Jamie Stone MP: speeches

Speeches

• 17 Nov 2025 · Social Media Posts: Penalties for Offences · Hansard source

  More

  As colleagues are aware, the Chair of any Select Committee is elected by the House. Therefore, this evening I am rather more the servant of the House than of my party. I therefore speak, I hope, impartially— as I should as Chair of the Petitions Committee. We have heard some verbal jousting in this debate, but it is no bad thing to air an issue out in the open and in our democratic forum. I thank the petitioner himself, the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe); it is indeed a historical first—it has never happened before, that I am aware of, in the history of this place—that the petitioner is a Member. I also thank you, Sir Roger, and all the Members who have spoken. I also want to thank the members of the public in the Gallery. I do not know whether they have felt this too, but I have felt a rather chilly draught behind me—I think we ought to offer Parliament a shilling for the meter, to get heating turned up a wee bit. But I thank them for coming; I think they have witnessed something rather special that we do in this place. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered e-petition 728715 relating to penalties for offences arising from social media posts.

• 17 Nov 2025 · Social Media Posts: Penalties for Offences · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered e-petition 728715 relating to penalties for offences arising from social media posts. It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. As Chair of the Petitions Committee, let me say that it is always encouraging to witness public participation in politics. With more than 100,000 signatures, it is evident that this petition has engaged a large number of people all across the country. This e-petition was created by the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe). This is the first time that an elected Member of the House of Commons has the e-petition system in this way to garner enough support to secure a debate, making this a unique instance. He explained to me that he believes that this Government have taken a two-tier approach to policing, which needs to be urgently reviewed. When I use the phrase “two-tier”, I am referring to the belief that police in this country are overtly lenient towards protestors in favour of progressive causes and racial minority protestors, compared with others. To put it simply, those who subscribe to this criticism of our justice system do not believe that citizens are being punished fairly or impartially. That is why the signatories of this petition believe the system needs to be reviewed. Specifically, they are calling on the Government to urgently review the possible penalties for non-violent offences arising from social media posts, including the use of prison. During our meeting, the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth explained that it is his belief that, when it comes to punishing individuals for something they have posted on a social media platform, previous sentences issued for offences under this Government have risked encroaching on the individual liberty of the defendant, particularly their freedom of speech. Freedom of expression has always been a cornerstone of our democracy. In the UK, people are free to demonstrate their views regardless of any discomfort caused to the majority. However, the freedom to express these opinions does exempt any criminal motivation behind them from being prosecuted. Just as we are a country that takes pride in our citizen’s liberties and freedoms, we also take pride in a criminal justice system that protects our citizens from harm. The former will never override the latter. Under section 22 of the Online Safety Act 2023, a statutory duty to consider free expression protects the rights of users within the law. Crucially, the Act explicitly defines “freedom of expression” in terms compatible with the European convention on human rights. That is the right “to receive and impart ideas, opinions or information…by means of speech, writing or images”. However, section 59 of that same Act makes it clear that the boundary of that freedom extends only as far as the legality of the content. In other words, content is judged not just by whether it is unpopular, offensive or controversial but, crucially, whether it violates criminal law. Examples of such violations include—to name but a few—types of intimate image abuse, harassment or the incitement of hate crimes. That brings us to the question of criminality and prosecution for such an offence, which I believe is the very crux of this petition. When I spoke to the Sentencing Council, it made it clear to me that intent matters a lot in many of these offences. The Sentencing Council’s definition of intent ranges from the highest culpability, for a deliberate intention to cause harm, to lower levels of culpability, for recklessness, knowledge of risk or sheer negligence. The council considers an offender’s intent to be a key factor in determining the seriousness of an offence and the appropriate sentence, which will often be based on the level of harm that was intended even if it was not actually caused. In our modern age of social media, where communication is instant, rapid and far-reaching, the question of culpability, intent and widespread dissemination does indeed hold serious weight. It is reasonable to assume that all citizens realise that when using sites such as X, Instagram or Facebook. When it comes to calling on the Government to review the penalties for non-violent offences arising from social media posts, it is imperative to clarify the particulars of existing sentencing guidelines. In the UK, the Government on their own cannot simply change criminal penalties, because the power to set or alter penalties is controlled by Parliament and the courts, not Ministers. Any change to maximum or minimum penalties for an offence must be made through primary legislation. That means that a new law or amendment must pass through the full parliamentary process: drafting, scrutiny, debate and, of course, approval by both Houses—the Commons and the Lords. The Government may propose changes, but they absolutely cannot impose them without Parliament voting them into law. Even after Parliament sets the legal penalty ranges, the Government still cannot decide individual sentences, because those are often carried out independently by judges, who must follow the Sentencing Council’s guidelines and not—absolutely not—the preferences of Ministers. The Government also cannot order judges to give harsher or more lenient sentences in specific cases, because judicial independence, as we know, protects courts from political interference; indeed, I would suggest that it is a crucial pillar of our political and justice systems. Neither the courts nor Parliament stand alone; that ensures that balanced decisions are made independently in the public interest. All of that is seriously complex, and addresses a large scale of harm and, in some cases, prejudice. That is to say that I am absolutely certain my colleagues will debate this question with respect, rationality and indeed nuance this evening. I can see that lots of them hope to speak, so I will bring my remarks to a close to allow as many as possible to participate.

