Violence against Women and Girls Strategy

Chris Murray Excerpts

Monday 15th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jess Phillips]

The right hon. Lady makes a pertinent point about commissioning environments. Frankly, commissioning environments, running on an annual basis, have been the scourge of every sector for many years. That is why the comprehensive spending review, running over three years, is so very important in trying to create a system of stability in the long term. There is absolutely no reason why commissioners should not make their decisions, but there will be a huge amount in the strategy about how we need to commission better. In response to her offer of working together, much of what I have tried to put in the strategy, with regard to commissioning, came from the work of her Committee.

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

Like the whole Home Affairs Committee, I am looking forward to the strategy being published on Thursday. We did a lot of work looking at funding in the violence against women and girls sector. One of the key things we heard was that many frontline organisations struggle to apply for funding year on year, which really holds back their ability to deliver crucial services. Can the Minister tell us whether the strategy will look at the funding model for the sector and the impact it has on frontline services?

[Jess Phillips]

Although I will not give out the detail until Thursday—I feel like I am going to say that a lot today—there is absolutely a need to look at the funding model. That is why I say that the strategy has to be different from what has been delivered before. Even if I had the moon on a stick and all the money in the world, the way that things are commissioned under the current model would not be the right way to go. The strategy has to be truly cross-governmental, because for too long—I should not say this as a Home Office Minister—the criminal justice part of this, rather than the housing part, the health part or the other commissioning bodies that exist in our country, has had supremacy, so there will definitely be things about commissioning in the strategy.

Grooming Gangs: Independent Inquiry

Chris Murray Excerpts

Tuesday 9th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

On the hon. Lady’s second point, let me provide reassurance that the data is to keep children safe. We have a duty to children in our country, and the recommendation on data sharing was well made and absolutely the right thing to do. The unique identifier is there as a child safety measure, and not for anything else. Some people may have legitimate concerns in this area and may need that reassurance; I think others are seeking to make mischief, but in any case, I confirm that the unique identifier is there solely as a child protection measure.

On the child protection authority, the hon. Lady is tempting me to gazump imminent announcements. I will not do so, but let me assure her that there will be a progress update very soon.

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

I welcome this significant set of announcements from the Home Secretary and the strong panel members appointed. The Home Secretary will be aware that the Scottish Government have finally announced a review of grooming gangs in Scotland. The chair, Alexis Jay, has said that Scotland does not grasp the scale of child sexual exploitation. I know from my previous experience of working to prevent trafficking that children are trafficked between Scotland and the rest of the UK for abuse. Will the Home Secretary confirm that the inquiry will liaise and collaborate with colleagues in Scotland, and that Home Office officials will do what is needed to support that? Abusers work across the border, so we must as well.

[Shabana Mahmood]

Matters pertaining to local authorities and police forces are, of course, devolved, so a large part of the inquiry is necessarily only on devolved territory, but it will make national recommendations. I note the work happening in Scotland in relation to grooming gangs. I am sure that the chair and the panel, while respecting the boundaries of devolution, will ensure discussion where there is best practice to be shared. Of course, this criminality does not respect borders, and I am sure that will be very much taken into account.

Maccabi Tel Aviv FC: Away Fans Ban

Chris Murray Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call Chris Murray, a member of the Select Committee.

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

I thank the Minister for her answers and her evidence at the Select Committee last week. It is shocking and deeply concerning that evidence from senior police officers at a Select Committee can fall apart within a week. This was a highly sensitive fixture, and this decision has had a significant impact on the Jewish community in the context of rising antisemitism. Policing in this country depends on the principle of consent and the idea that all communities are treated fairly and equally. I know that the Minister does not want to prejudge the outcomes of this specific case, but can she tell us her thoughts on the impact that this whole issue is having on the principle of policing by consent and on different communities in the country?

[Sarah Jones]

Policing by consent is the bedrock of our policing, and I think everybody across the House would agree with that—those Peel principles drive everything we want our police to do. There are a number of areas where that model of policing by consent has been tested in recent years, and public order and protest are a case in point. It is hard for the police, and I praise them for virtually every decision they make when it comes to public order. Most protests go ahead well and are policed well. There are good relations between the protesters and the police, and the routes are discussed, debated and agreed. The vast majority of protests happen in a way that we do not even notice because the policing is done brilliantly—there are some absolutely excellent police who deal with this. But when we get something wrong, of course the public question what is happening and question that confidence. That is why it is so important that we in this place do not jump to conclusions and that we get the right answers in a careful way, so that can give the right response.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Chris Murray Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 19th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Forster]

The hon. Gentleman and I, and others, worked really hard in Committee, proposing humanitarian visa amendments, and trying to lift the ban on asylum seekers working—both measures that would have made things better for taxpayers and for vulnerable refugees. Sadly, we were not listened to, but I hope that we will be listened to if we have the pleasure, or the unfortunate duty, of serving on the Bill Committee for the next Bill.

