophole. As Andy Prendergast, the national secretary of GMB, explained in his evidence to this Committee: “We have seen lots of financial engineering. We see inter-company debt. I think there is a concern long term that we may find cases where companies have engineered a financial position that allows them to do something they otherwise would not. That will have to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.” –– [ Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 28 November 2024; c.”
“All members of the Committee know all those names and are very familiar with them. In fact, more than half of those are in my constituency of Dundee and employ a large number of people. I want to give an idea of the scale of the profits that those companies have made just this year. Asda made £1.1 billion—we are right in the middle of a cost of living crisis, and that is over £1 billion profit for a retail store. Tesco made £2.3 billion profit, and British Gas’s parent company has said that its profits have fallen to a humble £2.8 billion. Those are just three examples and the others—Heathrow Airport, Argos and Weetabix—are also all in profit. One simple cereal company made £368.8 million. Those are hardly companies in dire financial straits.”
“Does the Minister agree with Martyn Gray, who gave evidence to this Committee just a couple of weeks ago? He is the director of organising at Nautilus International, and he made it clear to the Committee how high the bar should be set when he said: “Quite simply, if directors can sign off the business as still remaining as a going concern, fire and rehire should not be an option…I would set a really high threshold and then allow for scrutiny from the relevant bodies.” –– [ Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 26 November 2024; c. 65, Q61.] Employers’ unions have encountered those who have threatened or implemented fire and rehire to reduce workers’ pay and/or conditions, including companies such as British Airways, Heathrow Airport, Argos, Weetabix, Tesco, Asda and British Gas.”
“Amendment 160 would delete subsection (4) to proposed new section 104I, which provides an opportunity for fire and rehire to continue where “the reason for the variation was to eliminate, prevent or significantly reduce, or significantly mitigate the effect of, any financial difficulties which at the time of the dismissal were affecting, or were likely in the immediate future to affect, the employer’s ability to carry on the business as a going concern or otherwise to carry on the activities constituting the business, and…in all the circumstances the employer could not reasonably have avoided the need to make the variation.” Along with many others, I have reservations about that. If employers can point to their likelihood of financial difficulty, they will deploy fire and rehire tactics. Let me ask some questions.”
“I pay tribute to my former colleague, Gavin Newlands, who twice brought forward Bills in previous Parliaments to outlaw the practice, which had the support of over 100 MPs and the backing of all major trade unions, including Unite, the British Airline Pilots’ Association and GMB Scotland. I also commend the work of Chris Stephens who, on a regular basis, stood up for workers against the previous Tory Government and called for an immediate end to fire and rehire. However, there appears to be a loophole, and amendments 160 and 161 seek to remove it.”
“In January 2021, the TUC found that “nearly 1 in 10 workers…had been told to re-apply for their jobs on worse terms and conditions since the first lockdown in March”— that is, March 2020. That is 10% of the working population. Notably, almost twice as many black workers faced fire and rehire as white workers. The SNP completely opposes fire and rehire, which is an appalling and abusive practice, and I am sure that most members of the Committee feel the very same. It must be outlawed. We have long campaigned to ban fire and rehire tactics and ensure that workers are not the victim of bosses looking to cut costs.”
“It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. Fire and rehire is one of the most contentious issues that we have heard about over the last years, and I will speak to it in some depth. First, I want to welcome the measures within this Bill, specifically those in clause 22, that tackle fire and rehire by considering a situation to be an unfair dismissal where an employee is dismissed for refusing to accept contractual variation, or where they have been dismissed to enable the employer to employ another employee, or to re-engage a dismissed employee on inferior terms. Over recent years, there have been several egregious examples of fire and rehire from large and very successful companies in the UK.”
“I will re-declare that I have been an employer in the past, as well as an employee, and have employed staff; this is not just a union position. I have talked about companies. I can appreciate small businesses and even microbusinesses being really concerned about such issues, because they would impact them directly. Typically, small businesses keep a very keen eye on where things are going in the future. If people want a good team in their employ, they make sure that their employees know very well what is going on with such issues. We had this debate earlier. I will list again, just to remind people, the relevant companies: Asda, Tesco, British Gas, Argos, Weetabix and Heathrow Airport. They are big companies, with billion-pound profits, that are taking advantage of the current situation.”
