Jamie Stone MP: speeches

Speeches

• 22 Apr 2026 · Junior Doctors’ Foundation Programme · Hansard source

  More

  No!

• 22 Apr 2026 · Junior Doctors’ Foundation Programme · Hansard source

  More

  It is great to hear a qualified doctor talking about this matter. Health is devolved in Scotland—I must put that on the record—but in my constituency one finds that an awful lot of social care workers are calling it a day and walking away, with all sorts of unfortunate ramifications such as delayed discharge. Crucially, the support for doctors that the hon. Gentleman is talking about is not there or has been reduced. Does he agree that, if we boosted social care workers’ pay and conditions and retained them, that would help doctors?

• 22 Apr 2026 · Army Reserve · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way a second time; he is being more than generous. I should declare an interest: my son-in-law is a serving officer in the Royal Air Force and my daughter was, until recently, the same. One of the things that hits morale in all three services is being below strength—when they do not have the numbers and the platoon is short by two or three people. There is a long tradition—this was true in my time too—of reservists having an attachment to what we might call a frontline battalion or a frontline unit. That was actually great fun, and it really added something to the reservists’ lives. It was looked forward to. I hope that might happen now and again.

• 22 Apr 2026 · Army Reserve · Hansard source

  More

  There are two points that could reinforce the right hon. Member’s argument. First, I served in the Territorial Army, and it taught me to read a map; the reserves can teach people skills that will be useful in their lives. Secondly, many peoples’ lives are disorganised, but being in the reserves, the Territorial Army or part of the forces could give a structure to their lives. That will help out with the Government’s social policies, a point that should be emphasised to the Treasury. It is not just about people in uniforms; it is about the wider good of the nation.

• 21 Apr 2026 · Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment · Hansard source

  More

  Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

• 20 Apr 2026 · Maternity Commissioner · Hansard source

  More

  It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I want to share a cautionary tale with everyone, and I will just set out the geography. I have the biggest constituency in the UK; it stretches from John O’Groats, way down to just north of Inverness—I invite Members to think about that huge area of Scotland. What I am about to say in no way reflects on the midwives in Caithness and other parts of my constituency. Some years ago the Scottish Government, in their infinite wisdom, decided to downgrade a consultant-led maternity service based in Wick, which is at the top of the UK, near John O’Groats, to a midwife-led service. That meant that mothers would have to travel more than 100 miles—in each direction—to Inverness to give birth. Travelling from Caithness to Inverness on a sunny day is one thing; travelling in winter is a very different proposition. The A9 gets blocked during many winters and people cannot get through. What happens if a pregnant mother in an ambulance on her way to give birth in Inverness cannot get through? They get hold of the emergency helicopter. But what if there is a road traffic accident in another part of the highlands—say in Lochaber, Skye or Morayshire—and the choppers have gone in different directions? I have posed that question to the Scottish Government again and again and said, “You could have a tragedy on your hands.” I have asked for a safety audit again and again, but there has been no safety audit whatever. What about winter? What about when the chopper does not—cannot—fly? What about when the ambulance cannot get through? Back in 2018, a mother of twins was on her way down in an ambulance and gave birth to the first baby in Golspie, about 50 miles through a 100-mile journey. A second ambulance had to be called and she was driven on to Inverness to give birth to the second child. I ask Members to imagine how traumatic and awful that was for the mother. Both children and the mother survived—thank God. I well remember somebody called Nicola Sturgeon saying at the time, “This is very serious; we will look into it,” but nothing happened. Today, the statistics speak for themselves: in the most recent period we have looked at, six babies were born in Caithness general hospital in Wick and 166 were born in Raigmore hospital in Inverness. Think about all those return journeys. Think about a mum coming to see her daughter and the little baby. Where do they stay? It is expensive. We had a superb local service, and we do not have it any longer. Fundamentally, I find that simply dreadful. Eventually, at the tail end of last year, there was a motion in the Scottish Parliament to hold an independent inquiry into maternity services in the north of Scotland. It passed, and the local population said, “Hallelujah! At long last, it’s going to be addressed.” But then what happened? In their infinite wisdom, the Scottish Government said, “Actually, despite the fact that there was a majority decision by the Scottish Parliament, we’re not going to do an independent inquiry; we’ll have a little in-house look at what’s happening here.” That is where we are today. Can Members imagine what message that sends to mums and families in the north of Scotland? I have gone on and on about this in this place—as I am sure you know, Sir Alec—and yet it is a devolved matter, so we are completely powerless to do anything. I hope that all the sentiments expressed today about a commissioner come to be reality, I hope that the Scottish Government are told to look at it very closely indeed, and I hope that they are shamed—it is as simple as that—into doing something and sorting out a truly shocking situation, and one that is extremely dangerous. It is a miracle that neither a child’s life nor a mother’s life has been lost yet. I am sorry if I do not mince my words, but I feel very strongly about it indeed.

