MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

Chris Murray Excerpts

Wednesday 14th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Joy Morrissey]

Indeed, and my hon. Friend makes that point very eloquently. It is very important that we stand up for our local communities to protect them from illegal migrant men.

I have mentioned just a few of the horrific crimes committed by illegal migrant men—men who should have been deported before they could roam our streets and forever change the lives of young women and girls, and who will pay no notice to a gently worded leaflet that encourages them to understand our cultural values. These men do not care about our values. They are here to take advantage of our welcoming culture.

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

The proposal from the Government is to open large sites far from town centres, where there can be resources, such as Home Office officials, and where the police can be informed. Before I was elected, I worked in asylum accommodation. The hon. Lady’s Government would open hotels in city centres without telling local authorities, and without even telling the police. Why is she proposing that her system is safer for local communities than this alternative?

[Joy Morrissey]

I encourage the hon. Gentleman to come to Piddington to see that there is a very small village right up against what is going to be a very large asylum camp, which has no additional police protection and no additional provision. The men will be allowed to roam free through the village. It will create a safeguarding issue for young children, for girls, and there is no reason why this community should have to suffer just like communities in York and across the country. They are suffering because we are not deporting illegal migrants, and that is why we need to leave the ECHR.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Anna Turley)]

I thank the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) for calling this debate. I place on record my thanks to all hon. Members in this House who have engaged with me in the few weeks since I took on this role about asylum accommodation in their constituency. It is really important that we continue that powerful dialogue, including with you, Madam Deputy Speaker; you have engaged with me often on this issue, and I appreciate that engagement.

I particularly thank the shadow Minister because I really do welcome this opportunity to update Members on the Government’s work to fix our country’s broken asylum system. The system was in a state of absolute chaos and disarray when we took office two years ago. We are dealing with the legacy left by the hon. Lady and her team today. I will shortly come on to the action that we are taking to restore fairness, order and control, but it is really important to put any debate on asylum in its proper context, and that means recognising the situation that we inherited. It was this Government who picked up the pieces after the general election, following years of inaction and ineptitude. There has been mud-slinging, finger pointing and blaming from the Opposition today, but we are getting on with fixing the mess, and fixing the flow that the Conservatives allowed. The hon. Lady referred to their 14 years and our two years; I look forward to setting out in my speech the difference between those 14 years and the last two years.

In 2018, about 300 people arrived here by small boat. In the years that followed, an entire criminal industry built up along our borders, on the Conservatives’ watch. Ruthless smugglers sent people on dangerous, unnecessary and—far too often—fatal journeys, making a fortune in the process. The consequences of all this are well known in the House, but they bear repeating. Between January 2021 and June 2024, 110,000 people came here by small boat. Meanwhile, the asylum system ground to a halt. Decision making collapsed, leaving thousands in limbo for years at the taxpayers’ expense, and so did the return of those with no right to be in the UK, while a further 175,000 people claimed asylum by other routes. As the numbers rose, so did the cost to the taxpayer. In just a single year, spending on asylum support under the Conservative party was £4.7 billion. That is an incredible cost to the taxpayer—money that we could and should be spending on the other priorities we debate in this place.

[Chris Murray]

Over the last two years, we on the Home Affairs Committee have looked into the cost of this to the taxpayer. Does the Minister share my outrage that huge amounts of public money have gone to private companies, some of whose owners entered The Sunday Times rich list while our communities suffered? Does she also agree that the author and signer of those contracts was the right hon. and learned Member for Fareham and Waterlooville (Suella Braverman), on the Reform Benches?

[Anna Turley]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. Under the last Government, £9 million a day was spent housing people in 400 asylum hotels. That was costly and inefficient. The evidence has shown that it was part of the draw that people knew they could come here and be put in a nice hotel. It was one of the pull factors that we are trying to deal with and tackle today. As we have heard, all we had in response to this people smuggling on an industrial scale was the farce of the Rwanda scheme, in which £700 million was spent on sending four volunteers to Rwanda.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is good that we are having this debate in the House of Commons today, because this is an issue the public care about profoundly and they want to see substantive action to address their concerns. To understand how to do that, we have to understand how we got here.

I do not propose to relitigate the disastrous asylum system that this Government inherited, under which huge numbers of asylum seekers were housed in hotels across the country. That was terrible for local communities, where hotels were opened in town centres with no support and often without even telling the police or local authorities. It was terrible for genuine asylum seekers and it was terrible for the taxpayer. The only ones it worked for were the private companies, which extracted massive profits. The Prime Minister has talked about the scandal of outsourcing and privatisation in modern Britain. The most glaring example of that is the asylum accommodation sector. The public are right: we cannot tolerate that and we must fix it, so it is good to see the Government putting in the hard yards to achieve that.

