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 68 of 70.
“The devolution settlement was voted on in the context of proportionality, which is why I disagree with the hon. Member for Glasgow, South-West (Mr. Davidson) about the remit. It would be unfortunate to accuse the Minister and the First Minister of trying somehow to rig the outcome of the report. Proportionality is one of the founding principles in the initial period of the Scottish Parliament—however long we regard that as being.”
“I accept that, although sometimes the tone of such statements is as though they are coming down from on high. The Labour party has accepted that it would have fewer representatives in the Scottish Parliament than if other schemes had been adopted, but that does not mean—as it has become clear in the debate—that there are not others in the Labour ranks who would like to change that. I am disappointed that the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Donohoe) is not with us today; I understand that he is looking at voting systems in the Cayman Islands. His proposal would effectively give Labour a double majority and we would have a Ceausescu-type Parliament, with 100 or so Labour Members and half a dozen others. That is unacceptable to the people of Scotland.”
“Friend the Member for Broxbourne mentioned the BNP; I think that the nationalism argument goes in the direction of the BNP, which is most unhelpful.”
“Indeed, the lady who lost the Blaenau Gwent seat in the general election has been appointed to the House of Lords and will now be able to legislate on behalf of Wales. I do not recall, from my days in the Scottish Parliament, the chant of “loser” coming from the Labour Benches when Mr. Peter Peacock—the Labour MSP and Minister for Education and Young People—or Maureen MacMillan, stood up. I shall be pleased, therefore, if the commission’s report has done nothing more than put that idea to rest. I shall draw the contributions of the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire to the attention of many of my colleagues, but not for the reasons that he hopes. He let us into the secret that he and his colleagues are whipping up English nationalism. My hon.”
“I accept the legitimate argument that we want a first-past-the-post system rather than PR, but people must accept that if we move to PR, we will move away from the traditional system of having winners and losers. It is as simple as that. I shall not repeat the quote from the Arbuthnott report that the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire read out setting out the reasons why that should not be split, although it was the one sensible contribution that he made to the debate. I do not know why Scottish Ministers have held firm on that, but I commend them for doing so rather than going down the spurious and unhelpful route taken by the Welsh Assembly. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) has pointed out, the Labour party plays fast and loose with the old winners and losers argument.”
“Caton—and how the names should be arranged on the ballot paper, and whether they should be adjacent or whether the logo and box should be on one side, we could set all those arguments aside by having a single ballot paper. That would also help to avoid confusion about the second vote. There is no doubt that many people understand the second vote to be a second choice somehow and worth less than their original vote, so there is confusion. I completely reject the arguments put forward by the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Devine) in his interventions that people who are not elected by the first-past-the-post system are somehow losers who are then elected in another way. Similar arguments were, unfortunately, voiced during many of the debates on the Government of Wales Bill.”
“I think that there is some confusion, because I supported the Scotland Act 1998 and think that the seat changes should have been followed through. It is clear that a significant number of people supported devolution in the referendum knowing that the Labour party would not be guaranteed to run the Scottish Parliament indefinitely. I agree with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central about the single vote, which would simplify the system and be readily understandable. Rather than get involved in the debate that we touched on about whether the second vote is first or the first vote second—I think that you understand the complexities of that, Mr.”
“What I will find worth while is what my colleagues and I will be doing in the coming weeks: clearly making the case for the Union, particularly from an English perspective. We have to do that because legitimate issues have been raised by constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne. Those issues must be addressed in a civilised and forward-looking way.”
“I am sure that the Minister has an open line to the Leader of the House and the Chief Whip, and has the remit to debate any subject that he likes in Government time.”
“Member for Argyll and Bute confirmed why even Lord Jenkins described STV as being opaque. That is exactly what it is in terms of the detail.”
“Thank you, Mr. Caton. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne also mentioned Lord Forsyth, who, I know, particularly enjoys being mentioned in the Scottish Parliament. I am sure that he will be pleased to have been mentioned in today’s debate. His idea is interesting, but times have moved on; it does not commend itself to me. Lord Foulkes has been mentioned. I think that we would all welcome his presence in the Scottish Parliament, as he would bring a unique perspective. I understand, however, that Labour constituency candidates are telling voters that if they do not vote for them, they will get George in the Scottish Parliament. I think that that might have the desired effect. I would rather have heard an apology than what we have heard from the Liberal Democrats. The case for STV was not made. Indeed, the hon.”
