Asylum Hotels: Migrant Criminal Activity

Chris Murray Excerpts

Monday 21st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dame Diana Johnson]

It is not nonsense; it is facts.

Now we are trying to go further in all these areas, but it is clear that the Conservatives and their friends in Reform are the ones trying to stop us. We introduced counter-terror measures at the border to smash the gangs responsible for the vile trade; they voted against the Bill that delivers that. We introduced measures to ban sex offenders from getting asylum in the UK; they voted against the Bill that delivers them. We introduced tagging for those arriving illegally who pose a risk to the public, and extended illegal working duties to cover the gig economy; once again, they voted against it. We have seen 14 years of inaction, leaving our borders exposed and our communities fractured—yet the shadow Home Secretary has the cheek to lecture us about keeping the country safe.

[Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)]

I draw the attention of the House to my declaration of interests. People who come to this country legally and work hard are welcome, but the Minister is right to say that those who do not are not. We know that one of the big pull factors is the ability to work illegally in the UK. Can the Minister set out what the Government are doing to stamp out illegal working, and in particular the role of the new fair work agency introduced by the Employment Rights Bill, which will be critical in stopping illegal working in the UK?

UK-France Migration: Co-operation

Chris Murray Excerpts

Monday 14th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

The Prime Minister and the French President set out their expectation that we will be able to operationalise this agreement and begin the pilot in the coming weeks. The numbers will vary, and it is a pilot that will need to be developed. We will need to trial different approaches as part of it, and that is the right and sensible approach.

The principle underpinning the agreement is the right one: we should return people who have paid money to criminal gangs in order to come on this dangerous journey in small boats—which puts other people’s lives at risk, as well as their own, and undermines our border security—in exchange for taking people who apply legally, who are more likely to be genuine refugees and who have been through security checks, and prioritising people who have a connection to the UK. It is also a way to help undermine the business model of the criminal gangs, who tell people that there is no way to be returned to France or any other country if they get into one of these dangerous small boats. They use that as part of their advertising, which we should seek to undermine.

The hon. Lady is right to say that we also need stronger law enforcement. We have already been building stronger co-operation, including by setting up the new prosecution and investigation unit in Dunkirk, which will work with our National Crime Agency and our Border Security Command, and we are significantly speeding up asylum decision making to bring the backlog down. We also need action to speed up the appeals process, because there are delays as a result of the broken system that we inherited.

[Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)]

As the Home Secretary points out, we did not have small boat crossings 10 years ago, but we left the EU without incorporating a returns agreement into the withdrawal agreement. On a point of clarification, can the Home Secretary confirm that it is completely unprecedented for an EU country to allow returns from outwith the EU’s external borders? I note that it comes on the back of a highly successful state visit by President Macron. We have come a long way from having a Prime Minister question whether France is friend or foe—Macron is our friend, and our foes are the people smugglers. On the pilot, what are the Home Secretary’s parameters for success, how does she envisage it scaling up, and how does she envisage the UK-EU relationship will have to adapt in the future to accommodate it, if successful?

[Yvette Cooper]

I can tell my hon. Friend that we will want to develop this over time, and we will do so in partnership with France. He is right that we will secure this co-operation together and have an impact together, just as successive Governments over the years have strengthened security co-operation with France—through juxtaposed controls, different border security arrangements, and checks for lorries and clandestine journeys—and that co-operation strengthened our border security. That had just not been done on small boats, and that is what this agreement is all about. It is about building the security co-operation we have had in the past, but not on small boats, and that is now so important. We will build that co-operation, because we will best strengthen our border security by working with countries on the other side of our borders who face exactly the same challenges, and that is far better than just standing on the shoreline and shouting at the sea.

Child Sexual Exploitation: Casey Report

Chris Murray Excerpts

Monday 16th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

The answer is yes. I recognise that the hon. Gentleman has raised this issue. Back in January, I said that I would undertake further work to ensure that the local investigations had the powers to compel witnesses in order to be able to get the evidence. We agree with Baroness Casey and have concluded that the right way to do this is to have the national inquiry, which will mean that every local investigation has full powers to compel witnesses and evidence. Where and how those investigations take place will be directed by the national commission and the national inquiry, in order to ensure they have those full powers in place.

[Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)]

The crime we are discussing today is not just an historic crime; it is happening right now out in communities, and we are failing to protect the current victims of this awful child abuse. I welcome the new inquiry, but my concern is about delay. We have had plenty of inquiries, taskforces and reviews whose conclusions have not been implemented. My concern is that this new inquiry will monopolise our attention, when we should also be focused on protecting victims right now. Will the Home Secretary commit to this inquiry not detracting or diverting resource from the recommendations that we know need to be implemented and to rolling out nationally the devolved child trafficking pilot, which we know has been working for four years, in order to protect child victims?

