UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: David Mundell

  • David Mundell – 2024 Speech on Foreign Affairs and Defence

    David Mundell – 2024 Speech on Foreign Affairs and Defence

    The speech made by David Mundell, the Conservative MP for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale, in the House of Commons on 18 July 2024.

    What a pleasure to have heard three such effective maiden speeches! I commend the hon. Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) for surviving not only the election, but the birth of twins. I wish his family well. I wish the hon. Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) a happy birthday. I do not think that making a speech in the House of Commons on future birthdays will have the same allure, somehow.

    I regarded Virendra Sharma as a great friend in the House of Commons. I never quite saw him as a mafia don, but I did see him as a very effective operator. All new MPs, and indeed returning MPs, could learn a lot from Virendra about how to get things done in Parliament.

    I commend the new teams at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Ministry of Defence. I am particularly pleased to see the noble Lord Collins of Highbury becoming an Under-Secretary in the Department. I have worked closely with him on development-related issues over the past five years, particularly as his co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on nutrition for development. Lord Collins championed those issues in opposition; I am confident that he will now do so within the FCDO, along with the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), whom I congratulate on her appointment.

    I want to concentrate on international development, although I note that there was no specific mention of it—nor any ambition to return to spending 0.7% on it—in the King’s Speech. I commend my long-standing right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) for his efforts in the previous Government. Not only did he bring his usual vigour and drive to his time as Minister for International Development, but he stabilised what all the evidence presented to the Select Committee on International Development showed had been a chaotically managed merger of the Department for International Development and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the thinking behind the merger, we cannot pretend that it was well executed, or that the randomness of some of the decisions and the scale of the funding cuts were not seriously damaging to frontline programmes and the UK’s reputation as a reliable development partner.

    Thank to my right hon. Friend, that is behind us. I listen to his warning about the need for a plan B, although the last thing those delivering aid on the frontline need is the distraction and disruption of further organisational change in the FCDO. However, I am sure that they want to know this Government’s criteria and anticipated timescale for returning to 0.7%. In opposition, Labour Members rightly highlighted the cuts to the aid budget, and the impact on that budget of spending on refugees in the UK, but in government they need to put their money where their mouth is, so I look forward to hearing some detail on that spending in the Minister’s winding-up speech.

    If we are to make meaningful progress on achieving the sustainable development goals by 2030, the Government should embrace the White Paper published by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield. It was well received across the development community in the UK and internationally. Although it is understandable that a new Government might want to put their own bells and whistles on it, I hope the core objectives of ending extreme poverty and tackling climate change will remain, along with the framework for doing so.

    Mr Mitchell

    I assure my right hon. Friend that there are bells and whistles from across the House in the international development White Paper.

    David Mundell

    Indeed, and I see the White Paper as an important part of building a new consensus on development, and of re-engaging the wider public with that agenda. A cross-party approach is the best way to build public support for development and confidence that funding is being spent effectively, which is a legitimate concern of our constituents.

    All of us in this place who care about development should set ourselves the objective of increasing public engagement in the UK, as should those who work in the sector. In recent years, too many non-governmental organisations have gone down an overtly corporate route and lost touch with their members and supporters, who are often the most powerful advocates for aid in their communities.

    Having listened to Mr Deputy Speaker’s guidance, I think I do not have time to go into detail on what I think the specific priorities should be, but having co-chaired the all-party parliamentary groups on HIV/AIDS and nutrition for development, I am absolutely clear that those must be at the heart of the Government’s approach to international development.

    The Economist has highlighted this week that spending on nutrition delivers the best outcomes for the money spent. As the Government move forward on delivering the sustainable development goals, which we seem far from achieving by 2030, I hope that nutrition will be at the heart of the agenda, and that the Government will take the opportunity of the forthcoming Nutrition for Growth conference in Paris to restate their commitment not just to nutrition, but to international development.

  • David Mundell – 2023 Speech on Holocaust Memorial Day

    David Mundell – 2023 Speech on Holocaust Memorial Day

    The speech made by David Mundell, the Conservative MP for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale, in the House of Commons on 26 January 2023.

    My thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid) for bringing forward the debate and my commendations to the new hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Andrew Western) on an excellent maiden speech.

    I want to tell the House the story of an ordinary person who became extraordinary through her love and courage, who did not look the other way and who eventually laid down her life for her commitment. When Jane Haining was arrested by the Gestapo at the school where she worked in Budapest one morning in April 1944, she told the children in her care:

    “Don’t worry. I’ll be back by lunch.”

    She did not come back. Instead, from one of Budapest’s police stations, Jane was taken to Auschwitz-Birkenau.

    Unlike the 12,000 Hungarian Jews who were arriving daily to the horror of Auschwitz, Jane’s journey started not on the cobbled streets or Budapest or the Someşul Mic side town of Cluj but in the rolling farmland of my native Dumfriesshire. Her so-called crime, unlike the Hungarian Jews she arrived with, was not her ethnicity but her faith and courage. Like almost all who arrived at the camp at that time, Jane died within a few weeks—at just 47—in conditions that few can comprehend. She was the only Scot to die in the holocaust.

    Jane had, in a very literal sense, given her whole life to others. As a young girl in Dunscore in eastern Dumfriesshire, she had given it to her younger sisters for whom she had become the carer on the death of her mother. After her graduation from Dumfries Academy, where she had excelled in languages, she worked as a secretary in Paisley and Glasgow before finally finding her calling as a missionary in the Church of Scotland.

    From June 1932, Jane was the matron of the Scottish Mission School in Budapest, a boarding house for Jewish and Christian girls. Life and work at the school was overtly Christian, but Jewish parents were keen to see their daughters attend the school not only because of the quality of the education but because of how the girls were accepted. As one commentator noted:

    “Jewish girls who came here were not seen as second-class pupils. They were just welcome.”

    That must have felt precious to the pupils and their parents as the persecution of the 1930s become more prevalent and pernicious.

    Even before the start of world war two, the Church of Scotland had repeatedly advised Jane to leave Budapest, but she refused. After her final visit to her home in Scotland in 1939, she wrote

    “if these children need me in days of sunshine, how much more do they need me now”?

