Jamie Stone MP: speeches

Speeches

• 4 Sept 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  As I have said many times in this place, at Dounreay we have a highly skilled workforce, a licensed nuclear site and a local population who support the nuclear industry. Rolls-Royce has told me that it is very interested in placing its prototype advanced modular reactor at Dounreay, and yet we know that the Scottish National party Government in Edinburgh will block that with their planning powers. What advice does the Leader of the House have for me? Will she facilitate a meeting with Ministers to try to get rid of this roadblock?

• 4 Sept 2025 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  What about Scotland?

• 3 Sept 2025 · Use of Drones in Defence · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He knows his subject—we can see that. In conclusion, as we plough on from Challenger 2 to Challenger 3, and as we develop armoured personnel carriers and other armoured vehicles, have we in fact come to the Dreadnought moment, when we have to completely rethink how we design and indeed deploy armour? That could be the case, and if an APC is equally vulnerable to a drone, which it will be, we must think about how we move infantry around. I seek reassurance that the Government are taking a completely new look at that. As I say, I believe this is a Dreadnought moment, and we owe it to our armed services to have the courage to say, “Wait a minute, hang on. Do we need to start all over again with a blank sheet of paper?” Drones are here to stay, and the point made about us being at the forefront of constructing drones is true and I concur with it.

• 3 Sept 2025 · Use of Drones in Defence · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. The potential of drones first struck me shortly after I was first elected to this place. In August 2017, the new aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth went on a tour of the north of Scotland and tied up at Invergordon. While she was there, an enterprising photographer flew a drone from the Black Isle across the Cromarty Firth with a view to taking pictures of the new aircraft carrier. The wind got up, and the drone automatically landed on the deck. That posed the question in all our minds: “How on earth did this happen? How did that drone get so close to an incredibly expensive warship—the pride of the Royal Navy?” The photographer was quite open about what he had done, and he wittily quipped to the BBC that he could have put a couple of pounds of Semtex on the drone. Nothing was done about it, and the following week he did it again—he took photographs, but he did not land the drone that time. I made the point in the press that if that person had been of wicked intent, he could have flown the drone straight into the radar assembly and made a complete mess of our fine warship. We have all seen the extraordinary effectiveness of drones, as has been referred to by the hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune). I congratulate him on a thoughtful and timely speech—I will come to that in a second. We have seen what happens when a Ukrainian drone drops an explosive device through an open hatch on a Russian tank. Some military experts have argued that the massive explosion that happens is partly due to the way the munitions are stored in a circular fashion within the turret of the tank—it is called the “jack-in-the-box” effect. One thing is for sure: the crew have no chance of survival when that happens. The T-14 Armata tank was reckoned to be the last word in armoured vehicles, but Russia perhaps has not talked about it quite so much recently. We are pretty sure that drones may not get through its armour, but they have taken out the engine, and when a tank is immobilised it loses most of its effectiveness. I suppose the point I want to make is an historic one. In 1906, Admiral Lord Fisher set about building HMS Dreadnought—it was very much his brainchild—and he completed it in nine months flat. Dreadnought completely transformed the way navies build their ships. It rendered every other warship in the entire world obsolete in one fell swoop, and all the other countries had no choice but to think that they had to build ships equivalent to Dreadnought—turbine powered, high speed, all big guns—and hundreds of battleships were just sent for scrap. The reason why I think this debate is historic is that it occurs to me that we may have such a moment on our hands right now. I was my party’s defence spokesperson for a number of years. We all knew about Challenger 2 being upgraded to Challenger 3, but just how drone-proof will Challenger 3 be? We have all read about constructing cages over tanks, in the hope that drones will bounce off, but the fact is that all tanks have weak spots—we have heard about the engine of the T-14 Armata. Tanks are designed with their armour forward or to the sides to deflect at very high speed a missile or a shell; the rear of a tank is the most vulnerable bit.

• 2 Sept 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Madam Deputy Speaker, you many wonder why a Scot would make an intervention at this point in the debate. May I advise the right hon. Lady to look north, to Scotland, to see how this should not be done? The Scottish Government have centralised powers, taking them right away from communities such as mine. That is how we should not do it. This is a cautionary tale.

