David Mundell
MP for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale · Conservative · United Kingdom
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Naushabah Khan), not just for her thoughtful contribution but for securing this debate. It is so important that we take every opportunity we can to shine a light on this conflict.”
“Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds). I am sure that the new Minister, whom I welcome to her post, will do likewise. Nevertheless, as I said, Sudan remains chronically under-reported.”
“I absolutely agree. I—and the Minister, I am sure—would like the Quad that was established to be more effective in relation to the involvement of the United States and neighbouring countries, with those neighbouring countries playing a positive role rather than supporting the protagonists in the conflict. As the right hon.”
“As UN Security Council penholder, the UK has a distinct moral and diplomatic duty to lead these negotiations at the upcoming UN General Assembly and press relentlessly for a humanitarian truce, a permanent ceasefire, robust civilian protection, civic engagement and unhindered aid access.”
“I recognise that the Minister and her colleagues in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office must navigate delicate regional dynamics, but the Government must not shy away from forcefully challenging the covert actions of some of our Gulf allies in Sudan, both publicly and in private diplomacy.”
“We saw the horrific realities of the crisis just two weeks ago with the totally unacceptable attack on a World Food Programme convoy in Kordofan. Civilian personnel were injured and lifesaving aid was destroyed.”
The complete record
Every one of 3,497 lines we hold for David Mundell, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 67 of 70.
“I thank the Secretary of State for an advance copy of his statement and, indeed, for agreeing to make a statement this afternoon. I am glad that he is now taking the issue of the conduct of the Scottish Parliament elections seriously, compared with the cavalier approach that he has shown in the past when the issue has been raised in the House and at the Scottish Affairs Committee. Despite repeated warnings about the pitfalls of introducing a new voting system, new ballot papers and a new method of counting all on the same day, the approach of the Scottish Executive and the Scotland Office was to carry on regardless. It is not good enough to adopt the Jack McConnell approach to the cost of the Scottish Parliament building—”
“Does the Secretary of State accept that every objective body from which evidence was taken recommended the decoupling of the elections, and that since the local government elections would inevitably impact on the Scottish Parliament elections, he cannot shirk responsibility for those two elections taking place on the same day? Does the Secretary of State accept that somebody has to take responsibility for the situation, and that it lies with his Government and with him?”
“In that regard, before giving the go-ahead to the constituency and regional vote single ballot paper, did the Secretary of State actually read the report sent by the commission on 4 August, which showed that there was least scope for voter error when two ballot papers were used, and does he accept newspaper reports that the commission put an overly positive gloss on that report and omitted to disclose the finding that the single-paper option was more likely to lead to errors and therefore contribute to a higher number of invalid votes? I accept that the Scottish Conservatives acceded to a single Scottish Parliament ballot paper, but what they did not accept was the use of that ballot paper on the same day as council elections under a different system of voting.”
“Does the Secretary of State agree that the public’s confidence in the electoral system will be restored only if a full independent inquiry into what happened takes place? While the perspective of the Electoral Commission will be important, does he accept that it was integrally involved in these elections and—in particular and as his statement suggests—in the design of the ballot paper? The conduct of the elections was influenced by many political decisions and they, too, must be the subject of scrutiny.”
“Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Secretary of State is responsible, as he himself acknowledges, so will he now apologise to the people of Scotland for Thursday night’s debacle? In particular, will he apologise to the tens of thousands of voters disfranchised due to their vote not being counted? Does he agree that it is totally unacceptable that around 100,000 people—compared with 16,000 in 2003—who actually made the effort to go to a polling station had their ballots disallowed, and that while there is no evidence of disproportionate disadvantage to any party, it does create unease among the electorate that in Airdrie and Shotts, for example, where the majority was 1,146, there were 1,536 spoilt papers?”
“Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could tell us what will happen to the hand of the Liberal Democrats, who have also been in government in Scotland for the past eight years. Will their hand be cast aside, or will it be grasped?”
“To take up the thread of the hon. Gentleman’s remarks, and referring to the comments of the hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton, East (Mr. Hood), may we take it that when it comes to discussions between the Liberal Democrats and the SNP, it will indeed be no deal?”
