Commonwealth Day 2002
The final item of business is a members' business debate on motion S1M-2729, in the name of Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, on Commonwealth day 2002. The debate is being webcast. I ask members who are not staying for the debate to leave as quickly and quietly as possible. I welcome several Commonwealth guests to the gallery. Members who wish to take part in the debate should indicate that now so that I can allocate the time. The debate will be short.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament recognises the valuable role of the Commonwealth in building relationships between nations across the world; welcomes the continued contribution of Scotland and its people to those relationships, and reaffirms its support for the work of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association.
I am very glad to speak to motion S1M-2729. [Interruption.]
Just a minute. I must ask members who are not staying to leave immediately without making a noise. The debate is being interrupted.
The motion welcomes the continued contribution of Scotland and its people to relationships between nations across the world and reaffirms the Parliament's support for the work of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. A considerable number of Commonwealth students are studying at Scottish universities. In the past, a considerable number of such students have become leaders of their countries.
Representatives from Commonwealth high commissions are in the gallery this evening. On behalf of parliamentarians, I second the Presiding Officer's warm welcome to them. [Applause.]
It is perhaps appropriate that our first CPA delegation abroad was to Canada—to Quebec and Ottawa—because there may be more people of Scottish descent in Canada than there are in Scotland. Both our countries are multicultural, multilingual and multi-ethnic in composition, as is the Commonwealth as a whole.
When President Mbeki of South Africa came to the Scottish Parliament, he confirmed:
"Scattered throughout South Africa are Scottish names that attest to the relationship between our people. For example, many of the roads that pass through some of our most famous mountain passes were designed and constructed by a Scot, Andrew Geddes Baines."
He also said:
"John Philip, a Scottish missionary, came to South Africa in 1819, and made a profound contribution with regard to exposing thousands of Black people to education, to various skills and to the promotion of a society of equal rights for all, irrespective of colour."
Scotland's contribution to the Commonwealth, to driving back the frontiers of poverty, ignorance and disease, to good relations and to the policy of being a good world neighbour have been of the utmost significance.
Commonwealth day is a day of celebration for all the 54 member countries. This year we celebrate diversity. The Commonwealth contains 1.7 billion people, which is a quarter of the world's population. It encompasses many different religions and races. We are united by a desire to advance democracy, human rights and sustainable economic development.
We are aware that more than 50 per cent of the Commonwealth's population are aged 25 or under. Through many official and non-governmental organisations, the Commonwealth family of nations works to improve the fortunes and quality of life of Commonwealth people in areas such as education, employment, health, housing, clean water and the environment. Improving the quality of education and training and providing support for immunisation programmes are only two of the countless activities that assist young people to make their way in the world. Many of those young people will be the leaders of tomorrow.
From time to time, there will be serious differences of opinion on how best to resolve long-running disputes. The conduct of the general election in Zimbabwe is a case in point. Such contention is a matter of regret. By way of contrast, it was stressed at the Commonwealth senior officials meeting in Samoa that development and the elimination of poverty work to underpin democratic freedoms. It is to be hoped that a satisfactory way forward will be found not only for the peoples of Zimbabwe but for all the Commonwealth countries.
Overall, the Commonwealth supports democratic principles, respect for human rights, the rule of law, standards of excellence in education and health, and the promotion of equality of opportunity for women and men. The Commonwealth is also committed to empowering young people. In 2001, Don McKinnon, who is the secretary-general of the Commonwealth, said:
"young people want to be taken seriously, they want to make a difference, and they want a better life for themselves, their families and their countries … with our support and willingness to empower them, they can be a powerful partner in tackling many of the problems we face today."
Ever since the days of David Livingstone, Scotland's doctors, teachers and volunteers have played a key role in making the Commonwealth—to use Don McKinnon's words—
"an international ‘family' worthy of tomorrow's citizens".
