Mental Health of Veterans

Jamie Stone Excerpts

Wednesday 11th March 2020 Westminster Hall

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the mental health of veterans.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank you and the Members who have turned up for the debate on what is probably rather a slow news day.

Since I introduced my Bill to ring-fence NHS spending for veteran mental health services, military personnel from across the UK have been in touch to confirm the worst: veterans are struggling to access mental health support and, sadly, we are all letting them down. We have only half an hour for this debate, so I cannot cover all the complex reasons why we are where we are today. I will focus on three areas: the importance of peer-led support, the funding problem and the need for a more holistic approach to ensure we look after veteran mental health in every aspect of life.

In addition to speaking to veterans up and down the country, my office has engaged with amazing charities such as the Forces in Mind Trust, the Ripple Pond, the Royal British Legion, PTSD Resolution—that organisation works with people who have post-traumatic stress disorder—and, of course, Combat Stress. Together with our NHS, these groups work hard with volunteering veterans to do what they can, but my fear is that without the Government’s help, they will struggle to continue the fight for improved mental health support.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing such an important debate. He is absolutely right to praise the work of a number of different charities in this area. Does he agree that we need a strategic approach to ensure that once veterans leave service, they are signposted in the right direction, and the support that they seek is properly funded?

[Jamie Stone]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct, and I will come to that point later. I will deal first with the importance of peer-led support. One veteran, Mark Lister, who is a volunteer for Combat Stress in the highlands and who served as a forward observer in the Royal Artillery for 18 years, called me yesterday and relayed his personal experiences, which were most interesting. One thing he said that stood out was that there is a stark difference between the combat trauma experienced by a soldier or a service person, and the trauma experienced by a civilian.

In his classic, wonderfully frank highland manner, Mark said, “Jamie, only a veteran is going to know how to help another veteran. We don’t want to get bogged down in the trivia of military maps. We don’t want to go through explaining all that stuff. We just want to speak about our trauma with someone who knows and gets what it’s like”. He is absolutely right, because most of us will never understand what our veterans have been through. That is why some of the best care available comes in the form of peer-to-peer support. Alas, cuts to the NHS have made it harder for such services to exist, never mind to be set up in the first place.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing this debate to Westminster Hall. We are all here for the same purpose. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the recent witch hunt of our armed forces who served in Operation Banner has put additional strain on the mental health of those who served? We have a duty of care to those men and women to assure them that we will not allow them to be persecuted, when their only crime was to serve Queen and country. They need every assurance—not just mentally, but emotionally and physically—and the support of this place as they fight to overcome what they have seen and been subjected to in service.

[Jamie Stone]

The hon. Member for Strangford makes a point that I know is close to his heart. He has spoken about it with eloquence in the past, and he does so again today.

In constituencies such as mine, which is vast and remote, accessing healthcare is already difficult. That makes it particularly hard for veterans like Mark to reach out and share what they have been through with people who have also risked their lives for their country. The Government should be making it easier for veterans, service personnel and their families to connect with one another and access peer-led mental health support. Time and again, the evidence—both numerically, and in people’s personal experience—suggests that peer-to-peer treatment is the most effective form of mental health support for people who are affected by combat trauma. Accessing this kind of mental health support is a battle for those who have risked their lives for their country, and they should not be asked to fight that battle.

I turn to funding. It is the custom in this place to cite lots of statistics, so here are a few. The Care Quality Commission rated two out of four Ministry of Defence mental health centres as inadequate or needing improvement between April 2017 and January 2019, and there were shortfalls of at least 50% in uniformed and civilian psychiatric posts in 2017-18. Those are not good figures. Charities that provide support for veterans, service personnel and their families often receive no Government funding whatsoever. They rely solely on donations and pay no salaries. For example, in the last 11 years, PTSD Resolution treated more than 2,700 veterans, reservists and families.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I declare an interest: PTSD Resolution is run by my old commanding officer, Colonel Tony Gauvain. It is the most brilliant charity, and it takes very little money from Government. It has more than 200 counsellors and a 78% success rate. It is the sort of charity that we want to encourage and, indeed, give some more resources to, if we can.

[Jamie Stone]

The hon. and gallant Member speaks with great knowledge and authority, and I welcome his words.

PTSD Resolution prides itself on delivering a prompt, local, brief and effective treatment, at an average cost of £650 per case. If untreated, the social cost can amount to tens of thousands of pounds; it manifests itself in lost jobs, broken families or perhaps, most tragically of all, suicide. Since Combat Stress had to stop taking referrals from Wales and England because of a reduction in funding, PTSD Resolution has seen a 60% increase in referrals. It tells me that it needs the Government to co-operate in funding, according to demand and outcomes.

The chief executive of Combat Stress, Sue Freeth, said to me:

“82% of the veterans treated by Combat Stress have tried to engage with NHS services but their needs have not been met. The government needs to ring-fence funding for specialist services such as ours, that understand and can successfully treat those veterans with complex PTSD. There is a significant funding gap for veterans with complex mental health needs who need intensive clinical rehabilitation and struggle to access this support elsewhere.”

[Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. As the Member who represents part of Salisbury plain, I have a lot of interest in this, and I know the charities that he refers to well. I fully endorse everything he has said about those brilliant charities, and we need to support them directly, as well as providing more support through professional mental health services. Does he agree that beyond money and civil society, we have to consider the role of the statutory system and the literacy of some public servants, who are well-meaning but often let our veterans down? Veterans are sent from pillar to post, and they often have to repeat their terrible stories to frontline public servants in the Department for Work and Pensions or the Department of Health and Social Care, who do not really understand this matter. If we improved the literacy of those who work in our frontline public services, it would make a great difference.

[Jamie Stone]

The hon. Gentleman makes his point extremely well. The mention of Salisbury brings to my mind mixed memories as a private soldier in the Territorial Army, but we will gloss over that.

I believe that the Government must try to step up for veterans and bridge the funding gap, if they can. I do not have all the answers, but as a start we should ring-fence NHS funding for mental health support. As a Scottish MP, health is outside my remit, but, as my presentation Bill set out a few days ago, it is entirely possible for the Government to ring-fence NHS spending for veterans’ mental health support. As much as I think that ring-fencing NHS expenditure would be a good start, it is not, in all honesty, a catch-all answer. As many hon. Members know, mental health treatment can be complicated, and the circumstances surrounding veteran welfare can be challenging. We all need to bash heads together and see how we can collaborate more effectively to deliver a more holistic mental health strategy.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me, and with the Defence Committee, that there is a strong case for establishing a national mental health residential rehabilitation centre, with the emphasis on the public sector?

[Jamie Stone]

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent and important point, which he and I discussed when we were on the armed forces parliamentary scheme last year.

As we know from recent publicity, last week Commonwealth veterans took legal action against the Home Office and the Ministry of Defence over a systematic failure to assist them properly with complex immigration rules. Many of those veterans, sadly, now fear deportation. The claimants allege that the Government failed to follow their own duties at discharge, meaning that little guidance was given about their immigration status. Under current Home Office rules, a Commonwealth veteran with a partner and two children would have to pay—can you believe this?—nearly £10,000 to continue living in the UK.

Why do I raise that point in a debate on mental health support? Imagine someone risking their life for a country only to find out that they will have to pay just to live there when they retire. I cannot begin to think how stressful it would be for someone on a military pension to try to pay the Home Office’s extortionate visa fees. When the Home Office makes such decisions, they tap into the general problem, which has already been alluded to. Mental health support for veterans is not just a matter for the Ministry of Defence or the Department of Health and Social Care: it is also a matter for the Home Office, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, the Department for Work and Pensions and many others.

Just last week, Craig Bulman, who served in 2 Para, the Red Devils freefall team and the Household Cavalry, contacted my office and told me about his experience with the Child Support Agency. Again, it is not an issue that would immediately strike us as relating to mental health. However, Craig told me:

“I am currently helping with 13 cases, mostly veterans. Of those, I have four veterans who are suicidal due to their experiences with the CSA. In a couple of these cases, it triggered their PTSD.”

