The final item of business today is a members’ business debate on motion S4M-09759, in the name of Sarah Boyack, on the first anniversary of the Rana Plaza disaster.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes that 24 April 2014 marks the first anniversary of the tragic Rana Plaza disaster, in which an eight storey commercial building collapsed in Savar, near Dhaka in Bangladesh; understands that the victims and their loved ones have yet to be fully compensated for the preventable disaster, which claimed the lives of over 1,000 workers; welcomes the launch, on 24 March 2014, of the Rana Plaza Arrangement compensation process, negotiated under the auspices of the International Labour Organization by employers and unions in Bangladesh and globally and by the government of Bangladesh; notes calls for companies operating across the Lothian region, Scotland and the UK, especially companies that sold clothing that was produced at the Rana Plaza, to make sufficient contributions to ensure that a target of £24 million is reached by the 24 April 2014; considers that no worker’s life should be put at risk due to a lack of appropriate safety measures and that the first year anniversary is a day to remember those who tragically died and serves as a reminder of the importance of health and safety at work, including rigorous protection of workers’ rights for all, and notes that 28 April 2014 marks Workers’ Memorial Day, which exists to remember the dead, fight for the living and ensure that lessons are learned from tragedies and that disasters are not repeated.
17:06
First, I thank colleagues for their support, which has enabled me to secure the motion for debate. There are constituents of mine who were very interested in the fact that we would be debating the issue this evening.
It is important that we raise awareness of what needs to be done to tackle the conditions that led to 1,129 Bangladeshi garment workers losing their lives, and to 2,500 people being injured in the Rana Plaza building collapse.
The twenty-fourth of April was the first anniversary of this tragic disaster, in which an eight-storey building collapsed in Savar, near Dhaka in Bangladesh. I will use my speech this evening to highlight what happened, why we should be concerned, what happened after the disaster, what wider lessons need to be learned and what action still needs to be taken.
The building that collapsed was not fit for purpose. It was not built to house the weight of machinery that was in it. There had already been a warning about safety, which had gone unheeded. The workers were paid a pittance for their work, as is the case in many factories in Bangladesh where garments are produced. We should be concerned, because some of those garments find their way into chains that are present in Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom.
I highlight the two key initiatives that took place in Bangladesh after the incident. First, there was the accord that was signed by the Bangladesh Government, the key industries, the trade unions and non-governmental organisations. In the immediate aftermath of the event, it was estimated that 90 per cent of buildings in Bangladesh did not meet the local building codes, never mind international building standards. In a country that is prone to earthquakes, that is a major challenge for the Bangladeshi Government and local government in the country to address. The “Accord on Fire and Building Safety in Bangladesh” has been a big step forward. Oxfam records that more than 1,500 factories in Bangladesh will now be inspected. We must regard that as key progress.
Much more needs to be done on the other major initiative that brought together the Government, the industry, trade unions and NGOs. Although the Rana Plaza agreement has been strongly welcomed by people, it has led to a challenge. Although some companies have made donations and some people have been compensated for their loss or for the health implications—in cases of people who needed support afterwards and in cases of people whose capacity to work was removed—there is simply nowhere near enough in the fund to enable the second set of compensation agreements to be debated and to be handed out to the thousands of people whose lives were ruined by the experience and the distress that came with it.
Donor organisations include well-known names such as Gap, Asda and Debenhams, and some companies that have paid into the fund were not connected to the Rana Plaza disaster, but some of the biggest retail companies, whose names are known to us all, have not contributed and campaigns have sprung up to highlight that. Only 40 per cent of the target has been reached, and many companies have yet to make a significant contribution or indeed any contribution.
Although no Scottish companies sourced clothes from the Rana Plaza, Alison Johnstone, who is not in the chamber this evening, lodged a motion that referred to Edinburgh Woollen Mill, which sourced clothes from the Tazreen Fashions factory, where more than 100 people died in another incident. The motion suggested that more needs to be done to establish accountability and contributions in relation to that incident. Scottish Education and Action for Development, which supports that call, also wants chains of responsibility to be established for companies that are sourcing garments for the Commonwealth games. The charity particularly wants the minister to respond to that call.
There are issues to do with compensation and building safety. We should also ask questions about the pay and terms and conditions of Bangladeshi workers who produce garments that developed nations import. In future, the day on which the Rana Plaza disaster took place will be commemorated as fashion revolution day. The campaign aims to highlight the rights of garment workers, so that there is an annual focus on the issue and we never forget the loss of life at Rana Plaza.
It has been reported that Bangladeshi workers are some of the lowest paid in the world, taking home less than 62 per cent of the living wage. Nearly 40 per cent of the garment factories in Dhaka fail to pay the minimum wage. The International Labour Organization and Oxfam highlight the problem and challenge us to ask questions about the clothing that we buy.
The issue was addressed recently in a motion that Kez Dugdale lodged. Across the parties in the Parliament, there has been interest in ensuring that we highlight the issues. I think that doing so is an act of international solidarity and social justice. Members of the Scottish Parliament can promote the issue on an individual level and by working with organisations and NGOs in our communities.
The clean clothes campaign draws attention to brands that have made insufficient or no contributions to the Rana Plaza fund. That campaign and the fashion revolution campaign will sit alongside the work of established organisations such as SEAD and Oxfam, which have long called for justice for workers and lobbied for major companies to take responsibility for tackling poverty pay.
No worker’s life should be put at risk because of a failure to put appropriate safety measures in place. The anniversary of the Rana Plaza disaster is one that we should remember in future. We need to acknowledge that people died in tragic circumstances and to enable their deaths to serve as a reminder of the importance of health and safety at work, abroad and at home.