I am glad to speak to the motion, because the Commonwealth brings a touch of healing to a troubled world. Scots have shown a commitment to improving the lot of mankind throughout the Commonwealth—through medicine, education, engineering, construction, science and administration. That is a record of which we in the Parliament can be justly proud.
Many members would like to speak, so I suggest a target time of three minutes apiece.
At one of my recent school surgeries, I was asked by a young constituent, "What is the point of the Commonwealth?" She said that the Commonwealth had no political power and that it had no influence on the world economy. Although that is a fair criticism, I believe that the Commonwealth is important for political democracy and for values. Those fellow Commonwealth citizens, democratic political parties and trade unions that seek to bring parliamentary democracy to their countries need the support of democratically elected representatives throughout the Commonwealth.
As we know, a number of African leaders who attended the recent Commonwealth leaders meeting in Australia voiced their intense irritation at the criticisms that leaders of post-colonialist countries have levelled against the behaviour of President Mugabe and his security forces during the election in Zimbabwe. My view is that the Commonwealth nations cannot remain silent when democracy is under violent threat in a member state. I agree with what Ian Buruma wrote about Tony Blair in The Guardian yesterday:
"to call him an arrogant racist for asking the Commonwealth to stop Mugabe's attempts to steal an election is no way to help the Zimbabweans."
However, I believe that it might have been more prudent to wait until that farrago of an election had taken place before commenting. Also, was not it deeply moving to see the many thousands of ordinary Zimbabweans queuing all day to vote for democracy? If only voters in this country were as committed.
The question must be asked whether the Commonwealth nations can ignore the Zimbabweans' admirable commitment to parliamentary democracy. Should we ignore the pleas of the opposition parties and trade unions, now that Zimbabwe's seriously flawed election is over? In their hour of need, the opposition parties have turned to the Commonwealth, not to the European Union or the USA or the United Nations. If we in the Commonwealth do not support people who are committed to democratic change, what indeed is the point of the Commonwealth?
The importance of the Commonwealth is not in relation to the global economy; it does not figure at all in international politics, but it has immense value in spreading and sustaining belief in democracy and human rights in countries where post-colonial leaders are every bit as oppressive as the old colonial powers of earlier centuries. If we are weak-kneed about those who ignore the democratic aspirations of their people, there would no longer be any point in the Commonwealth. We would let it slip away into history.
The Commonwealth is eminently worth campaigning for. All its citizens deserve to live in democratic societies in which their civil and human rights are protected by Parliaments and the courts.
I pay tribute to James Douglas-Hamilton for having secured the debate on behalf of the executive committee of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. The first four speakers are—by accident of course—members of that executive committee; indeed, its president is the Presiding Officer and its vice-presidents are Jack McConnell and John Swinney. Before I start my speech, I pay tribute to the officers of the group in the Parliament—Roy Devon, Grahame Wear and Margaret Neal, two of whom are in the public gallery. They are looking rather lonely, actually.
I would like to give two snapshots of the work of the CPA and to explain why I think that its work is valuable. I know that some people in the Parliament consider the CPA to be a charter for junketing and that being a member of the CPA will get you anywhere in the world. In reality, that is not true—although I am going to talk about New Delhi and Canada, both of which I have visited in the past two years.
I came to the CPA and to the idea of the Commonwealth from a fairly hostile standpoint, as many nationalists do, but I look forward to the day when Scotland is an independent member of the Commonwealth. While it is not, there is a great deal to be gained by the Parliament and all the parties from participating fully in the CPA. We have a great deal to learn from one another.
Let me give two examples. The first is a conference on Parliaments and the media that was held in New Delhi in February 2000. I represented the Parliament at that conference. Sixty delegates—half from Parliaments and half from the media—debated common problems in the perception of Parliaments within the media. If members of the Parliament cast their minds back to February 2000, they will agree that, my goodness, we needed help with those problems.
