Oliver Mundell
Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party · Scotland
“Indeed, much of the debate in this chamber seems a far cry from the genuine excitement that I witnessed as a child when I first watched Donald Dewar address the Parliament in 1999. Most institutions grow in stature as they age, but Holyrood seems to be stuck in reverse.”
“Before I start with some final thoughts, I want to make it clear, up front, that my comments are not personally aimed at the cabinet secretary, who I respect and with whom I enjoy working, as everybody across the chamber does. I have never felt the need to compare her to a chlorinated chicken, unlike her predecessor.”
“I share the frustrations of my constituents that Holyrood is dominated by urban, central-belt thinking and is obsessed with telling people who live in rural Scotland how to live. When the Scottish Government is not busy banning things, it is busy imposing them.”
“It often feels as if money talks, with hillsides being sold to the highest bidder without any thought about the social consequences or about how future generations will put food on the table. Meanwhile, here in our national Parliament, tokenism too often prevails over substance.”
“Rural Scotland, not least Dumfriesshire, holds real potential. The answers to many of our most pressing challenges can be found in our rural and remote communities, but they must be given the freedom to flourish. Our communities need politicians who will listen to those on the ground, who really do know best.”
“The amendment would make it more difficult for ministers to put in place appropriate regulations with the right protections, so I urge Dr Gulhane not to press the amendment.”
The complete record
Every one of 120 lines we hold for Oliver Mundell, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 3.
“I hope that we will hear from the minister that at least some of the points that Fulton MacGregor set out are things that the Government can act on. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Carol Mochan is the final speaker in the open debate. 17:24”
“It is interesting to reflect on the fact that, in other areas of medicine, lots of new treatments have become available and there have been lots of medical advances that have led to different types of care, but blood cannot be manufactured en masse. There is no laboratory that can step in to do that. We are the one source of this life- preserving fluid, which is what makes blood donation and increasing the number of blood donors so important. That is why the steps that have been outlined should be taken. I pay tribute to the friends and family of Patrick Smith, whose example stands as an inspiration to us all. They can take a great deal of comfort in the organisation that has grown around him and the number of lives that, as Fulton MacGregor said, have potentially been saved.”
“If we want to reach young people and a new audience, we need to meet people where they are. That is what is so good and inspiring about this initiative—it recognises the need to do that underlying work. As we have heard, giving blood is life changing for both the donor and the person receiving the blood. In the speeches so far, we have heard about the range of people who need blood, often unexpectedly, after an operation, complications during childbirth or a serious accident. It could be a child battling cancer or a victim of a car crash. If we found ourselves or our families in any of those situations, we would be absolutely desperate to know that a blood transfusion was available, but that relies on each and every one of us playing our part.”
“Although it is worth while and important to contribute to the debate and to encourage the Government to act, those of us who can should be looking to roll up our sleeves, and I reflect on the fact that I have not been good at doing that. Therefore, I am very grateful to the 112,251 active donors in Scotland, who make time to do that. However, as we have heard, we are still facing on-going donation blood shortages, which is why it is really important that organisations such as Give Blood 4 Good play their important role in raising awareness. We must also recognise their ability to reach out in a different way. In the past, many initiatives have relied on adverts on the backs of buses or broadcast during television programmes, flyers posted through doors, or word of mouth.”
“I start by congratulating Fulton MacGregor on securing this important debate. I always enjoy his members’ business debates and the campaigns that he works on, because not only does he bring the problems to the chamber but, often, he brings the solutions, too. I strongly associate myself with the calls that he has made on the Government, which all seem to be reasonable and practical steps that could make a real difference. It is a pleasure to follow Paul McLennan, who has inspired me to get on and book an appointment to give blood. I was a regular donor in the past—I started when I was at school—and then, probably exactly as Fulton MacGregor mentioned, I was one of those people who got out of the way of it during the pandemic. I think that I have done it once since the pandemic.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to support NHS Dumfries and Galloway in addressing financial pressures. (S6O-05007)”
“To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to ensure that pupils attending smaller rural schools are receiving the additional support for learning that they need. (S6O-04957)”
“To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to ensure that residents in Eskdale can access patient transport for hospital appointments. (S6O-04810)”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I could not connect. I would have voted yes. The Presiding Officer: Thank you, Mr Mundell. We will ensure that that is recorded.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to ensure that pupils with additional support needs receive consistent and adequate support. (S6O-04757)”
“In that regard, I very much welcome the fact that the committee produced its report and that we have had this debate. Of course, the Government will be happy to engage with the Parliament in any way that it can to ensure that we continue to refine and improve our processes for deliberation and public participation.”
