Lincoln Jopp MP: speeches

Speeches

• 14 Sept 2026 · Israel and Palestine · Hansard source

  More

  I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. We have had a good debate, and I want to single out a number of contributions to it. I apologise to those who have not made the list, but I am slightly time-constrained. The hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) called on the Government to go further and include F-35s in the sanctions programme. The hon. Member for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew) gave us his personal experience as a kibbutznik; he has seen peaceful co-existence, and that should give us some hope. The hon. Member for Wirral West (Matthew Patrick) made an extremely powerful and well-informed speech. He created balance in our debate, and I applaud his moral courage in doing so. The hon. Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson) rightly reminded us of the unspeakable actions of Hamas on 7 October, and expressed what I believe is a view held widely across the House on settlers and settler violence. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) again brought personal experience to our debate, including of visiting Gaza. The hon. Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah) spoke of the extraordinary danger faced by journalists and aid workers trying to do their work in Gaza. The right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) ranged widely in his speech, and I was pleased to hear him refer to the unacceptability and absence of religious hate speech on the many marches he has attended. The hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Dr Prinsley)—quite rightly, in my view—put his contribution in the context of the elections in Israel. The hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) brought a healthy dose of reality and realism to our proceedings. The hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns), while welcoming the Government’s recent moves, called on them to go further and faster, as did many Members from across the House. Finally, the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) chose her words incredibly carefully when she described the Government’s approach as being “close to getting the balance right”. Naturally, this conflict holds interest for many people, both inside this House and outside. We cannot forget the harm that both British Jews and Muslims have suffered because of this conflict, and no conflict in another part of the world should be allowed to feed hatred at home. The Conservative party believes that settlements are not helpful to the aim of long-term peace. We urge Israel not to take steps that could make a two-state solution more difficult, and to use its legal system to clamp down on settler violence. I believe that, across the House, there is general consensus that there should be a two-state solution that guarantees security and stability for both the Israeli and the Palestinian people. However, His Majesty’s Opposition believe that, in banning goods from Israeli settlements, the Government are enacting a policy that they know will not work. Just 13 weeks ago, two Ministers—the right hon. Members for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), and for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant)—wrote to the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee rejecting this very policy, because the economies of Palestine and Israel are too interconnected. The fear is that innocent Palestinians and Israelis will suffer as a result. We must avoid performative actions, and instead use what influence we have. That is why the banning of goods, which led to the closure of the British consulate, is so unhelpful. Foreign policy cannot be detached from security policy and decisions. Israel is one of our most important intelligence partners, and co-operation has helped protect British citizens from terrorist attack and hostile activity over many years. Indeed, we continue to share security concerns about Iranian activity and regional instability, making intelligence co-operation strategically important. While we welcome the Israeli intelligence services giving us assurances that that information sharing will continue, the fact that this was put into question in the first place is troubling. To finish, I have a number of questions for the Minister. It was revealed last week that the Prime Minister had not yet spoken to Prime Minister Netanyahu since taking office. If we are not even talking to the Israelis at the most senior level, how are we supposed to influence Israeli policy in the west bank? The Government cannot simultaneously say that they want to influence Israel and then weaken the channels through which they can do so. Can the Minister explain how a ban on trade with settlements would be implemented in practice, and whether the Government have assessed claims that such a move could amount to a de facto boycott of Israel? There is no way to stop the British flow of goods into settlements without banning trade with Israel more broadly. Is that under consideration? Finally, 25% of pharmaceuticals used in the UK are reportedly made in Israel. Has the Foreign Secretary braced himself for potential retaliation, and what message does he give the British people who are worried about delays to essential medications? If we go by the track record of the House, this will, quite rightly, not be the last time we debate Israel and Palestine. My only hope is that when we next do, we take a similar tone to the one we took tonight.

