David Mundell MP: speeches

Speeches

• 12 Mar 2026 · Hospitality Sector · Hansard source

  More

  Energy costs are obviously a huge issue for hospitality businesses in a large rural constituency such as Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale, but they are also an issue for hospitality business customers, because generally people travel to those businesses using their cars. Will the Minister and her colleagues in the Department lobby the Prime Minister and the Chancellor to ensure that the proposed rise in fuel duty does not go ahead in September?

• 10 Mar 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T2. I am the Member of Parliament for one of the largest rural constituencies in the United Kingdom, so the rise in the cost of heating oil is obviously a major concern for me. I welcome the opportunity to meet the Financial Secretary, and I hope that liquefied petroleum gas can also be on the agenda for that meeting, because that is a heating source for many of my constituents. People such as Craig Ritchie in Symington will be looking for concrete outcomes from that meeting, given that they face a 200% rise in their oil costs.

• 4 Mar 2026 · Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office · Hansard source

  More

  Let me begin with a very specific request to the Minister, which I hope he will be able to grant. My request is for a continuing commitment to Abercrombie House in East Kilbride as the FCDO’s second headquarters. The Government scrapped plans to build a new headquarters in Glasgow, and have so far confirmed that they are staying at Abercrombie House. However, as the International Development Committee has heard, that building requires significant investment, and at a time of such significant cuts in the FCDO budget and, obviously, staffing changes, there is concern about whether this will actually be done. As a member of the International Development Committee, I now want to turn to the issue of official development assistance and development finance. As the Financial Times has reported, recent analysis from the Centre for Global Development reveals a startling reality: that this Labour Government are presiding over cuts in our overseas aid budget that are not only deeper but faster than those being implemented by the Trump Administration across the water. I cannot believe that that was the objective of a Government who said that they wanted to achieve global leadership in these matters. I understand the necessity of financial discipline, and, of course, the funding pressures with which the Treasury is wrestling, even if some of them are self-inflicted. I have often argued in the House that we must be pragmatic and strategic with our development resources, looking for where we can make the best and most profound difference. I agree with the Chair of the International Development Committee, the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), that scrapping ICAI, which is monitoring how we obtain value, is the best way to achieve that. There have been some very significant ICAI reports, including the 2020 report that dealt with the extent of the value the Government obtained from investment in nutrition for every pound that was spent. As a champion of nutrition, I have long supported the Child Nutrition Fund. With a relatively modest investment from the UK Government, the fund can leverage philanthropic and private capital while mobilising domestic resources to dramatically improve the wellbeing of millions of women and children. In my view, the child nutrition fund meets the test of public expectations for ODA funding: it puts food in stomachs and jags in arms. Because I realise that we are in a changing world, I have also supported the IDC’s inquiry into the future shape of aid. We recognise that things will have to be different, but we want to see leadership from the UK Government in this regard, and we want to see a plan. When the UK Government are slashing development spending by some 27% by 2027—outpacing the reduction proposed in Washington, as I have said—one must ask: how does this stack up against other Government objectives, and where is the plan? Whereas the US Congress has acted as a vital check, I see little of the same approach here in the UK, despite the very best efforts of the International Development Committee. As I have said before, if cuts have to happen, they need to be thought through, and that thinking needs to come prior to the cutting. Sadly, that has not been the case. Unless the Minister pulls it out of the hat at the end of this debate, there is no evidence of a plan. Reductions in ODA were announced over a year ago, but the UK’s future of aid conference will not take place until May this year—if at all, I suspect. In the meantime, services that could be put on a sustainable footing through new and innovative approaches, or through being transferred to capable local partners, are falling over. The change in US policy has significant ramifications, which we should address now, particularly the withdrawal of funding for LGBT and family planning issues. This is most certainly not the time for the FCDO to cut its LGBT budget, as the Elton John AIDS Foundation, among others, has highlighted. We are told that the reductions are to fund our defence capabilities against Russian and, indeed, Iranian aggression. However, the Government must be careful not to create a vacuum of influence and allow malign actors to move in while we do this, as others have already highlighted. One need only look at the example of Russia’s Wagner Group and its operations in Africa, particularly around critical minerals. As co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on HIV/AIDS, I want my final remarks to focus specifically on the impact of the changes on the fight against HIV/AIDS. I particularly commend The Independent newspaper and its correspondent, Bel Trew, for highlighting some of these issues. Last November, I was pleased to welcome the Government’s pledge of £850 million to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. At a time of tight resources, it offers real value for money by dealing directly with devastating and widespread diseases, but also by building capacity in the health systems of partner countries. The fund can be a crucial pathway to ending dependency, but although £850 million was welcome, it was none the less a £150 million reduction from 2022, and it was also coupled with uncertainty for other organisations, such as the Robert Carr Fund, Unitaid and UNAIDS. The One Campaign expects the shortfall to result in a very tangible 250,000 additional deaths and 1 million new infections. Here in the UK, the Government’s ability to reach our own target of zero new transmissions by 2030 would be imperilled by rising rates of HIV elsewhere. The UK’s life sciences and pharmaceutical sector—for which the Global Fund, among other organisations, is such an important partner—will also suffer. What that tells us, as we have heard already, is that the reductions come at a cost, particularly if they are not thought through. They come at the cost of influence, the economy and, sadly, lives. At the end of this debate, I want to hear from the Minister what the Government’s plan is. Everybody understands that there will be reductions, but they must be on a planned basis.