“I am particularly concerned that I am not aware, as a voter in Scotland, of any voter education programme having been carried out. I am slightly older than the hon. Lady and therefore was not party to modern studies classes on the subject, but I would wager that if we were to walk down Argyle street in Glasgow and ask people what they thought the STV was, they would tell us that it was a television station. That is the reality.”
“We have just been told that we must not discuss issues that are not the subject of the debate. However, knowing my right hon. and learned Friend as I do, I am sure that he will fully explain his views on Scottish constitutional matters in great detail over the weeks and months to come. I was interested in the views of the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire on the Scottish Parliament and its different style to Westminster. She obviously has not read any of the speeches of her colleague Tavish Scott. His touchy-feely approach to his opponents would go down well in the most aggressive of debates. I am concerned about local government and Scottish Parliament elections being held on the same day, and have repeatedly raised that issue.”
“In countries such as Finland, which have open lists, certain people tend to be elected. This is not a direct criticism, but one of Finland’s MEPs is a famous rally driver and another was involved in the modelling industry. The downside of the open list is that it can play to the cult of celebrity. In conclusion, the commission has highlighted the issues. To some extent, and this is one point on which I might agree with some Labour Members, some of the issues were ducked because they are difficult. I am confident that the Minister, as ever, will demonstrate his leadership on them. I would be particularly pleased to hear him say that he is bringing influence to bear to decouple the elections and that we will have a single vote in next year’s Scottish Parliament elections.”
“We need the Scottish Parliament to have clear guidelines about what regional MSPs are expected to do. That could be addressed tomorrow without any legislation or difficulties. If I recall it correctly, if the Conservatives and Labour on the Scottish Parliament’s corporate body were to combine, they would have a majority. I have made the argument against STV. The AMS has a lot of issues with it and we have touched on those. I am not particularly in favour of open lists, because they are not the panacea that is presented by the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire. The evidence from Australia demonstrates that when people have the choice either to select from an open list or just vote for a party list, more than 90 per cent. of people vote for the party list.”
“That is a difficulty within the Scottish Parliament. As I said in my comments to the hon. Member for Glasgow, South-West, in the Scottish Parliament, Labour has not taken that issue forward. Its Members of this House have said a lot about that issue, but within the Scottish Parliament it has not got a grip of it. The other sensible thing said by the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire was that the contributions of Members of the Scottish Parliament, particularly regional Members, vary enormously. Some people go round vast regions, but others do not. There is no clear guidance on the issue. It is hypocrisy to suggest that if other parties were in a different position, they would not do some of the so-called “shadowing”, because clearly they would.”
“Member for East Dunbartonshire is right—I disagree with it, but let us put it to the test—that STV will increase voter turnout, why are people afraid to have the elections on separate days? The evidence is there in the Arbuthnott commission’s comments about the London mayoral elections: muddling two systems on the same day leads to a much higher proportion of spoilt ballots. We all talk about the difficulty of getting people out to vote. It is ridiculous that when we do, hundreds of thousands of people’s votes are rendered invalid. That is what happened in the London mayoral and Assembly elections. There is no excuse for carrying on with this situation, and I make a final call to make progress on the matter. I have always argued, interestingly, that we need to have a better definition of the role of regional MSPs.”
“Just as one would for midge bites. More urgently needs to be done to address the issue of the lack of understanding of the STV system. One single thing could be done—and this is where I reject the Secretary of State’s response at the recent Committee meeting. It is an interest of his, because he is responsible in respect of the Scottish Parliament elections being on the same day as the Scottish local government elections. He should bring what influence he has to bear on the matter. He told us that he was in regular text contact with Jack McConnell. He could send Jack a text now saying, “Stop this lunacy. Step back from having these two elections on the same day.” It is not too late to do that. If the argument of the hon.”
“What does the Minister anticipate his reaction would be if there were a request from the Scottish Parliament to change its voting system to the single transferable vote after the Scottish Parliament elections next year?”
“For clarity, we have it on the record that Mr. McConnell does not have the capacity to offer the Liberal Democrats the single transferable vote as a system of election for the Scottish Parliament in negotiations over the formation of a Scottish Executive next year.”