[Yvette Cooper]

I can tell my hon. Friend that we are going to expand that, and that we will not let up the pace of implementing measures and recommendations. That includes the work that the Education Secretary is already doing on the mandatory sharing of data on children at risk, the new identifiers and the measures in the Crime and Policing Bill on mandatory reporting. Crucially, we have also already increased the resources for policing operations to be able to review closed cases. That is why we already have 800 cases identified for review, although we expect that figure shortly to rise to over 1,000 cases. Those are cases that were closed with no further action being taken that are now being looked at again—not waiting for the inquiry, but taking action now to protect children.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Murray Excerpts

Monday 2nd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank the hon. Member for her question. I would be happy to look at that case. The personal details on the document associated with that person’s e-visa may well have not been updated. Updating the details may be the first step necessary, after which the issue may go away.

[Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)]

The problem with the immigration system we inherited is that it had very high levels of low-skilled immigration, but what the economy actually needs is low levels of high-skilled immigration. We need to attract worldwide top talent for some key sectors, many of which are based in Edinburgh East and Musselburgh, so that we remain globally competitive, but businesses tell me that long visa processing times work against that. Now that we are seeing lower levels of immigration, will the Government be reprioritising resources so we see faster processing of skilled worker visas?

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. He will be aware that visa processing times can vary based on the type of visa and where people are applying from. However, for most applications, even those made outside the UK, decisions are usually made within three weeks. He will also be aware that we are looking at how to reform our immigration system as a result of the record levels of net migration under the previous Government, and making sure that we focus our immigration on the needs of our economy is a priority for this Government.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Chris Murray Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 12th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

[Chris Philp]

I am going to make a bit of progress.

The second amendment that we intend to put to a vote, new clause 14, concerns the Human Rights Act. The Government, through the Home Secretary in her statement and the Minister in her remarks a few moments ago, talked about tinkering with article 8, but the truth is that that will not make any meaningful difference.

It is worth reminding ourselves of the history of this. The European convention on human rights is an international treaty that we entered into—indeed, we helped to draft it—in 1950. In 1998 the Blair Government passed the Human Rights Act, which essentially incorporated the ECHR into domestic law. So UK courts, when making any immigration decisions, or indeed any other decisions, can use their interpretation of the ECHR when interpreting legislation passed by this House and to prevent the Government from taking a particular executive action that might include removing or deporting someone.

The Act empowered UK judges to use the ECHR however they saw fit. The problem with the ECHR is that it is not like a piece of domestic legislation such as the Bill we are considering, which is detailed and has everything precisely defined. The ECHR is vaguely worded. For example, article 3 is on freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment and article 8 is on the right to a private and family life. There is nothing objectionable about those articles in themselves; the problem is that, over the years, judges have expanded their interpretation of them in ever more extraordinary ways, which defy common sense. Let me just give the House a couple of examples of such judgments.

A paedophile of Zimbabwean nationality quite rightly fell for deportation under section 32 of the UK Borders Act 2007. He should have been deported, but a UK judge—not a Strasbourg judge—said “No, no.” They said that, under their interpretation of the ECHR, that convicted paedophile might face “some hostility” if they were returned to Zimbabwe in a manner that breached their article 3 rights—not their article 8 rights—so they said that that convicted paedophile could stay here in the UK. What about the human rights of British children to be protected from paedophiles like that? What about the rights of British citizens to be protected from foreign offenders?

In another case, an Iraqi drug dealer rightly fell for deportation back to Iraq, but a judge found that he had become too westernised and therefore could not be returned to Iraq, his country of nationality and country of origin. Those are just two examples of thousands where domestic UK judges have stretched the definition of ECHR articles in a way that defies all common sense, and certainly goes far beyond anything the original framers of the ECHR had in mind when they signed up to it in 1950.

That is why, as a first step, we propose to repeal the Human Rights Act in relation to all immigration matters so that domestic UK judges would no longer be able to apply their own creative and expansive interpretations of the ECHR when making immigration decisions; instead, they would have regard solely and exclusively to domestic legislation that we have passed in this House. That strikes me as a common-sense measure that would end the handing down of ridiculous judgments and enable the Government to ensure that people with no right to be here and dangerous foreign criminals could be removed. At the moment, judges are preventing that, using interpretations that completely defy common sense.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I represent Walthamstow; once upon a time, the architect of the ECHR, Winston Churchill, was our constituency next-door neighbour. But let us be under no illusions and let us be frank, because people in this Chamber will write off my corner of London as some nirvana of good relations and say that we do not get issues or challenges with immigration: we have people in our community who judge people on the basis of their skin colour and who listen to the social media tropes; and we have people who seek division, who share that common aim and who will find somebody to blame rather than a solution for the challenges we face. Legislation needs to counter that, not facilitate it, because the reality is that across this country there are too many people with too much month at the end of their money, and it is too easy to tell those people that immigrants are the reason why, rather than telling them the truth.