“We are not talking about technological changes, though, are we? We are not talking about advances that would mean changes to the structure of a business. We are talking about the language that is being used about the likeliness of financial difficulties. To any lawyer, the word “likely”—how long is a piece of string? Someone could argue the case that “likely” means this, while someone else could argue it means that. The language is lax, which is part of the issue. In terms of financial difficulties, what is a financial difficulty? Does it mean, “We can’t afford the loo roll in the staff toilets so we will fire and rehire,” or something more structural? What I seek from the Minister is assurances that the purpose of the Bill on fire and rehire is very specific: we want to end fire and rehire.”
“I apologise. I just wanted to remind the shadow Minister that we are already hearing from businesses. They are clearly looking at this loophole as an opportunity for them in the future.”
“I appreciate that there is a lot in the Bill, and I appreciate that some Government Members on the Committee think this is a nut to crack. I have asked questions—I hope to hear some of the answers to them—and I want to add another. I raised the issue of “likely”, which is the language used. Will the Minister remark on whether the Department intends to advise on how the word “likely” should be determined? Will he consider whether that will reflect what was set out in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and a subsequent tribunal judgment, which came to define “likely” as a need to show “a significantly higher degree of likelihood than just more likely than not”?”
“I am listening carefully to the words the Minister is using. When does the employer carry out that process? Ultimately, they have two options. They can carry it out well in advance to ensure that employees are kept up to speed early on. Some employees may wish to leave under those circumstances and find employment elsewhere. But often, in past cases of fire and rehire, employees have heard at a very late stage or not at all. There is currently no provision in the Bill to say what the timetable should be. I would like to get an indication of the Minister’s thoughts about potential future amendments relating to that subject.”
“I thank the Minister for his comments. It is helpful to know that there will be further consultation and, potentially, amendments—which may even come from his own side—to tighten up this bit of the legislation. It is critical to the wider Bill and the SNP understands its importance; we just want to see it made tighter—not to put employers in impossible situations in which they cannot negotiate, but so that it is not exploited as a loophole. As it currently stands, employers are already discussing that. I appreciate the Minister’s response. In that context, so long as it is something that can be further considered and, particularly, brought forward on Report, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. — (Anna McMorrin.)”
“Q6. These last months have shown that cruel Westminster Governments of whichever party continue to target the weakest in society while the Scottish Government will continue to protect them. While the Labour party has voted to continue the Conservatives’ two-child benefit cap, the SNP is abolishing it. While the Prime Minister picks the pockets of pensioners of their winter fuel allowance, Scotland’s First Minister, John Swinney, has reinstated it. Given that support for Labour is plummeting and support for Scottish independence is once again leading in the polls, who does the Prime Minister believe makes the best decisions for Scotland?”
“New clauses 39 and 40 would address those issues. They would go further than the Bill’s provisions on protection from harassment, because new clause 39 would introduce clear, actionable duties for employers to safeguard employees from gender-based harm through risk assessments, policy development and training. New clause 40 would mandate that the Health and Safety Executive create an enforceable framework that holds employers accountable and fosters inclusive, violence-free work environments for workers. I understand that this may have been the Minister’s first opportunity to hear these points. I hope he will consider them, perhaps on Report.”
“That might come as a surprise to some Members, but the reason is that domestic abuse and other forms of gender-based violence are not explicitly covered in the 1974 Act, even though the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 underlines the fact that employers owe their employees a duty of care that covers protection from domestic abuse. Discrimination law inadequately protects workers from gender-based violence beyond sexual harassment, especially when such violence is not physical. The UK’s ratification in 2022 of the International Labour Organisation’s convention 190 means that the UK should take a comprehensive approach that addresses all forms and threats of gender-based violence in the workplace, psychological and emotional abuse, physical abuse and stalking, including with respect to people commuting to and from the workplace.”
“It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. I rise to speak in support of new clauses 39 and 40, which stand in the name of the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts). The new clauses follow the publication of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 (Amendment) Bill, a presentation Bill that the right hon. Member introduced in co-operation with the Suzy Lamplugh Trust and Rights of Women. They would address a critical gap in workplace safety by mandating proactive employer responsibilities to prevent all forms of violence and harassment, including gender-based violence. The Health and Safety Executive does not currently accept domestic abuse within its remit.”