“Dr. Elaine Murray MSP has said that Labour policy at the Scottish Parliament elections will be not to veto new nuclear power stations in Scotland, yet the First Minister appears to take a very different line. What is the Labour position in Scotland?”
“Will the Minister, for once, agree with Jack McConnell that there should be a mature debate on this important constitutional issue, not the usual yah-boo politics?”
“Let me make it clear: this party will take no lectures from the Labour party on our unflinching commitment to the Union. The Minister’s complacency on this issue is astounding. It is the fact that Labour will do nothing about the so-called West Lothian question that puts the Union in question. Although there are many different views about the answer to the West Lothian question, the Minister cannot deny that there is now cross-party support for the view that the present arrangements are unsustainable—apart from the Scottish Affairs Committee, the Father of the House, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Members for Hyndburn (Mr. Pope), for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor), for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson) and for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle).”
“I have noticed that the Secretary of State is always keen to agree with the CBI when it supports his argument, but does he agree with the new head of the CBI, Richard Lambert, who said that the fact that the public sector in Scotland “is noticeably larger than for the UK as a whole…is a constraint” on the dynamic growth of the Scottish economy?”
“The Secretary of State’s predecessor told the House on 28 March that most people in Scotland supported identity cards because they would be linked to social security payments in Scotland. Can he confirm that that will be the case?”
“It would be helpful if the Secretary of State confirmed what he said earlier—that the final decision on the burial of nuclear waste in Scotland will lie with the Scottish Executive. Is that correct?”
“That is a helpful answer and puts into context some of the activity in the Scottish political climate at the moment. Will the Secretary of State join me in condemning those politicians who run around Scotland claiming that it will be turned into a nuclear dump, when it is the case that, whatever the final decision on new nuclear power stations, we will still have to deal with legacy nuclear waste? Those who fail to face up to that reality or who pretend otherwise are unfit to govern Scotland.”
“Lord Sewel clearly and unequivocally stated: "Because of local circumstances, the Environment Agency has never enforced its legal obligation in this area and as I indicated has no intention of changing that situation." No satisfactory explanation has ever been proffered, only some bureaucratic nonsense that all rivers must be treated the same and therefore that the Scottish section of the Border Esk must be brought into line with the rest of the rivers within the responsibility of the Environment Agency.”
“That is why I find it hard to accept the inflexible and unhelpful approach adopted in recent years by the Environment Agency, which, regardless of everything said by Baroness Young and people from the Environment Agency, is wholly contrary to the undertaking that Lord Sewel gave the former MP for Dumfries, Lord Monro, in a letter of 16 November 1998 after Lord Monro had raised the issue during the passage of the Scotland Act 1998.”
“I shall not dispute the background to the regulation of fisheries on the Border Esk; as the Environment Agency points out in its briefing for the debate, there has been regulation under English fisheries law since the 1860s. That has never been in dispute, although the agency's responsibility for the Border Esk—and, indeed, the responsibility of the Scottish authorities in various guises for the Tweed—is not based on any scientific fact, but merely reflects the historical need to come to a sensible resolution of cross-border issues.”
“Their failure to stand up for the interests of my constituents was a clear dereliction of the duties and obligations expected of them by people who supported the establishment of a Scottish Parliament. Instead, the Executive simply kowtowed to the wishes of the Environment Agency and allowed it to go ahead with the rod licensing regime. If the Scottish Executive had spoken out against the introduction of rod licences on the Esk, I do not believe that the Environment Agency would still have gone ahead. That failure to act is consistent with many of the disappointments that people in my constituency have endured since the setting up of the Scottish Parliament.”
“The matter has a long history and has been raised previously in the House, in particular by one of my predecessors, Lord Monro of Langholm. I pay tribute to him for his assiduous pursuit of the issue over the years, and I thank him for his help as I prepared for the debate. I first became involved as a Member of the Scottish Parliament for the South of Scotland region. I was pleased to welcome members of the Esk and Liddle improvement association to the Scottish Parliament and to support their petition about the inequity of the Environment Agency's imposition of rod licences in 2003. The Scottish Executive's failure to get involved at that time was disappointing and lacking in backbone.”