The people in my community are not woke; they are wise. They get that some are trying to tell them that immigrants are the problem, when the truth is that it is actually politicians who do not face up to the challenges we have. People in my community, like those across this country—whether they are old friends or strangers, incomers from Hackney or even further afield—can all find common ground if they do not get their bins collected, if they cannot park their cars or if they feel that their children are at risk. In this country, people find humanity in each other—in our common grumbles. That is what it means to be British: to have a moan about the reality of daily life. Those who want to divide us—who tell us the way forward is finding somebody to blame rather than a solution to the challenges—do nobody a service.

Let us talk about what we could do in this Bill to make things better. I support new clause 37, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) from the other end of the Victoria line. We should not be making a profit from children who are seeking to be citizens who have the right to remain here.

I draw the Minister’s attention to new clause 44, which I have tabled. We could learn from Australia and New Zealand—those bastions of progressive immigration policy—and introduce a worker’s justice visa. We really need to help overseas workers in our communities who are at the behest of their sponsors. It is outrageous that there are people in this country whose future relies on somebody else’s largesse, rather than their basic human rights. We can learn from Australia and New Zealand in introducing such a visa in order to correct the issue whereby somebody who is clearly a victim of modern slavery cannot stay in the country to pursue that claim, so the person making them a slave cannot be held to account.

[Chris Murray]

Does my hon. Friend agree that we have significant problems in this country as the system to address modern slavery has degraded? Will she join me in pushing for the national referral mechanism to be reviewed, as the Government promised, to tackle exactly what she is talking about?

[Ms Creasy]

Absolutely. Let me be clear: I recognise that my suggestion will not address all the issues with overseas domestic workers, but a worker’s justice visa could be the start of ensuring that our immigration system is more functional.

I also draw the Minister’s attention to new clause 45, which is about the “good character requirement”. It makes no sense to those of us concerned about integration to say to somebody that they may stay in this country—that they have a well-founded fear of persecution—but that they will never be able to make a life here, that they will always end up paying more for their mortgage because they will not be able to get a proper income, and that they will never be able to get jobs as easily as others, so they might be more dependent on benefits. That is what happens when we start denying citizenship to people who have the right to be here.

The Refugee Council recognises that the requirement will affect 71,000 people because it is retrospective. It is little wonder that a court case is now in train. Bad policymaking in the face of social media tropes does nobody any favours, and I urge Ministers to look again at the provision. New clause 45 is simple: it is about us upholding our international obligations. It is about saying that if there was a safe route, absolutely it would be bad character not to use it, but I would love some Opposition Members, who are no longer in their place, to tell me what the safe route from Iran is, when many people on the boats are from Iran.

We have to get immigration policy right. I stand here as somebody who does not want open borders. I want a fair and just immigration service. I learned in my first year in this place from the former Home Secretary Jack Straw, who told me there were two divides: left and right, and those people who had to deal with the UK Border Agency and those who did not. The legislation before us does many welcome things, but it also does things that I fear we will come to regret in future—just as we will come to regret pandering to those who wish to divide us, rather than getting on and sorting out why we still have a cost of living crisis.

The Government will have my support if they want to do more to bring people together, not just by sorting out bin collections—that perennial challenge—but by investing in everybody, whether they were born here or have come here to make a contribution. After all, those of us with refugee heritage—whether we were Huguenots, Farages or Creasys—deserve and need better.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I start by saying how delighted I am that my colleagues have dragged themselves out of the pub to join me for my maiden speech? I am so proud to be in this place; I feel so privileged to be here. I hope that I will make a good contribution to the business of this place, with my background of 20 years of public service as a magistrate and a borough councillor.

I thank all the voters of Runcorn and Helsby who put their trust in me. It certainly was an historic night—one that I will never forget. We had a recount at about 3 o’clock in the morning, and the result finally came through at about 6 o’clock—and there were six votes in it, so I think six is probably my lucky number from now on. We certainly put Runcorn and Helsby on the map. It is the closest ever parliamentary by-election result. There was lots of drama and it made for some great headlines the next day—well, great headlines for us, anyway.

I thank and pay tribute to my predecessor, Mike Amesbury. In 2020 he won a ballot to introduce a Bill of his choice. He chose to focus on the cost of living crisis by limiting the cost of school uniforms. His Bill gathered cross-party support and became the Education (Guidance about Cost of School Uniforms) Act 2021.

I, too, will focus on the cost of living. During the campaign, it was raised with me endlessly on the doorstep by voters who feel let down by this Government—voters who have lost their winter fuel allowance, who have had their disability benefit slashed or who have seen their energy costs go through the roof when they were promised that their bills would go down.

