Lord Murray of Blidworth Alert Sample


Alert Sample

View the Parallel Parliament page for Lord Murray of Blidworth

Information between 20th July 2025 - 30th July 2025

Note: This sample does not contain the most recent 2 weeks of information. Up to date samples can only be viewed by Subscribers.
Click here to view Subscription options.


Division Votes
21 Jul 2025 - Employment Rights Bill - View Vote Context
Lord Murray of Blidworth voted Aye - in line with the party majority and against the House
One of 75 Conservative Aye votes vs 0 Conservative No votes
Tally: Ayes - 92 Noes - 130
21 Jul 2025 - Employment Rights Bill - View Vote Context
Lord Murray of Blidworth voted Aye - in line with the party majority and against the House
One of 92 Conservative Aye votes vs 0 Conservative No votes
Tally: Ayes - 106 Noes - 140
21 Jul 2025 - Employment Rights Bill - View Vote Context
Lord Murray of Blidworth voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House
One of 191 Conservative Aye votes vs 0 Conservative No votes
Tally: Ayes - 266 Noes - 162
21 Jul 2025 - Employment Rights Bill - View Vote Context
Lord Murray of Blidworth voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House
One of 160 Conservative Aye votes vs 0 Conservative No votes
Tally: Ayes - 216 Noes - 143
22 Jul 2025 - Enterprise Act 2002 (Mergers Involving Newspaper Enterprises and Foreign Powers) Regulations 2025 - View Vote Context
Lord Murray of Blidworth voted No - in line with the party majority and in line with the House
One of 100 Conservative No votes vs 41 Conservative Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 155 Noes - 267
23 Jul 2025 - Employment Rights Bill - View Vote Context
Lord Murray of Blidworth voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House
One of 173 Conservative Aye votes vs 0 Conservative No votes
Tally: Ayes - 271 Noes - 138
23 Jul 2025 - Employment Rights Bill - View Vote Context
Lord Murray of Blidworth voted Aye - in line with the party majority and in line with the House
One of 181 Conservative Aye votes vs 0 Conservative No votes
Tally: Ayes - 290 Noes - 143
23 Jul 2025 - Employment Rights Bill - View Vote Context
Lord Murray of Blidworth voted Aye - in line with the party majority and against the House
One of 73 Conservative Aye votes vs 0 Conservative No votes
Tally: Ayes - 85 Noes - 127
23 Jul 2025 - Employment Rights Bill - View Vote Context
Lord Murray of Blidworth voted Aye - in line with the party majority and against the House
One of 148 Conservative Aye votes vs 0 Conservative No votes
Tally: Ayes - 171 Noes - 189
23 Jul 2025 - Employment Rights Bill - View Vote Context
Lord Murray of Blidworth voted Aye - in line with the party majority and against the House
One of 171 Conservative Aye votes vs 0 Conservative No votes
Tally: Ayes - 198 Noes - 198


Speeches
Lord Murray of Blidworth speeches from: Employment Rights Bill
Lord Murray of Blidworth contributed 3 speeches (401 words)
Report stage part two
Wednesday 23rd July 2025 - Lords Chamber
Department for Business and Trade


Written Answers
Undocumented Migrants: Boats
Asked by: Lord Murray of Blidworth (Conservative - Life peer)
Monday 28th July 2025

Question to the Home Office:

To ask His Majesty's Government how many small boats intended for use by those seeking to enter the UK illegally have been seized since 4 July 2024.

Answered by Lord Hanson of Flint - Minister of State (Home Office)

Since 4 July 2024, Border Force has seized a total of 871 small boats used to make dangerous and unnecessary crossings of the Channel.

Undocumented Migrants: Boats
Asked by: Lord Murray of Blidworth (Conservative - Life peer)
Monday 28th July 2025

Question to the Home Office:

To ask His Majesty's Government how many small boats which have been used to facilitate illegal entry to the UK have been seized since 4 July 2024.

Answered by Lord Hanson of Flint - Minister of State (Home Office)

Since 4 July 2024, Border Force has seized a total of 871 small boats used to make dangerous and unnecessary crossings of the Channel.

Undocumented Migrants: Boats
Asked by: Lord Murray of Blidworth (Conservative - Life peer)
Monday 28th July 2025

Question to the Home Office:

To ask His Majesty's Government how many engines for small boats intended for use by those seeking to enter the UK illegally have been seized since 4 July 2024.

Answered by Lord Hanson of Flint - Minister of State (Home Office)

Since 4 July 2024, Border Force has seized a total of 871 small boats used to make dangerous and unnecessary crossings of the Channel.

