James McMurdock MP: speeches

64 published records · newest first.

Speeches

22 May 2025 · EU-UK Summit · Hansard source
More
On that point, I invite the hon. Gentleman to elaborate on what he thinks it might mean that the Government scrapped the European Scrutiny Committee.
22 May 2025 · EU-UK Summit · Hansard source
More
Would the hon. Lady clarify whether she believes the deal is a good thing for fishing or not? She seems to be bashing it, but also remarking on the 12-year extension.
22 May 2025 · EU-UK Summit · Hansard source
More
To my mind, the core of the issue is the sense of suspicion. No one disagrees that trade barriers are a bad thing and that clearing them is a good thing for trade, but there is an awful lot of suspicion about the exact details and about how much the benefits are real benefits, not just the removal of punitive hurdles.
22 May 2025 · EU-UK Summit · Hansard source
More
As with anything, when the terms are unclear there is a big risk of unintended consequences. Given that 60 million people in the EU are under 30 and that the scheme does nothing for the immigration issues we are already facing, does my hon. Friend agree that those unintended consequences could be quite severe?
22 May 2025 · Diego Garcia Military Base · Hansard source
More
I am concerned about the influence of foreign nations levied through the criminal courts. If it is not too vague, I should like to read out a very brief quote: “A society grows great when old men plant trees in whose shade they shall never sit.” Given that this land was always going to be ours and now it will be ours for only 99 more years, who will benefit from that shade in a century?
12 May 2025 · Points of Order · Hansard source
More
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will correct the record very briefly now. As the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) is aware, I had received multiple verbal notices that discussions were being had between Thurrock and other councils in the area, so I put in a freedom of information request, which concluded that there had been discussions. It turned out that it was only due to an administrative error that they said there had not been. I had received verbal information and written confirmation that there had been, which is why I gave the speech I did. I would point out that in the speech I gave, I even referred to the fact that the conversations had been denied; again, I also explained that to the hon. Member for Thurrock. I believe I have done all I can on that, but given the number of strained relationships in this place, I certainly hope that this does not strain ours, and that we can continue to work constructively together.
7 May 2025 · Havering Borough and Essex Devolution · Hansard source
More
The hon. Member makes a important point about ULEZ. In my constituency, there has been huge concern about the creep of ULEZ. Though denied, I understand that there have been conversations between local councils about Thurrock joining London. Does he agree that Thurrock, like his own constituency, is Essex through and through and should remain that way?
29 Apr 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source
More
As my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) said, the Government seem to have a three-point plan. Point one is to cover farmland in solar panels, and point two is to block out the sun. What is point three?
28 Apr 2025 · Child Rape Gangs · Hansard source
More
This is clearly a deeply distressing topic that affects the whole House, and I fully accept that the Minister is affected as much as anyone. That being said, it is not clear to me why we would not do absolutely everything within our power to get to the bottom of this, and that includes a full national inquiry with all the powers that come with it. Will the Minister please explain to me why we will not have that inquiry, and why she sees having one as capitulating?
7 Apr 2025 · Scunthorpe Steelworks · Hansard source
More
I thank the Minister for her comments. Given the vital importance of this industry, on which I believe the whole House agrees, does she recognise that it would be a siren to those who, on a national scale, would be less than trustworthy, if we were unable to produce virgin steel ourselves? Given the undoubted national security risk, does she agree that, despite no options being off the table, one outcome that is absolutely off the table is closure? If so, why not just commit to protecting and saving these jobs?