I do not know a huge amount about those cases—in fact, I know little, and there is a lot more to the story—but I would be grateful if the Minister would agree to meet me to discuss Craig’s experience in more depth. I think it would be useful for the Ministry of Defence, as it would for the people Craig is helping. I bring it up again today to reiterate the simple point that we require a more collaborative and holistic approach to improving mental health support for veterans.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

I have listened with great interest to the hon. Gentleman. As a veteran, I defer to no one in my admiration of our veterans, or my desire to ensure that their mental health is promoted. However, for credibility, it is only fair to point out that many other public servants are at least as badly affected by some of the traumas to which the hon. Gentleman referred. If he is trying to create a system in which we prioritise the management of particular groups, he needs also to consider the police service, for example, which today loses more frontline people than the armed forces. Otherwise, his case kind of falls apart. I wonder whether he agrees.

[Jamie Stone]

I absolutely accept the point and can think, off the top of my head, of a number of policemen in my part of the far north of Scotland, who, most unfortunately, are leaving the service. That is something we do not want to happen.

I spoke earlier about the highlands’ very own Mark Lister, and it is true that constituencies such as mine face an additional challenge with regard to access to public services. Transport is not good, health services are patchy and we have a housing shortage, as I am sure nearly all constituencies do. I stress again that improving mental health support for veterans requires Government Departments to work together, possibly with other services such as the police, and it requires the Treasury to find the money and put it where it is needed.

The big ask that I want to conclude with is my hope that the Minister and the Government will look closely at my Bill, the National Health Service Expenditure Bill, which has received support from across the House. I am grateful to Members of all parties for what I take as a great expression of support. Second Reading is scheduled for Friday 26 June, the day before Armed Forces Day. I hope that Members recognise that I do not intend to let the matter drop.

--- Later in debate ---

[Johnny Mercer]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out that it is no good sitting down with the widow of somebody who has taken their own life, or with their family, and saying, “Actually, statistically, we are in a pretty good place in this country when it comes to suicide.” The reality when it comes to figures and so on is that we are—the rate of suicide in the service community is eight in 100,000; in the civilian equivalent cohort it is 32 in 100,000. People who have served in the military are less likely to take their own life. However, he is absolutely right that each one of these suicides is a tragedy not only for the individual and their family, but for us as an institution, because we owe this unique debt of gratitude towards those who serve.[Official Report, 16 March 2020, Vol. 673, c. 6MC.]

We are beginning to really shift the debate. We have invested a lot of early money in data. We started from a very low point when it came to veterans’ data and data on suicide. We have put money into a cohort study, looking at 16,000 people from the beginning of the Iraq process through to where they are now. Clearly, most of them are civilians, but we are watching what happens in their lives, the cause of death if they die and so on. We are marrying that with an exercise in the MOD, going over the records of every individual who served who has died since 1991—almost three quarters of a million people —to have a look at the cause of death and the incidence rates. We have just signed the contract to give some money to the University of Manchester to look at cases in which veterans take their lives, to undertake a comprehensive study of the events in their life in the 12 months leading up to that, to answer the question whether we could or should have done anything more to intervene. I totally accept that the Government have not started from a strong start point when it comes to data around suicide and what we have done on it, but I want to make clear this morning that that is changing.

When it comes to this strategic shift in healthcare provision for our service people, I start by paying tribute to the service charities. They have done an amazing job—there are no two ways about that. When Combat Stress started, and throughout the period where mental health really was a Cinderella service—we talk now about winning that battle on the stigma of mental health, but 30 years ago that was not the case—Combat Stress held a candle for this stuff and was the only port in a storm. It has done an incredible job over the years.

However, for a long time Combat Stress and others have talked about the increasing presentation and understanding of mental health versus a decline in giving from the public. That has presented a unique challenge about what we do now. I am very clear, as is the Prime Minister, that that basic underlying mental health provision is owed to those people by this country and the NHS must step forward to provide that. With the problems with Combat Stress that have come to light recently, which everybody knows about, I have brought forward a third service to try to fill the mental health provision gap for our veterans. We have the complex treatment service, which was introduced last year and has been very successful, and we have the TIL—transition, intervention and liaison—service to speed up access to talking therapies and so on, but there is a requirement for a high-intensity service to look after some of our most poorly people on the NHS. I have brought that commissioning forward. The bidding process is going through now and in April I will be launching that. We will have those three services—CTS, the high-intensity service and TILS. That will be the framework through which this Government will see through their commitment to veterans on mental health.

The NHS requires people to deliver those services, and that is where the charities are absolutely critical. They have bid into the services and they are indeed running CTS and TILS in other parts of the country. We have had a lot of bids for high-intensity service. Those charities are going to go through a change as they fit in around this framework and leadership, which they have asked us for for a long time. The challenge then is to make sure that every single veteran and every service member in this country when they leave service knows about the programme of mental health care, so that they cannot honestly look me in the eye and say to me, “I did not know where to turn.” That is the challenge I am absolutely determined to meet. I will come on to talk about funding for that at the moment.

[Jamie Stone]

I accept the generous intent of the Minister’s remarks, and I thank him for that. It is worth making the point in passing that, if we could get this right and if the general public could see us getting it right, that in turn would surely help recruitment to our armed forces—something that is a real problem for all three services.

[Johnny Mercer]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I come back to the point I made earlier: when this goes wrong, when we do not get this right, it is not only a tragedy for the individual and their families, but a tragedy for us as an institution if people come and give the best years of their lives, and we do not then have the follow-on care and so on that so many of them need.

I am confident that when we launch this service in April, it will provide the framework and the leadership that will bring in all the charities and all the brilliant little groups such as PTSD Resolution and others. They will fit in around this framework and deliver parts of the course. That is critical for the charities, because they will be able to focus on some things and not on others, but cognisant of the fact that that need is being met. There will be more long-term sustainability and contracts that they can enter into with the NHS that will give them financial stability. I am confident in 12 or 18 months’ time we will have a world-class offering for mental health for our veterans in this country.

When it comes to money, the Prime Minister is absolutely clear that we will provide the resources required to meet the demand. This healthcare model is the future of veterans’ care in this country. As he came into office, we saw a fundamental shift—this from someone who has irritated colleagues in this place over many years on this subject—towards this nation, particularly this place, being the ultimate guarantor of services for those who have served. It is not always the deliverer, but it is the guarantor.

Finally, we are going to get there with the programme. I am speaking at King’s College about it tomorrow and the formal launch is in April. I have a huge job of work to do to ensure that everybody in this country understands what it is, and I look forward to that challenge, but it is a team effort. This is not my mental healthcare plan. There are people who have done some amazing stuff in this field. All I am doing is bringing it together and providing that leadership, because that good stuff is there already. I genuinely think we are going to see a fundamental change in the next 12 to 18 months.

European Union: Future Relationship

Jamie Stone Excerpts

Thursday 27th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

I have often referred in this place to the concerns of the highland tourism industry, in particular hotels, about the continuing employment of EU nationals, many of whom are heading homeward, and the concerns of fish processors about getting their fresh produce to European markets in good time. Will the Secretary of State, who is a good Scot, consider coming to the highlands to meet representatives of those industries? He would be most welcome.

[Michael Gove]

I would be delighted so to do. Any opportunity to visit the hon. Gentleman’s constituency is a welcome one. He is absolutely right that the hospitality industry is integral to the success of the highlands economy. We want to make sure that in the future those who provide such a high standard of hospitality have access to the skilled labour they need.

Southend: City Status

Jamie Stone Excerpts

Friday 20th December 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sir David Amess]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, whom I regard as my friend, for his support.

Let me run through the list of reasons why Southend should become a city. First, there is the Music Man Project, which was the inspiration of David Stanley. He did not leave people with learning difficulties just to be looked after. He has absolutely transformed their lives through the power of music. The House can imagine my pride when these people with learning difficulties first performed at the London Palladium and then at the Royal Albert Hall, where my right hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt)—who was the Defence Secretary at the time—watched from the gallery. And it gets better: we have just sent a mission to Broadway and will now be taking our show, performed by people with learning difficulties, to Broadway. That is one reason why Southend should be a city.

