Jamie Stone MP: speeches

Speeches

• 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.