• 4 Sept 2026 · Northern Ireland Troubles (Criminal Investigations etc) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. I know that there is support on the Government Benches as well—I just could not find it when I went out to get sponsors. There are many veterans on the Government Benches, and on the Liberal Democrat Benches, and there is a lot of support for this measure in the country. I hope that the Government will listen to that body of feeling. Why does the Bill matter, and why should it get the support of the House? It matters because of a very important thing, which is called the moral component of fighting power. The British believe in a model in which there are three components: the physical, which is the guns and the bullets; the conceptual, which is the way in which we fight; and the moral, which is how we fight, why we are prepared to put yourselves at risk for the British citizenry—the man and woman standing next to us—and that we will do our best to achieve our mission, and potentially pay the ultimate sacrifice. The moral component is more important than all the other things. Napoleon, who was a great believer in the model, observed that the moral is to the physical as three is to one. We undermine the moral component of fighting power at our peril. This gave me no joy: someone sent me a meme, which was a real photograph of the former Prime Minister—it was not mocked up—addressing a load of troops who were getting ready to deploy, and the caption said, “We want you to go to Ukraine, where we will ask you to do things we’re going to prosecute you for in 30 years’ time.”

• 4 Sept 2026 · Northern Ireland Troubles (Criminal Investigations etc) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time. I am grateful to the sponsors of this snappily-titled Bill, who are the deputy Leader of the Opposition, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart); the shadow Defence Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge); the shadow Justice Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy); the shadow Housing Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam); the shadow Minister for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois); my hon. Friends the Members for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking), for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) and for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst); the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for North Devon (Ian Roome); and last but definitely not least, because he has been such a massive advocate and supporter of this, my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis). Members will know that one of those sponsors is a Liberal Democrat and another is a Democratic Unionist party Member. I did try very hard to get a Labour Member to sponsor the Bill, but to no avail, and I am very sad about that. Equally, I notice that we do not have here any Members of the self-styled patriots, the Reform party. They do not even have a defence spokesman. I suspect, though, having watched the television last night, that they will have quite a few defence lawyers! I would like to apologise to the hundreds of people across the country who have written to their MP at my request, asking them to be here today and to support the Bill; I am incredibly sorry that the Government so disliked the Bill that we have had four and three quarter hours of the House in fervent agreement with itself, albeit on a very important issue, which means that I get 15 minutes at the end. This is a tactic. I feel very sorry for those veterans sitting in the Public Gallery, who have been here since 9.30 this morning expecting to hear a debate in support of our veterans. They will be as confused as I am as to why the Government so dislike this Bill. The reason I am quite so discombobulated is that the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), who thought this issue was sufficiently important to make it a resigning issue, has sadly not thought it sufficiently important to be here today. He said that the Government’s Northern Ireland legacy Bill is not fit for purpose and that “It risks failing the very veterans it claims to protect…people who did their duty under conditions most individuals in Westminster will never have to imagine.” The good news is that I do not have to imagine. I declare an interest: this Bill would affect me, because I did four tours of Northern Ireland. I spent three and a half years of my life trying to bring peace to that place. What I will do, because I am incredibly time constrained, is this. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway is under orders that at 28 minutes past the hour, he will make a discreet tug on my jacket and that at 29 minutes past he will positively yank me to the Bench in order that the Bill does not fall. The Bill is very simple. In a nutshell, it would place into law that there could be no further investigations, inquiries, inquests or prosecutions of Northern Ireland veterans unless and until there was new compelling evidence in the view of a Supreme Court judge. It is really that simple. The Clerks have done all the hard work on the wording, as have the generals and the veterans’ community to bring forward the Bill today. The Government are promising us that they will bring forward protections for our veterans via amendments. Now, given that this Bill will not really progress today, maybe the Minister would consider taking