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 69 of 70.
“Is it not complacent of the Secretary of State to base his view of Scotland's economy on only one set of employment figures? Is he not aware of the growing concern among the business community and economists in Scotland that recent growth was due to expansion of the public not the private sector—an unsustainable trend in the long run?”
“I know that the right hon. Gentleman, like his right hon. Friend the Chancellor, prefers to talk about the past rather than the present and the future, but he cannot dispute the fact that 51 per cent. of Scotland's gross domestic product is in the public sector, compared with 40 per cent. in the UK as a whole. Does he think that the proportion in Scotland is too high, too low or just about right?”
“I associate Conservative Members with the Secretary of State's good wishes to Mr. Speaker. I am sure that the Minister agrees that Scotland's climate change targets will be best met through a balanced energy policy; that is why I welcome Scottish Labour's decision to support nuclear power. But how will the Scottish Executive be able to deliver on that commitment when the Secretary of State says that the Liberal Democrats run away from hard decisions and fail to face up to their responsibilities?”
“When the Secretary of State next lobbies himself, perhaps he could raise the case of the M74 between Gretna and Carlisle. Will he then let us know the exact start date for that project and give us an assurance that there will be no further delays?”
“As I am sure the Minister knows, the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs thought that "Executive" was a better term than "Assembly Government". The arguments advanced within the Committee have merit, which should commend them to the Minister. I hope that the amendments will be regarded as non-contentious and that they will attract Government support.”
“It seems logical, coherent and beneficial to efforts to promote wider understanding of the functions of the devolved bodies that in Wales we replace the rather uncomfortable phrase, "Assembly Government" with "Executive." To have a coherent system throughout the United Kingdom, with a Scottish Executive, a Northern Ireland Executive and a Welsh Executive, would allow and promote better understanding of what the Executives do, compared with the Assembly or Parliaments. Indeed, it would also assist debates in this House, because hon. Members' references to "the Executive" would be clearer. A degree of coherence that has not previously been evident would be brought to the whole package if the amendments were made.”
“The purpose of the amendments is to ensure a consistent approach to the devolved Administrations of the United Kingdom. Such consistency has not been evident in much of the debate—we seem to have moved away from the idea that there should be a coherent approach to the devolved Administrations. In Spain, there is something that is often called "asymmetric devolution," whereby different parts of the country are governed in different ways, but I do not accept that difference is needed for difference's sake. In Scotland for the past six and a half years, the clear and accepted description of the Administration in the Scottish Parliament has been "the Scottish Executive." Were the equivalent body in Northern Ireland fully functioning, it would be called "the Northern Ireland Executive".”
“With respect to public services, it is not necessarily the Scottish Executive or the Welsh Assembly that is not delivering, but the Administrations within those institutions, and we need to work further—”
“I am disappointed by the Minister's response to a reasonable suggestion. Earlier in our consideration of the Bill we were told that it was designed to set the framework for a generation, so it would have been worth taking the opportunity to add a much clearer definition of the roles of our devolved institutions within the United Kingdom. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) made a valid point. One of the great challenges of the devolved arrangements is the attempt, particularly under Labour stewardship, to tie in the institution with the Government, and to channel towards the institution any form of public dissatisfaction with the Government.”
“The Labour Welsh Assembly Government had to take a degree of responsibility for their actions. Both the Scottish and Welsh institutions are governed by majority decisions, rather than by communal decisions of the entire body. The Welsh Affairs Committee has recognised that the addition of the word "Executive" would provide the new UK devolved settlement with a degree of coherence, so the Minister's argument is unsatisfactory. I will not divide the House on this issue.”
“I agree with the hon. Gentleman. If the Minister had been willing to accept the amendment, common sense would have prevailed. Sadly, that is not the case, but I am glad that we have had the opportunity to put the issue on the record. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 51 — Limit on number of ministers”
“Scotland had five Ministers under the Conservative Government, but it now has 22 Ministers performing the same functions—at a significantly greater cost.”