• 2 Sept 2025 · Defibrillators · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) on a sincere and thoughtful speech. I am indebted to a lady called Elspeth Husband, a community first responder in Caithness. She made a point to me that echoed exactly what the hon. Member said about VAT: she services defibrillators, and the cost of pads and batteries is all subject to VAT. That seems straightforward wrong for such important lifesaving equipment. She also suggested that the same law that applies to lifebelts should apply to defibrillators—in other words, it would be an offence to use one wrongly or to remove one. I ask the Government to consider tightening up on that. All the right points have been made about why defibrillators are so important, but I draw attention to my constituency, which is the northernmost, the most remote and the largest in the UK. Hon. Members can imagine that an eight-minute response time is extremely difficult in the area that I have the honour to represent. That is compounded by a decision taken by the Scottish Government in 2016 to centralise maternity services in Inverness, which obliges mothers to make a 200-mile round trip from the north of my constituency to give birth. I have talked about this many times in this place, and I am sorry if I have bored Members on the issue. Let us think on this: when the ambulance goes from Wick, Thurso, Bettyhill or a remote part of the north coast to Inverness with the mum on board, if somebody has a cardiac arrest, the defibrillator has headed south in the ambulance. To me, that is straightforward bonkers. That kit, which is vital for life saving, could be on the road many miles from where it is needed. To my mind, that is a perfect example of not-joined-up Scottish Government thinking, which is a disgrace. I conclude by saying this: I am more than disappointed that there is not a Scottish National party Member here to take part in this debate, because health does not respect boundaries between states or countries. Health is for everyone.

• 15 Jul 2025 · Welfare Spending · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 15 Jul 2025 · Welfare Spending · Hansard source

  More

  rose—

• 15 Jul 2025 · Welfare Spending · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister is extraordinarily gracious. She has rightly talked about universal credit, and what she says is very interesting indeed. I have constituents on legacy benefits who are—I think this is the right word—“migrating” to universal credit. The trouble is that they have to wait five weeks until they get their first cash. How will they make ends meet? What about the direct debits? I worry about that. Perhaps the wonderful group of Ministers considering these matters could look at that situation, because people are really caught in a trap.

• 2 Jul 2025 · Spending Review 2025: Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I congratulate the hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) on a thorough and well thought-out speech. Before I go any further, I should state my credentials as a devolutionist. My name is on the claim of right for Scotland, signed all those years ago in Edinburgh. I was a founding member of the Scottish Parliament and served on the Scottish Constitutional Convention before that. I believe in devolution and had the honour to serve as a Member of the Scottish Parliament for much of my present constituency for some 12 years. Looking back on those days—my goodness me—what would we have done with £9.1 billion? It would have been an absolute godsend. What my constituents have great trouble understanding is how the money seems to go in one end of the pipe but not come out the other. I have probably bored this place endlessly about maternity services in the far north of Scotland but, for old times’ sake, I am going to do it again. We used to enjoy a consultant-led maternity service based in Wick, in Caithness, and mums could give birth locally. It was then proposed, during my time in the Scottish Parliament, that that would be taken away and done from Inverness. We saw that one off, however; the then Labour-Liberal Scottish Executive changed their mind and left the service local. As everyone knows, because I have said it so many times, more recently that change has come to pass and we no longer have a maternity service based in Caithness, in the north of Scotland. Mothers have to take a more than 200-mile round trip to give birth, even in the middle of winter, when the A9 blocks at the Ord of Caithness. You have to be joking! In one harrowing case a mother bearing twins was on her way from Caithness to Inverness and gave birth to the first child in Golspie and the second in Inverness. During my time in the Scottish Parliament, we made the argument to Ministers and there was a change of heart. No matter what I and the people of Caithness say now, we cannot get the Scottish Government to change their mind, yet we see all the money going in. As soon as I heard about the £9.1 billion, I said on the record that I sincerely hoped some of the money would go in the direction it ought to, to give mums and babies the same rights as in other parts of Scotland. Another grouse is that Highlands and Islands Enterprise, the successor body to the Highlands and Islands Development Board, which was set up by Harold Wilson’s Government in the 1960s, is financially a shadow of what it was. At the end of the day, that body, notwithstanding its change of name, is about securing investment and high-quality employment in some of the more remote parts of Scotland. In its day it was highly successful and helped not just halt but reverse depopulation—the new highland clearances—which has been the curse of the highlands for far too long. Again, we see the £9.1 billion coming in and ask where it is going. I also want to make a wider point. I remind colleagues that I am a convinced devolutionist. However, I suggest that where there is a failure to understand where the money goes or a belief that it is not being delivered fairly, that is corrosive to that cherished notion of devolution. That is a dangerous path to tread.