    It is a testament to Jane and a reminder of our capacity for good that her concern was always the children’s needs, not her own safety. Her courage and selflessness, though, cost Jane her life.

    When the Nazis swept into Budapest in March 1944, Jane was arrested within a month. Her crimes, according to the Gestapo, included that “she had wept” when, as prescribed by law, she had sewn yellow stars on to the pupils’ clothes. Her sympathies for the Jewish people had been revealed to Nazi authorities by the son-in-law of the cook at her school, whom she had scolded for eating food intended for the girls in her care.

    Jane was rightly recognised in 1997 by Yad Vashem as one of the righteous among the nations. She is also recognised as a national hero in Hungary. It was there in 2019 that I, as Secretary of State for Scotland, had the privilege of leading thousands of people through the streets of Budapest on the march of the living, an annual event to mark Hungary’s Holocaust Memorial Day, which movingly that year was dedicated to Jane and started in a street named after her.

    Here in the UK, Jane is remembered with a cairn outside Dunscore parish church, and an informative exhibition within it. For those wishing to know more about her life, I encourage them to look to Mary Miller’s book on Jane’s life, “A Life of Love and Courage”, to find out more. While her life, like all those taken in the holocaust, cannot be restored, it can and must be remembered, and I would certainly like to see it remembered more fully and more widely.

    As the holocaust and its victims move further into memory, it is right that we do more to ensure that current and future generations comprehend the scale of the horror, but also the impact of each individual loss, and through Jane’s example—the example of an ordinary person—remember that for all the evil in the world, if we do not compromise or look away then, like Jane, there is always something that each individual can do to combat it. As Rev. Aaron Stevens of St Columba’s Church of Scotland in Budapest eulogised:

    “Jane Haining’s service and sacrifice shows that caring for people from different backgrounds in no way compromises our faith. In fact, it just might be the fullest expression of it.”

    May God bless Jane Haining. She was truly a light in the darkness, and may her light shine even brighter in the future.

  • David Mundell – 2022 Speech on Levelling Up Rural Britain

    David Mundell – 2022 Speech on Levelling Up Rural Britain

    The speech made by David Mundell, the Conservative MP for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale, in the House of Commons on 9 November 2022.

    As the Member with the largest rural constituency outside the highlands—it is larger than any in England or Wales—I am pleased to be called to speak. I will not take up the eight minutes by reading out the more than 100 communities that make up that large and diverse constituency, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) for bringing to the Floor of the House a debate on rural issues across Britain. In my experience, this House debates rural issues too rarely and has become far too metropolitan and urban-focused, which is a facet of our society generally. Sadly, I find things little different in our Scottish Parliament.

    It is important that Members across Britain can debate these issues. The ones my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) raised are equally applicable in Leadhills in my constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) set out the right prognosis: we need to have a strategic approach if we are to maintain rural communities and a rural way of life. The one thing I did not think either really touched on—although they did in relation to funding—is that the most important Department we could have had represented here today is the Treasury. My experience is that the Treasury is the greatest impediment to investment in the rural parts of the UK. That flows into the welcome levelling-up initiatives that are being taken by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, and I will touch on those in my constituency.

    I have raised this before, but many smaller rural local authorities are ill placed to put forward complex bids. The Treasury came forward with an initiative to put certain moneys into certain local authorities to allow them to take that forward, but their capacity is limited, as is their experience of doing so and their direct contact with Whitehall. If we are to go through these processes, it is important that rural and small local authorities are supported.

    It is difficult to spend £20 million on a single project in a rural area, when we come to do the analysis. On levelling up and other proposals, there has been a lack of flexibility. Ultimately, I was able to negotiate, partly because my constituency, unusually, covers three county areas, for the project that was put forward to be in three separate parts, but there was a lot of resistance to that type of project.

    Even when projects go forward, the usual suspects tend to be favoured. Although I welcome the community renewal funding that came to the south of Scotland, the organisations that ultimately received that funding had the capacity to make professional bids for it. I say to the Minister that they would not have been the choice of my constituents for that funding. If we are going to say that we have community renewal funding, we have to listen more to communities and what they want to do. Ultimately, that needs a loosening of the Green Book rules. Various announcements have been made at various times that the Green Book rules from the Treasury were to be loosened. They need to be if we are successfully to invest in rural areas.

    I was struck by what the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) had to say, because his constituency in Cumbria is similar to mine in the south of Scotland, which is why I very much welcome the Borderlands initiative, which has brought the south of Scotland, Cumbria and Northumberland together to try to create capacity to take forward important rural projects. For example, Carlisle, although in the north of England, is very economically important to my constituency, so the initiative is important.

    I recognise many of the problems that have been mentioned. Although I am sure that we will hear from the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) that there is some sort of Utopia in Scotland, I can confirm that a resident in Dumfries and Galloway has no access to an NHS dentist. Indeed, 10 days ago, NHS Dumfries and Galloway was so overwhelmed by patients that it could not manage the situation. Many of the issues are very much the same in Scotland and need the same innovative approaches that my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex spoke about. If we want to sustain rural communities, we have to think innovatively about how to do that.

    Madam Deputy Speaker, you would expect me to mention the three projects in my constituency that are going forward as part of the Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale levelling-up bid. They include the rejuvenation of Annan Harbour. I congratulate the Annan Harbour action group on its innovative work over a long period. It will see the rejuvenation of the Ministers’ Merse and the creation of a bunk house and café. It will revitalise that part of Annan. There is the rejuvenation of the Chambers Institute, the equivalent of the town hall, in the heart of Peebles, and the Clydesdale walkway, which will look to bring together various existing walking and cycling trails in the south of Scotland to create the possibility for people to walk from Stranraer to Eyemouth, which I am sure appeals, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to take advantage of the rural tourism opportunities in the area. I also commend the Dumfries and Galloway transport bid, which is to bring electric buses to the area for those who perhaps find the walking a little too much.

    In summary, the important point is that, across Britain, we need to take a new and more urgent approach to tackling rural issues. It is not just about single, one-off bids and funding. They are welcome, but if we are to sustain rural communities the length and breadth of the United Kingdom, we need a different approach, and the Treasury and changing its attitudes is central to that.

