Make Poverty History
Good morning. The first item of business today is a debate on motion S2M-2240, in the name of Nicola Sturgeon, on the campaign to make poverty history, and three amendments to the motion. I call Nicola Sturgeon to speak to and move the motion.
Before I speak to the motion, I take this opportunity to convey my condolences—and, I am sure, those of the Parliament as a whole—to the families and friends of those who so tragically lost their lives in the adverse weather conditions of the past 48 hours.
The horror of the tsunami and its aftermath will live on for a long time in the minds of everyone who has watched the disaster unfold on our television screens since boxing day. However, the impact—physical and psychological, immediate and long term—on those who were directly affected is almost impossible to comprehend. Up to 200,000 people are dead, 500,000 people are injured, 1 million people are homeless, entire communities have been wiped out and livelihoods have been destroyed. In total, 6 million human beings are in need of aid and assistance.
I think that all of us would agree that the response of the world to the utter devastation has been tremendous. In terms of the money that has been donated and the pledges that have been made, the response has been quick and enormous. Perhaps most notably, it has been led not by the great and the good, but by the public. Ordinary people across the world feel enormous and overwhelming sympathy for and a deep sense of solidarity with the people whose lives have been shattered.
In such dreadful circumstances, the sense of wanting to do something to help—no matter how small or seemingly insignificant—is a basic human response. In a world that is so often divided—and divided in so many ways, including by war, poverty, religion and culture—we should all take some small comfort from the sense of shared humanity that has found its voice in the response to this dreadful tragedy.
If the world response has first and foremost been a popular movement, as is the case, the people of our country—the people of Scotland—can rightly claim to have been up there in the vanguard. As we heard yesterday, the Disasters Emergency Committee's appeal is on course to raise £20 million in Scotland alone.
There have been examples of quite remarkable individual and corporate donations: Tom Hunter, the Souter Charitable Trust and the Royal Bank of Scotland are all worthy of mention. However, when I met aid agencies last week, I learned that the vast bulk of the money that has been collected has come in small donations from the less well-off. One of the challenges for politicians around the world is to match that spirit of generosity. Of course, countries can do so by way of direct Government aid. I am pleased that the United Kingdom Prime Minister is now talking in terms of hundreds of millions of pounds of aid rather than the much smaller sums that the Government initially promised.
In that regard, two things are absolutely vital. The first is that the aid that the Governments of the world's richest nations are pledging must be new money and not money that is diverted from the many other humanitarian crises that blight our planet. The second is that the promises that have been made must be kept. Recent experience points to the fact that pledges do not always translate into aid delivered. Exactly one year ago to the day that the tsunami struck in the Indian ocean, an earthquake devastated Bam in Iran. On that day, 40,000 people died. Although the amount of aid pledged by foreign Governments was $1.1 billion, only $17.5 million has been delivered to date. That cannot be allowed to be the experience this time: all the aid that has been promised must be delivered. The United Nations should be prepared to name any country that reneges on its commitment.
Pressing for generous and effective Government aid is not the only way in which politicians can help. We can also lead by example as individuals. I am delighted that the Parliament has made it possible for donations to be made through the payroll. The Parliament should promote payroll giving, as that method of giving ensures that the tax on donations also goes to the charities concerned. I know that many of us will already have made private donations to the relief fund, but I hope that many of us will also consider payroll donations, as that is the best and most sustainable form of giving.
Of course, the focus of those who are working on the ground in south-east Asia is already turning from immediate relief to the long-term reconstruction of the affected countries. Scotland should do as much as we possibly can to help in that process.
One obvious and potentially important contribution that we could make is in helping to rebuild the shattered fishing industries in the affected countries. We know that many of the communities that were hardest hit were heavily dependent on fishing. Although many of the fishermen who were at sea when the tsunami struck have, I believe, survived the disaster, the infrastructure of their industries was badly damaged. For example, 80 per cent of the fishing vessels along the Sri Lankan coast were damaged, many of them beyond repair.
As one of Europe's leading fishing nations, Scotland is ideally placed to help in that reconstruction effort. As we know, the Scottish fishing industry has offered to provide advice and training, to help replace or repair equipment and, if appropriate, to donate boats from the Scottish fleet that would otherwise be decommissioned. I welcome the Executive's announcement yesterday of a fishing task force.
Fishing is just one example of how Scotland might be able to help, but there are many other examples of Scottish skills, resources and expertise that could prove useful in the reconstruction effort. Of course, the help that is provided must be driven by the assessment of what is needed in the affected countries. Identifying the resources that are available in Scotland and matching them with what is needed and where is a big task and it is essential that it is properly co-ordinated.
The secondment of Executive staff to help aid agencies in Scotland is welcome, as are the other measures that the First Minister outlined yesterday. In addition to that, when I met aid agencies last week, we discussed the advantages of having a standing emergency unit in the Executive that could co-ordinate a unified Scottish response, not just to this but to all global emergencies. The suggestion merits further consideration for the longer term.
The tsunami was a terrible and shocking natural disaster, the impact of which will be felt for a long time to come. However, as the First Minister said yesterday,
"a man-made disaster happens"
in the world's poorest countries
"every day."—[Official Report, 12 January 2005; c 13359.]
Every week, 200,000 people, 30,000 of whom are children, die unnecessarily because of poverty.
As many of the aid agencies have pointed out, when natural disasters such as the tsunami strike, the poorest people are very often the hardest hit. Many of the communities that have been most affected by this disaster were already poor, isolated and vulnerable. That is why the distress that we have all felt in the days since the wave hit in Asia must be turned into a clear demand for action.
The global community has signed up to the millennium development goals of halving poverty and hunger, providing education for all, improving standards of health and halting the spread of killer diseases such as HIV and AIDS. There is absolutely no doubt that those goals are achievable if the political will exists.
However, at the current rate of progress, most of those goals will not be met. For example, the first target, which is to enrol all girls in primary and secondary education by this year, has already been missed. The price for failing to meet those goals will be enormous. If current trends continue, there will be 247 million more people in sub-Saharan Africa living on less than $1 a day by 2015 and 45 million more children will have died—that is equivalent to 225 tsunamis.
This year, 2005, presents the leaders of the richest countries in the world with an opportunity to change that course and to lift millions of people worldwide out of poverty. At the G8 summit here in Scotland, the issues of trade justice, aid and debt relief will all be up for discussion, but it is up to people the world over to ensure that what is delivered this year amounts to more than just the same old warm words. The time for talking has long since passed. What is needed now is tangible action, with measurable progress to show for it.
That includes action on trade. The hard truth is that the developed world preaches free trade but does not practise it. While the poorest countries in the world are pressured relentlessly to open up their markets, the United States and the European Union use subsidies, tariffs and restrictive rules in jealously protecting their own interests. It is essential that the trade playing field is levelled. We want fair trade, not just free trade, to give the world's least developed countries the chance to help themselves.
Will Ms Sturgeon go a bit further and inform me about her thinking on the paradox whereby Egypt and Kenya grow fruit and vegetables for the UK, the fourth richest country in the world, while people on the same continent are starving to death?
As I have said, the developed world preaches free trade but, as we know, free trade is not applied to some of the poorest countries that would benefit from it—Jamie Stone gives two examples. Let us consider some of the disaster-hit areas in south Asia. Half Sri Lanka's export earnings come from clothes, but high tariffs are pricing that country's industry out of the EU and US markets. If those restrictions were lifted, the boost to the Sri Lankan economy would be enormous, which would enable that country to do much more to help itself rebuild its shattered communities and economy. That is the type of action that we must focus on demanding from the countries that will gather at Gleneagles later this year.
We need action not just on trade justice; we must address debt repayment, too. The immediate moratorium for the countries that were hit by the tsunami is welcome, but I do not think that it is enough. Cancelling the debt of the 32 poorest countries in the world would cost rich nations around a £1 per person per year—less than the price of a cup of coffee or a Sunday newspaper.
As important as debt relief is, however, it should not replace direct aid. One of the most urgent priorities of the make poverty history campaign must be to get the aid levels of the richest countries up to the UN target of 0.7 per cent of national income as soon as possible. Of the 22 biggest aid donors in the world, only five currently meet that target. It is of more than passing interest to note that all of them are small countries. Top of the list is Norway, which this year will celebrate 100 years of independence—there might just be a lesson in that for us in Scotland. None of the G8 countries has ever met the UN target, however, and only five of them have timetables in place to do so. The UK, to its credit, is one of those countries, but its target date is 2013, which is eight years down the line. The US—the richest country in the world—does not even have a target date.
Gordon Brown has recently been talking about a new Marshall plan and I think that his intentions are laudable. However, the hard fact is that, whereas in the years immediately after the second world war the United States spent 2 per cent of its national income on the Marshall plan, it currently spends less than 0.2 per cent on international aid. On current trends, it will take the US until 2040 to meet the UN target. I do not think that that is good enough. The speed of progress must be accelerated if the millennium development goals are to stand any chance of being met.
Although we in this Parliament are—unfortunately, in my view—unable to have a direct influence, we should nevertheless be prepared to speak out loudly and clearly. We should demand a commitment from the UK Government to meet the UN target before the end of this decade and to put pressure on others to do so, too. That would be a powerful message to send from the Scottish Parliament as Scotland prepares to host the G8. The challenge of tackling global poverty cannot be neatly slotted into boxes marked "devolved" and "reserved". It is a moral issue: it is about life and death and about right and wrong. We all have a duty to speak out.
It is often trite to talk about historic opportunities but, this year, there is a glimmer of hope that something real might at last be done to help the poorest people on our planet. However, that will happen only if world leaders are given no room for manoeuvre. We in the Parliament can play our part and I hope that we will take the opportunity to do so.
I move,
That the Parliament expresses sympathy and support for the individuals, families and countries devastated by the effects of the tsunami; congratulates the people of Scotland for their magnificent efforts in collecting money and supplies to help ease the immediate plight of those affected and encourages all MSPs to make a payroll donation of one day's pay to the appeals; recognises that long-term support is needed to restore the infrastructure of the countries of South East Asia and that Scotland is well placed to assist in this vital work; calls for a summit of Scottish aid agencies and other interested parties to be organised to discuss and co-ordinate such activities; recognises that more than 200,000 people die of preventable causes every week and that more assistance by the richer countries is needed to tackle global poverty, and supports the Make Poverty History campaign which seeks to remind the member countries which make up the G8 of their responsibilities to the rest of the world and to demand that they take action on debt repayments, trade agreements and aid assistance to prevent people dying because of starvation and poverty.
I am glad that we have the opportunity to reflect further on this important issue. The terrible catastrophe that has wrought such destruction in coastal communities from Kenya to Malaysia has been of almost incomprehensible proportions. Having said that, I am glad that Nicola Sturgeon chose to open her speech by referring to the natural disaster that has occurred in our own country over the past 48 hours. I echo her remarks, as I am sure everyone in the chamber would wish to do. Our thoughts and good wishes go out to those who have been affected, in particular the MacPherson and Campbell families, who have been so dreadfully bereaved.
The tsunami in south-east Asia is a global disaster, which has rightly provoked a global response. In Scotland, there is a very real and discernible feeling of shared grief—a sense of solidarity with our fellow human beings across the world and, more important, an aspiration that we should and must do something to help those whose lives and communities have been ripped apart. I am sure that all members will join me in expressing our deep sympathy and condolences to those who have lost loved ones and to those who are living with the terrible effects of the tragedy in other ways. In particular, I am eager that we should remember the millions of children who have been affected, many of whom have been orphaned or separated from their families.
