Watch as David Lammy ERUPTS as Committee Tells Him He’s ‘DISRESPECTFUL (Video)
Tempers flared during a tense parliamentary committee session as Foreign Secretary David Lammy clashed with members over references to Labour’s manifesto and his manner of addressing MPs.
The heated exchange began when Lammy was questioned about Labour’s previous election promises, particularly the party’s position on international recognition processes. Reading directly from Labour’s manifesto, Lammy acknowledged the policy, admitting, “What the Labour Party said in our manifesto was that we, um, do believe that recognition is important and we would like to recognize as part of a process. Um, that is the sound conditional. Sorry, that makes it sound conditional. Well, it’s the manifesto that you ran on at the last election.”
Members of the committee pressed him further, pointing out that it was not just a passing mention but a firm commitment Labour had campaigned on. At that point, tensions rose as the committee chair reminded Lammy of the forum’s role.
“Could I ask you on a separate point though,” the chair interjected, “just to be minded that we’re scrutinizing you as a committee, not as individual MPs and definitely not on our political backgrounds. We have collective responsibility as a committee. Singling out politicians for their manifestos is not that helpful in our duty, if that’s okay.”
But Lammy bristled at the suggestion that he was being unfair. “I recognize that you’re serving on the committee, but I also recognize you’re a group of politicians. I’ve been in this House for 25 years. You run on a manifesto. It’s legitimate for me to remind you of the manifesto you ran on and why that was the position. You may not like it, but that’s the envelope,” Lammy fired back.
The chair pushed once again, insisting the issue was not about referencing manifestos but about how Lammy was addressing individual members. “I have no issue with you saying Labour politicians have run on a manifesto. It’s when you are singling out and making comments about individual members that, as chair, I have an issue with. If you could be respectful, that we have collective responsibilities.”
Clearly frustrated, Lammy defended his conduct: “I’ve served on committees. I am being respectful. I am simply referring to committee members by their name. Your names are all around you. I’m being polite. I’m sorry you don’t like it, but that’s—”
The chair cut in once more, clarifying, “I have no issue whatsoever with you using our names, but on our names it doesn’t say our political parties. So if you could direct to the committee, that would be great. Or answer their question, that would be great. Thank you.”
The exchange ended abruptly with both sides standing their ground. “Well, you’ve made the point and I’ve made my reply. Thank you,” Lammy concluded, his irritation still evident.
The confrontation has already drawn attention beyond the committee room, with clips circulating online showing Lammy visibly bristling at repeated challenges from the chair. Supporters argue that the Foreign Secretary was simply holding politicians accountable for their own campaign promises, while critics claim his approach crossed into unnecessary hostility and undermined the committee’s impartial role.