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

Since we all served on the Committee for this Bill, the Government have announced a “one in, one out” deal with France, and this week, new safe routes were announced by the Home Secretary as part of the new package. Under the “one in, one out” deal, the “one in” will arrive by a safe route, so will the hon. Gentleman welcome the Government’s reforms to the immigration system, given that that is what he has been calling for?

[Mr Forster]

I am pleased that the Home Secretary and the Government are finally listening to what I and others have been saying for years: that safe and legal routes are important. However, the “one in, one out” deal with France is not delivering what the Government wanted. The humanitarian visas and the safe routes that we proposed would have done so. We have not seen a flood of Ukrainians crossing the channel, because we have a genuine safe route for them, and we need to expand such initiatives to others.

Let me make some progress. The Liberal Democrats—and others, I assume—welcome parts of this Bill, but the glaring reality is that it falls far short of what is needed to keep our borders and people safe. The Government say that the Bill gives authorities stronger tools, and some of that is true. For example, clauses 19 to 26, which were added in Committee, give the Border Force and the police further powers to seize electronic devices, and I think that is broadly sensible. A Government amendment on Report on tightening offences linked to the supply of equipment used in organised crime was also a reasonable step.

The Liberal Democrats and I also welcome changes that our peers pressed for in the other place, including the exemption for hygiene products, which came from a recommendation by the Joint Committee on Human Rights—I know the Minister mentioned that. I am grateful to the Government for listening in this instance to the suggestions of my colleagues.

The Government were defeated in the other place on an amendment that required the collection of data about overseas students who had visas revoked due to criminal offences. That Conservative Lords amendment would not help to tackle organised crime, or to improve border security, and I do not believe that it strengthens this Bill, so Liberal Democrat MPs will not support it today.

The Government pushed Lords amendments on data sharing, the EU settlement scheme and conditions on leave or bail, many of which tidy things up, or respond to the Liberal Democrats’ human rights concerns. Those are fine as far as they go, but they do not change the overall picture.

In summary, if the Government truly want to stop small boat crossings, they must work more closely with our European partners. Tough talk at home will not achieve what co-operation abroad can, and this Bill and the tabled Lords amendments will not tackle the huge asylum backlog, or reduce the hotel bills that this Government inherited from the Conservatives. Unless the Government support what we are calling for, this Bill will not deliver the safe borders and fairer system that the public expect, and they will remember that at the ballot box.

[Chris Murray]

I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and to the support that my office receives from the Refugee, Asylum and Migration Policy Project.

It is good to see us making progress on this really important Bill, which is utterly essential to what the Government are trying to achieve on the reform of asylum. Nobody can argue that the asylum system in Britain does not need reform. Public trust has been draining from it, because of the growth in illegal crossings and asylum hotels, and because asylum seekers are drowning in the channel as a result of this vile trade. Only last month, a one-month-old baby drowned off the British coast. That is unacceptable. Some 14 children died last year; if that number of children were dying in any other circumstances, people would call on the Government to go hell for leather in tackling it, and to do anything it took to do so. We must do the same for children who are asylum seekers.

I strongly welcome Lords amendment 8. Asylum crossings in the channel are driven by two factors: supply and demand. “Demand” means the causes of asylum, such as war, climate change, conflict and repression. “Supply” relates to the supply of small boats, gangs who facilitate the crossing, the ability to get over the channel, and the networks upstream funnelling them to Calais. A big part of the operation is the social media enterprise.

More than 10 years ago, I was a justice and home affairs attaché in Paris, working on channel crossings. They took place on lorries at the time, and we were able to clamp down on that, but the fundamental difference between now and then—it was more than 10 years ago—is the existence of social media. There is an incredibly sophisticated network of human traffickers, who are incredibly well financed, as a result of the costs that they put on migrants and organised crime. They use social media, exploit migrants and put them in the boats.