• 4 Nov 2025 · Cross-border Healthcare · Hansard source

  More

  I can bring a Scottish context to the subject. A doctor in my constituency had a cataract problem and was told that the waiting list was ages. In the end, because she knew how to do it, she found out about an operation that was available in the north of England. She paid for the travel and paid to go private. The point is that if the database that my hon. Friend is talking about could show patients where to look in other parts of the UK, saying, “This is on offer, if you are willing to travel”, it could make such a difference to health services across the four nations.

• 4 Nov 2025 · Cross-border Healthcare · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman may know that I have family living in the north, in Armagh and Antrim, and a daughter living in Donegal. What he says is absolutely correct—I can vouch for that, and it is an example for us all. When somebody is sick and we are worried about what will happen next, we do not care about lines on maps. The point I want to make is this: it strikes me that this is an easy issue for the present Government, because it need not cost lots of money. Often, we ask for stuff and there is a huge bill attached, but just knocking heads together and saying, “Get real. Get the computer system online. Talk to each other,” is doable, and it would make such a difference for people even up as far north as where I represent.

• 22 Oct 2025 · Devolution in Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered devolution in Scotland. I am jolly glad I came to the Chamber when I did. [ Laughter. ] I thank the Backbench Business Committee for making time available for this debate and for recognising that it is a debate that holds great significance for the whole House. I thank those Members who supported my application to the Committee for the debate. In particular, I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson), who chairs the Scottish Affairs Committee and who has been a personal friend of mine since our time together in the Scottish Parliament. I begin by making no secret of the fact that I lead this debate as someone who believes in the strength of our family of nations and that we can make people’s lives better through co-operation and partnership by pooling and sharing resources. I believe that my credentials as one of the first of my party’s Members of the Scottish Parliament and now as a Scottish Member of the UK Parliament make it clear that I am a devolutionist to my core, one who will always believe in the value of the Scottish Parliament and its potential to work best for the people of Scotland when it works constructively alongside Westminster. I will not have it said here today, or anywhere or ever, that I am against devolution—I am not. I truly believe in it and also know that the Scottish Parliament is comparatively young, hence why I am here today, initiating what I hope will be a civil and valuable discussion into the successes and failures so far of our system of what one might term “multi-level governance”. I am proud to have been a founding member of the Scottish Constitutional Convention responsible for the establishment of the Scottish Parliament in 1999. I am proud to say in my own way that my name is on the historic claim of right for Scotland—I do not think that any other Member of this place can say that. Of course, I was then elected to the Scottish Parliament in the first elections in 1999, and I witnessed the way that it developed over the next 12 years. Crucially, during those first years, I became a member of the Holyrood progress group, which oversaw the building of the Parliament. People like me and others saw the Scottish Parliament as, to quote the late, great John Smith, the “settled will of the Scottish people”. I say that to reassure the House that my thoughts come from a place, I believe, of true experience. Let us remember that the scheme for the devolved Parliament, as enshrined in the Scotland Act 1998, was about the concept of there being no need for a second Chamber in Edinburgh because the Committees of the Scottish Parliament were intended to fill the role of holding the Executive to account. That could have entailed, where necessary, amending or initiating legislation in a fashion similar to the House of Lords today. As an example, I highlight the role of the education Committee in the first Parliament, of which I was a member, in tweaking and amending the then Scottish Government’s first education Act. Was that a reflection of the consensual attitude that many MSPs displayed during the first term of the Scottish Parliament? Very possibly—perhaps the hon. Member could comment on that. A few initial thoughts come to mind. Although the Committees did largely fulfil some of that function during the first 12 years of the Parliament, I am bound to add that the advent of the SNP Government in 2011, which controlled not only the Chamber but all the Committees, changed that dynamic. I would argue that, after that year, the failure of some Committees to show any real teeth meant that some bad legislation came to be. I need only quote one example, and that is the ill-fated deposit return scheme—I rest my case.