Undocumented Migrants: Boats
Asked by: Lord Murray of Blidworth (Conservative - Life peer)
Monday 28th July 2025

Question to the Home Office:

To ask His Majesty's Government how many engines for small boats which have been used to facilitate illegal entry to the UK have been seized since 4 July 2024.

Answered by Lord Hanson of Flint - Minister of State (Home Office)

Since 4 July 2024, Border Force has seized a total of 794 engines for small boats used to make dangerous and unnecessary crossings of the Channel.




Lord Murray of Blidworth mentioned

Parliamentary Debates
Employment Rights Bill
100 speeches (22,781 words)
Report stage part two
Wednesday 23rd July 2025 - Lords Chamber
Department for Business and Trade
Mentions:
1: Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con - Life peer) thought were quite superb, by my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier and by my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth - Link to Speech



Select Committee Documents
Wednesday 30th July 2025
Report - 7th Report - Transnational repression in the UK

Human Rights (Joint Committee)

Found: Kennedy of The Shaws (Labour; Life peer) Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon (Labour; Life peer) Lord Murray of Blidworth

Thursday 24th July 2025
Report - 6th Report - Forced Labour in UK Supply Chains

Human Rights (Joint Committee)

Found: Kennedy of The Shaws (Labour; Life peer) Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon (Labour; Life peer) Lord Murray of Blidworth



Bill Documents
Jul. 22 2025
HL Bill 110-II Second marshalled list for Committee
Planning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26
Amendment Paper

Found: LORD MURRAY OF BLIDWORTH 133_ After Clause 51, insert the following new Clause— “Promotion and use

Jul. 07 2025
Letter from Baroness Jones to Baroness Coffey, Lord Jackson and Lord Murray regarding the Fair Work Agency’s civil proceedings powers, EHRC similar powers, application to agricultural workers and whistleblowers.
Employment Rights Bill 2024-26
Will write letters

Found: SW1A 2DY The Rt Hon. the Baroness Coffey DBE The Lord Jackson of Peterborough The Lord Murray of Blidworth




Lord Murray of Blidworth - Select Committee Information

Select Committee Documents
Monday 21st July 2025
Written Evidence - Mr Yonas Teklehaimanot
TRUK0025 - Transnational repression in the UK

Transnational repression in the UK - Human Rights (Joint Committee)
Monday 21st July 2025
Written Evidence - Committee for Freedom in Hong Kong Foundation
TRUK0035 - Transnational repression in the UK

Transnational repression in the UK - Human Rights (Joint Committee)
Monday 21st July 2025
Written Evidence - TRUK0115 - Transnational repression in the UK

Transnational repression in the UK - Human Rights (Joint Committee)
Monday 21st July 2025
Written Evidence - TRUK0114 - Transnational repression in the UK

Transnational repression in the UK - Human Rights (Joint Committee)
Thursday 24th July 2025
Report - 6th Report - Forced Labour in UK Supply Chains

Human Rights (Joint Committee)
Friday 25th July 2025
Correspondence - Correspondence to the Committee from the Minister for Industry regarding the Forced Labour in UK Supply Chains Inquiry dated 22 July 2025

Human Rights (Joint Committee)
Friday 25th July 2025
Correspondence - Correspondence to the Committee from Lord Ponsonby dated 21 July 2025

Human Rights (Joint Committee)
Wednesday 30th July 2025
Report - 7th Report - Transnational repression in the UK

Human Rights (Joint Committee)


Select Committee Inquiry
23 Jul 2025
Proposal for a draft Human Rights Act 1998 (Remedial) Order 2025
Human Rights (Joint Committee) (Select)
Not accepting submissions

Background

Section 9(3) of the Human Rights Act 1998 provides that in proceedings under that Act in respect of a judicial act done in good faith, damages may not be awarded except in two circumstances. The first is to compensate a person to the extent required by Article 5(5) of the European Convention on Human Rights (‘ECHR’) (deprivation of liberty). The second is to compensate a person for a judicial act that is incompatible with Article 6 ECHR (right to fair trial) in circumstances where the person is detained and, but for the incompatibility, the person would not have been detained or would not have been detained for so long.

In the case of Re W (A Child) [2016] EWCA Civ 1140, the Court of Appeal found that accusations of professional misconduct against a witness made by a Family Court judge breached her rights under Article 8 of the ECHR (right to respect for private life).

In its judgment of 22 June 2021 in SW v United Kingdom (Application no. 87/18), the European Court of Human Rights held that there had been a violation of Article 13 of the ECHR (right to an effective remedy), because the effect of section 9(3) of the Human Rights Act 1998 was that the witness could not bring a claim for damages in respect of a judicial act that was incompatible with Article 8.

