Oral Answers to Questions

David Lammy Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 8 July.

[The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr David Lammy)]

I have been asked to reply on behalf of the Prime Minister, who is attending the NATO summit. Working with our allies, we are strengthening Europe’s role in the alliance, which remains the cornerstone of our national security. Yesterday the Prime Minister met with the Prime Minister of Norway, and I am sure the House will join me in wishing good luck to the England team ahead of the world cup quarter-final.

This week, we mark the awful anniversary of 7/7, a day when people travelling through London on a bright summer morning had their lives ended and changed forever, including my best friend James Adams. We remember all those affected by those terrible attacks, and we will always stand against terrorism.

The Labour party also pays tribute to Sir George Howarth. He was a champion for Knowsley, a distinguished colleague and a wonderful gentleman. We will miss him deeply, and our condolences are with his wife, Julie, and his family.

This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

[Paul Holmes]

I entirely associate myself with the Deputy Prime Minister’s opening and personal remarks.

The Prime Minister and the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) are both proud football fans. Given that the Deputy Prime Minister clearly thinks the Prime Minister has always been match fit, how does he feel now that his own MPs have given the boss the red card and brought on a left winger to get them out of the relegation zone? [Laughter.]

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

That is not bad for someone who represents a premier league side, but two years since the election, the hon. Member still needs to engage with the facts about the Tories’ failed period in government. His colleagues now accept that. The former Treasury Minister, the former Communities Secretary, the former Health Minister and the former Immigration Minister—and that is just the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick)—wrecked the country and helped wreck the Tory party, and now wants to do it all over again with Reform.

[Jeff Smith (Manchester Withington) (Lab)]

Q2. In three weeks’ time, Greater Manchester residents will have the chance to vote for Labour’s brilliant candidate, Bev Craig, to be their next mayor. I have worked with Bev for many years, so I know her strong record as a leader and what an outstanding mayor she will be. Will the Deputy Prime Minister join me in welcoming Bev’s pledge to extend free travel on public transport to all 11 to 18-year-olds, so all our young people in Greater Manchester can have the independence to travel to the work, education and leisure opportunities they deserve?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I agree with my hon. Friend: Bev Craig will be a brilliant mayor for Greater Manchester. I am proud that Labour is putting power over bus services back in the hands of local leaders. This Government have extended franchising powers, capped fares and invested to deliver better services, and we are ensuring that children can enjoy free bus travel this summer. I am sure my hon. Friends will want to get behind Bev in Greater Manchester so that we can defeat Reform’s divisive candidate and drive forward the agenda under a new mayor.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government.

[Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

I echo the right hon. Gentleman’s tribute to Sir George Howarth and pass on my party’s condolences to his friends, family and loved ones. I also echo his support and encouragement for the England football team in their forthcoming match against Norway. Of course, I also echo his words about those people murdered on 7/7, and their friends and their families, and I pay tribute to the emergency services that did so much on that day.

Will the Deputy Prime Minister apologise to the victims of the rapists, sexual predators and paedophiles that he is planning to release early?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I am delighted to welcome the shadow Housing Secretary to the Dispatch Box. He, of course, could have been doing that job every week if he were better with numbers. He was the Foreign Secretary in the Government who botched Brexit, the Home Secretary in the Government who decimated neighbourhood policing and one of the shortest serving Education Secretaries in our history.

The right hon. Gentleman asks about a very serious issue, and every decision we have taken has been based on public safety and delivering justice for victims. Let us talk about the context. The last Labour Government built 28,000 prison places. We are building 14,000 by 2031, and we have already delivered 3,200. The Tories closed 23 prisons: Gloucester—closed; Shrewsbury—closed; Portsmouth—closed; Holloway—closed; Northallerton—closed. And what is it now? A block of flats. That is why we have to have an early release scheme and why we passed the Sentencing Act 2026, and we are putting in community powers locally to make sure that we protect the public.

[Sir James Cleverly]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a joke about the use of figures. Let me give him a figure: 50,000 prisoners released early in just two years on his watch. I am genuinely shocked that, when given the opportunity to apologise to the victims, he very publicly failed to do so. Let me remind him what this is about. Let me quote Fiona Goddard, a victim of grooming gangs who has been brave and open about how his policy will impact her:

“Finding out that they may be released early has completely set me back. I have barely left the house. I feel constantly anxious, frightened and unsafe. I can barely sleep”.

That is the impact his policy is having on victims. He refuses to apologise, but why is he pursuing a policy that he must know is both wrong and dangerous?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

This is a very serious issue and the right hon. Gentleman is experienced in this House. He knows that while he was Home Secretary, the Conservative Government had an early release scheme that let out 10,000 offenders—10,000. They had six schemes within a year. They had a scheme that they announced on 6 June 2023, another scheme on 17 October 2023, another scheme on 8 March 2024, another in April, another in May and another in June—all before the election. That is why the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), it is rumoured, called the election in the first place. They left a system with just 83 empty cells. That is what the previous Justice Secretary inherited when she came into office.

