Ministerial Code

Jamie Stone Excerpts

Monday 26th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Government were operating—as all Governments were, to be fair—in difficult circumstances and with a clear demand that we do everything possible to source PPE. As has been pointed out, the overwhelming majority of the PPE was sourced in a way that was rigorous, so that the equipment was fit for purpose and those on the frontline could benefit.

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

I wonder, does the Secretary of State agree that a version of the ministerial code should apply to the leaders of new political parties who might possibly be receiving payments from the arms of overseas Governments who do not hold dear to their heart the best interests of the United Kingdom?

[Michael Gove]

I do not want to embarrass the hon. Gentleman too much by saying that almost every time he asks a question or makes a point in the House of Commons, I think how lucky his constituents are to have him as their Member of Parliament. Even though we disagree on many issues, he puts his finger on an important point of public scrutiny at this time, as people decide how to cast their votes.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jamie Stone Excerpts

Wednesday 21st April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Walker]

The hon. Gentleman is right: this was a commitment for the parties in the Executive under the New Decade, New Approach announcement. Clearly, the UK Government provide funding to the Executive through the block grant, but the Secretary of State has also spoken to the Chief Constable and made clear that, if he puts together a business plan, we will work with the Department of Justice to make sure that that can be properly supported. We certainly stand ready to support them in that regard.

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

What recent assessment he has made of the effect of the UK leaving the EU on peace in Northern Ireland.

[The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Brandon Lewis)]

In the 23 years since the Belfast/Good Friday agreement was signed, there has been a transformative change in Northern Ireland. The hard-won peace has created the conditions for economic growth, investment and stability. As we left the European Union, the protocol was designed to protect the agreement in all of its strands and to safeguard the stability created. It is only by respecting all elements of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement—north-south as well as east-west, and, obviously, Northern Ireland itself—that we will secure strength and stability into the future.

[Jamie Stone]

My good friend the late Charles Kennedy attended Lochaber High School and Glasgow University. He went on to represent a highlands constituency with distinction for many years. The fact that he was a Roman Catholic was neither here nor there. I would say that Charles Kennedy was an excellent example of integrated education. What more can the UK Government do to assist the Northern Ireland Assembly and Northern Ireland Government in getting integrated education going in the Province and reaping the benefits from it?

[Brandon Lewis]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very important and powerful point, which I absolutely agree with. One of the things in the Belfast/Good Friday agreement that has not managed to be delivered on enough is integrated education. I am absolutely determined for us to do all we can to support the Executive to take that forward—obviously, education is devolved. As I have outlined in relation to the new deal package of money, it is an area that I am very focused on, and I want to work with the Executive to take integrated education forward over the period ahead for the benefit of the long-term stability, peace and prosperity of people in Northern Ireland.

Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill

Jamie Stone Excerpts

Wednesday 21st April 2021 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

I am so grateful that I gave way again to the right hon. Gentleman. He rightly believed that I thought his challenge was intended to trick me. I thought he was arguing—this was not my recollection, but I was not entirely certain because I do not have the Hansard record in front of me—that Lord Mackay had not spoken out against the Government’s position and had not supported Lord Robertson’s amendment. My main point—this gives me an opportunity to repeat it—is that no Conservative peer spoke up for the Government and against the amendments we are discussing this afternoon.

I hope that gives not just Government Back Benchers but those on the Front Bench pause for thought about just how isolated the Government are on these issues and how, during the passage of the Bill, they have failed—this is certainly not the responsibility of the Minister—to convince a wide range of experts and specialist groups, and the forces themselves, particularly those with service experience, that they are doing the right thing in this Bill.

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

Lord Mackay is a very old gentleman, and I am a historian—of adequate standard only. Surely, the conduct of the British troops in the second world war—the trusted Tommies—gave us the moral authority that we used at the Nuremberg war trials, something that Lord Mackay will remember himself.

[John Healey]

This debate gets richer with every intervention I take, which probably suggests that I should stop talking and allow others to contribute. If the hon. Gentleman feels he is only an adequate historian, I am an inadequate historian. I did not know that. It has helped the strength of the argument that I am trying to make, as well as the information that the House has this afternoon.

--- Later in debate ---

[Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)]

I congratulate the Minister for Defence People and Veterans. Many Members across the House are not only pleased by his elevation to the Front Bench, but relieved to see him there. I wish him all the best in his new role.