While we have been shocked by the almost biblical proportions of the disaster, we have also been reassured by the magnificent response of the Scottish people. They have dug deep into their pockets and they have offered not just their compassion but their time and their skills. They have used their legendary inventiveness to come up with creative solutions to contribute to the relief effort. The Scottish public are on target to have donated around £20 million. The Scotland-based charities that I have visited this week tell me that they are overwhelmed by the unprecedented response.
The whole of Scotland seems to feel a collective desire to help. No shop counter seems complete without a collecting tin. On hogmanay, a hastily organised collection by the City of Edinburgh Council amassed thousands of pounds from the revellers who had come to enjoy what Edinburgh had to offer. That groundswell was mirrored by Rangers and Celtic football clubs—old rivals acting in unison. Such generosity of spirit is being replicated across Scotland. I am proud of how we as a nation have responded to the disaster so far. The response from the business community, which has given to the appeal so generously, is also to be commended.
Those donations will make a real difference to people in the communities that have been affected by the disaster. In particular, I very much welcomed Tom Hunter's pledge to help to rebuild the schools that were hit by the disaster; that effort will help to restore some normality to the lives of the children and will provide them with the education that is so important in the fight against poverty.
I have been closely following the exceptional efforts of Scottish Water. The day after the tsunami hit, when most of us were still thinking about what we could do, Scottish Water was already working in collaboration with the Department for International Development and arranging for emergency supplies to be sent out to the devastated Maldives. Since then, Scottish Water has also donated five standby generators. Those generators are surplus to requirement in Scotland, but each of them has the capacity to generate enough electricity to power a field hospital in Asia.
The important task now is to ensure that the cash that has been collected is turned into practical help on the ground, not only providing immediate relief to the people who are suffering, but contributing to the long-term reconstruction efforts.
We in government have an important role to play in supporting the efforts of the Scotland-based charities that have the expertise and determination to take on that enormous task. In the days following the disaster, I met a number of Scottish international aid organisations to hear about how they were responding and to discuss how best the Executive could support their efforts. When time was of the essence, that productive exchange enabled us to identify ways in which we could work together immediately to complement the work of the organisations and the UK Government.
In the short term, the Scottish Executive has provided the charities with staff to give them extra support—a simple solution that has freed up resources for the emergency work and helped to ensure that the people with expertise can continue the vital work of supporting projects in other countries that are not affected by the tsunami. So far our civil servants have been helping the British Red Cross, the Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund and the Mercy Corps. I know that the charities have found the help invaluable, as with previous secondments to a number of such organisations. In the medium term, we will continue to support their efforts through secondments, providing information technology specialists and administrative staff where they are needed.
My colleagues and I are committed to maintaining a dialogue with Scottish charities so that we are well placed to respond to their needs. In the longer term, my officials are convening a working group with representatives of the international aid agencies based in Scotland to consider crisis responses, so that in the future when tragedies occur we can respond as quickly and appropriately as possible. It is perhaps an irony of the situation that that work was under way before the tragedy struck; we had discussed it with the aid agencies at the end of 2004. The need to do that kind of work has been demonstrated starkly by the events of the Christmas and new year holidays.
We also stand ready to provide further assistance to the relief effort as it becomes clearer what particular skills are needed. So far, for example, the Scottish Executive's chief medical officer has been collating Scottish offers of specialist medical help for the World Health Organisation. The Executive made an early offer to second senior specialist medical personnel and it can meet that commitment immediately if it is called on to do so. Similarly, our police force is identifying forensic and other experts who could be deployed to the region.
We acknowledge that rebuilding the communities affected by the tsunami is a long-term challenge. Thought needs to be given to what distinctive contribution Scotland can make to the international aid effort. Over the coming months, we hope to identify other areas in which Scotland can make a special contribution. In particular, we are keen to see whether we can assist in rebuilding the education provision in a number of countries. We are opening up discussion with agencies to see whether there is a way in which our education officials can help with rebuilding the education infrastructure or whether recently retired teachers can provide teaching services on the ground in some areas.
Many children—perhaps millions—have been displaced and many more have been orphaned in this terrible tragedy. A structure to their lives that includes learning and play will be vital to their recovery and the future success and sustainability of the communities in which they live.
I am interested in the point that the minister is advancing about individuals from Scotland offering their services to support the aid and reconstruction effort in the affected communities. Is she satisfied that the public are sufficiently aware of the mechanisms by which they can volunteer their services to the Government, because the morass of organisations involved makes it difficult for individuals to see in a focused way how they can contribute? Will she say more about what the Executive can do to assist in that process?
I am delighted to do that. It is important that we remember that in this tragedy, as in all such events, we must respond to the needs of the communities and not try to impose our ideas or structures on them. It is important that we take time to assess what tasks need to be done and what skills are needed to respond. We have been talking to a number of governmental organisations in Scotland, such as within the health service, and we will be talking to local authorities about what role teachers might be able to play once we have a clearer idea of how effective our helping in that way might be.
It is important that we know where the skills are so that they can be deployed. For that reason, I was delighted that we arranged for someone who was seconded from the Scottish Executive to one of the aid agencies about a year ago and who is Sri Lankan to go to Sri Lanka, because she understands the culture and has knowledge of development issues and the network that will make work effective on the ground. We have had a preliminary report back, which has made me think that, in Sri Lanka in particular, education is an area on which we might focus. It is remarkable that the Sri Lankan authorities hope to have their schools back up and running by 20 January, because they understand the importance of putting that kind of structure back into the lives of not just children but the broader community. It would be good if we could support that kind of effort, so it is important that we consider the situation in that way.
While all that effort is going on, we should not forget that the ability of the affected nations to respond to such events is constrained and dictated by how poor they were to begin with. I am by no means the first member in the chamber to note that the world's poorest people are also its most vulnerable—as we have seen in this case—but surely we now have the will and the power to do something about that.
In 2005—the year in which the G8 leaders will meet in Gleneagles to discuss how the wealthiest nations can do more to assist the poorest—we should be mindful that there is a real opportunity to address world poverty. I echo some of the sentiments that have been expressed in the chamber. I am conscious of the lead that the UK Government has taken on the issue and I am sure that we all support the efforts that are being made.
To me, there would be no better memorial to those who have lost their lives than the fact that this terrible disaster might have inspired a spirit of generosity and a will to fight the injustice of global poverty and have provided an impetus to change the world for good.
I move amendment S2M-2240.2, to leave out from "and encourages" to end and insert:
"; notes that the Parliament will facilitate individual payroll donations to the appeals; recognises that long-term support is needed to restore the infrastructure of the countries of South East Asia and that Scotland is well placed to assist in this vital work; notes the meeting of Scottish aid agencies convened by the Scottish Executive to discuss and co-ordinate such activities; notes the continuing dialogue with Scottish aid agencies during this crisis; recognises that more than 200,000 people die of preventable causes every week and that more assistance is needed by the richer countries to tackle global poverty; supports the campaign to make poverty history, and notes the work being undertaken by the Executive with the Scottish aid agencies and others in the run-up to the G8 summit to support action on debt repayments, trade agreements and aid assistance to prevent people dying because of starvation and poverty."
As we have heard in the chamber today and yesterday, the tsunami crisis left hundreds of thousands dead and country after country around the Indian ocean devastated. Since the boxing day disaster, there has been an unparalleled global outpouring of generosity, in which Scotland can be proud of its role. As we heard earlier, it is estimated that £20 million will be donated by the Scottish public to aid disaster relief. We should all join in congratulating the Scottish public on their generosity.
I hope that this debate can be consensual and that we can come together and think about what we can do not just in response to the immediate crisis but to tackle the underlying crisis of poverty, as Nicola Sturgeon and Patricia Ferguson outlined. The crisis gives us a moment to reflect on the state of the world and to consider how we act in times of crisis. In particular, it gives us a chance to reflect on the huge injustices in our world.
It is clear that the reason why this natural disaster took such an appalling toll of lives is the poverty in the countries that it hit. Disasters happen, whether earthquakes, mudslides, volcanoes, hurricanes or flooding and high winds, which we have seen in Scotland in the past few days, but what made the difference in this case and caused the appalling loss of life in the countries around the Indian ocean was the poverty in those countries. That poverty meant that there was no early warning system and, even if there had been, there was no communication system. There was a lack of health infrastructure, transport infrastructure and decent housing, which is why the natural calamity became such a massive human disaster. As previous speakers have said, we have to take action to tackle that poverty. Nicola Sturgeon outlined how the millennium development goals will not be attained at the current rate of progress. We need to achieve those goals.
I pay tribute to the organisations that have been campaigning on and raising awareness of those issues—in particular, the Jubilee Scotland coalition, which has been campaigning for several years on debt issues. It is worth reflecting on the fact that the countries that have been worst hit by the disaster—Indonesia, Sri Lanka, India, Thailand and the Maldives—pay £23 billion a year in total to rich countries and to international institutions including the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. Indonesia's debt is 73 per cent of its gross domestic product; Sri Lanka's debt is 105 per cent of its GDP. Until that crushing burden of debt—much of it odious debt that was incurred when the countries were under dictatorships—is removed, there can be no progress for those countries.
We have heard how the trade rules are rigged against such countries. The trade justice campaign has done a great deal to raise awareness of how the rules must be changed to benefit poorer countries, so that we have a system of fair trade that mutually reinforces relationships rather than a system of exploitation. As Patricia Ferguson said, in this year of the UK's presidencies of the G8 and the EU, we must all move towards a system of international trade that is based on fairness.
How does Mark Ballard feel about the fact that, at the very time when the implications of the disaster were registering across the world, the EU was putting in place further tariff barriers, against Sri Lanka in particular?
There are a whole range of tariff barriers that discriminate against such countries—for example, in textiles. Even more significant is the way in which the common agricultural policy works to export food surpluses. We need to tackle the way in which the CAP discriminates against developing countries.
Will Mark Ballard give way?
I am sorry, but I have to move on.
Overseas development aid has been mentioned as the key to ensuring that those countries develop subsistence systems and agricultural systems that can meet the needs of their populations. The basic transport and health infrastructures must be put in place. In that context, I am pleased that Gordon Brown has, at last, set a timetable for delivering on the commitment of contributing 0.7 per cent of British GDP to overseas development aid. I would have liked the deadline to have been sooner, but the fact that the commitment has been made and the timetable has been set is of great credit to Gordon Brown. We must encourage all the countries of the G8 and all the rich countries of the world to make a similar commitment and set a similar timetable. I applaud Gordon Brown for calling on other countries to do that.
However, as Patricia Ferguson said, we also need to think about what Scotland can do. I am pleased to hear of the establishment of the working group and its remit, which she outlined, to talk about how all the institutions of Scottish society can act to provide aid in such disasters. For example, the group should consider the role of Scottish Water, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and Scottish military forces in delivering humanitarian aid. We need to raise awareness in Scotland of development issues; more public engagement is needed, including more development education in schools. That will sow the seeds for the future and a real response to such crises.
I draw to the attention of Mark Ballard and other members the fact that Learning and Teaching Scotland has produced a teaching pack that helps teachers to explain what has happened in south-east Asia and how schools can react to it. The pack will, I hope, help young people to come to terms with the enormity of what they are seeing on their television screens. That will be the first of many such projects and it exemplifies what Mark Ballard is asking for.
I thank Patricia Ferguson for that. That initiative is important and very welcome in moving from the immediate shock of the disaster to something for the long term.
The world must come together to tackle global poverty. In this year of its G8 and EU presidencies, Britain has a unique opportunity to push for meaningful action to tackle debt and trade injustice and to provide more and better aid. The call for action has been made by international aid charities under the banner of the make poverty history campaign and was recently echoed by the UK chancellor, Gordon Brown, in a speech in Edinburgh. I ask the whole Parliament to unite behind the demands of the make poverty history campaign and I hope that members will support the Scottish Green Party amendment as part of the process of ensuring that out of this disaster comes an international resolve to tackle the underlying crisis of global poverty.