“The amendment and the new clause are designed to engender a debate about the appropriate number of Ministers in the Welsh Assembly Government and the difference between full Ministers and Deputy Ministers. We also need to consider how many Assembly Members are not members of the Welsh Assembly Government. If the Assembly contains 12 Ministers, the First Minister and Presiding Officers, then the number of Members available to carry out non-governmental functions in the Assembly is reduced. We must be confident that the number of Members who do not hold Government office is sufficient to scrutinise the work of the Assembly Government. No such limit was stipulated in the Scotland Act 1998, and it is clear from experience in Scotland that following the arrival of an institution the number of Ministers can grow exponentially.”
“I shall not press the amendment to a Division, as the House has been able to raise the relevant issues. People are worried about the percentage of members of institutions such as this Parliament or the Welsh Assembly who are on the payroll vote—that is, the number of Ministers who are needed for effective Government. The Opposition believe that we should always strive to ensure that the number is the smallest possible. In the hope that the numbers set out in the Bill do not become the norm but will be assessed in the context of ministerial duties, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 60 — Promotion etc. of well-being”
“The Scottish Parliament has provided the model for much of the discussion on this Bill, and Deputy Ministers there are not able to serve on Committees or ask questions in the Chamber. People understand that Deputy Ministers are part of the Executive—or, in the Wales context, of the Welsh Assembly Government. The debate has made it clear that combining the two roles is unsatisfactory, and I hope that the Standing Orders will deal with the problem and clarify the position of Deputy Ministers. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) noted, the office attracts a payment. The duties and responsibilities that go with that should mean that office holders are not able to move from being a member of the Government to being a Back Bencher as and when required.”
“As I made clear to the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) during my initial remarks, our probing amendment is designed to allow the sort of discussion that has indeed taken place, and which has proved very helpful. Although we have strayed into discussing what constitutes the appropriate number of Assembly Members, that issue will require further consideration. However, I take on board the point, made by my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies), about the benefit of the Welsh Assembly's working longer hours. Inevitably, the range of Committee activities will put disproportionate work loads on particular Members, although a rough calculation suggests that they are more likely to be Labour Back Benchers at this stage. It is important that the Deputy Minister role is clarified in the Standing Order process.”
“If the Secretary of State and the Government are sincere about presenting the argument to persuade the people of Wales to take forward, through the Assembly, the powers in part 4, they could do that, by any reasonable reckoning, in 10 years.”
“The new clause clearly provides that if a referendum on giving the National Assembly full law-making powers such as those set out in part 4 had not been held after 10 years, fresh legislation would be required. There is good reason for that. We are legislating on the basis of a referendum that we are already told would be lost. There is no logic in requiring that to happen in 15, 20 or more years. The Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary conceded that a referendum would be lost. The Secretary of State said that he did not anticipate holding a referendum for the rest of the decade. We therefore propose 10 years as a reasonable period in which to allow a referendum to take place. It is not unreasonable to ask Parliament to reconsider the matter if a referendum has not happened in 10 years.”
“During our debates on the preceding amendments, it was said that, if a referendum were held, it would be lost and that the Government therefore did not plan to hold one. However, the Bill places no time limit on holding such a referendum. Although the Secretary of State said that he intended the measure to settle the constitutional situation in Wales for a generation, it cannot be right that there is no end position about holding a referendum. Foresight in government and in legislation is always important, but we could be legislating for something that took place in 20 or 30 years, when it could not be described as depending on specific circumstances. That is inappropriate and it is why we have tabled the new clause.”
“However, the Government are clearly not minded to do that and, in those circumstances, we would want to establish a process to ensure that there was a cap on the period in which a referendum had to be held. For the reasons that I have set out, we suggest a period of 10 years. In addition, new clause 13 would prevent the possibility of holding repeat referendums.”
“It is possible to envisage repeat referendums being used for political purposes rather than for taking forward the constitutional arrangements for Wales or for the enhancement of the Welsh Assembly. Both the new clauses are fair and reasonable in the context of the Bill, and in the context of the debate about the appropriateness of holding referendums. As has been stated in the debates on previous amendments, the logic remains that a referendum should be held under the part 4 arrangements as soon as the legislation is passed, so that the people of Wales can give their view straight away. The matter would then be settled for a significant period.”
“Any further referendums would have to be endorsed by the people of Wales at an Assembly election. We have heard much during our proceedings about the importance of election results in ascertaining the views of the people of Wales. It is therefore appropriate that they should have a say about whether a further referendum should be conducted shortly after a previous one. I am not fully au fait with the details of the repeat referendums in Quebec in the 1970s and 1980s, but asking the same question repeatedly until the public are ground down, through a war of attrition, either to vote in a particular way or to turn out in low numbers is unsatisfactory.”