Next, Leigh-on-Sea was voted the happiest place in the United Kingdom. Well, I was not so happy knocking on doors in the cold and dark there recently, so I suppose I am the one exception. We scored high for community spirit, opportunities to develop skills, good restaurants and shops. It is also the 150th anniversary of Southend rugby club. How good is that—to keep a rugby club going for 150 years with volunteers?

The marina, which will probably be in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East, is going to be fabulous. That is another reason that Southend should be a city. We have the longest pier in the world. You cannot build piers today, but there we are. A number of politicians have felt that they were walking on water. When they come to Southend, they really do walk on water—on the longest pier. We are also reinventing and reinvigorating the trains there.

During the election campaign, one or two issues were raised, but they can all be built into the case for Southend getting city status. All colleagues think that Southend airport is fantastic and very convenient. We are building a business park there, which will be excellent for regeneration. However, I have to say that it does cause nuisance and upset among people, especially when the two Amazon flights take off at 2.30 am and 4.30 am. There is also a difference in noise levels between easyJet and Ryanair, and an issue with air quality. We cannot keep having talks with the airport about section 106, so I want those matters changed.

Donkey’s years ago, when I was the MP for Basildon, I had a public row on TV with the chairman of British Rail. I was clapped when I came through the Division Lobby, and they said, “Good on you, David! He needed to be told.” Our railway was called the “misery line”, so we changed the owner. I wanted Richard Branson to have it, but we ended up with c2c, and I am disappointed. The card reading machines take ages, as I found this morning; it is stupid. The ticket machines are far too low down, and when the sun is glaring on to the glass, you cannot see the screen. I am sick to death of being redirected every other week from Fenchurch Street to Liverpool Street. We need something done about that.

Although I say to Conservative Members that we should forget renationalising British Rail, I am one of the few who was there when we privatised all these industries, and it was under the Blair Government that power was taken away from this place. We now need to make these organisations accountable, because that is where the problem is. We, the elected politicians, earn a third of the money that umpteen people in these unelected positions earn, and they need to be made much more accountable.

I turn to the national health service. The chief executive of the NHS said at the start of the campaign, “Don’t weaponise the NHS,” but what happened? It was weaponised, with all this rubbish about selling it to America, and particularly in my area and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East. I was at Southend Hospital this morning doing my impersonation of Santa Claus, and I met one of our wonderful consultants, Paul Guyler. The reorganisation of services between Basildon, Broomfield and Southend cannot continue unless they are clinically led. They are clinically led, but we need people to put their heads above the parapet, and we need the ambulance service to reassure us that when they are moving patients around, there will not be delays that could result in disaster.

On the environment and water quality, I think that the Thames estuary is getting cleaner all the time. I was standing on Bell Wharf recently, and a seal popped out of the water and starting clapping me—I thought, “There’s someone else who’s pleased with my re-election as a Member of Parliament.”

I turn to parking. I think, Mr Deputy Speaker, we have reached a stage in our lives where we know what all the problems are; it is the solutions we ask for. Perhaps all my new colleagues will come up with some new solutions. I represent a tiny urban area, and parking is a real issue. I am delighted to see in the Gracious Speech that the Government are going to put money in for potholes.

My hon. Friend the Minister should know that I am inviting ambassadors and anyone who is the head of a foreign embassy in this country to visit Southend. We have already had them from them Taiwan and Qatar. We are having them from India, the Maldives and all over the world. They want to invest in Southend, and that is another good reason why we should be a city.

There was very good news from the hospital that I visited this morning. I am pleased to announce that the hospital has decided to invest in a new surgical robot to undertake prostate cancer surgery. We had a launch here with the new charity Prost8. This will change the lives of so many gentlemen who are diagnosed with a prostate issue. It was so good that our new Speaker decided to go public, just as the former Prime Minister did, about being diagnosed with diabetes. Sometimes it is forgotten that we are human beings, and we suffer all the happiness and tragedies of other people. He will be a role model in that.

I am also pleased to announce to the Minister that we are going to offer patients across mid and south Essex out-of-hours emergency interventional radiology treatment, which is another good thing to happen. My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) is no longer in her place, but the hospital in her constituency is going to have a new MRI scanner, which will help an awful lot of people.

I want to mention a few of the local authority’s projects. A successful procurement process has led to a partnership between the Better Queensway scheme and Swan Housing, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East. There is the second phase of The Forum, a partnership with South Essex College, supported by £6 million of funding from the local enterprise partnership. I have already mentioned the pier. A wheeled sports facility opened in the summer, and the SUNRISE project is a great example of co-design and co-production in the creation of ideas for a new London Road entrance to the high street.

The bid is working very well indeed. I have mentioned the airport business park and the 21-hectare site which will include the development of HQ-style office buildings. A planning application for the Seaway development has been submitted, and work is ongoing with Homes England and other partners to support the delivery of a significant pipeline of new housing across the borough. Digital infrastructure investment through CityFibre will ensure that Southend becomes a gigabyte city, and that all its households will have access to full fibre by 2022.

I could go on and on, but I am anxious to ensure that my hon. Friend the Minister has a little time in which to respond.

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

Inverness, which is not in my constituency but which is in the highlands, became a city some years ago, and it has been a great success. Part of that success has been the establishment of the Inverness tartan. May I point out that Cornwall has its own tartan, and Suffolk has its special gingham plaid? I strongly suggest to the hon. Member, in the spirit of Christmas good wishes—and I salute his excellent speech—that he think about a Southend tartan.

[Sir David Amess]

What a brilliant idea. I was not expecting that Christmas present. I thank the hon. Member very much indeed for his suggestion.

I know that the House has become tired of hearing me ask for city status for Southend—[Interruption.]—a little weary—but I am not going to shut up until it happens, so someone must stand up at that Dispatch Box and tell me when the competition will begin. I shall raise the matter at the next Prime Minister’s Question Time. We have achieved a wonderful majority. We may have forgotten how to govern, but we are the Government now. We have five years in which to make the most of the trust that we have been given by the British people, so let us start with Southend being made a city.

Early Parliamentary General Election Bill

Jamie Stone Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 29th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Main]

The right hon. Gentleman tempts me, because the culture and heritage goes back to the Romans in St Albans and I could talk about it for a very long time. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I have a wonderful picture of the new St Albans museum, in the centre of my beautiful city; before he was Prime Minister, he came to St Albans and congratulated the Conservative-led council on delivering a fabulous museum, which is to the absolute enhancement of my constituency.

I will move on to the general election—[Interruption.] Is shouting down democracy something we agree with in this House? As far as I can see, this House says it wants more time to debate things, but when an hon. Member stands on her hind legs and starts debating things, they do not want her to have that amount of time—they want to run on to other Opposition groups or to other Members in the House. On something as important as this, the people need to know, even if it is Brenda of Bristol, why on earth we are troubling them yet again with another election.

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

On that point—

[Mrs Main]

On Brenda of Bristol, I shall give way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

No, she is taking an intervention from none other than the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone)

[Jamie Stone]

Mr Speaker, I rise as the unrecognised Liberal Democrat in this place and I apologise to the Chamber. Let me get back to the issue of the election itself. I represent the coldest and most northerly constituency in the British mainland. It is going to get dark a hell of a lot earlier where I come from than it does in St Albans, and the streets and roads are going to be an awful lot icier. This is perhaps an appeal for the Leader of the House, who is not with us at this precise moment, but may I ask the Government to co-ordinate as closely as possible with the Scottish Government to make sure that the streets and roads are safe for the people who want to come out to exercise their democratic right?

[Mrs Main]

I am not sure how that related to Brenda of Bristol, but the point I wish to make, before I start concluding my remarks, is that in 2017 the public were sick of the idea of having an election but they turned out and they mostly elected the two biggest parties, on a mandate to deliver. This House, for whatever reasons it wishes to conclude, has been letting the public down. The binary choice of in or out has been turned into a political football. Now the parties need to draft their manifestos. They need to firm up their pledges and be honest about what they wish to do. They need to tell the public that if a party is elected with a strong mandate, the horse-trading will stop, the deals will stop and the taking over of the agenda by the Opposition or other individual groups with their own little axe to grind will stop. The parties need to say that a Government will be able to deliver on all the additional funding pledged in the Queen’s Speech and on Brexit, and that the next Government, unless they are a Government who are asked to oppose Brexit, will be delivering on the pledge to deliver to the people.