I move amendment S2M-2240.4, to insert at end:
"; and believes that such action by the international community must seek to take the final historic step in delivering full debt relief for the debt burdened countries and be based on the principles of fair trade relationships between rich and poor countries, through ensuring that international trade policy is designed to help the poorest countries and the removal of unjust tariffs and trade barriers, and supports the call for a commitment and a timetable for the achievement of the UN target of 0.7% of GDP in overseas development assistance."
The tsunami has been described as the biggest natural disaster in the history of the human race. It is difficult for us to comprehend the scale of the disaster, which has already killed around 150,000 people and for which the final death toll may never be known. Those who managed to survive the tsunami face the continuing difficulties of its aftermath, with life-threatening problems caused by lack of shelter, clean water, sanitation and food. If there is any positive aspect of this human tragedy, it is the response of the many people throughout the world who have seen the desperate plight of their fellow human beings and tried to help in whatever way they can.
The motion and the amendments refer to the aid agencies, which are doing valuable work both in running fundraising appeals and in ensuring that the funds that are raised are used to help the victims of the disaster. The response from the people of Britain has been generous, and the donation per head of population from the people of Scotland has been even greater than that for Britain as a whole. However, the amount that has been given so far by the British Government is only about half of what has been given by the people of Britain and it falls far short of what has been given by other countries such as Australia and Norway, which have smaller populations. Therefore, I hope that the Government will contribute more to help out with the emergency relief that is required immediately and with the longer-term reconstruction and development programmes that will be needed for many years to come.
I agree with the member that the British Government should match the donation that has been made by the UK public. Jack Straw has said that that is likely and our job is to put pressure on the Government to ensure that that will happen.
I agree with Pauline McNeill and I welcome that statement. It would be churlish of anyone not to welcome the contribution that the British Government has already made. However, we must ensure that its commitment is kept and that the figure is increased. There is certainly no room for complacency, bearing in mind the scale of the disaster and given the British Government's contribution compared with the contributions of other countries, some of which have smaller populations than ours. I also hope that the financial assistance that is given by the Government will be additional funding and will not be simply a diversion of resources from other areas of need, such as Darfur and other parts of Africa.
The tsunami has been described as a natural disaster caused by an undersea earthquake over which man had no control, but there are many other disasters throughout the world over which we have control. Indeed, some of them are man-made disasters caused by war, environmental destruction and the inequalities between rich and poor. The motion and the amendments refer to more than 200,000 people who die of preventable causes every week.
Many of those people are direct or indirect victims of the international arms trade. Some of them are killed by weapons of war; others are killed by malnutrition and disease because too many Governments spend far too much on weapons of war and far too little on feeding the hungry and eradicating disease. Willy Brandt's commission pointed all that out more than a third of a century ago, and the United Nations set a target whereby the richest countries should contribute at least 0.7 per cent of their gross national product to help the poorest countries. Yet here we are, all these years later, and many countries, including Britain, have not yet reached that UN target for aid to the poorest countries. Indeed, the debt payments of many of the poorest countries are now so crippling that there is a net outflow of resources from the poorest countries to the richest instead of the other way round.
This week, Gordon Brown is visiting Africa and I hope that his visit will help to highlight the desperate problems that are faced by many people on that continent. I also hope that it will help to ensure that the British Government will use its presidency of the G8 and the EU to ensure that more effective action is taken on debt, trade and aid in order to tackle global poverty.
Next month, some members of the Parliament, including me, will participate in a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association delegation to Africa. The links between Scotland and Africa go back many years through various activities. Some of those, such as education, have undoubtedly helped the people of Africa, but other activities, particularly many economic activities, have exploited the people of Africa, so we owe them something in return. Therefore, I hope that our visit will help to strengthen and reforge the links between Africa and Scotland in such a way that they bring about closer co-operation between the people of Scotland and those of Africa, so that we learn from each other to our mutual benefit.
I hope that one of those future benefits for the people of Africa will be that they will be better equipped to develop their own resources and help to make poverty a thing of the past.
I move amendment S2M-2240.3, to leave out from "calls for a summit" to end and insert:
"; therefore welcomes the recent meeting between the Scottish Executive, aid agencies and other interested parties; recognises that more than 200,000 people die of preventable causes every week and that more assistance by the richer countries is needed to tackle global poverty; notes that the Make Poverty History campaign is a timely reminder that the richer countries must take more effective action on debt repayments, trade agreements and aid, which are inextricably linked; demands that, if the poorest countries are to be lifted out of abject poverty, the G8 and the European Union (EU) must require governments of countries in receipt of economic and structural aid to do all in their power to ensure its fair and equitable distribution, and reminds the G8 and EU of their responsibility to ensure that their policies are not ultimately rendered ineffective by the actions of national and international organisations which have prospered under the current unfair international trade, debt and aid conditions."
I welcome this morning's opportunity to highlight the Scottish response to the tsunami disaster in south-east Asia. The unprecedented scale of that tragedy claimed an estimated 150,000 lives and left millions homeless. The most affected areas were in Indonesia, with at least 94,000 people dead and almost 400,000 sheltering in scattered refugee camps across the province.
In Thailand more than 5,000 people are believed to have died. In Sri Lanka, more than 30,000 people have been killed and more than 800,000 made homeless in the southern and eastern coastal regions. It is a truly horrendous picture and our thoughts and prayers must be with those who have lost loved ones and the survivors who are left homeless.
It must be particularly difficult for those who have relatives in the area—whether residents or visitors on holiday—and who have not yet received word as to whether those relatives are safe. This must be a desperately difficult time for people in that situation.
The response from around the world has been overwhelming and, as we have heard this morning, Scots have been at the forefront of giving, with an estimated £20 million of personal donations. We have seen great generosity from high-profile business figures such as Tom Hunter, who has given £1 million, and Sir Jack Harvie, who has given £50,000. Those who have given so generously are an example to us all and I am sure that many others will be following their lead.
However, it is not just in donations of money that Scotland has rallied to the aid of those in south-east Asia. Scottish companies have given practical assistance. Members will be aware that I have not been uncritical of Scottish Water as an organisation, but I must applaud that company for its response in providing bottled water to the Maldives, and in providing personnel who have the expertise to address the vital question of clean water supplies in the affected areas.
All members of the Parliament with whom I have spoken, including those in the Conservative party, have been generous in supporting the appeal. I know that some have made a public pledge to donate one day's salary and there is an argument that that sets an example for the rest of the country to follow. However, for many of us, the question of how much we give to charity is essentially a private matter. How much and how often we give to various appeals is a matter between ourselves and our consciences. Not everyone wants to parade their generosity publicly and we should respect those who hold such convictions. I have no higher authority for that than our Lord himself and his sermon on the mount. I quote from chapter 6 of the gospel of St Matthew:
"But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth: that thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly."
One positive aspect of the disaster has been the way in which it has focused attention on the whole issue of the third world and poverty. Members who have spoken so far have all drawn attention to that. I pay particular tribute to the make poverty history campaign, which is campaigning to eradicate third world debt. We in the Conservative party share the objectives of that campaign and seek a world free from the scandal of avoidable poverty.
Although we have been impressed at the response to the tragedy in south-east Asia, there is an on-going tragedy of mass poverty throughout the world, especially in Africa. Thirty thousand children will die today from easily preventable diseases. That is why we must commit to dealing with the fundamental problems that cause poverty. There are three aspects to that: aid, debt and trade.
My party has a commitment to increasing the foreign aid budget with a target of achieving the United Nations target of 0.7 per cent of gross national income being spent on foreign aid by 2013. However, foreign aid should also be spent more effectively. Too often in the past, money has gone into the wrong projects, or it has been diverted into the pockets of dictators rather than reaching the people who are in need. Aid needs to be more effective and better focused.
Secondly, we also have to deal with non-repayable debt. In some cases, debts should be written off altogether; in other cases, we should consider the freezing or rescheduling of debt.
Thirdly, we have to address free trade and protectionism. In this, we differ slightly from some of what the make poverty history and trade justice campaigns have said. They say that the problem that faces the third world is free trade, but we contend that the problem is exactly the opposite. It is a lack of free trade and a lack of access to markets for third world producers that is at the root of many of the problems. It is the protectionism of the countries in the west, not free trade, that helps to cause the problems of the countries in the third world. That means that we must work to reduce trade barriers and open up free and fair trade across the world.
That will inevitably mean some uncomfortable decisions for politicians here. If we allow additional competition to home-based producers, there might be adverse effects on some of our industries. No doubt loud voices will speak out against that. It is ironic that some of the voices that shout the loudest in support of third world development are the first to complain when companies here talk about outsourcing jobs in Scotland to lower-paid economies elsewhere. We have to be consistent in our approach and accept that there might be pain for us if we take our responsibilities seriously.
In that context, I believe that the attitude of the EU and the US in imposing a tariff on clothes from Sri Lanka and imposing new tariffs on goods from Thailand, even since the tsunami disaster, has been deplorable. EU officials have said that they want to shut down a flourishing trade in Phuket where traders are buying and selling coumarin from China. That substance is already the target of an EU export tariff. On 31 December, when Thailand was pleading for international aid and had counted 4,400 dead, the EU published a judgment that all coumarin sent from Thailand would be treated as bootleg Chinese imports. That is precisely the sort of attitude that we have to change.
Those of us living in Scotland often complain about our climate. Certainly there has been extraordinary weather during the past few days, but that is notable because it is so unusual. Our dark winter days and our wet weather are what we usually complain about, but we should be thankful that we do not live in a part of the world that is subject to the sort of natural disasters that we have seen in south-east Asia and that we live in a part of the world that is generally prosperous and peaceful. That provides all the more reason why we need to be mindful of our responsibilities to our fellow human beings who are less fortunate than ourselves. Let us applaud the generosity of our fellow men and women, who have given so much to the appeal, and let us ensure that we use the opportunity to build a better future for all those who now live in poverty.
The human reaction to the sudden death and destruction on the massive scale that happened around the Indian ocean united people around the globe. Their thoughts and prayers were for the victims: those who perished and those who survived. The almost immediate reaction was to do what they could to help.
Following the immediate shock it became starkly apparent that a major factor in the huge scale of loss of life was, quite simply, poverty. I hope that the emotional shockwave of the event galvanises the global community to think about running the world in a fairer and more inclusive way. Third world debt cancellation or restructuring must happen. In yesterday's debate John Swinney was gracious enough to acknowledge Gordon Brown's long-term commitment to that. Perhaps we will now begin to see some momentum develop, but continuing pressure will be required to make that happen.
As other members have said, if the developed world met the UN target of allocating 0.7 per cent of national income to aid, that would be a good start. If that aid were delivered in ways that were truly effective in helping underdeveloped countries to help themselves rather than in ways that can almost constitute indirect support for the economic development of the donor country, it would really begin to make a difference. It is even more fundamentally important that rich countries start to do business with underdeveloped countries on a just and equitable basis. It is salutary to remember that the loss of life to the tsunami is matched weekly by preventable deaths in Africa.
Important points were made in the Parliament yesterday about what constitutes helpful help and what does not. The most useful commodity that ordinary people can give in the immediate aftermath is money to buy relevant supplies and expertise. People in Scotland and throughout the world gave swiftly and generously. As Stewart Stevenson and one or two other members said in the members' business debate last night, where it is possible to buy supplies locally, or as near locally as possible, that puts money into the local economy and adds to the help.
