David Mundell MP: speeches

Speeches

• 17 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Given the strictures on time, I had better not. Previous Ministers said that there was no need for specific legislation on spiking, because it was already covered. Campaigning, including by your colleague, Madam Deputy Speaker, the First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means, the hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins), and by my former colleague, Richard Graham, demonstrated that there was a need for a specific measure, and that if we are going to have a specific measure, it needs to bring certainty. Part of that certainty is for the benefit of the police and others. The police should know that that reckless behaviour is also a crime, and there should not be any dubiety when they arrive at a venue to find someone in a partially conscious state or unable to articulate what has happened to them. It will also allow campaigning to be clear that whatever the circumstances, a drink is spiked or a person is injected, and that is a crime. Amendment 19—or perhaps another amendment that the Government might bring forward in the other place—would bring clarity, which is important. That is what we need to bring about. As the hon. Member for Hitchin said, that can lead to the greater training of the police and NHS workers to be able to support people in a spiking situation. I hope the Minister will reflect on everything that has been said today. The final point I will make relates particularly to Scotland. We need to have a common approach across the UK; it should not matter whether somebody is spiked in Glasgow, Manchester or Cardiff. That is not to disrespect the devolution settlement and the different approaches of the criminal justice system. The effect and the impact should be the same wherever people are, and the criminality should most certainly be the same, whether the behaviour is intentional or reckless.

• 10 Jun 2025 · USAID Funding Pause · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I declare my interest as co-chair of both the APPG on nutrition for development and the APPG on HIV, AIDS and sexual health. This is a period of great uncertainty, not just because of what has happened in the US, but because of what is happening in the UK. Perhaps this debate is a couple of days early, because when the new Minister for International Development, Baroness Chapman of Darlington, appeared before the International Development Committee, everything was predicated on the spending review. Indeed, the Committee had to send back the Government’s response to our inquiry on hunger and sustainable development goal 2 because there was no substance in the reply, since everything was predicated on the outcome of the spending review. I hope that tomorrow we will get certainty. I do not expect the Minister to be able to advance anything specific today, but it is important that we have that certainty, because uncertainty is one of the worst features affecting our ability to plan and to combat the issues that we face globally. Obviously, the US has contributed enormously to that uncertainty. It is still not clear what is happening in the US, and that is why I welcome the fact that the International Development Committee will soon visit Washington and New York. It will be a fact-finding visit, so that we can ascertain exactly what the approach is, and whether Mr Musk’s departure means anything for how these matters will be dealt with. I do not want to dwell too much on regret about the American situation. I think that we have to move on, as others have said, to a new debate about the future model of development. The Government, through the Minister for International Development, have indicated that that is their view, but again, there have not been many clues as to exactly what that might mean. We have heard about a realignment of existing multilateral organisations; it is not clear to me what that means. What I am clear on is that the UK should continue to contribute significantly to Gavi, the Global Fund and Unitaid, because those are multilateral organisations that deliver on their own specific objectives but also provide a backbone for health services in many poorer countries. Without those interventions, there would not be a health service being offered at all, so it is vital that we continue. Cutting mid-way through programmes is always chaotic. One of the most shocking things that I heard in recent evidence to the International Development Committee was about a US cut during the overwhelming of Goma in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. We heard that the radio system, which was operated by volunteers, had to be switched off during that attack. That meant that people could not hear where the attack was coming from and where to go to be safe. I think that everybody who heard that evidence, from the guy who had to do that, understood how hard it was—and it was the direct consequence of a cut. I want to focus on nutrition and give some key facts. A billion women and girls suffer from malnutrition, which impacts their health, productivity and economic futures. Malnutrition is a leading killer, responsible for one in five maternal deaths and nearly half of child deaths under the age of five. Malnutrition costs the global economy more than $1.6 trillion annually in lost productivity and potential. US aid cuts could lead to 1 million children with severe and acute malnutrition losing access to treatment annually. But it can be—and it has been—different. We know that for every $1 invested, $23 is returned to the local economy. Investing in nutrition is not charity, and it is not even the moral thing to do; it is a strategic decision and investment, and the UK, US and other funders should continue to do it. The UK Government are being asked to invest £50 million in the child nutrition fund. The UK has historically been a leader in the funding of child nutrition interventions. In both 2022 and 2023, the UK committed £6 million to the fund, which has high-impact, cost-effective malnutrition solutions. With the funding crisis caused by US cuts, the ask is now £50 million. I hope that on the IDC’s visit to the US, we will find out more about what is happening with HIV/AIDS, because there are competing suggestions about whether the US will return to funding. The hon. Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald) alluded to women and girls; one of the most important messages we have to get across is that in sub-Saharan Africa, it is women and girls who are most affected by HIV, and it is important to continue funding there. I also agree with the hon. Member about the importance of science and innovation as we move forward in this new development world. I had the opportunity to visit the John Innes Centre outside Norwich, as well as Rothamsted Research in Harpenden, where a huge amount of research is going ahead. The research and scientific leadership that the UK can offer might be the replacement for the financial leadership we offered in the past.