“Unless the Under-Secretary says something new and surprising, we are not minded to accept an open-ended provision and we shall press the new clause to a Division. He may surprise us with something that gives us comfort or hope—we shall wait and see. New clause 13 is about the frequency of referendums and its purpose is clear. It would prevent a further referendum on part 4 powers from taking place for at least four years after the date of the first one. It would thus prevent the Assembly from simply holding repeat referendums at regular intervals until the desired result was achieved. We believe that if a referendum on part 4 powers is held and the vote is no, the result should trigger a period of reflection. A minimum interval of four years means that only one referendum could be held during an Assembly term.”
“Unless I misunderstand the hon. Gentleman, his intervention is an argument for the new clause, which provides that a referendum should take place in a fixed time period to focus minds on the matter, rather than some nebulous, distant provision. As many speakers have said, there is a lack of clarity about the Government's intentions. Do they want to increase powers and put the Welsh Assembly on the same footing as the Scottish Parliament, or are they simply conducting a smoke-and-mirrors exercise? The fact that they do not have the confidence to hold a referendum now or in 10 years leads me to suspect that there is no will in the Government or the Labour party in Wales to campaign on the issues in part 4.”
“Circumstances could change significantly in that time, and if the Government and the Welsh Assembly were not confident that they could secure a majority in a referendum 10 years after the passage of the Bill, it would be appropriate to revisit the legislation and examine the issues relating to the powers involved. One reason for a lack of confidence in the result of a referendum might be to do with the nature and structure of the proposed legislation. On that basis, I intend to press new clause 2 to a vote. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—”
“As we anticipated, the Minister's response contained no surprises. I hope that he is correct about the issues raised by new clause 13, and that fiscal prudence, if nothing else, will prevent the repeated use of referendums. However, given that referendums have been called repeatedly in other jurisdictions when the political climate has been ripe for them, I do not believe that the possibility can be ruled out. I would have preferred to see the new clause being accepted. I am not in the least satisfied by the Minister's response to my arguments on new clause 2. I do not believe that 10 years is an arbitrary period. I had understood that the Government were now going to promote the concept of sunset clauses in legislation. A period must necessarily be determined in which to hold the referendum, and 10 years is a fair period to choose.”
“Indeed, if Members were to engage in public in the sort of antics that I have described, I think that the wider general public would see the respect, or lack of it, with which they treated the institution. Therefore, I, together with other colleagues, have tabled new clause 5, which would require the oath to be taken in public. I hope that the Minister will not have difficulty accepting such a proposal.”
“There is no suggestion in the amendments that such activities are planned, but the wording of amendment No. 21 is very close to the wording that members of the Scottish National party have attempted to use in the Scottish Parliament. If Members do not wish to swear the oath to Her Majesty, I do not understand why they cannot be satisfied with the ordinary affirmation procedure, rather than seeking to bring forward some new procedure, which does not add anything to either the process or the solemnity of the duties that they are undertaking. I wish for a change to be made in regard to the swearing of the oath or affirmation in public. I can see no reason why the ceremony should not be held in public.”
“I do not support the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) because, as I said in Committee, I have experience of the Scottish Parliament and am aware that a great deal of legislation is based on bringing Assembly procedures in line with those used in the Scottish Parliament. I do not know how many Members have followed in detail the work of the Scottish Parliament in the past six years, but when swearing the prescribed Oath, members of fringe parties often seek to perform stunts by delivering another oath or affirmation. On one occasion, a Member sought to write a message for the wider public on their hand during the Oath-taking ceremony. I do not accept that such behaviour is worthy of Members of either the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly.”
“The Committees should be representative of the Assembly as a whole. Instead of the complicated system set out in clause 29, we propose a simple formula that would ensure that, in appointing members to Committees and Sub-Committees, regard be had to the balance of political parties in the Assembly. It is worth noting that part 2 of the Bill contains a series of clauses relating to the Welsh Assembly Government under the heading "'Inclusive' approach to exercise of functions". We believe that the Committees should operate on the same principle and should be properly inclusive. Indeed, we feel so strongly about this issue that we will press the amendment to a vote, should the Minister not respond to our satisfaction.”