The conference showed that there were common problems in putting across ideas of parliamentary democracy and of how Parliaments work to a media that works in soundbites and tabloid headlines. There were also problems in taking ideas of privacy and the protection of members into places where the rule of law was not well established and where such laws, if implemented, might actually have damaged press freedom. A wide-ranging debate was held on those issues. I wrote a report on the conference when I came back; it is still available through the Scottish Parliament information centre.
The debate introduced me to the idea that members of Parliaments in the Commonwealth had much to learn from one another. Just last week, we saw an example of that here. Members of the Canadian federal Parliament, from many parties, visited for a week to discuss a range of issues, such as drugs and equal opportunities. Those are vital matters for both countries and for many other nations in the Commonwealth. However, they also discussed matters of practice and procedure, and the fact that the committee system that this Parliament has developed is more active and vibrant than that which exists in many older Parliaments in the Commonwealth, which is a plus. They also discussed the fact that the question times that one witnesses in the Canadian Parliament and the Quebec Parliament are a great deal more exciting and probing than anything that the Deputy First Minister has to put up with here. Mr Wallace looks doubtful, but—
Perhaps that is to do with the quality of the Opposition.
No. The quality of the Opposition is high, as Mr Wallace knows, and I am happy to take him outside at any time.
In the Parliaments that I mentioned, members can ask any question, on any day and on any topic, in that 45-minute period. Questions are not given in advance. Mr Wallace's book of answers would be of no use to him in those circumstances. I am sorry that some Labour members—
Mr Russell, you are straying a little from the Commonwealth.
No, Presiding Officer, I am not—I am illustrating the fact that we can learn from one another. We can learn how to have a vibrant democracy in each Commonwealth country. That links to what Trish Godman said about protecting democracy. Parliamentary democracy—with all its flaws, difficulties and problems, even in this country—is so precious that we need to learn from one another and to strengthen one another. That is the purpose of the CPA.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton said that Scotland is at the heart of the Commonwealth and indeed it is. I come from a not untypical Scottish family from the border between Banffshire and Aberdeenshire. My father was the youngest of seven children. One of his brothers emigrated to Johannesburg in South Africa, another emigrated to Vancouver in Canada, one sister married a farmer from outside Harare in Zimbabwe and another sister lived for some time in Assam in India, where her husband was a Church of Scotland minister. I have cousins in Canada, South Africa and Australia. To me, as to many Scots, the Commonwealth represents not just a family of nations, but something even stronger—a family of blood to which we are literally related.
Although I have not been as successful in foreign trips as Mr Russell—he has had more trips than the rest of us put together—as an MP at Westminster and as an MSP at Holyrood, I have learned at first hand the value of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. I have met and become friends with parliamentarians from many Commonwealth countries and at conferences and seminars I have discussed with them issues of mutual interest and concern. As Mike Russell said, it is impossible to underestimate the value of such links. I discussed drugs issues with the Canadian delegation last week, and when I visited the New South Wales Parliament in October.
I am glad that Trish Godman made her comments about Zimbabwe. The Commonwealth is facing one of its greatest tests in the form of the presidential election in Zimbabwe. If the Commonwealth does not effectively support the Harare principles for the promotion of democracy, human rights, the rule of law, the independence of the judiciary and such fundamental political principles as freedom of association and freedom of speech, what on earth is the point of having the Commonwealth?
To the dismay of many, the Commonwealth heads of Government failed at the meeting in Queensland to take action against Zimbabwe. The three-member committee that was appointed—made up of John Howard, the Prime Minister of Australia, President Mbeke of South Africa and President Obasanjo of Nigeria—must act in the face of the unambiguous evidence from the international and local election observers in Zimbabwe. As one senior observer rightly said, the election has been "poisoned" by the mass disenfranchisement of hundreds of thousands of voters, intimidation and violence towards the opposition Movement for Democratic Change—Amnesty International estimates that at least 1,400 people have been detained arbitrarily in the last two days—the shortage of polling booths, the inexplicable delays in voting and the disappearance and mysterious reappearance of ballot boxes. Instead of the rule of law, there has been the rule of the mob.