• 16 May 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Lady give way?

• 13 Feb 2025 · HIV Testing Week · Hansard source

  More

  I do apologise for the length of my constituency’s name, because otherwise we could have had a longer debate. It has been a good debate with some powerful contributions. I, too, commend the hon. Members for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Kevin McKenna) and for West Ham and Beckton (James Asser) for reflecting on their personal experiences. It is so important that we do so, and both hon. Gentleman show that it is possible to move on, as someone who is HIV-positive, to play a full part in the world and in Parliament. I particularly want to refer to a point made by the hon. Members for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) and for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), which was that this is not just about gay men. There is a stereotype that this is all about gay men. It is not. As we have heard, the statistics show that gay men are among the most prolific in having tests. It is about other communities, and it is about women. That is the message that we have to get across, and that is why opt-out testing is so important. The hon. Member for Cardiff West (Mr Barros-Curtis) raised my pet subject, which is PrEP. It is ridiculous that, during this debate, I could have emailed somebody in India and obtained PrEP, but I could not go up Victoria Street into a pharmacy and do that. As well as making sure that we continue with the testing initiative, let us make PrEP more readily available. Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

• 13 Feb 2025 · HIV Testing Week · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered HIV Testing Week. It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate during National HIV Testing Week in England. Each year, the campaign funded by the Department of Health and Social Care, and delivered by the Terrence Higgins Trust as part of the national HIV prevention programme in England, brings us together to raise awareness of HIV and to promote regular HIV testing, in particular among the groups most affected by HIV. It is always the way that Parliament works that this debate coincides with a debate on LGBT+ History Month, although the two subjects are so linked. Over the Christmas recess, I was reading Alan Hollinghurst’s book “The Line of Beauty”, which brings home the fact that, at that time in the 1980s, a test was potentially a death sentence. People dreaded going for one, because of the result it might bring and the impact on their life and the lives of their family and those close to them. We have moved on to be able to say with 100% certainty that, if someone gets a positive result from an HIV test —which people can do in their own home—treatment means they can have a normal life expectancy and cannot pass the virus on. That remarkable fact is what makes this a generation that can end new HIV cases across this country. I encourage everyone in the Chamber, across Parliament or watching these proceedings to take part in the current campaign and to order a free HIV test. I was particularly pleased to see the Prime Minister take a test and demonstrate how straightforward and lacking in process it is. Many people still think a test might involve needles and health service professionals, but a test can be taken at home with an easy-to-access kit.