  • David Mundell – 2022 Tribute to HM Queen Elizabeth II

    David Mundell – 2022 Tribute to HM Queen Elizabeth II

    The tribute made by David Mundell, the Conservative MP for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale, in the House of Commons on 9 September 2022.

    Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II had a lifelong and deep-felt love for Scotland, which we have already heard about. That was reciprocated by the people of Scotland, who held her, and indeed still hold her, in deep affection. I had the opportunity myself to see that close up, both as a Member of the Scottish Parliament when it reconvened in 1999, and subsequently as Secretary of State for Scotland. At the opening of the Scottish Parliament, the Queen declared:

    “I have trust in the good judgement of the Scottish people, I have faith in your commitment to their service and I am confident in the future of Scotland.”

    She reaffirmed that belief in, and commitment to, Scotland on each subsequent opening of the Scottish Parliament, although she told me she always found it amusing that, as soon as the Scottish Parliament was formally opened, it went on recess, or on holiday, as she referred to it.

    As we have heard, the Queen was also extremely well informed about everything that was going on in politics. At the time of my first substantive conversation with her as Secretary of State, there had been a major incident in Parliament. In 2015, rather more members of the Scottish National party had been elected than might have been anticipated, and there was a little conflict about who should sit on one of the Opposition Benches—the then Member for Bolsover and some other Labour Members were not so keen on SNP members occupying it. The Queen was very familiar with the situation and sought to interrogate me on the rights and wrongs of the issue, but I found myself blurting out, “Oh, your Majesty, that’s buttockgate.” I thought, “In my first meeting with the Queen, I’ve said the word ‘buttock’. What is to happen?” But rather than me being taken off to the Tower or some other place, the Queen just laughed. She found it all very amusing. She was interested in what was happening in Parliament and in the day-to-day events.

    The Queen had many connections with my constituency, from opening the Dumfries & Galloway Royal Infirmary, to visiting the town of Lockerbie after the devastating air disaster. Most tellingly, I found a clipping from a 1956 edition of The Glasgow Herald. It stated:

    “Previous royal visits to Scotland having neglected to include Biggar, in South Lanarkshire, the Queen decided to make amends in October of 1956. As this paper observed: ‘A thoughtful gesture by Her Majesty added 90 minutes in time and 35 miles in distance to her programme.’”

    But she felt that Biggar was the only county town omitted from recent royal tours. That was the Queen. She wanted to include every community across the United Kingdom and of course the people of Biggar turned out in their masses to thank her for that very generous gesture.

    Scotland and the whole of the United Kingdom have lost not just the Queen but a dear and true friend whose like we shall not see again. God bless her and God save the King.

  • David Mundell – 2020 Speech on Constitutional Law

    David Mundell – 2020 Speech on Constitutional Law

    Below is the text of the speech made by David Mundell, the Conservative MP for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale, in the House of Commons on 19 May 2020.

    May I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) on his return to the role of shadow Secretary of State for Scotland after his sabbatical? One of the great disappointments to me in my time as Secretary of State was the announcement, following his departure from that role, and in the absence of a Front-Bench spokesman, that either the Leader of the Opposition himself or the shadow Chancellor would participate in Scottish questions. Perhaps not unsurprisingly, immediately before the first such occasion, a shadow Scottish Secretary was appointed.

    This process is important. It is unusual not just because we are participating in a virtual Chamber but because we are in the Chamber more generally. Usually, section 104 orders and others that flow from the original Scotland Act are transacted on the Committee corridor and get very little attention, but, as the Minister said, they are in many ways the backbone of the devolution settlement and the relationship between the two Governments and Parliaments. It is very easy, particularly given some of the headlines and media reports that we have seen in recent weeks, to think that the devolution settlement is not working, but this order and all the others that go through Parliament are actually a manifestation of the fact that it is working. Behind the scenes, officials in the UK Government and Scottish Government work closely together to ensure that these orders and the things that really matter to people in Scotland—the provision of a police service and a criminal justice system—go ahead in a way that relates to the whole of the United Kingdom. As the Minister said, ​this order ensures that, if people are in England or Wales, such orders still apply and the benefits system recognises that.

    It is very important, when we see the flare-ups that sometimes happen between politicians north and south of the border, that we understand that, in the day to day, the devolution settlement is working and has been tested through these systems. There were many times when I had to put through orders on matters of substance with which I did not agree, but I did agree that the Scottish Parliament had made that decision, in terms of the devolution settlement, and therefore it was appropriate that the Westminster Parliament and the UK Government ensured that that legislation was fully enacted.

    I want to give my thanks and praise to the police in Scotland for the job they do more generally and what they have done specifically during the coronavirus crisis. I particularly commend the chief constable of Police Scotland, Iain Livingstone, for his calm, measured approach to these matters. He said right at the start that it was important that he continued on the basis of policing by consent. From my experience, and from feedback I have received from constituents, I think that has been achieved. That is very important. He underpinned that by setting out three key roles for Police Scotland: ensuring that social distancing is enforced to reduce the mortality rate during the spread of the virus; ensuring that the relationship of trust between the public in Scotland and the police is maintained; and, of course, ensuring the welfare and safety of not just police officers but their families.

    I also commend the chief constable on his very reasoned approach. When there were some differences in the guidance between England and Scotland and we heard some unhelpful suggestions, from my point of view, that we should have border patrols, Iain Livingstone was clear that that would be a wholly inappropriate use of police resources. That was very helpful for my constituents, many of whom cross the border regularly.

    The Minister and the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland have already alluded to the shocking report that in the first few weeks of the lockdown 100 officers had been attacked or the subject of abuse. As the deputy chief constable Fiona Taylor said, that is outrageous and disrespectful. Abuse and assault are simply not part of the job of police officers and can never be tolerated. I think that that is at the heart of the legislation in the Scottish Parliament and this subsequent order to ensure that we do not in any way accept that the abuse or assault of police officers is regarded as routine or tolerated. In the event of such behaviour they must be supported in every way.