A major frustration for those of us involved in earlier stages of the Bill and in Committee was the refusal of the former Minister to consider even the most reasonable and uncontroversial amendments. That meant that the Bill sent to the Lords was fundamentally flawed. What we have back is a slight improvement on a flawed Bill, rather than what we were looking for, which was a competent piece of legislation. The Bill was sold as legislation that would tackle vexatious claims, but throughout its passage the evidence we received, both written and in Committee, pointed to the problems arising from flawed investigations. Nothing in the Bill will improve service justice, and much of it will damage the UK’s international reputation.

We rightly expect our personnel to conduct themselves with the highest professional standards, and the vast majority do. Let me take this opportunity to thank them for their service in what is often a challenging and dangerous environment. We must have robust systems for investigation that are understood, and in which personnel, Members of the House, our allies worldwide, and members of the public have confidence. That is the importance of this issue. We must be able to stand by the Bill and say, “This will do what it says on the tin.” I do not think we are convinced of that yet.

We welcome Lords amendment 1 from Lord Robertson, but although the Government’s proposed amendment in place of that removes the presumption against prosecution for torture, crimes against humanity and genocide, as many have already said—I think we will hear more about this—it retains the presumption against prosecution for war crimes. The right hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) has already given us a graphic illustration of what that means and why war crimes must be included. The Minister has tried to explain this issue, and I commend his efforts to explain that the prosecutor will retain agency, but we should not be leaving it to the prosecutor. We should be getting this right in the Bill, and ensuring it is correct at this stage.

There is no justification for protecting those accused of war crimes. The problem is what such a measure does for our international reputation, and we should not have to stand up in this place to point that out—it is blindingly obvious. War crimes also come under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, so despite the efforts of Lord Robertson, the revised Government amendment still leaves troops at risk of being hauled in front of the ICC. That is one of the big problems with the Bill.

The Government’s amendment is an improvement on their original position, but it is far from satisfactory. I hope the Minister will take that point away and consider it. When the Bill returns to the Lords, I hope they will throw it back at us again. We have to get this right, and the Bill just needs the inclusion of that provision for it to be strengthened significantly.

Moving on to Lords amendment 2 from Lord Thomas, while we support the amendment, this brings us back to the manner in which investigations are conducted. The Bill was an opportunity to overhaul the system that is in place for investigations and, sadly, this seems to be an opportunity lost. Unless we establish proper structures and processes for investigations, and that will include independent investigators—we cannot be marking our own homework on this—I worry that personnel will remain vulnerable to repeated investigations and, indeed, investigations by the ICC.

The Minister made comments about the timescale of investigations involved under the amendment, saying that they were unrealistic. I have some sympathy for that position and understand the point that he is making. Many of us do not understand what it is like to be in the theatre of war under which these investigations would be carried out. However, some timescale, some independence and some urgency around investigations would result in a system in which we could all have a bit more confidence.

[Jamie Stone]

Does the hon. Lady agree that Lord Thomas’s amendment 2 and the issue of duty of care, which has been touched on repeatedly in this debate, if not dealt with properly, could act, first, as a disincentive to serving personnel staying on in the services and, secondly, as a major disincentive to future recruitment?

[Carol Monaghan]

I thank the hon. Gentleman—yes, of course. We heard evidence directly from Major Robert Campbell in the Bill Committee, who has gone through 17 years of hell, of repeated investigations. There is no doubt that people looking at that—serving personnel and potential serving personnel—will consider their future career.

--- Later in debate ---

[Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con)]

I congratulate the Minister for Defence People and Veterans, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty) on what must have been a massive overnight essay crisis or the worst sort of Sandhurst show parade. I will be amazed if he can keep his eyes open for the next couple of minutes, but my contribution will be short.

I welcome the Government’s sincere efforts, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer), to deal with these vexatious legal actions. Having listened to my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), it strikes me that there is now an opportunity to listen to the bishops, the former Secretary-General of NATO, the admirals, the air marshals, the generals, the right hon. Opposition Members, the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) and a former Attorney General. We must renew our efforts in support of Northern Ireland veterans, including some soldiers with whom I served elsewhere.

More generally, on these crimes—about which, I regret to say, I very, very nearly know rather a lot—no British soldier should ever be any doubt whatever that if they commit these crimes, they will be liable for prosecution by our courts for the rest of their lives.