• 13 Feb 2025 · HIV Testing Week · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady, who is one of my co-chairs on the all-party group on HIV, AIDS and sexual health. She has done so much to promote this issue, particularly among difficult-to-reach groups in the black and minority ethnic community and among women, and I commend her for that. I agree absolutely: taking a test, as I have done many times, is a routine matter that, in essence, involves merely pricking a finger and delivering a small amount of blood. That can be returned anonymously, and the result comes back without anyone else being involved. Were any issues to arise from the test, the person would know that proactive and supportive contact would generally be made with them. Normalising HIV testing is crucial if we are to find the 5,000 people across the UK living with undiagnosed HIV. Central to that is opt-out testing in emergency departments. I am proud that with parliamentary colleagues on the all-party parliamentary group, and with the help of Sir Elton John and the amazing campaigning of HIV charities, we won the case for a £20 million investment in opt-out testing in England in 2021 and for a further £20 million for expansion to 47 more A&Es in 2023. Since its routine introduction in 2022, opt-out testing has been an incredible success in normalising HIV testing in the health sector. Across 34 emergency departments over just two years, nearly 2 million HIV tests have taken place. In its first 18 months in London, Brighton, Blackpool and Manchester, more than 900 people were newly diagnosed with HIV or were found, where they had been lost to HIV care. A further 3,000 were found to have hepatitis B or hepatitis C. This approach also relieves pressure on the health service. Data from Croydon university hospital found that when it first started opt-out testing, the average hospital stay for a newly diagnosed HIV patient was almost 35 days. Within two years, the average stay was just 2.4 days. I am proud that the last Government were the first to fund opt-out testing. I am also pleased that in November the Prime Minister announced further funding to extend the testing intervention period. That will bring to 89 the number of hospitals funded to routinely test for HIV anyone who has their blood taken in the emergency department. As a Scottish MP, I want to be able to tell hon. Members how we are leading the way in addressing the HIV epidemic in Scotland, but unfortunately that is not quite the case. There are good news stories. Early action to make pre-exposure prophylaxis—PrEP—freely available on the NHS has helped to drive down new transmission of HIV in Scotland. Year round, everyone in Scotland has access to free at-home HIV testing, which is made available through the Terrence Higgins Trust testing service and funded by the Scottish Government. In 2023, a landmark campaign delivered by the Terrence Higgins Trust addressed the stigma that we all know surrounds an HIV diagnosis. It is astonishing that that campaign was the first of its kind since the tombstone adverts four decades ago. I hope that that important work to combat HIV stigma continues in Scotland and across the rest of the UK; it cannot be a one-off. However, for all this success, the reality is that progress towards achieving the historic feat of ending new HIV cases in Scotland by 2030 is now at risk. I have mentioned the resounding success of emergency department opt-out testing in England, and the role that that will play in helping to get the NHS in England back on track towards reaching zero new HIV cases by 2030. The clear evidence is that opt-out testing works, yet Scotland is still to adopt the same universal approach to HIV testing. As it stands, no area designated as high prevalence, such as Glasgow and Edinburgh, is benefiting from the opt-out testing programme. I have again written to Scotland’s Health Minister, Neil Gray, to ask that that be reconsidered. An estimated 500 people are living with undiagnosed HIV in Scotland, and a growing population of people are living with diagnosed HIV but are no longer accessing vital treatment and care. If we are to succeed in getting to our 2030 goal across the UK, we must reach each and every one of those people. Every day that emergency department opt-out HIV testing is not on offer, opportunities to find and support people living with HIV are being missed. Although Scotland is clearly not within the Minister’s remit, I hope that she, the public health Minister and the Health Secretary will use opportunities to raise this issue with the Scottish Government and to highlight their own successes. As she may know, the Scottish Government are keen to highlight what they perceive to be health failures in England. This is a great opportunity to highlight a health success and to call the Scottish Government out on their own approach. That also applies to HIV testing week. For this week to be most effective, it should apply across the United Kingdom, so that we can benefit from the positive publicity that came from the Prime Minister’s test. That is not available to people in Scotland, because HIV testing week is not happening there this week, despite my calls last year for it to be extended to Scotland. There is a testing week in Wales, but it is not as co-ordinated on a UK basis as we would want to see. Such co-ordination would allow everyone to benefit from promotional campaigns such as the excellent one in Parliament this week, which the Terrence Higgins Trust facilitated for Members of the House. I very much recognise the work of Terrence Higgins Trust Scotland and Waverley Care, which I had the great pleasure of visiting at its premises in Edinburgh recently. They are doing a great job, but when we have National HIV Testing Week, it needs to be across the whole United Kingdom. Testing is the only way we know to find a person’s HIV status, and that is why the current campaign, testing week and interventions such as opt-out testing are so integral to our HIV response. We are now five years away from 2030, and in no part of the UK are we on track to achieve our goal of ending new cases of HIV. Getting there will require cross-party working, and we have always worked cross party on the all-party parliamentary group, which has the highest number of members of any APPG in this Parliament and has been around for over 30 years. Many Members across Parliament work tirelessly in that group to ensure that we reach the 2030 goal, and I am sure the Minister will tell us more in her response about what is being done to achieve that. I know that this is not directly within her remit, but it would be remiss of me not to mention testing in other countries. We have heard about HIV testing week here in the UK, but poorer countries rely on the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, and particularly the United States President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, which it funds along with the US to deliver testing and treatments. We know that the future of US funding is, at best, uncertain. This country has always been at the forefront of the Global Fund, and leadership on this year’s replenishment is important. I was pleased to hear what the Prime Minister had to say yesterday about Gavi and vaccinations, and I hope he will be able at some point to give a similar commitment on the Global Fund. I hope all Members would agree that it would be quite wrong if we were to achieve the target in the UK, but just left poorer countries and the rest of the world to get on with it and, in fact, go backwards as a result. I make that call in relation to the wider issue. I encourage anyone to take a test. It is very straightforward and easy, it will help to identify those we do not know about and it will help us to achieve that 2030 goal.

• 6 Feb 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  May I echo the call from the hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) for a Government response to the Hughes report on the use of sodium valproate? My constituent Charlie Bethune has been not only an incredible carer for his daughter Autumn but a doughty campaigner on this issue, which he is raising today in the Scottish Parliament. He believes that because the harm caused by sodium valproate was diagnosed across the United Kingdom, there should be a United Kingdom response to those who have suffered, and he fears that there may be a different response in Scotland. When the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care makes a statement, will he seek to co-ordinate with the devolved Administration, so that we have a unified response?