Anyone who saw this week's "Panorama" with Feargal Keane, will know that Mugabe is guilty of far more than merely stealing a presidential election—he is responsible for the massacres of thousands in Matabeleland in the 1980s. What he did to his own people then ranks with what Saddam Hussein did to the Kurds and with what Milosevic did to the Kosovars. The countries of the Commonwealth were then, in Feargal Keane's words,
"bystanders to crimes against humanity",
but they cannot and must not be such bystanders now, or the Commonwealth will lose all credibility and all reason for its existence.
I, too, congratulate Lord James on securing today's debate. When the e-mail request came round to ascertain whether members wanted to speak in the debate, I pressed the positive reply button almost without thinking. Why was that? I was raised in one of the furthest flung parts of the Commonwealth—Australia.
When asked, I describe myself as 100 per cent Scots and 50 per cent Australian—I feel that that is an accurate assessment in relation to my upbringing. It is something of a standing joke in the Scottish National Party that on any set-piece occasion I am permitted only one mention of Australia. Mike Russell could regale members with tales of the attempts that have been made to get me to shut up about Australia.
I am more generous.
In such a debate I should be allowed more than one mention of Australia.
Being raised in another Commonwealth country lends me some perspective. I do not imagine that Australia differs greatly from other parts of the Commonwealth in that membership of the Commonwealth has always been important to it. Australia is part of a network of historical relationships—that is what the Commonwealth is about—that people have valued over the years and that they wish to maintain. I suspect that it is the relationship that they wish to maintain, rather than the title. We cannot say for certain whether that will always be the case. Whatever the original basis of the relationship there is no doubt that it is changing. Indeed, it has changed already, with the old imperial mindset gone and the emergence of a new relationship of equality.
That nations stay in the Commonwealth tells us that it has value. However, that value is challenged by occasional periods of stress, one of which we are undergoing and which other members have mentioned.
Although today's debate is and should be congratulatory, we should not pretend that the situation in Zimbabwe is in any way in keeping with Commonwealth ideals. Election counts in Scotland, which are attended by one or two policemen, remind us of how hard-won our democracy is. It is hard for any of us, involved in our process here, to imagine being involved in an election in the circumstances that we have seen in Zimbabwe, a country that is led by someone who I believe is certainly a fascist and probably a racist.
The Commonwealth can play a vital role in bringing about change—I very much hope that it will do so. Keith Raffan is right to say that thus far it has not lived up to expectations. Change will happen only if we continue talking to one another, which is why the CPA is so important. I welcome the debate and the work of the CPA and look forward to a great deal more debate and work. I look forward especially to a day when Scotland can be involved in the Commonwealth as an independent country.
It is unfortunate in the extreme that this debate, on a motion that is extremely optimistic and constructive, should take place against the background of the recent events in Zimbabwe. Everyone in the chamber will deeply regret that. Trish Godman and Keith Raffan were correct to state that this could be a defining moment for the Commonwealth.
The Commonwealth was based upon a very sound principle of democracy. It grew out of colonialism, which is not an acceptable method of government. It was very much hoped that every member of the Commonwealth had chosen the option of democracy; to return to the motion, we had grounds for thinking so. We must not allow the events in Zimbabwe to overshadow the real issue, which is that the Commonwealth has been a success.
Members of the Commonwealth have much in common. Scotland has close relationships with not only the old Commonwealth countries, but the new ones. It is quite commonplace to walk the streets of African townships and to see Scots place names. We in Scotland can take real and genuine pride in the contribution that our country and our countrymen have made to the establishment of a constructive and ever more prosperous third world.
At the same time, we cannot be complacent. We must acknowledge that the situation in some of those countries is not acceptable. That is why it is vital that the heads of Commonwealth states now recognise the dangers that face us. It would be a tragedy for most of us, in human and emotional terms, if the events of Zimbabwe were to overshadow the good that the Commonwealth does, particularly in this important jubilee year.