Government proposals

On 17 July 2025, the Government laid before both Houses of Parliament its proposal for a Remedial Order to amend the Human Rights Act 1998. The proposed order is intended to give effect to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in SW v United Kingdom, by remedying the incompatibility of section 9(3) of the Human Rights Act 1998 with Article 13 of the ECHR.

The Government proposes to address this incompatibility by amending section 9(3) to allow damages to be awarded to compensate a person for a judicial act on an additional basis: that the judicial act is incompatible with Article 8 on the ground that it was done in such a procedurally defective way as to amount to a breach of the requirements of procedural fairness under that Article.

Section 9(3) of the Human Rights Act 1998 was previously amended by the Human Rights Act 1998 (Remedial) Order 2020 to give effect to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Hammerton v United Kingdom (Application no. 6287/10). See the Fifteenth Report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights of Session 2017-19, and its Second Report of Session 2019-21.

 

 

Remedial Orders

Section 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 gives Ministers of the Crown the power to make remedial orders.

The section applies if it appears to the Minister that, having regard to a finding of the European Court of Human Rights in proceedings against the United Kingdom, a provision of legislation is incompatible with an obligation of the United Kingdom arising from the Convention.

In those circumstances, the Minister may by order make such amendments to the legislation as the Minister considers necessary to remove the incompatibility, if the Minister considers that there are compelling reasons for doing so.

Reporting on the proposal

The Joint Committee on Human Rights is required to report to Parliament on any proposal for a remedial order to be made under the Human Rights Act 1998. 

The Committee has 60 sitting days to report to each House its recommendation whether a draft order in the same terms as the proposal should be laid before the House.

25 Jun 2025
Human Rights and the Regulation of AI
Human Rights (Joint Committee) (Select)

Submit Evidence (by 5 Sep 2025)


Background

In recent years there has been growth in the development and application of Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies. These can be used for a wide variety of applications.

There is no universally agreed definition of AI or AI technologies. The then Government’s 2023 policy paper on “A pro-innovation approach to AI regulation” defined Artificial Intelligence (AI), AI systems or AI technologies as “products and services that are ‘adaptable’ and ‘autonomous’.” Adaptability refers to AI systems, after being trained, developing the ability to perform new ways of finding patterns and connections in data that are not directly envisioned by their human programmers. Autonomy refers to AI systems making decisions without the intent or ongoing control of a human.

Many argue that AI technologies can offer great benefits to individuals and society – for example, assisting in decision-making and improving productivity. Others are concerned about risks such as:

  • Perpetuation of societal biases and discrimination (for example, through the use of biased training data for AI models)
  • Potential conflict with an individual’s right to privacy and freedom of expression (for example, where AI might be used in surveillance)
  • Challenges for individuals in exercising their right to an effective remedy where their rights have been violated (for example, where it might be difficult to know how a model produced a particular output, and who is liable for that output).

On 5 September 2024, the UK signed the Council of Europe Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence and Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law. It is the first legally binding treaty in this area and "aims to ensure that activities within the lifecycle of artificial intelligence systems are fully consistent with human rights, democracy and the rule of law, while being conducive to technological progress and innovation."

The UK also adheres to the OECD’s AI Principles, which were the “first intergovernmental standard on AI”. The five principles are:

  1. Inclusive growth, sustainable development and well-being;
  2. Human rights and democratic values, including fairness and privacy;
  3. Transparency and explainability;
  4. Robustness, security and safety; and
  5. Accountability.

The UK Government has signalled its intention to “bring forward legislation which allows us to safely realise the enormous benefits and opportunities of the most powerful AI systems for years to come.” (PQ 41098 on Artificial Intelligence: Regulation, 31 March 2025)

Against this backdrop, the Joint Committee on Human Rights will explore what regulation might be required in order to safeguard human rights when AI technologies are being developed and used, and any implications this might have for future legislation.  

The inquiry will not be considering topics such as social media, misinformation and harmful algorithms,[3] or how malign actors are seeking to undermine democracy.[4] While these are important topics, they are outside the scope of this inquiry.

 

[1] POSTbrief 57, Artificial intelligence: An explainer, 14 December 2023    

[2] UK Parliament, Artificial Intelligence (AI) glossary, January 2024

[3] The subject of a report by the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee: Social media, misinformation and harmful algorithms

[4] The subject of a current inquiry by the Foreign Affairs Committee: Disinformation diplomacy: How malign actors are seeking to undermine democracy