Lords amendment 8 is really important in criminalising the facilitation and advertisement of illegal immigration. My question to the Home Office is whether it is properly stepping up its capabilities, and its engagement with private sector and social media firms, to ensure an impact. It will change the calculus for asylum seekers on the path to the UK if they are given proper information, not misleading information by traffickers.

I turn to the Opposition’s Lords amendment 37, on data collection and international students. Public data on migration is incredibly important. The public want to see control of the immigration system; transparency and data are central to that. However, this Lords amendment is not the way to go about getting proper data and scrutiny of the migration system. That is partly because amendments to primary legislation lead to selective, partial or mandated publication of data that is highly controversial and can be selectively and partially used by people on all sides of the migration debate to make their specific point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Norris]

As I said in my opening speech, it is right that we take our time to develop the right package of data, so that we can publish it and the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) and I can sit down and discuss it in great detail. [Interruption.] As always, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley wants it now, but as I suspect he is learning, opposition does not always work on a “now” timeline. The Conservatives may well have some time in which to find that out.

[Chris Murray]

Does the Minister agree that we have a very strong ecosystem of data on migration in this country? For example, the Home Office publishes enormous amounts of data every quarter. The ONS publishes a lot of data, and the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration publishes and analyses lots of the data that the new occupant of that role collects. We also have an ecosystem of think-tanks, research organisations and universities—for example, the Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford does amazing work in this space. The challenge is not that data on immigration is not available; it is that people interpret it selectively for their own purposes.

[Alex Norris]

That is always the challenge, because we live in a world of misinformation, disinformation and, I am sad to say, occasionally bad faith. However, my antidote to that is the same as my hon. Friend’s: better transparency is the best way to see our way through. He is exactly right that we already publish a vast amount, including on visas, returns and detention. He is exactly right that we keep things under review in line with the code of practice for statistics.

I say gently to Opposition colleagues that we have made a commitment. Many of them did not see my opening speech, so it perhaps bears repeating. We understand the heightened interest from parliamentarians, the media and members of the public in the number and type of criminal offences committed by foreign nationals and what happens to them. It is in everybody’s interest for that to be known. It is also in everybody’s interest for that dataset to be as good as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Murray Excerpts

Monday 17th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mike Tapp]

We take extremely this seriously in the Home Office, but it is out of control after the previous Government left us with a broken system. That is why in just over a year and a half we have increased arrests by 50% and visits by 64%—the highest in British history—and we will continue on that route.

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

15. What steps her Department is taking to close asylum hotels.

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)]

I recognise the huge pressure that asylum hotels have placed on communities. This Government are committed to exiting asylum hotels by the end of the Parliament. We have already halved the number of hotels in use since the peak under the Conservative party, but I would like to go faster. That is why I am exploring the use of large sites, including military sites.

[Chris Murray]

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I thank the Home Secretary for that response. The Home Affairs Committee report on asylum accommodation shows that private companies have made millions from the taxpayer, while communities and asylum seekers have suffered. What is the Home Secretary doing to address the appalling profiteering that the Tories allowed, and the disastrous asylum contracts, and will she trigger the break clause next year?

[Shabana Mahmood]

So far, the amount that has been recouped by this Government is £74 million, of which £46 million is excess profit and the remainder is service charges or service credit and VAT. We are rapidly reviewing the contracts that we inherited, including the break clause, to ensure that they are providing value for money for taxpayers. I will keep the matter under review and update the House in due course.

Asylum Policy

Chris Murray Excerpts

Monday 17th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

I disagree with the hon. Lady—there is no reason to believe that. The people who come into this country on small boats constitute about 40% of all asylum claims. About the same number of people come through a legal route—a visit visa, a work visa or a study visa—and then apply for asylum when that visa comes to an end. I hope that she will recognise that it is important that we stop that abuse of the asylum system, so that we can retain public confidence in the legal migration system that I think we can all agree this country needs.

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

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Over the past few years, three times as many people have come to this country from Ukraine and Hong Kong, fleeing war or persecution, as have come in small boats, and there has been no public outcry about that. The lesson is that the British people are compassionate and generous to refugees when the system is controlled, fair, and gripped by the Government. Over the 15 years that I spent working on asylum issues before being elected, I saw the dysfunction that this Government have inherited. There is nothing progressive about ducking asylum reform and allowing public support for refugees to drain away. How will these reforms address the manifest unfairness in the asylum system, and rebuild public support for the system, and for immigration overall?