That is why we had to pass the sentencing scheme. The right hon. Gentleman has not said what the Conservatives would do now to fix the system. Of course we think of every victim. That is why we are notifying victims and are in discussion with all victims. I sat, last week in my surgery, with a victim of grooming gangs. All of us want to see offenders locked up. That is why we must have prison capacity.

[Sir James Cleverly]

The right hon. Gentleman talks about 10,000 early releases over 14 years of Conservative government. The Labour Government have released 50,000 in two years. He knows it is wrong—he is a good man. He must know that it is wrong to release 5,000 serious criminals, including rapists and paedophiles. Not only does he know it is wrong, but his party knows it is wrong—not one of the 400 Labour MPs voted to support the Government’s policy in the vote last night. They know it is wrong and the country knows it is wrong, but he insists on pursuing it anyway. If he will not change course, will he at least make this guarantee: that not one rapist or paedophile will be released early later on this year?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman has not proposed what the Conservatives would do if they were in office. They released 10,000 under four different schemes, with no impact assessment when they released them, no victim contact when they released them, and no warning. They did it on the sly.

Let us be clear: we have more probation officers, while the Conservative Government cut probation—decimated it—because of Chris Grayling. We have invested £700 million in probation. We are rolling out the largest programme of tagging in our history. We are forcing offenders to stay boxed in certain areas, rather than where victims are. We are creating alcohol, pub, football and driving bans. We are implementing income reduction orders. We are expanding chemical castration for sex offenders. None of that happened when they were in power.

[Sir James Cleverly]

I think the Deputy Prime Minister will look back on this exchange and be shocked by how it is coming across: no apology to the victims; and no guarantee that paedophiles and rapists will not be released early. We all know that releasing dangerous criminals on purpose is wrong, but not content with doing that, he is hellbent on releasing dangerous criminals by accident. Last year, in response to my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), the Deputy Prime Minister claimed that Labour had got a grip of accidental releases, yet we now know that there have been more accidental releases in the last two years than in the entirety of the last Parliament. I will give the Deputy Prime Minister another chance: will he apologise to the country for his abject failure to keep prisoners in prison, where they belong?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I have got to say, this is rich coming from the right hon. Gentleman. The Conservatives had 14 long years in power; they wrecked neighbourhood policing—he was Home Secretary; prisons were at bursting point—that is why they called the general election; and they let out offenders in secret—and that why we have the Sentencing Act 2026, which passed through this House and the House of Lords. We are getting thousands more bobbies on the beat, toughening up probation—they decimated it—and we have to have the space to lock up dangerous criminals. That is why we passed the Sentencing Act.

[Sir James Cleverly]

It is the dangerous criminals that the Deputy Prime Minister is letting out early. So he refuses to apologise to victims, and he refuses to guarantee that sexual offenders and rapists will not be released early. Another thing that the country, and indeed this House, knows instinctively is wrong is his personal crusade to scrap trial by jury. We know that it will not clear the backlog, we know that it undermines fundamental British freedoms, and we know that the legal profession is united against it, so will he now admit that it is wrong, and will he commit to reverse his proposals to scrap trial by jury?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

Let us be clear: there is no proposal before this House to scrap trial by jury. The right hon. Member needs to do better and get on the detail. There is a threshold change. Margaret Thatcher made a change to jury trials. David Cameron made a change to jury trials. The vast majority of criminal cases in this country are dealt with by magistrates—again, which the Conservatives cut. We are restoring the magistery, so that they can do more. We are investing in our courts—the Conservatives ran our courts down. We are modernising our courts, we are introducing digital ID, and we need reform.

[Sir James Cleverly]

The Deputy Prime Minister talks in glowing terms about what he claims to be doing, but what we are actually seeing this Government doing is stripping money from where it is needed and squandering it on the welfare bill, which has ballooned by £20 billion this year alone. He talks about getting over the detail, but here is a simple detail for him: when I was Home Secretary, we had more police officers than at any point in British history. Since Labour taking over, that number has dropped by over 2,000 officers.

At the Dispatch Box last week, the Leader of the Opposition highlighted this Government’s failure to defend us internationally. Today, I have highlighted the Deputy Prime Minister’s failure to defend us domestically. If the soon-to-be Prime Minister—is he in the room anywhere?—does not want to be complicit in the Deputy Prime Minister’s failure, he should come out and condemn the plan, not just hint that he opposes it. If this Labour Government cannot protect the citizens of this country, either domestically or internationally, then what on earth is the point of them?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman insists on proving that he cannot count. We lost 16,000 police officers when the Conservatives were in power. The British people have not forgotten what they did to our country. After two years of this Labour Government, I will compare our record with theirs every day of the week. Their record is the biggest fall in living standards in recorded history; our record is the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in a generation. Their record is wrecking our criminal justice system; our record is bringing down violent crime. Their record is millions of people stuck on NHS waiting lists; our record is cutting NHS waiting lists at the fastest rate in history. Their record is cutting defence—the right hon. Gentleman was a reservist—and hollowing out the armed forces; our record is the biggest boost to defence funding since the early 1990s. Their record is plunging hundreds of thousands of children into poverty; our record is lifting half a million children out of poverty. I will take our record over theirs any day of the week.