I hope that today there will be a vote for a general election, and not for political expediency. All of us should be saying sorry to the public for putting them through it again. We should be saying sorry for the dark streets, the cold nights, and the cancelled Christmas decorations or whatever else was going on in halls that are now going to be having election proceedings. All of us need to apologise to the public and say, “Sorry, when you told us to leave, we weren’t actually sure you meant it.”

I believe the public meant it. I know that other Members wish to speak today, including the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey), who was not here for the whole debate—

Debate on the Address

Jamie Stone Excerpts

Monday 14th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Ian Blackford]

I will come on to fishing and agriculture, but when I am talking about the principles and what the European Union has meant for peace and stability, that is the response that we get from the Conservatives. Frankly, that is telling. I am amazed that the right hon. Gentleman, for whom I have respect, has lowered himself to a situation where he is talking about fishing when we are talking about the peace and stability that the European Union has brought us.

We have not yet left the European Union, yet we already have a preview of the Prime Minister’s contempt for democracy and lack of respect for the rule of law. Leaving the European Union risks the protection, rights and values that have made our democracy possible. The rights that we have all shared as EU citizens—to live, to work and to receive an education in each member state—are about to be torn from us if this Government get their way. They are rights that perhaps many of us have taken for granted. The great right of freedom of movement is to be stopped by a Government whose warped sense somehow sees this as a victory.

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. We have our political differences, but the fact is that he represents the biggest constituency in the UK and I represent the second biggest. When it comes to fisheries, the EU has, over many years, paid for whole harbours such as Kinlochbervie, paid for roads, paid for airports and paid for bridges. Is it not utterly reprehensible that there is nothing in the Prime Minister’s plan to replace this crucial money for my constituents?

[Ian Blackford]

I thank the hon. Gentleman—I did not think we had that many differences, but there we are. He is absolutely right. As I travel around Ross, Skye and Lochaber, and as he travels around Caithness and Sutherland, it is absolutely the case that the signs of what the European Union has brought to our constituents are everywhere—the signs of the investment that Europe has brought to our constituents and the European Union citizens who have found a home in our constituencies, including those who are prepared to say that the highlands and islands are their home. We, too, are glad to welcome them as part of our community.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mitchell]

With the greatest of respect, the hon. Lady has something of a brass neck by intervening with that. Most Conservative Members, most of the time, voted in favour of a deal and it is the party opposite that has not voted in favour of a deal. I respect the result of the referendum and I voted for the deal on the past two occasions it came before the House, believing that at that point there was too little room for manoeuvre and that it was in the best interests of those I represent in the royal town of Sutton Coldfield to vote for it. So I can see no reason not to support the deal I expect my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to put before the House shortly. The message I get, particularly outside the M25 beltway, is that people want this done. They want to move on. When the House meets in extraordinary circumstances next Saturday, they want a deal to be secured and for us to move on to the next phase. It will only be the next phase, of course, but it will be psychologically important to the markets.

[Jamie Stone]

I reinforce the point I made to the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford). Any form of Brexit is potentially so damaging to the interests of my constituents. I must put my constituency first, which is why I cannot vote for any form of deal. I want to make that plain and have it on the record. My constituents must come first.

UK Shared Prosperity Fund

Jamie Stone Excerpts

Thursday 5th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House notes with concern that the Government is more than half a year behind its schedule to provide details of post-2020 funding through a UK Shared Prosperity Fund; supports the Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s recommendation that the Fund should at the very least match the £2.4 billion per year currently allocated through the EU structural funds; and calls on the Government to ensure that full details of the fund are published with urgency, that the devolved settlement is respected and that there is no reduction in the levels of funding to devolved governments or their role in distributing funds.

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing us the opportunity to bring this matter to the Chamber today. Scottish communities stand to lose millions of pounds from Brexit. Communities, charities and other organisations have been waiting for years to find out what funding will be available. There is also a threat to devolution. Long-term planning has been abandoned to Brexit.

We need clarity about the details of the so-called shared prosperity fund. We need to know whether the devolution settlement will be protected. Currently, until 2020, communities and charities can access funding worth £2.4 billion a year. Work by the Conference of Peripheral and Maritime Regions—the CPMR—shows that, for 2021-27, the UK would have received €13 billion in regional development funding. For Scotland, failure to replace that would mean a loss of €840 million. For the highlands and islands alone, that would be €130 million. It is therefore vital that that money is replaced.

That funding has underpinned further education, youth employment, smart cities, connectivity for islands and communities, small and medium-sized enterprises, apprenticeships, regeneration, innovation, productivity, social inclusion and much more. In Scotland, it has supported projects and development in West Lothian, the Orkney isles, Ayrshire, Fife, Argyll and Bute, Midlothian, East Lothian, Perth and Kinross, Aberdeenshire, West Dunbartonshire, Stirling, Western Isles, Inverclyde, Clackmannanshire, Moray, Shetland, Edinburgh, Dumfries and Galloway, Renfrewshire, Glasgow, Dundee and more.

In the highlands and islands, we would be hard pushed to find any town or village, let alone our city of Inverness, that has not had investment since we joined the European Community in the 1970s. Indeed, two specific and unavoidable icons stand testament to that. The Kessock bridge was built through Europe before devolution because Westminster ignored the highlands for decades.

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

When the hon. Gentleman and I drive around the highlands, we cannot help but notice the signs with the stars on them on new bits of road that say that the development was funded by the EU. Without that funding, those roads would probably not have been built and transport across our vast constituencies would have been difficult for our constituents. Replacing the funding is essential. Notwithstanding the fact that the Minister has met me several times, tried to do his level best and knows the area, I am bound to say that we seem no further forward, which my constituents find not just frustrating but deeply worrying.

[Drew Hendry]

It is absolutely true that the money has had a massive impact on the infrastructure of the highlands and it must be replaced.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for the Northern Powerhouse and Local Growth (Jake Berry)]

It is a privilege and an honour to have the opportunity to respond to this debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) on proposing it. It presents us with a timely opportunity to update the House on the progress we are making.

I also congratulate the hon. Members who have spoken; I will not have time to name them or respond to all the points they have raised but this shows that across the House there is real passion for the communities that each of us represents, and I share that passion for my own constituency, of course, in east Lancashire.

Many of the Members who have contributed referred to our being the recipients of EU money, and I think it is really important that the point is made for people who may be watching our proceedings today at home and following our every word about the future of EU structural funding and the UK shared prosperity fund that this is not the EU’s money. This money belongs to the British taxpayer; it is taken into the EU and is sliced, diced and taken away. It is then returned to the British people wherever they may be in our United Kingdom with a whole load of strings attached.

In 2018, the UK contributed £13.2 billion to the European Union and it sent us back £4 billion—£4.3 billion to be precise. We know in this country better how to spend UK taxpayers’ money than the European Union does; many Members on this side of the House, if not the other side of the House, will certainly agree with that.

We in Government have a history of working with the devolved Administrations, metro mayors and local authorities across our United Kingdom, and that is why we are so pleased that we were able to commit over £500 million of Government funding to the Glasgow city region deal. Specifically in the Inverness and Highland city region, we are proud to have contributed £53 million, among other things, towards the funding of the University of the Highlands, about which the proposer of the debate spoke with such passion. I know he will let no opportunity pass him by to ensure that the Scottish Government, the European Union and the UK Government are all credited for the contributions they have made to that exciting growth deal.

[Jamie Stone]

An issue that I and others raised with the previous Secretary of State for Scotland is that, while we welcome the Inverness and Highland city region money, there is some evidence that the money is not going to some of the furthest corners of the highlands, such as Wick and Thurso in my constituency, where it has been badly needed.

