Sir David Amess Summer Adjournment

Debate between David Davis and Nusrat Ghani

Thursday 16th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)]

Last month’s sentencing of Nicola Sturgeon’s husband exposed the real reasons behind the Scottish Government’s persecution of Alex Salmond. From 2010 to 2022, Peter Murrell abused his position to embezzle almost £500,000 from the SNP to buy luxury items. He used SNP money to buy a £33,000 Volkswagen Golf. Then he stole £57,000 to buy a Jaguar car. Further luxuries included handbags, an £850 gold pendant, four separate coffee machines costing £9,000, luxury kitchenware, at least 26 fountain pens costing nearly £21,000, and two £350 Dyson hairdryers—for a man with no hair. Really? Then, of course, there is the infamous £124,000 motorhome. Did Sturgeon not wonder where he got the money for all the vehicles, the kitchenware, the handbags, the pens, the pendant she loved? After all, who used the Dyson hairdryers in that household?

My view on Sturgeon’s denial is clear: she is lying. She knew full well what her husband was doing and how those luxury purchases were funded. That Murrell was a thief was obvious in the 1980s, when he stole from Alex Salmond. Salmond told Sturgeon it was deeply unwise to keep her husband on as chief executive, but she kept him in place, enabling his crimes for years. Eventually, in March 2021, three members of the SNP’s finance committee withdrew and resigned, blaming “chaotic” and “incompetent” financial management. In their own words, they were on the receiving end of a “hostile” backlash, driven by Sturgeon’s “toxic culture”. They resigned in protest and were later followed by the treasurer of the organisation. Sturgeon told colleagues at the meeting where those first resignations happened:

“There are no reasons for people to be concerned about the party’s finances”—

no reasons. And when the treasurer resigned, she ignored it.

Sturgeon was part of a cover-up, using her position to suppress justice. She behaved dishonourably and dishonestly, but her most evil act was stitching up Alex Salmond to hide the truth. When he was considering going on the national executive himself, the risk to the conspirators was clear: here is a numerate man who could not be silenced. So what did they do? In Salmond’s own words, there was “a malicious and concerted” attempt to remove him from public life in Scotland by

“a range of individuals within the Scottish Government”.

Senior Scottish Government figures created a procedure for dealing with sexual harassment allegations that deliberately targeted Salmond. The procedure was so biased that a judge ruled it “unlawful” and “tainted by apparent bias”. Having lost that, senior figures brought prosecutions against him, but Salmond was acquitted on all charges by a majority female jury, before a female judge. It now appears clear that those actions, to destroy a man’s reputation and life, were motivated by a desire to hide their own crimes.

There are many unresolved questions. What happened with the £60,000-worth of items that were dropped from the indictment: the hair stylers, the lingerie and the books by Sturgeon’s favourite authors? Murrell was clearly protecting Sturgeon by removing items that incriminated her. In the investigation, the police had further questions for Sturgeon, but prosecutors stopped them from putting them. Those prosecutors worked for the Lord Advocate, the principal legal adviser to the Scottish Government—a clear conflict of interest.

There is a clear pattern of secrecy, obstruction and power used to protect power—a pattern started by Sturgeon. Scotland needs a fresh start. That starts with a judicial inquiry into this entire sordid scandal, because it is a scandal that cost Alex Salmond his life.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

In keeping with the late David Amess’s approach, the summer Adjournment debate is indeed broad.

Points of Order

Debate between David Davis and Nusrat Ghani

Monday 27th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the right hon. Member for his point of order. The Government’s decision on whether to undertake an inquiry on the subject is not a matter for the Chair. However, his comments will have been heard by the Front-Bench team, and they will take action, if they wish to.

[David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is a rather more mundane point of order. Last Thursday, my website, provided by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, was compromised. Malicious links were inserted, redirecting users to south-east Asian gambling websites. I guess it could be worse. We took the site down immediately. It was restored, but then came under a sustained distributed denial of service attack traceable to China. In just 24 hours, the site was hit with 142 million requests, consuming nearly 800 gigabytes of data. This is not a minor nuisance; it is direct interference with a Member of Parliament carrying out his duties. What are the House and the House authorities doing to prevent these kinds of attacks on Members’ websites, and to help MPs protect themselves against interference by a foreign state?

Lucy Letby Case: Conduct of Cheshire Police

Debate between David Davis and Nusrat Ghani

Thursday 26th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[David Davis]

I am not easily embarrassed, but the hon. Member—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order.

Northern Ireland Troubles Legacy

Debate between David Davis and Nusrat Ghani

Thursday 13th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[David Davis]

I agree with the hon. Lady’s conclusion, and I happen to agree, as I will come back to in a moment, with the republicans’ view of the coroner’s inquiry process.

It comes back to the issue that my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) raised as to what the punishment was. For a decent, ordinary, law-abiding soldier, the punishment is in the process—being dragged back, having this hanging over them for decades, the uncertainty they face, the sleepless nights and the stress it brings to them and their wives and children, who are worried in their own right and worried about their husband or father. That, I am afraid, is what the IRA and their sympathisers want. It is one of the reasons the IRA consider the very fact of Loughgall being referred to an inquest as a victory. They see that as a victory—that and the fact that it allows them another chance to rewrite history, to fit their own bogus claims.

That is why, in a letter on Remembrance Day that has been repeated in this Chamber a number of times, nine four-star generals wrote:

“By extending the same protections to those who enforced the law and those who defied it, the bill becomes morally incoherent. It treats those who upheld the peace and those who bombed and murdered…as equivalent actors in a shared tragedy.”

They go on to highlight the immediate effect, because we must bear in mind that this is having an effect right now on our serving armed forces. They said:

“highly trained members of special forces are already leaving the service. These are the men and women who quietly neutralise threats and protect lives every week. Their loss is significant; it is a direct consequence of legal uncertainty and the erosion of trust.”