    I do not think that we waited six years for this subordinate legislation to come through just so that the hon. Member for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill), who in 2014 was the Justice Secretary in Scotland and brought forward that Act, could speak in this debate. I am sure he must be disappointed, given the passion that I know he has for this matter and for an effective criminal justice system, that it has taken quite so long for the legislation to be fully enacted and this order put in place, just as I am sure he was disappointed that it took until 2019 for the victim surcharge fund, which was also announced in 2014, to get up and running in Scotland.​

    This is not, Mr Deputy Speaker, the place to rehearse arguments that are rightly had in the Scottish Parliament, but it would be wrong for me not to ensure that the House is aware that my Scottish Conservative colleagues in the Scottish Parliament are concerned about the Scottish National party Government’s approach to the police and justice system in Scotland, particularly in relation to the ongoing issue of police funding and the ability of the police to do the job that is important to them. Indeed, my colleague Liam Kerr MSP has brought forward legislation in the Scottish Parliament which would give police officers even further protection. The events to which I have just referred, which have happened to police officers on at least 100 occasions, demonstrate that it is appropriate to have additional measures in place. Conservative colleagues in the Scottish Parliament will continue to advocate for that, and to call the SNP Government to account on their approach to policing and justice in Scotland.

    The order, however late in the day, is to be welcomed. It is important that, wherever people who have been asked to make such an order are in the United Kingdom, the orders can be effectively approached. I therefore hope that the House will take the view that the order should be passed.

    I have one specific query that I want to raise with the Minister, which is in relation to the Department for Work and Pensions and its ability to deal with such things at this time or in the immediate future. As we know, and as the shadow Secretary said, there has been an increase in the existing claimant count, so that is an increasing workload, but it has also obviously prioritised within its workload. I hope the Minister, in his closing remarks, will confirm that the DWP will in due course have the capacity to deal with these orders. We all want to see a minimal amount of these orders, because the optimum situation would be—

    Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)

    Order. We gave you a bit of injury time to get the question out and I know the Minister heard it. Thank you very much for your contribution. I call Kenny MacAskill.

  • David Mundell – 2019 Statement on D-Day

    Below is the text of the statement made by David Mundell, the Secretary of State for Scotland, on 5 June 2019.

    As we mark the 75th anniversary of the Allied landings in Normandy, we should all take time to reflect on the enormous bravery shown by all those who took part. Scottish soldiers and sailors were of vital importance to the UK and international war effort, and Scottish engineers played a key role in building the famous Mulberry harbours which helped make the landings possible. Across Scotland we remember the ingenuity, courage and commitment of all those who were part of such a pivotal moment in modern history. And we remember all of those who didn’t make it home, giving their lives so that we have the freedoms we enjoy today.

  • David Mundell – 2019 Speech on Devolution

    Below is the text of the speech made by David Mundell, the Secretary of State for Scotland, on 21 February 2019.

    Ladies and gentlemen.

    On August 7, 1885, the Conservative Prime Minister Lord Salisbury wrote to the Duke of Richmond to offer him the newly-created post of Scottish Secretary.

    He said the work ‘is not heavy’ but warned that expectations were high.

    He went on to suggest ‘the effulgence of two dukedoms and the best salmon river in Scotland’ would go a long way to meeting those expectations.

    Thankfully, the qualifications for the job have changed since then.

    I can boast neither a splendid dukedom nor a salmon river.

    I can, however, attest that expectations remain high. So perhaps not everything has changed.

    This year marks 20 years since devolution and the establishment of the Scottish Parliament.

    I believe this is a good moment to take stock.

    It is a good moment to consider what Scotland’s expectations are today, from a system which gives us two parliaments and two governments.

    I don’t intend to provide a detailed chronology of devolution, and certainly not a history of the office of Secretary of State for Scotland.

    The key developments over the past 20 years are familiar to us.

    A referendum in 1997, the Act in 1998 and a parliament up and running barely six months later.

    A further Scotland Act in 2012 gave Holyrood the power to set a Scottish rate of income tax, replace Stamp Duty and borrow more money.

    And in 2016 an even more wide-ranging Scotland Act was passed, creating significant new income tax powers and transferring responsibility for a large swathe of welfare provision.

    So rather than dwell on the detail, I want to consider how devolution works, how it can be strengthened as we leave the EU, and how relations between our two governments must adapt and develop in future.

    But first, let me declare an interest.

    I am a passionate supporter of devolution. I was proud to be elected as an MSP in that first intake in May 1999.

    As an MP and, by then, a minister in the Scotland Office, I played my part in delivering the 2012 Act. As Secretary of State for Scotland, it was an immense privilege to take the 2016 Act through Parliament.

    Two decades on from the first Scotland Act, Holyrood has become one of the most powerful devolved parliaments in the world. Power and accountability are better balanced than ever before. And, to borrow a word bandied more frequently by my political opponents, devolution has a stronger mandate than ever before.

    The vote in 1997 was re-affirmed by our decision in 2014 to remain part of the UK. And in the 2017 general election there was overwhelming support for devolutionist parties:

    …Support for a strong Scottish Parliament within the UK.

    …Where the UK’s strengths – our internal market, our global reach – are Scotland’s strengths.

    …Where decisions affecting only Scotland are taken at Holyrood by MSPs…

    …But where decisions affecting the whole UK are taken at Westminster by MPs, including, of course, 59 MPs from Scotland.

    Devolution is about striking a balance and I believe the balance now achieved is a good one.

    Today, the fiercest debates at Holyrood are about tax decisions; about how to raise money as much as how to spend it. That accountability has to be a good thing.

    I do not support the Scottish Government’s decisions on income tax, making Scotland the most highly taxed part of the UK. I’m not impressed by the idea of taxing people £500 to park at work.

    But I support Holyrood’s power to make these choices, the accountability it brings and the debate it provokes.

    And as the Scottish Government begins to use new welfare powers in the years ahead I look forward to the debate at Holyrood focusing on the difficult decisions that will entail.

    That, then, is my starting point.

    Devolution has proved itself flexible and responsive – a ‘process not an event’ as Donald Dewar said back in 1999. After 20 years I believe the settlement is strong. And I believe the principles that lie behind it are more widely accepted than ever.

    I reject completely the argument put forward by opponents of devolution that it has been crushed by Brexit:

    …That the settlement has been undermined by the return of powers from Brussels.

    …Even, that Holyrood has been victim of a pernicious ‘power grab’.