• 22 Oct 2025 · Devolution in Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  May I offer a warning from history? During the time of the coalition Government in Edinburgh, I pled the case for maintaining consultant-led maternity services based in Wick. No sooner did the SNP Government get in than the service was downgraded. Now mums have to travel huge distances to give birth, and the grisly fact is that one mother of twins gave birth to one child in Golspie and the other in Inverness. That is intolerable in this day and age.

• 22 Oct 2025 · Devolution in Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  Looking back to a much younger version of myself going to my first meeting of the Scottish constitutional convention in 1989, I never would have dreamt then that I would lead a debate of this nature in this place, but here we are. I thank from the bottom of my heart all Members who have made contributions, and I hope that from time to time, the present Scottish Government—or any Scottish Government—will look in the mirror and think, “Are we doing things right?” I hope that Hansard is looked at, read and thought about, because there is room for improvement. I leave you with one last thought, Madam Deputy Speaker, which may take colleagues by surprise. There have been repeated references to someone during this debate. I remember getting into the lift in Holyrood on my first day there after my election in 1999. A tall, gangling figure was in the lift. He looked me up and down and said, “And who exactly—um—are you?” That was Donald Dewar. When I said who I was, he said, “Ah! We had had hopes of that seat, but I am sure we shall work together in a very satisfactory manner.” And we did. I have had conversations with Labour Members about this, but I am not aware of any image of Donald Dewar in this place. Given that this was a man who made such an extraordinary contribution to the constitution of these islands, that may be something that the Art Committee might want to think about.