I can attest to the fact that that is true. These are the reasons that our veterans hate this new legislation and view it as grotesquely unfair.

It also raises the question of who the Government are trying to appease. When the Government announced the policy, it was done not in this House—I think it was on a Friday—but in a joint statement alongside the Irish Tánaiste. The Irish Government are being treated as an independent party to these troubles and brought into the reformed legacy commission established by the new Bill as a party that is assumed to be acting in good faith. Well, I am afraid that is not true. There is overwhelming evidence showing the Republic providing sanctuary to IRA terrorists during the troubles. As the Kingsmill—a terrible tragedy—inquest confirmed, terrorists exploited the porous border ruthlessly. The IRA committed acts of terror in the north and used the Republic as their shield—a base for planning, training, storing weapons and, of course, sanctuary; violence in the north, sanctuary in the south.

Consider the brutal murder of Corporal James Elliott in 1972. IRA members abducted him at the border, dragged him into the Republic, tortured him for two days—two days—and shot him dead. They sent his body back across the border, booby-trapped with 500 lb of explosives and six claymores. What did the authorities in the Republic do? They charged two individuals not with murder, but with possessing explosives.

When SAS Captain Herbert Westmacott was murdered, the killers escaped jail before they could be sentenced. Where did they flee? Straight across the border, aided by their comrades. If hon. Members need a third example, they should look at the Omagh bombing, which was carried out after the Good Friday agreement had been signed. That bombing, which injured more than 200 people and tragically killed 29 innocent civilians, one of whom was pregnant with twins, was both planned and launched from the Republic. Despite this, and notwithstanding the call from a Belfast High Court judge for an investigation on both sides of the border, the Irish Government refused to authorise a separate, parallel inquiry. The pattern is unmistakable, and in some cases, agencies of the Irish Government crossed the line from passive antagonism into active complicity.

Former IRA intelligence officer, Kieran Conway, has admitted how leading members of the IRA were tipped off before Garda raids by Garda special branch. That was more than turning a blind eye; it was agencies of the Irish state actively participating in the subversion of justice. There are countless incidents laid bare before us, each one making this point plain. The most horrible one in my mind is from 1989, when two senior Northern Ireland policemen, Chief Superintendent Harry Breen and Superintendent Bob Buchanan, were shot dead in an ambush as they crossed back into Northern Ireland. After almost eight years of detailed investigations, the Smithwick Tribunal determined that the Irish police colluded with the IRA in organising that attack.

Between 1973 and 1999, the Republic of Ireland turned down 102 extradition requests, choosing to view murders in the north as political acts. The Irish state is not a neutral bystander. It was not some impartial observer. It was, in practice, a partisan actor—an actor that for more than 30 years has deliberately turned a blind eye to the atrocities committed by the IRA. For years, our armed forces have properly faced scrutiny for their actions during the troubles. We have answered that scrutiny with honesty— never to erase the truth, but to confront it. Yet we hear nothing of the de facto amnesties given to terrorists and murderers, nothing of the collusion that allowed that terror to take root, and nothing from the Government about preventing the vexatious pursuit of our soldiers, who are guilty of nothing but bravely serving their country during the dark days of the troubles. Instead, all we see are relentless attacks on those soldiers, with doubt introduced about the legitimacy of their actions, and the weaponisation of the entire legal process.

We had a warning of that in a letter on Remembrance Day, when those generals wrote in The Times of the damaging effects of lawfare, and specifically the risk posed by the Government’s legacy proposals. They said that,

“the Government’s Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, and the legal activism surrounding it, risk weakening the moral foundations and operational effectiveness of the forces on which this nation depends. Presented as a route to justice and closure, the bill achieves neither…This lawfare is a direct threat to national security.”

The Government would do well to heed those warnings. Failure to do so brings injustice for those who served our country with honour, and threatens the future effectiveness of our armed forces. Every would-be enemy of the United Kingdom is watching how we handle this matter, and looking at plans for retaliation in our law courts as a way to avenge their defeat on the battlefields. As the generals warn in their letter:

“make no mistake, our closest allies are watching uneasily, and our enemies will be rubbing their hands.”

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Before I call the Secretary of State, let me give a short reminder that we should not mention or repeat the names of individuals that are subject to proceedings.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Debate between David Davis and Nusrat Ghani

2nd reading
Friday 29th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[David Davis]

I am afraid not, as I have only five minutes.

I will pick one of those areas, as it is technical and awkward. Clause 4(2) appears to give doctors the right to initiate the process. But after the “Do not resuscitate” scandal during the covid crisis, I do not want that at any price—I do not want the state initiating this process. That is critical for me. I am really making the point that the decision on Second Reading is about principle, not outcome.

The hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) has said that she will work hard to make the Committee work. I am sure she will, and she may succeed. But I say this to the Government. I understand perfectly well that they are trying to maintain a route of strict neutrality, but there is a distinction between neutrality and responsibility. They need to focus on responsibility. This Bill is more important than most of the Bills in their manifesto; I am not trying to be rude. Is the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) here? He got mobbed over breakfast by people talking about this. More people in the Dog and Duck care about this than they do about most other things that we are doing, so it deserves four days on Report in Government time over the course of several weeks.

We do not need a royal commission. The House can do this, but it needs to be given the option. I say to the Government that the path of responsibility is to give us the time to get this right. If we get it right, it will be one of the things that we can be proudest of in the coming years. I reiterate that I want the Bill to succeed. It is more important than most Bills that we handle. It cannot be dealt with in five hours here and a few hours in Committee. I will vote for it today, but I want the Government to help me be able to vote for a good Bill at the end.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I ask Members to please face the Chair, so that we can pick them up on the microphones.