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. This country is an open, tolerant and generous place, but there are conditions for that openness, tolerance and generosity—there must be order and control in the system. When people can see that a system is not working, and that rules are being abused and not enforced, they rightly feel angry. It is important that this Government deal with those problems, so that we can have public consent, not just for a new system that works better, but for the safe and legal routes that I know my hon. Friend and others in this House want. The two principles that underpin all the reforms that I am announcing today are fairness and contribution. Those are quintessential Labour values, but they are also quintessential British values.

Asylum Seekers: MOD Housing

Chris Murray Excerpts

Wednesday 29th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alex Norris]

What an optimistic effort by the hon. Gentleman! He invites us to believe that he and his colleagues have worked out in 14 months how to fix a system that they broke over a period of 14 years. The British public saw through that in July 2024, and I suspect that they will see through it again.

The hon. Gentleman talks about removals. Of course, removals are up—over 35,000 since we took office. When it comes to the question of why we have hotels in the first place, what was the original sin? It was that Conservative colleagues stopped assessing claims. That is why we have hotels, and it is why we have made the efforts to shift the backlog.

The reality is that the system is broken. It is a very simple equation—it is a complicated issue, but a simple equation. We are a very popular country and people want to come here. Of course we are popular—we are the greatest country in the world, with brilliant institutions—but that popularity is also due to the fact that people are sold a dream that they will be able to come here, live in a hotel and work illegally. Until and unless we attack those two fundamental factors, nothing will change. We know that the Conservatives do not oppose the plans we are debating today, because after all, they used two military sites themselves.

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

The Home Affairs Committee this week released a report into asylum accommodation and it is utterly damning. In 2019, the Conservative Government bound the country into asylum contracts that have been disastrous for local communities, disastrous for asylum seekers themselves and disastrous for the taxpayer, but they have been brilliant for private providers who have made tens of millions of pounds of profits. It is right that the Government are looking at alternative ways to house asylum seekers that will be better for communities, asylum seekers and the taxpayer. Scotland is a welcoming, tolerant country, and we are willing to play our part, but will the Minister give us assurances that he will learn from the mistakes of the previous Government and work with local communities, local authorities and devolved Administrations to make sure that this works and solves the problems we have seen?

[Alex Norris]

I have studied that report closely. There have been more than a thousand lessons learned from the previous Government’s attempts to solve this issue. We are taking those in hand to make sure we do it right. My hon. Friend talks about the cost. I am pleased that in our time in office we have reduced the cost to the taxpayer of the asylum system by £1 billion, including £500 million across the hotel estate, but it is clear, including from his Committee’s reports, that we have to go further, and that is what we are doing. We are, within the parameters of the contracts we inherited, sweating things. Where there is money to be recouped, we will recoup that for the taxpayer, but it comes back to the fundamental question that if we want to spend less money on this type of activity, we have to have fewer people in the estate. That starts with breaking the attraction that they have to come to this country.

Rape Gangs: National Statutory Inquiry

Chris Murray Excerpts

Tuesday 21st October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jess Phillips]

I do not disagree with the right hon. Gentleman. Most of what I see reported on anything in this space is largely inaccurate and often comes with an agenda, more so than in the case of the infected blood scheme, although I absolutely take my hat off to the job that he had to do. There is a balance between wanting to give a complete and utter running commentary on a very complicated thing and making sure that people feel like something is going on, because nature abhors a vacuum and so does misinformation.

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

The Minister has heard me implore her many times to move as speedily as possible to address the challenges of the victims of these awful crimes, but on this occasion I implore her to take the right time to find the right judge. It is not a normal public appointment; this is someone who has to command the confidence of the House, the public, and most importantly, survivors. They must leave no stone unturned and investigate everything, whether that is ethnicity, class-related or institutional, and make the Minister’s life harder if they have to do so. Will the Minister take the time to find the right judge and not repeat what we saw with the child sexual abuse inquiry several years ago?

[Jess Phillips]

I absolutely will, and my hon. Friend gives me the opportunity to say that, no matter who is picked, there will be people unhappy with it. Like most politics that we deal with, let us just call a spade a spade and stop pretending that there is a perfect situation. There is only the best situation we can have. Funnily enough, in the conversations that I have had with some of the prospective chairs, the main thing I have wanted them to take away is the feeling that, if they have to slag me off all day long, then that is exactly what they should do, and I would say the same to the victims.

