James McMurdock MP: speeches

Speeches

• 7 Sept 2026 · Local Government Reorganisation · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State for sharing—I have fluffed it now. Forgive me, I have had a two-hour wait, and I have completely lost my train of thought. Over the last two years, the people of Essex have faced a dizzying array of changes, from council elections—off and on—to over-subscribed hospitals and 30,000 new homes to be built, many of which will be on greenfield land. The question is: how can we trust this Government to deliver on anything when they say one thing and do the other?

• 13 Jul 2026 · Illegal Immigrants: Offshore Detention and Deportation · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure and an honour to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I thank the 1,673 South Basildon and East Thurrock constituents who took the time to sign the petition. When discussing illegal migration, we must begin with a simple truth: a nation that cannot control its borders cannot fully control its future. Offshore detention and processing centres are not a perfect solution, but they can be an effective one. Their primary benefit is that they function as a deterrent. If individuals know that arriving illegally will not guarantee entry into the country, the incentive to make dangerous journeys is significantly reduced. That matters not only for border security, but for saving lives. Every year, criminal gangs profit from putting vulnerable people into overcrowded boats and sending them across some of the world’s busiest shipping lanes. We should be focusing on that. I thank the hon. Members who have leaned into the importance of being considerate to all people. On top of the need for gentle language, I might advise them that we should really be protecting those people and keeping them safe by enforcing laws properly so that they do not risk their lives at sea. Offshore processing could also restore confidence in the immigration system. Most people are compassionate and willing to support those with genuine claims for asylum. However, public confidence is undermined when the distinction between legal and illegal routes becomes blurred. A system that is firm, fair and consistently enforced is ultimately in the interests of both citizens and legitimate refugees. Critics raise a number of concerns, which deserve to be taken seriously. The first is cost. Offshore facilities can be expensive. However, the answer is not to abandon the policy, but to ensure that it is designed efficiently, with clear agreements, streamlined processing and a strong focus on rapid decisions rather than prolonged detention. The second concern is humanitarian welfare. Nobody should be subjected to poor conditions or indefinite detention, and offshore centres should be subject to independent inspection, proper healthcare provision, legal oversight, and strict maximum time limits on processing. The objective should be swift assessment and resolution, not warehousing people for years, as they effectively are when they are in this country and unable to work. Of course, we cannot allow them to work, because that creates a further incentive and pull for more illegal migration. The choice facing policymakers is not between offshore processing and an ideal world, but between policies that deter illegal migration and those that leave criminal gangs and smuggling networks free to operate. If implemented properly, offshore detention and processing could strengthen border security, reduce dangerous crossings, restore public confidence and save lives while maintaining high standards of humanity and the rule of law. This is a balanced approach: firm on illegal migration, fair to genuine refugees and responsible to the taxpayers who expect their Government to control their nation’s borders.

• 8 Jul 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q3. Over the past week, rules and regulations have come understandably under sharp focus, but even more important than rules and regulations is the law. On that topic, I believe there are a number of things that everyone in the House can agree on and feel proud about: phrases such as “without fear or favour” and symbols such as Lady Justice wearing a blindfold. However well-meaning the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the College of Policing may be with their programmes such as the race action plan, we have seen some very high-profile cases where faith in police has been shaken by what appears to be two-tier decision making. May Isb ask, in good faith, what the Deputy Prime Minister can do to reassure people that “without fear or favour” will always be maintained?