It is very important that I make my maiden speech today. There were a few raised eyebrows, as I have been here less than a week, but the Bill is important because it is so relevant to what I believe in. There are over 900 illegal immigrants—that we know about—living in Runcorn. Some 400 of them are housed in an asylum hotel—the Daresbury Park hotel, which was, incidentally, to be shut down by the Government during the election campaign, but is, of course, still open—while the remaining 500 or so are housed in houses of multiple occupancy in the community. The recent Government announcement encouraging private landlords to give up their properties to house illegal immigrants in order to get a five-year guarantee of rent and all the property maintenance paid for will only make that situation worse. We will end up with British tenants being evicted, rents being forced up and the already limited housing supply getting worse.

The problem for communities in places such as Runcorn is that those houses of multiple occupancy often have 15 to 20 young men in them. Families living nearby have to put up with antisocial behaviour through the night, drug dealing, people coming and going, and noise. I saw the CCTV throughout the campaign; I have heard the stories. People are frightened to go out. They will certainly not let their children play out on the pavements when there are such houses on their street. We know that these HMOs are breeding grounds for organised crime gangs, whether they are involved in drugs or people trafficking, or whether they are grooming gangs—something that was recently downplayed by the Leader of the House. Tackling sexual violence against women and the abuse of women and promoting the safety of women and children are things I will champion, not deny.

I hope that my background in the justice system will give substance to my contributions on subjects that are close to my heart, such as the current state of our prisons and the daily threat that our brave prison officers—men and women—face at work. Over the last couple of days, there was yet another example of what they are facing in the news. I will also be a strong voice against the prosecutions of our Northern Ireland veterans, who were so brave on our behalf in the troubles. I will be brave, as they were for us, and I will stand up for what is right and fair.

My constituency was formed in the boundary changes last year by five other constituencies lending areas to its geography. Not only is it new; it is diverse. It is home to some of the wealthiest and to some of the poorest. It is home to a beautiful and vibrant market town, Frodsham, and to Runcorn old town, which is in decline and in desperate need of investment. It has beautiful, leafy villages and housing estates battling drug crime and antisocial behaviour. I have lots of wonderful businesses in the constituency, ranging from the chemical industry and the farming industry right through to the science park.

There are many challenges ahead and the problems I am going to take on, on behalf of my constituents, include the drastic shortage of housing and the desperate need for investment and regeneration in the old town. The standard of education in the five secondary schools is at best average and at worst way below average. Somebody needs to highlight these issues. We have an incinerator that churns out toxic waste, and an investigation into the health implications is ongoing. And then we have the white elephant that is the net zero project, with carbon capture and storage, and an extensive solar panel farm right across the middle of the constituency. I will challenge the people who have put those policies in place; I will speak for the people who have for so long lacked the representation they deserve. This constituency has huge potential; it has hard-working people who just want fairness and I will be their voice.

To conclude, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) for his vision, his commitment and his conviction, which have brought a new voice to this Chamber. I will stand up for what is right, and I say to all my colleagues in this House that they will find me fair, principled and here to serve my constituents. Madam Deputy Speaker, I have been asked many times over the last 10 days whether I am overwhelmed by recent events and by being in this place. I am not overwhelmed; I am deeply respectful of this place, I am humbled by this place, but I am ready for this place.

[Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)]

It is an honour to follow that eloquent and impassioned maiden speech by our new colleague, the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin). I can tell that we will be hearing a lot more from her in this House, and while I am sure that her colleagues are pleased to have their number back up to five, I think we can all understand that her lucky number is six.

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and the support provided to my office by the Refugee, Asylum and Migration Policy Project. I would like to make a couple of points about the amendments, drawing on the evidence we heard in Committee.

The purpose of this legislation is to stop the small boat crossings in the channel. They are too dangerous and too many vulnerable people die in the attempt. They represent a lack of grip on the immigration system, because it should be the Government who decide who comes into this country, not people smugglers. The previous approach manifestly failed. That is because the Rwanda scheme meant we could never reduce demand enough. As Dr Walsh from the Migration Observatory told us in our evidence sessions, demand for crossing the channel is essentially inelastic and we will never get it down enough. Deterrence alone therefore will not work. If we want proof, we should consider that of all the asylum seekers in the system, those who went to Rwanda represent one 4,000th of 1%. Rather than tackle demand, we should tackle supply. We need to make it harder to get in boats and to organise crossings, and we need to disrupt the supply chain that drives this multimillion-pound industry and seize the phones of those making the crossing.

On new clause 3 on safe routes, let us be clear that there is absolutely a wider case to be made for safe routes and there is a national obligation to help where we can, but let us also be clear that safe routes already exist at significant scale. Some 500,000 people sought sanctuary in the UK through them over the last few years. We must be clear, too, that given the vast numbers of people in the asylum system just now, no one can argue that Britain does not have enough refugees. Most importantly, safe routes fall into the same logical trap as the Rwanda scheme, in that they aim to reduce demand rather than to tackle supply. Rwanda said, “Don’t come because there’s a tiny chance you’ll be sent to Rwanda instead.” Safe routes say, “Don’t come because there’s a tiny chance you can come through safe routes instead.”