[Jake Berry]

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point on behalf of his constituents. I know it is not the first time he has made it, and we should certainly continue to monitor that. I, like him, suspect that there may not be a completely even-handed approach to disbursing money around the highlands, but he will know more about that than I do. However, these growth deals across our United Kingdom in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are an example of what we can achieve when we work together as four nations. The awesome foursome that makes up the United Kingdom is the most successful political partnership and Union that Europe has ever known, and that is why, despite what the separatists may say in today’s debate, we are stronger together.

Turning to the main points raised in this debate, I understand that recipient organisations of European funding have concerns about the certainty of the future of their funding, but it is important that we acknowledge—[Interruption.] Is the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) seeking to intervene?

Census (Return Particulars and Removal of Penalties) Bill [Lords]

Jamie Stone Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 17th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to contribute to this debate. I welcome the introduction of the Bill to ensure that the census is up to date and accurately reflects the country as we go to seek its views.

There was another census that took place about 2,000 years ago, possibly the most famous and most significant census ever undertaken. It was a census where people returned to their homeland, to the place they were from, to register. There was a recently married couple at this time who left the town of Nazareth and undertook an arduous journey of about 100 miles on foot—maybe with a donkey, but probably on foot—to their home town of Bethlehem to register that this was the place that they belonged to, that this was their homeland. The journey was particularly gruelling because the wife was heavily pregnant. As is well known to us all now, when they got to Bethlehem the woman gave birth to a son, the most famous human to have ever lived and the founder of the Christian faith. I am sure Sir Cliff Richard is eternally grateful that they made it to Bethlehem, because “O Little Town of Nazareth” does not have quite the same ring to it and he would probably have been one Christmas No. 1 short.

Why did they make that journey? Because they had a strong connection with a place and its people. They wanted to demonstrate that this was the place that was bound up in their identity. This was the place that they were from; this was their homeland. That desire to identify with a place and its people remains as strong in many people today as it did 2,000 years ago. In fact, I would argue that in recent times there is a growing sense, with a more mobile population and globalisation impacting on communities, that the desire to have a strong connection and identity with a place is stronger today than it has been. Today, thankfully, we do not need to travel to our homelands to be able to identify where we are from. Modern census methods allow us to do that by way of a simple tick—well, that is true of almost everyone, as I will come on to explain.

The right to demonstrate which of the national identities within the UK we choose to identify with is not currently protected by legislation. Currently, it is down to the ONS to recommend to the Minister which national identities should be included in any census. I find it quite astonishing that it was only in the most recent 2011 census that the Welsh were given the opportunity to identify their national identity by way of a tick-box, and only in 2001 that the Scottish were given a tick-box. I find it incredible that those developments took place so recently. There is nothing that currently protects that status, and it could be removed in subsequent censuses by a recommendation from the ONS. I am sure many Members of this House would find that completely unacceptable.

Let me say that I have a great deal of respect for the officers and staff of the ONS, who provide a very important service to our nation. I do not believe, however, that it should be down to the ONS, using statistics and data, to decide which national identities should and should not be included in any given census every 10 years. The right to demonstrate one’s UK national identity should not be a matter of data or statistics. I believe it should be a right established in legislation. That right should also be a matter of equality across the whole UK. No one national identity should be considered more important or be recognised more than any other. All the national identities in the UK should be given equal status and equality of opportunity to be recognised as such within any census. We could never countenance one UK nationality being given less status in a census.

I, along with a number of my colleagues, will be looking to add a clause to the Bill to establish in legislation the right for all UK national identities to be treated equally in all future censuses. The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) is well aware of this issue. I want to put on record my thanks to him, and to the Minister he is currently filling in for, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith), for their positive and constructive engagement on this issue.

The Minister is aware that there is a particular matter in this regard that I want to address. As matters currently stand, there is one UK national identity that is not being given equal status in the census. In 2014, the Cornish were recognised by the Council of Europe under the framework convention for national minorities. That status was not just accepted but enthusiastically embraced by the UK Government, who declared that this would now gave the Cornish equality of status with the other Celtic nations within the UK, the Scottish, the Irish and the Welsh. The ONS, however, does not recognise that status. It is treating the Cornish as a minor local difficulty restricted purely to Cornwall. We are being told that we can have a write-in option for our Cornishness and that there will be an advertising campaign in Cornwall to make people aware of it, but that misses the point that there are many thousands—probably hundreds of thousands—of proud Cornish men and women across the UK who would like to identify as Cornish, if they were given the same opportunity to do so as the other Celtic parts of the UK.

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

I am listening with increasing fascination to the hon. Gentleman’s contribution. To take forward his point about the Cornish, which I totally accept, is there not a parallel case to be made for the Gaelic-speaking highlander in Scotland, who does not regard himself as a lowlander and, in fact, views them with considerable suspicion?

[Steve Double]

I will come on to why I believe that, at this time, the Cornish have a unique claim on the matter. In future, this may apply to other peoples, but I suspect that it does not at this time.

20 Years of Devolution

Jamie Stone Excerpts

Thursday 11th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)]

It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) and, in particular, to hear the translation of some Welsh poetry at least. I am pleased that the Scottish Affairs Committee, of which I am a member, and the Welsh Affairs Committee have secured this debate to mark 20 years of devolution. It is an important landmark in the history of the United Kingdom and an appropriate time to reflect on the progress we have made towards more representative and more effective government in Scotland and Wales—and Northern Ireland, when we get its Assembly back.

Over the past 20 years, Scotland has seen multiple rounds of devolution. It was a Conservative-led Government who oversaw the Scotland Act 2012 and the Scotland Act 2016, which devolved additional powers to the Scottish Parliament, making it one of the most powerful devolved legislatures in the world today. The Scottish Affairs Committee’s recent report on inter- governmental relations highlighted the many other upheavals that have influenced the devolution settlement during that time, including the change of Government in 2007 and the independence referendum in 2014. It is clear that the devolution settlement that Scotland enjoys today is very different from the one created back in 1999. With 111 additional powers due to be devolved from Brussels to Holyrood as we leave the European Union—87 immediately and another 24 to follow—it will soon be changing further.

As the Member of Parliament for Banff and Buchan, the heartland of Scottish fishing, I know that my constituents will be glad to see overall fisheries policy being determined closer to home, rather than by distant bureaucrats on the continent. I also know that many of my constituents have been frustrated by the SNP’s apparent desire to keep all those powers in Brussels, by keeping us in the EU and, by association, in the common fisheries policy.

Brexit or no Brexit, however, it is right that the UK and Scottish Governments should be investigating how intergovernmental relations can be improved, but this is not the time for talk of radically rewriting the devolution settlement. While we are celebrating the 20th anniversary of devolution as a whole, it is worth recognising that the last Scotland Act came into force just three years ago. In fact, we are still implementing that last rewrite of the devolution settlement, and earlier this year it emerged that the SNP-run Scottish Government will not be ready for the full devolution of welfare powers until 2024. This from the same party that told voters in 2014 that it could set up a whole new country in just 18 months.

Instead of plotting a rematch against the voters on independence or devising increasingly left-field proposals to overhaul the devolution settlement yet again, the focus of this review should be on ensuring that the devolution settlement we have got is implemented smoothly and effectively.

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting point about the devolution settlement. We in the highlands and islands have identified something of a democratic deficit: we feel our voice is not being heard by those in power in Edinburgh and that power is being dragged out of the highlands to Edinburgh. That does not suit highland people, and what we get is elected Members turning around and blaming the Highland Council, but it gets its money from the Scottish Government. I believe there should be a Minister for the highlands and islands, in whatever Government, of whatever colour, who would speak up for the highlands and islands and would actually exercise some power to the good of the highlands and islands. We do not have one at the moment and we should.

[David Duguid]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point. I am going to raise a similar one about the north-east of Scotland, where I come from—that will come as no surprise.

The work involved in this review is vital if the Scottish people are to enjoy the good governance they deserve, from both the Westminster and Holyrood Governments. I was pleased, therefore, with the UK Government’s response to the Committee’s report on intergovernmental affairs, which showed their commitment to such a review. It remains to be seen whether the Scottish Government will put the interests of the Scottish people first and work constructively with the UK Government. We may see more of the same from the SNP: this is the party that is delaying the implementation of the Scotland Act 2016—particularly on welfare, as I have mentioned—and is desperately trying to keep agricultural and fisheries policy under Brussels’ control. This is the party whose own Brexit Minister has said he does not like the devolved settlement. This is the party that ran roughshod over the procedures of the Scottish Parliament and the advice of its Presiding Officer to ram through its continuity Bill, only for swathes of it to be struck down by the Supreme Court.