[John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)]

Q4. The Family C official report, about the most depraved sexual abuse of children, identifies serious failures by Glasgow city council and other bodies. The report says that one child victim “banged on the windows shouting at the health visitor not to leave”,but this was treated as “streetwise”, instead of a desperate cry for help. Staff described the same child with contempt, saying that the child’s behaviour was “nasty” and interfering. The children desperately needed compassion, love and safety, not contempt. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the council must accept robust, independent scrutiny of what has happened and independent scrutiny of the implementation of improvements?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

This case involves horrific offences against vulnerable children. I know that all Members of this House will join me in paying tribute to the victims, who have shown remarkable bravery in coming forwards. It is evident that these children were failed dreadfully, and Glasgow city council must urgently act on the recommendations of this review. I know that my hon. Friend has written to the Scottish Government to request an independent inquiry, and the SNP should consider that request with the gravity that it deserves.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats.

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

I associate myself and my party with the Deputy Prime Minister’s tribute to Sir George Howarth, and his remarks about the 7/7 bombings and all those who live with the consequences of that terrible day.

I wish England good luck for Saturday evening. As the UK braces for its seventh Prime Minister in a decade, I also thank the Deputy Prime Minister for our exchanges and wish him well in whatever role he may have next.

The hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) used to say, “Leave means leave.” But it seems that his latest stunt is to leave this place just so that he can return as a fully-fledged Member after not just one referendum on his behaviour, but possibly two. Will the Deputy Prime Minister join the Liberal Democrats in urging the Chancellor to delay the hon. Member’s resignation until the investigation is complete, so that the good people of Clacton have all the facts before they cast their votes? Failing that, will he support our “Clacton clause”, so that, even once the hon. Member ceases to be an MP, the investigations can continue?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

Well, everyone can see that the Reform leader is just trying to distract from the fact that he is up to his neck in sleaze. He has serious questions to answer and he cannot run away from them. Labour is not going to be part of this circus. I hear it is the people versus the establishment: the City trader, Putin-admiring, professional politician who is pals with crypto billionaires versus Count Binface. There have been unqualified joke candidates in the past—let’s see what the people of Clacton decide.

[Daisy Cooper]

It is clear that it is a two-horse race. [Laughter.]

On a more serious and very sombre note, MI5 has defended in court an agent who they knew to be openly misogynistic and obsessed with violence. He used his position to coercively control his girlfriend, Beth, and attack her with a machete. To add insult to injury, MI5 gave false evidence to the court. Will the Deputy Prime Minister use this opportunity to offer Beth a full apology on behalf of the Government, and will he use his position to bring back next week a full Hillsborough Bill, which covers the security services, so that we can pass the law before the summer recess?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

The hon. Member raises a very serious issue. I will arrange for Beth to meet the Security Minister to discuss the matter in detail. The hon. Member also mentioned the Hillsborough Bill, and I am confident that it will be before the House in the coming days.

[Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)]

Q5. The Deputy Prime Minister and most of us in the House have been victims of AI-generated fake news, also known as deepfakes. They mislead the public and disrupt our democracy. BBC news coverage and coverage from other news channels is also being AI manipulated to tell untruths. Will he, alongside MPs from across the House, support my amendments to the Representation of the People Bill, which would force anything that is AI created to be labelled as such, stop the production of deepfakes of ourselves and colleagues, and protect the UK from these destructive tactics, used by foreign states and others who wish to weaken our democracy?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right that our protections must keep pace with evolving threats such as deepfakes. I know that she has been in discussions with Ministers on the issue. We will look at her amendments closely. We are absolutely focused on protecting our democracy against foreign interference.

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

Our politics needs fixing fast. The broken, outdated first-past-the-post system has clearly failed to deliver stable government. We urgently need to rebuild trust in our democracy and ensure that everybody’s vote counts equally. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree with the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) that proportional representation is an idea whose time has come? Does he also agree with me and Members across the House that that time is now, before the next general election?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I am very pleased that the hon. Member raises the issue of votes and democracy. But I have got to say this to the Greens: during the local elections, a Green councillor in Lewisham described me and the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), as “coconuts”. The Green party looked the other way, kept the candidate in post and rewarded them with the council job—I am not making this up—of cabinet member for healing. The Greens could start the healing process by stopping such racist language.

[Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)]

Q6. This week marks the second anniversary of our Labour Government. Two years on, my constituents enjoy greater rights at work, and thousands of workers are now better off, thanks to increases in the national minimum wage. Thousands of children have been lifted out of poverty, and tens of millions of pounds in pride in place funding have been given to communities that were previously left behind. Shipbuilding on the Clyde has been secured through the Norwegian naval deal. Billions of pounds have been invested in Faslane, as well as new youth hub, which is set to open—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I think the Deputy Prime Minister can answer that now.