The purpose of the Bill is to reduce channel crossings. There are good arguments for safe routes on many levels, but having worked on migration policy for 15 years before coming here, I know we have to recognise that they will not play a role in reducing this cross-channel travel.

[Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)]

The Government’s repeal of the vile and illegal Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 and large parts of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 are welcome, but they must do more to repeal the underlying legal framework, which continues to undermine the UK’s ability to uphold the rule of law and human rights. The Illegal Migration Act simply does not belong on the statute book, and my preference would be to scrap the lot of it. My amendment 35 at least seeks to restore judicial oversight of decisions about detention. The Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association points out that without my amendment 35, a software engineer who overstayed her visa could be detained for longer than a suspected terrorist, and with far less judicial oversight.

Turning to my new clause 38, I am disappointed that the Government have not used the Bill to repeal the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, when Labour rightly opposed that legislation in its entirety on its Second Reading. That Act marked the UK’s move away from upholding the 1951 refugee convention and instead denies the right to territorial asylum, yet this Labour Government have chosen to leave the Act on the statute book, untouched by this Bill. My new clause 38 focuses on undoing the provisions that penalise and criminalise people who make unsafe journeys to the UK to seek sanctuary. It scraps the parts that create an unfair two-tier asylum system with differential treatment for different groups of people—a proposal so unworkable that the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) had to pause it when in government. Crucially, it scraps the law that criminalises people arriving in the UK without permission or the right paperwork with a penalty of up to four years in prison. This law is clearly contrary to article 31.1 of the 1951 refugee convention, which provides immunity from penalties in recognition of the fact that refugees are often compelled to arrive without appropriate documents in order to access their human rights under that convention. Lastly, my new clause 38 would scrap sections 30 to 38 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, which sought to—I will put it charitably—poorly reinterpret the refugee convention.

I wish to highlight the fact that the Government are leaving on the statute book measures that unjustly penalise and criminalise refugees for arriving irregularly when there are no safe and managed routes to travel here to claim asylum for the vast majority of people who might need and be eligible to do so. In the words of Warsan Shire:

“no one puts their children in a boat

unless the water is safer than the land”.

This Government are clearly focused on appearing tough on immigration, and to do so they have brought in some of the previous Government’s cruel policies and introduced some of their own—

Immigration System

Chris Murray Excerpts

Monday 12th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

This evening, Members will be able to vote for a border security Bill that includes counter-terrorism powers to tackle criminal smuggler gangs. When we hosted the Interpol conference before Christmas, the Prime Minister said that border security is a national security issue, and needs to be taken seriously as such. That is why we need those counter-terrorism powers—it is why we need our police, the National Crime Agency, Border Force and border authorities to be able to intervene much earlier to take action against this dangerous trade in people that undermines our national security as well as our border security. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will vote for the Bill tonight.

[Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)]

The public have been waiting for 15 years to hear a Government set out a serious strategy to get a grip on the legal migration system so that it works for public confidence, for the economy and for migrants themselves. I welcome the measures that the Home Secretary has announced in relation to the health and social care visa, because this has not only been very disruptive for the labour market but has led to instances of extreme exploitation and modern slavery. Will she commit herself to ensuring that these new measures are fully modern-slavery-proofed in the White Paper?

[Yvette Cooper]

I welcome what my hon. Friend has said. There have been shameful examples of exploitation, which all of us have probably come across in our constituencies, involving the social care visa and the way in which it was introduced. People have come here to work incredibly hard in our care homes, which is why it is so important for us to tackle that exploitation and ensure that standards are met. We must ensure that we have a fair pay agreement, and, certainly, that we maintain the standards relating to tackling trafficking and modern slavery.

Child Rape Gangs

Chris Murray Excerpts

Monday 28th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)]

As we have heard, when Alexis Jay came to the Home Affairs Committee, she told how she had pushed and pushed for the implementation of her long and wide-ranging report, but heard nothing back from the previous Government. I welcome today’s urgent question, because this issue requires an urgency that we did not see from the previous Government. As someone who has worked on protecting the victims of child trafficking I know we need local responses, but there is an element for national co-ordination. Before recess, the Minister announced the creation of the child protection authority. Can she tell us more about the remit and the role that organisation will have in ensuring that, nationwide, we clamp down on this horrific crime?

[Jess Phillips]

Yes. As was outlined in Professor Alexis Jay’s report, the need for an overreaching authority to ensure accountability across the child protection system was made very clear. As we roll out the new authority, we are consulting many experts on what exactly it needs to look like and ensuring that we get the very best possible. I am sick of hearing lessons learned in a serious case review about a child rape, a child rape gang or a child death. There needs to be genuine accountability and things need to change.

