G8 Summit (Right to Protest)
The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-2506, in the name of Rosie Kane, on the right to protest at Gleneagles.
I hope that this debate is as lively as the one that preceded it.
The Scottish Socialist Party looks forward very much to the G8 summit that will be held in Gleneagles in July. In particular, we look forward to welcoming the people who will join us in the protest against the G8, its agenda and its record. Motion S2M-2506 seeks to reaffirm the basic human right to protest, to dissent and to highlight our opposition. That right is in danger of being compromised.
In my opinion, the scare stories and over-zealous police preparations are creating an atmosphere of fortress Gleneagles. I wonder whether they are designed to prime the population for attempts to curtail our right to protest peacefully. In some quarters, the coverage so far has amounted to ridiculous scaremongering. Many commentators paint a crude picture that suggests that those who wish to pursue their democratic right to protest are set on violence rather than peaceful protest.
This morning, Parliament is being asked to reiterate our right to speak out against those whom we do not support. I hope that no member—regardless of their attitude towards the G8—will oppose such a basic democratic right. Such rights are not granted by the powers that be, but are fought for again and again by the people.
On Tuesday evening in the Parliament, the human rights campaigner Professor Alan Miller of the University of Strathclyde said:
"One of the most positive things coming out of the G8 is that it will internationalise civic society."
Those words ring true. Professor Miller has sought repeatedly to put the debate in context by asking the Executive to keep its promise—made a long time ago—to deliver a Scottish human rights commission. He was quick to point out that Scotland has been condemned throughout the world for jailing children at Dungavel and for forcing prisoners to endure the degradation of slopping out.
Just this week, the Home Secretary tried to introduce house arrest—in other words, detention that is ordered by a politician rather than through the judicial process. That is an even worse blot on the landscape than the infamous Diplock courts. At Belmarsh prison in London, there has been detention without charge. We have no right to rest on our laurels. Such repressive practices are visible throughout the G8 countries.
The counter-argument, which is that we do not have an absolute right to assemble, is never put. It is always argued that that right is to be granted only in certain circumstances and under certain conditions. That explains the compromise amendments from Labour and the Conservatives.
Why do hundreds of thousands of people want to protest against the G8? What is so dreadful about its record that makes people want to come from all over Europe to Scotland in July to protest? The group of industrialised countries that we know today as the G8 was established in 1975 by the heads of state of the leading industrialised economies to consider their shared economic and political interests and the international community. The group has consistently controlled the terms of international trade and of relations between the G8 and the developing countries. It sends out diktats on a host of issues including arms control, the information superhighway, crime and human rights. The G8 heavily loads the help that it gives to developing countries with political, economic and military influence.
The Prime Minister, Tony Blair, has said that, as the host of the Gleneagles summit, he is entitled to highlight two issues—Africa and climate change. If history is anything to go by, many mighty promises will come out of Gleneagles and, true to form, none will be kept. The G8 has been promising to abolish world poverty, hunger, disease and war since its inception 30 years ago and its record is risible. There are more people living in poverty in Africa than at any time before. Throughout the world, 50,000 people die from tuberculosis every day, even though the cure costs just £10 per patient. There are more enslaved people in the world today than there were in the time of William Wilberforce.
In 2002, the G8 announced the heavily indebted poor countries initiative, the aim of which was to reduce the debts of African countries by $19 billion. At the end of 2002, low-income countries in Africa and elsewhere owed the rich world $523 billion, which is roughly half their gross national income. Each year, low-income countries pay back more in debt to the G8 than they spend on education and health. Let us be clear about the fact that the G8 and its policies are the godfathers of capitalism. Those policies are responsible for the perpetuation of inequality and injustice. People who look to the G8 for a solution to world poverty will be sadly disappointed.
The make poverty history organisation—which I know enjoys widespread support from members of all parties—argues that, above all, the
"glaringly unjust world trade system"
is at the root of the problem. That brings us to the debate's key question. What forces will be able to get the G8 to change its ways and to hold it to account?
One of the world's leading dissidents, Professor Noam Chomsky, will visit Edinburgh in the next few weeks to speak on that very subject. He has written that the neo-liberal agenda behind G8 globalisation is creating its own gravediggers in the anti-war and anti-capitalist movement. By failing to deliver on its promises to eradicate poverty and, instead, driving ahead with a nakedly imperialist agenda, the G8 is creating a huge worldwide movement of opposition, especially in the third world and the middle east. The anti-war and anti-capitalist movement is the sign of a desire to force an agenda that is entirely different to that of the G8. That is the phenomenon that we will see on the streets of Edinburgh on 2 July and at the summit in Gleneagles.
We should explain to the people of Scotland the relevance of the G8 agenda to them. The G8 is responsible for the privatisation of our public services, the globalisation of trade, the casualisation of the labour market, the low pay in our economy and the denial of basic human and trade union rights. Lest we think that poverty is found only in the third world, on Monday the United Nations Children's Fund highlighted the fact that 20 per cent of children in the United States of America live in poverty.
The G8 alternatives group is part of a vibrant, healthy movement of opposition to the G8 that is flourishing throughout the world. In Edinburgh in July, there will be a carnival of forums, discussion and debate on the theme that another world is possible and necessary. The view that another world is possible and necessary is held by the vast majority of people, who want a socialised economy—one that is run on the basis of providing benefit for the many in the world rather than for the few. That puts them at odds with the G8. We are the many; it is the few. We want a world in which the world's resources and talents are shared equally among all its peoples. We should divide up the world's wealth and, in the first instance, look after those who are in most need.
I move,
That the Parliament puts on record its support for Article 20 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that "everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association"; notes that the G8 summit will be meeting in Gleneagles in July this year, and resolves to uphold and support the right to peaceful assembly and protest in Scotland, in particular in Edinburgh at the Make Poverty History demonstration and at the summit itself in Gleneagles.
This is a welcome opportunity to debate in Scotland's Parliament the contribution that Scotland and its people can make to the United Kingdom's G8 presidency in 2005.
