Northern Ireland Troubles Bill

Lincoln Jopp Excerpts

Monday 19th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna), who is sitting next to my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle, says one.

I will give way to the hon. Member for Spelthorne, who has a piece of legislation on this matter.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

The Secretary of State is being very generous with his time. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) asked a very specific question about the Loughgall inquest and whether any of this paperwork and legislation will stop it from going ahead. Last Tuesday, in the Defence Committee, I asked the Secretary of State for Defence that question and he gave me a pretty definitive answer, so I am intrigued to hear the answer of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

[Chris Bryant]

The legislation in itself does not, no. The hon. Gentleman will know that the original inquest was commanded by the former Attorney General, the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), who is a Conservative. The straight answer to the hon. Member for Spelthorne is no.

We are putting the prohibition on cold-calling witnesses in black and white in the Bill through new clauses 45 and 46. When a witness is contacted, we will ensure that they are treated with dignity and respect. One key ask I have heard from veterans is for more assurance around the anonymity protection already in the Bill. It is a right to seek anonymity, rather than a presumption that it is automatically granted, because in order for the protection to be legally robust, the law cannot discriminate between different witnesses. That goes to the point made by the right hon. Member for New Forest East. However, I know some veterans’ groups are concerned that that would not mean anonymity in practice, so let me be clear. Based on the recent experience of inquests and inquiries, I am confident that in all but the most exceptional circumstances, a veteran who sought anonymity would be granted it. The welfare protection in clause 69 will require the commission to take into account the health and wellbeing of witnesses, including consideration of whether it would be appropriate for them to give evidence at all. Some veterans I have met have asked that I set out more specifically what will be taken into account, but I am concerned that doing so would unintentionally limit the broad nature of the requirement.

I turn to the question of how we ensure individuals are not endlessly subjected to nugatory repeated processes. I know that some have argued that there should have to be new and compelling evidence before the commission can even open a review—that is the thrust of the Opposition’s new clause 21 and amendment 47, and of new clause 22 in the name of the hon. Member for North Down. That is illogical, and would be counterproductive. It would require someone to go through a process to establish whether there was such evidence before a review was even started. It would mean more legal processes, not fewer. It would also mean that thousands of families—and let us not forget that the largest cohort of those currently seeking answers are service families—would be barred from asking the commission for information.

Following extensive consultation, the Government judge that the best approach is to include three hurdles before a veteran could be asked to act as a witness. To be clear, duplication can only be essential, for example, when genuinely new evidence has come to light that would materially change the investigation; when new forensic techniques such as fingerprinting enable new lines of inquiry; or when there was a clear and significant failing in the previous investigation. Amendment 192 will also require the commission to undertake disclosure from state authorities first, so that individual witnesses—including those who served the state, such as veterans—are not contacted unnecessarily when formal disclosure from state authorities might provide answers. It also requires the commission to consider

“whether compelling new evidence is known or reasonably suspected to exist”,

and whether the potential witness might provide information not already known to the commission, prior to contacting that witness.

This means that the legacy commissioner and coroners will be barred from duplicating elements of a previous investigation unless doing so is essential to fulfilling their statutory obligations. It also means that the director of investigations will be required to undertake and review disclosure from state authorities first—only then could they consider whether there was still a need to contact individual witnesses. If, following this, the director still believes that it is essential to speak to an individual witness, they must consider whether compelling new evidence is known or reasonably expected to exist and the likelihood of the witness being able to provide information that is not already known. That last provision is one that we have taken from other legislation, namely the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Act 2021.

--- Later in debate ---

We must ensure that this legislation does not repeat the failures of the past, that the search for truth is not obstructed by those responsible for providing it and that no family are left wondering whether the state has again put its interests before their right to justice. The Government must honour their promise to these families. They must deliver accountability, uphold human rights and ensure that the truth can no longer be withheld behind the power of the state. This Bill must honour the families.

[Lincoln Jopp]

I must start by declaring an interest: this legislation would affect me, because I did four tours of Northern Ireland, serving in the Scots Guards. The first was in Belfast in 1992. We lost Guardsman Damian Shackleton—murdered by the IRA. We lost Guardsman Andrew Wason—murdered by the IRA. We also had two guardsmen who were subsequently convicted in a Diplock court for murder and given life sentences for a judgmental shooting situation in north Belfast.

On that tour, as a platoon commander, I remember being at a pig point just outside the Divis flats—basically, a vehicle control point, stopping ingress to and egress from the city centre. My road man, who was the guy who stopped the people at the checkpoint, called over to me. He had his hand on the driver’s shoulder. He said, “Say to the platoon commander what you’ve just said to me.” This guy looked me in the eye and said, “I’ve got a bomb in the back of this vehicle.” Now, fortunately, I knew that he was lying, but the drill at the time was that you grabbed a hold of this witness, took him out of the car and did not let go until the bomb disposal people turned up, because they needed to question them to find out what the situation was and how long the vehicle had been taken away to get the bomb in the back of it. The IRA’s tactics at the time were all designed not only to kill and maim, but to put the British forces and the police on the horns of a series of dilemmas to make their job incredibly difficult.

On my second tour, I was an operations officer in east Tyrone, on a tour that spanned the ceasefire. Right up until midnight on the day the ceasefire kicked in, the IRA was trying to mortar, bomb and murder our people in RUC Pomeroy. I was then a company commander, accompanied by my wife and children, and we were based out of Ballykinler. We would go away for five weeks at a time, predominantly to south Armagh and Portadown, particularly Drumcree. My last job was for two years as a policy officer in Headquarters Northern Ireland in Lisburn.