“I am hearing this argument repeated again and again, but I am struggling. I need an example. Employers insure themselves against floods, fire and everything else. We talked on Tuesday about an empty restaurant giving notice if it was empty. So I am trying to find out what is the exceptional circumstance that the hon. Member is concerned about that he can see in real-life circumstances where the employee would have to lose out rather than the business.”
“I will just probe a little further. All those points are valid, but they are the responsibility of the business, not the employee—most notably because they have no shares in the business and will not benefit from any profit. Why should they have only the rough end where they end up without income? A company might have five shareholders in a small company. A cabinet-making firm is a good example—I have one in my constituency in Dundee where they all have a stake in it and can equally share the risks and the rewards. The problem with what the hon. Member is suggesting is that the employees are burdened with the risks without any of the rewards. I cannot see where there is a benefit at all. That in many respects insulates the employer and puts all the burden on the employee.”
“I will talk about this issue more on my amendment, but before I go into it in detail, I really want to hear from the Minister what changes the Government look to make so that we are no longer the sickest country in the world for being unreasonable, unfair and unjust to employees, and to ensure that statutory sick pay, which is about 17% of the average income—it was 35% when it was introduced—will start to restore the proper justice required for employees.”
“I welcome the changes to ensure that everybody gets statutory sick pay, but I find it disgraceful that we have not even touched on its level: it is £116 a week, or £6,000 a year. At some point in our lives, all of us have worked in very low-paid jobs. We have all done that, particularly in the early years. We would never imagine that somebody could live on £6,000 a year. Not everybody is expected to be off for a year, but some are, due to prolonged illnesses.”
“It is good to see you in your place, Sir Christopher. I will speak to an amendment on this issue shortly, but I will briefly say that everyone in this room, at some point in their working life, will be ill. It is not something that we would choose or desire, and most of us want to get back to work as soon as possible. The problem is that it happens, and when we are off ill we still have bills to pay, families to keep and mortgages or rents to pay. The level of statutory sick pay is frankly woeful in this country—in fact, for those hon. Members who do not know, it is the worst in the developed world. We should all be ashamed of that and we need to really think about it.”
“At the same time, it would avoid making over 1 million employees even worse off than they are today when forced to take time off sick. It would reduce hardship among employees with the lowest pay.”
“The onus is therefore on the Government to either: substantially increase the basic rate of statutory sick pay—although I have heard already that it is the DWP that needs to consider that—benchmarking it to the national living wage rate for normal working hours; use the Bill to amend existing primary legislation to give the Secretary of State additional powers, via secondary legislation, to change how the statutory sick pay rate is calculated; or, at the least, hold a statutory consultation with a timeline to establish what the new benchmark rate for SSP should be. In the meantime, 100% replacement of earnings for employees earning below statutory sick pay is an easily affordable policy. It brings substantial net benefits to UK businesses, the Treasury and the wider economy.”
“A meaningful increase to statutory sick pay would immediately turn the situation around. SSP reform would enable people to more proactively manage their health conditions, remain linked to their employers and stay off benefits when they fall ill. Modelling by WPI Economics shows that implementation of an increased SSP rate alongside the other changes put forward in the Bill would deliver substantial economic benefits for the UK, including net gains of up to £800 million for businesses, £1.7 billion for the Treasury and £2.1 billion for the wider economy—all upsides.”
“Those who come into physical contact with many people at work are often the least able to afford to self-isolate without pay or to have access to employer-provided sick pay, and are more likely to engage in presenteeism. The UK’s current sick pay system contributes to economic stagnation, exacerbates the spread of infectious disease, makes long-term sickness absence more likely and drives people out of the taxpaying workforce. Everything that the Committee has discussed so far, across all parties, is about getting people into the workplace. The increased ill health adds a significant extra cost to the NHS, adds many more patients to waiting lists and increases the UK benefits bill. Workers themselves face financial hardship. There is no upside to the current system.”