The G8 summit at Gleneagles in July is the centrepiece of the presidency. The Executive is very proud that the Prime Minister chose Scotland to host such a prestigious event. It is a tribute to our growing stature, international presence and reputation for running events of global significance.
The Executive's objectives for the next few months are to showcase Scotland to a worldwide audience, maximise the economic benefits to Scotland, engage the Scottish public in debate on and raise awareness of the main G8 themes of Africa and climate change, and generate a sense of pride across Scotland that we are hosting the leaders of the most powerful countries in the world.
Let me also immediately put on record the Executive's commitment to facilitating peaceful and legitimate campaigning in line with the United Nations universal declaration of human rights. I know that the United Kingdom Government takes the same view. The make poverty history campaign is to be congratulated on its wide-ranging and imaginative efforts to mobilise public opinion. We are equally committed to the rule of law.
Protesters have responsibilities as well as rights: they must show proper respect to the residents of the areas in which they plan to protest. Here in Scotland, unlike in so many countries across the globe, our citizens enjoy the fruits of parliamentary democracy, which include the freedom to express our views. Men and women across Scotland have protected those rights and, just as important, they have respected those rights. The Scottish people will judge harshly anyone who does not give the proper respect to those rights. After all, we are hosting the leaders of some of the most economically successful countries as well as those of countries that are far less fortunate.
The minister may be aware of the widespread concern among property owners in Auchterarder and the surrounding area that they will not be covered by their insurance companies if protesters damage their properties. Property owners in the area have asked the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for indemnity. Does the Scottish Executive support those calls?
Property owners will find advice on the Foreign Office website. They have access to that advice and I am sure that they will take it. If necessary, they can engage in discussion with the Foreign Office.
If, during the time of the G8 presidency, people seek to abuse the privileges that we enjoy in Scotland, they should expect the authorities to deal with them appropriately. As the public in Scotland would expect, contingency plans are in place.
Will the minister give way?
No. I want to place on record our appreciation of the work that will be done by police forces throughout Scotland which, in this instance, will be led very ably by Tayside police. The police are already working tirelessly with numerous other agencies in planning for the summit. I am sure that their efforts will pay off and that the summit will be safe and secure and remembered for all the right reasons.
Let me stress again that there are plenty of reasons to be positive about the summit. I am sure that the thousands of delegates and journalists who will arrive in Scotland will be impressed by the facilities and infrastructure that we can offer. We should all hope that they will also leave with many other positive impressions of, for example, our friendliness—evident no doubt from the moment they set foot in Scotland—the beauty of our scenery and the dynamism of our economy. We should also hope that they leave with a good impression of contemporary Scotland and, perhaps too, with some envy of our rich traditions.
As the First Minister has said on many occasions, our aim is to be
"the best small country in the world".
I hope that the many visitors to the summit and other people who see something of it through the worldwide media coverage will be encouraged to visit, study, do business and perhaps consider coming to live in Scotland.
I know that many people throughout Scotland—in the public, private and voluntary sectors—are working hard to make the summit a success and to take up the opportunities that it offers for the promotion of Scotland. On behalf of the Executive, I express our sincere thanks for that work and ask them to redouble their efforts in the interests of our country.
Of course, it is important that the summit goes smoothly. I want Scotland to be more than simply a beautiful and convenient backdrop to the event. The delegates will be debating massively important issues, in particular the future of Africa and climate change, both of which should be of concern to all the 5 million people who live in Scotland.
Obviously, as a devolved Government, our main focus is domestic. Scots are not parochial but have a long and proud tradition of looking outwards. We can see the big picture; after all, many of our forefathers helped to create it. We are known for our internationalism and our compassion, as can be seen by our recent reaction to the tsunami disaster in Asia.
The Executive is passionately committed to making a difference. We will do that by working with the United Kingdom Government, the non-governmental organisation community and others. Over the next few weeks, we will say much more on Africa and climate change. Indeed, as members will know, the First Minister will visit Africa in May.
Our hope is that people of all ages in Scotland, particularly young people, will become more aware of the issues that will be discussed at the summit. Many organisations are already planning events. For example, I know that the local authorities in Perth and Kinross, Edinburgh, Glasgow and Stirling are planning to do so. The Executive hopes that others will follow suit. It is not often that Scotland plays host to the leaders of the world.
In all of this, our colleagues in the media have a critical role to play. There will be many positive stories around the G8 summit that will deserve a fair hearing. However, if some individuals try to grab their 15 minutes of fame this July by doing something silly, it is vital that the coverage is proportionate and gives them no undue encouragement.
By the end of the United Kingdom presidency, I hope that people everywhere will see that Scotland has contributed—by action as well as by word—to the great challenges of making poverty history and securing our environment for future generations. I also hope that the people of Scotland will feel proud that they hosted a G8 summit that made a difference and marked a turning point for many around the globe.
I move amendment S2M-2506.4, to insert at end:
"further recognises that protestors have responsibilities to uphold the law and deplores calls by an unrepresentative minority to use the occasion to engage in unlawful and violent activity; pledges full endorsement of the work of the Scottish Police Service to ensure public safety and order and facilitate peaceful protest; welcomes the tremendous opportunity presented by the G8 to show to a watching world everything that is good about Scotland and Scotland's people, and acknowledges that the summit is also an opportunity to encourage debate, raise awareness and challenge people within Scotland about the key issues of poverty in Africa and climate change."
I guarantee that Perthshire will provide a beautiful backdrop to the summit. That said, the concerns that I want to raise, which are germane to the debate, are both practical and political.
First I will outline my practical concerns. Right from the start, I have expressed concerns on behalf of my constituents in respect of the disruption to their lives that they will experience as a result of the summit being held in their area.