[Jamie Stone]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Gravesham (Adam Holloway). I wish to take this opportunity—I try do this from time to time, Mr Deputy Speaker—to remind the House that one of my children is serving in the armed forces, as is my son-in-law.

I offer my personal congratulations to the new Minister, the hon. Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty). We do not know each other well, but I am somewhat biased as my late brother-in-law served with the Scots Guards and I would not dream of calling them the woodentops; they are a very fine regiment indeed.

It would be churlish of me not to give credit where it is due: as so many others have said, the Government’s move on Lords amendment 1 is most welcome. My party and others in all parts of the Chamber will welcome this change of heart. We feel we have been vindicated for our efforts to press the Government.

I could say many different things in this debate, but I wish to dwell on just one point—it is interesting how sometimes a speech will come into one’s head as the debate proceeds. I would not describe myself as coming from a military family, but my grandfather served in the first world war, as did his four brothers, two of whom died, and my father served in the Fourteenth Army in the second world war. Although, as the right hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) pointed out, bad things have been done by our soldiers, I was brought up in the belief—one to which I still hold dearly—that the British armed forces had the very highest standards and a well-deserved reputation for fairness and decency in the way that they conducted themselves. That reputation won us friends at that time and for the future and gave and gives us a position of moral strength that has served this country incredibly well for a very long time. To throw that away by not absolutely outlawing torture would have been a a reprehensible backward step, especially as torture has been illegal in this country for more than 300 years.

The right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) quoted Lord Stirrup, and I would like to add a quotation with reference to Lords amendment 1. Lord Stirrup said:

“Our Armed Forces personnel in general exercise incredible judgment and restraint in the most dangerous and trying circumstances, but it would be unreasonable to expect that they should be entirely free of the faults and frailties that are part of the wider society from which they spring. When such crimes are suspected, they should be investigated thoroughly—and the investigation process itself would certainly bear improvement—and, if the evidence is sufficient, the perpetrators should be prosecuted.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 January 2021; Vol. 809, c. 1199.]

Indeed, I would argue that in more recent times, this country’s agreement to and participation in the torture inquiry on the Iraq war continues to underpin this high moral position. It is as simple as this: whatever the results of the inquiry, and even in the event of an accusing finger being pointed at British personnel and action being taken accordingly, the fact is that our armed forces will be better for it, and we will still be on that moral high ground.

In the other place, my party, led by my colleague Lord Thomas of Gresford, voted for an amendment that would require the investigations process to be timely and comprehensive, to avoid repeated investigations against service personnel without compelling new evidence or information. The Government were defeated on that amendment, and that is because, as other Members have said, the drawing out of this process is incredibly bad for not just the person involved but their families.

That takes me neatly to the duty of care. Anyone involved in investigations must have access to the legal, pastoral and mental health support that they need. I am glad to see that Lords amendment 5 extends national standards of care and safeguarding to the families of those under investigation. As I said in my earlier intervention, if we do not get recruitment right for the armed forces, we are in danger of eventually having no armed forces at all. We have to staff our armed forces. If potential recruits are discouraged by what they see as their terms and conditions of employment, they will stay away. If people in the armed forces take a look at what might happen to them and the lack of support they might get, they will walk—it is as simple as that.

It is almost certain that the other place will return the Bill to us with amendments. I give credit where it is due. I think the Minister is a breath of fresh air, and I welcome him to his place. I hope that he and all the reasonable Members on both sides of the House will look at what the other place sends back to us very seriously indeed and act accordingly, because at the end of the day, it is about the good of our armed forces and the defence of the realm, and we live in an unsafe world.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP) [V]]

May I take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister on his appointment and wish him well in his new role? I want to express my support for Lords amendment 5, which calls for the Secretary of State to

“establish a duty of care standard in relation to legal, pastoral and mental health support provided to service personnel involved in investigations or litigation arising from overseas operations”.

Our servicemen and women lay their lives on the line for our freedom. Likewise, their families give so much to this nation. In return, we ought to provide them with wraparound care—legal, pastoral and mental health support—whether they are subject to investigation or not. However, in the context of the Bill, it is worth expressly stating that provision in the legislation.

I know from speaking with veterans who have served in Operation Banner in Northern Ireland that the physical, emotional and financial strain of facing investigation is significant. For many, that impact starts well before the knock on the door comes, and it lasts for months and years. Who among us in this place could cope with such a threat and withstand the stress and strain that comes with it? That is why the provisions of Lords amendment 5 are so important. It is a lonely path—an isolated place—to be facing such uncertainty. We must ensure that legal, pastoral and mental health support is provided.