“As the Bill makes clear, the Committee system will continue to play a very important role in the Assembly's work by holding the Assembly Government and individual Ministers properly to account. However, under the Bill as drafted, the first place on each Committee will go to members of the largest political grouping in the Assembly, which is currently the Labour party. So as matters stand, in addition to having a Labour Assembly Government, the first place on each Committee will go to a Labour Assembly Member. Likewise, if the Conservative party became the largest party in the Assembly and formed the Government, it would have first place on the Committees. We are not making a partisan point—we believe that that arrangement gives an inbuilt and unfair advantage to one party.”
“I wish to state our broad support for amendment No. 30, which is in the name of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) and his colleagues. We believe that it makes sense for the membership of the Assembly Commission to reflect the range of parties represented in the Assembly. In speaking to amendments Nos. 14 and 3 and new clause 8, I want also to express sympathy with amendment No. 31, tabled by the Liberal Democrats, which aims to achieve a similar outcome. Our purpose in proposing to replace clause 29 with new clause 8 is straightforward. Unlike the Government, we want to ensure the greatest possible degree of inclusiveness and sharing of responsibility in the Assembly Committee system.”
“On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. On a major constitutional Bill, which the Secretary of State said would define the Government of Wales for a generation, it cannot be satisfactory that so much time for debate is lost, even giving regard to the Minister's need to eat. If the programme motion had allowed us to move on to the next set of amendments, pressure that might be exerted on tomorrow's business would automatically have been relieved. Large parts of a major constitutional Bill will now go unscrutinised.”
“Given the time pressures, I do not intend to reiterate what the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) said in relation to amendments Nos. 13 and 16, which we have supported. At the very least, those are important probing amendments, to which the Secretary of State should respond.”
“Member for Torfaen made of the Electoral Commission and academics, we cannot justify the introduction of an electoral system that falls outwith international democratic norms. There is an important debate to be held on amendments to clause 7, and I do not wish to delay the House any further, other than to reaffirm the fact that we do not support the amendments in this group.”
“103, because we need a debate about electoral systems, and about which system can command the support of the people of Wales, rather than having a false debate on changes that, as we shall see when we discuss the amendments to clause 7, would simply be gerrymandering the existing system. Yes, one can argue against the additional Member system. One can also argue against first past the post, and for and against the single transferable vote. We do not support the amendments on the single transferable vote, but those are legitimate debates. We cannot justify the introduction of measures that would create an election system that exists hardly anywhere else in the world. Accepting the criticisms that the right hon.”
“It takes two days to count the votes in such an election, and the two days that I spent witnessing such a count in Northern Ireland did not endear the system to me. I do not think that the people of Scotland, who now face local government elections under such a system in 15 months' time, are yet ready to determine how they should allocate their seventh, 11th or 15th preference, or how that process can ultimately elect the person who they want to represent them. As has already been said in interventions, that system also breaks the important link between constituent and elected Member. At least this debate is honest, as was the debate on amendment No.”
“The last time I stood up to oppose the introduction of a system of single transferable votes, it was for local government elections in Scotland. Sadly, the Labour Members of the Scottish Parliament voted that system through, despite the fact that it had no clear mandate or support from the people of Scotland. I confess to the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) that I have not been to Splott market, but I have been to other markets and similar places, and I have never heard anybody there talking about the merits of the single transferable vote. It was recommended by the Jenkins commission, which the Prime Minister set up—a very long time ago now, it seems—and it is a particularly opaque system of representation and election.”
“Last week in the Scottish Parliament, the First Minister said that section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 gives the Scottish Executive the power to veto the construction of new nuclear power stations in Scotland. Will the Secretary of State ask his colleagues in the DTI whether they agree with that interpretation?”
“When the Secretary of State next discusses energy issues with his colleagues in the DTI, will he raise the impact of rising energy prices on businesses in Scotland? On the day that has seen the announcement of the loss of 700 jobs at Lexmark in Rosyth, will the Secretary of State acknowledge the fragility of Scotland's manufacturing industry? Does he accept that continuing rises in base costs will lead to further job losses?”