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I commend my hon. Friend for the difference that he has made and for his hard work to bring Pride in Place funding to his constituency. He lists an amazing record in two years, and we have got three more to go.

[James McMurdock (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Ind)]

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?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I say to the hon. Gentleman that everyone is equal before the law. That is the foundation on which the openness, tolerance and generosity of this country rest. Let us be clear: there is no two-tier justice in this country. The hon. Gentleman was elected as a Reform Member of Parliament and clearly aspires to become one once more. Given reports that concerns were raised with the National Crime Agency about the £5 million gift to the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), he should be asking where did the money really come from?

[Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)]

Q7. I am deeply grateful for what the Prime Minister has helped us deliver in Cornwall in the past couple of years, whether that is free breakfast clubs, urgent capital funding for GP surgeries or the Kernow industrial growth fund. [Interruption.] However, what has held us back at various points—besides the chuntering from the Opposition side—completely unnecessarily, I would argue, is something to which the answer is patently obvious to all in Cornwall: the question of who should be the masters of Cornwall’s strategic destiny. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that the answer to this question must always be Cornwall? Will he make time for the Government to lay the statutory instrument required to make Cornwall once and for all a strategic authority, so that when my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) comes in, we can ensure good growth in every postcode and the reindustrialisation of Cornwall?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right to champion the huge potential of Cornwall. We are absolutely committed to devolution and putting power in the hands of local leaders. Conversations with local authorities such as Cornwall are ongoing, and we will confirm next steps as soon as possible. I know that Ministers will be happy to update him.

[Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)]

Q8. My constituency is the ninth most sewage-polluted constituency in the entire country, with thousands of hours of sewage pouring into the Thames, Avon and Coln, but that metric of hours conceals the truth. It does not convey the actual volume, and clearly a trickle is very different from a gush. Will the Deputy Prime Minister arrange for me to meet the relevant Minister on requiring water companies to report on the volume and concentration of sewage discharges, as well as the number of hours?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

The hon. Member is right that we inherited record levels of pollution, and we are determined to tackle that and clean up our waterways. We have acted by banning unfair bonuses, introducing jail time for lawbreaking bosses and unlocking £104 billion of private investment to rebuild vital infrastructure to deliver cleaner waters, and we also have the clean water Bill. Of course I will arrange for her to meet the Minister.

[Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)]

Q14. Stourbridge is famous for many things: the glass industry, Jude Bellingham—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”]—Robert Plant and, most importantly, the Stourbridge shuttle, the UK’s shortest railway line at just 0.8 miles, or 1.3 km for those who prefer metric. It links Stourbridge Junction with Stourbridge Town. Despite its small size, it achieves an impressive 99.6% reliability compared with the west midlands average of 64.4%. One of my highlights as an MP was unveiling a shuttle car named after local legend George, the Stourbridge station cat, whose global social media following made him a beloved fixture at the junction. Today marks the start of “Shuttle Shorts”, a short film festival celebrating the journey. The shuttle shows how community railway can improve local mobility. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that Pre Metro’s ambition to introduce a VLR—very light rail—service between Stourbridge and Brierley Hill is a valuable opportunity for Great British Railways and that local businesses should be supported to do this?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the future: it is coming home. I echo my hon. Friend’s sentiments on Jude Bellingham. Not only is he making Stourbridge proud, but he is a source of pride for the whole nation.

In Great British Railways we are seeing the biggest overhaul of our railways in a generation. We will work with all partners, such as local authorities and local businesses, to drive investment, support economic growth and deliver a better service for her constituents.

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

Q9. Constituents in western North Shropshire were delighted when road investment strategy 3 was announced, because a roundabout at the desperately dangerous Llynclys crossroads came a step closer as part of the national safety programme. However, with the announcement that the defence investment programme will be funded by cuts to transport programmes, will the Deputy Prime Minister reassure my constituents that the national safety programme will not be cut? Will he consider using the Liberal Democrat idea of defence bonds to fund the defence investment plan so that critical security projects such as those in transport are not put at risk?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

We are raising defence spending to keep this country safe in an increasingly volatile world. That does require tough decisions, and the Department for Transport will set out £700 million-worth of savings from roads funding, but we will consult on the next road investment strategy and set out decisions in due course. I reassure the hon. Lady that safety would come first.

[Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)]

Ruth Ellis was the last woman to be executed in this country. Her case serves as a haunting reminder of a time when our justice system ignored the realities of domestic abuse and coercive control. In the decades since, members of Ruth’s family and supporters have campaigned unwaveringly for her to receive a posthumous pardon. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that their courageous campaign and the terrible lessons of Ruth’s case must strengthen the Government’s resolve to free women from devastating cycles of abuse?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I have the honour to say that His Majesty the King has accepted our advice to grant Ruth Ellis, the last woman to be hanged in the United Kingdom, a conditional pardon. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] While the pardon does not claim that she was innocent of killing David Blakely, it replaces the death penalty with a sentence of life imprisonment to recognise a profound injustice in this exceptional case. I know that her grandchildren, Laura Enston and Stephen Beard, are in the Gallery with us today. We hope that this pardon brings a measure of peace to Ruth Ellis’s family, who have carried the weight of what happened to her for over 70 years.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Q10. The Government have said that higher taxes are needed to fund rising welfare spending. In Northern Ireland, my party’s Communities Minister is taking action to reduce welfare fraud and error. Discussions were held between the Treasury and the Department that would have allowed Northern Ireland Departments to retain a share of any savings to invest directly in public services, but those proposals were blocked by Sinn Féin. Will the Deputy Prime Minister ensure that the incoming Prime Minister will look at that approach again so that we can tackle benefit fraud and protect taxpayers’ money as well as delivering real benefits for communities across all of Northern Ireland?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is discussing the budget at this very time. Tackling fraud and error in the welfare system is a priority for the Government, which is why we passed the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Act 2025, giving the Department for Work and Pensions more powers to stop fraud in its tracks, recover money lost and prevent overpayments.

[Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)]

Yesterday, I was proud to host members of Basingstoke’s Nepalese community here in Parliament, including a number of Gurkha veterans. One of the issues we discussed was Gurkha pensions, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Alex Baker) for all her work on that—I have been proud to work alongside her. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that it is time to resolve the long-standing issue of Gurkha pensions, recognising the service and sacrifice of Gurkha veterans to our country?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We owe a profound debt of gratitude to the Gurkhas who have served this country courageously. We are listening to the needs of the community and already improving access to healthcare and community support. Ministers have met veterans and the Government in Nepal for constructive discussions on pensions, and those will continue. I will be happy to ensure that my hon. Friend is kept updated.

[Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)]

Q11. Coughlan’s Bakery, which was founded in 1937, has announced the closure of all its stores, five of which are in my Reigate constituency. The reasons given by Sean Coughlan include recent employer national insurance and business rate hikes. That much-loved family business, which has survived a world war and multiple recessions, has not be able to survive this Labour Government. How many businesses need to go under before this Government learn that they cannot tax their way to growth?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

We are backing business with the lowest corporation tax in the G7, we have delivered the small business plan with the largest crackdown on late payments in 25 years, we are bringing down costs for businesses through five major trade deals, we have secured £365 billion in private investment since the election and unemployment is down, with over 400,000 more people in work than this time last year.

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)]

Last month, I had the opportunity to host the Southbank Centre in my constituency for its 75th anniversary. It is one of the many centres that I am proud to have across Vauxhall and Camberwell Green. The House may know that the Southbank Centre was built as part of the festival of Britain in 1951, which successfully saw people come together to share their identity after the ruin of world war two. Seventy-five years on, sadly, the world is a more divided place. Recently, we have seen two far-right marches—one went through my constituency—leaving many members of the community feeling afraid. There is hope, however, as we see the world cup bringing people together, showing the power of culture and sport. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that now is the moment to continue to invest in the things that bring us together, just as the Government did in 1951?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for her tireless work in this area. She is absolutely right that we must stand united against those who seek to divide us. Our social cohesion action plan sets out how we will tackle extremism, bring communities together and restore national pride, and we are providing local communities with up to £1.7 million to insulate them against the threats to social cohesion.

Massereene Barracks Shooting 2009

David Lammy Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd September 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

For my constituents Mehmet Azimkar and Geraldine Ferguson, the horrific murder of Fusilier Drummer Lee Rigby would have been painfully reminiscent of the gunning down of two other unarmed young soldiers outside their barracks five years ago. Although Lee Rigby’s killers have been caught and, rightly, imprisoned for life, the murderers of Sapper Cengiz Patrick Azimkar and Sapper Mark Quinsey are still out there. It is clear to me, as it is to this family and their supporters, that justice is yet to be found in this case. Public attention may have drifted, but the families remember.

I stand here today to raise unanswered questions that have arisen from the investigation into the murders outside the Massereene Barracks in County Antrim, Northern Ireland, on Saturday 7 March 2009. Sapper Patrick Azimkar grew up in Wood Green in London. He was the son of a Turkish Cypriot builder and a mother of both Catholic and Protestant heritage. Patrick avoided the temptations by which many young men in my constituency are led astray. At first, he pursued his talents as a young footballer, and he even tried out for his local team, Tottenham Hotspur. Instead of pursuing a football career, however, he signed up to the armed forces.

Patrick’s family have said that he found a sense of purpose and direction from becoming a soldier. His fellow soldiers talk of his sense of fun, his energy, his motivation and his ambition. Patrick joined 25 Field Squadron, 38 Engineer Regiment, Royal Engineers, and he served in Kenya before being posted to his regiment’s permanent base in Northern Ireland. When he died aged only 21, Patrick was just hours from flying out to Afghanistan to serve in southern Helmand.