Asylum Seekers: Support and Accommodation

Chris Murray Excerpts

Monday 20th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Lincoln Jopp]

I thank the hon. and learned Member for his intervention.

I am going to be a bit “beggar thy neighbour”-ish, I am afraid, but my reason for highlighting the Stanwell hotel is that I believe a number of the other contracts run to two or three years longer than the one there. Given that it is Government policy to close all asylum hotels within this Parliament, I encourage the Minister to place the Stanwell hotel at the top of the list. Not only is it not good to renegotiate a contract when we do not have to, but if the Government are going to do all this in the space of this Parliament, they need to start somewhere, and I recommend that they start with the Stanwell hotel in my Spelthorne constituency.

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

I draw the House’s attention to the support that I receive from RAMP. Six years ago, we did not have asylum hotels in Stanwell or anywhere else, but we do now, because the previous Conservative Government signed contracts with private providers, which led to the mass increase in hotels. This Government’s policy is to reduce the number of hotels to zero. When the hon. Member was engaging with his constituents, did he set out that it was his party’s responsibility for opening asylum hotels in the first place?

[Lincoln Jopp]

My party’s responsibility—although I was not here myself—is not just for signing the contracts for the hotels; it is for losing control of our borders in the first place. The Government have said they are going to get control of the borders, but sadly the numbers simply do not support that. I did not intervene on the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) when he was moving the motion, but I was tempted to ask him how many had gone back to France under the one in, one out scheme. The answer is not going to change the price of fish.

When the Minister makes his plan for the closure of the hotels, he should be aware that the Stanwell hotel is now controversial. The residents very much do not want it to be used for single male migrants only; they were very accommodating when it was used for families. I fear that if it is not a high priority for closure, there could be drama in the offing, so I would add it to the Minister’s list of things to do—and I am going to make as much noise about it as it takes for him to want to shut me up by doing what I want.

--- Later in debate ---

[Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I acknowledge the petitioners and their call for

“a cessation of financial and other support”

but I rise to challenge the petition. I thank the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) for his very learned contribution to opening the debate.

I will begin by responding to people who believe asylum seekers are a problem in our local communities. Those people’s real enemy does not arrive on these shores in a small boat, wearing a lifejacket. Their real enemy arrives in a private jet, or in a big plane, wearing designer clothes and expensive jewellery. Some of the real enemies of the people sit on the Benches of this place and the other place. They appear on radio and TV, selling falsehoods like snake oil salesmen.

The SNP Government in Scotland have been clear: Labour must end the hostile environment for asylum seekers and deliver an effective and humane asylum system that meets the UK’s international legal obligations. That means putting an end, as soon as possible, to accommodating asylum seekers in hotels. Politicians also need to end the ridiculous disinformation around those locations that suggests they are some form of luxury accommodation. As anyone who has visited such a facility knows—the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) has visited one, so he will know—they are nothing of the sort.

Labour’s proposals to consider using large industrial sites and military locations are equally concerning. These people have fled war, persecution, famine, drought and terrorism. Military bases are not acceptable, nor is a lack of support services. That lack will exacerbate their problems, which often include mental health problems.

[Chris Murray]

How does the hon. Gentleman reconcile his point about the UK Government with the fact that, under the Homes for Ukraine scheme, the Scottish Government’s policy was to house Ukrainian refugees in hotels across Scotland, and on cruise ships?

[Seamus Logan]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, but what he is describing is not quite the same thing.

Many asylum seekers have valuable skills and are keen to contribute to society and the economy; it is Home Office dogma inherited from the Tories and driven by Reform UK that prevents them from doing so. The term “illegal migrant” is divisive, dehumanising and inaccurate. People are not illegal. The UK is a signatory to the 1951 UN refugee convention and the supporting 1967 protocol, meaning that it has international legal obligations to recognise refugees in the UK, to protect them and to meet minimum treatment standards. Article 31 of the convention gives refugees the right not to be punished for irregular entry into the territory of a contracting state. The UK is an island and it does not allow people to apply for asylum from overseas. Similarly, there is no visa allowing people to enter the UK to make an asylum claim.

People of course have the right to peaceful protest in a democracy, but the protests outside hotels and the accompanying rhetoric have often gone far beyond what is acceptable. Those protests are creating a sense of real fear and alarm for people who have been through so much. Refugees must not be scapegoated. They should be treated as decent human beings and their potential to be full members of our communities should be recognised.