• 13 Apr 2026 · North Atlantic Submarine Activity · Hansard source

  More

  I am delighted that the Minister has made this statement, because I have raised this issue a number of times in this place. My constituency looks directly at the High North, and it is off the coast of my constituency that this Russian activity took place—let us make no mistake about it. My constituents find it deeply worrying. As the Minister himself has admitted, we have only so many surface ships. They are based mostly in Devonport and Portsmouth. The sailing time from the south of England to Orkney, Shetland or my constituency is a matter of days, and we have to move very fast in this situation with Russia. Let us remember history: before the first world war, Winston Churchill and others took the decision to relocate part of the fleet to Invergordon and to Scapa Flow in the Orkneys. Are we quite certain that we are basing the surface ships that we have—we hope we will have more—in the position where they need to be to keep a close eye on the High North and protect our vital strategic interests?

• 24 Mar 2026 · Defence · Hansard source

  More

  One thing that we need to get right, and which we got wrong in the past, is this. When I was first elected in 2017, there were not Russian spy ships off the coast of my constituency, but now there are, and we detected a submarine before Christmas. I raised this issue with the Leader of the House last week and have been granted a ministerial meeting. Does the Minister agree that there is a Russian threat on our doorstep to vital strategic resources, including pipelines, interconnectors, our offshore wind, and our oil and gas? Look at what happened in the Baltic.

• 24 Mar 2026 · Defence · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is making a powerful speech. Whatever side one takes in the argument that he presents to us, does he agree that in the hopefully unlikely event of Scottish independence being achieved, two things would happen? First, Scotland, on forming its own navy, would have the greatest difficulty defending the strategic assets to which I referred in an earlier intervention; and secondly, an independent Scottish Government would have the most hideous choices to make, exactly along the lines that the hon. Gentleman is presenting, between armaments, and badly needed hospitals and other social investments.

• 24 Mar 2026 · Fusion Energy: Private Sector Investment · Hansard source

  More

  The Treasury Bench would be particularly disappointed if I did not once again showcase what we have at Dounreay: a licensed site, a skilled workforce and a population who would greatly support playing a role in the development of fusion for the future. May I suggest that the Scottish Enterprise network might put its hand in its pocket to bring that forward, if that is helpful to His Majesty’s Government?