10 Feb 2025 · Inheritance Tax Relief: Farms · Hansard source
More
Like many here, I prepared a short speech, but I would rather pull out some of its highlights, because this has probably been the most interesting debate I have been involved in, and all the more interesting for being rather one-sided. Let us go through this issue. First and foremost, the change will achieve the opposite of food security. I could stop there. But if we carry on, we will see farms forced to sell, bought by private equity firms, and half our food production could be lost within a generation. It will be hugely damaging to mental health, and I say with all sadness and sombreness that I believe lives have been lost already. This policy is damaging and ill thought through. Laws should not be made retrospectively—that is a fine point that has already been raised. Farmers would have had to be aware of this change seven years ago in order to be in a good position for it today, and I want to add to that point. As I understand it, this is also a breach of a promise. If a policy is wrong, stop doing it—that makes pretty good sense to me. It is a self-defeating policy because it will not raise the money that it is supposed to, and it may be rather counter-productive. That brings me to my rather limited experience of farmers in my constituency of South Basildon and East Thurrock. We do not have a huge amount of farmland, but where we have farmers, they share the exact same concerns as those in the rest of the country. One gentleman shared the story of his finances with me, and this policy will cover essentially every penny that his farm will make over the next decade. Guess what his point was? He was concerned not in the least bit about money for himself but about investing in his business. We also have in Essex a rather large New Holland plant. If our farmers do not have any money to invest in their businesses then businesses such as New Holland, which produces vehicles worth £200,000 or £300,000, will not have any customers. I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say in response to the debate. As I understand it, he is a reasonable man, and I hope he has reasonable things to say. From my perspective—and I believe from the perspective of Reform—this is a disastrous new policy and I hope the Government change course.
5 Feb 2025 · English Devolution and Local Government · Hansard source
More
What does the Secretary of State have to say to the 5 million people who have lost their right to vote in this election, who want to vote before this generational power shift and not after it?
8 Jan 2025 · Social Housing Tenants: Antisocial Behaviour · Hansard source
More
As I understand it, in my local area Essex police has the highest number of police officers in history. But if I speak to residents on the street, I often get exactly the same response: they never see their police officers, or they do not recognise those numbers as fact. Does the Minister agree that we should look at how we use our resources?
8 Jan 2025 · Social Housing Tenants: Antisocial Behaviour · Hansard source
More
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman raising the point about stability, and I absolutely agree. In the vast majority of cases, where good people are contributing to society and making the most of their situation, stability goes a long way. But we also have to consider the point about a deterrent being necessary, because we cannot have the good people of this world being held to ransom by the bad. There have to be consequences for the bad, even if we do not necessarily like those consequences. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?
16 Dec 2024 · English Devolution · Hansard source
More
Yesterday, a former Labour deputy leader referred to my party as a “threat to democracy”. I am sure that that was a cute turn of phrase for television, but given that the framework that the Minister has laid out allows elections next year to be gamed so easily, is the real threat not potentially the Labour party?
26 Nov 2024 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill · Hansard source
More
I have an interesting thought on the supply and demand issue, and the challenges it will pose from a control perspective. The hon. Gentleman paints a nice image of a day gone by when one of the kids could be sent down to the shop to pick up something for an adult, and I ask Members to consider what kind of world and country we want to live in. Do we want to live in a country where we could send one of the kids down to the shop to pick up something for us, or do we want to live in a country where we are forced to police each other’s behaviour in parks? We should think very carefully about the Government’s remit.
25 Nov 2024 · Holidays in School Term Time · Hansard source
More
The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting point about the free market. We have a clear supply and demand issue. We have a huge glut during the summer holidays, and then a drought. I will give an example—I will not reference the British holiday destination, but it would be a firm favourite with most people. A typical family of four to six could spend five days there for £500 or £600 one week, but in excess of £2000 for the exact same holiday the following week because it is outside of term time. Does he agree that because of the supply and demand issue, giving discretion or allowing more variety in how schools use their time might be options worth pursuing, rather than trying to constrain business?
13 Nov 2024 · Facial Recognition: Police Use · Hansard source
More
Of course. The topic of racial disparity is one we should all treat extremely seriously—possibly one of the most serious things we can do to benefit our society is to discuss this and get it right—but can we please not make any leading assumptions? We live in a fair and good society. If someone listened to this debate in isolation, they might get an impression that I do not believe would be strictly fair.