I am confident and optimistic. The events of the past few days will not overshadow the potential for a constructive year, when we will engage with our Commonwealth partners on a range of issues and when we will look with pride—as they can look with pride—at the way in which education has prospered and health care has improved, and at the way in which the democratic principle in the vast majority of Commonwealth countries is now as we would all wish it. That is why we should be forward-looking and constructive. Let us not forget the events of the past few days, and let us ensure that the Commonwealth heads of state react appropriately to it. However, at the same time let us consider the success that has been the Commonwealth and the future success that it has the possibility to be.
I am one of a tiresomely large number of Scots whose family for the past century or so has been everywhere but in Scotland. We have inflicted ourselves on very large parts of the globe—mainly the Commonwealth—with the common bond of English. I hope that my relations have always been creative, working in agriculture and in medicine. When eventually they left those Commonwealth countries, it broke their hearts. They never quite recovered from being back home and leaving their many friends.
In my youth, in the full flowering of the youthful assumptions that we all have, I thought that the Commonwealth was merely an excuse for a large collection of elderly gents to get together, take tiffin and reminisce about the days when the sun never set over the British Empire—for the very good reason that God would not trust a British national in the dark. It is not like that at all. I believe that the links between Scotland and the Commonwealth are quite unbreakable and that they stand most of all for unity against racism, which, apart from being horrific, is about the most boring thing possible. Would it not be simply dreadful just to know one or two bigots and not to share in the riches of the world and the riches of the types who inhabit this planet?
Like all great institutions, the Commonwealth has had many failures. I very much regret that nowadays one does not see nearly so many black faces coming out of Glasgow University or Edinburgh University medical schools as used to be seen. That failure has come about because fees are far too high, although there are Commonwealth charitable institutions that help such students.
Mr Mugabe and his gang should have been kicked out and treated with extreme severity because of their umpteen crimes, but we must look today at the wider picture and at the future. I regret the fact that, since we joined the European Union, we have seemed to slip away more from the Commonwealth. We must right that balance and exclude neither the EU nor the Commonwealth.
I remind members of the debt that we owe the Commonwealth. I have been privileged enough to work in a number of Commonwealth countries, mainly in the far east. Standing on hillsides in those countries, one can see hundreds and hundreds of acres of great citadels of the dead, where white Commonwealth war graves sparkle in the sun and lads from Scotland lie under the frangipani trees next to lads from Africa, India, Pakistan, Australia and Canada. Those lads, who came from all over just to help one little island, gave their lives at the age of 17, 18 or 19; the oldest of them were about 27. It is a blood debt that we can never forget.
Will Dorothy-Grace Elder also bear in mind the fact that many from the black Commonwealth and from India and Asia, and not just from the white Commonwealth, gave their lives? That should be very firmly on the record.
That is exactly the point that I am trying to make. One has only to see one of those war graves abroad to feel utterly humbled by the massive sacrifice of the black Commonwealth and of those great people who came to the aid of these islands at the very worst of times.
Whatever the faults of the Commonwealth, we are far better with it than without it.
I identify totally with the wording of the motion and I congratulate my friend Lord James Douglas-Hamilton on securing this evening's debate.
I remind you, Presiding Officer, that the history of my involvement with the CPA goes back to either the first or the second meeting of this Parliament, when I managed to make the first bogus point of order and was reprimanded by you for suggesting that we should join the CPA. I make no apology whatever for that. I believe that it was the right thing to do and that the Parliament has benefited since then from that action.
My involvement with and understanding of the Commonwealth goes back to the early 1960s, when I went to sea, and many of the countries that we visited were Commonwealth countries. In those countries I could always recognise an element of structure. We can thank Britain—a sometimes berated colonial power—for the way that those countries were treated in the past and how they were set up as they moved towards democracy. The structures were an important element of democracy.