There are three components that we have to tackle as a country. First, we have to drive down the number of asylum seekers coming into the system. That is why it is good to see small boat crossings down by 40% and the French preventing 48,000 crossings. Obviously, more must be done. We need to prevent people from coming in, but secondly, we also have to increase the number coming out of the system. There has been a big increase in decisions and an increase in removals of more than 80,000. Again, there is more to be done, but it is good to see the hard yards starting to be put in.

[Fred Thomas (Plymouth Moor View) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend speaks about how it is important to deter people from coming to this country illegally. Does he share my concern at the Reform party’s notion, put forward by its chairman, that Royal Marines commandos could be encouraged to use “lethal force” against unarmed civilians? As a Royal Marines commander, I can say that that is completely unacceptable across the military. There are real concerns about that in Plymouth and across the wider military. Does my hon. Friend share those concerns?

[Chris Murray]

My hon. Friend is right to raise that point. Whenever I have spoken to law enforcement or the military, that is exactly the issue they raise. Moreover, making gestures that we know are never realistic is what the traffickers want us to do, because it encourages them to encourage people to come here.

The third component of what we must tackle is that of dealing with people while they are in the asylum system. That means we have to drive down the costs, deliver the economies of scale required, mitigate the impacts that infuriate communities and increase safeguarding for communities. We need to do that if we want to close the hotels, and we cannot close the hotels without dealing with people in the system.

Let me make a defence of large sites in the asylum system. In 15 years working on immigration and during two years on the Home Affairs Committee, I must have visited more asylum accommodation than anyone else in the House of Commons. Large sites have an important role to play, particularly in alleviating the issues that local communities find challenging. First, on cost, they are much cheaper than hotels. On efficiency—

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Murray]

I will get to the end of my point and then I will give way. Secondly, on efficiency, having people in one place, where Home Office officials and the relevant people can be brought in, can speed asylum seekers through the process and get them out of it faster. Thirdly, on community engagement, yes, asylum seekers are free to come and go, but short of imprisoning them, such sites are as much as we can contain them in British society.

[Greg Smith]

On that point—

[Chris Murray]

Let me make some points and then I will take interventions.

Charities and groups can go to large sites, which are far away from town centres, unlike hotels and HMOs, and the authorities, by providing things such as transport, can practically organise when people will be in one place, stopping the issues of hotels and people hanging around town centres late at night.

Finally, on safeguarding, one of the issues with hotels is that the police were not informed. At larger sites, we can have trained professionals who can spot depression, isolation, re-traumatisation or worrying behaviours, understand the dynamics in groups, and find opportunities to observe, supervise and intervene. Engaging with police and social services is how we tackle those risks.

Let me share what persuaded me about that. I was sceptical of large sites until I went to Wethersfield, which opened under the previous Government—I think it was opened by the right hon. and learned Member for Fareham and Waterlooville (Suella Braverman). There, they told me that the work they can do around mitigation and safeguarding is far more effective at a large site than a small site.

[Dr Mullan]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Murray]

I will take an intervention from the hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) and then I will come back to the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan).

[Calum Miller]

The hon. Gentleman led his arguments in favour of large sites on cost grounds. I am sure that he is aware that the Home Affairs Committee looked at that matter and identified that, bed by bed, large sites were more expensive than hotels. Will he acknowledge that, because the site that we are talking about today has never had residential accommodation, the cost and capital terms of setting it up and building a village will greatly outstrip the cost of any alternative provision?

[Chris Murray]

I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s argument at all. My argument to the Minister would be that large sites vary. Wethersfield did not work until it was reformed; Northeye did not work.

I am going to do something unusual and say something positive about the Scottish Government for a second—I know the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) is going to have a heart attack over there. [Laughter.] When the Scottish Government opened large sites for asylum seekers from Ukraine on two cruise ships, they were very cost effective compared with the Bibby Stockholm. The argument is not about the principle, but about whether the Home Office can orchestrate it and achieve it through public procurement.

[Dr Mullan]

The hon. Gentleman is talking about how a system can effectively manage the risk of the sites. Does he not accept that the women in Piddington and others just do not want the risk there at all? They do not want it to be managed; they do not want it there at all.

[Chris Murray]

I absolutely understand why people say that; it is a perfectly reasonable response to risk. However, the role of Government is to mitigate risk. The role of Government is to intervene through public policy and deploy public resources and capacities. That is the best way to mitigate risk. That is normal across policing and all kinds of Home Office security, but in this case it is quite right. The Government of the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle placed asylum seekers in hotels without telling anybody in the local community—without social workers, the police or anybody else knowing. The local women had no clue. Most of the cases quoted by the shadow Minister came from that system. He cannot say to the women in Piddington that will leave the ECHR and it will solve everything. That is not realistic and it is not treating them with respect. Far better to say we will try to solve this problem, mitigate the risk and do the stuff required to actually deal with it.