This morning, the BBC seemed to have some difficulty with the wording of my amendment. However, I have constituents who are particularly concerned that constant references to Gleneagles instead of to Gleneagles hotel will result in the variously named other Gleneagles properties in the area being targeted in error. All of us are guilty of referring simply to Gleneagles. The aim of my amendment is to get home the point that it is not just Gleneagles hotel that is at issue. The wording of the amendment also makes clear that the direct disruption that will be caused will be felt throughout a much larger area than just the immediate vicinity of the hotel. The daily lives of many of my constituents will be disrupted and to pretend otherwise is to let them down badly.
The insurance issue has been raised. There is a great deal of anger at the decision that has been taken in that respect and I hope that the Executive and the Foreign Office will review it. Equally, transport in and around the area will be seriously disrupted and to pretend otherwise is to ignore reality. After all, the area is key not just for my constituents but for people in the whole of Scotland.
So far, it is the impositions of the Government and the security services, not the actions of the protesters, that are most likely to disrupt my constituents' lives. So far, the security arrangements that will be put in place are focused entirely on the needs of summit participants and not on those of my constituents or, indeed, the many thousands of peaceful protesters whom we can expect to see in the area.
I expect that the actions of most of the protesters who will come to Scotland—and, indeed, to Perthshire—will be peaceful. The aims of the make poverty history campaign show just how peaceful their protest is likely to be. We need to uphold the tradition of peaceful protest. However, I fear that there is a danger in the way in which the police are presenting things at the moment. It is beginning to look suspiciously as if the police are saying, "Come on, if you think you're hard enough."
If there are many more alarmist security pronouncements and threats from the less scrupulous activists about whom we are already reading, I am afraid that the world's TV cameras will be transmitting pictures from an Auchterarder High Street with its shops barricaded and closed for the duration—indeed, the possibility is already being considered by some. I am advised that even the local police are asking people to do precisely that. Among the high-profile policing and the threats of some potential demonstrators, there is a tendency to forget that there is a real community of real people in that area, who are beginning to feel that they are caught in the middle and that their concerns are being ignored.
We can accept disruption, but only if we secure from the summit the agreements that we seek in respect of trade justice, international aid and debt relief. The Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive have an important role in progressing the agenda but, frankly, despite the Executive amendment, I have seen no sign that it is spearheading any such debate. I want important international meetings to be held in Scotland, but I want Scotland to take part and influence the decisions from within, not just provide the backdrop and the refreshments. When the Commonwealth heads of state came to Edinburgh in 1997, Margaret Ewing memorably said that Scotland's role was that of a tartan waitress. The First Minister would not like that description, but I hope that, when he attends functions at Gleneagles hotel in July, he will try to come across as something more than just a pin-striped sommelier. As a start, a debate on the issue in Executive time would be appropriate.
I move amendment S2M-2506.2, to leave out from "notes that the G8 summit" to end and insert:
"notes that the G8 summit will be meeting in Strathearn in July this year; resolves to uphold and support the right to peaceful assembly and protest in Scotland, in particular in Edinburgh at the Make Poverty History demonstration and at the summit itself in Strathearn; recognises, however, that those who reside close to the location of the G8 summit also have the right to privacy and to be able to pursue their lives and livelihoods free from harassment from whatever quarter, and considers that the important issues to be debated at the summit should be given as much publicity and consideration as the reported security arrangements."
I am happy to support the SSP motion, but I qualify my support—it is dependent on acceptance of our amendment or one that is similar to ours. We must demonstrate that with the freedoms that we enjoy in Scotland come responsibilities, which our amendment would do. The lessons of the past show that the actions of bullies, anarchists and lawbreakers have disrupted and spoiled serious debate on serious issues—that must not be allowed to happen in Scotland. I disagree marginally with Roseanna Cunningham in that I believe that it is not the police who are putting out the message that she suggests but our media. I would like our media to behave responsibly on the issue by concentrating more on the G8 principles and objectives.
The Conservative group believes that those who are involved in organisations such as the Jubilee Scotland coalition, Oxfam, Edinburgh Direct Aid, Christian Aid and other faith movements, which are all associated in one way or another with the make poverty history campaign, have a right to highlight their concerns and we will support them to the full in that. When the eyes of the world are on Scotland, the dignity that will be displayed during the mass turnout of people from those organisations in the streets of Edinburgh will demonstrate their sincerity to those who are most in need. That is the most important point that those who wish to demonstrate can make.
Will the member put on record his support for the right to peaceful protest, given that none of the 250 protesters who were arrested during the G8 summit in Genoa has been found guilty of a crime? Does the member believe that it is important that protesters are not arrested just for being there?
I am content that, overall, the United Kingdom justice system is fair and humane. I am sure that individuals who attempt to disrupt proceedings will be dealt with fairly and appropriately.
We need to take protective measures to uphold the interests not only of property owners but of those who wish to protest. Mr McCabe's amendment is in line with our thoughts—it is perhaps slightly more expansive—and we will therefore have no difficulty whatever in supporting it. Given that, it is likely that we will not press our amendment.
The G8 summit will deliberate important issues. Scotland has already played a major part in relation to global warming by reducing CO2 and other emissions in recent years. Scotland has supported successive UK Government Chancellors of the Exchequer in promoting world debt relief. The Conservatives want that relief to progress apace. Wherever natural disasters or man-made emergencies occur, Scots are there to help through our armed forces or civil groups. I hope that the G8 summit will prove to be extremely successful and that the objectives that are set will be attained.
I move amendment S2M-2506.1, to insert at end:
"and calls on the Scottish Executive to ensure that suitable measures are taken to deter those who seek to abuse such rights through disorderly behaviour and by causing damage to property as well as thwarting the peaceful expression of views by those who attend in good faith."
A Scottish proverb states, "You can either make a kirk or a mill of it," which indicates that when an opportunity arises, it is up to us how we shape it. The saying may not be true of Spanish architects—who can make a kirk and a mill at the same time—but, in relation to the G8 summit, Scotland can go down one of two routes. The first would be one in which the conference is ruined by civil disobedience and protest; the alternative and preferable route would be one in which we bask in the economic benefits that the summit brings. I fully support the right to peaceful protest and the make poverty history campaign, which will link into the G8 meeting. However, I am afraid that too much emphasis on the protest, demonstrations and security that will surround the summit will ensure only that Scotland loses out on a major opportunity to present itself on the world stage.