• 6 Feb 2025 · Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories · Hansard source

  More

  What practical support are the Government giving to Egypt now that the Rafah crossing has reopened for medical emergencies? When that happened previously, it put enormous pressure on the Egyptian health service and caused some civil unrest in Egypt. As the right hon. Lady knows, Egypt is also under pressure on its southern border due to the conflict in Sudan. Does she agree that support for Egypt at this critical time is very important?

• 30 Jan 2025 · Medicinal Cannabis · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. Indeed, over time, I think all of us who have taken an interest in this issue have heard from multiple sclerosis sufferers about the pain and difficulties that they have encountered. It is incumbent on us, those in Government and those in the medical world to do what we can to make sure that that is no longer the case. I want to focus my remarks on the economic case for medical cannabis. I will talk about the contribution that a different and more progressive approach could make to the economies of rural constituencies such as mine—those were some of the points that I touched on in the previous debate—because, at its core, the nascent medical cannabis sector is horticultural in character and is situated in rural and agricultural communities such as the one I represent. In my constituency, I see Hilltop Leaf develop growing and processing facilities that are pristine and equipped with high-tech quantum sensors, microscopes or leaf barometers. It is a stark contrast to the damp tinfoil-wrapped rooms of illegal production, referred to earlier. It is certainly a marked contrast to the circumstances in which some people feel forced to acquire cannabis and the dangers and difficulties that they place themselves in through doing that. As the hon. Member for Strangford said, they do that because they love the person who is suffering. They do not want to see them suffer, and they are willing to take risks and do things that they would not otherwise consider. In that context, it is all the more important that we see the industry—a modern, progressive industry—as a step forward. I enormously support the investment in my constituency. I particularly hope that good horticultural, administrative, managerial and logistics jobs, which will anchor the young people in the constituency, will flow from it; young people all too often feel the need to leave such communities for the want of opportunities. The facilities at Hilltop should also be able to provide some 10% of the UK’s medical cannabis needs. I have hopes that Hilltop can go further still, because the medical cannabis sector could potentially bring more than £1 billion to the UK economy. I do not wish to divert into the Chancellor’s remarks about economic growth, Dame Esther, because we have heard a lot about that in the Chamber. But this industry is there and ready to grow—ready to create wealth and jobs, particularly in some of the most difficult rural environments in the UK. It has been estimated that tens of thousands of good quality jobs could be created if the UK’s regulatory, legal and medical frameworks were in line with norms elsewhere. Sadly, byzantine rules on prescribing and overlapping and onerous regulations are holding the sector back. Medical cannabis was legalised in 2018 by my former colleague Sajid Javid, then the Home Secretary, but it remains unduly difficult to prescribe on the NHS across every part of the United Kingdom. Those in need—we should be clear that this is a matter of need—turn to private medical services, with the huge costs that they bring; the hon. Member for Strangford also highlighted that. They turn to criminals as well. It is absurd to make something of medicinal benefit legal, but for it to be put out of the reach of so many people who need it. The situation has a knock-on effect on the sector. In recent years, we exported 213 tonnes of medical and scientific cannabis of the 329 tonnes produced in the UK. The sector could meet domestic patients’ needs and international demands, but incoherence in regulation and approach is hindering that. That also extends to cannabidiol or CBD, which has many benefits too. It is readily available to purchase on the high street, so much so that the CBD market in the UK is the second largest globally. However, hemp licensing laws mean that the flowers and leaves where CBD is found must be destroyed. Overseas imports then fulfil the needs of the domestic CBD market, and British supply chains do not benefit. Because of that approach, growers have to forsake the opportunity of a crop yielding £10,000 per acre, compared to £400 for wheat. At a time when rural Britain is struggling, such yields would be a real boon and bring income into the pockets of farmers. Patients, producers, taxpayers and even the police, as the hon. Member for Strangford mentioned, could all benefit from unblocking the bottlenecks in prescription and production. As I have said on many occasions, for that to happen the various strands of Government need to be stitched together. Instead of keeping the strange patchwork of overlapping and clashing components, there needs to be a clear policy of supporting the prescription of medical cannabis, and the necessary regulation and official approach that would allow that to happen. The UK Government and, where appropriate, the devolved Administrations should review the prescription process, medical guidelines, acceptable technical levels and the overlapping regulatory and legal regimes. We have debated and discussed this issue many times. I hope that we will see some progress and that we do not have to repeatedly debate an issue to which we should have a common-sense approach. It benefits patients and our economy. It has an adverse effect on criminals. Why would we not do it?

• 21 Nov 2024 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Lady will be aware that it is some considerable time since cannabis was legalised for medicinal use, but the number of people who have been able to obtain an NHS prescription for medical cannabis is minuscule. Will she bring forward a debate in Government time that allows us to discuss the obstacles to people, particularly children with severe conditions, obtaining those prescriptions?