Different kinds of help will be needed later on and donors must be sensitive to recipients' needs. For example, a decommissioned modern deep-sea trawler is probably of little use as a fishing boat to a fishery that operates very differently from ours, but the boat could be moored or run on to the beach, where it could immediately provide valuable living accommodation or be used as a hospital ship or a classroom while the land is cleared and rebuilding goes on. Some fishing-related help can be given. Nets, or the wherewithal to make them, can be provided, as can basic supplies. Whatever is given must be what is useful and not just what we happen to have. I welcome the task force that will organise helpful help.
The lack of an early warning system around the Indian ocean, in contrast to the sophisticated provision around the Pacific rim, was also highlighted in the debate yesterday evening. Experts tell us that it is difficult to predict whether an earthquake will trigger a tsunami—some large earthquakes do not and some small ones do. Therefore, unfortunately, such early warning systems have to be sophisticated so they are expensive and, again, poverty gets in the way.
A warning is only of use if it is backed by a response system. Who gets told? Who tells who to do what? Careful and objective thought must be given to what is required and what would be effective, but that is well within the art of the possible and such a system should be put in place.
Last week, Menzies Campbell wrote to Jack Straw to urge the United Kingdom Government to help to set up a well-resourced UN rapid reaction disaster relief force. I believe that such a force would be effective and should be set up. It is crucial to get aid in fast in such situations. We saw from the news coverage how essential air support is in getting water, food, temporary shelter and heavy-lifting gear to where it needs to be, but it took four or five days to get that aid organised and on the ground. That is a very long time to wait for basic necessities. The UN is the appropriate body to put together a rapid reaction capability that can reach any part of the globe within hours. I hope that that suggestion is acted on.
Devastation on the scale that we saw on boxing day also requires long-term support to be provided. I reiterate the suggestion that something could be done by the Executive or by the Parliament to facilitate a twinning arrangement between Scottish communities and organisations and identified communities in India or Asia. As the First Minister said yesterday, that sort of arrangement could work well between school communities.
The staying power of such personal involvement is illustrated in my own constituency by an organisation called Books Abroad, which was begun many years ago by a young teacher who was horrified by the lack of books in the African school that he taught in when, as far as I remember, he did voluntary service overseas. When he came back to Scotland, he asked around for donations of books that were to be sent out to Africa. Donated books that were not suitable for school use were sold and the money was used to get textbooks and sets of school reading books. The organisation used to operate out of an old broom cupboard in the Brander Library in Huntly and it was run by one man and a few friends. It now occupies an industrial unit in Rhynie, involves dozens of volunteers and sends out tonnes of carefully selected books all over the world to schools and institutions with which it has built up a continuing relationship.
Community to community support, with its more personal involvement, has a longer shelf life than less specific giving, which—as members have said—tends to wane along with the news coverage as the disaster becomes old news. I believe that a more personal connection can carry with it a healing power for people who have lost so much of their own human networks.
The people and institutions of Scotland, including our own Scottish Executive, have responded generously and appropriately. However, we must continue to work for the most appropriate response—a fairer and more equitable world.
When I lodged a members' business motion on making poverty history on 23 December, I did not think for a moment that the topic would be discussed as quickly as this and in such a dreadful context as the events of boxing day in south-east Asia. Those events are dreadful and it is important that we take full account of the historical significance of the tsunami. Dennis Canavan referred to that. It is perhaps worth bearing it in mind that Noah's flood, as reported in the Bible, is often said by scientists to have been a reflection of the terrible earthquake that took place in Santorini, so within our own culture there is huge historical recognition of the significance of such events.
Given the context, I would have preferred a different format for the debate. We are privileged in the Parliament in having one member, the Presiding Officer, who has unrivalled direct experience of disaster relief. However, we will not be able to hear a speech from him in this debate. That is a matter of considerable regret. My preference would have been for a non-party-political debate that genuinely reflected the shock and sympathy that the people of Scotland have shown.
We need to work out what the people of Scotland expect of us. I think that they expect us to respond as they have responded—with deep sympathy and compassion for those who have died, have been injured or have been orphaned as a result of the tragedy. They want us to articulate their feelings about this terrible tragedy. They want us to do that not by holding a mirror up to Scotland and talking about all the compassion that we are showing. There is a strong sense that we should focus our attention on what has shocked, hurt and upset them—the images that they have been seeing on their television screens and the devastation that has happened. They expect us to make common cause with all the agencies here in Scotland, with UK agencies and the UK Government's efforts and with the efforts of the entire international community in dealing with the immediate after-effects of the tragedy. This is not a time for bickering at the edges of the debate or for deciding whether the nuances of words work in this way or that. This is a time for everybody to say, "We need to do something for these people. We need to work hard to ensure that their immediate needs are met."
We also need to look carefully at what assistance we can provide in the medium and longer term to help all those who need our help—individuals, organisations and Governments—in undertaking the task of reconstruction and in building up the shattered lives of those victims and communities that have survived the tsunami and need assistance from everyone else in the world. It is important that we do that in a genuine spirit of partnership. It is not the correct approach for us to think, "This is what should be given." We have to look at what is needed, and at what will work in those countries, and at the immediate needs that people have and the needs that they will have in rebuilding their lives. Aid should be determined by what people need, not by what people here think that it is appropriate to give, although money is obviously something that can be given and used in an effective way.
I take John Swinney's point that individuals might want to know how they can assist personally by volunteering. However, it is difficult for individuals who are not trained and experienced in disaster relief to assist directly. What is needed is trained personnel who have the skills and experience necessary—medical people, engineers and people who can provide direct assistance and undertake the tasks that have to be done. That is what we should be focusing on. We should also look slightly ahead and focus on the very substantial resources that have been made available. They cannot all be spent immediately, but they can be spent sensibly in the medium term and we have to think about how that money can best be spent, in partnership with people in those countries. We have to think about what our contribution could be in that context.
One of the things that the people of Scotland will expect us to do is to look particularly at the needs of the children and at how we can provide the direct requirements—orphanages, child protection and child support. We can also look at how our support can be given particularly to women in those societies. Women have a really important role in rebuilding the economies, cultures and society of the affected areas.
It is important to reiterate a point that I made yesterday. Whatever we do in the context of dealing with the immediate and medium-term crisis in south-east Asia, we must not forget Africa. We must not forget what making poverty history is all about. It is about dealing with the abject poverty in parts of sub-Saharan Africa in particular. Five or six years ago, I was privileged to visit Kenya. In fact, I was in a place almost adjacent to the place that Gordon Brown visited yesterday, as we saw on our television screens. The extent of urban and rural poverty in sub-Saharan Africa and the combination of poverty, disease and lack of opportunity weigh on the conscience of the world.
If there is something good that can come out of the tsunami disaster, it should be a continuing long-term commitment to doing something about that. I believe that there is a genuine commitment from many people in Scotland to making that commitment and I hope that we all share in that.
It is encouraging that all the members who have spoken and all the motions and amendments support the make poverty history campaign. That is a consensual basis upon which to start the debate.
All in the chamber seek to tackle debt. Debt means money, but it does not just mean money. Historically, we owe many of the affected countries and adjacent countries big time—intellectually, culturally and for the very basis of our civilisation. Financial record keeping started 6,500 years ago in Samaria—in modern Israel, Palestine and Jordan—and banking derives from gifted individuals in Mesopotamia, in modern Iraq. Indeed, the concept of and symbol for zero come from Hindu culture, from the Indian sub-continent, so our debts are historical as well as immediate. By the way, it is no accident that the derivation of the word "pay" comes from the Latin word "pacare", which means to make peace. When we pay our debts, we make peace with those to whom we owe them.
Is not it ironic that we are patting ourselves on the back for all agreeing to back the make poverty history strategy? We heard earlier in the debate that it would take £1 per head per year to tackle third-world debt, and Scotland has given £4 per head in only a few weeks. That gives the context and shows the scale of what we are talking about when we talk about debt—a huge benefit to the third world but a small, almost trivial, price for us in the civilized world. We should keep that thought close to our hearts.
We must not be complacent. We in the developed world are the world's biggest debtors. The United States runs the biggest deficit economy of any, and we are running a deficit that is measured not in hundreds of millions of pounds—as we might end up measuring our support for the countries affected—but in billions of pounds. In other words, what we give back is much less than what we take.
What is money? Why did money come into existence? Well, in the grain stores of Samaria, excess production was put in store to be drawn back down at a later date when it was needed. Money is a way of storing the excess production that we have now for later. We run deficit economies, so we are taking the excess production of third-world countries and building our economic success on their labour. Is not that a thought to carry forward from here?
Do not let us confuse money with help. Money enables help, but it is not help. We have to move rapidly to a position in which local communities that are affected can rebuild for themselves.
Des McNulty introduced the issue of women. I suspect that we do not yet know one thing about the tragedy, which will affect fishing communities in particular. The men were all at sea and survived, but the women and children were on shore and perished. I speak to men when I say that society can continue pretty well satisfactorily with a major cull of males, but it cannot survive a cull of females. That is a simple biological fact that we must be aware of.
Is not the culture, in particular in Indonesia and to a degree in Sri Lanka, based very much on family life, and would not it be somewhat dangerous if we singled out women?
I do not deign to suggest to anyone what their culture should be and I think that Phil Gallie should be aware that, in Indonesia, there are many dozens of entirely different cultures and patterns of family life. It is not for me or anyone else in the chamber to comment on that.
I return to the subject of money in relation to the role of women, particularly in India. The provision of micro-loans to women in India has been one of the most successful ways of empowering communities and individuals and I hope that there will be a focus on introducing such schemes in many of the areas affected by the tsunami. After all, women are the future in a way that men are not.
Indeed, it could be in our own interests to take such an approach. For example, when South Africa moved from apartheid to liberation, the white, western banks would not lend money to people in the squatter areas to allow them to develop and improve their housing. However, it turned out that the people who had least and borrowed least were the most likely to repay their debts. As a result, western banks lost out, to the benefit of indigenous bank developments.
We should not support a programme of rebuilding in the countries that have been affected. Instead, we should learn from the past and build anew, to empower the people in those countries. We should not get too caught up in supporting Governments; it is people that we need to support.
Before I call Jamie Stone, I remind members to stick to their six minutes. If they do not, I will have to lose another back bencher from the list of speakers.
I find it strange how personal contact can bring something home to us. Just before Christmas, a family cousin, Eric, got married. He and his new wife went to Sri Lanka and on boxing day they decided—almost by the grace of God—to go to church, which was up a hill. They did not know what had happened during the service and, when they came out of the church, their hotel had gone. The management, all the staff and the people they had dined with the night before were dead. Knowing the agony that my relations went through—if only for a short time—before they discovered that Eric and his wife were still alive brought home to me what had happened.
Last autumn, a friend of another relation of mine, the Rev Richard Frazer, who is the minister at Greyfriars church here in Edinburgh, came back from teaching in Africa. She told him how, when she joined the school, she could not understand why some of the children had burnt fingers. Later, she found out that the area was so poor and the school was on such a shoestring that it could not afford to buy plastic knives and forks to allow the children to eat their one meal a day. Instead, a group of children would be fed with the school's much smaller set of conventional knives and forks, the cutlery would be washed and the next group would be fed. However, some of the children were so hungry that they were snatching the hot mealies straight off the plate and burning their fingers.