• 23 Mar 2026 · Puberty Blockers Clinical Trial · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered e-petition 751839 relating to the clinical trial into puberty blockers. It is always a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I sincerely thank everyone I met in preparation for this debate: the legal and medical professionals who shared their expertise and the individuals with deeply personal, lived experience on both sides of this discussion. It goes without saying that this is a complex topic. I am grateful for the time and care that people have taken to help inform this debate. I also thank the petition’s creator, James Esses, and petition supporter and campaigner Keira Bell. I had the pleasure of meeting them ahead of this debate, and they are watching today. Their petition asks that the clinical trial for the use of puberty blockers be cancelled. They believe that medical intervention in this area is dangerous, poorly evidenced and ethically questionable. They have asked Parliament to ensure that children are protected from potential harm. I want to make it crystal clear that this debate is not about trans rights or whether people who identify as transgender have the right to exist and live free from discrimination. This discussion focuses on a clinical and ethical issue: whether puberty blockers should be prescribed to children experiencing gender dysphoria, and specifically whether a new NHS-backed clinical trial into their use should proceed. Puberty blockers are medicines that suppress the production of sex hormones. They press pause on puberty, delaying changes like periods, breast development, voice changes and facial hair growth. Historically, they have been prescribed to children who enter puberty unusually early and, in some cases, for the treatment of cancers or endometriosis. Importantly, they are distinct from gender affirmation or cross-sex hormones. Blockers temporarily pause development, while cross-sex hormones actively induce the physical changes of the opposite sex and are generally irreversible. The petition raises two main areas of concern: the possible long-term medical side effects of puberty blockers, and whether meaningful consent can ever be obtained from a child or adolescent.

• 23 Mar 2026 · Puberty Blockers Clinical Trial · Hansard source

  More

  I note the sincerity with which the hon. Gentleman makes his remarks. There is the legal and ethical question of whether a child can ever truly consent to something like this.

• 23 Mar 2026 · Puberty Blockers Clinical Trial · Hansard source

  More

  What I am about to say relates to the right hon. Member’s intervention. It is not unusual in medicine for children to participate in clinical trials, provided that there are robust safeguards, clear parental consent and proper oversight. But can a distressed teenager and a family desperate to help truly grasp these long-term implications? The legal experts I consulted spoke about the delicate ethics at play. Medical research always involves balancing competing risks: the risks of harm from an intervention versus the risks of harm from withholding it. Puberty blocker trials pose unusual challenges as they cannot include placebos, so the design requires special scrutiny to ensure that informed consent is meaningful. There is still work to do to ensure that children and parents fully understand what entering a study means. On the other hand, opponents of the petition—those who support the new trial—say that the only way to reach clear conclusions about safety and efficacy is through rigorous, carefully monitored research. We do not yet know about the potential harms of puberty blockers for treating gender dysphoria, but we do know that the effects of cross-sex hormones can be irreversible. Following the Cass review, NHS England proposed a very different approach from the old Tavistock model, focusing on smaller numbers and much stricter controls. The new design would have national oversight, tight eligibility criteria and a multidisciplinary team around each young person, and only about 5% of participants might receive puberty blockers compared with around 27% who were prescribed them while at Tavistock. Also important is that cancelling the NHS trial would not prevent young people from accessing puberty blockers. In some gender clinics, clinicians report that between 10% and 20% of clients are obtaining them privately or online, outside regulated healthcare systems. Those unmonitored routes carry greater risks because dosages, purity and outcomes are not tracked or supported. Proponents of the trial point out that without direct research we remain in a state of uncertainty, which carries its own risks. If puberty blockers help some young people to avoid serious distress, we need to understand that better. If the evidence ultimately shows that the risks outweigh the benefits, that too must be established through high-quality data. Without such evidence, none of us—doctors, parents or policymakers—can make sound judgments. Of course, participation in any trial is voluntary. Families will continue to have the right to decline. The aim of the study is not to push young people towards any one outcome, but to understand what support is appropriate for different individuals. I want to end my speech by returning to the people at the heart of this issue. I have spoken to individuals who feel deeply harmed by medical intervention, such as Keira Bell, whose story has been widely discussed. Her experience matters, as do the experiences of all those who regret the care they have received. I have also had the pleasure to speak with Maxine Heron, whose experience with puberty blockers was profoundly positive. Having the option to pause puberty spared her immense distress, and she has experienced no negative health outcomes. For her, being forced to undergo male puberty would have been the greater trauma. She is one of many who report that their lives have been significantly improved by timely support. We must hold both kinds of stories with equal seriousness. Regret exists, but so does gratitude. The aim of research is not to erase one side of the story, but to understand why experiences differ, and crucially, how best to help every child who is struggling. Without doubt, this is one of the most challenging questions before us: how to protect young people, respect autonomy and uphold scientific integrity. I, for one, do not pretend that it is easy. I hope today’s debate will help to address some of the challenges, and reassure those who have signed the petition that their concerns are being taken seriously. I can see with my own eyes that many colleagues wish to contribute. I will therefore draw my remarks to a close. I look forward to the contributions to this debate, especially the reply from the Government, which I believe will be instructive.