• 2 Jul 2025 · Spending Review 2025: Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  I would hate to mislead hon. Members, but nevertheless, the perception remains that lots of money is going in one end and not coming out the other in different parts of Scotland. That is a dangerous perception, to say the least. The hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins) is known to be fair-minded. I hope that he will take back to Holyrood what I think will be the nature of this debate and reflect it there in an honourable and fair way. These are genuine worries. I did not sign the claim of right for Scotland on a whim; I signed it because I believed it back then. I really do want to see the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government thrive, and I hope that in years to come we will see things being done rather differently.

• 1 Jul 2025 · Hospitality Sector · Hansard source

  More

  It is perhaps a pity that one particular political party in Scotland is not represented in this debate today, because this summer, in the village of Achiltibuie in north-west Ross and Cromarty, I spoke to a barman who could not stay for the rest of the year because he had nowhere to live. Accommodation is a critical problem in the remote parts of the highlands. The SNP Government should address that; I dearly hope that this debate will be looked at, read up and acted upon, because this is a critical issue.

• 1 Jul 2025 · Hospitality Sector · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend has an honourable and proud record of talking about affordable housing in his part of the United Kingdom. Without housing for workers, hospitality businesses are in real trouble. That must be taken very seriously indeed, and not just in the rural parts of the highlands. It is extremely difficult in many parts of the UK, including perhaps in the west country. Without housing, people will not come or, like the barman I spoke about in Achiltibuie, they will leave and not come back.

• 1 Jul 2025 · Hospitality Sector · Hansard source

  More

  I am a fair-minded person, and I would not dream of laying responsibility for the lack of affordable housing at the Minister’s feet. But does he agree that a message should be sent to the Scottish Government to get going on this one? I have just seen some terrifying statistics for north-west Sutherland about young people leaving. The old monster of highland depopulation is staring us in the face in that part of the highlands.

• 1 Jul 2025 · Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Thus far, I have kept out of this debate, probably for the wrong reason, but my wife has been disabled for 26 years and is in receipt of PIP. Although I became an MP in 2017, as a family, we were deeply grateful for the support. My wife is an honest lady—I hope I do not embarrass her by saying that—and she would have been delighted to have been consulted about PIP, as set out by the hon. Member for Lewisham North (Vicky Foxcroft). She would have put her thoughts down on paper, and I am sure that many recipients of PIP would have said, “Yes, we will try to see if we can help to get the budget straight in some way.” That way, the Government would take people with them; that is important and we are missing that.

• 30 Jun 2025 · Driven Grouse Shooting · Hansard source

  More

  My humblest apologies for turning up late, Mrs Harris. I was coming from a very faraway part of the UK. I think the Minister would find it interesting to come to the graduation ceremony of the University of the Highlands and Islands, which happens every year, to see the number of young trainee gamekeepers going into the profession. They are going into local, rural jobs in some of the remotest areas, and they are highly trained in conservation and land management.

• 18 Jun 2025 · Businesses in Rural Areas · Hansard source

  More

  It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I want to make two brief points that have been raised with me in the highlands. First, the gov.uk One website is proving difficult, with customer services support problems. I do not expect the Minister to reply but I would be grateful if that could be passed on to civil servants. Secondly, on 1 November 1965, the then Labour Government had the wisdom to put in place the Highlands and Islands development board. That was a red letter day because it helped to halt depopulation of the highlands, boosted little businesses and got them off the ground. It was a great body, and many of us in the highlands had cause to be grateful for its work over the years. Today, it exists as Highlands and Islands Enterprise which, I am bound to say, is not what its ancestor once was, notwithstanding its best efforts. The budgets are lower and it is less able to target resources. Hon. Members know that I have a cordial relationship with the Scottish National party. We have worked together over the years in a friendly and amicable way, and I am saddened that its representatives are not here today to listen to my words. I wish they were, because perhaps they could take the message back to their masters in Edinburgh to say, “Please, look at this problem. It is too bad that this excellent organisation is withering on the vine.” The Minister would be within his rights to say, “That’s devolved, mate.” But there is something called the Scottish election coming up next year, so I am speaking through the ether, as it were, to the structure of the Scottish Parliament in a year’s time: “Please remember my words, look at Highlands and Islands Enterprise, and think about building it back to what it once was.”