“Jamie Hepburn: I think that I have eight minutes in total, so I do not have time to give way to Mr Golden; otherwise, I would have been delighted to. I will conclude by reflecting on Ben Macpherson’s contribution. First of all, I very much enjoyed his notion of the Leith Walk litmus test. I think that we could all apply that to our own constituencies in different ways, perhaps even by going to Tesco, which Christine Grahame mentioned. Irrespective of the case for reform of our processes, Ben Macpherson reminded us of the founding principles of this institution, which include accessibility. I do not think that we should beat ourselves up about that, because I think that we do it fairly well, but I suppose that the purpose of the debate is to remind ourselves that we can always seek to do better.”
“Indeed, we are now helping to fund the citizens assembly in Dunfermline for £50,000, which is a much lower cost. Cost must be a factor, but it is not beyond us to develop a process by which meaningful participation can best be achieved, to go back to the point about the purpose of such processes. Evelyn Tweed rightly mentioned the need to consider how we can involve those who might be marginalised as a result of disability, socioeconomic status or, as Mr Mundell mentioned, being further afield from the Parliament. Therefore, as well as the question of purpose, inclusivity issues can be considered and balanced against how we pay for such processes. It is not beyond us to consider how we do that properly. Maurice Golden: Will the member give way?”
“The panels should have purpose and some form of meaningful role in influencing public policy. Mr Whitfield’s suggestion about panels being involved in pre or post- legislative scrutiny is interesting and could be explored further. Maggie Chapman raised the issue of the cost of such processes. I largely agree with her point that the price that is paid is worth it in order to enable participation. However, we should not pretend that cost is not a factor. The citizens assembly model that the Government previously took forward was a pretty expensive way to achieve the outcome of participation. I hear the point that Oliver Mundell made about the perception of the cost of the panels that the Parliament might take forward. Compared with the process that we took forward previously, the two latest panels were certainly more cost effective.”
“He also posited the example that we are discussing today—that of the Parliament taking forward citizens panels, and where the balance of responsibility should lie. Again, I would be happy to engage in dialogue on that. The truth is that responsibility probably lies between the Government and the Parliament. Both have a role to play, and let us not block out the role of local government, which is responsible for many of the day-to-day issues that most directly impact people’s lives. That relates to the fundamental point—which, again, was raised by Mr Whitfield—about whether the panels’ purpose should be about enhancing the Parliament’s reputation. By my estimation, it absolutely should not be, although I am speaking on the Government’s behalf, and it is for the Parliament to determine such things.”
“Jamie Hepburn: I am not convinced that we do that too often in this Parliament, but I recognise and understand Mr Whitfield’s point, which is that there has sometimes been confusion about the delineation of responsibility. That leads me neatly on to my response to a point that Mr Whitfield made earlier, when he raised the issue of where responsibility should lie for this area of activity. He mentioned the Scottish Government and raised some concerns about processes for the citizens assemblies that we undertook. I would be happy to engage with him to hear more about that. We had positive feedback from participants in those assemblies, which have been well remarked upon internationally.”
“As a result of the Government re-engaging with the wider population and involving it in the deliberative process through a variety of means— largely electronic and digital—trust in the Government increased to 70 per cent, which is a fairly dramatic shift that shows us what is possible. I was about to come on to what Mr Whitfield said, so I will give way to him. Martin Whitfield: I hope that I will pre-empt that. Does the minister share my concern that we exchange the word “Government” for the word “Parliament” far too frequently in this place, to the extent that it becomes quite a challenge to identify what and who we are talking about when it comes to the taking of decisions?”