• 22 Oct 2025 · Devolution in Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member, who, like me, was an MSP all those years ago. Why, to take up his point, is the Scottish Parliament not working the way it is intended to? I think part of the answer lies in the fact that making someone the Chair of a Committee in the Scottish Parliament is in the gift of the party leaders. That can lead to Committee Chairs, particularly those in the Government party, feeling somewhat beholden to their party’s leadership and being, I would suggest, sometimes rather less than willing to say boo to a goose when it comes to challenging or amending legislation. In Westminster, Committee Chairs are chosen via a secret ballot of the whole House. I would say that the independent-mindedness of Committees and those who lead them is very much a strength. In that respect, we have in Westminster a certain safeguard against the risk of passing completely unworkable legislation. My purpose in making this assessment is not in any way to enlarge on the proposals for a second Chamber in Scotland; the Scotland Act 1998 was very clear that the Scottish Parliament would be unicameral. Similarly, we can see that there are grounds for Westminster to learn lessons from Edinburgh. I have had the honour, as I said, of being a Member of both the Scottish and UK Parliaments. When people ask me, as they often do, how the two compare, I often say that we MPs are deeply envious of the access to Ministers that MSPs enjoy. The direct and frequent communication between the Scottish Government and their opposition strikes me as a very positive facet of Scottish democracy. Furthermore, the fact that there are only 129 Members of the Scottish Parliament means that the Members all know each other—or at least know each other an awful lot better than would be normal here. There is recognition of the strengths and weaknesses of those 129 individuals. How should I put this, Madam Deputy Speaker? That is not necessarily something that we can perceive in Westminster, where we have a great number of Members. In fact, I am afraid we can all think—no names, no pack-drill—of Members who somehow slip under the radar; let us just put it that way. I do not intend to be one of them. The Scottish Parliament has become much more powerful than it was when I was there—just look at the tax and social security powers—but as an MP from the far north of Scotland, I am constantly reminded of just how centralised Scotland has become. Decisions are too often not taken close to the communities that they affect. There has been devolution from Westminster to Holyrood, but practically nothing from Holyrood down to councils or communities. In fact, when it comes to police and fire services, power has simply been grabbed by Edinburgh. One of the most interesting academics to comment on the matter, and one of the first to scrutinise devolution, James G. Kellas, emphasised that merely establishing new institutions such as the Scottish Parliament cannot fundamentally alter the efficiency of decision-making norms. Instead, he said, we must respect the interplay between respective institutions and their political behaviours. That is what he prescribed to modernisers like me, who hoped that devolution would bring longer-term stability to British politics and give it a new lease of life. In recent years, however, we have seen just the opposite: a breakdown of constructive intergovernmental relations and a move towards polarisation that has pitted the Scottish Government against the UK Government as rivals, rather than partners. That has been clear on multiple occasions over the past decade. Scotland needs Governments in Edinburgh and London that are capable of working together, and of ironing out differences of opinion, where they exist, maturely, within proper frameworks, and without always resorting to legal action and court battles. That leads me to the elephant in the Chamber, if I can get away with that expression. Most significantly, and perhaps least surprisingly, the chasm in our system of governance was most strongly pronounced during the Scottish independence referendum in 2014. The subsequent repeated calls for a second referendum have coloured the relationship between our two Parliaments ever since. I am a proud Scot—I always have been and I always will be—so for me these have, alas, been dark times, with too much grievance, too much aggression and too much resentment. On top of that, I humbly suggest that the people of Scotland are tired and frustrated—and they have a case. They see their household bills soaring. They have long waits to see their GP, they have the ferry fiasco, and they have a Scottish education that we all know simply is not what it used to be. Scotland deserves better, and the Scottish Parliament needs to show people that it can respond to the challenge at hand and change people’s lives for the better. I think back to what my party, when it was in coalition, delivered in its first terms in government, including free personal care, eye tests, dental checks, bus passes, the smoking ban and fair votes for local government. Indeed, it was the signature of my then party leader Jim Wallace that broke the ground on freedom of information. We collectively cared about getting the basics right, and were determined to show that devolution could deliver the change that people wanted to see. I do not suggest that that was just the attitude of the governing parties in the coalition; there was co-operation with the Scottish National party and the Conservatives, from time to time. I touched earlier on the works of James G. Kellas, and I return to his predictions in 2001. He warned that observers of devolution might develop an “expectations gap”, as Scots could develop resentment, feeling that the potential of the Scottish Parliament was unfulfilled, or limited by a system of multi-level governance. There could be truth in that, but we still have a chance to rectify it. With last year’s change of government in Westminster and the Holyrood elections next year, this is surely the perfect time to revise our approach to our system of multi-level governance in the UK in order to engage with those feelings of discontent and negotiate a better way forward—together, not apart. No legislation is forever, including our beloved Scotland Act. All legislation is from time to time re-examined and amended; that is how we do things in the UK. That is surely one of the foundation stones of British democracy. To put it simply, we can come together to better understand how to make our Union more workable and acknowledge what needs to change. Governmental co-operation and multi-level governance can improve, and I strongly believe that the vision of the founding members of our devolved Governments can and does endure. There is still hope that our Parliaments can build a stronger relationship for the future, in the face of increasing uncertainty and threats from beyond the seas. I conclude with one simple request. The UK Supreme Court ruled in 2022 that the Scottish Parliament cannot legislate for an independence referendum without Westminster consent. I touch on that issue in the hope that this debate will not be wasted, and co-opted into a debate revising and exhausting the legality of that decision. Instead, I invite all Members from every corner of the House to engage in a constructive debate about how we can improve what we do. That is essential, particularly in the face of increasing uncertainty and—let us be honest—threats from across the seas to the way in which we do things in our precious democracy.

