James McMurdock MP: speeches 2026

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?

• 17 Jun 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

• 10 Jun 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q9. If any member of the public wishes to visit a major sporting or music event, they can expect to be searched on the way in. If they bring a bottle of water, the lid will be taken. If they order a drink from the bar, it will be served in a plastic cup. That is done for security reasons, yet because of exemptions in the Offensive Weapons Act 2019, those same events permit the carrying of blades up to 5 inches long. Does the Prime Minister recognise the dangers and risks associated with that, and that what a solicitor might call “an exception”, our voters would call “two-tier justice”?

• 2 Mar 2026 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  Although I might not agree with all the conclusions that the Prime Minister has drawn, I am very grateful for the reverence and caution that he shows, and for the respect for human life that he has been trying to demonstrate. The limited time he had over the weekend to make decisions on how best to act reveals that he was not involved in all of the pre-planning, so may I ask why the UK is no longer at the decision-making table?

• 28 Jan 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q13. G R Carr is a business in Burnt Mills in my constituency with more than half a century of experience in steel manufacturing and fabrication. It is exactly the kind of medium-sized business that builds this country and that we should be championing. Following my visit to the business last week, I was disturbed to find out that many of our contracts, from our flagship deals in Teesside to our nuclear programmes, go offshore, such as the 7,000-tonne order for steel from China and the more than 200 km of fabricated pipework from Germany. That is exactly the kind of investment that should be made in the UK. How does sending it offshore play into the Government’s growth plans?

• 26 Jan 2026 · Animal Rescue Centres · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I thank everybody involved with the petition, whether they put their name to it or got it off the ground. Just outside my constituency of South Basildon and East Thurrock, there was an incident in which the remains of 37 dogs were found, along with 20 other living dogs, in varying states of ill health. It should go without saying that this was a deeply distressing incident locally and for everyone who became aware of it. Rightly, it shocked residents, generated significant local concern and led to more than 1,000 of my constituents signing this petition. Animals suffered, and that must never be minimised. What troubled many people locally was not simply what happened, but the response. Basildon council confirmed to my office that no licensing breaches had occurred—not because conditions were acceptable, but because animal rescue and rehoming centres do not currently require any licensing at all. That immediately raises a serious question: was this a failure of the law, or a failure of the use of laws that already exist? Under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, there is already a clear legal duty on any person responsible for animals to ensure their welfare, including through proper care, a suitable environment, protection from suffering and timely veterinary treatment. The Act provides powers for enforcement, improvement notices and prosecution where standards fall short. Local authorities also retain powers on environmental health and on statutory nuisance and partnerships with police and animal welfare bodies, where conditions pose a risk to animals or the public. The Environmental Protection Act 1990, the public health Acts, the Housing Act 2004—if the animal welfare unit is a domestic premises—and the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 are all additional existing laws that are in effect and which could be used in scenarios in which we believe that animals are being mistreated. Yet, in this case, concerns were reportedly raised months before any meaningful action was taken. That points not just to a legislative gap, but to questions around resources, clarity of responsibility and enforcement confidence. I am instinctively cautious about expanding licensing regimes. The animal rescue sector is overwhelmingly run by people motivated by compassion, often operating on shoestring budgets and good will alone. Heavy-handed regulation risks driving good actors out of the sector, reducing rehoming capacity and ultimately harming the very animals that we seek to protect. That is why the right starting point is to ask, “Are existing powers under the Animal Welfare Act being used consistently? Do councils have sufficient clarity and resources to act early? Are we confident that additional regulation would prevent harm rather than simply adding bureaucracy?” I welcome the Government’s commitment to consult on the issue. I urge that the consultation focus as much on enforcement effectiveness and unintended consequences as on new statutory schemes. Regulation alone is not a guarantee of better outcomes if it is not properly resourced or proportionate. We must be careful not to do more harm than good, particularly in a sector that depends on trust, volunteerism and public confidence. Animal welfare matters deeply to my constituents—that is evident from the 1,000 people in my constituency who put their names to the petition—but so does getting this right. I genuinely want to strike that balance, and that is why I put this speech together in the way I did. I thank everyone for hearing these words.

• 26 Jan 2026 · Key Stage 1 Curriculum · Hansard source

  More

  I am very grateful to the hon. Member for giving way at this last moment. Does she agree with me that these debates are called debates for a reason, and that where there is an overwhelming outcome to a debate—one way or the other—we expect the Minister, regardless of who they are or what party they are a member of, to take that outcome away and implement it quite directly and quite heavily, wherever possible and wherever appropriate? Does she agree that in debates such as this one we expect a relevant outcome and not just an exercise in hearing our own voices?

• 26 Jan 2026 · Key Stage 1 Curriculum · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for her exceptionally detailed and very interesting opening speech. I have had the tremendous privilege of visiting several schools in my constituency, and I think all Members will agree that there are a few things that warm the heart more than seeing happy children, particularly children who are learning in a safe and pleasant environment. East Tilbury primary school, which has taken part in the Outdoor Play and Learning programme, has really stood out to me. I am proud to share the fact that that delightful school achieved the platinum award, which is the highest level in the programme and is attained by around only 2% of schools nationally. OPAL now works with more than 2,000 schools, so that is no small achievement. Although we do have many educators in the Chamber, for those who are not quite so fond of mental arithmetic, that puts the school in the top 40 out of 2,000, so it really is quite an achievement. I was struck not just by the surprisingly natural equipment that was being used—trees for climbing, tyres, sand pits and wildlife areas—or the simple ball games, but by the confidence, co-operation and genuine joyfulness that the programme produced in the children. I spent time observing, and playing and speaking with the staff, the pupils and the OPAL representatives, and it was clear to me that high-quality play directly supports wellbeing, social development and readiness to learn, as Members have already stated with some impressive statistics. Crucially, the programme is not about lowering standards elsewhere or replacing learning with play; it is about using play intelligently to reinforce the core skills of communication, resilience, problem-solving and teamwork, particularly within the early years. I think that is why we can all agree that this is a win-win. As we have seen elsewhere across Europe, play can build the foundation for more advanced learning as children go through the key stages. Importantly, East Tilbury’s success was driven not by top-down prescription, but by school leadership, staff commitment and community buy-in. That is a valuable lesson for us as policymakers, and I hope the Minister pays particular attention to that point. I urge the Government to focus less on rigid mandates and more on sharing best practice, supporting schools that want to innovate and trusting professionals to decide what works for their pupils. Done well, play is not a distraction from learning, but a foundation for it, and East Tilbury primary school is living proof of that.

• 12 Jan 2026 · Local Elections: Basildon and Thurrock · Hansard source

  More

  I appreciate the Minister’s answer about this being locally led, but there are genuine concerns that the criteria that may be put forward as a justification to cancel elections locally do not meet the standard expected by my residents. What checks and balances does the Minister have in place to ensure that the reasons put forward match the expectations of my voters, who want the elections to go ahead?

• 12 Jan 2026 · Local Elections: Basildon and Thurrock · Hansard source

  More

  13. What recent discussions he has had with Basildon and Thurrock councils on proposals to postpone the local elections of May 2026.