    Let me tackle these myths head on.

    They rest on two misunderstandings – about the 1998 Scotland Act itself and about one of the early conventions that supports it, the Sewel Convention, which says the UK Parliament will not normally pass legislation in a devolved area without the consent of the Scottish Parliament.

    Firstly, it has been claimed that devolution is broken because the UK’s EU Withdrawal Act 2018 was passed despite legislative consent being withheld by the Scottish Parliament.

    It was claimed that the Sewel Convention was breached or, if it hadn’t been breached, it was not fit for purpose and must be changed.

    Lord Sewel himself answered the first point, judging clearly that the Convention was adhered to.

    And the Scottish Government’s own Brexit minister said “these are not normal times”.

    In fact, the Sewel Convention remains an essential element in the devolution settlement.

    The UK Government continues to seek legislative consent for Bills that interact with devolution.

    We work with the Scottish Government clause by clause in an effort to reach agreement.

    I was pleased the Scottish Government agreed to recommend consent for our Healthcare (International Arrangements) Bill – legislation which will allow the UK Government to continue to fund healthcare for Scots who have retired to or are working in the EU.

    I hope consent for other Brexit-related Bills will also be forthcoming – despite the Scottish Government’s stated position to oppose them.

    As things stand, the EU Withdrawal Act is the only piece of legislation in 20 years to be passed at Westminster after consent was withheld at Holyrood.

    I believe that is a sign of Sewel’s success and not its failure.

    The second myth is that of the ‘power grab’.

    Now, to listen to the rhetoric coming from some of my political opponents, you could be forgiven for thinking that Holyrood is being stripped of a whole raft of powers it currently exercises.

    It is complete fantasy; an invented grievance.

    The reality is that more than 100 powers previously exercised in Brussels will transfer to Edinburgh.

    These will transfer directly to the Scottish Parliament on the day we leave the EU.

    Some powers will be exercised within new UK-wide frameworks, where the UK Government and devolved administrations agree to do so.

    They are in areas such as animal health and welfare, food labelling, and chemical and pesticide regulations. Areas where the UK Government and the devolved administrations have already agreed it makes sense to take a UK approach.

    Progress towards establishing these arrangements between the UK and Scottish Governments has been good, as our latest report to Parliament on the issue makes absolutely clear.

    To characterise this process as a ‘power grab’ is nonsense. Holyrood is losing none of its existing powers and is gaining significant new powers as a result of Brexit.

    What these myths amount to is an attempt to undermine devolution – to sweep away the ’98 settlement – by people who do not support devolution because they want independence. We should not be surprised by that.

    We should remain deeply suspicious when opponents of devolution try to present themselves as its champions and protectors.

    Now, to be clear, I’m not arguing devolution is perfect or that it should be frozen in time. Devolution’s adaptability is a strength and will remain so in future.

    The 2016 powers are already having a positive effect at Holyrood and Brexit will bring further responsibility.

    It will also raise fresh questions about intergovernmental relations – how our governments work together.

    As we leave the EU, I believe these questions – more so than powers – will become pressing.

    In the years ahead, our two governments – and the devolved administrations elsewhere in the UK – will need to work more closely than ever before.

    We will need to manage our new UK regulatory frameworks. We will need structures that work – that respect devolution and encourage collaboration.

    I’m pleased to say that work on this is underway.

    Last year a Joint Ministerial Committee, chaired by the Prime Minister and attended by the First Minister, agreed to commission a review of intergovernmental relations. I’m confident this work can point the way to improved joint working. Not least because we have a lot to build upon.

    Sometimes, Scottish Government ministers claim that relations between the UK and Scottish governments are at their lowest ebb. This is simply not true.

    (In my experience, they were at their rockiest in 2014, as the Scottish Government’s former Permanent Secretary, Sir Peter Housden, confirmed.)

    To date there have been 16 meetings of the JMC (EN), a ministerial forum specially created to shape our approach to leaving the EU, with meetings scheduled monthly. This is a crucial mechanism by which we engage with the DAs. The set of principles that will guide the development of UK frameworks were forged in the JMC (EN).

    Behind the scenes, officials from the two governments are working well together on Brexit-related legislation and Brexit preparations on a daily basis.

    Earlier this year, the Prime Minister took the decision to invite the First Ministers of Scotland and Wales to attend meetings of a key new cabinet sub-committee co-ordinating Brexit preparations.

    In addition, our review of intergovernmental relations will look at the principles which should underpin our working relationships; at the machinery of devolution – whether we need new forums or new JMC bodies; and at how we should resolve disputes in future.

    It is very much a live issue.

    I’m pleased that Westminster’s Scottish Affairs Committee at Westminster are conducting their own inquiry into intergovernmental relations:

    …even if, so far at least, it seems to have focused on calls for the role Secretary of State for Scotland to be abolished.

    As you can imagine, I am looking forward to presenting an alternative perspective when I give evidence in due course.

    I actually believe the Office of the Secretary of State for Scotland will become more, not less, important, as we enter the post-Brexit devolution world and a more complex era of intergovernmental relations.

    The role of promoting the work of the UK Government in Scotland, and giving voice to Scottish concerns around the Cabinet table, will be more critical than ever.

    The reasons for that are clear.

    Just as Holyrood will need to adapt to the wealth of new powers at its disposal, so the UK Government will have to consider its changing role in the new landscape:

    …The UK Government must and will remain prominent in Scotland.

    …The UK Government must and will remain central to Scotland’s story.

    We must continually re-affirm our support for devolution and demonstrate our contribution to the lives of those represented by our MPs.

    Failure to do so would be a failure to deliver on the result of two referendums – the 1997 vote in favour of a Scottish Parliament and 2014 decision to reject independence.

    When our opponents try to talk the UK down we should remind them of the things Scots value:

    …The pooling and sharing of resources which support our public services;

    …The finest armed forces in the world. Including a Royal Navy filling the Clyde’s order book until 2030.

    …Pensions they can rely upon.

    …A record on international aid that any country in the world should be proud of.

    The list goes on.

    But the UK Government can and should be doing even more.

    In an important speech in Glasgow, the Prime Minister called a halt to what she described as a process of ‘devolve and forget’.