• 23 Mar 2026 · Puberty Blockers Clinical Trial · Hansard source

  More

  I trust that this evening’s debate has given a flavour of what life on the Petitions Committee is like—it brings its challenges and informative debate. I want to thank all those who have spoken; they have done so with sincerity. Opinions differ, but there is no doubt that hon. Members feel very strongly about the issue. I also thank those in the Public Gallery. At the end of the day, the work of the Petitions Committee is about ensuring that an issue is properly aired in this place and that petitioners are heard. I believe that has been done tonight, and I thank everyone. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered e-petition 751839 relating to the clinical trial into puberty blockers.

• 23 Mar 2026 · Puberty Blockers Clinical Trial · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for her intervention, but she will understand that it is my job as Chairman of the Petitions Committee to present a fair description of both sides of the discussion, which is what I hope to do. James Esses, who started the petition, is a psychotherapist, and he impressed on me the benefit that good psychiatric intervention could have, without medicalisation. Puberty, he argued, is rarely a picnic for anyone—it can be confusing, uncomfortable, and sometimes miserable—but it is an essential developmental stage, and suppressing it pharmacologically could alter physical and cognitive development in ways we do not yet fully grasp. His argument is not to remove care for children experiencing gender incongruence, but to focus efforts on careful psychological support. Others question the trial’s purpose, noting that puberty blockers have already been paused for new NHS patients with gender incongruence, following concerns about safety. They fear that authorising a new trial implies a level of confidence that the evidence base does not yet justify, arguing that enough data exists to recognise the potential harms, from reduced bone density to uncertain impact on brain development. Continuing could erode the safeguards that protect young people.

• 23 Mar 2026 · Puberty Blockers Clinical Trial · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, which was, I believe, made with as much sincerity as the previous intervention.

• 19 Mar 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I note what the Leader of the House said about the forthcoming consultation exercise. I urge right hon. and hon. Members to take part. The shadow Leader of the House has touched on the activities in recent months of Russian spy ships and submarines off the coast of my constituency, taking a peer at our undersea cables and connections, and the strategic resource of the North sea in oil and offshore wind energy. May I respectfully ask the Leader of the House to help facilitate a meeting between me, and perhaps other concerned Members from other parties, and appropriate Ministers to discuss this issue and what our means of defence are?

• 17 Mar 2026 · Rural Roads · Hansard source

  More

  A few days ago, I had a clinic in Aultbea, and a gentleman came to see me about the state of the potholes. As I drove home between Dundonnell and Corrieshalloch, bang—I had a flat tyre, and I put on record my gratitude to Mr Nigel Shaddick for helping me change my wheel. I know all about potholes. In late 2023, I had a constituent come to me who had hit a pothole, costing her a thousand quid’s worth of damage. She is a working mum—a crofter—and she depends on her car, as there is no public transport. It is really very difficult, and even today, the case is still not resolved. Where does the blame lie? As my good friend from the Borders, the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont), said, the Scottish Government have a whole heap more dosh they have got from Westminster, yet precious little of it goes to the rural areas. As I think the hon. Gentleman will agree, we shall see what happens in May at the next election.