Nowadays, we may not make either kirks or mills, but if we make a mess of the Gleneagles hotel meeting, which provides Scotland with an opportunity, we will have only ourselves to blame and we will deserve fully the consequential bad publicity.
The member seems to miss the point. The reason why there will be a protest outside the hotel is that representatives of the make poverty history campaign have not been invited in. The protesters will not get the chance to make their point to the G8 summit.
With respect, I have not missed the point. I hope that if the situation is handled properly, the peaceful demonstration can be encompassed, but my fear is that the peaceful protest may disintegrate.
A number of events will take place in Mid Scotland and Fife this summer during which the eyes of the world will be on the area. In politics and economics, we will have the G8; in sport, we will have the open golf championship; and in pop music, we will have T in the Park. With the right publicity and weather for those events, they will have a tremendous spin-off benefit for tourism. We must remember that, with the demise of Scotland's traditional industries, tourism is now our number 1 earner. If, in the run-up to the Gleneagles hotel meeting, potential visitors hear only tales of possible civil disobedience, they will be driven away and Scotland will derive no benefit from the meeting.
We must make a plea to those who are coming to Scotland and Perthshire that they use their visit to show peacefully that they have a different philosophical view from that held by the leaders of the countries that are meeting. Equally, we must also plead with those people not to come to Scotland or Perthshire if their only intention is to use the G8 meeting as a physical battlefield. Those who live in the area around Gleneagles hotel are not concerned by the thought of Government leaders coming to the area—they have many decades of experience of so-called famous people arriving by train, road or rail—but by the thought of large numbers of protesters coming to rural Perthshire. Those with whom I have discussed the matter support fully the police control plans but, as Roseanna Cunningham said, they would like their concerns to be taken on board.
I ask for peaceful demonstrations and the chance to maximise the economic spin-off benefits that could arise from having the meeting in our country.
We now move to the open debate, during which we will have speeches of four minutes.
It will be almost impossible to cover all the important issues in my four minutes. The good news is that the minister has said that there will be opportunities to discuss the issues further in the next few weeks. Certainly, the European and External Relations Committee is undertaking an inquiry into the opportunities that the G8 summit and the UK presidency of the Council of the European Union provide.
There is no doubt that 2005 will give the people of Scotland two unprecedented opportunities. The first will be the opportunity to showcase Scotland, which the minister spoke about in detail; the second, which is as important, will be the chance for the Scottish people to show their support for the developing world.
In Scotland, we have a proud history of internationalism and our support for just causes is well documented. For example, the Scottish trade union movement and the Scottish churches linked up to peacefully express our support for the just cause of democracy in South Africa and our opposition to apartheid. The G8 and the UK presidency of the EU present real opportunities to influence an important world agenda. I will speak about trade justice, through which we can make a perceivable difference to the lives of those in the third world who need our help.
I have spoken before about the unfairness of the effect of current trade regimes—in particular, sugar and tobacco production under the common agricultural policy—on the developing world. It is clear that EU sugar prices and policies hamper global efforts to reduce poverty. Export subsidies are used to dump 5 million tonnes of sugar annually on world markets, which destroys opportunities for exporters in developing countries. Meanwhile, producers in Africa have limited access to EU markets. With the hosting of the G8 and the UK presidency of the EU, we are uniquely placed to lead on that issue, and I hope that the minister will confirm in his closing speech that the UK, which has previously been supportive of reform on sugar, will continue to take a tough approach to delivering real results.
There is a similar situation with tobacco. Under the common agricultural policy, millions of euros per annum in tobacco subsidies are given to farmers to grow substandard tobacco, which is considered unfit for human consumption in Europe—Europeans would not smoke it even if we gave it to them for free—but is dumped on the third world. Given the Parliament's public health agenda and our stance on passive smoking, we have not only an opportunity but a moral responsibility to lead the way on tobacco subsidies. Such action would give tangible expression to the values that we hold as well as benefiting the health of the third world.
Another major issue that the third world faces is the AIDS epidemic. Unfair trade rules mean that drug prices are set too high for communities to afford vital medicines which, combined with the fact that massive debt repayments mean that poorer countries do not have the finances to build up health systems, is a recipe for a humanitarian crisis. That crisis is avoidable. We are taking steps to address it, and we must welcome the moves that the chancellor has made in that direction. A solution is tantalisingly within our grasp, but we must not take our eyes off the ball.
I said that there would not be enough time for my speech and I can see that I am way short of time. We have a unique opportunity on the world stage. We must showcase Scotland and the infrastructure that we have to host an event of such magnitude. It is important to note that the G8 summit is an opportunity for the people of Scotland to uphold our history of peaceful protest and unite against poverty by reaching out to our neighbours in the developing world in a show of solidarity. That is the nature of democracy and we must express it clearly. As with all events that bring people together in mass numbers, it is important to ensure that safety and law and order are maintained, not least for the protesters and the people of Perthshire.
I want the summit to be remembered not for violence and unrest but for the progress that it can bring about and the changes that it can make to the lives of those in Africa and elsewhere in the third world who suffer from poverty and ill health.
I support the amendment in the name of Tom McCabe.
I welcome the chance for us to debate matters surrounding the G8's visit to Scotland and in particular those matters on which we can, as the Executive's amendment suggests,
"raise awareness and challenge people".
Also, as Roseanna Cunningham says in the SNP amendment, we must ensure that
"the important issues to be debated at the summit"
are
"given as much publicity and consideration as the reported security arrangements."