“Thank you for calling me, Mr. Atkinson. As a Member whose constituency borders Scotland, you will be familiar with the world of Scottish politics. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire, North (Jim Sheridan) secured the debate, although I would have been more pleased had any Scottish Labour MP signed the early-day motion that I tabled in the House to celebrate the Act of Union, as some of their English colleagues felt able to do. I would have been happier still had the Government backed my party’s calls to celebrate the Act of Union throughout the United Kingdom, rather than marginalising it by simply holding an event to introduce the new £2 coin to which the Chancellor did not even bother to turn up and which the Secretary of State graced for only five minutes.”
“We would not have had this problem had the Labour and Liberal Democrat Administration in Edinburgh not failed so miserably over the past eight years—that is the point that has been missing from the debate so far. I agreed with virtually everything that the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire, North said in opening the debate. Indeed, it reflected half the State of the Union address that my colleague Annabel Goldie gave last week, which set out the argument for the Union.”
“I have never described colleagues in that way, but there is no doubt that the public perception in Scotland is that the Scottish Executive have failed to deliver over the past eight years, and it is interesting that none of the Labour Members who have spoken has acknowledged that failure. Let us be quite clear that if the Scottish National party increases its numbers in Thursday’s elections, that will not be because there is a clarion call for independence—as others have said, the polls do not indicate support for independence—but because of dissatisfaction with the Labour Administration and, indeed, with the Liberal Democrats, who are now clearly willing to swap camps.”
“Member for East Lothian (Anne Moffat) eloquently described.”
“I have only a short time in which to speak, given how long others have spoken. The Conservatives offer a third way because they offer an opportunity for change but without all the risks that a Scottish National party Administration would bring to the Scottish Parliament, as many hon. Members have eloquently said. Let us be quite clear, however, that there will be no Scottish nationalist Administration in Holyrood without the Liberal Democrats—it is they who will deliver the Scottish National party to the people of Scotland. I am sure that other hon. Members present know the arithmetic and that the Scottish National party cannot get a majority in the Scottish Parliament on its own. It will therefore require Liberal Democrat support to pursue any of the hare-brained ideas that it has suggested, which the hon.”
“McConnell was pushed this weekend, he could not answer questions about Labour’s policies on local income tax and council tax. People in Scotland will have a choice on Thursday and will be able to choose the change that they desperately want. I include the Liberal Democrats in those changes, because they have gone along with every policy of the Labour Administration, and it is incredible to see their leader, Nicol Stephen, trying to distance himself from decisions to which he was party. However, there is a chance for change and there is a party that offers delivery without divorce, which is why I urge people to vote for the Scottish Conservative party on Thursday.”
“I am happy to join Labour Members and Unionists across Scotland to fight the Union’s cause, but like my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), I want to make a positive case for the Union. My right hon. Friend does not want to take the clunking-fist approach of the Chancellor, who is trying to scare everybody into thinking that Scotland would somehow be totally diminished and impoverished if it were not part of the Union; he wants to make a positive case for staying in the Union, as he did yesterday in Buchanan street in Glasgow, where he was so well received. The Labour party has made a serious mistake in fighting such a negative campaign in the election. I am relatively objective in the debate between the Labour party and the SNP, but I have not heard Labour policies being set out. Indeed, when Mr.”
“Previously, the hon. Gentleman did not wish to predict the outcome of the election. However, it is very unlikely that the Scottish National party could achieve the necessary numbers, and past form suggests that the Liberal Democrats might do a volte-face on virtually every issue on which they stand in the election, as they have on issues ranging from tuition fees to genetically modified crops. Despite what the hon. Gentleman said in the debate, the possibility of an SNP-Liberal Democrat coalition in Holyrood is very much open, and that will be bad for Scotland because a Scottish nationalist-led Administration will bring about the instability that we have discussed. However, this week’s vote will not destroy the Union because the election is not about the Union per se.”
“Although I might agree with the Secretary of State about the disastrous impact that the SNP’s 3p tax rise might have, did he really think that anyone in Scotland would not see through a Budget that gave with one hand and took with the other? What does he have to say to people about that?”
“At least I know the names of my colleagues in Scotland. The Secretary of State is as complacent about poverty in Scotland as he appears to be about the Scottish election campaign, which he is allegedly running. Is he aware that figures released today by the Department for Work and Pensions show that child poverty is increasing, inequality is rising, and the incomes of the poorest fifth are in decline? Is it any wonder that the people of Scotland are so determined to get rid of Labour in May?”
