David Mundell MP: speeches

Speeches

• 3 Sept 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Leader of the House back to his place. I very much supported his traditionalism when I saw that he did not engage in any vulgar hugging of the Prime Minister on his appointment. Can we have a debate in Government time on the operation of the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency? My constituent Fiona Reid advises me that her daughter has sought a practical driving test in Dumfries and Galloway and has not been able to secure one before the end of January. She has also tried to get an appointment in Carlisle and has not been able to do so. For young people in rural areas like mine, driving is not a luxury—it is an important part of being able to get a job and of social interaction. Could we have that debate and get an improvement in that service?

• 15 Jul 2026 · Independence Referendum · Hansard source

  More

  I will not be overly effusive about the Secretary of State or the Minister, because that might not be helpful for them in the next few days; when there was a previous change of Prime Minister, as soon as Anna Soubry stood up and said that I had done a good job at the Scotland Office, I knew I was doomed! Will the Secretary of State make it clear to the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) that devolution in itself is not the answer? It is about how it is used. We recently saw that in Scotland, when the Scottish Parliament voted in favour of another independence referendum and against an inquiry into SNP finances.

• 7 Jul 2026 · UK Aid Policy: Global Funding Trends · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I commend him and others for bringing the debt issue back to the debate. Obviously, it was a focal point of debate a number of years ago. It appears to have slid down the agenda, but it remains a vital issue, as he has highlighted. Another vital issue in reference to the Child Nutrition Fund is public support. We all have to acknowledge the need to rebuild public support for development. I put my hand up to being complacent in that regard, as I think many in the sector were assuming that the support would remain. It is still there, but it is all about the questions that people are asked and the context in which they are asked. That is why, for example, the Child Nutrition Fund commands public support: because people see that an intervention by the UK can have the direct effect of saving children’s lives. What detracts from public support is where interventions are less easily explainable or there is an inability to be clear that interventions are not wasteful. It was therefore surprising that the Government were at one point proposing to get rid of the Independent Commission for Aid Impact, the body that reviews the effectiveness of ODA. Thanks to the cross-party effort of the International Development Committee and others in Parliament, that decision was reversed, at least in part. I am the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on HIV, AIDS and sexual health, and in the multilateral/bilateral debate—a debate we need to have—I was very supportive of additional funding for the Global Fund. The fund has done a huge job not only in tackling AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, but in providing the backbone of many countries’ health systems. That backbone would not be there were the Global Fund not providing support for other issues. I welcome the Government’s £850 million contribution to the fund. That amount is a lot more than was previously touted, although it is less than the £1 billion that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield provided. However, of course, there were smoke and mirrors, as the funding is back-ended and the bulk of it will come at the end of the three-year period. That will have an impact on the Global Fund’s capacity to carry out its job, which again has direct consequences. I commend Bel Trew and The Independent for highlighting the impact that cuts have already had in the fight against HIV and AIDS.