I say to Keith Raffan that I was sad rather than glad to hear Trish Godman's comments on Zimbabwe. I was sad that they were necessary and correct, just as Keith Raffan's comments were. The Commonwealth is built on respect and democracy. We share and have learned from each other. What has happened in Zimbabwe today is perhaps another lesson for us all. However, we should not be despondent as such occurrences have happened in the past. Nigeria comes to mind. Things have improved and democracy has been returned to many countries.
There will always be questions and difficulties, but we stand together as a family in the Commonwealth of Nations. Britain and every nation that forms that Commonwealth should take great pride in wanting to stand together. Perhaps that is unique in the modern world.
I, too, welcome the visitors in the gallery. I had the pleasure of showing visitors from Barbados and Grenada around our new Parliament before the debate. They are studying at the Robert Gordon University in my constituency.
It is important for MSPs to take part in every available international forum and to speak with members of other countries' Parliaments to learn from them what they are doing and teach those countries what we know. After all, our Parliament is new and has recently been set up. We are in a good position to share our experience with countries around the world.
Last September, I was lucky enough to go to Australia as one of the Scottish delegates to the CPA's annual conference. There were 500 delegates at the conference—500 members of Parliaments from around the world, from countries that are a fraction of the size of Scotland to countries that are the size of India.
We discussed a whole range of topics. Mike Russell touched on a couple of topics that are regularly discussed by Commonwealth nations. We discussed how to be better parliamentarians and how to improve our parliamentary democracies. One topic was obscurely called "Towards being a Professional Knowledge-based Parliamentarian". Under that, we heard from MPs from countries such as Malaysia about technology that they are using to improve their parliamentary democracies. One Malaysian MP raved about his digital cards, which he uses instead of business cards. He gives them out to people such as his constituents. By contrast, people in some developing countries are struggling even to set up telephone networks in their Parliaments or acquire e-mail addresses. That highlights the fact that the parliamentary democracies in the Commonwealth are at different stages.
I met a number of Nigerian MPs who were literally battle-scarred from attempting to secure parliamentary democracy. They had come through military dictatorships, civil war and revolutions and shared their experience with me. Of course, Scotland and Nigeria acquired their parliamentary democracies in the same year—1999. In Nigeria's case, that was after 20 years of military dictatorship.
We also discussed poverty alleviation and the international trafficking of people. The Ugandan delegates told us about how they had only just introduced free education for primary school kids and the Botswana delegates told us about how they have had to introduce micro-credit schemes as commercial banks refuse to operate for the ordinary people in their country. We discussed huge up-and-coming issues such as globalisation and its threat to developing countries. I made a speech at the conference on how we must regulate the multinationals, many of which are seen as a threat to developing countries as they are in them to exploit. All the Commonwealth countries should work together to come up with ideas on what we can do about such threats. After I made the speech, a queue of MPs from the developing world waited to speak to me. They wanted to say how much they agreed with what I said.
Such conferences—the dialogue between Commonwealth nations—should not just be talk. There should be action. There is no point in talking about what multinationals are doing that threatens emerging democracies. We should act to stop such threats. That means that all the parliamentary democracies throughout the Commonwealth must have more power to do that. I hope that Scotland can be part of that dialogue.
So that we leave no one out, I give Margaret Ewing and Brian Fitzpatrick two minutes each.
I will try to keep to that.
Like other members, I congratulate Lord James Douglas-Hamilton on securing the debate. It is sad that the shadow of Zimbabwe is hanging over us. I say that with some personal feeling, as I spent time in Harare with Baroness Chalker. We talked to young women who were desperately trying to break into the professions. I was impressed by their efforts and I feel the sadness that they must feel at this time in their country. I think of them particularly today.
In my 19 years at Westminster, I was a member of the CPA and now I am a member of the CPA here. I am delighted that we have established a CPA branch in the Scottish Parliament, because Scotland is an outward-looking nation. Like Roseanna Cunningham, I look forward to the day when Scotland is an independent member of the Commonwealth, but that is for another day.