Sapper Mark Quinsey, who was 23 when he died, was Patrick’s colleague and friend. He came from Birmingham and joined the Army at the age of 19. He had recently qualified as an electrician at the Royal School of Military Engineering. He was survived by his mother, father and loving sister. His mother, Pamela Brankin, sadly died last year, having never recovered from the loss of her son.

Operation Banner, under which the UK deploys troops in Northern Ireland, ended in July 2007. The soldiers were, therefore, based in Northern Ireland with their regiment on only a temporary basis before being deployed overseas. To be clear, they were not deployed within Northern Ireland. On a Saturday evening, the two ordinary young men, who had no interest or involvement in the politics of Northern Ireland, were gunned down in a volley of bullets by two gunmen clad in balaclavas and using assault rifles, in a barbaric attack that was later claimed by the Real IRA.

The soldiers were off duty and unarmed. They were leaving their barracks for a moment to collect a pizza, before flying out to join their fellow soldiers on deployment in Afghanistan. The gunmen showed a cold, calculated ruthlessness in the murder, deliberately shooting the young men a second time even when they lay on the ground. Six other men, including the two pizza delivery men, three other soldiers and a guardsman, were also targeted, and three were severely wounded in the attack. Those watching CCTV footage of the killing noted that Sapper Azimkar pushed a fellow soldier to the ground to save him, before being shot himself.

I am no expert on Northern Ireland; I represent the concerns of constituents in London. Although the conflict in the region is a large and important part of the United Kingdom’s history, it feels remote from my constituents. However, it has touched the life of a family in my constituency. We must remember that the Real IRA murdered the young men years after the Good Friday agreement was signed and troops were removed from Northern Ireland’s streets. Although we wish for enduring peace in Northern Ireland, it must not be achieved at the cost of justice for such families.

The first issue I would like to raise concerns security at the base. At the time of the murder of Patrick and Mark, and the attempted murder of six other young men, Northern Ireland was at its highest security level for more than a decade. Following thwarted attacks on police officers and police headquarters, special branch had issued warnings of an imminent attack. Only the previous week, the level of threat had been raised from substantial to severe, and all serving police officers had returned to wearing flak jackets on a regular basis. There are, therefore, questions surrounding the level of security at the base.

Why was the base protected by one guardsman provided by the devolved Northern Ireland Security Guard Service—a security service armed only with pistols—rather than by the soldiers themselves? The lone civilian guardsman on duty was significantly outgunned and outnumbered, and he dived for cover rather than firing back at the terrorists. Why has the Northern Ireland Security Guard Service not been held to account for its failure to protect the soldiers? Did the service understand the increased risk? What measures had it taken to protect the base in the light of the heightened threat level?

Security at the base appears to have been lax. Soldiers had formed a routine of ordering fast food to the barracks gates, and they made approximately 20 orders a week from local fast food outlets. The barracks are close to the main road, so all that the killers had to do was to lay in wait for the young men as they collected the food. Why, during a heightened security alert, were young recruits allowed to walk out of the base, unarmed but highly visible in their Army desert fatigues, to collect pizzas from outside the entrance?

The Army came to the decision that convening a service inquiry would serve no useful purpose because there were no new lessons to be learned. Patrick’s parents feel that the decision to use civilians on security was politically motivated, with the aim of making the Army’s presence less visible. They query the effectiveness of a security guard, who was probably on minimum wage, protecting the base when a soldier on duty protecting his friends and colleagues might have been able to do more. The family are concerned that the debate over Army security focused too much on the political concerns in Northern Ireland, and that effective security at the base was sacrificed to appease local politicians’ concerns.

I understand that following the attack, the number of Northern Ireland Security Guard Service personnel was increased, and that they were issued with body armour, helmets and long-barrelled weapons in place of sidearms. That is a step in the right direction, but it was taken far too late.

[Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)]

As a public representative from a Northern Ireland constituency—although the Massereene massacre, as it has become known, did not happen in my constituency—may I reassure the right hon. Gentleman and other Members of the House that Catholics, Protestants and those of no faith came out in their hundreds and hundreds to demonstrate against the murder of the two young soldiers? We were greatly upset, and it was not politically motivated from the Unionist community, I can assure him.

[Mr Lammy]

The family has drawn some comfort from the warmth of feeling that they have received from the community. The hon. Lady’s comments are well made.

The second issue that I would like to raise is the quality of the prosecution’s case during the subsequent trials. The work carried out by Forensic Science Northern Ireland and crime scene officers was incredibly poor. The collection of evidence was especially sloppy, and the performance of forensic experts in the witness box was woeful.

Two men, Brian Shivers and Colin Duffy, were prosecuted for the murders. Colin Duffy is a dissident republican who had previously been linked to the murder of another soldier, John Lyness, in 1995, and the murders of two police constables in 1997. His DNA was found on a seatbelt buckle and in the tip of a latex glove in the burned-out getaway car that was used in the attack. He was surely involved. Nevertheless, he was acquitted at trial. Since then, he has been arrested in connection with the murder of prison officer David Black and charged with terrorism offences. Brian Shivers aided and abetted the murders by setting fire to the getaway car. He was originally found guilty of the murders and sentenced to 25 years in prison.

[Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)]

This ghastly incident happened in my constituency. I assure the right hon. Gentleman and the families that my constituents continue to express their love and support for the families who have gone through this tragedy.

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned Mr Shivers, who is one of my next door neighbours. He told the court that he had only a few months to live. Those few months seem to have greatly increased, for he is still running around the town, seemingly in the full bloom of health. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with me that no stone should be left unturned until those who perpetrated this ghastly, brutal murder are brought to justice? That is the only thing the people in my constituency will support. Justice must be done.

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the way he put his remarks. I know the family have drawn some comfort from the strength of feeling in the community that justice must be done. In 2013, the conviction of Shivers was overturned by Northern Ireland’s appeal court, and he was freed following a retrial. He claimed that he had been set up and that the forensic evidence had been planted.

Forensic Science Northern Ireland and the crime scene officers made a number of careless mistakes that undermined the prosecution’s case. The getaway car was found, partly burned, containing bullets of the calibre used in the attack, two mobile phones, balaclavas, a camouflage holdall and matchsticks. DNA evidence was found on the matchsticks, in the car and on the phones. One of the phones was found to have received an answerphone message congratulating the murderers on their work.

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. He has mentioned Mr Colin Duffy, who is from my constituency. He is a well known, ranked republican. He is well known to security forces and, quite frankly, is as guilty as sin. Unfortunately, the evidence was not there in its fullness to convict. The right hon. Gentleman has raised a number of issues. Yes, there are a lot of questions that need to be answered, but I assure the family and the right hon. Gentleman that we, as Members of this House, pay tribute to every member of the Crown services from the mainland who ever served in Northern Ireland and paid the supreme sacrifice.

[Mr Lammy]

The House has heard those remarks and the manner in which they were made.

The crime scene officers did not remove the matches from the car until four days after the attack. The two matches found on the back seat of the Vauxhall Cavalier were then placed in the same bag, which increased the possibility of cross-contamination of DNA and assisted the defence in attacking the forensic evidence at the trial. The half-rear seat was folded down over the matches by the crime scene investigator, potentially transferring DNA.

The forensic experts also failed to change gloves between internal and external examination of one of the phones. They rightly understood that the possibility of transferring DNA via the gloves was miniscule, but by failing to change their gloves they showed naivety about building an airtight case that they could defend in court. Indeed, their evidence in the witness box was lamentably poor. One crime scene investigator even insisted on oath that he was not in the car; however, his DNA had been found inside. Brian Shivers did not even have to give an account of why his DNA was in the car; instead, he used his right to remain silent. The defence exploited those loopholes and, as a result, Brian Shivers walked free.

Others connected to the murder by DNA—Dominic McGlinchey Jr. and Declan McGlinchey—have not even faced charges. Only one person has been successfully convicted in connection with the murders of Patrick Azimkar and Mark Quinsey. In November 2013, Old Bailey bomber Marian McGlinchey pleaded guilty to providing the mobile phone used to claim responsibility for the Real IRA murders of the two soldiers. She received only a suspended sentence and has never revealed to whom she supplied the mobile phone.

The third issue is the process of justice in Northern Ireland. No jury has ever looked at the evidence against Colin Duffy and Brian Shivers. It appears to the families of the victims that Patrick Azimkar and Mark Quinsey received a lower level of justice simply because they were killed in Northern Ireland rather than elsewhere in the UK. They rightly ask whether the outcome might have been different if 12 ordinary members of the public had seen the evidence.

Mr Justice Hart presided over the first trial in 2011 and Mr Justice Deeny presided over the retrial last year. The family strongly suspect that Mr Justice Hart, a man as human as any of us, may have felt intimidated or afraid to draw a guilty verdict against Colin Duffy, who has a far-reaching, powerful reputation in Northern Ireland as a terrorist. It was Mr Justice Hart’s last case before retirement and the family fear that, in the twilight of his career, he was worried about his security when he no longer had all the protections afforded to a judge. The families of murder victims should be able to trust the courts that pursue the murderers. Such questions would not even have to be raised if a jury had tried the case.

[Lady Hermon]

I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for taking a second intervention from me. During the appalling bloodshed of more than 30 years of troubles in Northern Ireland, the legal profession and the judges suffered just like the rest of the community. A number of them were murdered or intimidated, and a number of family members were also murdered or intimidated. I have to defend the integrity, honesty and courage of every single judge in Northern Ireland, including those who intend to retire, and I cannot possibly let that go without a remark.

[Mr Lammy]

I understand why the hon. Lady wants to make those remarks, but she will understand the parents’ desire to put this on the record and my responsibility as their Member of Parliament to make it absolutely clear that jury trials are fundamental to the nature of our democracy. The departure of jury trials in Northern Ireland to this day is something that this House should continue to revisit. We are all frail human beings, whatever our religious persuasion.