Strathearn is not in the middle of the Rocky mountains; it is not far from communities in the heart of Scotland where people work and live peacefully every day. Tony Blair has chosen it as a prestigious site for the G8 summit. He did not ask us; he thought that he could use Scotland in his interest as the base for the expedition. Jack McConnell did not ask us and he was probably not asked by Tony Blair.
Will Rob Gibson give way?
No, I will not.
As far as the SNP is concerned, it is important to consider how, with the powers that the Parliament and Executive have, we give practical help to people in Africa. The Executive makes much of challenging people, but when it is challenged to say what Scotland can do, it fails to answer the questions. That is enough for a full debate, which ought to be an Executive debate so that the Opposition has a chance to talk about the issues.
Between now and July, much of the coverage in the newspapers and the media—whose proprietors are in bed with those at the G8 summit's top table—will, unfortunately, not reflect the debate that we can have with our people about what we can achieve in Scotland. It was interesting and refreshing that, in The Herald—yesterday, I think—Lesley Riddoch suggested many things that a small country with small resources could do to ensure that it helped to make a difference in some part of the world. At root, it is about giving people power over their own lives at the most local level. It is about using our skills to enhance others' ability to make their own power, grow their own food, provide themselves with communications and form Governments that will be able to take their countries forwards.
Will Rob Gibson give way?
No, I will not.
If we were to have such a debate at the G8 summit, I would welcome the event, but we are dealing with people who are interested in issues such as power security and fuel security—that is, international wars to secure gas from the centre of Asia—not empowering local communities to create their own power, for example. The Executive is caught in the middle and is failing to make the point that a Scottish Government must lead by expressing ideas that can be of practical help to people in Africa. If we do not hear of many such ideas before July, we will know that our suspicions were correct: the Executive is prepared to be wallpaper but is not prepared to take a lead proportionate to what we, as a small country with limited legislative powers, can do.
If life-changing events are going to take place, that will happen not in confrontations between demonstrators and the police but through our bringing on board as many as possible of those who want peaceful change and giving them a means to express that wish. I do not see that emerging from the preparations that are being made for the G8 summit.
In only four months' time, we have a crucial opportunity to show Scotland off to the world, not with shortbread-tin cameos, but with the vision of a country where progressive debate thrives and innovation and compassion combine to show leadership to the rest of the world in tackling the big issues of our time—global poverty and climate change. We also have the opportunity to redefine the G8 summit and make it reflect the founding principles and practices of the Parliament, such as the right of people to engage directly with politicians and their democracies.
When the Dalai Lama visited Scotland last year, he talked about the insecurity of the Chinese officials who rule Tibet. He talked about their hiding in blacked-out motorcades and their fear of dissent and protest from different views and diverse voices. Do we want to send out a message of fear to the rest of the world, or do we want to show that we are aa—even George W Bush—Jock Tamson's bairns?
I pay tribute to peaceful protest movements. If it was not for them, we would not be discussing the crucial issues of debt, climate change and unfair trade at the G8 summit this year. Inspiration for the future political agenda will be drawn from the fringe of the summit. Scotland is hosting that fringe in the events, debates, rallies and protests that will be held throughout Edinburgh and Perthshire before, during and after the summit.
We all want the summit to be peaceful and we all want to see real debate. In recent weeks, even the First Minister has thrown down the gauntlet to George Bush on climate change. Thousands of people agree with the First Minister and want to come here to voice their concerns by protesting, but they also want to engage in discussion with one another and with the global media. Will they come to Gleneagles in tens or hundreds of small groups, all looking for a focus for their protest, or will they be allowed to join others at a safe location, somewhere between Dunblane and Perth, where there can be sensitive policing and where the overriding peaceful nature of the different groups can create a strong consensus against violent protest?
I saw the results of insensitive policing on the streets of London during the demonstrations against the Criminal Justice Bill in the 1990s, when a tiny minority of hardline protestors goaded the police. The police turned on a crowd of thousands, causing chaos and raising anger and anxiety. Thousands of people were caught on the edge of the violence, unable to leave the protest or get to their friends, and were trapped and frightened. That was also the story of recent G8 protests after Birmingham. It must not be the story of Gleneagles. Inappropriate policing will not help the summit's participants, the protesters, the police or local residents who live in the wider area, as I do.
Those who live in the wider area of Strathearn and Strathallan also need our consideration. After the strong statement from the Parliament last week against identity cards, it is clear that they will be in force at the summit, with local residents carrying cards within the vicinity and, potentially, further afield. What will be the sanctions and penalties for failing to carry an ID card to get to one's home?
I hope that local people will engage with the summit. I know that many people from the area with add their voice and join the protesters. Local people did not ask for the summit to come to their area so it is only just that Westminster should offer compensation in the event that policing goes belly up and damage is inflicted.
The summit is a one-off opportunity for either massive international success or massive international failure. Let us not toss the coin to choose which it is. Let us put in place now the right conditions to make the summit a success, for freedom of speech, for the global environment and for those who suffer poverty in all its forms throughout the world.
I did not intend to speak in the debate, but a number of contributions have brought me to my feet. I fully accept that people have a right to peaceful protest. However, we are where we are and the experience of previous G8 summits shows that some people are determined to exercise not the right to peaceful protest, but violent and intimidating protest. The police in Scotland will have to be able to respond to that to protect the rights of those who are protesting peacefully.
Secondly, I turn to an issue that Rob Gibson raised. I was slightly confused by his contribution, because he seemed to suggest that debt relief should not be on the agenda. I have just returned from a visit to Africa. Yes, there are things that we can do as a Parliament and yes, they will help people in countries such as Malawi by increasing their capacity to build their economy. However, the clear message that I received was that unless we deal with debt, addressing those capacity-building issues will merely be tinkering at the edges. The key issue for the people there is enabling them to build their economy. If we do not deal with debt relief, they will never be able to do that, because a vast amount of their gross domestic product is spent on repaying debt.