Tackling Child Sexual Abuse

Chris Murray Excerpts

Tuesday 8th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jess Phillips]

I thank the hon. Lady for her comments and the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) for her work in this area. I am always keen to encourage cross-party work on these issues, and I recognise that the child protection agency had been pushed for previously.

A consultation will be launched on exactly what the oversight mechanism of the CPA will look like. It will initially be part of the national panel, and that will then be built on. The consultation will take time rather than up-ending an entire system—that will be the process that we will go through—and I would very much welcome help from Members across the House in that process. On the implementation of all the recommendations in the Jay review, a detailed plan has been published today as part of this announcement. I invite hon. Members to look at that and to push for more, as I would do if I were not in my current ministerial position.

[Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)]

When Alexis Jay appeared before the Home Affairs Committee earlier this year, she was clear that at no point in seven years, under seven Conservative Home Secretaries, did anyone say that her inquiry was either too broad or too narrow, and nobody suggested to her that there needed to be further inquiries beyond what she produced. I welcome the Minister’s announcement that the three-year limitation period will be lifted, because we know that the average length of abuse for children is four years, and the average length of time that it takes someone to disclose their abuse is 26 years. Will the Minister set out how the child protection authority will work in practice? What will the funding situation be and what discussions has the Minister had with the Treasury? What is the timing to get it up and running as soon as possible, and may I ask for a guarantee that the voices of survivors will be central in the establishment of the authority?

[Jess Phillips]

I agree with my hon. Friend that the voices of survivors have to be part of absolutely everything that we do going forward. The CPA will immediately form part of the panel and extra funding will be provided in this year’s funding to build on the analytical resources that it needs. The consultation will be ongoing with experts, including the likes of Alexis Jay, who has been very involved in the conversations—finally; unfortunately, she had previously been left out in the cold—and we will look at what the best model will be, along with survivors and experts in the field.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Murray Excerpts

Monday 31st March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dame Angela Eagle]

The summit is dealing with source countries. We are looking at how we can co-operate with countries all the way along the routes used by smuggling gangs to ensure that the right messages, rather than very slick organised immigration gang advertising, are conveyed.

[Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)]

People smugglers do not just put the immigration system in jeopardy; they exploit the vulnerable and they put lives in danger. There is nothing progressive about allowing the vulnerable to be exploited by these smugglers. Does the Minister agree that we should be straining every sinew to crack down on these gangs and can she update us on her meetings today on this topic?

Modern Slavery Act 2015: 10th Anniversary

Chris Murray Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)]

I thank the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley) for securing the debate; I know she is a great champion for these issues.

The Global Slavery Index estimates that 122,000 people are living in conditions of slavery in the UK, and over 19,000 victims were referred to the national referral mechanism in the last year alone. My constituency of Congleton is absolutely beautiful, and most of it has a low crime rate by national standards, but this problem is so widespread that it will be occurring in my constituency, because it is occurring everywhere. The figure of 122,000 people is significant; that is roughly one and a half times the number of people in my constituency.

We often talk in this Chamber about violence against women and girls. That subject is extremely important, and I will talk about it in the context of modern slavery, but of those who were referred to the national referral mechanism last year, 72% were men. The people most common referred were UK nationals. Children constituted about 31% of referrals. In 48% of those cases, the referral was for criminal exploitation, and about 78% of those referred were boys. It is crucial that we keep up the pressure to reduce and remove violence against women and girls, but it is critical that we are aware of how much violence there still is in society against boys and men.

There are lots of different ways in which modern slavery occurs in the UK, and its diversity makes it more difficult to tackle. For men, it often occurs in the agricultural and building sectors, and in takeaways. The growth in the takeaway sector in the UK means that large numbers of takeaways are operating from warehouses, where the workers are completely unseen. Many of them are earning incredibly little. If people can order a takeaway for less money than it would cost to cook the same meal at home, the chances are that that has come about through modern slavery.

[Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an important point about industries such as takeaways being sites of modern slavery. In my local council, East Lothian, there has been a pilot scheme looking specifically at the takeaway industry, and at what regulations local authorities can put in place to allow them to enter premises to see what kind of modern slavery is taking place. It is an interesting pilot, and I wanted to draw her attention and the attention of the House to it.

[Mrs Russell]

I thank my hon. Friend for drawing that to my attention; I am very interested to hear about it. I am pleased to report that the overwhelming majority of takeaways in my constituency remain physical premises that also operate as restaurants, but I am aware that that is not necessarily the case in the whole of my local authority area, and certainly not across the whole country.