In the rest of the UK, jury trials for murder are the norm. Diplock trials were introduced in Northern Ireland in 1973 for serious criminal cases connected with the troubles. Ostensibly a temporary measure, such trials suspended the right to trial by jury in favour of a single judge. They were officially abolished in Northern Ireland in 2007, but single-judge trials continue to this day.

Sixteen years on from the Good Friday agreement, is it not time to restore the primacy of the jury and use technological advancements and other powers to ensure that jury members are protected? Could we not find other ways to try to ensure a more just system for victims of terrorism in Northern Ireland? Those who might argue that a jury’s safety and integrity cannot be guaranteed in County Antrim should consider why we should distinguish between a defendant with gangland connections in London and the accused who stands trial in Northern Ireland.

I asked the Prime Minister at Prime Minister’s questions earlier this year about the ongoing use of non-jury trials in Northern Ireland. He told me that the provisions are up for renewal in 2015. Those who look to renew the use of such trials should take note of the impact on the victims’ families, as in this case. The considerations of a family who feel that their son received a lesser justice because he was not killed on the mainland should and must be taken into account when deciding whether to exercise such a provision. Trials by jury are fair, efficient and effective. A jury is an integral and indispensable part of the criminal justice system, and I urge the Government to bear that in mind when the use of such trials is reconsidered next year.

I am humbled by the strength and dignity that my constituents Mehmet Azimkar and Geraldine Ferguson have shown over the past five years while pursuing answers to those questions. This couple, who have experienced and endured sorrow and loss with true fortitude and with such dignity, persevered in ensuring that their voices are heard by the very highest levels in Government, the judiciary and the Army. I thank on their behalf the many people who have supported them over the past five years, including: their friends and families for their unending love and support; Lee Burton, the family’s Army visiting officer; the Police Service of Northern Ireland; the people of Antrim town who, as we have heard, are committed to keeping Patrick and Mark’s memories alive; and Kevin Hart of the Royal British Legion’s independent inquest advice service, whose unstinting support made it possible for the family’s voices to be heard. Of course, I also mention Patrick’s brother.

Parents can never be expected to find peace when their son has been taken from them, but the families of Sapper Azimkar and Sapper Quinsey have endured suffering and heartbreak that should have been avoided. I hope that the Government will hear their voices and help them, five years on, to bring some sense of closure.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Lammy Excerpts

Wednesday 15th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend makes a very good point about the strength that Sutton has. Obviously, we have the patent box to attract life science businesses to Britain; we also have the investment in apprenticeships, which is very important; and, of course, as he knows, the Office for Life Sciences brings together the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Department of Health to help bring life sciences jobs here. Working with local enterprise partnerships, there is a great opportunity for more investment in these very important businesses.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

The Mark Duggan inquest concluded last week with a verdict of lawful killing. It also found errors in the police investigation. Last week also saw PC Wallis admitting that he lied about the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell). Does the Prime Minister accept it is now urgent that we reform the Independent Police Complaints Commission?

[The Prime Minister]

First, I commend what the right hon. Gentleman said about the importance of people respecting the outcome of the inquest. We have proper legal processes in this country and we should respect their outcomes. He also knows that there is an ongoing IPCC investigation into that case, and we should let it do its work. I am always prepared to look at reforms of organisations such as this. There was a big reform some years ago to make the IPCC much more independent.

[Mr Lammy]

indicated dissent.

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman is shaking his head and saying it is not working. I am very happy to look at the arguments.

On the issue of PC Wallis, it was deeply shocking to see an e-mail that purported to be from someone who had witnessed an event, whom we are told is a member of the public but turns out to be a serving police officer. That was deeply troubling and deeply disturbing, so I am not saying that all is well. The vast majority of the British police service do a magnificent job. They put their lives on the line for us day after day and we should always recall that, but I am happy to look at proposals for how we can strengthen these arrangements.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Lammy Excerpts

Wednesday 15th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that point. Of course I will look into the issue of the Merlin transfer. However, we should be clear about the fact that Britain will still have the fourth largest defence budget anywhere in the world. The Navy will have seven Astute class submarines, 19 destroyers and frigates, 14 minesweepers and other vessels, the Royal Marines—obviously—and our nuclear deterrent. We will have a large and fit-for-purpose Navy of which the country can rightly be proud.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister will be aware that there are two great football clubs in north London, Tottenham Hotspur and Enfield Town. He will also be aware that Spurs are considering moving across London to the east end—to the Olympic park. Will he join me, and the Spurs fans who signed a petition entitled “Say NO to ‘Stratford Hotspur’”, in urging the Spurs chairman to put the club and its history before shareholder value?

[The Prime Minister]

My recent experience has taught me to stay out of international football management. While paying tribute to the right hon. Gentleman’s club, to Enfield Town and, of course, to Arsenal as well—I think it right to do that—I will let the club make the decision. However, it is true to say that on the Olympic site there will be a fantastic stadium of which I hope one football club will take advantage.