• 18 Jun 2025 · Businesses in Rural Areas · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 18 Jun 2025 · Businesses in Rural Areas · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister may or may not know, although I thank him for it, that a banking hub will shortly open in Wick, in the extreme far north of the United Kingdom. I would be grateful if he could ask his civil servants to come up and take a look at it once it is up and running, because there might be something to learn from it as to how other very remote parts of the UK can be serviced.

• 18 Jun 2025 · Space Industry (Indemnities) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  And St Andrews graduates.

• 9 Jun 2025 · Non-stun Slaughter of Animals · Hansard source

  More

  I am prepared to be informed on that point. In my discussions with both the Jewish and Muslim communities, I actually learned a very great deal myself. I found particularly fascinating the fact that the method used is scripture-based, and I think that is important to remember. After all that has been said so far, if we thought that the slaughtering of animals according to religious practice went unregulated in this country, we would be very wrong, because there are certain requirements. First, the killing must take place in a slaughterhouse—an abattoir, if people want to call it that—approved by the Food Standards Agency. Secondly, it must be done by someone who has a certificate of competence, known as the COC. Thirdly, and importantly, the slaughter must be done in a way that follows Jewish or Islamic religious practice when intended for consumption by Jewish or Muslim people. Now, this is the gory bit: the animal’s throat must be cut by a rapid, uninterrupted movement, with both carotid arteries and jugular veins severed by a knife of sufficient size and sharpness. There is to be no sawing. These measures are required to minimise animal suffering. I am sorry if that is shocking, but I think we need to be quite clear about the practice as it is. These existing regulations prompt deliberations on both sides of the argument. In the case of animal-welfare advocates, one could suggest that our current laws are already examples of the way religious practices have adapted in accordance with modern ethical standards, and that it is therefore entirely just for these practices to further adhere to society’s standards as those continue to strengthen. Conversely, to be balanced about this, proponents of traditional religious practice could argue that the current regulations typify compromises that have already been made between religion and law in a society like ours, which—I think this is crucial to the way we go about doing things in this country—actively supports and protects religious freedom or belief. That is a crucial factor. As an aside, it is important to note that the petition follows the European Court of Human Rights ruling that a ban on the ritual slaughter of animals without prior stunning does not violate the European convention on human rights. This is because the Court accepts that “the protection of animal welfare can be linked to…‘public morality’, which constitutes a legitimate aim” for which the state might justifiably restrict freedom of religion. In this case, the Court accepted that it was consistent with these standards to legislate that animals should be stunned before being ritually slaughtered. As I am sure many of us know, several European countries have already introduced a ban, including Denmark, Slovenia, Sweden, Finland and Norway. However, other fellow neighbours, including France and Germany, still allow for non-stun slaughter on religious grounds. All of this is to say that this debate requires nuance—careful nuance—and sensibility to all the views in the room, regardless of the beliefs that one holds.

• 9 Jun 2025 · Non-stun Slaughter of Animals · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes her point with some passion; I will touch on that point in a second. Such provisions include post-cut stunning for ruminants, minimum-stun parameters for poultry and mandatory slaughter labelling. Conversely, it is crucial that we properly and thoughtfully consider the other side of the debate: namely, the religious communities that require this method of slaughter for halal and kosher practices. Proponents of those practices argue that banning non-stun slaughter would violate their freedoms. The teachings of the Jewish and Muslim religions state that an animal must be fully alive before it is slaughtered. Accordingly, the stunning of an animal before slaughter may be interpreted as not being compliant with such religious teachings. However, in many religions—including my own, Christianity—there are variations in the interpretation of religious laws. Leaders of more liberal branches may be more open to interpreting religious law in the light of modern customs and welfare standards. However, it has to be said that more orthodox factions may still consider changes to traditional methods as a serious offence.