• 22 Jan 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I echo the Leader of the House’s Burns night greetings for Sunday. Will he join me, in my position as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on nuclear energy, in congratulating the Nuclear Industry Association and all those in the nuclear industry who ensured the success of the fifth Nuclear Week in Parliament this week, which has showcased all aspects of the industry, from new build and supply chain to decommissioning, and allowed numerous engagement opportunities for MPs? May we have a debate on the benefits that the nuclear industry brings to England and Wales in terms of jobs, economic growth and energy security, so that Scottish Members like myself can once again expose the shameful conduct of the Scottish Government in using their planning powers to block new nuclear development in Scotland to the detriment of my constituency and Scotland?

• 15 Jan 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  May I add my congratulations to my long-time Scottish Conservative and Unionist colleague, Lord Forsyth, on his election as Lord Speaker? In the pre-recess debate, I highlighted the exciting prospects for the redevelopment of the Chapelcross nuclear power station site in my constituency. For that redevelopment to go ahead, it will require an additional extensive connection to the grid, but at the moment the National Energy System Operator, which is in charge of managing the electricity network, is conducting a review, and no large-scale connections are going ahead. Could the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero to make a statement on when NESO’s review will be concluded and these important connections can proceed?

• 17 Dec 2025 · INEOS Chemicals: Grangemouth · Hansard source

  More

  It would be wrong not to commend the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) on this announcement as he has always been such a strong advocate for jobs at Grangemouth. Indeed, owing to his willingness to speak out against his Government, he lost the Labour Whip. I noted from the photographs issued around today’s launch that workers at Grangemouth did not seem overly happy to see the Chancellor. Perhaps that was because they know that her policies, which continue to attack the oil and gas industry—particularly through the windfall tax—are leading to the undermining of the oil and gas industry across Scotland.

• 11 Dec 2025 · St Andrew’s Day and Scottish Affairs · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) on securing this debate, which gives us an opportunity to consider some of the important issues facing Scotland. As a Member of the Scottish Parliament in 1999, I was very disappointed not to have the opportunity to take part in the debate reflecting on 25 years of devolution, because I wanted to pay tribute to three colleagues whom we lost over the summer. The first is Sir George Reid, who was the second Presiding Officer. Although an SNP Member, Sir George always put the Parliament ahead of politics. Indeed, I voted for him in the 1999 election for Presiding Officer against party advice, which was to support Lord Steel. I have never regretted that decision. I also pay tribute to my colleague Jamie McGrigor, who was one of the great characters of the Scottish Parliament. Many a night was spent—after parliamentary proceedings, Madam Deputy Speaker—with his guitar and several drinks consumed. Finally, I pay tribute to my constituent, the late Ian Jenkins, who was the first Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale, a Liberal Democrat Member of the Parliament and a very well-respected figure. Even when he left the Scottish Parliament, he played an enormous part in the community across the Borders, and he is greatly missed by all who knew him. It may surprise Members to hear that for my constituents, this is not the single most important debate taking place at the moment, or the one that will most affect them, because at this very moment, SNP-led Dumfries and Galloway council is proposing that £68 million be invested in a flood prevention scheme in Dumfries. Only a few months ago, that scheme was to cost £25 million. The cost of the scheme has ballooned, with no proper explanation, to £68 million. There may be a few moments left in which to influence councillors, if I have any influence at all with them, so I urge them to reject that proposal, which, in my view, would be a criminal waste of money for a council that is closing rural schools and struggling to provide basic services, such as maintaining our roads. I hope that my plea makes it across the ether to Dumfries.

• 11 Dec 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  The Leader of the House will share my disappointment at the Scottish Government’s illogical and wrong-headed approach to nuclear power, which means that the former Chapelcross site in my constituency cannot be considered for a new nuclear power station. I hope that, like me, he welcomes the announcement from the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority that there is to be a strategic partnership with CX Power, with the hope of turning the site into a green energy hub producing hydrogen. While that might not be the nuclear power station that my constituents would wish to have, I hope that it will bring the skilled jobs that the power station did for over 60 years.