I should have expected to hear what we have heard from the Tories and Reform in this Opposition day debate. These are the people who broke the system and let it spiral, yet they are somehow arguing that leaving the ECHR can happen tomorrow and will solve any issues in Piddington and Bicester—that is for the birds. But I am particularly disappointed in the Liberal Democrats and their amendment. They say that they oppose asylum hotels and they want a better public debate on immigration, but whether it is in Cameron barracks, in Crowborough or now in Bicester, they oppose every large site. They say we should welcome asylum seekers and have a humane system, but it is “not in my back yard” the minute there is one near them. Are they really saying that is for the working-class communities of Britain to tolerate asylum seekers in hotels and in HMOs, but not their constituencies in secure, well-resourced, large public sites? I think that is wrong. The public are fed up of posturing, point scoring, pointless gesturing and nimbyism on this. They want the issue solved, they want it gripped, and if the Government can get large sites to solve the problem, that could be a big part of solving this country’s asylum accommodation challenges.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

We have had so many interventions that I am going to have to drop the time limit on Back-Bench speeches to five minutes.

[Suella Braverman (Fareham and Waterlooville) (Reform)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. I was honoured to visit Piddington a few weeks ago, with my hon. Friend the Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin), representing my party, Reform, as one of the first female MPs to respond to the women of Piddington when they wrote to all female MPs in this House. It is interesting that there are no female Labour Back Benchers sitting in on this debate. That is how seriously the party in government takes this issue.

When I met the women of Piddington, I was staggered. They are scared, they are angry and they feel like no one in government is listening to them. The people there are not far-right thugs. Many of the women—and, indeed, the men—that I met are elderly pensioners. Some of them are widowed and living alone. Many are parents speaking on behalf of their children. This small rural village is right now fighting against the British state right in order to protect itself. It is a scandal that no one in this Government is willing to listen to the women and girls of Piddington.

Unfortunately, this is not confined to Piddington; it also involves the people of Waterlooville. Last year I led a campaign with 10,000 local people to fight the Home Office and the Labour-Lib Dem plans to house asylum seekers there. We were successful on that occasion. Now I am supporting people in Gosport and in Portsmouth who are taking to the streets in peaceful protest against illegal migrants arriving on their shores.

[Chris Murray]

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

[Suella Braverman]

I will not, because I want to respect the direction given by Madam Deputy Speaker.

This issue is extending across our country, and it is out of control. The Government say it is getting better, but the boats are getting bigger, the people are coming in higher numbers, and British people are more scared than ever. And they are right to be scared, because the facts are that Afghan and Eritrean migrant men are 22 times more likely to be convicted of sex crimes than Brits, and 40% of sexual assaults in London over the last five years were committed by foreign-born men. I am not making that up. That is data. These are not irrational fears, but they are being treated with contempt.

The tragedy of all this is that it is caused by the ECHR. People come here on the boats illegally. They claim to be victims of persecution and to have family rights here—all gaming human rights laws against us. I saw this as Home Secretary, as Attorney General and previously as a barrister working in the field. I wrote a paper about it last year, which was dismissed by the Conservative party. The truth is—we have got to be honest about this—that we might not even have had to be here talking about Piddington or Gosport or Fort Blockhouse or Waterlooville. This problem could have been fixed.

The tragedy is that the last Conservative Government utterly refused to do the right thing—[Interruption.] I will come to that. I was the first Conservative Minister who said publicly that to fix this crisis we needed to leave the ECHR. I said it as Attorney General and as Home Secretary. What happened? The Leader of the Opposition said that I was having a nervous breakdown. The Conservatives said that I had mental health problems. They demonised me, isolated me and blocked me from doing the right thing. I have asked them to apologise today. They have refused to apologise to the nation for causing this crisis and I will not let them off the hook. I have just published a book setting out the painful battles I had with my Conservative party colleagues to fix this, so I will not take any lectures from anyone in the Conservative party about their promises to leave the ECHR. Do not believe them.

What do we need to stop this invasion and fix this national security emergency that my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) has been talking about for years? We need to leave the ECHR, with credible leadership. We need to suspend our asylum system now, void all those grants of asylum, deport all those people who are applying for asylum—deport 90,000 people—and, yes, deploy the Royal Navy into the channel to ensure that we properly secure our borders. This Labour Government will not do it. The last Conservative Government did not do it. This Conservative party cannot be trusted. Only Reform will stop the invasion and stop these boats.