Such personal anecdotes bring home to us the issues that we are discussing this morning. As a result, I thoroughly endorse the comments that members on all sides of the chamber have made in this worthy debate. I particularly endorse the comments that the First Minister, Des McNulty, Nora Radcliffe, Dennis Canavan and other members have made about the importance of maintaining long-term relationships with the affected countries. After all, it is easy to put our hands in our pockets, throw a day's pay or whatever into the bucket and walk away with a clear conscience. Members this morning have made it clear that that is precisely what we must not do. Instead, our involvement must be medium to long term and any proposals that are made and implemented should be accompanied by one-year, two-year, five-year and 10-year audits.
I applaud Stewart Stevenson's speech and believe that his comments on debt are absolutely correct. We should wipe debt out, but what is to prevent it growing again like a cancer? Such debt develops for many reasons, one of which—as Dennis Canavan hinted at—is the arms trade. Menzies Campbell and members of other parties are right to sing off the same hymn sheet in saying that there should be a stronger United Nations. It is wrong for very poor third-world countries to be buying kalashnikovs and other weapons of destruction that they do not and should not need, and the UN has a role in that respect.
At this point, I make an important plea. Once these areas are rebuilt, tourists must go back to them. Indeed, the Pacific Asia Travel Association believes that the road to speedy recovery is to support tourism. PATA's president and chief executive, Mr Peter de Jong, said:
"The human loss of this tragedy is unprecedented. However, the negative impact will only be exacerbated if tourists cancel or postpone their visits. Now more than ever, Indian Ocean countries want you to come visit. Not only will tourism maintain jobs and boost local economies, it will also be a sign of support and solidarity, giving new hope and confidence to those who have begun to rebuild their lives and livelihoods."
I close by returning to my cousin, the Rev Richard Frazer. His congregation now collects plastic knives, forks and plates to send out to this little school in Africa and I fancy that it will continue to do so for years to come. Members have already mentioned the links that schools and communities have made with these countries, but church congregations and families can make the same links. Relationships last best and are strongest when they are formed at the most personal level, and every effort that the Scottish Executive can make to encourage such relationships will be worth while.
I commend the debate, to which it has been a privilege to contribute.
I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate, although I am sure that I reflect all members' views when I say that I wish that we were discussing trade justice and international aid in a different context.
Jamie Stone's opening story illustrates the unexpectedness of and people's shock at what has happened. As we unwrapped presents on Christmas day, who could have known the disaster that lay ahead for the peoples of the Indian ocean and, indeed, for us all? After all, families across Scotland and the rest of the UK have been directly affected by the tragedy. At such times, we can appreciate just how small the world is and how deeply affected we can be by such events.
We were stunned as the full horror unfolded on our television screens and the death toll crept up by thousands hour by hour. The numbers became more than reported statistics; they became real-life horror stories of families and communities that had been wiped out to leave a panorama of devastation, makeshift morgues, burial sites and widespread wreckage. Although, in the first hours of the tragedy, the figures were staggering and disturbing, the scenes that unfolded before us in our living rooms became incomprehensible. It was estimated that 159,000 were dead and that five million people—the population of Scotland—were homeless, displaced and in need of aid. I do not think that we can get to grips with that kind of crisis.
The disaster is extraordinarily tragic and unprecedented in modern times, but the Scottish people's response has also been extraordinary and unprecedented. Indeed, on such a day, we feel proud to be Scottish. Ordinary Scottish people with extraordinary talents and skills have been finding out the best way to provide assistance. From our fishermen to our doctors and health and social service professionals, from people in Government to people in the street, it seems that no one can do enough to help. In the midst of all the devastation, aid workers are telling us how communications are being reinstated and clean water facilities in some areas are now up and running again. There is a slight flicker of light at the end of a very long tunnel. However, as other members have pointed out, there is still a great deal to be done not just in the months but in the years ahead to restructure the textile, tourism and fishing industries in the affected areas.
I take a moment to pay tribute to aid workers not just in south-east Asia but in Scotland and the rest of the UK who, since boxing day, have been working tirelessly and for extraordinarily long hours to co-ordinate efforts.
In the first few days of the tragedy, one of the local shops in my constituency raised the fantastic amount of £1,500 just by putting a bucket next to the till. People were very generous with their contributions. Today, I read a story in my local paper, The Irvine Herald and Kilwinning Chronicle, about an unemployed gentleman who won a radio quiz programme and donated a substantial amount of his winnings. His financial circumstances are such that he could not otherwise have made such a donation, but his first thought on winning was to give money to those affected by the tragedy. Those touching stories reach out to our basic sense of humanity. My colleague Brian Donohoe and I will work with members of our local Asian community and Oxfam Scotland to arrange a fundraising dinner at the Gulab restaurant in Irvine on 13 March. Members who are partial to a curry will find none better than Jack Singh's in Irvine, so I invite them to come along to support our cause. I hope that that little advertisement is acceptable, given that charities are involved.
I listened carefully to the Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport today and to the First Minister's statement yesterday and I am pleased that we are sending out a clear message that Scotland is in this for the long term. Of course, as members have said, we must use the UK presidency of the Council of the European Union and the G8 summit to set out plans for the longer term, not just to deal with the disaster that we are discussing but to tackle wider problems of poverty in the third world, trade justice, debt relief and direct aid.
We can and must use the G8 summit to put pressure on countries that have not yet set targets. The scale of the challenge in Africa and south-east Asia is enormous. I provide one example: in 2004 the Indonesian budget for debt was 10 times its health budget and 33 times its housing budget. Although we welcome the steps that have been taken so far, it is clear that if countries are to rebuild infrastructure in the coming months and years, they must be released from such a burden. The Paris club of creditors is due to meet today and I hope that further progress on the matter can be made.
During the past three weeks, we have witnessed unprecedented generosity of spirit. The Scottish people have shown that we can reach out across continents to offer help and support. We have acknowledged—by donating astonishing amounts—that we can help people who have so little. From despair emerges hope for human progress and a real sense of our duty to others, which we should aim to build on in 2005. Let us work together to send out a message that we want to make poverty history.
I call Phil Gallie. No adverts, please, Mr Gallie.
In the interests of the consensus to which Mark Ballard referred, I tell Irene Oldfather that she can count on me to buy a couple of tickets for the meal at the Gulab. I wish her well with the project.
Mark Ballard made a serious point about consensus. Given that the speeches this morning reflect almost total agreement among members, it is perhaps a pity that there must be divisions on the motion and amendments at decision time. I make no criticism of the Scottish National Party, which I commend for raising the issue, but it would have been good if all members could have come together outside the chamber to lodge a motion to which we could all have given our total support.
Will the member give way?
Yes, but I am tight for time.
Will the member ask the Presiding Officer whether it is in order for a party not to press its motion or amendment?
Will the Presiding Officer treat that intervention as a point of order, as it requires an answer?
I do not want to interrupt your speech, so I will respond to the point of order when you have finished.
Thank you.
I identify with almost all the comments that members have made and I have no intention of repeating them. The scale of the disaster is unprecedented in my recollection, although I have recollections of the affected area. Forty-five years ago tomorrow, I joined a Ben Line ship at Leith and for almost half the five-year period that followed we sailed in the waters of the Indian ocean. I have many memories from that time of what I regarded as the idyllic settings in which people lived around the edge of the ocean. To some degree, I was a little envious, because the immigration laws of their countries meant that it was impossible for people like me to live and work in that part of the world.
One striking memory is of my perception of the poverty in the area. I say "perception" because I tended to consider people's standards of living in relation to the standards that we expect in western life. Our impression of what constitutes poverty is not always shared by others. Nora Radcliffe and others made the point that whatever we do and however we use our resources to try to assist people in the parts of the world that have been so badly damaged, we must not insist on a western approach to development and reconstruction. We must let people make their own decisions locally; then we can give them the backing that they will need.
Comments have been made about the availability of our fishing vessels. Nora Radcliffe made constructive comments about the matter. However, given the decimation of fishing stocks in the western world due to the use of high-tech measures, I can think of no worse approach than to impose western high-tech measures on people who, for centuries, have found that their way of life is sufficient to feed and clothe themselves and their families and to sustain a life that they enjoy.
My heart goes out to the people of Scotland and the rest of the UK whose Christmas and new year holiday breaks were terribly disrupted in a way that is beyond imagination. Some people's loved ones had been looking forward to a well-earned holiday in the affected areas, particularly in Thailand. I cannot imagine the feelings of the people who have been left behind or of those who witnessed such loss of life. We must consider the effect on the minds of those of our own people who will never know exactly what happened to their families and loved ones who were among the 150,000 and more people who died.
On the efforts that the British Government and the aid agencies are making in south-east Asia, there will always be people who criticise the Government's efforts to provide facilities in such circumstances, but the Government has done almost everything that it could do to ease the way and I commend it for that. John Swinney said that there is a "morass" of aid agencies. That might be a weakness, but the aid agencies have come together and concentrated their efforts, which is important.
Murdo Fraser mentioned the water industry. The pharmaceutical industry is often criticised, but the UK industry has taken much practical action to provide medicine and chemists. We can all be proud of the steps that such industries have taken. We can also be proud of our armed forces, which are also often criticised but which played a vital role when they were most needed.
I would like to say much more, but I regret that time has run out.
In answer to Margo MacDonald's point of order, I point out that a motion was lodged, to which certain parties that were not happy with the motion lodged amendments. After an amendment has been moved, it may be withdrawn by the member who moved it at any time before the question is put, unless another member objects to its being withdrawn. That is and always has been the rule. It is not for me to decide if and when a member may withdraw an amendment; there is a procedure whereby they may do so.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I apologise if I did not make my intention clear. I wanted to ascertain whether the same rule applies to a motion. I understood the position on amendments, but I was not sure about the position on motions.
Yes, the same rule applies.
Thank you.
No one could not be moved by the scenes of devastation that were caused by the tsunami on boxing day. The waters may have receded, but the tragedy is mounting. Almost three weeks since the tsunami swept across the Indian ocean, more than 150,000 people are thought to have died and the death toll continues to rise. The UN estimates that some 500,000 people have been injured and that millions have been left homeless.
Sadly, the local infrastructure of many of the areas and communities that have been affected by the disaster, which in many cases was very limited, has almost been destroyed. Many members of those communities were already living in poor conditions. As the international community strives to meet their basic needs, by providing them with safe, clean drinking water, for example, it is worth reflecting on the fact that many of them did not have safe, clean drinking water prior to the tsunami.
It is clear that the tsunami was one of the worst natural disasters ever, not just because of the terrible toll in human life, but because of its unprecedented geographical scale and the number of people who have been affected in numerous countries.
The world's response to the disaster's horrors has been extraordinary. As well as offering its sympathy and prayers, the world community, including the people of Scotland, has dug into its pockets deeper than ever before to assist the aid campaign. The task now must be to ensure that that generosity counts in an enduring way. As the aid agencies move from the emergency phase of their campaign towards the rehabilitation phase, it is essential that the support and assistance that are being provided do not evaporate when the story drops out of the newspapers and the news headlines.
I welcome the commitment that the First Minister made yesterday to ensure that the Executive's support to the aid agencies will continue in the long term. The rehabilitation programme must be sustainable over many years to allow the many communities that have been affected to rebuild and develop their previously basic infrastructure. We should ensure that those areas that did not have clean, safe drinking water before the disaster have it in future. It is essential that the commitments by Governments throughout the world to provide varying amounts of aid translate into real action on the ground.
It is right that the world is focusing on the disaster around the Indian ocean, but the international community must not lose sight of the other humanitarian crises that exist in the world today, especially in Africa. Last year, our headlines were dominated for a short period by the genocide that was being perpetrated in Darfur, which, sadly, it took the international community almost 18 months to wake up to. Recently, the plight of the people of Darfur has dropped out of the headlines, but the crisis continues. The UN's most recent humanitarian report highlights the fact that 1.5 million people have been affected by the conflict, 1.2 million of whom are internally displaced. In September last year, it was reported that some 1.2 million people required assistance in obtaining food and, by December, the figure had escalated to 2 million people.