• 13 Nov 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will speak to Lords amendment 28, which was introduced in the other place but relates specifically to my constituency. The Eskdalemuir seismic array, which is near the village of Eskdalemuir in my constituency, is a seismological monitoring station established to detect seismic signals from nuclear explosions. To a generation that grew up following the end of the cold war, the facility may seem to be little more than a historical curiosity, but it continues to be a vital asset in global monitoring, in scientific research, and, crucially, in helping to keep the United Kingdom compliant with its international obligations under the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty. The Eskdalemuir seismic array has been operating since 1962, making it one of the longest-operating steerable seismic arrays in the world. The facility is geographically remote, in a low seismic noise environment, and highly calibrated and sensitive, enabling the detection of even small seismic signals at a vast distance. Over recent years, its seismometers have picked up the sonic boom from Russian jets in UK airspace, and have detected underground nuclear tests in North Korea. On one occasion, it was able to detect signals generated by the detonation of around 100 tonnes of conventional explosives in Kazakhstan. All that is clear evidence of the unique nature of the site and its capabilities. Some might wonder what the site has to do with the Bill. What could the Bill’s impact be on the maintenance of this vital scientific facility, which is crucial to our national defence and our undertakings under international treaties? In many rural constituencies in Scotland, the march of large-scale wind farm developments continues, encouraged by the Scottish Government. The forces acting on wind turbines cause vibration in the turbine—vibrations that can travel underground for many kilometres, with obvious consequences for facilities that require seismological quiet for their effective operation. As some Members may know, the desire of wind farm developers to push the boundaries of where their infrastructure can be located, and the boundaries of the guidance against which their applications are assessed, has led to challenges to the Ministry of Defence. A previous attempt by a developer to site a wind farm at Little Hartfell, which is in the consultation zone of the Eskdalemuir seismological monitoring station, led to judicial review proceedings against the MOD. On that occasion, the challenge did not dispute that the MOD is entitled to devise and enforce a policy to protect the array from interference with its detection capabilities—it concerned the way that proposed developments were prioritised—but the lesson is clear: developers will seek to push the boundaries of where and how their developments may be sited. Ministers must be aware of that, and willing to take measures to protect against that, where issues of national defence are at stake. The key consideration is this: in a dangerous and difficult world, we must not water down our defence systems or let down our allies to squeeze out what, in a national context, is a small amount of extra electricity. The UK Government should robustly refuse to entertain novel technologies within the 15 km exclusion zone proposed by the Eskdalemuir working group, which would replace the existing 10 km zone. That should also apply to those applications already in the planning system that were submitted by developers who continued to pursue their projects aggressively, with full knowledge that work was ongoing to review the exclusion zone. Our national defence must come first. I am sure that most people would agree that this is an area where an abundance of caution is well justified. It would be concerning if Ministers and the MOD were pressured into going too far in the name of net zero. I am not necessarily objective, because I am the Member of Parliament with the largest number of wind turbines in their constituency, either consented or built. I believe that industrial-scale wind farms are bad generally for the locality, but there need to be specific rules around them when national security is in question, and we have to protect our credibility with our international partners. Any loosening of the rules on infrastructure developments around facilities like the Eskdalemuir seismic array, or passing up the opportunity to reinforce existing rules, would send entirely the wrong message, both to potential developers eager to exploit new opportunities to construct even more wind farms, and to our international partners, who rely on our ability to contribute to our own defence and our collective defence. Lords amendment 28 is an opportunity to underscore the protection needed for facilities like the Eskdalemuir seismic array, and I want this Government take those protections forward.

• 16 Oct 2025 · Tourism: Major Energy Infrastructure Projects · Hansard source

  More

  My constituency has the largest number of wind turbines, either constructed or consented to. Does the Minister share my concern that the Scottish Government continue to override the views of local councils and local communities in consenting to further projects that are to the detriment of the landscape and therefore the local tourist industry?

• 14 Oct 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister confirm that there is now a timetable to ensure that everyone who has a radio teleswitch meter will have it replaced without losing their electricity, heating or hot water?

• 21 Jul 2025 · Victory over Japan: 80th Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  Last weekend I met my constituent Margaret Barbour, of Rosefield farm near Annan, to hear about the experience of her father, Sergeant Major Jock Wylie, and to look through the letters, paperwork and photographs that she has kept. A riding instructor in the Lanarkshire Yeomanry Territorials, Jock was deployed in 1940 to the far east. By 1942, after the fall of Singapore, he was taken prisoner by the Japanese. Thus began three years and eight months of unimaginable suffering. Jock was not a “guest” of the Imperial Nippon Army, as their propaganda called it, but their slave. Jock spent time in Changi prison in Singapore before being sent to the notorious Kinkaseki jungle camp on Formosa—now known as Taiwan. Hundreds of Jock’s fellow prisoners died on that journey. There, along with hundreds of others, he was forced to work in copper mines in horrific conditions, often up to 18 hours a day. Starved, beaten and stripped of dignity, men were tied to stakes under a burning sun, given salted rice or left in bamboo sweat boxes without water. Every day they were forced to take a walk past prisoners who had been beheaded for alleged misdemeanours and had their heads placed on poles, with their full military headgear still worn as the flesh around it decayed. Jock and his colleagues were reduced to skin and bone. He was over 12 stone when captured, and barely 6 stone when released. The first person to see him at the local railway station on his return burst into tears at the sight of him.