“Perhaps there is one matter on which the Secretary of State and I can agree: Scotland’s place in the Union has contributed greatly to employment levels in Scotland over the years. The commitment to the Union is absolute among Conservative Members, but does the Secretary of State really believe that bullying and scaremongering is the way to keep Scotland in the United Kingdom? Does he not agree that it is incumbent on all Unionists to make a positive case for the Union?”
“They can give business a signal so that it can move forward and enable that technology to fulfil its potential in Scotland and, indeed, so that Scotland can fulfil its potential as a world leader in that field.”
“May I, too, associate myself with the comments about the open-cast mining fatality? Open-cast mining is an important industry in my constituency and we all know the dangers involved. It would appear that on carbon capture there is, for once, agreement on both sides of the House. My colleague, the shadow Chancellor said in Aberdeen recently that carbon capture is likely to play a crucial role if we are to meet our international commitments on reducing carbon emissions. I, too, believe that the North sea has the potential to be the centre for carbon capture and storage for the whole of northern Europe, so does the Secretary of State agree that after an energy White Paper, the Stern report, the pre-Budget report and his earlier answer it is time for action, not just warm words, from the Government?”
“It is all very well for the Minister to come regularly to the House and lecture us on his party’s Unionist credentials, but on a matter such as protecting our borders, which is pivotal to the purpose of our united kingdom, his Government have failed to deliver a united approach. What possible rationale can the Minister offer to explain why his party proposed different arrangements for immigration officers in Scotland, apart from it being another example of Mr. McConnell allowing the Liberal Democrat tail to wag the Labour dog?”
“Is not the real issue as regards the powers of the Scottish Parliament the way in which they have been exercised over the past eight years by the Lib-Lab pact that has run the Scottish Executive? I am sure that the Secretary of State agrees that the people of Scotland do not want any more constitutional wrangling—they want delivery, not divorce—and that the only way to do that is to elect more Conservative MSPs.”
“The Scottish Executive and the Scotland Office published their response to the Arbuthnott Commission today. I find both responses disappointing. Does the Minister share my consternation that the Scottish Executive should dismiss the Arbuthnott Commission’s recommendation to split the Scottish parliamentary and local government elections, without presenting any evidence that that would increase turnout, whereas all the evidence shows that it will increase confusion? Does he agree that the Scottish Executive and his Government are showing contempt for the people of Scotland by bringing about two major electoral changes on one day?”
“Does the Minister accept that voter participation is not just about the number of people who turn up at the polling station but the number of validly cast votes? What level of improperly cast ballots is unacceptable? Will he and the Scottish Executive move away from the system that they, along with their Liberal Democrat chums, foisted on the people of Scotland?”
“For once I can agree with the Minister. Can he shed a little light on the lack of clarity in relation to the future role of European Commissioners in respect of immigration and all other issues in Scotland if it were torn out of the United Kingdom, and if it had to reapply, as it surely would, for EU membership?”
“I am sure that the Minister is aware that the Scottish Affairs Committee is in the highlands and islands as part of our inquiry into poverty. Yesterday, I met representatives of Highlands and Islands Enterprise, other stakeholders and members of the public. The overriding concern expressed by local communities is about the Government’s plans to butcher the rural post office network. Will the Minister and the Secretary of State, at this late hour, make representations to the Department of Trade and Industry to save this valued and essential service?”
“Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Is it not the case that Sir Rod Eddington has effectively ruled out a high-speed rail link between Scotland and London, saying that a high-speed rail link “between two cities would not offer the economy…new” competitive “or trading opportunities, if those cities were already a day-trip away from each other by existing rail…links”? Does the Secretary of State agree with that statement?”
“I think that it can be said that my party has learned from bitter experience that there is no easy answer to financing local government in Scotland. However, the answer is definitely not a local income tax or a property tax, which would result in working families paying thousands of pounds more in tax. As ever, the First Minister has prevaricated on the matter, but given the expectation that the Lyons report will recommend the introduction of a property tax for England and Wales—such a tax is to be introduced in Northern Ireland—is not the reality that a property tax is a fait accompli if Labour is returned to power in the Scottish Parliament elections?”
“The Minister is, of course, aware that parts of Scotland will be the first in the United Kingdom to be part of the digital switchover. Will he make it clear to Digital UK that awareness of the switchover is, in itself, not sufficient and that the work with voluntary groups and community groups is vital? For many of those groups, face-to-face contact will be the only way to ensure that there is understanding and, more importantly, no fear of the changeover.”