Successive UK Governments’ mismanagement of the asylum system is creating serious pressure for local authorities, especially Glasgow city council. The Scottish Government are making more than £115 million available in Glasgow to support the delivery of more social and affordable homes, but the Home Office must also urgently provide more financial assistance to enable local authorities to provide safety and sanctuary for people seeking asylum.

UK Ministers must also engage with the Scottish Government, who have called repeatedly on the Home Office to meet them and Glasgow city council, but to no avail. In April, the Scottish Refugee Council invited Scotland’s Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice to attend a roundtable meeting with the council and the UK Government. Disappointingly, UK Government Ministers chose not to attend.

Asylum seekers are not coming over here, taking all our jobs and our houses, living high on the hog on benefits, and clogging up our GP surgeries and schools. Those are the lies peddled by some politicians and wannabe leaders to distract us from the real issues that should concern people: the rising cost of living, sky-high energy bills, and wages stagnating while the rich grow richer at the expense of the working men and women of this country. They are distracting us—“Look over here. Get angry about this!”—instead of focusing on the real issues. Scotland and its people want to take a different path—a path that echoes the best traditions of our ancient Celtic people, who prided themselves on providing hospitality and a welcome to the stranger.

The following facts might sit uncomfortably with the people in my constituency who signed this petition, but facts they are. Our birth rate is falling. Our workforce size is decreasing—declining. Our older people are living longer and growing in number. Who will care for them, treat them, feed them and pay taxes to run their public services? We need migrants to fill our labour shortages. Our health services need their skills. Our social care teams need their help. Our fishers and fish processors need them urgently. Our farmers need them. Our hospitality and tourism industries need their help. Therefore, rather than closing our borders to all, let us find safe and legal routes for the asylum seeker. Let us make migration routes clearer and easier to understand, not harder.

To conclude, I have four requests of the Minister and this Government. I ask them first, to end the use of hotels; secondly, to provide safe and supportive accommodation; thirdly, to grant asylum seekers and their dependants the right to work; and finally, to reframe messaging on migration in a more positive and humane way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I welcome this debate. My constituents are angry about the increasing number of people crossing the channel in small boats, being rescued by the Royal Navy and brought to Britain, and then being housed in hotels at taxpayers’ expense. Before the election, Labour Members repeated the mantra that they would “smash the gangs” to solve the problem. They presented it as though there was some mysterious solution to cracking down on people smugglers that simply was not being pursued by the previous Government. But in the year since their election, the problem has been getting worse, not better. The number of people crossing the channel is up by 50% on last year. The failure to control our borders makes our country look impotent.

[Chris Murray]

The Home Affairs Committee heard evidence last week from the new Border Security Commander, Martin Hewitt, who told us that he was working to bring together different parts of Government to focus on cross-border activity as a kind of organised crime similar to terrorism. When I pushed him specifically on whether that was new or whether it had been happening under the previous Government, he was very clear that it was a new way of doing things. Does the hon. Gentleman know more than the Border Security Commander about this?

[Sir Ashley Fox]

I hope the Government’s policy is successful. It is just that in the 12 months since they took office, the problem has got worse by 50%. I will explain why. The large numbers of young men we see crossing the channel in small boats are not refugees; they are economic migrants. They have travelled through several safe countries before reaching Calais. The reason that people are prepared to pay to cross the channel in a small boat is that they know that having reached Britain, there is virtually no prospect of their ever being deported. This Government are guilty of self-harm in closing the Rwanda scheme before it started. Had the scheme been allowed to operate and large numbers of those crossing the channel been deported to Rwanda, the economic model of the people smugglers would have been broken. Instead, Labour lets them stay indefinitely.

Labour is increasing the use of hotels in town centres. In June 2024, 29,585 people were in hotels; now, the figure is 32,059. The numbers are going in the wrong direction and we cannot allow that to continue. We should close the asylum hotels and deport illegal migrants.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I draw the Chamber’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Interests and the support that my office receives from the Refugee, Asylum and Migration Policy Project. This is a really important debate, and I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) on his eloquent introduction to this difficult issue.

The previous speaker, the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler), alluded to the fact that the Home Affairs Committee has undertaken an inquiry into asylum accommodation and a report is coming out on Monday. I will be speaking in a personal capacity as well, but there may be some overlap in our conclusions. One thing that was patently clear to us as we undertook a 15-month inquiry into asylum accommodation was that it has been a complete disaster. It has been disastrous for the local communities where asylum seekers are being housed and for the local authorities that are trying to provide services. It has been disastrous for asylum seekers; we found numerous pieces of evidence of safeguarding issues. It has also been disastrous for the public purse. It has cost an unbelievable amount of money, considering the terrible externalities it has created.