To meet the demands of its humanitarian campaign, the UN asked for $700 million. So far, it has received just over half that amount. The UN requires more than $150 million to deal with internally displaced people alone. So far, it has received $17 million from the international community. What are the consequences when the international community does not meet the needs of such a humanitarian crisis? Half a million displaced people in Darfur are not receiving the basic food supplies that they require. It has not been possible to provide mosquito nets, so children continue to die from malaria, which is a preventable disease. Toilet facilities, cooking pots and basic fuel cannot be provided. Widespread malnutrition is being reported in many of the camps. Sadly, that humanitarian crisis is not in our headlines, but the international community must face up to it. We cannot respond only to natural disasters; Darfur is a man-made disaster.
I sign up to and support the make poverty history campaign, but the real challenge is for the international community to deliver in making poverty history. I believe that we must be much more ambitious about tackling that challenge.
I apologise to several members, as there is time for only two more speeches by back benchers.
So far, the debate has been excellent.
In one sense, the tsunami tragedy has been a reminder of the world's failure to use its wealth to provide for the poorest and least resourced countries. Although there have been periods in history during which efforts to combat famine, disasters and poverty have been stepped up, they have never been on course to make an impact in the long term. As politicians and members of political parties, we should all be self-critical of the role that we have played in that. We have never done enough, raised enough money or cared enough about the poorer nations, but we have an opportunity to change that. As many members have said, now is a time to reflect—not on how the disaster could have been prevented, but on global problems. Disasters sometimes highlight the nations that have and the nations that have not.
We should focus on the agenda of fair trade, trade justice, the cancellation of debt, increased aid and the eradication of treatable diseases and the exploitation of children. We know that poverty comes in many forms. The world's problems are complex. Poverty can be the direct result of western nations exploiting poorer nations; it can also arise in countries in which there has been continual internal conflict.
Many of the world's problems are resolvable, not just through the provision of financial aid, but through political diplomacy and the relaxation of unfair rules. Ten years ago, the UK and the Scottish nation helped to bring about a democratic South Africa by applying political pressure. Some work still requires to be done and we should not forget the assistance that we have promised that country. We can learn from such nations; it is not just a one-way street. In the middle east, poverty is partly a result of conflict. The make poverty history campaign should recognise the complex nature of poverty. Sometimes financial aid is not all that is required; a political response is necessary as well.
If we reflect on what needs to be done, we realise that offering a solution will not be a simple matter of giving aid—although as Rosie Kane said in her excellent speech in last night's members' business debate, the Scottish people have given "until it hurts". Bigger nations will have to change their patterns of behaviour and trade in the longer term, and getting them to do so will not be easy. There needs to be international support for, agreement on and trust in that agenda for it to succeed beyond 2030. Fair trade is not just about creating fairer competition for individual producers; it is about ensuring trade justice on a global scale.
As Des McNulty has said, in supporting relief aid to the tsunami appeal, we cannot forget our long-term promises to African nations. As our chancellor Gordon Brown has said, Africa cannot remain patient. It has remained patient for 150 years. Ten years ago, our average per capita contribution to Africa was about $33, but that figure has decreased to $27. We cannot cut the existing cake; the cake needs to be bigger.
Some countries have had bad experiences of receiving aid. In some cases, aid packages that have been sent following a disaster have arrived with a certain country's stars and stripes printed on the side of them. First-world nations have sometimes seen disaster as a cheap way of gaining diplomatic credit. As much as it is right to trumpet what Governments have done—and it is right, as Dennis Canavan said, that the UK Government should match the public effort—we should ensure that Governments act with humility. Giving is about humility and dignity.
We will never meet the needs of the world's poorest without disregarding some of our own. We all know that. While I have no difficulty in understanding the need for payroll giving, we must also acknowledge that donating and sacrificing non-financially are sometimes personal acts.
I will quote not Matthew, chapter 6, which Murdo Fraser quoted, but Rory Bremner, the comedian, who said:
"it is not just about what we are prepared to give, but what we are prepared to give up."
Dr Siddiqui, leader of the Muslim Parliament, said:
"Compassion, care and concern for mankind joins each of us—whatever our faith or ethnicity."
Mo Mowlam, former Cabinet minister, said:
"I wish it would change our attitudes to other people in other countries, but I'm afraid that it won't."
There are mixed feelings about our ability as a state to sustain the effort, but the involvement of Tom Hunter, Bono and other high-profile people will help. I support the make poverty history campaign. It has been about for some time, and is the UK arm of a global campaign calling for action against poverty. The fact that it has been about for so long is, like the tsunami, a wake-up call for us all.
As politicians, we need to be cautious about our role. This morning's debate demonstrates that we can work together, which we should do where possible. We need to have a dignified discussion on the way forward. We must not look for political gain or list what we have done and wear it as a badge. We must have humility about what we have done. This is not about gestures, but about honesty, and will probably be the largest concerted effort genuinely to understand the complex reasons for world poverty and its extent. We dare not fail in our small but significant part. I welcome the debate.
Nicola Sturgeon in her opening remarks described the situation in the tsunami zone as utter devastation and she is absolutely right. I am heartened that in this Parliament this week we have focused on the disaster and devastation.
Making poverty history always has to be at the top of our agenda—it must be our goal—but words mean nothing if they are not backed up by deeds. Many in this chamber have rightly expressed concern that pledges do not always come to fruition. We heard that yesterday and we are hearing it again today. The concerns are genuine. We are also concerned that focus will swiftly move from this disaster zone to another. Too often, out of sight is out of mind. As Michael Matheson said, when the focus shifts to southern Asia, it moves away from sub-Saharan Africa, Afghanistan, Iraq and any number of places all over the world that are in deep strife.
If we step back from the planet and look at the entire world, it makes horrific viewing. Each day, 30,000 children die of poverty-related illness, 800,000 people suffer from chronic hunger, 1.1 billion lack access to safe drinking water and unjust trade rules weigh in favour of rich countries and rob the poorest people of around £1.3 billion. Those are the issues that we need to address if we want to make poverty history.
The total debt of the 52 poorest countries in the world is about $375 billion. The amount of debt that G7 countries promised to write off was $100 billion. However, the actual amount of debt written off so far is $46 billion, or 12 per cent. Therefore, the proportion of debt that has not been written off is 88 per cent. The conditions imposed on debt relief have forced poor countries to adopt unfair and detrimental trade policies, including the privatisation of health care. We must guard against that type of aid. As I said yesterday, Great Britain forced the privatisation of Tanzania's water service. That is not fair—it is not fair aid and it is not fair trade.
Mark Ballard mentioned poverty in the countries that were worst hit by the tsunami. Indonesia—the country that suffered the greatest devastation—is also the most indebted. Before the tsunami struck, the European network on debt and development calculated that, taking into account essential spending on poverty and human development, Indonesia could afford only half its annual debt repayments. Half should therefore be cancelled. Other countries affected by the tsunami are among the poorest in the world, and before the tsunami they needed 100 per cent cancellation. Where are they now?
Debt relief works. In Uganda, 2.2 million people gained access to clean water, and Mozambique was able to offer all its children free immunisation. Relief works, which is why we must pursue it. Debt must be cancelled.
The G8 is coming to Scotland. The rich and the powerful will again meet and decide how they will carve up the world. I agree with Nicola Sturgeon, who said that world leaders should have "no room for manoeuvre", but if we are to make poverty history, doing so cannot be left in the hands of members of the G8, who are motivated by power and profit. Des McNulty rightly said that it is not just what we give, but what we do not take. We must look at what we are taking from countries around the world, because that often pulls the rug from under their feet.
Cancelling debt would be a huge, important and life-saving start. I said earlier that we need deeds, not words. In the past few weeks the Scottish people have given till it hurts. They have done their bit in terms of deeds. I wonder now whether they will do their bit in terms of words and whether the people of Scotland will come together and shout, "We want to make poverty history. It's time to cancel the debt."
First, I apologise for not being here for the opening speeches, but I had a hospital appointment this morning. However, the speeches that I heard impressed me with their sincerity and content.
The independent group decided not to lodge amendment S2M-2240.3 until we saw whether it would be possible for all groups represented on the Parliamentary Bureau to agree to a single motion that all members of the Parliament—whatever minor differences of emphasis and nuance there might be—could support as a unanimous expression of Scottish sympathy for all those millions of our fellow beings who have been affected by the tsunami and as an expression of our undivided opinion on the magnitude of the disaster in the Indian ocean region and therefore its effect on the priorities of those who decide the policies of international aid.
The disaster has made an examination of aid policies inescapable. We hoped that the scale of poverty reduction that we must aspire to would find common agreement across the Parliament. We lodged our amendment because, unfortunately, those aims were not met, although members might feel that we have achieved them in this live debate, rather than in the printed pages of the Business Bulletin.
Margo MacDonald might not be aware that the SNP motion was given to all Opposition parties, with the exception of the SSP, four hours before it was lodged, in the hope that we could reach a consensus. That simply was not possible, but it was not for the lack of trying on our part.
I did not in any way mean any member in the chamber to take our reasons for lodging an amendment as condemnation of the way in which any party acted.
We tried to produce an amendment that would find agreement throughout the Parliament. On the diminution of poverty, which was the last point to which I referred, we concede that there might be a difference of opinion, but even then that difference would not be about the strategic objective, as everybody wants to diminish poverty as quickly as possible. Any differences of opinion would concern the detailed policies for achieving that shared objective.
Although Stewart Stevenson's contribution was excellent and extremely well informed and researched, this is not really the debate to concentrate on the details of future operational policy. We cannot today pass on to the G8, the EU, the World Bank, the IMF or the Westminster Government—which has an active role in the G8—the considered suggestions or recommendations of the Scottish Parliament on how, for example, international aid should be directed at, and received by, appropriate individuals and organisations in countries in receipt of aid. However, we can agree to stress to all those bodies our unanimous belief that a much-improved monitoring system must accompany all aid packages and that the system—like the aid-and-trade packages—must reflect the differing realities of institutional development, for example, in the different countries that receive aid. That point was, I think, referred to by Phil Gallie. Regrettably, however, no single motion or amendment emerged that met the criteria that I have outlined. Dennis Canavan's amendment seeks to fulfil the functions of such a motion, as we have tried to draw in the essential elements of the Scottish National Party, Executive and Green expressions of opinion in the Business Bulletin.
Leaving the mechanics aside, however, I wish to concentrate on the issue of recovery in those Asian countries that were affected by the recent consequences of an earthquake and the poverty that stalks millions of our fellow human beings. The devastation in Asia is primarily a human catastrophe. We have heard of the effects of the tsunami on local economies, but little attention has been paid to the overarching economic consequences. For example, while we were sitting stunned in our living rooms as we saw people swept to their deaths in their thousands, the stock markets of Asia did not sink and the international insurance industry did not cry about its potential losses—it did not blink.
The insurance industry reckons that its bill will be far lower than that for the hurricanes in Florida in 2004. The infrastructure outside the coastal areas of those of the affected countries that have a large land mass was not damaged, while most of the people killed were poor and had no insurance, either personal or for their small boats and other businesses. Those areas have been devastated not only by loss of life but by loss of economic structures. Coastal farming is badly affected by the incursion of seawater into what was previously a freshwater irrigation system, so it is essential that any aid is directed at the reconstitution of the economies of the poor in the coastal regions. Enough money may well have been committed, along with debt suspension, to achieve that, provided that the money boasted of by the rich countries is actually paid over.