• 2 Mar 2026 · Power to Cancel Local Elections · Hansard source

  More

  As you know, Mr Mundell, I am somewhat long in the tooth, as we say north of the border. I was just doing a wee sum here on a piece of paper—I have contested 11 elections, and I would say that my wife and children do not always greet the prospect of another election with huge enthusiasm, but I know what I am talking about. It seems slightly surreal to me that, once upon a time all those years ago, I was talking at great length in Dingwall about dog poo in some of the towns and villages of the highlands, and now I find myself here having introduced a debate on local government elections. This evening’s contributions have been very helpful. The Minister in her reply displayed a certain knowledge of local government, which is a comfort, because not everyone understands the whys and wherefores. I want to make two comments. First, in my contribution, I referenced changes being referred to statutory instruments. I argue—but I think this is for another day—that the supervision and examination of statutory instruments is something we could do a little bit better in this place. The hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) talked about what constituencies should or should not be called. If I wanted to be pedantic I could insist that my constituency be called Caithness, Sutherland, Easter Ross, Wester Ross, the Black Isle and the northern parts of Inverness-shire—but we will not go that way. I thank all the people who signed the petition. I have to be seen to be even-handed in this debate—as you well know, Mr Mundell—so I shall conclude with simply this: we hold democracy as being very precious in this country, and when we see what is happening in other parts of the world, I think we realise even more so how important that is. Trust in democracy is absolutely vital; if that goes, then we are in trouble. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered e-petition 747234 relating to the Secretary of State’s power to cancel local elections.

• 2 Mar 2026 · Power to Cancel Local Elections · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered e-petition 747234 relating to the Secretary of State’s power to cancel local elections. It is a great pleasure to serve under your Caledonian chairmanship, Mr Mundell. We are old friends from the past. As Chair of the Petitions Committee, I believe I speak for all its members when I say that it is always encouraging to see such strong public engagement in our democratic system. The petition has attracted well over 150,000 signatures, right across the United Kingdom. That level of support speaks positively about how our citizens care deeply about the timing, integrity and accountability of local elections. I thank the petition’s creator Dr Chris Barnes, whom I had the pleasure of meeting prior to the debate, and all those who have taken the time to add their name to it. The petition calls on the Government to remove the Secretary of State’s statutory power to postpone or cancel scheduled local elections. That power is conferred on the Government by section 87 of the Local Government Act 2000. Dr Barnes’s petition states that “the right to vote is sacred and inalienable”, and he argues that elections due to take place in May 2026 and beyond should proceed as planned. Many signatories have expressed concern that postponement risks undermining democratic accountability and public trust. Last month, the Government did a U-turn on the decision. Regardless, we are here to debate the principle at the heart of the initial decision to delay the elections. In their official response, the Government make it clear that the relevant powers are set out in legislation passed by Parliament. They state that such powers are “used only with strong justification” and that any use is subject to parliamentary scrutiny through the statutory instrument process. The Government have also indicated that they have no current plans to amend the legislation in question. They add that similar powers have previously been used in limited and specific circumstances, including in the context of local government reorganisation. The debate therefore concerns not only the principle of regular elections, but the appropriate balance between statutory flexibility and democratic certainty. Local elections are the cornerstone of representative democracy. Councillors make decisions on housing, social care, planning, transport and a range of other services that have a direct impact on daily life. I should know, having spent a good number of years as a councillor myself.