“Furthermore, modelling shows that full earnings replacement would generate economic gains to businesses, the Treasury and the wider economy. With direct business benefits expected to be £1.1 billion, businesses would see aggregate net gains of around £1 billion every year from providing 100% earnings replacement. I reiterate that the amendment makes a small change that should be regarded as the bare minimum. Further reform and increases to the sick pay system need to be implemented. As was mentioned earlier, we learned during the covid pandemic that employees coming into work when unwell can have a detrimental impact on public health and the economy.”
“Cutting the incomes of those employees, even by a small percentage, risks them being unable to afford essential costs, pushing working families into hardship and deepening poverty. The changes in income may be especially difficult to bear during times of ill health, when the ability of households to adapt to budget losses is inevitably reduced. An example of modelling that has been mentioned already is by WPI Economics. It shows that the direct cost to businesses of providing full earnings replacement would be small, calculated at £125 million per year across the entire UK economy. That is equivalent to £15 per employee per year. Reducing the earnings replacement rate below 100% as proposed would save businesses a small fraction of that already small amount, providing trivial cost savings for businesses.”
“The lower the replacement rate, the more employees will be affected, with a quarter of a million employees losing out on the 80% rate and 1.3 million employees losing out at the 60% rate. The amendment would allow for those earning less than statutory sick pay to have their full earnings replaced. Frankly, that is the bare minimum that this Government and this Bill should be doing. That should be a starting point for statutory sick pay, increasing to the point where it is in line with the national living wage. Employees earning less than statutory sick pay are by definition low earners. The evidence is clear that households with low incomes spend the vast majority of their earnings on essentials, such as rent and food.”
“However, that creates a group of workers who will receive even less in sick pay under the new arrangements than they do now. After 14 years of austerity, I am sure that the new Government do not want that to get even worse. That is because although that group of workers might be earning above their lower earnings limit, reducing their earnings in line with the prescribed percentage would result in a weekly sick pay amount that is lower than statutory sick pay. For example, an employee earning £125 a week will currently get sick pay of £116.75. However, they would only receive £100 for the prescribed percentage of 80% or, worse, £75 for a prescribed percentage of 60%.”
“I advocate statutory sick pay being based on the national living wage in respect of each hour during which the worker would have worked, but for sickness. My amendment, however, is small and one that I hope will get cross-party support, largely because it is so modest and seeks to protect the lowest paid workers. I therefore hope to get to a conclusion today. This is not about a hammer to crack a nut, but about a small change that would help the most vulnerable and low-paid workers in our societies. According to the Centre for Progressive Change, the wording of the Bill will make up to 1.3 million employees worse off. The Bill’s wording specifies that employees should be paid either SSP or a prescribed percentage of their usual pay, whichever is lower.”
“I have already touched on the impact that illness has in our lives. Some of us have family members who have been long-term sick. If they have been in employment, £6,000 a year as an annual amount is clearly not going to be enough. I am glad that the Minister has raised the issue and addressed it, and I hope that the DWP can consider those levels. We are still the sickest country in the developed world, and I hope that that will change under this Government. I will leave my comments on that for the moment, apart from one, which is about the TUC. I am sure that those on the Government Benches will be well aware of this. Previously, the TUC campaigned for an increase in the weekly level of sick pay to at least £320 per week. That is something to consider.”
“I have listened with great interest to the Minister. I thank him for his comments and for the consultation that concluded yesterday. It would be helpful to hear today what the conclusion of the consultation is. I have made it crystal clear that none of us present want to see those at the lowest end of earnings worse off than they currently are. The Bill has been brought forward in good faith and good will, I am sure, by the new incoming Government to improve the lives of everyone, most of all those at the most vulnerable end. I have spoken to employers and employees quite widely about this, and the feeling I hear constantly is that this is a no-brainer. Delaying would be very difficult.”
“I thank the Minister for his intervention, but this is not a DWP issue. We are not talking about the level of SSP. We are talking about a sentence in the Bill that puts in a threshold that will make people on the lowest incomes worse off. That is an issue for the Minister for Employment to address rather than DWP. The level of SSP more widely has been discussed, and that may be an issue for DWP to consider. I think there will be disagreement over what that level should be. I have already quoted the TUC’s £320 a week, and I have suggested the national living wage. I look forward to that consultation, but this amendment seeks to strike a sentence out, nothing more.”