“I welcome much of what the Secretary of State said, and what the Prime Minister said yesterday about the enormous benefits to Scotland of being in the Union—similar comments to those that the Leader of the Opposition made when he was in Glasgow recently. Will the Secretary of State make sure that the celebrations focus not just on 300 years of success together, but on the future of the Union in the 21st century, working together?”
“Conservative Members are clear on our commitment to make the devolved settlement work. Does the Secretary of State agree, however, that support for the Union remains very strong in Scotland, and that the alleged rise in support for independence has nothing to do with a desire for further constitutional change but is the result of disillusionment with the Labour-Liberal Democrat Scottish Executive?”
“It is appropriate today that the House should mark the passing during the recess of Hector Monro, who represented the Dumfries constituency for some 33 years and held several ministerial offices. Hector was a great servant of this House, of his constituents and of Scotland—and never more so than in the aftermath of the Lockerbie bombing. He will be sorely missed. Does the Minister agree with the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters, and the many Scots who have signed its petition, that the post office network in Scotland has an important social value? If so, why have the Government systematically removed business from that network?”
“Given that the UK is the member state, is the Secretary of State satisfied with the existing arrangements with the Scottish Executive in relation to state aid rules, in particular their compliance? Is not this yet another example of a failure to have clear working arrangements in place between London and Edinburgh?”
“The Opposition fully support the new regulations. However, does the Secretary of State acknowledge that there has been a failure to convey to businesses, particularly small businesses in Scotland, the detail of the regulations? What proposals does he have to remedy that?”
“Is it not true that most Labour Members of the Scottish Parliament are, for the reasons set out by the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Devine), totally opposed to the introduction of STV? Is it not the case that STV is being forced on the people of Scotland by the Liberal Democrats?”
“I am sorry, Mr. Caton. My old Scottish Parliament habits are creeping back. I apologise profusely. Will the hon. Gentleman address the interesting concept that has been raised of first and second-class MSPs in the Scottish Parliament? I am particularly interested to hear about that distinction because he will know that we were recently told, on the Floor of the House, that Westminster would not be workable if we had first and second-class MPs, so how is Scottish Parliament sustainable with first and second-class MSPs?”
“Is the hon. Gentleman aware that such a proposal was contained in the Scottish Conservative and Unionist party response to the Arbuthnott commission? On this occasion, we are in agreement.”
“I do not understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, which others make, too, because the Scottish Parliament has a corporate body on which the Labour party is represented. That body has made rules about how MSPs may act, but despite such concerns, it has not moved forward and the hon. Gentleman’s Labour colleagues in the Scottish Parliament have not brought any pressure on the correct forum, the corporate body, to make clearer the rules about the roles of regional and constituency MSPs. Even without the Arbuthnott commission, if the Scottish Parliament were sitting, that could be done tomorrow.”
“I am a little confused by what the hon. Gentleman is saying. The Arbuthnott commission addressed the issue of the number of representatives to geographical area. That was one of the reasons he gave in his evidence and in the report for not recommending the introduction of the single transferable vote across Scotland. The highlands and islands would have seen a reduction in the number of Members and Arbuthnott said in his evidence to the Committee that he thought that the geographical area that would have to be covered by those who were elected to represent the highlands and islands would have been too great. Although he did not consider the specific issue raised by the hon. Gentleman, he did touch on the issue when it came to suggesting a balance between geography and the number of elected representatives.”
“I see that Mr. Nicol Stephen is to top the north-east Scotland list, and that Mr. Mike Rumbles is second on that list. It would help the House and voters in the Scotland if the hon. Gentleman were to give a categoric undertaking that, if they are elected to the list, they will not focus their efforts on an individual constituency or area within the north-east of Scotland?”
“I am sure that the hon. Lady is going to mention it but, in case she is not, I ask her for clarification on where she and her party stand on the local government elections under STV being held on the same day as the Scottish Parliament elections.”
“I am confused, and not for the first time. The hon. Lady’s argument on turnout is precisely the opposite of one made by her colleagues in the Scottish Parliament on the introduction of the single transferable vote. I was a member of the Committee that considered that issue; we were told that the Scottish electorate would be so galvanised by the introduction of the single transferable vote that they would turn out in their droves at local government elections held under that system. Is it not the reality that she—and, unfortunately, Labour colleagues in the Scottish Executive—is frightened of having Scottish local government elections on a different day because they know that STV will be a damp squib that will not return hundreds and thousands of people to the polls?”