“A number of members spoke of the challenges of trust in democratic institutions and people’s concerns about their ability to influence decisions that are made. Maurice Golden and Maggie Chapman said that at the outset of the debate, and Alex Rowley has just said something similar. We are not unique in that regard. It is not just the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament that suffer from that; institutions across the rest of these islands and further afield suffer from similar issues. However, I observe that those are not insurmountable challenges, as international experience demonstrates. Let us take the case of Taiwan, for example, where trust in the Government was, at one stage, as low as 10 per cent.”
“As an aside—this speaks to our being accountable and responsive to Parliament, which Stephen Kerr is rightly concerned about—I point out that we have been charged with introducing regulations to ensure that peers of the realm cannot participate as members of the Parliament, and that work is being taken forward. I will be happy to update Parliament on that in due course. Stephen Kerr was correct to say that any speaker gets to choose what they say, and I suppose that he is right that they also get to decide what they meant. All that I can respectfully say in response to his suggestion that the Scottish Government has somehow been involved in choosing the participants in the panels is that that is not accurate. On that, I have no idea what he meant, but at least I heard what he said.”
“As Christine Grahame and others have said, we must ensure that the input from the public is not treated with lesser respect or as having less value than that of MSPs, and that it makes genuine changes to policy and outcomes. 16:42 Jamie Hepburn: I again thank the committee for bringing this subject to the Parliament for debate. It is important for us to consider how we can best enable participation by a wider range of people in the activities of the Parliament. I will try to pick up on as much as I can from what has been said in the debate. I am not sure who it was from Jackson Carlaw’s side who proffered the suggestion that there should be some form of Scottish second chamber in the guise of a house of lords. I can absolutely assure him that the Government has no plans to facilitate or enable the creation of a Scottish house of lords.”
“With the expertise that exists in the Parliament, there are better ways to do that. Despite those reservations—if members want to call them that—there is merit in proceeding with the proposal on the scale that is proposed to see how the process works in practice, to gather evidence and to see where it takes us. However, I come back to the point that I made earlier: if we are to go down that route, we have a job of work to do to explain it to the public and justify the expenditure. A figure of £55,000 per panel might seem modest to us but, to many of our constituents, it will seem like the Parliament is spending more money on something that is not one of their core priorities. If we are going down that route, we must ensure that we make it work.”
“First, when we had our usual suspects, that certainly was not because of lack of effort by me, committee members and officials to have other people come in. We could not really compel people—we can, but nobody has ever used that power. Secondly, the private briefing that I referred to was very important because it allowed vulnerable people to speak off the record. They were free to say what they did. Although we could not directly refer to what they said, it was at the back of our minds when we were dealing with oral evidence in a formal capacity later. Oliver Mundell: I had the same experience on the justice and education committees. There is a balance to be found between transparency and proper process, but we are sometimes too keen to put witnesses in front of the camera and have a formal evidence-taking process.”
“I am not lucky enough to be a committee member currently, but, having been on many committees across the time that I have been in Parliament, I have seen that engagement done well. However, it is often the MSPs who are most resistant to trying new things or doing things differently. We talk about doing things differently, engaging new approaches and following evidence- based approaches, but it is often MSPs who want to go to the usual suspects and bring in such organisations. MSPs want their moment in the sun—not literally the sun, but probably The Sun newspaper—giving professional witnesses a dressing down and capturing a 30-second clip for their social media. We could do more to ensure that we get the best evidence. Christine Grahame: I have two comments.”
“Maurice Golden: I wonder whether the advantage of the people’s panels is that their format allows people, particularly with lived experience, to contribute. That format might offer a better way of getting those views into our democratic structures than a formal committee session, in which the witnesses might be sitting at the edge of a very large table. The panels are an interesting portal for the gaining and gleaning of lived experience. Oliver Mundell: I was coming to that point in relation to Christine Grahame’s comments. I think that there are better ways of engaging people within committees. There are some very good committee clerks and others with great experience in this building who find ways and means of doing that.”
“The evidence from people who have participated in the people’s panels is that it works, they feel valued and the output is useful to parliamentarians. However, when only 100 or 140 people are experiencing it for themselves, many other constituents and people across Scotland will struggle to connect with the idea. I think that they will question why it is needed, why the existing committee structures do not work and why MSPs do not already communicate better with the public. We have a big job of work to do if we want to go down this route and sell the idea to the wider population who are disengaged and uninterested. I am not sure that what is proposed will be a meeting point with Parliament that will engage or capture their interest. I am interested in what Christine Grahame said in her intervention about other techniques that can be used.”