Lobbying of Government Committee

Jamie Stone Excerpts

Wednesday 14th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Brendan O’Hara]

What I would love to happen is for the Committee, when it meets, to examine that in detail to find out exactly whether it is true. What is inescapable is that a company is 10 times more likely to receive a Government contract through a political contact. That deserves careful scrutiny and has to be smoked out to the nth degree.

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

However we collectively as the body politic got into this situation, may I suggest that it is damaging public trust in elected representatives? The one good thing about this Committee, if it were seen to be put in place, would be that it could restore some of that trust and repair some of the damage to democracy in the UK.

[Brendan O’Hara]

The hon. Gentleman is right. I think we all know from our postbags that, regardless of which side of the House we are on in this debate, we are all tainted by this. Anything that can shine a light on this —admittedly where some might not want it to be shone—would be a very good thing, and I wholeheartedly support it.

--- Later in debate ---

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

What a pleasure it is to come down from the north of Scotland rather than Zooming in, Madam Deputy Speaker.

We are clearly in a spot of bother on Greensill, but I would certainly draw a couple of rays of hope from the debate. I have always had faith in the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg), and what I heard from him today confirms my belief that he is doing a good job. I was very much taken by the point made by the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) about the fact that training might be very helpful.

My colleague and good friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), made the point, if I picked it up correctly, that we are all in this together. That sentiment was echoed by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price). My intervention on the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara) was along the lines that, as others have said, such a besmirchment of democracy is not helpful. To see this happening and to hear people in the streets saying, “You’re all at it—you’re all letting us down” is not at all helpful, and it is dangerous to democracy, which, after all, this place is the mother of.

I am going to take a leaf out of the book of the hon. Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger) and go local. With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall return—mentally, at any rate—to the far north of Scotland. The damage and corrosion to faith in democracy needs to be taken with the local situation that we have up there. For whatever reason, unfortunately, in the vast area of the highlands, public appointments do not seem to reflect the far north. Local knowledge is essential to running services, as how things are done is quite delicate and detailed, and when people are appointed who are not from the area, that is counterproductive.

Finally, we have a Danish billionaire who buys estates in the far north of Scotland as you or I might buy household appliances, Madam Deputy Speaker—he just buys them one after the other. Other Members have heard me talk repeatedly about the great wish of the crofters in north Sutherland to take up the Government’s generous offer of our hosting one of Britain’s space launch sites. It went through planning nem con—unanimously—and all the crofters support it, yet this Danish billionaire who is not elected by anyone will do anything in his power to stop it. If we can get it right in this place on the Greensill front and restore public faith in us, there can be a knock-on effect that will only be good for wider democracy and people feeling that they are actually being heard.

His Royal Highness The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh

Jamie Stone Excerpts

Monday 12th April 2021 Commons Chamber

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

There is one other person in this place who attended that school, Gordonstoun, and that is me. When I was at Gordonstoun, I knew that the Duke of Edinburgh took a huge interest in the school, and the pupils and staff were grateful for that, but as others have said, he continued to take a great interest in subsequent years. Indeed, just a few days ago, he sent a message to the school, which is pretty remarkable.

Last summer, the pupils of the school made the Duke some apple juice from trees that he would have known on the south lawn at Gordonstoun. They sent that and some honey to Balmoral for his breakfast. Almost by return of post, a reply came from him saying that they had had the delicious honey and apple juice at breakfast.

Why did Prince Philip take such an interest? As others have said, his life was rackety before he went to Gordonstoun. His family got him out of Germany, probably for his own safety, because, I am told, he laughed at Nazis when they gave the Nazi salute. Gordonstoun gave him stability, order and structure, and I would go so far as to say, knowing the school as I do, that it made Prince Philip. As others have said, he became head boy; he became the guardian. Being the guardian at Gordonstoun, I would humbly submit, is not the same as being head boy or head girl of another school because that position carries a great deal of responsibility. I think that experience is part of what made Prince Philip.