• 22 Oct 2025 · Devolution in Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  Well, well, well, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know the hon. Lady well and I doubt very much that she will take it lying down, and I am sure that she will have the support of others. Whether we see devolution as a means to an end called independence or see it, as I do, as a way of improving services in Scotland, I think we should all honour that particular man.

• 22 Oct 2025 · Financial Inclusion · Hansard source

  More

  I hope that the hon. Member agrees that the Financial Conduct Authority’s work on access to cash is a useful step in the right direction. Does he also agree that provision should be widened to include face-to-face services, whereby people can see someone across the counter and receive advice?

• 21 Oct 2025 · Electricity Infrastructure: Rural Communities · Hansard source

  More

  Is that not ridiculous, given that at Dounreay we have a skilled workforce, a fully licensed site and a local population that would warmly support new nuclear?

• 21 Oct 2025 · Electricity Infrastructure: Rural Communities · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Member agree that it seems strange that the proposed grid upgrade in Scotland does not take into account the future of nuclear power which we understand will be developed right across the UK?

• 16 Sept 2025 · Ambassador to the United States · Hansard source

  More

  I have talked to my constituents, and it is a fact that in the last few days they have talked about little else. Like the leader of the SNP in this place, the right hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn), said, this issue is not going to go away. I hope politicians realise that. It will get bigger and bigger as time goes on. To take up the point made by the right hon. Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke), these questions will have to be answered—there’s no two ways about it. When the general public speak so firmly to me in that way, and to all of us, we know they speak the truth.

• 15 Sept 2025 · Children with SEND: Assessments and Support · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

• 15 Sept 2025 · Children with SEND: Assessments and Support · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Member give way?

• 15 Sept 2025 · Children with SEND: Assessments and Support · Hansard source

  More

  I intervene on a Welshman as a Scotsman. We have the same problems in Scotland. You only have to look at the map of the constituencies in Scotland. Would the hon. Member agree that whatever way forward the Government establish, it would be best for it to be shared with the Scottish Government?

• 10 Sept 2025 · Digital Exclusion: Na h-Eileanan an Iar · Hansard source

  More

  On behalf of my party, I welcome the Secretary of State to her place. On the other side of the highlands in the royal burgh of Cromarty—it is an adjacent seat, Mr Speaker—we have an appalling situation. I have in my constituency an old lady with a heart condition who had no means of communication whatsoever for days on end. Will the Secretary of State have a word in the right ear to sort out this desperate situation?

• 10 Sept 2025 · Digital Exclusion: Na h-Eileanan an Iar · Hansard source

  More

  rose—

• 9 Sept 2025 · Hydrogen Supply Chains · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for his helpful intervention. I want to conclude with two points. First, I am optimistic that this is a subject that will enjoy cross-party support—I cannot see anyone rocking the boat on this one; it would be madness to do that—and sometimes, when things have cross-party support, they really can happen. There is a great opportunity in this country. Secondly, to make an unashamed, blatant advertisement for my constituency, as Dounreay decommissions, we have sites and skills particularly near to where the energy is being created. If the His Majesty’s Government would look at the creation of hydrogen in my patch, I would be most awfully grateful. With that blatant touting for business, I conclude my contribution.

• 9 Sept 2025 · Hydrogen Supply Chains · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is making an excellent speech on a very important subject. He mentioned the production of ammonia. The fact is that fertiliser is made from ammonia and right now our farmers are facing increasing prices for a number of world reasons. Does the hon. Member agree that one of the strategic purposes of creating hydrogen is to support hard-pressed farmers all over the UK?