I regret that I will have to curtail my words of wisdom because I took an intervention earlier. However, the motion and the amendments refer to the linkage of aid, debt and fair trade, the indivisibility of which cannot be overemphasised. Unfortunately, I have not had time to dwell on the latter two elements of that equation. In the interests of justice and the most effective management of the globe's resources, those elements must be resolved. One factor must be borne in mind: there is no common blueprint that can be applied to every country whose people are suffering the ravages of poverty and the lack of the most basic resources.
Our amendment, in Dennis Canavan's name, encapsulates the best common elements of the different expressions of opinion on matters affecting international aid. There is much more that unites than divides all sides in the Scottish Parliament on how the world's poor can be helped and how they can be supported in helping themselves. If the SNP—
Ms MacDonald, I have to stop you at that point and call Robin Harper to close for the Greens.
I am happy to sum up for the Greens in the debate because a considerable consensus has been expressed in the chamber on a large number of subjects.
I start with debt, which is referred to in our amendment, and I congratulate Stewart Stevenson on his contribution on that point. What we could contribute—which would be extremely effective—is actually a trivial amount that would have an enormous effect on the poorest countries in the world. It is the view of colleagues of mine that debt is a particularly vigorous nerve centre of a predatory and oppressive economic model. Since 2003, the 11 countries affected by the tsunami have repaid $68 billion in debt repayments. Governments alone repaid $38 billion of that. Between 1980 and 2003, the repayments totalled 11 times the original debt. The debt that those 11 countries now owe—$406 billion—represents a figure five times greater than the debt that they owed in 1980.
To return to the flow of the debate and Patricia Ferguson's sensitive introduction to her amendment, there is much to praise the Executive for in the steps that it has taken so far, but the Executive would recognise that there is much yet to do. The one-stop shop that John Swinney mentioned in his intervention is a concept that I support. There is an enormous amount of expertise in Scotland that could be used abroad, particularly the expertise of older volunteers, who could be encouraged to go abroad. There are organisations that assist with such work, and the Executive could help in that respect—and in many other respects—to point people in the right direction. It is expertise, as much as anything else, that those countries need. Some money will help now, but the long term has been accented by many members, including Mark Ballard in his introduction to our amendment.
There was an intervention from Patricia Ferguson on Learning and Teaching Scotland's contribution and its pack on third world debt. I would like to pay tribute to the work that is being done by IDEAS—the International Development Education Association of Scotland—which Des McNulty introduced to the Parliament. Some of us were able to attend its presentation, and I pay tribute to the work that it is doing in preparing packs and information for schools and teachers to use. Many charities that assist with education aboard could go on to the Executive's list.
As a former modern studies teacher, I think that it is a shame that not every secondary school in Scotland has a full-scale modern studies department, because modern studies includes a big section on international affairs.
Dennis Canavan's speech was strong and he made many important points. I was glad to hear Murdo Fraser supporting the make poverty history campaign and pointing out the diversion of funds through corruption. We have to be realistic: in many countries that receive aid, some of that aid does not reach the destinations that we would like it to reach. That brings me to Nora Radcliffe's contribution that the great advantage of school-to-school links, community-to-community links and fair trade links means that we know where every penny of aid and help goes. It is absolutely traceable all the way through. I welcome Pauline McNeill's dedication to the make poverty history campaign. The campaign is right at the core of what the Greens have been talking about.
Like Phil Gallie, I lived and worked in the area affected by the tsunami. As a young child, I lived in Trincomalee, on the eastern coast of Ceylon—now Sri Lanka—so I have a vivid picture in my mind of the damage that has been done to the coast of Sri Lanka. I worked as a teacher in Kenya for two years, and spent my holidays on the beaches of the eastern coast of Kenya. Again, I have in my mind a vivid impression of how appalling it would have been if the tsunami had occurred at that time.
In summing up, I congratulate Des McNulty on the sentiment that he expressed that it would have been nice if the debate had been conducted in a non-party-political atmosphere. Perhaps the Parliament could devise some way in which, in future, we could have a non-party-political debate before 5 o'clock. We have them after 5 o'clock, and many of those debates have been excellent. They have been among some of the best debates that we have had over the years.
I speak in support of the Greens' amendment and in support of a better future for such discussions.
I begin where Robin Harper ended. There is a way in which what he suggested can be done. It is called a take-note motion, and committees use such motions all the time. It is unfortunate that the Parliament will be forced into a division today on a subject on which there is genuine unanimity. Somebody somewhere should have worked harder to find a form of words around which members from all parties could have united.
I apologise for being late, as I had child care problems this morning.
We have had an interesting, mainly consensual debate. I apologise for moving slightly away from that consensual tone in saying that, if Nicola Sturgeon had stayed to listen, she would have had an interesting and exhilarating morning. It is not acceptable for a member to move a motion, then leave the chamber and come back for the closing speeches. That would not be acceptable for a member of the Executive, and it should not be acceptable for anybody else.
The tsunami was a terrible disaster. The 24-hour television that we now have has brought to us images that we would not have seen before. In 1999, a gas explosion destroyed one house and one family in my constituency. I saw the devastation that that explosion caused, and it was simply unbelievable to see on television devastation that destroyed not only one house, but a town or a village and its whole population. I found it an unbelievable experience, as a parent, to listen to parents express what they felt when they had to let go of their children as they were swept away into the sea by a wave. I cannot begin to understand how that felt.
However, over the days and weeks that have since past, to me the resilience of those people has been equally remarkable for the way in which they have begun to look for their loved ones and to rebuild their communities. It has shown us what people can achieve. I am proud of, but not surprised by, the way in which Scottish people have shown their practical support. I am proud of the people who did not have much money but who have given their money away because they saw the utter devastation. I am also proud of the companies that have helped. Yes, companies are doing good things. For example, Scottish Water, which all members have criticised, has been practical and has got water and generators out to the disaster area quickly.
Members have mentioned people who want to volunteer to go and do something practical. Des McNulty is right that this is probably not the right time for unskilled people to make their way to south-east Asia, but there are enormous opportunities for people to volunteer in other parts of the developing world. If people who think that they have something to offer have been spurred into helping, there are agencies that can get them doing something useful, perhaps not in south-east Asia but certainly elsewhere in the developing world, such as Africa, where they can begin to help to make poverty history.
The issue that will always divide the Labour Party and the Tory party is free trade in its purest form. I have no opposition to African countries being able to trade, but they must be able to trade fairly. I always worry that, with free trade in its purest form, the poorest people in the world will simply be exploited to the advantage of rich companies.
Does Karen Gillon agree with the Tory party that it was wrong for the EU to impose trade barriers against Sri Lanka at the time of the disaster?
I agree absolutely. It is wrong for us to impose trade barriers and it is equally wrong for multinational companies to go into developing countries and pay people a penny or two a day for doing a job for which they would have to pay a decent wage in the countries of the developed world. I have no problem with trade as long as we say to companies not that they can exploit the poorest people in the world to maximise their profits, but that they must contribute to development, work with the Governments of developing countries to grow economies and develop the skills that are needed and give a decent wage.
We read in the papers of a young man who was swept away on a log, but who managed to survive and who was photographed with his family. He was paid £5 a day for working in a hotel that westerners would pay thousands of pounds to visit. That is simply wrong. Our countries and Governments need to work to try to change that, and there are opportunities for the Parliament to move the debate on. I will be privileged to go to Malawi and South Africa with the CPA delegation. I have no concept of the poverty that I will experience there, but I hope that I will come back more determined than ever to do something about it and ensure that we make poverty history.
Des McNulty's plea for us not to forget Africa is extremely important. A vast amount of resources now need to be devoted to south-east Asia, but every week, the number of ordinary people who die in sub-Saharan African and throughout the world is equivalent to the number of those who died in the tsunami. As a nation, we must do more to ensure that ordinary people both within and outwith south-east Asia are supported and helped to improve their lives in the 21st century.
I am glad to speak in the debate and express sympathy on a subject that has caused immense trauma and distress to countless families in Asia, Europe and Africa, not to mention other parts of the world.
I mention my interest as president of the International Rescue Corps. The firefighters and paramedics who are associated with the IRC were on immediate standby to send some of the best and most highly qualified experts in the world to the tsunami, but the Department for International Development could not obtain agreement from the host Governments for the following reasons. The airfields on which a high-powered team could land were many miles and, in some cases, some days by train from the disaster areas and, with no onward transport, the team could have ended up stranded for days. In some cases, the number of flights that were trying to land exceeded the safe capacity of the air traffic control system. Incoming flights were being warned that holding patterns were long and that they had to refuel before entering the holding airspace. Moreover, most countries were asking for help in the form of funds rather than personnel.
The aspiration of the International Rescue Corps to assist could not be acted on in that instance, but I am glad that the IRC was involved in more modest relief efforts closer at hand in Carlisle through the use of boats, which was invaluable to the police and fire service.
I suggest that there are some extremely important lessons to be learnt from the immense, terrible tragedy of the tsunami. First, the countries that are at risk from tsunamis must have efficient early warning systems in place. It is to be hoped that the British Government will co-operate with the American Government and the United Nations in assisting other nations to have the benefit of the type of early warning system that is available to nations in the Pacific.
Secondly, it is essential that, in such situations, the Department for International Development obtains the correct facts with all possible speed to enable appropriate offers of expert help to be considered at the most senior level from the outset. Sadly, it appears that, in this case, the tragedy's full extent did not strike home, as the department was genuinely not aware at the outset of its scale or extent.
Thirdly, although I welcome Scottish Water's good work, the Scottish Administration can act in an enlightened manner by asking, in co-operation with Scottish Water, for a feasibility study on the possibility of the bulk transport of Scottish water for humanitarian aid. That is a theme that I have put to Ross Finnie in former years and in 2001 he replied that the water authorities had the appropriate powers to enable engagement in such activities, either by themselves or in partnership with other parties, and that what was then the proposed Scottish Water would have even clearer powers to take such decisions.
I welcome the First Minister's statement yesterday that 45 tonnes of valuable bottled water were sent to the Maldives, but I suggest that transferring water in bulk could have a massive impact for good. When the lives of countless thousands hang in the balance because they cannot readily obtain clean water, surely it is time for the relevant Scottish interests to realise that clean water in bulk is an invaluable life-saving necessity.
Some of Scotland's water—the vast bulk of which is surplus to Scottish requirements—could supply invaluable humanitarian aid. All that I ask is that the Administration, in co-operation with Scottish Water, investigates the possibility of a feasibility study, as meeting the demand for clean water in bulk is likely to save many lives. That demand will not go away. Scotland has the capabilities, skills and expertise to make a huge difference.
I ask the Executive to consider the representations of WWF Scotland, which demands that future coastal developments in south-east Asia are not built in a safety zone from the tidemark. It calls for strong coastal zone management policies, planning and better implementation in the region. It supports steps to undertake tsunami impact and natural disaster risk assessments. WWF Scotland recognises the immediate need for timber for emergency housing and workplaces, but it strongly advocates that timber for long-term reconstruction efforts should be harvested from responsibly managed forests, as indiscriminate logging could contribute to other calamities, including landslides and flooding.
Some of those matters are reserved to the United Kingdom Parliament. I welcome ministers' positive stance on the subjects and I hope that they will use their good offices to help to find the best ways forward through humanitarian aid that will benefit the human race.
I recognise the words of Patricia Ferguson and Nicola Sturgeon about the Western Isles. In the context of a debate about international events since boxing day, it is important to express our condolences to and sympathy for those who have been affected. As a fellow islander and representative of communities that are surrounded by the sea, I can only sympathise with what Alasdair Morrison must be going through. I pass on my sympathies to him.