The G8 summit gives the country, the Executive and the UK Government a tremendous responsibility to ensure that people know where Scotland stands on debt relief. It is one of the issues that have dominated my postbag since I became an MSP, it is one of the issues that people want to confront and the summit gives us an opportunity to say that Scotland stands four square with those who want to make poverty history. The summit should be the vehicle for us to try to do that. Anybody who does not see the summit as an opportunity is not living in the real world and should consider carefully what they are trying to achieve.
I apologise for being absent from the chamber for the past few minutes; I had to make an urgent telephone call.
The debate has been interesting and, to be fair, Colin Fox, who is not with us just now, expounded his party's position and philosophy—it is not one with which I agree, but he was honest and put it out there in the open.
Tom McCabe was correct to say that people had the right to demonstrate, but to demonstrate peacefully. In a way, he agreed with Colin Fox. He mentioned the role of the police forces, which is connected to what Roseanna Cunningham said. There is no doubt that additional burdens will be placed on Tayside police as a result of the G8 summit. I remember that when the Tory party conference was held in Inverness some years ago, Northern constabulary had to pick up a big bill. I seek an assurance from the minister that the policing bill will be settled by either the UK Government or the Scottish Executive, because I would hate to see Tayside police's budget being overstretched. Let us face it; those of us who have been involved in local government will know that it is not easy to balance that sort of budget.
We know that the delegates will discuss the future of Africa and climate change. Of course it is right and proper that we make poverty history and that will be flagged up. However, where I live in the Highlands it is evident that climate change is upon us. In my lifetime—indeed in the past few years—things have changed dramatically on the moorland where I live in my wee croft house. Things that previously did not fly in the air or grow in the ground now do so. The Greens are correct to say that we have a big problem with climate change. In my book it is good that that is on the G8 agenda and that the delegates will spend half their time discussing it. This is the real world and we cannot get round the fact of climate change, but at least it is on the agenda for the G8 summit with the people who can hit and score.
It is completely understandable that Roseanna Cunningham talked about protecting her constituents' interests. I hope that the summit will not lead to shops being boarded up in Auchterarder. That is not the intention at all. The lesson is that it must be managed properly and the Scottish Executive, UK leaders and the police must work with residents of places such as Auchterarder to ensure that rather than boarded-up shops we showcase what we can do, what we can sell and what such a nice village can look like.
Phil Gallie was correct to mention the justice system and I endorse what he said. My colleague Andrew Arbuckle—who was making one of his first speeches in the Parliament—mentioned showcasing Scotland and getting in on the back of the success of the G8 summit. I have mentioned Skibo Castle in my constituency before and members all have equivalents in their constituencies. We are absolutely delighted if we get a big name or politician to come to our constituencies. To do anything other than welcome the G8 leaders to Scotland would be to sell ourselves short. Yes, there can be demonstrations and yes, they can and must be peaceful. If we are British, it is written right through our hearts that we accept that. Some of the most powerful people in the world will be here and the summit is a chance for us to say, "This is Scotland. This is what we can do. This is our beautiful country and this is what we produce." We cannot help but achieve success if we go down that route.
I note what the SSP is saying, but for heaven's sake, we must not sell ourselves short as a country, because that is what we are in danger of doing. If the summit is going to be about demonstrations and bricks flying, that is absolutely crazy and we would be shooting ourselves in the foot. It should be about saying, "This is our country and we are proud of it."
The Scottish Conservatives warmly welcomed the announcement that the G8 summit is coming to the Gleneagles hotel in Perthshire. I have no doubt that it will bring tremendous economic benefits to Perthshire both during the conference and, more important, in years to come as a result of spin-off publicity. The conference will put Gleneagles, Perthshire and Scotland on the world map and we should celebrate that fact universally.
We should also acknowledge that people have a legitimate right to protest. We have heard reference to the make poverty history campaign and other similar campaigns. Of course people have the right to gather to make known their views, provided that they do so peacefully. It is important to remember that people live and work in Perthshire—I refer to towns such as Auchterarder in particular—and that they also have a right to get on with their lives with the minimum of disruption. Some disruption will be inevitable when there is an international summit at which there are world leaders, but it is essential that the whole community is not brought to a standstill—those remarks apply to protesters as much as to the organisers of the conference. Large groups of protesters cannot roam at random across roads and fields in rural Perthshire. I have discussed those issues with Tayside police, who have assured me that they have plans in hand adequately to deal with policing. I believe that Tayside police will take a measured approach and I hope that protesters will listen to the legitimate requests of the police so that the summit can pass off without major disruption.
Does the member support the establishment of a single, safe location in southern Perthshire for protesters to gather at, rather than a free-for-all approach, which, as he suggests, could be a problem?
I am grateful to the member for intervening, as he makes a sensible suggestion to which I hope Tayside police will listen.
We should be absolutely clear. If protesters are intent on causing disruption—and perhaps even violence and damage to property—the police must have the resources to deal with them swiftly and effectively. The people whom I represent in Perthshire do not want their homes and property put at risk of damage and destruction. Tayside police have rightly put in place robust plans to deal with such protesters and they should have our full support. I am sorry that Roseanna Cunningham is not in the chamber because I thought that her argument that having robust plans in place would somehow provoke protesters to violent reaction was rather bizarre. Her constituents would want proper plans in place to protect their livelihoods and property.
I am principally concerned about the local communities and in my remaining time I want to touch on two issues, the first of which is information for people in Auchterarder. Tayside police have been very proactive in communicating with people. They have had a presence at many local meetings, including the community council, but residents still say to me that they find out about what will happen in July only through what they read in the newspapers. More must be done to tell local people about the practical impact that the G8 summit will have on them.
Secondly, I return to insurance, which I raised with the minister earlier. People are concerned. Auchterarder community council is concerned that some insurance companies are saying that they will not pay out for any damages that are caused as a result of civil disobedience, which means that local residents may have to foot the bill themselves. Local farmers have also contacted me and said that they may be left out of pocket if there is damage to fields and crops. There is a serious case for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to say that proper compensation will be paid to people who suffer such damage as a result of the summit. I am serious in saying that I believe that the Scottish Executive should take this up with the FCO on behalf of the residents of Perthshire and that it should get a definitive answer from the FCO.