How did we end up in this situation? Asylum is not a new concept. The UK has faced asylum challenges for decades, but until six years ago we never had asylum hotels. It is clear to me, based on the 10 years for which I worked on asylum issues before coming to this House and my last 15 months on the Home Affairs Committee, that we must follow the money. The smoking gun in this scenario is the asylum contracts that the Conservative Government signed in 2019, when they handed over all responsibility and discretion to three private providers.

That has cost £7 billion of taxpayers’ money, of which hundreds of millions have gone on profits, but there is no effective oversight of these contracts by the Home Office, no holding the providers to account for failure and no grip on spiralling costs. There has been poor management of where public money is spent, and, as the hon. Member for Wimbledon said, poor use has been made of clawback clauses.

The providers would argue that they have never breached the profit share that the Conservatives baked into the contract at 7%, but as costs spiralled following the pandemic and the disastrous Rwanda scheme, they had every incentive to move people into hotels and keep them there. As the clear financial incentive grew, the Conservative Government put nothing in place to stop the runaway train. One of the owners even entered The Sunday Times rich list. Over the weekend, The Times covered reports of a property owner bragging on TikTok from Dubai about how easy it is to get rich by leasing his properties to Mears, Clearsprings and Serco. We have also seen real scandals in the Clearsprings subprime supply chain, about which there still needs to be more transparency.

The asylum accommodation contracts are a public procurement failure of the highest order. They were signed in 2019 by the Conservative Government, and they are fully that Government’s responsibility. The scandal is why they did nothing to derail the train when they could see it coming. The worst part is that we have nothing to show for that £7 billion of taxpayers’ money. It has gone on receipts to hotels and profits for private providers. We have no buildings or new social housing; we have nothing about which the public can say, “At least we got this as we accommodated asylum seekers.” I do not know about other Members, but I think about what could have been done if I had been given the share of that money for my city of Edinburgh and asked to look after asylum seekers and invest in housing stock. The things the Conservatives could have done with that money had they been able to get a more effective grip on public spending!

The Conservatives locked the country into these asylum contracts in 2019. It is a crowded field, but I think that is one of their most appalling legacies. Next year, as has been alluded to, is the break clause, where the Government have the opportunity to substantially rewrite or break these asylum contracts at no penalty. My questions to the Minister are: what is the Home Office’s assessment of how these contracts have been handled so far? What is his view of how Home Office officials have managed the contracts and their capacity to get a grip on them? Is he looking at the break clause and thinking about whether he should use it?

It may sound a bit technical and dry, on such an emotive issue, to be focusing on contracts, procurements and supply chains, but I have always believed that the role of Government is to drill down into the nuts and bolts, deal with manifest failures and make the system work. That is what I think the petitioners are asking us to do—not to posture, to grandstand or to use inflammatory rhetoric, but to solve the problem. We can do that by getting a grip on these asylum contracts.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

We now move to the wind-ups. We have plenty of time, not that that is an invitation for speeches of an undue length. Members should keep it poignant but pithy. In that spirit, I call the Liberal Democrat spokesman, Will Forster.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Murray Excerpts

Monday 15th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

I think the hon. Member has just admitted to having a hotline to a bunch of people smugglers. Perhaps he would like to contact the National Crime Agency and tell it that he is in touch with a bunch of criminals, so that they can be appropriately dealt with. All he and his party have is a bunch of rhetoric and no answers to the problems that the previous Government left behind. It is this Government who will clean up the mess and secure our borders.

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

Illegal immigration is, by definition, an international crime. That is why it is so important that we work with our allies, such as France, in targeting this issue, which affects our communities. I welcome the Government’s “one in, one out” deal with France, which has the potential to be the most game-changing step in British migration policy in decades. Can the Minister give us an update on how the “one in, one out” deal is going, and has she spoken to her counterparts in France in her new role?

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that international co-operation is the key to us securing our borders here at home and assisting our international partners to do the same with theirs. I am already in touch with my French counterparts. That was a landmark agreement, which the Conservatives tried to achieve for many years, but they were all words and no action. It is this Government who struck that landmark deal, and we are working with our partners in France to get the first flights off the ground as soon as possible.