Immigration and Asylum Bill

Chris Murray Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 13th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

Oh, the right hon. Gentleman tempts me with some attractive bait, but I will resist the temptation! I am sure that once the events of 20 July have taken place, all these matters shall become clearer still.

This Government have taken some considerable steps forward, but we must do more: around 94,000 people remain in asylum accommodation at a total cost of £3.7 billion per year; while asylum claims fell by 12% last year, they remain close to historic highs; and with the criminal gangs still at work, people continue to die in the channel, with over 100 deaths since the start of 2024, including women and young children.

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

We always forget that people lose their lives in the channel—including last year, tragically, a young girl of four and a young man of 16 who had just tried to phone his parents. Does the Home Secretary agree that anyone with any humanitarian beliefs at all should be doing everything they can to stop cross-channel boats, and that it is incumbent on everyone that we do everything we can about that?

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is really shocking that we no longer seem to give huge amounts of attention to the deaths that still occur in the channel; in fact, they barely make the news. Most people do not realise that so many still lose their lives when crossing on small boats in the channel. That is why there is a moral responsibility on all of us to think about how we deal with the particular challenge of small boats crossing the channel, how we play our part as a Government committed to our humanitarian responsibilities, and how we ensure that we finish off this trade once and for all. The only people who really benefit from this trade, and from the huge risks that people place themselves under, are the criminal gangs themselves. That money is going into the pockets of hardened criminals who would harm us in other ways, and we have got to put a stop to it.

This country has always provided sanctuary to those fleeing war and persecution, and I am proud of that fact, but we must accept that public consent for our asylum system is fraying, and unless we restore control, we will lose the British public’s support entirely. My goal as Home Secretary is to rebuild the public’s confidence, and thereby ensure that we can continue providing protection to those in need today and for generations to come. To do so, I believe we must restore fairness to our asylum system—fairness both to those who are fleeing war and persecution, and towards those communities already here who bear the burden of support.

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood]

As the right hon. Lady will see, the authority will be fully independent, and the impartiality of this new authority is vital. As clause 1 makes clear, its decisions will be entirely independent of Government, with every Minister of the Crown compelled to uphold the independence of the authority. As is often the case with establishing a new body, the first chief executive and chief appeals officer will be appointed by the Home Secretary, but appointments thereafter will be made by the chair of the authority, as set out in clause 2. These will be made on merit and on the basis of fair and open competition.

The authority’s operations and performance will also be subject to external scrutiny, and it will be placed under the remit of the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration.

[Chris Murray]

rose—

[Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood]

I have given way to my hon. Friend before; I will make progress and come back to him.

In the new system, a single, faster appeal route will be established, as addressed in clauses 11 and 12. Today, too many claimants make multiple claims at different stages of the process, including at the last possible moment, often to thwart their legitimate removal from this country. To give just one illustrative and eye-opening example, one case involved a convicted rapist who was due to be sent home after serving eight years in jail. Despite not challenging his deportation at first, he went on to make a series of late claims, including a judicial review on the eve of being removed from this country. Although we eventually managed to remove him, it took more than four years to get this criminal out of the country. For that reason, alongside the new authority, we will create a single appeal route. That will require claimants to raise all relevant matters up front.

Where late claims are raised, particularly in the run-up to removal, they will be dealt with through an expedited process. That means that genuine issues will still be considered, but tactical claims can no longer be used to frustrate a removal. As is already the case, claimants may access advice and legal representation, with legal aid available to those who are eligible. That advice and support are vital to ensure that appeals progress fairly, without delay or disruption.

In clause 21, in part 3 of the Bill, we are introducing further measures to ensure that decision making is fast and fair. Today, there are two separate types of protection: refugee status and humanitarian protection. Both carry near-identical entitlements and eligibility for settlement. That creates near-duplicate claims and unnecessary complexity, which slows down our asylum system. The Bill therefore replaces those two forms of protection with one form—the core protection model. That means that each claim will be assessed once, with one outcome. A right of appeal will be available only to those refused protection, not those who wish to seek protection under a different status. That is a clearer, simple process that will make no difference to those lodging genuine claims, but will cut inefficiency in the system and ensure that those with genuine appeals get a faster, fairer decision.

An effective asylum system is one in which claims are heard fast and fairly. Those who have a legitimate claim receive the protection they need, while those who do not are removed from this country, without turning the bureaucracy against us. That is what the measures in this Bill seek to achieve.

[Chris Murray]

rose—

[Shabana Mahmood]

I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain), if he still wants to come in. [Interruption.] No? I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray) then.