To change the tone of what I am saying, I want to touch on the rug. My wife and I, and our elder daughter, who was then 16, attended Her Majesty’s first reception when the Scottish Parliament was opened in 1999. Having been presented to the Queen, my wife, who was in a wheelchair then, was tired. We went to take her quietly out of the party, but got lost in the Palace of Holyroodhouse. Worse, the wheelchair got tangled up with a rug. To my horror, despite the fact that we had gone to the same school, who should come round the corner but Prince Philip. “Ah, those bloody rugs,” he said. He got down on his knees and helped us to disentangle the rug and the wheelchair. He said, “Tell you what. I know a quick way out of here. There is a lift that the public don’t really know about.” What an act of kindness. I was reminded of it by my daughter just yesterday. That sort of thing stays with you forever.

This is my last point because I have spoken enough. We have a thing called a Scottish election on at the moment, up where I live in the far north of Scotland, but the instant we heard of the Duke’s death, quite rightly it was stopped right away. Since then, over the weekend, I have had innumerable people from Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross saying, “Can you pass on our condolences to the Queen?” We have all been bereaved—I have lost both my parents—but, as the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) said, when someone is bereaved and in distress, the sympathy of others can be the balm, the milk of human kindness, that gets them through. I hope that Her Majesty and the royal family know that even in the far, far north of the British mainland, there are thousands of people who extend their deepest sympathy.

Armed Forces Bill

Jamie Stone Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 8th February 2021 Commons Chamber

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

It is probably prudent for me to remind the Chamber that one of my children is a serving officer in the armed forces.

Like the hon. Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson), through the armed forces parliamentary scheme I have learned a great deal about the education of armed forces personnel. I also recognise the excellent contribution that our service personnel are making to fighting the pandemic and want to express my personal thanks to the Secretary of State for several exchanges we have had in recent times about armed forces personnel coming to help Scotland, which has been lagging behind in the vaccination roll-out; I am grateful to him for that.

The armed forces covenant is about making sure that no service personnel past or present are disadvantaged in society compared with those in other walks of life or other citizens. The hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) and several other Members asked why the duty is being extended only to local government and not a little further into some of the devolved institutions or, indeed, some of the ministerial functions of Her Majesty’s Government.

The Highland Council, of which I was formerly a member, has a joint armed forces champions system. It is shared between Councillor Major Carolyn Caddick, who is also honorary colonel of the 1st Battalion Highlanders Army Cadet Force, and Councillor Major Roddy Balfour, who once upon a time was my company commander. I should imagine the House would probably be quite interested in what he might have to say about the service record of Private Stone some years ago—and I suspect he might also quite enjoy telling the House about that. I have an agreement with them that I will take back to them what is proposed tonight and as the Bill progresses through Parliament in order to see how we might improve it. As armed forces champions, Councillors Caddick and Balfour know probably better than anyone where the gaps are, and I hope to relay that information back to the House and am grateful to them for agreeing to do this.

I want to make two short points before concluding. First, it has been raised with me that we are the only country in Europe, NATO and indeed among permanent membership of the UN Security Council that has this16-year-old system, and that perhaps we should be looking at a slightly different system in future, perhaps an armed forces education offer for 16 to 17-year-olds with an option to enlist at 18.

Finally, I absolutely associate myself with the remarks made about our excellent services personnel from the Commonwealth. It is wretched that after four years they can apply and that, as has been pointed out, a family of four will have to pay almost £10,000. That is deeply unfair and we owe it to them to put it right.

Integrated Review

Jamie Stone Excerpts

Thursday 19th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is spot on. What this package does is set out much of the basic structure of the integrated review. We can start to see the tools that we will be using, but we will shortly be completing the review. He is absolutely right in his fundamental point that this is about having smarter forces to outwit our foes. Every time the UK has been asked to do that, we have always historically risen to that challenge. This will give us the tools to do it.

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

As a Scottish MP, I have no doubt as to the vital role that Scotland plays in the defence of the realm. When we think about the recruitment of personnel, as the Prime Minister mentioned, establishments such as Rosyth and RAF Lossiemouth are great examples. On 7 September 1921, the Cabinet met outside London for the very first time in history. This was to consider the Irish crisis and it met in the Town House in Inverness. May I suggest that the UK Cabinet meet again in the Inverness Town House on 7 September next year? This would be to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the 1921 meeting and to enable the Prime Minister and the Cabinet to review the defence of the UK by visiting places such as RAF Lossiemouth, and perhaps also to learn about the great role that our armed forces played, and play right now, in beating the covid pandemic?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman makes an incredibly important point about the role of our armed services in beating the covid pandemic, which I should have made earlier on myself. I was up in Scotland—actually in Lossiemouth—talking to members of our armed services who are doing the testing and helping to fly patients from remote islands to hospitals. It was wonderful to see the way that the UK armed services have helped during this pandemic, Mr Speaker/Madam Deputy Speaker—I am sorry but I can hardly see you down there with the TV screen here. What I can say is that I will keep very closely in mind the hon. Gentleman’s invitation to come to Inverness for a Cabinet meeting next year. We will study that with interest.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jamie Stone Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Justin Tomlinson]