the Bill, lock, stock and barrel, and simply re-presenting it to the House as one of the Government’s amendments to its own Bill, because I think it is completely reasonable. I cannot remember which US President said it, but it is amazing what you can achieve when no one is worried about who gets the credit. I do not mind whether the Government want to take credit for this. I would be the happiest veteran in the country if they simply took my Bill and made it one of their amendments. I know the Minister for Veterans and People well, having served on the Defence Committee, and that is my entreaty to him. The reason why— [ Interruption. ] I do beg the pardon of the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen); I made the unreasonable assumption that it might be a Defence Minister replying to the debate. I have outlined, in a nutshell, what the Bill does and why it is important. When I was getting ready for my first Northern Ireland tour, we were training, and they had invented a thing called the coffee jar bomb. It was lethal. It was a Nescafé jar with a length of scaffolding in it and what was affectionately known as “shipyard confetti”—nuts and bolts—as well as some plastic explosives and a plunger switch, which is the sort of thing in a fridge door that turns a fridge light off. That would be rigged up, in the shape of a coffee jar. It would then be carried to a riot and often slung over a wall, so that there was no line of sight, when troops were known to be on the other side. The coffee jar bomb was designed to kill and maim, but it was also designed to put us troops on the horns of a dilemma. If a soldier saw someone with a coffee jar in their hand, and they looked like they were going to throw it, could that soldier reasonably open fire under the rules of engagement? It could just be a coffee jar. To prepare for our upcoming Northern Ireland tour in Belfast in 1992—by the way, there was a young second lieutenant called Ben Wallace in the same battalion getting ready at that time—we would have our judgmental shooting tested on a thing called a cine range. In the cine range, we would lie on the floor with our sub-cal rifle in our hand, and a scenario would build up in front of us, whether it was a public order situation or a sniper getting ready to shoot. We knew the rules of engagement and we could see the scenario building up. At the critical moment, when the soldier thought that the threat required it and the rules of engagement allowed it, they opened fire and the action froze, and a tiny pink dot would appear on the screen to see whether they had hit or not. The instructor would then debrief the soldier as to whether they had acted reasonably or could in fact be prosecuted. One scenario was devilishly difficult. It was a public order scene, with one of these coffee jars was being passed around. At the point of launch, I said to the instructor, “Stop the tape.” The action froze, and I said, “Can I open fire?” My instructor paused, and he said, “Sir, you have chosen a very difficult moment indeed. It is at times like this, sir, that you remind yourself that it is sometimes better to be tried by 12 men than carried by six.” It was completely chilling, but that is, in effect, what we have done for decades; we have put young men and women on to the streets of the United Kingdom with a rifle strapped around their neck and very few rights in addition to those they have as a private citizen. We have sent them on patrol to try to keep the peace, with bad people on all sides trying to do bad things to them. On that Northern Ireland tour, I had the words of my colour sergeant ringing in my ears—it is better to be tried by 12 men than carried by six—but it turned out not to be true. It turns out that you get tried by one man, in the case of two of our guardsmen who were involved in a judgmental shooting situation; they were convicted of murder and given life. I raise that to make the point that these cases have been investigated and judgments have been made. What I am seeking to do with this Bill, and hopefully with the Government’s amendment, is to draw a line—a fair line—under the never-ending cycle of investigation, inquiries, inquests and prosecutions that is itself used as a punishment tool on our veterans. Ask any veteran involved in this space, and they will tell you that the process is the punishment.

• 1 Sept 2026 · Direction of Government · Hansard source

  More

  I wish you, Madam Deputy Speaker, many happy returns. I welcome the Prime Minister to his place, and I welcome his words. In an answer to someone else, he said that he will always demand the highest level of recognition for those who put themselves at risk to keep us safe. I am sure that after six weeks of being Prime Minister he includes in that our amazing armed forces, yet our Northern Ireland veterans face a never-ending process of prosecution, absent any new or compelling evidence. Does he think that our Northern Ireland veterans need more protection? If he does, what will he do about it?

• 6 Jul 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  On Armed Forces Day, I had the huge honour of unveiling a veterans’ buddy bench in Sunbury Park in my Spelthorne constituency. The idea is that the bench is dedicated to veterans; veterans go there, and members of the public are encouraged to go and sit with them. As the Front Benchers go around the country, will they encourage other constituencies to get a veterans’ buddy bench?