The choice is the SNP’s, and I hope for the sake of the Scottish people that the SNP chooses a more constructive path. If it fails to do so, I suspect that come 2021, when we have the next Holyrood elections, the Scottish people will bring that nationalist era to an end and elect a new Government who will take that constructive approach—

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kerr]

It is important that we make Scotland the best place to live in the United Kingdom, and that people aspire to live in Scotland, to build a business in Scotland and to have their family grow up in Scotland.

I am certainly very proud of Scotland and I feel keenly my responsibility and duty to speak for my constituents in Stirling and to speak up for Scotland’s place at the heart of the United Kingdom. That is why I was delighted last week to welcome my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to Stirling, where she gave an important speech on the Union. Among other things, she outlined the nature of the Dunlop review—I recommend that text to the House.

[Jamie Stone]

I am proud to be the only person present in the Chamber who was elected to the Scottish Parliament in 1999. I served there for 12 years. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that the best years under Governments of whatever colour were the first three terms. When in the fourth term one party had absolute power in Holyrood, that was when we got almost a dictatorship, which was very much to the detriment of the highlands and islands.

[Stephen Kerr]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. I think specifically of the first SNP minority Government who were sustained in power on many occasions by the Scottish Conservative MSPs when they were passing their legislative business through Holyrood.

I mentioned the Prime Minister’s speech. I also wish to mention the significant address that was delivered by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in Edinburgh the week before the Prime Minister’s visit. Both addressed the matter of the strength of the Union in the 20th anniversary year of devolution, and both concluded, on the basis of their assessment, that the Union must be strengthened, and they are both right. The Union has been too much neglected.

Talking about the Union is good. I recommend it to colleagues from all parts of the House, because there is an understanding gap in certain quarters of the parties on both sides of this House about what the Union is and its importance. However, talking about it is simply not good enough; we must now do something about it.

I say to my friends on the Conservative Benches that what concerns me the most is that we have this important debate about devolution brought to this Chamber by these two Select Committees, but there are no Members of Parliament representing English constituencies here to make a contribution to this important constitutional issue, other than the Minister whom I welcome to his place.

The Conservative and Unionist party must continuously rediscover its Unionist soul. We should affirm now, more than ever before, that we have the word “Unionist” in our party’s name, because strengthening the Union is core to what we stand for. We need to put strengthening the Union at the very heart of our Government. Setting up a unit of one sort or another for the Union in No.10 or putting titles on the end of other job titles is lip service only; we need the very structure of Government to be changed to put the Union at its heart. I have said this in the past, and I want to say it again here and now: there are missing pieces of the devolution settlement, and those missing pieces are at this end of the country.

I will make a very short list of the things that I believe we need to attend to, or at least consider and debate, because I very much welcome the Select Committee report of the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) and the recommendations contained therein. My first suggestion is to look very carefully at the case for a powerful Department of the United Kingdom, led by a First Secretary of State for the Union, the primary purpose of which would be to test every action of the UK Government based on its impact on the Union. The Department would be further tasked to ensure greater cohesion and communication across Government on issues affecting the devolved Administrations to ensure that better understanding and knowledge of devolution and the Union.

Secondly, we need to put in place those missing pieces of the constitutional machinery that will establish stronger intergovernmental and inter-parliamentary working relationships to move from confrontation to close collaboration on crossover areas of public policy. These changes must be done on a cross-party basis, and they are essential for the post-Brexit operation of the Union.

Thirdly, the Departments of the UK Government with a Union-wide remit must engage with stakeholders and other bodies on the ground in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, as they already do in England. It is simply not good enough that that does not happen today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to be able to speak in this debate. I thank the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) for securing it.

I would like to return to a point made by the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan), who said that the Scottish Parliament had not been paralysed by Brexit in the way that this one had. That may be the case, but it was certainly paralysed by the independence debate. There was an entire year of the 20 that we celebrate today in which the Scottish Parliament had no legislation before it—not a single law was passed. That, for many of us, perhaps goes down as one of the most disappointing aspects of devolution—that for a whole year our Parliament was paralysed by an argument over independence, which the majority of people of Scotland then rejected.

Those 20 years have indeed been an achievement. The hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) recently commented from a sedentary position, “How long did devolution take?” Well, Liberal Democrats know that it took a century because it is a century since we first proposed home rule. It is great to see that, 120 years later, each of the parties in this Parliament is backing devolution, supporting the principle that was originally put forward by the Liberals. We worked on that with the Labour party in the constitutional convention, before eventually being joined by the Scottish nationalists and then, after the fact, by the Conservatives. It is perhaps the biggest single achievement of devolution that it has won over both the Scottish National party and the Conservatives to the position that we had all held before.

[Jamie Stone]

I was myself one of the original members of the Scottish constitutional convention and I have to point out for the record that, during the time we worked together, the Scottish National party was not in the room.

[Christine Jardine]

I thank my hon. Friend for that reminder that the SNP did not, in fact, take part at all.

During those 20 years, it has been important to differentiate between devolution and the work of the Scottish Parliament and of the various Scottish Governments. Yes, there have been achievements—they have been mentioned already—including free personal care, the Borders railway, and the growth in our economic, perhaps, independence. There have been huge achievements, but there have also been significant failures. Our education system is suffering. Our NHS, despite what we regularly hear, is suffering. Independence is constantly put forward as the answer to everything, with Westminster always being at fault. However, perhaps those who advocate independence would do better to spend more time on the day job, working for the people of Scotland to improve the areas that are falling down—most significantly, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) said, in the sucking in of power to Holyrood at the expense of many different areas of life in Scotland. As my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) mentioned, the highlands and the north-east of Scotland have suffered greatly from this centralisation and the whittling away of the powers of local government in order to aggrandise the Scottish Government at their expense.

For those of us who worked hard for independence—[Hon. Members: “Hooray!”] I mean devolution. [Interruption.] I can honestly say that will never happen. Those of us who worked hard for devolution for more than 20 years, who campaigned between 1979 and 1997, and for whom devolution is the most significant achievement of Scottish politics of the last 300 years, will defend it, will work to improve it, and will always support those who put their effort into the good governance of Scotland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

I am delighted to speak in this debate on 20 years of devolution. We now have an entire generation in Scotland who have never known a Scotland without its own Parliament, and that is something of which we can be proud. The Scottish Parliament was born out of disappointment and frustration with the monolithic and remote set-up of Westminster, and that created a thirst, a desire and a burning need for Scotland to have its own democratic Parliament.

What a 20 years it has been! Many of the policies delivered by the Scottish Parliament have been creative, innovative, progressive and worked hard to create a more socially just Scotland. There has been legislation on areas such as land reform and the ban on smoking in public places—championed by Kenneth Gibson MSP, who was the very first politician in the entire United Kingdom to promote that innovative idea. We have had the most ambitious climate change legislation and minimum unit pricing. I could go on, but those examples show that Scotland’s Parliament sets a legislative agenda that others need to follow.

The more the Scottish Parliament does, the more we find it can do—and that is just as well. As Westminster lies paralysed by Brexit chaos and the Government eat themselves alive, with 30 Ministers resigning in the last year alone, the Scottish Parliament under the SNP has got on with the day job. Nine Bills have been passed in two months alone. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan), those Bills focused on issues such as tackling fuel poverty, enshrining safe NHS staffing in law, extending social care to under-65-year-olds who need it through Frank’s law—which the Tories voted against, by the way—and a whole range of other measures to improve the lives of the people of Scotland. Of course, recently the Scottish Government have been forced to concentrate their mind on doing all they can to halt or prevent Scotland from the most damaging aspects of Brexit. All of this is in the context of a £2.5 billion cut to the Scottish Parliament’s budget over the last 10 years under successive UK Governments.

[Jamie Stone]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Patricia Gibson]

I will not.