Through that progression, the challenges I faced and the insights I gleaned were very different. By the time I got to the top—John Reid was the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland at the time—we were doing the demilitarisation of south Armagh and the Golf towers. There was the Downing Street declaration. I asked my boss, who was a brilliant civil servant, “Who won?” He did actually answer that question, but the answer he gave me is probably not something that would help our debate today. Suffice it to say that the Good Friday agreement left that out there as a question—who won? That was necessary; it was a peace agreement. It was very important not to rub people’s noses in it—that one side had very clearly won and another side had very clearly lost.

Because of that grey area, people subsequently have sought to use various ways of answering that question not just to relitigate the case, but to rewrite history. I particularly remember an instance when Stormont had to be recalled to debate the colour of flowers. It was Easter recess, and someone had put some flowers in the lobby at Stormont. Everyone had to be recalled to debate the colour of the flowers. That sounds absurd but, of course, the colour of those flowers was an answer to the question, “Who won?”

The trouble is that our considerations today are not as apparently innocuous as the colour of flowers. Our debate is about the way in which those four guardsmen I mentioned went to Northern Ireland, received orders and had rifles strapped around their necks. They were given very few powers additional to those of a private citizen. They were told to go out into the streets of the United Kingdom and protect the police while people tried to kill them. It is in that context that I see the Bill and the amendments that have been tabled.

What we are witnessing is an extension of the troubles by other means. The Secretary of State, I think in good faith, has been attempting to bring various parties together and ensure that this legislation has—I think this was the phrase of the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn)—the confidence of all parties. The trouble is that it does not. As we heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), various veterans’ organisations have said that they do not have confidence in this legislation or the amendments to it. The former Secretary of State said that “if we wait for the perfect, we will never do this.” Well, I do not want perfect, but I do want something that protects our veterans from the rinse and repeat. This is not it, as the Secretary of State well knows.

I introduced a private Member’s Bill that said there should be no new investigations, inquiries, inquests or prosecutions unless there was new compelling evidence in the eyes of a Supreme Court judge. The Government successfully talked that out, so our Front Benchers have brought forward new clause 21, which essentially re-presents it. I wish that the Government had taken me up on the offer, and simply had it as one of their amendments. This is the crucial amendment that has the support of all the veterans organisations—because they wrote it. That is how I know they support new clause 21.

The word “essential”, which has been substituted for “new and compelling”, does not do it for me, because I heard the Secretary of State on the radio this morning, saying, “‘Essential’ to my mind means completely new evidence or a new forensic procedure,” but that is the Secretary of State’s interpretation of it. Who is to say how this non-legalese word “essential” will be interpreted in the future? There are just far too many cracks in the pavement into which our service personnel could again fall and be rinsed and repeated.

The fact is that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has admitted that the Bill does nothing to stop the Loughgall inquest going ahead. Indeed, the Secretary of State for Defence confirmed that when he came in front of the Defence Committee last week. I asked him whether anything in the amendments trumped the requirement under the framework for Loughgall to go ahead, or whether the inquests would automatically be restarted. I asked,

“will the interpretation of ‘essential’ be, ‘Well yes, because we have committed to it in the framework’?”

The Secretary of State for Defence said,

“In terms of those particular inquests, there is just not a way of circumventing that particular issue that is consistent with our treaty obligations. With the amendments we have laid, we have got to a place where it deals with some of the fundamental concerns that I as a Member of Parliament, let alone colleagues, had.”

So both Secretaries of State admit that these amendments will not stop that inquest going ahead.

The combination of veterans’ groups not supporting the Bill and the fact that, by their own admission, the Government cannot get round what they have already given away in terms of those inquests means that I cannot support the Bill, and I will be supporting new clause 21.

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Member referred to his own private Member’s Bill, which said that a Supreme Court judge should decide whether something was “new and compelling” evidence. Has he identified a Supreme Court judge who thinks that this is a good idea, or has he, indeed, approached the Supreme Court?

[Lincoln Jopp]

Funnily enough, I have not actually approached the Supreme Court, but that is the sort of thing the Secretary of State should have been doing, because that is what the veterans told him would be a sufficiently high bar for them to have confidence in this legislation.

Hon. Members across the Committee are being asked to vote tonight. I was going to ask the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) whether, when he was considering all the people affected by this legislation, he thought that the 1,572 veterans in his constituency just do not matter. All hon. Members have veterans who live in their—

[Ian Byrne]

That is a very poor point. Of course they matter, but lots of people are speaking out for veterans tonight. I wanted to give the families the voice and give my experience in fighting the state for truth, justice and accountability, so that is what I focused on tonight. Lots of people have rightly spoken about veterans with great expertise and, of course, I have met veterans in my community and sat down with them, and I have friends who are veterans. It was a pretty poor point that the hon. Member just made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lincoln Jopp]

I do not think it is a poor point, because we all have to make judgments in this place and to vote with our conscience.

[Sorcha Eastwood]

I understand where you are coming from in part—

[Sorcha Eastwood]

I apologise. I have mentioned veterans tonight who I know are prepared to support the Bill, and there are veterans’ groups who have a different view of it. I completely appreciate that there are veterans’ groups that are absolutely against it—some of them are my constituents, too. It would be wrong to say, though, that there is a homogeneous view among all veterans, and I think that is worth restating. I would just express my gratitude for the hon. Member’s service—it sounds like he was very close to my home whenever he was in Lisburn. He will remember that last week was the 30th anniversary of the bombing of Thiepval Barracks, in which one soldier died. I completely understand where he is coming from.

[Lincoln Jopp]

I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. She is right, of course, that there is not one homogeneous group, but the closest we can approximate to that is the veterans’ organisations that have come together and spoken with one voice, saying that they do not think there are sufficient protections in the Bill for them not to suffer the rinse and repeat. For that reason, I will be supporting new clause 21.