    …The idea that because health, say, or education, or culture in Scotland are devolved to the Scottish Government, the UK Government no longer cares about them.

    The Prime Minister was very clear. As Prime Minister for the whole of the UK, she said the educational attainment of 10-year-olds in Dundee was as important to her as that of their peers in Doncaster.

    Predictably, this was deliberately misinterpreted in some quarters as another kind of power grab. It was nothing of sort. It was an appeal for more collaboration, for better joint working, for learning from each other. In other words, for more effective devolution.

    I believe she was right to assert the UK Government’s interest in all parts of people’s lives in Scotland.

    And I believe now is the time to build on that. We are already seeing this happen in the UK Government’s £1billion-plus Growth Deal programme in Scotland.

    UK investment is mostly spent in the reserved sphere, on things like research and development. But not exclusively so. Cultural projects, such as Edinburgh’s exciting new concert hall development or Stirling’s national tartan centre, will also benefit from UK Government investment.

    There are already examples of areas where devolved policy areas interact with reserved matters – in foreign trade, for example – where the Scottish Government’s agency Scottish Development International works alongside the UK Government’s Department for International Trade.

    Or, in overseas aid, where Scottish Government support for projects in Malawi augments the UK effort.

    Going forward, I want to see Scotland’s two governments working closely together for the benefit of people in Scotland.

    The UK Shared Prosperity Fund – which will fill the space left by EU structural funds post-Brexit – should provide an opportunity for both governments to collaborate on transformational projects across Scotland, from the Borders to the Highlands and Islands.

    Scotland would be ill-served if one government could not add to the work being done by another. The time is right for this. Scots expect their two governments to work together and politicians on all sides accept the need to work together.

    Twenty years on, devolution is indeed the settled will of the people of Scotland.

    The settlement has proved itself adaptable and is strong.

    Our system of two governments and two parliaments has held up to scrutiny – endorsed by one and then a second referendum.

    The people who claim Brexit has broken devolution are the people who WANT Brexit to break devolution;

    …Who see Brexit not in terms of securing the right deal for Scotland but as an opportunity to tear Scotland out of the UK.

    …A position, of course, that has been rejected by not one but two referendums.

    I do not believe Brexit will damage devolution.

    I want it to strengthen devolution, and I believe that can and will happen.

    Leaving the EU will bring new powers to Holyrood and new responsibilities to the Scottish Government.

    But the UK Government is also being challenged to adapt to the new, post-Brexit era of devolution.

    I’m confident we WILL meet the challenge;

    …That we WILL foster a relationship of mutual respect between Westminster and Holyrood.

    …That we WILL find ourselves using new ways to improve the daily lives of those we serve.

    We’ll do it because, like the majority of Scots, we believe in devolution. And we have a duty to deliver all that it offers for Scotland.

  • David Mundell – 2011 Speech on the Big Society in Scotland

    Below is the text of the speech made by David Mundell on 28th October 2011.

    Thank you very much for inviting me to speak this morning.

    This conference is dedicated to examining the Big Society and assessing whether it can work in Scotland.

    I believe it can and it will.

    It’s an opportunity, not a threat, to charities, voluntary organisations and social enterprises.

    This morning I want to share my thoughts with you on the Big Society in greater detail; before updating the conference on welfare reform and the Scotland Bill – 2 issues I know you are interested in.

    The Big Society: the big picture

    Representing Scotland on the UK Ministerial Group advancing the Big Society agenda, I am determined that our voice and interests are heard.

    However, I am not wedded to titles such as the Big Society. Indeed, some have suggested that in Scotland it would be the ‘Wee Society’.

    But for the purposes of this discussion, I’ll use Big Society as this has partially led so many people to show a significant interest here today.

    There are 3 pillars to this agenda:

    – community empowerment

    – reforming and opening up our public services and

    – encouraging greater social action

    These 3 pillars are vital.

    But most important is what is happening on the ground and acknowledging those who are doing it.

    The Big Society is not another government programme.

    In fact, the Big Society is quite the opposite.

    It’s about giving power back to individuals, families, communities and groups.

    It’s about turning government upside down – so that society, not the state, is in the driving seat.

    Community empowerment

    Some of our critics have said that government cannot create a Big Society on our own. They’re right.

    But there is no need for such a magic wand solution.

    Because we are not starting from scratch.

    Scotland already does the Big Society or whatever we call it. I want us to do more of it.

    We are building on the long-standing tradition of community engagement and social action in Scotland.

    The grass roots are there. Many of you are the manifestation of movements already out there – helping Scots nationwide.

    The UK government’s role is to play an enabling role in the Big Society and it will focus on ensuring that all parts of society are able to play their part and thrive.

    The Scottish government will also have a part to play and I hope they will engage, whether they formally acknowledge the Big Society concept or not or not.

    Sometimes it will mean that the state, in all its forms, pulling back when it has overreached and acknowledging that it doesn’t have all the answers to local issues.

    I want our vision to interact with the work that so many Scots are already doing.

    I believe that this is an opportunity to shine a spotlight on the excellent work done by local groups across the country.

    The UK government has opened up a dialogue on taking forward the Big Society in Scotland.

    It is already proving a rewarding conversation.

    Stakeholders across the country have given me a flavour of what they are doing and the good practice they are encouraging.

    It’s an ongoing process.

    There are more Scotland Office events in the pipeline, culminating with a Scotland-wide forum.

    Empowerment stands at the forefront of our vision of a Big Society.

    It is about freeing people and communities to make the decisions which affect them.

    It marks a radical and welcome break from the tired old view that civil servants in London and Edinburgh, or dare I say local authorities, always know what is best for you and your community.

    Reforming and opening up public services

    Some of our critics claim that the Big Society is geared to providing public services on the cheap. I don’t agree.

    I view the Big Society as more about working with, and improving, existing services rather than replacing them.

    However, not all answers and services need to be provided by officials, councils or government.

    Tough times also demand innovative thinking.

    There is no escaping the need to tackle the deficit – the challenge we face in terms of public finances cannot be ignored.

    So our detractors also characterise the Big Society as a shorthand for cuts.

    That’s both wrong and unfair.

    The Big Society is a positive, proactive agenda developed before the recession to achieve a better quality of outcomes with limited resources.