“I have already met the Minister to discuss it, but it remains unresolved, so I welcome this opportunity to record the concerns of my constituents about the imposition of rod licences on the Scottish section of the Border Esk and to look for a way forward that commands the support both of my constituents and the Environment Agency. I am, however, already reassured about Parliament's role in this matter of great import, for no sooner had I secured today's debate than I had proactive contact from the Environment Agency for the first time. This morning, I was pleased to receive a fax from the Minister of a letter responding to a letter of 30 November 2005. Let no one say that debates in the House do not produce action.”
“I am delighted to have secured a debate on a subject about which I could speak at great length, although the House will be pleased to learn that I do not intend to do so. We have an opportunity to debate on the Floor of the House a matter of great concern to my constituents in and around the Muckle Toon of Langholm and the Eskdale valley in Dumfriesshire. I raised the matter in my maiden speech and have previously raised it in the Scottish Parliament. It was also brought before the Public Petitions Committee of the Scottish Parliament.”
“It probably dates back to some border reiving activity, which is probably the ultimate historical origin of the choice of which authority covers which river.”
“I can inform the hon. Gentleman on two points. First, as has been confirmed again today in the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish Executive have no plan at all to introduce rod licences in Scotland on any river for which they have responsibility, including the Tweed. Secondly, even though parts of the Tweed are physically in England, people fishing on those parts of the river are not required to pay for rod licences. The hon. Gentleman highlights the important point that an accommodation has been reached to avoid an incredibly complicated situation where different regimes might apply to either bank of a river. That accommodation has been put in statute in some ways, but it is mostly informal and there is no particular reason why it should not apply the other way around.”
“I am sure that those undertakings can and will be given, but the requirement seems to strike at the heart of the issue. The agency has been more worried about the way in which it is perceived than about fishing on the Esk. At the same time, its stock, rather than the fishing stock, has plummeted. That is why I hope that the agency can now move forward without any baggage and discuss the proposal that I have put on the table this evening of a general licence for the Esk and Liddle Improvement Association with no fee under the special case provision. Whether or not I get the response for which my constituents would hope, it has been extremely important to put the issue and their concerns once again on public record. I express my gratitude for the opportunity to do so, and await with interest what the Minister has to say.”
“Adverse headlines have appeared about the Environment Agency, such as the latest in the Eskdale and Liddesdale Advertiser of 27 April, which read: "Esk Fishing Licence Cases Are Dropped." I would prefer to move towards a solution to the problem. I am at an absolute loss to understand how the Environment Agency believes that it has benefited from not carrying out effective communication with stakeholders on the Scottish part of the Border Esk and why it thought that a brusque and unrelentingly strident line would achieve its goals. Even in the letter that was faxed to me from the Minister this morning, the Environment Agency says that it wants undertakings about the way in which it will be portrayed in any future discussions on the matter.”
“Clearly, that reflects the reality that the Border Esk is an anomaly in the Environment Agency. That is another reason why it is a special case and should be treated differently. One thing that must come out of the situation is a review of the way in which the Environment Agency has conducted itself. It has been a public relations disaster, which surely has been to no one's benefit. I was a little surprised that the Minister's letter of 3 November 2005 to Baroness Young stated: "We (and no doubt you) would regard approaches to the press on the lines of 'Mundell gets DEFRA/EA to back off over rod licence duties on the Border Esk' as entirely inappropriate". For me, the issue has been about getting not headlines, but a fair and equitable situation on the Esk. No one is more disappointed than I am that headlines have been easy to obtain.”
“I would have hoped that the Minister and the Environment Agency would welcome the association's efforts to encourage fishing among young people by a favourable licensing policy for that group, and for retired people too, to allow them to continue to participate in angling. Those initiatives are to be welcomed, not stifled by petty bureaucracy. Only last week, the Environment Agency said how important fishing was in diverting young people from antisocial behaviour. Apparently, the agency hopes to attract 200,000 extra young people to the sport by 2015. According to the statement to the media on the matter, all those extra 200,000 people are to be in England and Wales. If one reads Environment Agency documents, one realises that they generally make no recognition of the Border Esk.”
“That would allow the general licence to be granted without the payment of a fee. The Environment Agency is very keen on the letter of the law, and there can be no doubt that the legislation makes provision to enable it to waive the fee for a general rod licence for the Esk and Liddle Improvement Association. That would provide a solution that would meet the Environment Agency's stated requirement that the rod licensing regime should apply on the river, but it would also ensure that local anglers on the River Esk were treated the same as other anglers in Scotland in relation to the payment of rod licensing fees.”