I was shocked when I found out about the large number of children, especially boys, who are being referred, and about what is happening. Often, older gang members find vulnerable young boys, some as young as 10 or 11, and ask them to “look after” some drugs for them for a little bit—“Could you just hold them for me, very briefly?” Those gang members will then arrange for those boys to be viciously beaten up. Those boys will then be told that they have lost the drugs and now owe the gang members a whole load of money, and they will be put to work as county lines drug dealers from an incredibly young age. It is an absolutely horrific means of exploiting young boys, particularly vulnerable children, and we need to be as aware of it as we are of the way in which grooming gangs operate around girls.

I will move on to how this issue particularly affects women and girls. I will say one thing: I really, really wish that men—it is predominantly men—would stop using prostitutes. Could they just stop? The number of women being brought to the UK under false pretences and believing that they will do a different form of work, then being put to sex work against their will, kept in physically confined situations that they are not allowed to leave and having their passport taken away from them is really significant. The other thing that happens is that some women come here knowing that that might be an element of their work. If they then complain about it or want to stop, they are told that their children back home will be harmed if they do, so they are unable to go to the police when they are being systematically raped. I say to men: please, please stop using prostitutes.

I know that Cheshire police are taking all these issues very seriously and doing their best, but the best way to stop us having a market for criminal activity is for people to stop buying criminally traded goods, whether that is vapes, tobacco, drugs or women.

The final element of human trafficking I will talk about is in the care sector. Many people in the Chamber have heard me talk about this topic before, so I do not want to labour it, but the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority licensing scheme does not extend to the care sector, so agencies and sponsors are seizing opportunities to exploit other people for their own financial gain. A lot of people in my community receive care paid for either by the local authority, and therefore by the taxpayer ultimately, or with people’s life savings. They would be absolutely horrified if they realised the number of people doing that work who had been trafficked here in the first place.

Other hon. Members have mentioned the various organisations working in this area, one of which is Unseen, which talks about regularly speaking on its helpline to members of the care profession who have paid somewhere between £11,000 and £30,000 to get here, when they should not be paying anything other than their own travel expenses. Some 4% of victims have been threatened with either direct personal harm or harm to their family members. Actual, physical harm was reported in 2% of the cases that came to that helpline. Nearly half of victims described confinement or restricted movement.

The list of things that have gone on is genuinely, absolutely horrendous. I suggest that when the Fair Work Agency takes over the GLAA’s responsibilities, we ensure that licensing is brought into this sector or otherwise look at how the visa regime can be changed, so that people can transfer between employers, and how we can generally stamp out the level of exploitation in the care sector.

I thank everyone who has participated in this debate. I know there is a lot of strong feeling across the House that we can and should do a lot better for vulnerable people in this country.

[Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)]

I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley), both for securing this debate and for her legacy in this field. As the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, her ongoing commitment to the issue is palpable, and I look forward to working with her on it in the years ahead.

We are 10 years on from the Modern Slavery Act. While I am not in the habit of praising the Home Office under the previous Conservative Government, I am not so nakedly partisan that I cannot break that habit on this occasion. It is true that the UK’s Modern Slavery Act was world leading. Its Scottish counterpart, the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Scotland) Act 2015, which is also 10 years old this year, was equally groundbreaking. While we recognise that, we must also admit that although the Act took us two steps forward, we have undoubtedly gone one step back.

The terms “modern slavery” and “human trafficking” strike fear into our hearts and capture our attention. They sound like the stuff of a TV drama, and frequently they do involve the most horrific, vivid crimes in society and the worst of humanity, but we must not let that fool us into thinking that modern slavery only happens at the extremes, or only in the big metropolitan city far from us—it happens everywhere, in every community and every constituency. As we have heard from several hon. Members today, it affects men as well as women; its victims are children as well as adults; it affects British people as much as foreign nationals, and indeed more than foreign nationals; and it is labour exploitation as much as it is sexual exploitation.

[Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)]

On my hon. Friend’s point about modern slavery happening everywhere, Carlisle is the most northerly city in England. On 3 October 2018, officers from Cumbria police, the National Crime Agency, and investigators from the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority freed a man who had been kept in captivity on the outskirts of Carlisle for 40 years. He was vulnerable because of his learning disability, and had variously “lived”—been kept—in a horse box and in a disused caravan. When he was found, he was in a damp, rotten garden shed with neither heating nor lighting. The window did not close, the water poured through the door, and his makeshift bed was congealed with vomit.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the fact that someone could be kept in such a circumstance for 40 years on the outskirts of one of England’s cities should shame us all, and that we should recommit ourselves to ensuring that every single person who might still be in that circumstance is found and freed in the same way that that gentleman was?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Murray]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that really important point. I remember reading about that case; it is one of the most horrific ones, but there are so many horrific cases of modern slavery. It is taking place on every high street in Britain, and we have to be completely vigilant about finding it everywhere.