    Our priority must be to seek the best value provider of public services.

    That’s the right answer for service users and taxpayers.

    Greater social action

    And I want to see people and communities across Scotland feeling both free and powerful enough to help themselves and transform their neighbourhoods.

    So in many ways the Big Society is a challenge to achieve even greater social action:

    – to think and act differently

    – to consider the personal and social consequences of your actions

    – to take ownership of an area and find ways of to transform it for the better

    And it poses the question to the state, ‘why can this not be done by individuals themselves, by voluntary, community or social enterprises?’

    We’ve seen the success of the National Citizens Service pilot south of the border.

    It’s designed to build a more cohesive, responsible and engaged society by bringing together 16 year olds from different backgrounds for a programme of activity and service during the summer.

    It gives these young people an introduction to community action.

    It shows them the positive differences they can make in their localities and beyond.

    We are planning to expand the service to offer 90,000 places by 2014.

    I hope that over time, the Scottish government will look at what we’re doing and want to take part.

    This renewed commitment to a stronger sense of society, where taking a more active role will be both expected and recognised, can only benefit us all.

    But I recognise that we need to make it simpler for individuals and organisations who offer their time and knowledge to benefit their communities.

    Good intentions must not be deterred by the burdens of bureaucracy.

    That’s why we are examining ways of reducing regulation and red tape faced by charities, voluntary organisations and social enterprises.

    It’s not for government to tell Scots how they can best support their communities.

    But government can provide support when society is restricted – such as by removing the red tape which can hinder community groups from forming.

    Local people and local bodies know their communities better than anyone. Charities, churches and co-operatives have the unique grassroots knowledge to drive social action at local level.

    We want to make it easier for you to do what you do best.

    It’s self-evident that most of the specific policy areas within the Big Society are devolved to the Scottish government and not all the major Westminster Big Society projects have exact equivalents in Scotland.

    That’s why it’s imperative that Scotland’s 2 governments work together and co-operation is central to our approach.

    I’m keen to engage on the issue and have had useful discussions with both John Swinney and Alex Neil; and my Cabinet Office colleague Nick Hurd will be in Scotland soon to share experiences from elsewhere in the UK.

    Big Society Bank

    I know you will also be interested to hear about the Big Society Bank.

    We have delivered on our commitment to set it up, although it is no longer being called a bank.

    It has been renamed the Big Society Capital Group, in case people are confused into thinking there is a new high street bank on the scene.

    Most importantly, it’s open for business in Scotland.

    Big Society Capital will invest in social investment intermediary organisations across the UK, such as Charity Bank and the Key Project.

    And these intermediaries will bring together bodies that need capital and bodies that have capital and want to invest it.

    Big Society Capital will not make grants to individual organisations or charities.

    Your organisations should be able to gain access to capital at a more competitive rate than you would be able to secure from a high street lender.

    Big Society Capital will act independently of government to support social enterprise through intermediaries.

    I want organisations in Scotland to benefit from the very favourable terms it will offer.

    Encouraging charitable giving

    The UK government is also committed to helping charities in these challenging economic times.

    We understand that charity law and charity reform straddles reserved and devolved policy areas.

    A key focus in the UK government’s Giving White Paper is on encouraging charitable giving.

    Innovative schemes can make it easier to give – at the cash point, at the till, by text or by phone app.

    Government is committed to incentivising giving.

    We want to grow and raise the profile of payroll giving and are sponsoring the National Payroll Giving Awards to encourage this activity.

    Similarly, inheritance tax will be cut for those who leave 10% or more of their estate to charity.

    Finally, in the 2011 Budget we announced a number of significant tax incentives and the removal of red tape for gift aid donations up to £5,000.

    These are sensible, practical measures geared to making it easier for charities to raise more money.

    The Big Society also has responsibility at its heart.

    It offers the opportunity for individuals, businesses and organisations to step forward to help address the social issues in their communities and help shape the future direction.

    People like you are already giving significant amounts of your time for the benefit of your communities.

    Businesses are seeing the benefits of supporting volunteering and encouraging their staff to do the same.

    Individuals and groups are improving communities across Scotland.

    On recent visits I have seen how volunteers at Peterhead Projects are raising funds in their town by recycling furniture, running a gift shop and holding car boot sales.

    Or how Cambuslang and Rutherglen Community Health Initiative is promoting better health locally.

    Our aim is that volunteering becomes a social norm and is considered by all the responsible thing to do.

    There are 2 more issues I want to touch on – 2 significant issues for this sector – welfare reform and the Scotland Bill.

    Welfare reform

    Fairness is a pivotal part of the Coalition’s approach.

    We are committed to helping the vulnerable.

    We will take over 90,000 Scots out of tax altogether by April 2012.

    We have helped one million older Scots by re-establishing the link between pensions and earnings after a gap of 30 years.

    We have maintained Winter Fuel Allowance payments for Scottish pensioners.

    While last year’s Spending Review turned the temporary increase in Cold Weather Payments into a permanent increase.

    They are geared to reforming the benefit system to make it fairer, more affordable and better able to tackle poverty, worklessness and welfare dependency.

    The introduction of Universal Credit in 2013 will radically simplify the system – and make work pay.

    We are determined to remove the barriers to work and to ensure that work pays more than benefits.

    Our back-to-work initiatives will pay a crucial part in supporting employment in Scotland.

    As part of our reforms, the Work Programme went live in June.

    We know that one size cannot fit all.

    That’s why the Work Programme is built around the needs of individuals – providing the personalised support people need, when they need it – so they have the right support to move into employment.

    The UK government’s ‘Get Britain Working’ measures like work experience are geared to this end.

    In the Youth Unemployment Seminars, hosted by the Scotland Office across the country, we are hearing about the benefits of work experience with local employers.

    Some Scottish employers see young people, particularly inexperienced young people, as high risk.

    So giving young Scots greater work experience enhances their readiness for work by developing the skills which are essential for the workplace.

    We need to work side by side on this – to collaborate more effectively to support our young people into work.

    As with the Big Society, Scotland’s 2 governments must work together, alongside our key partners to address the labour market challenges we face.