[Chris Murray]

The Home Secretary is being very generous. The purpose of the Bill is to make the system more swift, but I am surprised to see that there is no component of mandatory reconsideration included in it. As we have seen in the Department for Work and Pensions, that has really made the system faster. We had a broadly similar system in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, which was replaced, and that did not make the system quicker. How will this situation be different from what we have had before?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I think my hon. Friend means mandatory reconsideration in the context of a case when an appeal is made.

[Chris Murray]

indicated assent.

[Shabana Mahmood]

To reassure my hon. Friend, before a case proceeds to appeal, we already have an internal process whereby we check whether we should still defend the claim at appeal stage. If the facts have changed or if there are issues with the original decision, we remove cases from the list of those proceeding to an appeal under the current system. We are doing something similar already. I do not want to create additional bureaucracy and ever-more complication, but that is part of the Home Office’s current process. We have removed cases from the appeals backlog where we know that they should be granted.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)]

It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon). He was absolutely right about the tone we need to employ. I recognise the comments he made about his constituents. I suspect that his constituents have a very similar view to my constituents—we are not too far apart. I refer him to the Home Affairs Committee report on asylum accommodation, which talked about the point he made about the disproportionate numbers of asylum seekers in lower-cost accommodation areas. We did ask the Home Office to look at that. I also suggest that he avoids X and Facebook in the morning. It will probably make his life a lot better.

I rise to speak briefly on the Bill, which I broadly welcome. These are matters on which our constituents expect action to be taken. It may not go as far as some would like in some areas and it may go too far for others, but on Second Reading we look at the principle of a Bill, and I agree that it should have a Second Reading and then be considered in Committee and on Report.

There are a couple of points I want to make before I move on to my main comments. On article 8 of the ECHR, the Chişinău declaration was very encouraging. It is a good step forward to see agreement across the Council of Europe area on the way article 8 and other parts of the ECHR are being abused. I suggest that the Minister look at section 2 of the Human Rights Act 1998, which states that the UK courts “must” refer to decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. Perhaps the wording could be changed to “may” to make it easier for courts to disregard clearly ridiculous decisions that should not have any bearing on the decisions being taken in our courts. I also refer him to the work done in the coalition Government on the European arrest warrant, when we were still a member of it. We changed the rules in the UK so that only somebody who was guilty of a crime that would be a crime in the UK could have an arrest warrant applied to them. Previously, we had all sorts of spurious claims such as not paying tips to Greek waiters and so on. The Minister may want to look at that.

On small boats, the Select Committee visited northern France. The hon. Members for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray), for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) and for Bassetlaw (Jo White) were all there to see the work being done. It is very impressive to see the work being done jointly with the UK. We heard a lot from UK law enforcement and others who were working closely with their French counterparts. I encourage more of that.

However, I cannot stress enough how important ministerial oversight is. I pay tribute to our former colleague James Brokenshire, who as Immigration Minister insisted that he receive an update every single day on the number of people entering the country, the number who were in claims and the number of visas being issued. He kept on having a daily update. Madam Deputy Speaker, it is a delight that you are in the Chair, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) was also an Immigration Minister and she employed a similar approach. It would be fair to say that the evidence we have heard on the Select Committee indicates that that level of ministerial oversight has not happened at all times, and perhaps that is why we saw some big spikes.

[Chris Murray]

The Chair of the Home Affairs Committee and I were in northern France together. Does she share my impression from that trip that the scale and complexity of the operations the French Government were undertaking was quite astonishing? Will she join me in welcoming the new iteration of the Sandhurst treaty? This may be stretching the bounds of bipartisanship too much, but does she agree that it is good to reset the relationship with our European friends and neighbours? In cross-border channels, when difficult issues arise, it is only through those joint working operations—now that we have left the European Union—that we can collectively tackle the small boats, which are as much of an issue for France as for the UK.

[Dame Karen Bradley]

I thank the hon. Member—my friend from the Select Committee—for an enjoyable visit. We learned a lot, but it was a challenging visit, as there was an awful lot to take in. This is a problem that affects countries across the world; it is not an issue that can be solved by one country alone. We have to work together. We also came away agreeing that if everybody who arrived from France was immediately taken back to France, it would kill the trade of the people smugglers. That is something that we should start trying to negotiate with our friends in France.

In the short amount of time that I have left, I will focus on part 5. I declare that, as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on human trafficking and modern slavery, I have some concerns. Apart from anything else, human trafficking and modern slavery is not an immigration crime. Someone’s immigration status may make them more vulnerable, but it is a financial crime—it is the exploitation of one human being by another for financial gain. Although I understand the reasons and we are grateful that there are some good points in the Bill, it is concerning that it keeps being put into the migration bucket, rather than being seen as the financial crime that it is.