The G8 summit in Perthshire represents a tremendous opportunity for the local economy and for Scotland as a whole to present itself to the world. I hope that local residents' legitimate concerns can be addressed to ensure that they do not suffer as a result of the summit. I also hope that legitimate peaceful protest will be allowed, but that the necessary contingencies are provided, so that those who come and seek to cause damage and destruction are dealt with robustly with the full force of the law.
I support the amendment in the name of my colleague Roseanna Cunningham, who is absent from the chamber because of media commitments, rather than because she seeks to show discourtesy to members who are participating in the debate. That may explain the absence of other members too.
Karen Gillon protested rather too much about what my colleague Rob Gibson said. Nobody disputes that a major part of the agenda on addressing poverty in Africa will relate to debt, but it should equally relate to trade and fair trade. I do not seek to make any political comment on that matter, as only last night I supported the debate that was instigated by Karen Gillon's colleague Christine May. We should ensure that the issues of access to trade for African and other nations that suffer from global poverty, as well as the debt that straddles and restricts them, are addressed.
Karen Gillon said that
"we are where we are".
That is important. We are where we are and we should have seen it coming. The minister implied that the summit will be a great bounty—indeed, Murdo Fraser went on about the great benefits that will accrue. However, every G8 summit has caused significant difficulties for the area in which it takes place. There is not a problem only for Gleneagles hotel—there are problems for Gleneagles village, as my colleague has said, and for the city of Edinburgh. The summit will involve not only Gleneagles hotel—it is likely that the media centre will be the Edinburgh International Conference Centre. It has already been indicated that the Sheraton hotel has been block booked for the Japanese delegation and that the Hilton hotel has been block booked for the Chinese delegation. There is an idea that the summit will be a magnificent bounty for the city of Edinburgh, but it may come as a surprise to the minister and to the Executive that Edinburgh hotels are usually quite busy in July. Simply replacing tourists with visiting delegations may not add any value, but may diminish the number of people who would have come anyway. We welcome the delegations and appreciate that they will contribute to the economy—
Is Mr MacAskill suggesting that we should simply tell people not to bother coming?
That is a rather silly thing to say. I am saying that the suggestion has been made that there will be a contribution to the greater good of the hotel business in Edinburgh by bringing in delegates, but our hotels are substantially busy in July. If we wished to add value to Edinburgh hotels, we would have picked a period in the year in which hotels are looking for business. Given that the Parliament is in recess in July and that members have gone elsewhere, it may come as a shock to some that the city is remarkably busy with visitors then.
I move on to the right to protest. The right to protest exists, as Colin Fox said, but it must be balanced with the right of society and communities to ensure that behaviour is appropriate and that points are made without disruption—I think that all members have commented on that. We have had to contend with that issue not simply with respect to a coming demonstration on making poverty history—which is something that all members support, I think—but with respect to other aspects of our society. I refer to Orange walks and other things.
How can we balance the rights of people who wish to make a valid point—irrespective of whether we agree or disagree with what they say—with the rights of the community? To date, we have been well served by the police in Scotland, but my colleague was right to draw to our attention that any form of machismo policing could work to the detriment of areas. In the 1980s, there were confrontations during the miners' strike, but we did not see anything akin to Orgreave north of the border because policing in Scotland has always been from the community and has always served the community. We must ensure that policing will not be based on riot squads moving in or on attitudes that are more prevalent elsewhere, whether in the United Kingdom or on the continent. We do not want tactical support groups undermining the relationship between our community and our police force and we must address the potential difficulties presented by those who seek to cause mischief and mayhem. The police are right to prepare for such difficulties, but they must do so in a proportionate manner and bear in mind how the police have always policed in Scotland and how we want policing to remain.
That said, it is clear that the right to protest is important. There are no bigger issues in the world today than making poverty history and—to be fair to what Mr Stone said—climate change. Given the scandalous situation in the 21st century, many members fully support making poverty history. I will be happy to participate in what happens and hope that the First Minister will be prepared to consider supporting the demonstration when it takes place, as opposed simply to visiting Malawi.
I will try to respond to points that have been made.
Colin Fox expressed concern about our freedoms, but our freedoms will be compromised only by those who consider illegal acts. Every member in every party in the Parliament should condemn any organisation or individual who considers such acts.
Mr Fox is right to say that we should not rest on our laurels with regard to our democratic freedoms, but he is wrong to portray our dynamic economy and democracy in such disparaging terms. He and his party have a distorted view of the G8's performance and refuse to recognise that people in Scotland now enjoy unprecedented economic opportunities to make their own life choices.
I say to Roseanna Cunningham that Scotland's police have a proud record in dealing with sensitive situations—I am glad that Kenny MacAskill recognises that. It is inappropriate and demeaning to suggest that the police would incite disruptive behaviour through their plans. There is not one shred of evidence to support that, and I strongly suggest that the SNP withdraws such remarks.
I hear Mr MacAskill's concerns about Edinburgh hotels. The SNP can be rather parochial on occasions, but Scotland is a bit bigger than simply Edinburgh. The opportunities that come from the summit will extend far beyond the boundaries of our capital city.
To Rob Gibson, I say that the SNP should say whether it is opposed to the summit and say so plainly. Just for once, the nationalists should stop carping and play some part in harnessing the opportunities that the summit will produce for Scotland and for the world.
I fully recognise the points that Murdo Fraser and Roseanna Cunningham made about the disruption that will be caused to residents. We will work with Perth and Kinross Council and the local community to address those concerns. In my visit to the area next week, I will discuss those and other matters with the local council. I assure members that we will engage in those discussions in a meaningful way.
Will the minister answer the question that I asked earlier? What sanctions or fines will be imposed on people if they resist the introduction of identity cards within the wider Gleneagles and Strathearn area?