    Scotland Bill

    One of the Coalition’s key commitments is to improve the devolution settlement and strengthen the accountability of the Scottish Parliament.

    The Scotland Bill delivers this pledge.

    This Bill has real economic teeth.

    It signifies the largest transfer of financial powers out of London since the creation of the UK.

    It will give the Scottish Parliament new levers over the Scottish economy and strengthens its accountability and responsibility to the people of Scotland.

    The First Minister has told us about other areas he thinks should be devolved to Scotland in the Scotland Bill.

    We have made clear that we will consider all proposals for amendments to the Bill on their merits.

    Any amendments must meet the three tests set out by the Secretary of State for Scotland. They must:

    – be based on detailed and well evidenced proposals

    – maintain the cross-party consensus on which the Bill is based

    – demonstrate that they would benefit Scotland, without prejudice to the UK as a whole

    The Scottish government has made their set of demands as a package and we will respond as a package at the appropriate time.

    The UK government will also fight to maintain the United Kingdom in any independence referendum.

    We will not place obstacles in the way of a referendum but we believe strongly that more powers for the Scottish Parliament – through the Scotland Bill – is the right constitutional route for Scotland.

    That’s why we will oppose separatism in any guise whenever the referendum takes place.

    Conclusion

    Alongside our commitments to more tailored welfare and improved devolution we are also determined to build a bigger and stronger society.

    In the coming months and years we aim to build on the deep-rooted foundations we have in Scotland to achieve this goal.

    Government can be an enabler but it cannot be expected to deliver the Big Society alone.

    We all have an important role to play.

    We want to support a thriving market in charities, voluntary organisations and social enterprises.

    I support and admire what so many public-spirited Scots are doing in their communities.

    I look forward to working with you to realise the benefits of the Big Society in Scotland.

  • David Mundell — 2011 Speech at Scottish Conservative Party Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by David Mundell at the 2011 Scottish Conservative Party Conference on 2nd October 2011.

    Scottish Politics is never dull, Scottish Conservative politics particularly.

    It’s been a busy year already with a parliamentary election and a referendum 2011. I want to thank all our candidates and activists across Scotland for their hard work in May.

    Before I speak about the future of our party and the challenges the Coalition Government faces in Scotland, I also want to pay tribute to our outgoing leader, Annabel Goldie.

    Its may be trite to say but it is true – Annabel Goldie is not just one of the best known but best loved figures in Scottish politics with a long and distinguished service to the voluntary party.

    Annabel was elected to the Scottish parliament in 1999.

    She became leader of the MSP group in 2005.

    Her skirmishes with Alex Salmond at the First Ministers Questions have become a feature of the Scottish political scene.

    During the last Scottish Parliament Annabel was acknowledged as the only leader to hold Mr Salmond to account and to be willing to take tough decisions and tell people like it is.

    Well-respected across the political spectrum in Scotland, Annabel has become a national figure and her wit and good sense more widely known through her many appearances on Question Time and Any Questions.

    So, ladies and gentlemen, I know you will all join me in wishing her well in the future, but also in sharing my hope that she still has much to give to our party and to public service.

    Of course, the future of the Conservative party in Scotland, which Annabel has been so proud to represent, is going to be debated at an event at this conference and indeed the length and breadth of Scotland at leadership hustings.

    The contest to date can, I think, be rightly characterised as being about change.

    I don’t think anyone within or outside our party in Scotland would disagree with the statement that the party must change, and in particular, we must attract more, and younger people to vote for us across Scotland as a whole.

    We must be clearly identifiable as the first choice for those want to vote for a sensible centre right party of the sort that exists (and commands support in) virtually every other European country.

    And in so doing, we must be able to demonstrate that we are relevant and make a difference to the lives of people in Scotland if they vote for us at Council, Scottish Parliament, Westminster and European Elections.

    That is why I want to see the leadership election underway focus on policy, leadership qualities and on the campaigning style our party will have in Scotland to take us forward.

    As our only Member of Parliament in Scotland, I have clearly set out my own personal views this morning.

    But of course it will be for members in Scotland to decide.

    But during the period of this leadership election, we must continue to focus on the issues which really matter to real people; the economy, growth and jobs remain the government’s top priorities.

    The difficult financial decisions we have been forced to make have brought confidence and stability to the UK economy: record low-interest rates for our borrowing, our triple A credit rating assured and, in the first six months of this year, the UK economy growing at a faster rate than America’s.

    And we are taking action to promote growth: not least by cutting corporation tax to 26% this year, and 23% by 2014, making it the lowest rate in the G7, the fifth lowest in the G20.

    We’ve singled out corporation tax because we know it is the most growth inhibiting tax that there is.

    Alex Salmond says he would cut it too, but the facts speak for themselves.

    He already has power over business rates and yet he is increasing them by £850m by 2015, undermining the very support we are providing businesses through our cuts in corporation tax.

    Alex Salmond’s “Big Plan McB” is political junkfood.

    When it comes to getting the economy moving, the only B we should be interested in is Business – helping it, promoting it.

    In Scotland there are positive signs, with unemployment below the national average and falling last month.

    And in the Scotland Office we are doing our bit to get Scottish enterprise motoring.

    Not only are we proceeding with the Scotland Bill and its significant transfer of financial powers, we have set up a Trade and Economic Growth Board, made up of leading Scottish business figures, to advise on global opportunities and to act as ambassadors for the Scottish business community to make clear that Scotland is open for business.

    Now if you listen to Alex Salmond you’ll hear him take the credit for any good economic news, and pass the blame to Westminster for any bad news.

    When the sun comes out it is thanks to the SNP and is a boost to the case for independence and when it starts to rain it’s all the fault of the London-based parties.

    Conference, people are seeing through this.

    Just because the Scottish people rejected Iain Gray and Scottish Labour in May does not mean they voted for independence.

    And just as the Scottish people rejected AV overwhelmingly, when the time comes I believe they will see through Alex Salmond’s narrow, nationalistic separatism.

    However, we mustn’t be complacent. I welcome the Prime Minister’s reaffirmation this weekend of his commitment to keep Scotland in Britain.

    Nothing must get in the way of that and it must be the priority in months ahead for the Scottish Conservative & Unionist party.

    Thank you.