The sympathy and condolences that we have all sent individually, as members, as political parties, as a Government and as citizens of this country have—rightly—been immense since events unfolded on television screens on 26 December, as many members have said. How many of us have watched our children build sandcastles on a beach only for the incoming tide to wash them away? How many of us can begin to understand the terror, numbness and helplessness at losing homes, livelihoods or—even worse—our loved ones to such a deadly event as the tsunami? Ten years ago, I visited Sri Lanka, where my sister worked. Unfortunately, unlike Mr Harper, I could not reach Trincomalee at that time, because it was in the Tamil part of the country.
As more newspapers have procured more photographs, the abiding image of the past few days for me has been of the cricket ground at Galle, which is just behind the port. I remember watching 10 and 11-year-old young lads playing a game of cricket there 10 years ago. A picture in one of our national newspapers in recent days showed that absolutely nothing remains. The houses that surrounded the cricket field, the shops and the businesses have all been swept away. That aerial photograph gave a graphic illustration of the scene of utter devastation that has affected many in south-east Asia and around the Indian ocean.
We have heard significant speeches from all members who have contributed. Fair trade and international debt have dominated our considerations and provided some context to our concerns about how we believe, individually and collectively, that matters should be developed.
I say in response to a comment by Mark Ballard that commentators have suggested that possibly the most important development at the Cancún world trade talks last year was the emergence of alternative blocks of nations to represent countries of emerging economic importance, certainly in South America, which are determined to develop, articulate and deliver on their trading needs.
Like many, Murdo Fraser was right to raise the issue of free trade. I am very much with Karen Gillon on what we define as free trade. We could debate all morning what free trade is. Perhaps the most important characteristic is consistency. Dennis Canavan was right to express our concerns—and, I suspect, those of many in the chamber—about a definition of free trade that includes the sale of arms. We might all reflect on that and consider carefully Murdo Fraser's correct point about the need for consistency in examining such issues.
The minister will know that I am a member of the Co-operative group of Labour MSPs. The co-operative movement worldwide has done much to improve trade in developing countries. Will the deputy minister and the Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport agree to meet the co-operative movement in Scotland to discuss how those principles might be used in regeneration?
I have no difficulty in agreeing to Christine May's suggestion. We would be happy to have that meeting.
Des McNulty has—rightly—received considerable praise for his work on the subject and in connection with the make poverty history campaign. I was impressed by the range of statistics that members—of whom Rosie Kane is but one—used to back their underlying and reflective concerns, such as the facts that about 1 billion people throughout the world live on less than $1 a day, that 100 million children cannot go to school and that 200,000 people die every day from preventable causes, as Dennis Canavan said.
There has been considerable discussion of how the international community should use international aid. The scale of that aid is of course important, but I was struck that several members said that what matters is not just the scale of aid, but what it is spent on. Rosie Kane talked about immunisation in Mozambique. It is precisely the point that that international aid—that debt relief money—was used for that need, which is right.
Many members talked about education for all around the globe and for both sexes. What Stewart Stevenson, Des McNulty and others said about women was right. We representatives of fishing communities might reflect on how much it means at times when men are lost, which happens in such circumstances. In that sense, we can but have common cause with the fishing communities of southern India or Sri Lanka.
Michael Matheson was right about the need for the international community to act. We are part of that community and we are proceeding to act. As many members said, the challenge is to sustain action.
Will the minister give way?
The minister is in his last minute.
Nora Radcliffe talked about twinning communities. Just as the First Minister praised Glasgow for its role in that, I mention my constituency of Shetland, which is collaborating with Help the Aged on a twinning project with an Asian community that the disaster has devastated. That will involve a reconstruction and rehabilitation programme that is sustained over several years, after the focus of attention and the media hype have disappeared. That is the right approach.
I will finish with an important quotation, which I read in a paper this morning. In response to everything that has happened, the Indian Prime Minister said in a speech just the other day:
"It used to be said of the British Empire, from whose yoke Gandhi freed us, that the sun would never set on it. If there is an Empire today on which the sun truly cannot set, it is the empire of our minds, that of the children of Mother India, who live today in Asia, Africa, Australia, Europe, the Americas and, indeed, on the icy reaches of Antarctica."
I agree. As he said, we cannot close our minds to what has happened. We all surely support that. We must act for the future.
As for the motion and the amendments, I make it clear that the Executive would be happy to withdraw its amendment in response to the points that many members have made, if all parties agreed.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. This arises from what the deputy minister has just said. That the Scottish Parliament should give as united a response as possible to the catastrophic situation that we are discussing is important. Therefore, in the spirit of unity that has been demonstrated during the debate, I would also be prepared to withdraw my amendment.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I echo what Dennis Canavan says and would also be happy to withdraw the Green party's amendment in that spirit of unity. However, I am disappointed that we did not reach such a point before the debate started. We seem to be reaching it only at the end of the debate.
Those suggestions are noted.
In closing the debate for the SNP, I start by echoing the comments of Nicola Sturgeon, Tavish Scott and other members. We are debating an international disaster, but many communities and families in Scotland have experienced disasters over the past 48 hours. Our thoughts go out to families that have lost loved ones in that period.
The debate has been excellent. It has been characterised by consensus and unity and has not been party political. The SNP is happy to reflect on the suggestions that other parties have made in the past few minutes. We have made every effort to produce a motion for the debate that attracts unity, and we will be happy to continue our efforts between now and decision time. Our business manager will certainly be happy to speak to business managers from the other parties.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My point is not at all a political point, but simply a procedural one. The easiest way to obtain consensus in the chamber is to have a debate without a motion. We all agree about what needs to be done, although we might disagree a little on nuances or on how things are done. I hope that the SNP will co-operate to make consensus a reality.
Again, we can all reflect on that.
I do not think that anyone wants the debate to be marred by such an argument. Our party has said that we are happy to speak to others before decision time at 5 o'clock.
For many of us, boxing day 2004 and the few days after that will for ever be associated with the harrowing images that we witnessed on our television screens. We saw mountains of sea pushing aside everything before them, caught on digicams that were carried by holidaymakers in Thailand and other places. Those images will stay with us for many years to come. There were images of orphans who had lost their parents and other members of their families and of parents whose babies had been swept from their arms. We all witnessed the overall scale of the devastation. The event brought home to us that mankind will continue to be at the mercy of the natural environment despite all the technological and scientific advances that the human race has made in the past few centuries.
The other lasting impression is that we now recognise more than ever before the gulf between the rich and the poor, and the gulf between wealthy and poverty-stricken societies. Even before the tsunami, Aceh had only one hospital and 49 per cent of the population had no access to clean water—other members have mentioned that. Some 40 per cent of the population had no access to health services. As Patricia Ferguson said, poorer communities throughout the world are much more vulnerable to such natural disasters.
In a time in which there is war and corruption in many countries, the disaster brought home to all of us that there is an enormous reservoir of human compassion in the world. The public response in Scotland and the rest of the world has been extraordinary—indeed, many Governments have found themselves playing catch-up with respect to the public's generosity. We may never know why there has been such a response. Perhaps it is the result of the sheer scale of the disaster, or of 21st century communications that mean that we can all witness exactly what is happening. However, the motives are irrelevant. The disaster could be a turning point in international aid and giving.
The SNP's aims in the debate have been clear. We want to express sympathy and support for the communities in Asia that have been affected and to pay tribute to the many people in Scotland—to individuals and those in aid agencies and companies—who have done what they can to alleviate the suffering in Asia. Of course, the aim has also been to discuss how we can continue to give short-term support and save lives in the coming weeks and months through providing clean water, sanitation, medical care, shelter and so on.
We all agree that we must turn our attention to how Scots can best contribute to the long-term reconstruction of the communities that have been affected. There has been much talk about the contribution that fishing communities can make, and we welcome the task force that the Scottish Government has set up to help to achieve that. Fishing is one of the few economic lifelines in many vulnerable communities. We have all been shocked by the sight of large fishing boats being tossed about like toys on the main streets of communities in Asia. Many people from our fishing communities in Scotland are lining up to offer help. Stewart Stevenson has told me that one net maker has been in touch with him in the past 24 hours with an offer to supply nets. We must remember that a Sri Lankan fisherman has said on television that it would take him one year's work as a labourer simply to get the cash to replace the nets that he lost in the disaster.
The British Geological Survey has been proactive. It will conduct a meeting and bring together its international counterparts to find out whether they can come up with ideas about early warning systems. In Scotland, there are many people behind the scenes who do not get publicity, but are doing what they can to help in the crisis.
Many members have suggested that a good way forward is a one-stop shop for members of the public who want to offer materials and services. That is an important point. People know how to give cash, but some people want to volunteer services and materials and do not know how to do so. A one-stop shop would therefore be valuable.
Part of the key to the long-term reconstruction of the communities in question and other communities elsewhere in the world has been referred to by many members, the SNP's motion and other motions. We must make poverty history. We have the financial resources, the drugs and the scientific knowledge to tackle poverty throughout the world. The challenge that all of us in Scotland and elsewhere face is harnessing those resources to tackle and eliminate poverty in a developing world.
This year—2005—was going to be dominated by the international development agenda. It will be dominated by that agenda even more as a result of the added momentum that has arisen from the disaster on boxing day. The G8 summit will be hosted in Scotland, and poverty in Africa and other issues will be addressed. Such issues are high up on the agenda. In September, the UN special General Assembly will meet to review progress towards meeting the millennium development goals that were set in 2000. The aim is to halve the global population that lives in poverty by 2015. Many members have talked about trade liberalisation. The World Trade Organisation will meet in December. There has been plenty of talk and hot air before, but we agree now that action is needed. There should be no more giddy rhetoric that ends up in sheer disappointment.
Scotland is a small country, but it can play a role. We can add our voice to the cause and take practical steps. We welcome some of the steps that were outlined by the First Minister yesterday and that have been outlined by Patricia Ferguson today. Helping to create good government in many developing countries will lead to better education and health care and a better standard of living in them. Therefore, the Parliament and the Government have a responsibility to work in partnership with civic Scotland to reinforce current efforts and find out what more we can do in the coming period.
The member has said absolutely nothing that breaks the consensus in the chamber. Therefore, I appeal to him to say that the SNP will not press the motion.
It is important that we do not mar the debate by getting into that argument. We have already said on the record that, before 5 o'clock, we will discuss with the other parties how we can resolve the issue.
Yesterday, the aid agencies were in the Parliament to meet MSPs. A number of themes that emerged from the briefing have been echoed by members from every party. The aid agencies said that they do not want the disaster to distract our attention from other causes around the world—Michael Matheson and many other members mentioned those crises. Currently, there are 14 other major humanitarian crises in the world—in the Congo, Sudan and in other countries—that we cannot take our eyes off, and the aid agencies do not want aid to be diverted from existing aid budgets to the disaster. Aid must be over and above existing commitments. The message that we must send to the public is that although they have been extremely generous over the past week or two, that generosity must continue.
Local people in the countries that are affected must be at the heart of the reconstruction. Many members, including Des McNulty and others, made that valid point, which was echoed by the aid agencies.
Once this particular disaster leaves our headlines, we must continue to help out. Let us remember Afghanistan and how it left the radar screen when it was out of the headlines.
Although it is difficult to imagine good coming out of the tremendous disaster that took place little over two weeks ago, 2005 can be a good year for the world. We have our own—albeit young—Parliament, and our own Government, and we have united around action that we can take in the Scottish Parliament to ensure that 2005 is a good year. I urge members to support the SNP motion, or a motion that can unite us, at 5 o'clock.