I look back over the contribution that Scotland has made to the Commonwealth over generations and the benefits that the Commonwealth has brought to Scotland. I think of all the students who have studied here. I know that, as Dorothy-Grace Elder said, finances are difficult in our universities and overseas students have not had the support that we would like to give them. However, the benefits have worked in both directions; we have benefited and other countries have benefited.
My experience as an election monitor was in Lesotho, where I experienced long queues similar to the ones that we have seen on television. I spent my time at Qacha's Nek in the highlands of Lesotho—to give members an idea of what it is like to be in the highlands of Lesotho, I should mention that the lowest point in Lesotho is higher than Ben Nevis. Wherever we went, from the smallest hamlet to the little towns in the area, those of us who, as election monitors, were wearing Commonwealth hats and tee-shirts were welcomed as friends. There was genuine trust. That friendship and trust is what the Commonwealth is based on. Long may that continue and more strength to it.
Many of us in the chamber, from various backgrounds, are aware of the diaspora of Scots and others throughout the Commonwealth. We are also aware, as some members have touched on, that a frank recognition of the burdens as well as the benefits that our involvement across the globe has brought is a key component of new relations that are based on equality, democracy and mutual respect in the Commonwealth. To that extent, we must resist the temptation to be self-congratulatory. A lot of work must be done on that front.
I am saddened by what is taking place before our eyes in Zimbabwe. However, what is happening reminds us of the struggle for solidarity and the campaign for democracy that lies at the heart of people working together in order to secure their rights. Rights were never given to working people; they were always won by democratic action and by people working together to benefit themselves and their families. That is as true in remote parts of the Commonwealth as it is in our country. We must maintain the case for supporting democracy in Zimbabwe; that is particularly important in the context of this debate.
Like many in the chamber, not least the Presiding Officer, I transferred my support from the anti-apartheid movement to Action for Southern Africa—ACTSA—with great joy. People literally danced in the streets of Glasgow as we welcomed Nelson Mandela and rejected once and for all the legacy of apartheid. There were those from my alma mater, Glasgow University—including our late first First Minister—who argued the case against state fascism in southern Africa and supported Albert Luthuli at a time when that was rather unfashionable and unwelcome. We know that, in the 21st century, the Commonwealth is at its best when it reflects the aims and aspirations of the ordinary people of the Commonwealth. That is how we should judge and measure it. Against that background, I am content to support the motion.
As previous speakers have done, I warmly welcome the debate. I thank Lord James Douglas-Hamilton for providing us with the opportunity to mark Commonwealth day, to celebrate the importance of the Commonwealth in the modern world and—through the second part of the motion—to recognise the valuable work of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. I am surrounded by dignitaries of that association, who do valuable work for the Parliament. If it is not too sycophantic, I recognise Sir David Steel's contribution as the president of our branch of the association. We all know about his hard-working and distinguished contribution to the Commonwealth, not least in Africa.
As many members have said, although the debate celebrates the importance of the Commonwealth, it nevertheless takes place under the shadow of events in Zimbabwe. A number of speakers, including Keith Raffan, Bill Aitken, Trish Godman, Margaret Ewing, Mike Russell and Roseanna Cunningham mentioned Zimbabwe. The United Kingdom Government made it clear at the recent Commonwealth heads of Government meeting that Zimbabwe should be suspended because it had flouted the Commonwealth's basic values. We all know that the Commonwealth's decisions are taken by consensus. During the debate on the matter, President Mbeki, President Obasanjo and Prime Minister John Howard were tasked with reviewing the situation after the election and making recommendations for action that are based on the Commonwealth observers' report. I am advised that the observers are expected to report by the weekend.
