James McMurdock MP: speeches

Speeches

• 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.

• 8 Dec 2025 · Digital ID · Hansard source

  More

  That is a good point very well made, and it brings me to another point, which has not been raised in this debate: although the Government state that digital ID is optional—at least, at this stage—for the taxpayer, the cost is not optional. If they go ahead with it, we are all paying for it whether we like it or not, and whether we use it or not. Even if the intentions today are benign, the power created has the potential to long outlive those who introduced it. I am of the view, therefore, that digital ID offers only the potential to inconvenience law-abiding citizens, while also creating the foundations for a powerful new mechanism capable of controlling banking, travel, property ownership, employment, public services, and daily activity into a single, state-managed system. Even if one trusted today’s Government, and many do not, no Government should ever have that level of centralised control over their citizens’ private lives. The Government’s own website already suggests that digital ID would introduce access to social services, we have mission creep already, whether we like it or not. The digital ID webpage also states that the digital ID will be free. Of course, that is not entirely true, because the cost is £1.8 billion. In addition to the above we have the inevitable security risks and the fact that millions of people will struggle with digital access. The Government talk liberal, but act authoritarian. Prison sentences for bad language and the proposal to reduce an eight-centuries-old right to jury trials are only two examples of this. Coupled with the digital ID white elephant, it paints an unpretty picture. I am against this measure.

• 8 Dec 2025 · Digital ID · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you for saving me until last, Ms Furniss. With Christmas around the corner, the squats from bobbing will come in very handy. The proposal to introduce digital ID represents one of the most significant changes to the relationship between the individual and the state in modern British history. The measure cannot be taken lightly; nor can it be brushed aside as a simple matter of convenience or administrative efficiency. Britain already operates with a substantial set of identification systems—birth certificate, passport, driving licence, national insurance number, NHS number and the electoral register—none of which is optional in practice for law-abiding citizens. The Government’s own digital ID webpage confirms that none of those existing documents will be replaced by the new proposal, which creates a logical fallacy: if digital ID is optional and does not replace any of the existing documents, it cannot simplify the existing system. It is also written in the very first paragraph of the digital ID webpage that the data held on digital ID will be limited to four pieces of information: name, date of birth, nationality or residency status, and a photograph. What does that tell us? It tells us that it is not a system really built to simplify domestic life; it is a system built to manage immigration status. Here we have another logical fallacy, because this does nothing to tackle the root cause of the immigration crisis, or anything to strengthen or enforce any of the right-to-work restrictions already in place. I would add a third logical fallacy, which was somewhat innocently referred to earlier: if digital ID is optional, it can serve no purpose in a “papers, please” scenario. Thankfully, that is probably the better of the two scenarios, despite the cost of nearly £2 billion. Britain operates on a simple democratic logic: we are born free, and the state may intrude only where necessary, proportionate and agreed by the public. Digital ID risks inverting that principle. I will point out that there was no mandate for this in the Labour manifesto.

• 24 Nov 2025 · Homelessness Guidance · Hansard source

  More

  12. What steps he is taking to improve homelessness guidance for local government.

• 24 Nov 2025 · Homelessness Guidance · Hansard source

  More

  Ministers will be well aware that the maximum period of time for which the most vulnerable people should ever be placed in temporary accommodation is six weeks, but I have seen repeatedly from Labour-run Basildon council a tweaking and gaming of the rules, whereby a single-room bed and breakfast property is incorrectly reclassified as a self-contained unit through the addition of a microwave and a fridge. Vulnerable people, including pregnant women or women with children, are being crammed into one room for periods of time that we recognise as unlawful, essentially because the rules are not strict enough. I do not blame Ministers for that, but I do blame the local Labour council for abusing those rules. What will the Minister do to strengthen things up?

• 19 Nov 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q7. It is an open secret that the gig economy is a magnet for organised crime and illegal workers. As Christmas approaches and demand increases, so do the associated risks. Will the Prime Minister please explain why enforcement in this area is so low and what he will do to restore order?

• 17 Nov 2025 · Channel Crossings · Hansard source

  More

  According to a recent National Audit Office report, £15.3 billion will be spent on asylum accommodation alone over the next 10 years. That money will be spent on people who will, in some instances, commit violent and sexual crimes—crimes that would make our skin crawl—against the British people. What do we say to our residents, voters and taxpayers, who feel like we are spending money on people who want nothing for us but harm?

• 17 Nov 2025 · Channel Crossings · Hansard source

  More

  7. What steps she is taking to reduce the cost to the public purse of migrants who have crossed the channel illegally.

• 17 Nov 2025 · Social Media Posts: Penalties for Offences · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Member give way on that point?

• 29 Oct 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q2. Earlier this week, I got to see the very best and some of the worst of our national health service. When my own daughter needed it, it was there, but when an 89-year-old gentleman in the restaurant I was eating at collapsed, it took over an hour and 15 minutes from my first call to the arrival of two exhausted paramedics. Basildon hospital has just been downgraded to inadequate in the latest Care Quality Commission report. I invite the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care—or the Prime Minister, if he has time in his schedule—to visit Basildon with me so that he can thank the staff for their exceptional work and get to grips with the problems they are facing.

• 27 Oct 2025 · Holidays During School Term Time · Hansard source

  More

  Would the hon. Member agree that, while price controls are a nice idea in theory, they are a terrible idea in practice? Supply and demand ultimately dictate the price of something so, while it is a nice suggestion, it would not work in real life. Does he agree?

• 27 Oct 2025 · Holidays During School Term Time · Hansard source

  More

  It is an honour to speak under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for securing this debate, and for a remark that he made during his opening speech, which I think we can all thoroughly agree with: everyone in this debate, regardless of view, completely supports having children’s welfare at the centre of this. I certainly champion that. We are not debating the importance of education, because we all thoroughly agree on that. Regardless of our side of the debate, we also agree that some of the statistics relating to children’s attainment depending on their attendance records are quite striking. There is clearly a correlation there. But correlation is not necessarily causation. We have heard today that people can be there in body but not in mind. There is definitely a difference between trustworthy, decent parents choosing to take their children out of school at an appropriate time for appropriate reasons, and truancy. We are debating whether fines are appropriate for holidays. I do not think they are at all appropriate, but I agree with tackling the causes of truancy and supporting families so that children receive an education. I hope everyone believes me when I say I am a firm believer in education. However, it is not appropriate for the Government to fine families who are decent, thorough and good—as we should assume they are in the vast majority of cases—for choosing to take their children out when there are no opportunities for debate with the school, to make exceptions or to let reason speak for itself. It is thoroughly wrong, and we are doing a lot of decent families a disservice. I am not for letting children and families just do whatever, because I appreciate that, on the other side of this debate, are the teachers who have to manage the additional challenge that that would bring. However, we are humans and this is a human world; ultimately, we should support, not penalise, decent and reasonable people making decent and reasonable decisions for themselves. On that basis, I support the cancelling of fines for parents taking their children out of school.

• 13 Oct 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State and the other Ministers on the Front Bench have to great fanfare today talked about responsible governance, but Basildon council and its Labour leader have repeatedly failed to meet basic housing standards. Worse than that, its leader has gone live on social media to admit to counting postal votes and using that information to influence a recent by-election. When he is held to account, will Ministers agree to throwing him out of their party?