“Is the Secretary of State aware that the Electoral Commission has said that the additional member system of election, which would prevent candidates from standing in constituencies and also appearing on regional lists, is "outside international democratic norms"? Will he rule out the introduction of such a system in Scotland?”
“I beg to move amendment No. 188, in page 52, line 11, leave out 'may' and insert 'must'. This is a probing amendment. I accept, before the Minister tells me, that "must" would be overly prescriptive, but the explanatory notes are, unfortunately, simply a replication of the clause and it would therefore be helpful if the Minister set out the criteria that would define "may" as it currently appears in the clause.”
“I am disappointed that we did not get an example, or a definition of the criteria that would cause the process to be used. On other occasions on which the provisions in the Bill have not been entirely clear, the Minister has helpfully set out examples. Given where we are in our proceedings, I shall not press the matter further, but it would be helpful if the Minister could identify more fully the circumstances in which the process would be used. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 95 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 96 — Introduction of proposed Assembly Measures”
“If the Minister is able to satisfy the House as regards the terminology in subsection (1), we propose in amendment No. 176 an affirmative procedure for orders brought before the House. The Minister can hardly expect anything other than the reaction in the Chamber this evening to the clause, given that the definition is so nebulous and the potential impact of the clause is so serious. If the clause had been proposed as an amendment by the Opposition, the Minister and others would have called it a wrecking amendment tabled by people determined to ensure that the Bill and the procedures would not work. It is incumbent on the Minister to answer the questions that have been raised, and further questions that my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Jones) intends to raise.”
“My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) raised a number of interesting issues, which I look forward to hearing the Minister address. As I said in relation to an earlier amendment, the confusion derives from the explanatory notes that accompany the Bill and the lack of clarity about the meaning of nebulous phrases such as "adverse effect" and "serious adverse effect". It is incumbent on the Minister to define for us the difference between the two, and to explain the reason for two definitions in the same clause. As there is a conjoined English and Welsh jurisdiction, subsection (1)(c) should refer to that, and not just to the law in England, which does not exist as a jurisdiction. That is the purpose of amendment No. 175.”
“Indeed, our view is even more pronounced now than when it was eloquently put on that occasion by my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans). The term "Welsh Assembly" has been in common parlance for some six and half years among the people of Wales. Some—although not those on the Conservative Benches—may take its name in vain; others may speak more highly of it. It would bring little benefit, other than to signwriters and stationers, who are already well catered for in Wales, to change the name at this stage.”
“I was disappointed not to be able to contribute to the debate on 9 January. I know well, from reading early-day motion 1421, that Welsh Members take an active interest in the deliberations of the Scottish Parliament, and this is reciprocated by Scottish Members in respect of the National Assembly of Wales—[Hon. Members: "For Wales!"] I mean the National Assembly for Wales. In any event, the Scottish Parliament provides an important point of reference in the explanatory notes on the Bill. I listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) said, and it is pretty much the same as what he said in the debate in 1997, when the Liberal Democrats made the same proposal. Now, as then, we are not convinced of its merits.”
“In light of that confusion and of the need to address it, I see no benefit in moving forward with this measure at this time when the effort should be directed towards extending understanding of the Welsh Assembly. Accordingly, we oppose the amendments.”
“We are not in favour of that proposal unless it is the clear wish of the people of Wales, as evidenced in a referendum. We should not forget that it is not the name or, dare I say, the powers of a body that deliver it recognition, authority and respect. It is how it behaves and what it delivers for the people. Many bodies and organisations have sought to operate with a different name but have had mixed success, because ultimately it is the public and what they want that matters, and in this case they clearly recognise the Welsh Assembly. If we reflect on the work of the Richard commission, we see that it is clear that on a number of aspects voters in Wales are confused, as I think we shall hear throughout the consideration of this Bill, about the exact role of the Assembly, just as people are in relation to the Scottish Parliament.”
“I have great concerns that nationalist elements in particular wish to use the difference between the powers that the Scottish Parliament has and the powers that the UK Parliament has to create a constitutional block and, if possible, crisis by presenting differences on energy policy. If the UK Government's policy is to have nuclear power in the UK, it is not for the Scottish Executive and Scottish Parliament, using provisions relating to other matters, to attempt to block the Government's energy policy. All such attempts to distort the devolution settlements should be resisted.”