• 9 Sept 2025 · Hydrogen Supply Chains · Hansard source

  More

  We all want to see electric vehicles being used as much as possible, because that is part of getting to net zero. However, in a far-flung constituency such as mine, it is significant that a hydrogen-powered car has a greater range than an electricity-powered car. That backs up the argument the hon. and learned Member is making.

• 9 Sept 2025 · Hydrogen Supply Chains · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Minister agree that we should at least check the proposed grid improvements against the possible strategic sites where hydrogen could be made?

• 9 Sept 2025 · Hydrogen Supply Chains · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I congratulate the hon. Member for Worcester (Tom Collins) on a very timely debate indeed; he knows his subject, and that is to the benefit of us all. Touching on the contribution made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), if we had mentioned hydrogen aviation prior to about 1940 it would have had people screaming in fear, because that was the era of the Hindenburg and the R101. The hon. Member for Worcester is absolutely correct that the potential for air transport is massive; the fact that when hydrogen and oxygen are combined we get water means that it is the cleanest of all forms of energy. I made mention in my intervention of the production of ammonia. If my chemistry lessons have stuck, I think it is NH 4 , which can then be turned into fertiliser. Our farmers are very worried by the increase in fertiliser prices, and it looks as if they are going up again this year. That can play merry hell with their farm accounts as they try to forward guess what their profitability will be. We know that EU tariffs on Russian fertiliser mean an increased price for EU countries. My point is a simple one: the more we can promote the manufacture of fertiliser out of ammonia from hydrogen produced in the UK, then the better that will be for this country. We have a great export opportunity. I give great credit to the previous and present Governments—my constituents are very grateful to them—for having had the courage to go for Cromarty Firth and Inverness green freeport. The idea producing hydrogen was part and parcel of formulating that bid to the previous Government, and of the way we talk to the present Government. The experts in the field have been telling me that the potential for bulk hydrogen to be sailed across the North sea from the north of Scotland to very keen markets in Europe is huge, and that there is real money to be made here. When the bids were put together, the production of green hydrogen was part of that bid. The Minister, whom I, like the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) am very glad to see in his place, knows full well that the issue of the grid we are proposing—where the pylons and lines go, whether they are sub-sea or above the ground, the batteries and all that—is a controversial and hot topic. However, I give him his due; in his previous incarnation he was as helpful as he could possibly be. When the grid improvements were initially proposed, and yes we of course have to do that if we are serious about getting to net zero, I wrote to the then Prime Minister and the First Minister of Scotland to ask whether the proposals matched the production of green hydrogen that we are keen to do in the north of Scotland. I may or may not have got the formula for ammonia right but, if I remember my physics correctly, the longer the distance one has to send electricity down a wire or a cable, the more energy is lost. Is it I 2 R? It is something like that; I have probably got it wrong, and the Minister probably knows it better than I do, but the point is that the longer the cable, the more resistance, and energy is lost because heat is produced and radiates off it. I earnestly say to the present Government, looking at the production of green hydrogen in the north of Scotland, “Would it not make sense to produce an awful lot of that as near as possible to where the energy is actually being created?” We have a plethora of wind farms in the north of Scotland. We have the Beatrice wind farm off the coast of my constituency and there are many others up and running or projected for Scotland. It seems to me that the manufacture of hydrogen as near as possible to that source of energy would make enormous sense.

• 8 Sept 2025 · Indefinite Leave to Remain · Hansard source

  More

  On behalf of the Petitions Committee, I thank the hon. Member for her thanks. Far away from London in the highlands of Scotland, the same is true: we have refugees who have fitted in and been greatly welcomed. May I make the point to the Minister that involving the devolved institutions, such as the Scottish Government, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly, will be hugely important if we are going to make all this work?

• 8 Sept 2025 · Indefinite Leave to Remain · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady mentions, quite correctly, the role of these wonderful people caring for the elderly. Let me give one example. I have cases in my constituency in the far north of Scotland where the care package has fallen through for lack of care workers, and those poor old people have been readmitted to hospital. That is a disgrace, and it is precisely one of the reasons why I completely back what she is saying.