• 2 Mar 2026 · Power to Cancel Local Elections · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the right hon. Member for his customarily incisive intervention. Local elections surely ensure that decisions are subject to scrutiny and renewal. The expectation that electors will have an opportunity to choose their representatives at predictable intervals is surely fundamental to public confidence. Independent bodies have emphasised that very point. The Electoral Commission has stated that scheduled elections should, as a rule, proceed as planned and should be postponed only in exceptional circumstances. It has cautioned that uncertainty around election timing can undermine public confidence and create difficulties for voters, campaigners and administrators alike. Similarly, the Electoral Reform Society has expressed concern to me about the democratic implications of postponements that significantly extend councillors’ terms. In particular, it has warned that where delays coincide with electoral cycles, some councillors could serve for up to seven years without facing the electorate. O that I had ever had that opportunity in my own career as a councillor! Such extensions risk weakening accountability and should prompt careful review of the safeguards surrounding the Government’s postponement powers. Those concerns are shared, to varying degrees, across the political spectrum. My own party has argued that local elections should not be treated as administrative conveniences. We have emphasised the importance of protecting fixed and predictable electoral timetables. We have raised questions about the concentration of discretion in the hands of a single Minister. We have called for stronger safeguards and greater transparency where postponement is proposed. Similarly, Conservative Members have underlined the importance of upholding democratic mandates. However, some have reasoned that, once conferred by Parliament, statutory powers must be capable of being exercised where the law so permits. In response, the present Government have stressed that the powers in question are not new; they were established by Parliament to deal with defined circumstances such as the structural reorganisation of local government. The Government argue that a mechanism must remain to ensure orderly transitions where boundaries change or authorities are merged, and that such decisions are subject to legislative oversight and are not to be exercised arbitrarily. I am sure that we will examine those points more closely in the debate. Those differing perspectives are united by the shared recognition that elections are not merely procedural events, but the very means by which authority is conferred and renewed. Any decision to postpone them must therefore meet a very high threshold of justification and transparency. It surely must never be motivated by self-interest. That would instil distrust in our democracy, which is very precious to us all. The petition and the debate that it has prompted reflect broader public anxiety about democratic accountability. In recent years, as we all know, trust in political institutions has been tested. It is therefore understandable that proposals or decisions that affect when voters may next go to the polls attract scrutiny and very strong opinions. At the same time, Parliament has long recognised that exceptional circumstances may require flexibility. The legal framework governing elections is complex, and changes to local authority structures, emergencies or other significant disruptions may necessitate adjustments. The question for this House, however, is not whether elections matter—I trust that all Members of the House believe that—but how best to reconcile the principle of regular democratic renewal with the practical realities of governance. The petition process exists precisely to enable such questions to be posed and examined. That is why we are here tonight. When substantial numbers of people across the country express concern in a democratic system, as they have done with this petition, Parliament must surely listen. It is right that Ministers have the opportunity to set out clearly the legal basis for the powers concerned, the circumstances in which they may be used and the safeguards that exist. It is equally right that Members on all sides test those explanations where appropriate. I hope that today’s debate will contribute to clarity, transparency and accountability. I reassure all those who signed the petition that their concerns are being taken seriously in this debate, because that is precisely what the Petitions Committee is all about. I will listen with the greatest interest to what my colleagues have to say and to how the Minister who is kindly representing the Government responds.

• 23 Feb 2026 · Firearms Licensing · Hansard source

  More

  I think it is only fair that I offer an abject apology to the hon. Member, and a large refreshment will be his later today.

• 23 Feb 2026 · Firearms Licensing · Hansard source

  More

  I mentioned killing hooded crows in an earlier intervention, and I think one way that we could boost the industry that the hon. Member is talking about is by eating more game. I am not for one instant advocating eating hooded crows, or cormorants, which I am told they eat in Iceland—although I do not fancy one myself. But game is terribly good food, and children love it once they get a taste for it. I do not know why we do not offer pheasants on school menus. It would save the Exchequer a lot of money to eat the game that we shoot.

• 23 Feb 2026 · Firearms Licensing · Hansard source

  More

  As Chair of the Petitions Committee, I can say that the hon. Gentleman is doing a damn good job of opening the debate. The Father of the House referred to farmers needing shotguns to control vermin. The crofters in my constituency have huge trouble with hooded crows, who come to peck out the eyes of lambs—no wonder they need their guns. I wish that Members from the Scottish National party were here today, because policing in the north of Scotland is a shadow of what it was, and the proposals would put an additional strain on those cops. They have not got the time to do all this.

• 23 Feb 2026 · Firearms Licensing · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is talking about the benefits. At the moment, the United Kingdom has a stable system; he mentioned people thinking about taking up shooting, and we have a system whereby people are taught correctly, from the word go, to point their gun at the sky or at the ground and, when they finish shooting, to clean it, put it away and lock it up. Those are invaluable rules, and we should be very proud of how well we run things in the United Kingdom. I only have to go back to 2006, when Dick Cheney unfortunately managed to pepper somebody at a quail shoot in the United States. The safety standards we have in this country are the envy of the world.