Of all the comments that have been made, perhaps the most telling one was Trish Godman's. She said that at a time when many people in Zimbabwe were experiencing harassment and real difficulty, they did not turn to the European Union, the United States or the United Nations, but to the Commonwealth. We should value that fact; it is precious. Margaret Ewing said that when she was an election observer in Lesotho, the Commonwealth observers were warmly welcomed. That gives us hope—and perhaps the confidence and optimism that Bill Aitken mentioned—that in a world in which there are a lot of anxious and problematic times, forces for good can operate.
The debate helps to draw attention to the Commonwealth and to its positive contribution to the lives of millions of people. At its best, the Commonwealth is a symbol of positive, constructive and peaceful international interaction. It is founded on the principles of liberty, democracy, international peace, the rule of law and equal rights for all.
If we are to achieve a stable world order, the peoples, cultures and religions of the world must learn to accept and understand one another. That is why it is appropriate that, as Lord James Douglas-Hamilton said, the theme that the Commonwealth has adopted this year is that of embracing diversity. As a grouping of 54 countries, which encompasses virtually all the major religions, economic zones and regional blocs of the world, the 1.7 billion people of the Commonwealth are accustomed to embracing diversity. It is clear from the speeches that we, in Scotland, want to play our part in that.
The Commonwealth is not perfect, but there are problems in every family. In 1997, former Commonwealth Minister Lord Thomson of Monifieth said:
"Political rationality demands that we should not withdraw in exasperation from international co-operation but, instead, use all our experience to make a priority of recommitting ourselves where it matters."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 29 January 1997; Vol 577, c 1201.]
That is as true now as it was then.
Many members reflected on the strong connections that Scotland has had with the countries of the Commonwealth. Scottish explorers, engineers, doctors and missionaries went to work in the countries of the Commonwealth and helped to shape those countries that are now our international family. That point was made by Keith Raffan, who gave a list of his relations who have gone to Commonwealth countries, and by Dorothy-Grace Elder. My father was born in what is now Malaysia. Probably all of us can claim a connection with a Commonwealth country.
In an important way, Scotland has been shaped by that experience. Thanks to our history of engagement with the world, the Scotland of today is an outward-looking country and enjoys strong links with many of our Commonwealth partners. It is our responsibility to maintain and develop those links, to help to ensure stability and prosperity for the people of Scotland and of the Commonwealth.
The Commonwealth is part not just of Scotland's past and present, but of its future as well. On Monday, the First Minister announced that the 15th conference of Commonwealth education ministers will be held in Edinburgh in the late autumn of 2003. We expect to have education ministers and others from the 54 states of the Commonwealth in Scotland for that event. Working with the other parts of the United Kingdom, we will use the opportunity to showcase Scotland's world-class education system and to share experience and interests with our friends in the Commonwealth. The one thing that we all share is the will to give every child and young person in our countries the best start in life. I welcome the fact that, as members have remarked, there are still a large number of Commonwealth students at Scottish universities. Those are the kinds of links that help to foster good Commonwealth relations.
The Commonwealth is not always about equality, democracy, peace and prosperity; it is also sometimes about competition. This year, in Manchester, that will mean competition for the gold, silver and bronze medals. I very much hope that this year's Commonwealth games see our Scottish athletes achieve the level of success that they achieved in 1998, when they secured 12 medals for Scotland including three golds.
As members have said, the Commonwealth is a great example of community and co-operation in a complex modern world. As Brian Fitzpatrick rightly said, we must now form new relationships based on mutual respect. The Commonwealth is an example of the way in which very different communities can come together. The Parliament and the Executive are proud to contribute to its continuing success. We support the motion.
It has been a particular pleasure for me, as the president of the Scottish branch of the CPA, to chair this debate. I remind colleagues that they are invited to join me in welcoming our Commonwealth guests at a reception at the Holyrood visitor centre at 6 o'clock. I am told that a bus will leave from outside the parliamentary office in about 10 minutes' time. With that happy news, I close this meeting.
Meeting closed at 17:47.