Today, I want to talk about the public policy response to this appalling crime. Obviously, it is a dramatic, wicked crime; we have the blandly named national referral mechanism as our tool, and to be honest, that tool is currently all but broken down. In the words of the Home Secretary when she came to the Home Affairs Committee before Christmas, the NRM

“has become a bit stuck”.

There are huge delays in victims getting a decision on the national referral mechanism. We heard evidence this week that the mean waiting time is 831 days. That is beyond unacceptable: it is systemic dysfunction.

To be clear, that is not just a number; it has a real cost. The real-world implication of that number is re-trafficking. Women who are trafficked for sex and then come to the state for help end up back in the hands of their traffickers because of our delays. Children who are locked in houses and forced to farm cannabis in appalling conditions, who then manage to escape and come to us for help, end up back with their torturers because of our sheer incompetence. We should not be congratulating ourselves today on the passage of historic legislation; we should be hanging our heads in shame at what is happening on our watch. I hope that today, the Minister will set out a clear plan to clear the backlog, and will also recognise that doing so will not be some huge step of progress, but will just get us back to the baseline that we should be at.

I draw the House’s attention to the child trafficking pilot that has been running for the past five years; I am so glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Tom Collins) referred to it. I should probably declare an interest, as I was involved in setting up its Scottish iteration, but it is worth our attention, because it has devolved decision making in the NRM to a panel of local stakeholders—people from social work and from education, the police, psychologists and others who know the child’s case—and empowers them to adjudicate whether that child is a victim of trafficking or not. It has been extremely successful, with decisions taken more quickly and with higher quality, because the people who know that child’s case are better placed to make a decision than an official in Whitehall.

Before coming here, I worked on preventing human trafficking for five years. I know that the issue is complex and difficult, but I also encountered some of the most effective public servants I have ever seen in my time, such as the Trafficking Awareness Raising Alliance in Glasgow, led by Bronagh Andrew, which cares for women trafficked into Scotland for commercial sexual exploitation; and Joy Gillespie, who advocates for survivors of trafficking in Scotland. The most impressive programme I have seen in five years of anti-trafficking is this pilot in Glasgow. The Minister and I have corresponded on the pilot previously, and I strongly encourage the Government to look at rolling it out more broadly.

I make two final points about the steps that the new Government are taking on modern slavery. First, on labour exploitation, the Employment Rights Bill—a landmark piece of legislation that I could not be prouder to support—scraps the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority and establishes the Fair Work Agency, as many have said. That is all to the good, but the Fair Work Agency has a mammoth task enforcing the minimum wage and employment rights across the whole workforce. Are we sure it will have the focus and resource to tackle modern slavery, too? Will it have the right relationships with the police, because that will be critical to ensure enforcement? We must remember that this crime is everywhere and in every community.

Moreover, when the FWA is up and running, the Home Office will lose sponsorship of the GLAA, and the responsibility will be subsumed into the Department for Business and Trade. Is that the right place for modern slavery responsibilities? From my experience, I remember the GLAA being significantly under-resourced. In order to inspect all of Scotland’s fisheries, agriculture and farming, it had only one inspector. That clearly was not enough. Will we have more now? What plans do the Government have in place to ensure that modern slavery is not deprioritised?

Secondly, on the panoply of new developments that we have had as the new Government have hit the ground running, there have been some that I have been particularly pleased to see. Not only is there the new Fair Work Agency, but cuckooing will be made a specific offence; grooming will be an aggravating factor in child sex offender prosecutions; and a range of new measures will be introduced to halve violence against women and girls. I could not welcome those steps more, but is there a coherent strategy to ensure they are being fully deployed to tackle modern slavery? Are we marshalling the power of Government to target these new measures at the perpetrators of these crimes?

When can we expect to see that robust modern slavery strategy? I ask that because this issue needs ministerial grip. Without clear ministerial direction, law enforcement cannot put resources into it. Without law enforcement prioritising the resources, there are no investigations. Without investigations, there is no justice. We should think of the woman who came to the British state and asked for help, only for our administrative incompetence to mean she is back in the hands of her traffickers, being pimped out to be raped multiple times every day. We have failed her once already. We need a strategy to ensure that we do not do so again.

Will that modern slavery strategy take account of new developments in modern slavery in the last 10 years? I am pleased that the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) and others mentioned the exploitation of visas in the care sector, but we are also seeing that with student visas, the EU settlement scheme and elsewhere. Will the new White Paper on legal migration be fully modern slavery-proofed so that we do not allow new routes to open up? I note that the Scottish Government have finally got around to refreshing their human trafficking strategy. I would argue that is a long overdue step, but it is also a good opportunity to ensure we get coherence across the whole UK.

As we mark 10 years since the Modern Slavery Act was passed, it is clear we still have our work cut out for us. I, for one, am willing to work with anyone inside or outside this Chamber to get it done.