I am in contact with a number of organisations, and the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, Eleanor Lyons, has been in touch with me. There is general agreement that there are some good things in the Bill—the strengthening of civil orders and the support for children are welcome. However, the abuse of the modern slavery protections needs to be looked at, because nobody can self-declare as a victim of modern slavery. A first responder has to say that this person is likely to be a victim of modern slavery, so what is going wrong with the first responders? Why is it that first responders are being dragged into, as the Government say, declaring people to be victims of modern slavery to avoid deportation? That is something that should be looked at without removing protections for victims.

One has to have a victim-centred approach to this crime in order to solve it; it cannot be solved only by pursuing the bad guys. The victims have to be at the centre, because it is an extraordinary crime in which the commodity that money is being made from is the human being. It is not a drug, a firearm or any other product; it is a human being. That human being needs to be prepared and able to give evidence, to speak out and to recognise the crime that has been committed against them.

Victim support is essential to solve this crime. If one wants to see the issue in a hard-nosed way, the only way we are going to kill the trade is by looking after the victims so that we can stop the bad guys. That is the basic point. I do not have time to go through the specifics, but I urge the Minister to engage with the many authorities—in particular, the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner—to see where the measures that the Government have introduced may have unintended consequences that make it harder to tackle this crime. With that, I will sit down and let other Members speak, as there are many others who wish to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. and learned Member for Fareham and Waterlooville (Suella Braverman), who was the author of the mess that we are discussing clearing up; I am sure she will look forward to sharing her comments with Count Binface soon enough. I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

The Government are absolutely right to be tackling the appeals process—as a supporter of humanitarian protection, I accept that it needs reform if it is to be resilient—but I will focus on part 4, which creates powers to recover the costs of asylum support. I am pleased that the Bill discusses the cost of asylum system, and I support the principle that refugees who go on to earn a lot should contribute back what they received from this country. I suspect that many of them would be happy to do so.

However, let us be clear that those refugees are not responsible for the extraordinary costs of the asylum system. Since entering Parliament, I have been on a one-man mission to highlight the biggest public procurement scandal in Britain—a system causing untold damage but costing the taxpayer £15 billion. The real problem lies with the asylum contracts, signed by the previous Government and overseen by the right hon. and learned Member, with three private providers. The contracts generated eye-watering profits; a founder of one of the companies entered The Sunday Times rich list at taxpayer expense. When these companies come before the Home Affairs Committee, they refuse to answer even the most basic questions, while serious concerns about misconduct in their supply chains remain.

I recognise that this Government inherited those contracts from the right hon. and learned Member and are roped into them for the foreseeable future. I support asking successful refugees to contribute, but that is a peripheral issue.

[Suella Braverman]

The hon. Gentleman is almost making my argument for me. The whole reason the Home Office has to enter into expensive contracts and spend £5 million of British taxpayers’ money every day to house asylum seekers is that the ECHR imposes onerous duties on the state to accommodate unlimited numbers of asylum seekers, without any thought as to cost effectiveness.

[Chris Murray]

No, it is not. It is because the right hon. and learned Lady passed the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024, which allowed the backlog to soar. It is because the right hon. and learned Lady signed off on putting asylum seekers in hotels, which cost £34,000 per asylum seeker, as opposed to £14,000 per asylum seeker when she came into office. It is because the right hon. and learned Lady failed to get the Department to grip the use in public procurement of taxpayers’ money, which she wasted then tried to instrumentalise to sow division in the country.

These outsourcing contracts have allowed extortionate profit at taxpayers’ expense. They have damaged communities, failed the vulnerable and exposed serious weaknesses in Home Office procurement. Are the Government certain that they do not need further powers to sort out these contracts and recoup the costs that have already been wasted? If not, why is that not included in the Bill?

Second Reading is about principles. I believe that this Bill identifies the right areas for reform—appeals, protection and costs—and, for that reason, I will support it tonight. I look forward to seeing concerns about the detail, implementation and asylum contracts being addressed as it progresses.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Murray Excerpts

Monday 13th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alex Norris]

When people wish to move back, we want to support that in any way we can. The point about savings is a new one to me. If the hon. Lady was to write to me, we would help in whatever way we could.

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

I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. There is some scepticism among the public about refugees, but despite the fact that twice as many people came to this country from Ukraine as crossed in small boats, there has been no public outcry and there is no public unrest. Does the Minister agree that this is because the British public recognise and welcome refugees who come here fairly, in a legal way, and with proper support? What conclusions are the Government drawing from that as they create their new scheme around safe routes?