“Many people who we might meet on Leith Walk, or on any other wander through Scotland, already regard the Parliament as a talking shop, and I am not sure that 14-minute speeches necessarily help that—I say that in the unlikely event that people have tuned in to this debate. [Laughter.] By the same measure, I am not sure that listening to me will dispel that myth. People already think that we spend a lot of time talking and not a lot of time doing. If they hear that £55,000 is going to be spent four times over, they will probably wonder whether we will be losing a few MSPs to make up the difference, since we are asking the public to do more of our job. There is a challenge around the concept. It sounds nice.”
“I am glad to follow Alex Rowley’s speech, because he hit the nail on the head. He is right that it has been a nice debate, but we spend too much time thinking about ourselves. As a Parliament, we have a false impression of how good we are at outward engagement. Yes, the Parliament might feel open and accessible to those who know about it and feel confident coming here to engage, and yes, it might feel open and accessible to those who are in close proximity to it, but for many people, the Parliament feels remote and distant from where and how they live. I worry when I hear about the Leith Walk test in relation to the proposal. I am supportive of the proposal: its scale makes it worth a try, and it is worth exploring as a tool, in addition to the other things that we do. However, the Leith Walk test is problematic.”
“I am sure that that was not my friend’s intention, but it would be most unfortunate if it was seen in that way. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I share your conclusion, Mr Carlaw. I call Christine Grahame, to be followed by Foysol Choudhury, for around six minutes, Ms Grahame. 15:58”
“We have work— [Interruption.] Well, well—members are getting ahead of themselves. [Interruption.] The Deputy Presiding Officer: Let us listen to the member’s peroration. Stephen Kerr: Are we now to proscribe the word “reform” in this Parliament? I do not think so, because reform is exactly what our Parliament needs. [Interruption.] We who are here, in this Parliament, must be the ones to make that reform happen, otherwise our relevance to the people of Scotland will continue to diminish in their estimation. Jackson Carlaw: On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Given that there is a parliamentary by- election taking place this week, I am concerned that we should not bring the politics of that into our proceedings this afternoon.”
“We, as individual parliamentarians and collectively, must rebuild that trust, and we must do so not with public relations exercises or flim- flam, but by changing how the Parliament works, which starts with scrutiny—serious, unflinching, independent scrutiny. When committees do that well, as the Finance and Public Administration Committee did just last week, with its redoubtable convener at the helm, things get noticed and they are recognised as things that matter. The public want to see ministers being questioned and examined and the Parliament working on their behalf. I will conclude, because I have had a generous allocation of time, for which I am grateful. The bottom line is that this is the moment, in this parliamentary session, for reform—real reform, which must come from within.”
“The majority of people in Scotland who believe that they cannot influence what happens here are a growing majority, and that should be a wake-up call for us all. The relevance of this institution matters. I happen to believe that how Douglas Ross was treated last week was a defining moment. Listening to the points of order that he raised earlier this afternoon, I felt that, whatever one’s party, the issue of his exclusion from this chamber runs very deep in the Parliament. The justifications that were offered by anonymous spokesmen of the Scottish Parliament are deeply damaging to its reputation. That applies not just to one individual, but to the Parliament itself. When the Parliament becomes a place where political sanction trumps public accountability, it ceases to be worthy of the trust that it ought to command.”
“I take the point that Oliver Mundell is making—he is obviously making a very valid point about distances and so forth—but the Parliament meets in the chamber for very few hours in a week. Here we are again on a Tuesday afternoon—as Jackson Carlaw said, it is a beautiful sunny day outside—and only a few of us are gathered together to talk about the workings of the Parliament. Most of our colleagues are not here. We could be discussing many other things in the time that we are here; indeed, we could expand the hours in which we sit in this chamber. We could also expand the hours that are set aside for committees. Other Parliaments meet for far longer during the week. As members will know, I am thinking of one Parliament in particular.”