The hon. Member is absolutely right to highlight the importance of accessible communications. It was an issue raised particularly in the early stages that we then shared cross-Government. I am delighted that BSL, for example, was then picked up by the BBC and that is then provided. Yesterday, the Prime Minister’s statement to the House was also simultaneously interpreted by a BSL interpreter. That was a very valid point to raise.

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

What recent discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport on the effect of the covid-19 outbreak on the training and competition opportunities for young (a) female and (b) disabled athletes preparing to take part in the Olympic and Paralympic Games in 2024 and beyond.

[The Minister for Digital and Culture (Caroline Dinenage)]

Appropriately, a question on sport as I sprint to the Dispatch Box.

We remain committed to supporting our young, female and disabled Olympic and Paralympic athletes through this very difficult period. We continue to work with UK Sport to ensure that athletes are assisted and supported in their preparation for the Tokyo games and beyond to Paris 2024.

[Jamie Stone]

Does the Minister agree that this kind of investment will establish role models, which will encourage people to get active in their own communities?

[Caroline Dinenage]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new role as the spokesperson on digital, culture, media and sport. He asks his question on a very appropriate day as today is National Fitness Day. He is absolutely right: if you can see it, you can be it. We want to inspire the next generation of young people to get physically fit and active not only for their own physical health, but for the mental health and well-being that it brings.

--- Later in debate ---

The Prime Minister was asked—

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

If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 23 September.

[The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)]

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

[Jamie Stone]

The unanimous decision by Highland Council planning to grant consent for the UK’s vertical space launch site in Sutherland is clearly extremely good news. I hope that the Prime Minister agrees that this will be extremely good for the local economy of the highlands, and will provide a huge opportunity for the UK economy in the international satellite market.

[The Prime Minister]

Absolutely; I congratulate Launch UK on what it is doing. As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, the project would create 250 full-time jobs, including 130 at the facility in Forres. I am in no doubt that it will launch the UK on a path to ever greater presence in the global satellite market.

Parliamentary Constituencies Bill

Jamie Stone Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 14th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Johnson]

I did read the right hon. Gentleman’s quote, and I have looked into exactly what that was. It was not the OSCE that said that, but the Council of Europe’s Venice Commission. It is clear from the quote I gave and from what the Council of Europe has said that the further we move away from the median, and the greater tolerance we give to departures from it, the less weight there is to each individual vote and the more disparity there will be between constituencies.

If the House allows for 7.5% to be the maximum departure from the electoral quota, we would be saying that the size of an electorate can differ by 15 percentage points between individual constituencies. We would then be going down a road where people’s votes would not count the same, so I think new clause 1 should be rejected for that reason. The main reason we are having boundary changes is to ensure we do not have constituencies that are too large, and we have got constituencies that are too large. We also have constituencies that are too small, where people have a greater weight to their individual votes. I argue that we should reject the 7.5% proposal.

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

Madam Deputy Speaker, I do apologise for attending the Chamber late—it takes me a little time to get here.

The hon. Member refers to avoiding making constituencies too large. The present constituency that I represent, if it had been enlarged under the David Cameron proposals, would have included Shieldaig, and the driving time from Shieldaig to Wick, which is also in the constituency—148 miles—is three hours and 15 minutes. What I want to put to the hon. Member and the Chamber is that this is not just about the number of votes, but about the right of access to an MP that the voters have. When an MP has to cover an area that big, surely there is a democratic deficit.

[Gareth Johnson]

This is perhaps one of the arguments behind keeping to 650 so the actual sizes of constituencies do not change. I have one of the few constituencies in the country that would actually have lost voters, even under the 600 formula, so there are a lot of differences between hon. Members’ constituencies.

I would ask that the Labour party supports this Bill as it goes through Parliament. The only thing in the Labour party’s manifesto about boundary changes was changing from 600 to 650. It has got what it asked for, and therefore should be supportive of the Government on this particular Bill.

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.