In Scotland, we think about politics differently. We do not consider this Parliament sovereign. We do not consider the Scottish Parliament sovereign. In Scotland, the people are sovereign. It is the duty of the Scottish Parliament and all who seek to serve Scotland in the political sphere to continue to work to improve the lives of the people of Scotland, and the voice of Scotland’s people must be heard.

The hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) lamented the lack of English MPs in the debate, but I put it to him that that might well be down to the fact that UK Governments of all colours have come to regard devolution as an inconvenient irritation. We know that not every political party in Scotland shares the SNP Government’s view of Scottish independence, but the Scottish Government stand ready to work across the political spectrum to continue to deliver improvements to the lives of the people of Scotland, despite the fact that some Tories have never really reconciled themselves to the existence of the Scottish Parliament. All we have to do is remember the words of former Tory Prime Minister John Major, the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) and, of course, the former Tory leader and Member for Richmond (Yorks). I will not even talk about the behaviour of the elusive current leader of the Tories in Scotland. The Scottish Tories in this place love devolution so much that some of them could not wait to get out of the Scottish Parliament to come and sit in this Parliament.

The first 20 years of the Scottish Parliament has had a materially positive influence on the lives of the people of Scotland, and I am sure we will continue to see such improvements in the next 20 years. We were told by the once high-profile Labour MP Baron Robertson that devolution would kill nationalism stone dead. As he sits in the other place wrapped in ermine, he must surely at times reflect on his underestimating and misunderstanding of his fellow Scots. The fact is that Scotland is making more and more decisions for herself, and she likes it. There is no going back.

The process of devolution will one day, I am sure, lead Scots to demand their full independence, when we can complete our journey to a more prosperous, more just and more equal society. To complete that journey and to continue to improve the lives of the people of Scotland, we need all the levers of taxation and spending powers, and that day will come. The first 20 years have brought so much improvement, and as we embark on a new constitutional journey over the next 20 years, things can be—and, I believe, will be—even better. I pray that I am alive to bear witness to that, and that I will live to be part of a flourishing, just, equal, independent Scotland.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

It is a genuine pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson), who, in her inimitable style, delivered a passionate speech. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) for opening the debate.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran spoke about a whole generation of young people in Scotland who have never known anything other than devolution. I was just seven years old when the people of Scotland voted for a devolved Parliament, so it is on that basis that I want to make some reflections about where we are and where we are going. Quite deliberately, I have not written a speech today. I want to try to avoid some of the party point scoring. I do not intend my speech to be that this House has confidence in the Scottish Government, tempted though I am after some of the various remarks, but I think it is worth reflecting on the record not from 2007 until now, but all the way back to 1999.

When I came to this place I did so as a nationalist MP, and we have an understanding—I sometimes think that it is missing in other parts of the House—that our primary job is to come here to scrutinise reserved matters. There are Members of this House who may have served in the Scottish Parliament, but they seem to speak more about devolved issues in this Parliament than they do about reserved issues, and I think that they are doing an enormous disservice to their constituents. [Interruption.] If the Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Luke Graham), who is chuntering away, wants to stand up and intervene, I am happy to give way, but he appears not to be taking that opportunity.

The point I want to make is that one of the first things I put up on my office wall when I came here was the metrics of the Scottish index of multiple deprivation. It is no secret that there are a number of challenges in the constituency I represent. The metrics we have in the Scottish index of multiple deprivation cover employment, income, health, crime, housing, education and access, some of which are devolved. The argument I want to develop over the next four minutes is about how much progress we have made in the last 20 years, but how the reality is that our hands are tied behind our back, particularly on the first two—employment and income.

The reality is that legislation relating to the national minimum wage and all these things is still held at Westminster, and limited taxation powers have come to Scotland. The Conservative party would say, “Well, you’ve got your taxation powers—use them”, but when we use our taxation powers to try to lift people out of poverty, we get accused of the nat tax and all these other things. That seems a bit of a joke when we reconsider the council tax comparison between Scotland and England.

As I go around my constituency, I reflect on what devolution has actually meant. Particularly over the past few months, I have found that pretty much every single week there is a sod-cutting in my constituency where we are going to open a housing development. That is because of the record investment that the Government in Scotland are putting into housing.

I want to turn to some comparisons between devolution and the Union. The first one I will look at is the right to buy. The Scottish Government have decided that we are abolishing the right to buy because we want to invest in social housing; yet, down south, there is a major problem with housing, so I think that there is an opportunity for the UK Government to look at.

There are other areas as well. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) has been campaigning very hard on the issue of drug consumption rooms. There is a recognition and a realisation that, on a public health issue, we have a problem there. Many politicians in Glasgow understand that drug-related diseases and all those things are a major challenge for us. We have a Scottish Government and local authority in Glasgow who realise this is a challenge—that it is a public health issue we want to try to sort out—but we have the Home Office standing in the way. That highlights some of the challenges we have as a result of still being tied to the United Kingdom.

My hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara) has been campaigning for a very long time for recognition that immigration is not a problem in Scotland, but emigration is. He has been consistently asking the UK Government to look at a regional approach to immigration policy. Any Member who comes to this House and represents Scotland but does not recognise that we have a challenge when it comes to migration, and that the one-size-fits-all policy pursued by this Government is not helping, is doing a disservice to their constituents.

On defence policy, the vast majority of people in civic Scotland do not want to have nuclear weapons on the River Clyde—whether it is the Catholic Church, the Church of Scotland or the trade unions. Public polling consistently shows that in Scotland and it is the view of the majority of MSPs, yet the Government just say, “That’s fine—you’re just leaving it there”. That does not strike me as much of a respect agenda.

[Jamie Stone]

May I briefly add one to the hon. Gentleman’s list that is often forgotten—the Scottish Government’s decision to ameliorate the bedroom tax? I was very grateful for that when I was a councillor, as I was then. That actually made a very great difference to my constituents, and I give credit where it is due.

[David Linden]

I always think the hon. Gentleman is a very thoughtful Member of the House; when he has the opportunity, he fairly calls out when the Scottish Government have done something right. Again, that highlights the reality. What is the purpose of devolution? Is devolution just to be a sticking plaster for bad decisions that come out of Westminster? In that case, the reality is that we have had to use money that would have been used for other areas of devolved policy to deal with the bedroom tax, so he is right to highlight it.

The final area I want to touch on is the European Union. Whenever we talk about the Union—or what has now become the precious Union—Members in this House say, “Well, you know in 2014 Scotland voted to remain a part of the Union”. They are right: Scotland did. But in 2016, there was a referendum on our position in the European Union, and people in Scotland voted by 62% to remain in it. That decision has been ignored.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jamie Stone Excerpts

Wednesday 19th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[David Mundell]

The Ministry of Defence again made a very positive announcement this year confirming extra payments to servicemen and women who have been sent to Scotland for operational requirements to ensure that they are not penalised for serving in Scotland by the SNP’s high-tax policies.

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

I note what the Secretary of State says about taxation. However, people living in remote parts of the UK, such as my constituency, are paying crippling delivery charges for goods. Would we not help the income of those families by tackling this serious problem?

[David Mundell]

I recognise this issue and, obviously, it has been raised many times in this Chamber by my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Douglas Ross). The Government are seized of this issue and are looking to try to resolve this inequity whereby people living in remote and rural areas are asked to pay disproportionate delivery charges.

Death of John Smith: 25th Anniversary

Jamie Stone Excerpts

Thursday 9th May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Ian Murray]

I hope that when my hon. Friend went into the memorial service, he stopped his meter—I know that John, as a traditional Scot, might not have done so.

Some of the stories about John can be repeated in public, but—with his wonderful wit and Scottish humour—there are some that are perhaps best not written into Hansard. I do not think that anybody would contradict the assertion that he was the best Prime Minister that this country never had. As a young Andrew Marr wrote:

“The greatest political tribute to John Smith is the simplest one: had he lived, he would have become Prime Minister.”

It is no exaggeration to suggest that his passing changed the course of British history. He was referred to as “Labour’s lost leader”, the man who made the Labour party electable again.