“The Environment Agency briefing anticipates that request by pointing out that a general licence is not usually an alternative to a charging scheme, and fees are based on the number of people who would wish to fish under the licence. However, the Act also makes it clear, as a special provision, that the Environment Agency has the power to waive rod licence duty when it deems that there is a special case. What more special case could there be than a river that is physically in another jurisdiction and is the only one flowing outwith England and Wales within the remit of the Environment Agency? The Border Esk is like no other river under the control of the Environment Agency and so I believe that it falls within the definition of a special case in the legislation.”
“The solution that I suggest is one that I raised during my meeting with the Minister on 12 October. It has been the subject of discussions in the Esk and Liddle Improvement Association. It would allow a form of general licence to be granted to the association. That provision is allowed under section 25 of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975. That could allow any angler, including a child or pensioner, with a valid Esk and Liddle Improvement Association fishing permit to be covered by the general licence granted to the association. Of course, any angler who does not have a valid fishing permit from the association would not be covered by the exemption and would have to have a rod licence. I accept that if we are going to have rod licences, that would be the case.”
“My preference today would be for the Minister to announce that the Environment Agency has indicated that it has thought again and will not now continue to proceed with the rod licensing regime on the Esk. However, having received his letter and the Environment Agency briefing, and having pursued this matter over many years, I am realistic enough to know that that is not likely to happen. As was the case when I met the Minister, I am genuinely seeking a solution within the legislation that will allow the Environment Agency to meet what I consider to be its tick-box requirements, but which will also allow my constituents to fish on the River Esk without making the payments that others in Scotland do not have to make, without individual rod licence payments and without fear of prosecution.”
“Again, that reinforces in my mind the need for a solution that can commend itself to all interested parties. I cannot accept, however, that is it equitable that a rod licensing regime should apply to the Esk when one is not applied to any other river in Scotland and, as I have just indicated, there is no plan to introduce any. None of the issues that have been raised by the Environment Agency justify the introduction of the licensing regime. Indeed, I find the issue of the costs and recovery of costs a particularly ironic one, since so much money must have been spent on dealing with the local dispute and the questions and correspondence from myself and others, that the sum raised through the licences cannot come even close to the cost of introducing them.”
“I hope to suggest a set of proposals that will commend themselves not just to the Minister but to the Environment Agency, as he tells me that he cannot tell the Environment Agency what to do. Again, the hon. Gentleman highlights an important point that has arisen recently: the Environment Agency's capacity to prosecute those who do not have rod licences through the Scottish courts, when its framework is geared for England and Wales. I will refer to that later. There have been some recent instances of prosecutions that have not been proceeded with, and although the Environment Agency claims that it has the right and ability to proceed with those prosecutions, the suggestion is that it has drawn back because the law may be over-complex.”
“I, too, convey my best wishes to the new Secretary of State. I am in a unique position, having faced not only him in this House but his redoubtable sister in the Scottish Parliament. Do the Minister and the Secretary of State agree with me that the Advocate-General has a limited legal role to play in dealing with the apparently ever-increasing number of differences between Holyrood and Westminster? Will the Minister therefore agree to establish a review of intergovernmental arrangements, given the increasing likelihood of there being Governments of different persuasions at Holyrood and Westminster?”
“Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am disappointed that even under the tutelage of the new Secretary of State, the Minister is sticking to the old tune and the complacency that such issues can be dealt with under Labour's old boys' network. Is he aware that the independent Social Science Research Council has identified the need to ensure that the general machinery of intergovernmental relationships works, along with the necessary transparency and accountability? When will he and the Secretary of State deliver that?”
“I am glad that the new Secretary of State places so much weight on what CBI Scotland says. Perhaps he could answer the question that his predecessor failed to answer at last month's Scotland questions, when I asked whether the fact that 51 per cent. of Scotland's gross domestic product was in the public sector was too high, too low or just about right.”
“Last week, the Department for Work and Pensions said that the new products and services available from the Post Office from 2010 would be based on customers actual behaviour and requirements. How will the requirements of customers in Scotland, particularly those in rural areas, be factored into those products and services?”