• 9 Jun 2025 · Non-stun Slaughter of Animals · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered e-petition 700557 relating to the non-stun slaughter of animals. As Chair of the Petitions Committee, I always find it encouraging to witness public participation in politics, and this is a good example. It is evident that this petition, which has attracted more than 100,000 signatures, has engaged a very large number of people from all across the country. For that reason, I must very sincerely thank its creator, Mr Martin Osborne, who is in the Public Gallery today with a group of his friends and other supporters. Mr Osborne created this e-petition because he believes that in a modern society more consideration needs to be given to animal welfare and how livestock is treated and culled. He and his fellow signatories believe that non-stun slaughter is barbaric and should be banned, as some EU nations have done. I had the happy privilege of speaking to him last week, and he made one thing very clear to me: he is an animal lover, and he believes that he lives in a country that shares his desire to reduce suffering at the time of slaughter in so far as it is possible to do so. Put simply, I would suggest that his motivation comes from a place of care. But what Mr Osborne did not do is create this petition with the desire for it to be co-opted as a mechanism for prejudice and discrimination against religious communities in this country that prepare their food differently from him. I trust Members will bear that in mind while debating the topic. I also had the pleasure of meeting representatives of the Halal Monitoring Committee and Shechita UK, both of which expressed respectful interest in the debate. Again, I trust that everyone speaking today will return that respect. I turn to the topic at hand. The current rules on slaughter in England are set by the Welfare of Animals at the Time of Killing (England) Regulations 2015, under which all animals must be stunned, rendering them insensible to pain before they are slaughtered. However, as we know, an exemption to those rules allows slaughter without pre-stunning for religious communities. In recent years, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has expressed concern about the large increase in the number of animals that have been slaughtered without pre-stunning. In 2024, 30.1 million animals were killed in that way—a significant increase from the 25.4 million in 2022. Of those 30.1 million animals slaughtered without stunning, 27 million were for halal and 3 million were for kosher. Evidence presented by the RSPCA makes the case for removing the religious exemption on the basis that animals that are not stunned prior to being slaughter suffer “very significant pain and distress in the period before insensibility supervenes”. That is because the neck, cut, sends a stream of sensory information to the brain in the conscious animal, causing intense temporary pain and distress. Only after prolonged blood loss does the animal become unconscious and thus insensitive to the incision. That process can take up to 20 seconds in sheep, 2 minutes in cattle and 2.5 minutes in poultry. As a result, those concerned about animal welfare are calling on the Government to end slaughter without pre-stunning and to ensure that any free trade agreement that the UK signs with other countries excludes the export of non-stunned meat. If slaughter without pre-stunning is to remain, the RSPCA requests that “provisions are used in cases where the religious exemption applies only”, and that we amend the current rules “to make sure it better protects animal welfare”.

• 9 Jun 2025 · Non-stun Slaughter of Animals · Hansard source

  More

  I thank everyone who has spoken. People all over Britain who care about animals will be going online and watching this debate. The Muslim and Jewish communities will have been watching—we know that these debates have huge viewing figures. We have conducted this debate in a civilised fashion, and I think that will give people such as the petitioner and others the reassurance that when a petition comes here for debate, it will not just be put in a bag behind the Speaker’s Chair or put on a dusty shelf; it will be properly looked at. I hope I am not over-egging it when I say that that is quite good for British democracy. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered e-petition 700557 relating to the non-stun slaughter of animals.

• 9 Jun 2025 · Non-stun Slaughter of Animals · Hansard source

  More

  From my discussions with the Islamic and Jewish communities, I think that the concept of labelling—if I interpret what the hon. Gentleman said correctly—could be quite acceptable to them, if that would give people choice. I come from the highlands of Scotland, where, to be honest, the 1715 and 1745 rebellions were based on the religious division between Catholics and Protestants, and where there have been huge arguments even within the Church of Scotland in relation to the Free Church. I am therefore very clear that tolerance among religions is crucial to a civilised society. I have probably said enough. I can see many hon. Members who, I am sure, will make the most interesting contributions, and I look forward to the Minister’s. However, I want to end where I began, by thanking Mr Martin Osborne for the sincere way in which he put forward the petition. I also thank those I have spoken with, who have had the patience to explain the halal and the Jewish kosher points of view. I am grateful to have learned a lot over the past few days.