That is exactly the kind of exaggerated language that draws a veil over what should be a great opportunity for Scotland. The reality is that a small number of people who live within the cordon have been asked, and have agreed, to minimise any disruption to their own lives by wearing security access passes. They have agreed to that measure. That is the important point. There is no question of sanctions and fines.
To Jamie Stone, I can offer the assurance that we will discuss the cost implications of the entire summit with Tayside police.
Let me underline the Executive's priorities for the next few months. We will support the United Kingdom Government's desire to tackle global poverty, especially in Africa, and the Government's commitment to reverse climate change. Work on both those areas will continue well beyond the summit, but the Gleneagles summit rightly provides a focal point for those issues. It provides a tremendous opportunity to generate momentum for lasting change. The Scottish Executive and the United Kingdom Government support the right of people to lobby, in a peaceful way, the world leaders who will visit Scotland. We will be pleased to welcome legitimate campaigners to our country and to allow them the facility to express their views. We will support the many organisations that are planning to use the summit as an opportunity to showcase all that is good about our country. We want people here and elsewhere to recognise that Scotland is
"the best small country in the world".
We want people to be inspired to visit Scotland, to come here to do business or to study and to live here, too.
I hope that members of all parties in the Parliament will stand with us as we work to ensure that the Gleneagles summit brings lasting benefits to the people of Scotland and to those people across the world who experience far more challenging situations than we could ever imagine.
In July this year, the G8 summit will be held in Scotland. Personally, I am happy about that, not only because the world will get to see how beautiful Scotland is, but because the people of Scotland will be able to show the world what they think of the leaders who make up the G8. The First Minister, Jack McConnell, once described G8 members as "the top table". He was not far wrong. These jokers get to sit at the world's top table and feast, while the rest of the world sits below the table waiting for the crumbs to fall and hoping to receive some sustenance.
At this year's summit, there will be a high-profile make poverty history campaign, which we all support. The summit will follow on from the terrible, devastating effects of the south-east Asian tsunami, which has focused the eyes of the world on our so-called leaders. Ordinary people have dug deep to help their sisters and brothers throughout the world. The focus will be on Africa, on civil war, on starvation, on war in Iraq, on weapons of mass destruction, on environmental destruction—[Interruption.]
Order.
Thank you, Presiding Officer.
On all those fronts, the vulnerable on this planet have taken the brunt.
Under such very current pressures, the G8 public relations machine will no doubt tell us how the G8 leaders will deal with those issues. They will claim that the G8 will make poverty history. Many folk out there who want a better, healthier world might want to feel reassured. However, poverty is not a new phenomenon and nor is the G8, so why is our world spiralling deeper and deeper into disaster despite the fact that these geezers have been meeting for years? What have they done for the world so far?
I will tell members what the G8 leaders have done. The socialists are here for today's debate to highlight how some world leaders have acted in tandem with the multinationals. The world has been raped and pillaged of everything, from oil to diamonds, so that those at the top table—and their buddies—can prop another cushion under their gold-plated, fat backsides. Let us not kid ourselves that G8 members are caring and compassionate. The folk who dug deep for the tsunami or who drew attention to, and collected money for, the relief of poverty across the globe are the ones whom we should celebrate.
Let us take a look at who these G8 leaders are. Japan's Koizumi is pro-business and pro-privatisation—[Interruption.] Members on the Tory benches may well cheer. At least they align themselves honestly; this lot on the Executive benches pretend.
Germany's Schröder is for big business and is pro-war. France's Chirac is pro-nuclear weapons, pro-big business, anti-trade union and pro-privatisation. Russia's Putin is pro-war, anti-human rights, anti-free speech and anti-democracy. He presides over hideous and continuing brutality in Chechnya. He is corrupt to the core. Canada's Martin is a multimillionaire tax avoider, union buster, environmental lawbreaker, social services cutter, private finance champion—[Interruption.]
Order.
Italy's Berlusconi is a multimillionaire and flogger of public services. He has been under investigation for everything from fraud to corruption and bribery, but has got out of it by changing the law to protect himself. America's Bush is pro-war, pro-big business, anti-environment, anti-gay, anti-women, anti-trade unions, pro-nuclear weapons and pro-death sentence.
Britain's Blair is pro-war, pro-big business, anti-environment—[Interruption.] Presiding Officer, do you mind?
Blair is anti-environment, anti-trade union and a liar. [Interruption.] Presiding Officer, I must complain about the decibel levels.
Order.
The whole lot of G8 leaders are out for themselves and out for their pals. It is not in their best interests to eradicate poverty. They have blood on their hands. They know that, members know that and those who will converge around Gleneagles know that. It bothers me that many politicians and less responsible sections of the media have set their focus on riots and violence. If they want violence, they will find it not in the minds of protesters but in the actions of the G8 and their big-business pals who attack the planet, push people aside and put greed before need. The talk of water cannons, rubber bullets and even ground-to-air missiles is a diversion. A frenzy has been whooped up to divert attention from the real issues. The First Minister should not kid himself or the public that the G8 will end poverty. The G8 is the problem, not the solution.
As a child, when I was fed my dinner at night with my brothers, my mother or father would tell me, "If you don't eat your dinner, you're wasting it, when there are children starving across the world." In my childlike mind, I imagined how I who had enough could send that food to all those children. It turns out that, for every £1 that we send in aid, £3 is owed in debt repayments. Under those circumstances, had I sent my dinner across the world, the child in Africa who received it would have had to put gravy on it, put silver service with it, give me a tip and send it straight back. That is what the G8 has done for us. It was like that then, and it is like that now.
If the G8 is so good, so kind and so righteous, why must it meet behind a security shield? When the G8 leaders say that they will make poverty history, they lie and millions die. As Martin Luther King said, a lie cannot last for ever. I hope that the G8 cannot last for ever. I hope that protest worldwide will expose the G8 and bring about its downfall, rather than the downfall of the planet.
I ask that members support the motion in my name, support the right to protest and reject the G8.