As well as being a formidable and committed politician of extreme intellect, transparency, decency and straightforwardness, with a sense of fairness and a willingness to fight for those who were not able to speak up for themselves, John Smith was a committed family man, with his wife Elizabeth, whom he met at Glasgow University, and his three daughters, Sarah, Jane and Catherine. The country may have lost a Prime Minister in waiting, but they suffered the heaviest and most heartbreaking loss of all—the loss of a husband, a father and a part of their lives that could never be replaced.

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

When I heard of the death of John Smith, I was at the Scottish Tory conference—as a journalist, I should point out, not as a member of the Tory party. I remember that the whole conference came to a grinding halt. Everyone there was stunned and greatly saddened. I thought that that reflected very well on John Smith, and, in fairness, extremely well on the Tory party.

[Ian Murray]

I shall come to that later in my speech. Journalists get all the best gigs, I am sure—such as the Tory party conference.

I was saying that John Smith’s family had suffered the most heartbreaking loss of all—the loss of a husband, a father and a part of their lives that could never be replaced. I feel that acutely, because I lost my own father at a young age. I am sure that the whole House will want to join me in wishing my own mum, Lena, a happy 70th birthday for yesterday. The Labour Party would have a new leader to replace John and the country would have that Labour Prime Minister whom it so desired, but it is not possible to replace a father and husband.

I never met John personally, but I feel, as others will surely feel today, that he was always part of my political life. His family still live in my constituency, and constituents often stop me in the street and get on to the topic of John. He was one of theirs, and they are not going to let people forget that any time soon. They all recall his funeral service at Cluny parish church in Morningside. The building sits on a small embankment close to where John lived. The film footage shows the red brick punctuated by the black of mourners moving slowly and sombrely past into the church. The deep national shock was there for all to see.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett) cannot be here today owing to a long-standing engagement in her constituency. She was John’s deputy, the politician who took over the reins of the Labour party and the person who had the most difficult job in the House, that of leading the tributes to John when he died. She did it brilliantly and with her usual grace, clarity and kindness. She was devastated that she could not be here today, so she asked if I would read out something on her behalf, and I am very proud to do so:

“25 years ago, the profound shock of John Smith’s untimely death was felt across the country and this House, which only convened for tributes to be paid, led by the then Prime Minister, John Major, before adjourning.

It was also the Scottish Conservative party’s annual conference”

—as we have heard—and

“Ian Lang, the Secretary of State, announced the news and adjourned the conference immediately.

In the Labour party and wider Labour movement the sorrow was profound. I recall a senior trade unionist telling me that he was listening to the tributes in his car, and found himself crying so much that he had to pull over and stop the car.

Party leaders, presidents and prime ministers from across Europe demanded to be allowed to come to the funeral and pay their respects. None were officially invited but they all came anyway at what ended up as almost a state funeral. Yet, in the end, it was not a sombre occasion—appropriately, because John was not a sombre man. It was his lifelong friend Donald Dewar who said in his address, ‘John could start a party in an empty room—and frequently did.’

Yet his outstanding characteristic was his determination to, as he put it, ‘speak up for those who can’t speak up for themselves.’”

I do not really want to do a biography of John, but his character was undoubtedly shaped by his upbringing and early life. John was of radical Presbyterian stock, born on the west coast of Scotland on 13 September 1938. “John Smith”, he once said “is the commonest name in Scotland. A robust character is needed to overcome that.” His grandfather was a herring fisherman, and his father was the schoolmaster at the local village school.

At 14, John attended the grammar school at Dunoon. He was academically very successful and began to organise on behalf of his beloved Labour party. From school, he went to Glasgow University, where he cut his teeth, sharpened his elbows and honed the skills that would take him to the Bar and then to the Dispatch Box. He remained at university for seven years, reading for degrees first in history and then in law. He became a first-class debater, as many of the Glasgow university alumni at that time did, helping his university side win the Observer mace competition, but his greatest passion lay in politics.

At just 21, he was adopted as Labour candidate for East Fife, which he fought unsuccessfully, and, despite another couple of failed attempts, became the MP for North Lanarkshire in 1970. Legend has it that he won enough money on predicting the results of the 1966 general election in Scotland to be able to quit being a solicitor and train for the Bar; I am not sure whether that is true.

As a new MP in this House in 1970, it was said that he ruined his chances of early promotion by defying his Whip and voting for entry into the EEC in 1971; I certainly know what defying my party Whip on Europe feels like so can concur with that. He remained a staunch pro-European and internationalist his entire career. Breaking the Whip must have been difficult for John, because he was a party man and believed in discipline, which would prove to be useful in his later political career, but he also believed in the common market and working together, and history repeats itself all too often in this place.

John had a glittering parliamentary governmental career as a Minister in employment, trade and energy until the long 18 years of Labour in opposition. He was shadow Chancellor from 1987 until he became Leader of the Opposition, following the 1992 general election and the resignation of Lord Kinnock. Despite his glittering parliamentary career, John always put his constituents first. Mike Elrick, who worked for John, said that John always emphasised that he had constituents who needed him to fight their corner and he had no intention of letting them down.

The people who knew him best were the wonderful people who worked for him, such as David Ward who is here today. I asked David what it was like to work for him and he had story after story of what a pleasure and how much fun it was. As almost every tribute has mentioned and will mention, he was a witty man, with a warmth and kindness. David tells a story, published in Mark Stuart’s book “John Smith: A Life”, that emphasises John’s devastating humour, which was used to deadly effect in parliamentary debates. John was a brilliant debater capable of superb one-line put-downs to Conservative MPs brave enough to intervene on him. When John was on full song, he relished the chance to cut his opponents to size. Such was his fearsome reputation that it became obvious that Tory Whips were discouraging their MPs from interrupting him in debates. In response, Labour Back Benchers used to taunt the Tories to stand up.

John was spontaneously quick-witted but he also worked very hard at jokes prepared in advance. A great example is the “Neighbours” skewering of Nigel Lawson in this Chamber in June 1989, when Lawson was Chancellor, over the role of Margaret Thatcher’s economic adviser Sir Alan Walters. Lawson and Walters were at loggerheads over Tory policy on Europe—that sounds familiar—and that was causing huge friction between No. 10 and No. 11, which is also hugely familiar. In opening an Opposition debate, John sang a brief section from the theme tune from the television programme “Neighbours”, playing on these tensions; I am not going to sing it this afternoon. This hilarious mocking of the Chancellor culminated in John calling on him to go “before he was pushed”, and 24 hours later the Chancellor resigned.

David Ward said that they were working on the speech the day before the debate and, while John and David were drafting the text, another member of the team, Ann Barrett, was watching the BBC to make sure John got the lyrics to the theme tune right. After that, they seemingly rehearsed the theme song with everyone singing along late into the evening. David said he was worried that anyone wandering past the leader’s office would have been forgiven for thinking everyone had gone stark raving mad.

But I wonder what John Smith would have made of today’s greatest issue, Brexit. Today is Europe Day, and he was a great internationalist. For one, he would not have gambled on calling a referendum and he would have challenged the constant downplaying of the importance of the UK as an integral member of the EU. What would John have thought of the Brexit shambles engulfing and paralysing our politics? It is worth examining what he would have done, and David Ward looks at this in an article published in today’s New European. We know that John voted to go into the EU. He fundamentally believed that giving up some national sovereignty to gain some sovereignty back would allow a great degree of control over the international companies and the global issues of the future. Working together was the only way to solve the global problems.

And here is a greater lesson for Europe now: the way John Smith handled the tricky problem of Europe. Instead of a leader trying to force his opinion on the party—history may be repeating itself in the Labour party today—he asked the party to force its view on the leadership. There are important lessons to learn from his handling of the European issue during his all-too-brief tenure as Labour leader. The party could have been equally as divided as the Conservatives. Dissidents led by former Cabinet Minister Peter Shore—including a notably serial rebellious Back Bencher and challenger to his leadership, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), the current Leader of the Opposition—were irreconcilably opposed to Britain’s membership of the European Union, but John minimised internal dispute by taking the unprecedented step of allowing the parliamentary Labour Party, rather than the shadow Cabinet, to determine its policy on Maastricht ahead of crucial votes.