[Alex Norris]

My hon. Friend raises an important issue here. I know from my own community, where the immigration conversation is sometimes very difficult indeed, that those who raise frustration at the lack of order and control in the system—as inherited from our predecessors —are the same people who leaned into the Ukrainian scheme, the Hong Kong British national overseas scheme, the Afghan resettlement scheme and the Syrian scheme. The message that I take from that is that when the British people see that systems are ordered, controlled and for those who need protection, and when we know who is coming, then they lean into it. That is the spirit of our reforms to the system, and I hope my hon. Friend, and all right hon. and hon. Members, will support us in that venture with the Immigration and Asylum Bill.

European Entry and Exit System

Chris Murray Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alex Norris]

I am grateful to the shadow Minister for his questions. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, I share his point about the importance and impact that preauthorisation can have. We want that to become the norm, and as I said, we are engaging with member states to encourage them to take up use of the EES app. He asked about the intent of our colleagues in the European Union, whether in the Commission or in member states, and I do not detect a lack of intent. They are keen to engage with us, and we engage with them frequently. They want this system to work, and it is important that it does. It is a good thing that our neighbour wants good security arrangements, and we benefit from that too—we certainly have that level of engagement.

The hon. Member talks about full suspension, and as I said yesterday to the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands in the Home Affairs Committee, I would not set that as the goal and aspiration because I do not believe it is deliverable. What we delivered in May, and what we will seek, is that when we get to peak times and the system is clearly not managing flow appropriately, we need the right flexibilities in place on the ground for staff to make changes that prioritise flow. That is my priority. The hon. Member talks about the facility, and I say gently that of course that facility cannot be used until the technology that it is based on works. We want that to be the case as soon as possible, but that is not a business for us. We have made the money available so that the infrastructure is there. We have delivered on that element, but the technology is clearly taking time to stand up.

The hon. Member talks about pressure, and we are engaged at all levels of Government. In the Home Office, the Home Secretary has engaged with her counterpart and with the Commission, as have colleagues from the Department for Transport, including the Secretary of State, and the Minister for the Cabinet Office, and we are raising these issues on a daily basis. On contingencies, let me take this opportunity to say what a good job the Kent and Medway Resilience Forum has done on this. I am a big resilience forum enthusiast: those are local people making direct local changes to improve their community under pressure. There is also the Dover traffic assessment protocol and Operation Brock. Those arrangements are in place, and we will work with people so that they make the best operational decisions they can along the way.

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

Last week I visited the port of Dover with the Home Affairs Committee, to see those operations in action. Given that this is an EU entry-exit system, we must face the fact that this is an inevitable consequence of Brexit, and we have to make it work. The best solution to the challenges facing our constituents this summer is sustained engagement—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Sorry about this. Can the hon. Members for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) and for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) stop the little argument on the Back Benches?

[Chris Murray]

The best solution to managing those challenges this summer is sustained engagement with the French, at leader level, Cabinet level, ministerial level, and working official level, so that the police aux frontières have a delegated responsibility to let flows through. What discussion will we be having at every level with the French, using the better relationship we have struck, so that our constituents and British holidaymakers trying to get a holiday abroad this summer, do not face the consequences of Brexit, which will be missed flights and long queues?

[Alex Norris]

Sustained engagement with the French is crucial, and it is happening at all levels, be that ministerial, senior official, or operationally, to ensure that prioritisation of flow. This is not something that has just started, and neither is it coming to its end. We are in that constant position and have been for many months, even before the EES started its operations, and that will continue. I say gently that it is not just the French but all EU member states. At some point this summer our constituents will end up in all those different member states. I want them to have the best possible experience, so we are also having those engagements.

Improving the UK Visa System

Chris Murray Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart.

I want to start by welcoming the Home Secretary’s measures to get a grip on the visa system and rebuild the public’s trust in it. This is a debate that, if I am frank, my party too often shies away from. I want to be honest: I have been on the doorsteps in Makerfield and in industrial towns right across Yorkshire, and I have to admit, I often hear the same thing, even from those I speak to who are hesitant about illegal immigration. Most people have got absolutely nothing against legal migration, managed well.

I want to come to this debate with some thoughts on how we can build a visa system that is based on contribution, is more place-based and has devolution at its heart, maximising British values around fairness. Let me start by saying that legal migration is a positive thing that is felt across most households in Britain, left or right. Take the NHS. The statistics tell us that, when my youngest boy, Louis, was born a year ago, on average, one of the NHS workers in that delivery room was born overseas. That is a wonderful thing and a story I will tell him in the years to come: that someone born overseas chose Britain to be their home, to deliver him into this world. We must never forget that, under Reform’s policies on ILR, the NHS would crumble overnight.