“Yes, but the hon. Lady is making a spurious argument. The point about ranking candidates on the same day is that on one ballot people are asked to place an X and on the other they are asked to write 1, 2 and 3. We have clear evidence from elections in Northern Ireland—I had the opportunity to see the count in the last Assembly elections—of large numbers of people who understood that they had more than one vote but who, despite 20-odd years of operating that system, put two Xs on the ballot paper, making it invalid. Even if we accept the argument for STV, which I do not, what can be the purpose of holding such an election on the same day if—as was again shown in the London mayoral elections—having two separate systems exposes us to the risk of a disproportionately large number of people spoiling their ballots?”
“I do not know whether the hon. Lady is aware of the evidence that was given to the Scottish Parliament’s Local Government and Transport Committee on the matter, which demonstrated that where proportional systems and the STV system had both been used, there was absolutely no impact on the gender balance within the Parliament concerned. Australia is a good example of that. Subsequently, those arguing the case, at least on that point, had to drop it, because the argument is totally spurious. As my party has recognised, a party’s internal procedures determine who goes forward on behalf of that party. The electorate do not use proportional systems to change that.”
“However, we are where we are. We heard no apology from the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire for what the Liberal Democrats brought upon us, particularly in relation to the STV local government elections. I deeply regret that Scottish Labour did not withstand that pressure and vote those proposals down.”
“Much of Sir John’s work would have been unnecessary if the Scottish Conservative party’s view had been followed and the provisions of the Scotland Act, which were argued for on the Labour Benches and which we favoured, had been upheld and the size of the Scottish Parliament had been reduced to 108 Members, in line with the changes proposed by the Boundary Commission. Although Government Members have suggested different numbers for the make-up of the Scottish Parliament, I hope that at least some of them will accept that 108 is a workable number. Indeed, some have suggested that, if there were fewer MSPs with more focus on their duties within the Scottish Parliament, Members might not perceive that they were interfering so much in their constituencies. If we had stuck with the original proposals, we would have had a workable solution.”
“I am afraid that, during the contributions of the hon. Members for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid) and for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), I was no more convinced of the case for the single transferable vote, particularly in the context of the contribution of the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute. I recall Argyll and Bute council telling a Scottish Parliament Committee that it would be a disastrous system for Argyll and Bute, given the island communities and its geography, but it was not listened to.”
“I hope that you have found this an enlightening debate on matters Scottish, Mr. Caton. I have three things to declare. First, I was a witness to the Arbuthnott commission and therefore get a mention in the report in that, as a Member of the Scottish Parliament, I proposed a Bill to split the local government and Scottish Parliament elections, for reasons that I will come to. Secondly, I was a Member of the Scottish Parliament for the South of Scotland region. We have heard much talk about the roles and responsibilities of regional MSPs. I want to touch on that, but most of all I proudly wish to declare that I voted against the introduction of the single transferable vote in the Scottish Parliament—sadly, along with only two Labour MSPs—and in the coming months and next year, the logic of doing that will be clearer than ever.”
“Walker) said, he has the complete confidence of Committee members, because we know that he will not hold back in relation to his ministerial colleagues. I am disappointed that some hon. Members have said that there are two classes of MSP, because that permeates and reinforces the impression that some parties have tried to create. It is bizarre that hon. Members can bandy words about two classes of Members of Parliament at Westminster and regard it in a “shock horror” way, and then blithely say that there are two classes of MSP in the Scottish Parliament. It is a fact of the additional member system that there are constituency and regional MSPs with different roles. That has advantages—everybody in Scotland has a Conservative MSP to represent them, which is a significant advantage—but there are disadvantages as well.”
“I am delighted to ensure that everybody in the Scottish borders, in particular—and in Argyll and Bute and rural Scotland generally—knows that it was the Liberal Democrats what done it, because they shall find that they are losing their community’s local councillor and, instead, going into some large, amorphous mass with another community. The hon. Lady will, perhaps, come to understand that community is important in rural Scotland. As ever, I was interested in the contribution from the Chairman of the Scottish Affairs Committee, who is a thorn in the side of the Government. That is always an important role for the Chairman of such a Committee and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr.”