13 Nov 2024 · Facial Recognition: Police Use · Hansard source
More
This is all about the first principle of “without fear or favour”. If there are any examples of where that is failing, regardless of whether it relates to local behaviour or the broader introduction of a new technology, we need to be open, transparent and mindful. We live in a world in which not everything is done perfectly, but there are some communities with problems that are perhaps not being tackled in the most beneficial way. I do not want to get too deeply into these issues, because I am not an expert and I recognise that they are extremely sensitive, but I think we can tackle them transparently. The hon. Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) used the excellent analogy of a night out. I completely agree; I was thinking, “Yeah, I’m up for it, but let’s just make sure we can all get home safe”, but the more we discuss the issue, the more I think the appropriate camp to be in is, “I could be tempted out, but let’s make sure we like the destination.” I will leave it there. I thank hon. Members for their time.
13 Nov 2024 · Facial Recognition: Police Use · Hansard source
More
Absolutely. Let me put it like this: if any of us were to turn up at a social event and unexpectedly find a large swarm of police, that would give us a moment’s pause for thought. We need to be careful to ensure that this technology is not a more pervasive version of that example. It must not be constantly in existence, attached to every CCTV camera, without us even being aware of it. To go back to transparency, we have to be open and frank about any issues with how the technology is being implemented, so that we can fix them. I agree that there absolutely could be issues, and we definitely want to be on the right path.
13 Nov 2024 · Facial Recognition: Police Use · Hansard source
More
I appreciate that we are having this debate, because it is surprising that we have got to where we are without legislation and firm frameworks in place. I really like the phrase “first principles”, and one of the first principles of the police is “without fear or favour”. That is an exceptional phrase that, if perfectly implemented, we would all benefit from, although of course we recognise that in the real world there is no such thing as perfect. I am grateful that concerns have been raised about how the technology we are discussing impacts the assumption of innocence—we should all be very careful about that—although I also appreciate the point that it does not impact innocence but provides the opportunity for a human to check. If done properly, that is no bad thing, but we are right to discuss the issue in serious terms in our legislature because there is a danger of an unofficial assumption of guilt. Let us take the example of local shopping centres, which we heard about earlier. If an issue has not been escalated to the police or courts, but some local security officers have seen the same images on cameras and that information has gone round by radio, a gentleman or a lady out with their children doing the weekly shop may suddenly not be able to get in and do what they need to do. That is the kind of pervasive and damaging thing that could easily slip under the radar; we should all be mindful of that. I want to touch briefly on transparency. This is clearly a developing technology and we would be wrong not to look at its benefits, but we must be mindful of the harm it could do along the way. If people find that they are getting an unfair crack of the whip—that is probably an inappropriate term—and are suffering as a result of this technology, we need to nip that in the bud, and be very direct and open about the failures so that we can make adjustments.
13 Nov 2024 · Facial Recognition: Police Use · Hansard source
More
I want us to be careful that we are not making assumptions that may not be right. I am not taking a firm position, but there have been a number of comments, from several parts of the Chamber, about racial disparity. It would be remiss of me to let those things be said without making the point that I am not 100% sure that they are all accurate. For example—
13 Nov 2024 · Engagements · Hansard source
More
Q11. Residents of my constituency of South Basildon and East Thurrock face a triple whammy of council tax increased by 50%, reduced public services, and £1 billion of emergency funding that is being borrowed at 1% above base rate. That 1% is approximately £10 million a year going to the Treasury that could be spent on frontline services in Thurrock. Will the Prime Minister commit to reducing that rate, so that the money can go where it belongs?
5 Nov 2024 · Future of Fishing · Hansard source
More
On negotiations, everyone would agree that camaraderie and agreeableness where they can be found are good things, but we do not win negotiations with weakness. It is probably more effective to start from a position of strength and be firm and resolute about that, and then to extend kindness, than to start with the over-friendliness that is being suggested, given that we have not had good results in the past. Would the hon. Lady agree that a bit of strength is necessary, as well as the kindness that we all agree on?
5 Nov 2024 · Future of Fishing · Hansard source
More
Your strength.

Published records only — not a full account of an MP’s work. How we work →