“I hear what Stuart McMillan says. If people are checking out early to go home, that is problematic. However, many members across the chamber represent constituencies that are far away from Edinburgh, where genuine local democracy is taking place and constituents expect us to be— taking the Parliament to them, as Evelyn Tweed said. That is also part of the job of an MSP. I am worried by the suggestion that remote proceedings are being used improperly, as many members use that option to do a better job. Stephen Kerr: Oliver Mundell makes his point really well. I am not going to speak for Stuart McMillan, but he makes the valid point that those who are elected to this place ought to do the work.”
“Having milked the public purse for years while the going was good, Stagecoach has now decided to throw Dumfries and Galloway under the bus. There are reports that the company is planning to exit the region altogether, abandon more than a hundred members of staff, close depots in Dumfries and Stranraer and even hand back school transport contracts. That presents a huge challenge across a large rural local authority, and constituents are seeking urgent reassurance that they will still be able to get to work, school and hospital appointments. Will the First Minister commit the Government and its agencies to working with Dumfries and Galloway Council to ensure that bus services do not collapse and to explore alternative options that will retain current drivers and staff?”
“To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to ensure that those identified with dyslexia at school leave education with the appropriate supporting information needed to secure reasonable adjustments in the workplace. (S6O- 04668)”
“Because of change in society—whether that is looking at screens or changes to land- based occupations—their connections to the countryside and the outdoors in general are very limited. We live in a great country. Why are we not determined to make sure that every young person in Scotland enjoys it and benefits from the experience? It is not good enough. Today, we have a chance to do something daring and different and—for once, unusually—to unite and do something that will make a tangible difference. 16:28”
“What makes this initiative exciting is the intensity of the experience and the chance to take everyone out of their comfort zones. That is where the transformational and lasting effects come into their own. We talk about outdoor learning, but in most education settings, people are just playing at outdoor learning. It is not serious and it is not real. To be honest, as a result, a lot of what is done ends up being a waste of valuable time and resources. We need specialist and quality provision, and we need it to be available for all. As a member who represents a rural constituency, where the great outdoors is not that far away, I find it incredibly sad that, for many young people who go to school in my constituency, the chance of going on a residential trip or getting that experience feels beyond their reach.”
“We cannot listen to the testimony of the young people—including the young person mentioned by Liz Smith—and not recognise that there is something transformational about outdoor education that goes beyond what can be done in the classroom and goes right to the heart of social justice. I cannot believe that the Scottish National Party Government does not recognise what is at stake here. It is hard to accept the idea that accessing Scotland’s great outdoors is something for privileged young people, whether through a postcode lottery or a lottery of birth, and to hear pushback that it should not be universal. That is really sad. That speaks to a narrowness, a smallness and a lack of determination, which probably also speaks to the wider failings in our education system.”
“Martin Whitfield: More than Liz Smith’s passion for it, outdoor learning is a proven pedagogical tool for teaching the experiences in the curriculum for excellence, which is the national curriculum that operates across Scotland. Does Oliver Mundell agree with that? Oliver Mundell: I agree with that; I was going to come to it later. Personally, I have always been a sceptic when it comes to the curriculum for excellence—that is not a secret. I am a passionate believer in a knowledge-based curriculum, and I would like to see something that is more structured and more prescriptive. However, even I have been convinced that this is the right way to go and that there has to be some balance.”
“I find that frustrating because the bill speaks to a philosophy and a vision that is about making our country better and shaking up how we do things, rather than doing what is easy. I say that because, based on the debate so far, we are having a clash on how to make it happen. Liz Smith has not shied away from the fact that this is not an easy bill—it is not a secret. It is not a £40 million carriage clock that ticks a few boxes and gets the member some legislation in her name. Easier bills might have been available, but Liz Smith believes passionately in it and has convinced many people that it is worth doing. In that context, we should look at why someone with an education background who is very passionate on the topic believes that this is the right way to spend such a sum of money and that the results will come.”
“When we were both on the Education and Skills Committee, Iain Gray used to say that she was more like my headteacher than a colleague. I have not always been very good at finding common ground, but Liz Smith has always been searching for that, looking for solutions and looking to put party politics to one side. To be honest, given that she is someone who operates and works like that in this Parliament, it is pretty disgraceful that the best treatment was to receive an 11th-hour letter at 6 o’clock after decision time yesterday, and that there was no chance for the minister to have better engagement before that— particularly when she says that she has met the member in charge of the bill.”