Let me frame things, though, in a different way. The world cup is coming shortly, and we have a squad of incredibly talented players from right across the country—even if we can debate whether Tuchel’s final 26 was the right choice. I have no doubt that we will see Reform politicians putting on three-lion shirts, singing the national anthem and cosplaying as the football fans they never seem to be throughout the rest of the year. But many of those players’ parents were born overseas and came to the UK. Many of their family members would never have been allowed here in the first place if it were down to Reform. Just remember that when we see them wearing England shirts, and let us not forget that some of them have even boycotted games before. Patriots? Yeah, right.

Moving on, one of the most heartbreaking things I have heard about from my constituents in York Outer was the case of some asylum seekers who were trying to get to a maternity appointment—unfortunately, they do need taxis to get to some appointments. I recently wrote to the Minister for Border Security and Asylum about this.

We have to recognise that there are unique circumstances and take things on a case-by-case basis. If asylum seekers need urgent support to get to critical medical appointments, for example a 20-week scan, then I think a compassionate Britain says that we should support them.

Around 12 years ago, the Institute for Public Policy Research published a report—one that stands the test of time—calling for a greater sense of people’s contribution in the visa system. Under what I would call something like ILR contribution-plus, community champions such as carers or nurses saving lives in the NHS should maybe, just maybe, have a faster route towards ILR. We should seriously look at that.

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

It is apposite that I should intervene at this point, because I believe I might have been the author of that IPPR report from 12 years ago. One of the things about contribution is that it needs to be managed. We need to be able to check whether people are contributing, obeying the rules and interacting with the labour market correctly. Only two months ago, the Government created the Fair Work Agency, under the Employment Rights Act 2025. Does my hon. Friend agree that it will be critical in ensuring that we can measure the contribution to the labour market of those in the immigration system?

[Mr Charters]

I can assure my hon. Friend that he does not look old enough to have written that report 12 years ago. Regarding the Fair Work Agency, there is an important deterrent effect that gangs exploiting people overseas should recognise that it is not worth their time to proceed with illegal activity.

I want to touch on—

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Murray Excerpts

Monday 23rd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

I recognise the public concern around criminality. That is why this Government are working closely with all our partners to improve data collection and have a risk-based approach so that we can manage those individuals who pose the highest risk on our immigration estate. I gently say that the right hon. Gentleman’s suggestions for how we deal with those who seek to come to our country illegally, primarily through channel crossings, would have had more force if his Government had succeeded in stopping those boats, as they often claimed that they would but utterly failed to do so. This Government are using a number of approaches to try to get to grips with illegal migration and will be bringing forward further changes to the House in due course.

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

The way to deal with any asylum seeker—or, indeed, any migrant—who commits a crime, is to remove them from the country. That is why it is good to see that removals of foreign national offenders have gone up 40% from what was left under the previous Government. The way we deal with crime in communities is by reinvigorating neighbourhood policing and supporting our police. Does the Home Secretary agree that those are two areas where this Home Office is clearing up the mess left behind by the previous Government?

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend is right. It is one of many areas where we are cleaning up the multiple messes left by the previous Conservative Government. He is right to note that the removal of foreign national offenders has increased hugely under this Government and will continue to do so. Removals from this country are at nearly 60,000 since we have been in office. They will continue to rise.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Murray Excerpts

Monday 9th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alex Norris]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend’s point. I know from my own community and across the country that when a system is orderly and controlled, the British public lean into it; we saw that with the Afghan scheme, the Syrian scheme, Homes for Ukraine and British national overseas passports. When systems are not orderly and controlled, people get frustrated. One aspect, exactly as my hon. Friend says, is better engagement between the Home Office and local authorities to ensure that local authorities know where HMOs may be opened, in this case, and to know what populations need to be supported so that the community can lean in. I can give him an absolute assurance that we will work much more closely with local authorities to ensure that they have that information.

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

While we are on the issue of immigration statistics, when the previous Conservative Government signed the contracts that led to those hotels opening, the average cost per asylum seeker was £17,000 a year. By the time of the election, that cost had risen to almost £50,000 per asylum seeker per year. This Government have been locked into the contracts signed by the previous Government. What is the Minister doing to drive down this appalling waste of public money? What is his view on the break clause that created these hotels in the first place?

[Alex Norris]

I am pleased that during our time in government we have already been able to reduce by a third the amount of money that the British taxpayer is spending on hotels, but the right level is zero. As my hon. Friend says, we also have the asylum contract. That is an eyewatering contract which, to be as kind as possible to Opposition Front Benchers, does not reflect any system that was intended to be procured. We are in those conversations with suppliers now. Crucially, with a break clause coming up and the end of the contract in 2029, we are looking at that closely to get the best possible system at the best possible financial level for the British people.

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.