“When we say that the provision is unaffordable and unworkable, when we fish around trying to find all the problems and none of the solutions, what are we telling young people? Natalie Don-Innes: I clarify that I have at no point said that provision is unworkable. I have emphasised time and again that I am willing to work with Liz Smith to ensure that we can find solutions to many of the challenges that I have laid out clearly today. Oliver Mundell: I thank the minister for that intervention, but when I hear her talking, what I hear is a dialling back of what Liz Smith is proposing. Liz Smith is probably too polite and too focused on trying to get something done to say this, but what I hear is a talking down of the ambition that is at the heart of the proposals. I have had the wise counsel of Liz Smith over many years.”
“With just a year to go until dissolution and my own eyes fixed on the exit, I rise to speak in the debate with a slightly different mindset. I look back at the years spent in the chamber and question—not in a way that is disrespectful to colleagues—how much of what we have done has actually delivered a meaningful step change in the future lives of Scotland’s young people. What have we actually done to shift the dial? What will people reel off in future as the key successes of this parliamentary session? When I hear the minister talk about affordability, I find it very frustrating, because I have lost track of how many times I have heard the First Minister say that we cannot just will the ends—we have to will the means.”
“As I said at the beginning, I agree with the general idea, but the concerns that were raised have to be addressed. We need to know how much budget would be needed, and I look forward to hearing some solutions as we move forward. 16:21”
“Teachers told us that, even when a booking is secured, the cost of the additional clothes that would be needed could be immense to some families. The answer that we heard from the outdoor centres was that specialist gear could be provided, but, as one teacher said, additional clothing does not necessarily mean specialist clothing. Some families could struggle with providing the essential day-to-day items, such as extra socks, underwear and pyjamas, or even with just having to purchase the bag to put them in. If we truly want children to have equal opportunities, we must ensure that no undue expense and financial drain are put on those who can least afford it. That is just a small section of the concerns that were raised during the evidence sessions.”
“They do not just have schools booking but private companies for team-building and away days, so there is a lack of availability and the cost of booking at that time is much higher. One witness who we heard from suggested that a potential solution could be that schools from less affluent areas could book in the winter months, when demand is less and costs are lower. However, in my view, that would not give an equal experience of the outdoors. Doing outdoor activities in the summer months is totally different from doing those same activities in the dark mornings, on cold and frosty days, or in the rain or snow. I still remember my time from Auldearn primary school when I was on top of the Cairn Gorm in my T-shirt and jeans, trying to ski.”
“I was one of the committee members who wanted that point added to the stage 1 report, but that proposal was defeated when it came to the casting vote. Going back to teachers taking part on a voluntary basis, I was told by some teachers that, in some instances, they are voluntold rather than getting to volunteer freely. My fear is that, if that is the case, it could put our future generation of teachers off going into the profession. I would like to see every child getting the same chance as the next, no matter who they are or where they are from, but we heard that it is more difficult to gain access to outdoor centres during the summer months because of their popularity.”
“That is not an issue in their normal working day, but what if they had to be away for a night or for the full week, which would add stress and potential financial burden to them? What happens if they are unable to procure childcare for their own families, including potential overnight childcare? Who would reimburse them, or would there be an expectation that they would need to meet that cost on their own? We were told during the evidence session that going on the residential trip could be voluntary, but we cannot expect all teachers to undertake that on a voluntary basis. I agree with the folk who said that teachers’ terms and conditions would need to be renegotiated. With no budget line being provided, where would that funding for that come from?”
“Will the member take an intervention? Jackie Dunbar: I am sorry, but I do not have the political fight in me today to take an intervention. We heard from teachers who posed questions in respect of attending the outdoor experiences with their class. We were told that an additional teacher would be required if there was a child with additional needs, in case the child was unable to cope with a change of routine, for example, and needed to go home immediately. The additional teacher would then have to escort the child back to their parents, as the child could not travel alone, and that additional cost has not been addressed. Leaving that aside, no consideration has been given to the fact that the teacher might have caring responsibilities in their own private life.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to support local authorities with managing planning applications (S6O-04490)”