We must campaign for the rigorous protection of all workers’ rights. Many members celebrated workers memorial day this year, when workers across the world agreed to stand in solidarity to remember the dead, fight for the living and ensure that lessons are learned and tragedies are not repeated.
There are issues that we need to take up in our communities. There is a challenge to get Scottish consumers and companies to support stronger accountability from companies that source clothes from factories across the world for sale here. We need to draw attention to the chain of responsibility and encourage our constituents and organisations and companies that are active in Scotland to consider it in the context of their procurement and sourcing policies.
Today in the Scottish Parliament we can add our voices to calls for justice for garment workers, so that they receive fair pay and decent and safe working conditions. We do so in an act of solidarity with some of the lowest-paid workers, who experience working conditions that would not be acceptable here and in the rest of the developed world. Let us use our political influence to support those workers.
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to the motion. I hope that in his closing remarks the minister will talk about how the Scottish Government can highlight the campaigns that I have talked about, assist with the chain of accountability and support corporate social responsibility in Scottish companies.
17:14
I thank Sarah Boyack for bringing the debate to the chamber. It is on a subject that we wish we did not have to speak about but which we have a duty to speak about in the Parliament. A lot of ground is covered in the motion, and Ms Boyack has covered quite a lot in her speech. I am happy to associate myself with all of that. The focus of the motion and the debate is the Rana Plaza disaster, which happened in Bangladesh, and I am more than happy to support the call for contributions to the compensation fund.
The next main theme is how we can reduce the risk of such a disaster happening again. In its briefing, Amnesty International emphasises human rights and the relationship that exists between government and business in Bangladesh, which seems to be unhealthily close in some instances. Oxfam talks about our responsibilities as consumers for the clothes that we buy. Sarah Boyack mentioned that as well. At the very least, we should question why something is cheap. Like probably all of us here, I like to get a bargain, but there must be a reason why a shirt or a pair of jeans is incredibly cheap. That reason may be that the workers’ wages are far too low or that there are virtually no health and safety standards wherever it was produced.
That brings me to the topic of fair trade. We have made real progress in fair trade food and drink. Years ago, the tea and coffee were pretty poor, but we have moved on to good-quality products. Many of us now buy other fair trade products such as chocolate, sugar and wine. Like many others, when I go out to buy such food products, I regularly choose fair trade products because they give us at least some assurance that the workers receive a decent wage and that there will be some health and safety standards where they work.
However, we do not seem to have made the same progress with clothing products, and that concerns me. Perhaps it is more difficult to change that kind of product from the grass roots. Tea and coffee can be sold at a small stall at a school fair or a church, but that is not possible with a range of clothing. Nevertheless, we must tackle the situation somehow. One suggestion that has had success in the past is the use of pension funds. Local authority pension funds, among others, make huge investments in a range of companies around the world. When I was a councillor, I served on the committee for the Strathclyde pension fund and we felt able to ask the fund managers to bring reports to us on corporate social responsibility—on whether big companies such as BP and Shell were paying proper local wages and whether the local conditions were healthy and good. That put at least some pressure on the companies to report back on such things and, to be fair, corporate social responsibility has moved forward since then.
We must also be clear that it is not just about rich western nations trying to impose their standards on the developing world; it is about having decent wages and health and safety standards all over the world. Frankly, we get it wrong too. On 28 April, I was at Glasgow green to commemorate workers memorial day, which Sarah Boyack mentioned. Patricia Ferguson was there, as was Drew Smith, I think. Patricia Ferguson talked about her proposed bill, and there was a focus on the Stockline tragedy, which happened on our doorstep in Glasgow. I hope that we can put the emphasis on working with countries such as Bangladesh and not talking down to them, which I fear western countries have sometimes done in the past.
If we are going to be idealistic, I would like us to move towards a worldwide minimum wage, albeit set at appropriate local levels. I was trying to remember the singer who mentioned that in one of his songs—I think that it was somebody called Ian Davidson, but I am not sure. I accept that that might be a long way off, but we need at least to talk about such things and keep our focus on them. We should think not just about those who are struggling in Scotland, the UK and Europe, but about the people who are struggling all around the world, because each person is of equal value.
17:19
I congratulate my colleague Sarah Boyack on securing this debate about one of the world’s worst industrial accidents. I apologise to you and to members, Presiding Officer, because I will have to leave when I have concluded my speech.
As we have heard, more than 1,100 people lost their lives and a further 2,500 were injured when the Rana Plaza complex collapsed on 24 April 2013. Having witnessed the effect on my local communities of an industrial disaster in which nine people lost their lives, I can only begin to imagine the effects that such a devastating event had on the Savar district of Dhaka, where the plaza was located.
We know that many of the survivors are still struggling with injuries that affect their ability to work, and that many families have lost their breadwinner and are experiencing brutal hardship to this date, which is why the Rana Plaza arrangement and the compensation process that are attached to it are so important. However, as we heard from Sarah Boyack, the agreement is woefully inadequate.
What happened at Rana Plaza was not the first large-scale disaster in the ready-made garment industry in Bangladesh. Months earlier, in November 2012, 112 people were killed in a fire at Tazreen Fashions. Between 2006 and 2009, 414 garment workers were killed in 213 separate factory fires and, in the five months following the fire at Tazreen Fashions, a further 28 factory fires were reported, with eight workers killed and at least 591 injured.
What is it about the Bangladesh garment industry that makes it so vulnerable to such tragedies? It is worth noting that the industry is a key driving force of the Bangladesh economy and that it is highly politicised. In 2011-12, Bangladesh was the second-largest exporter of apparel in the world, and the industry accounted for 13 per cent of the country’s gross domestic product and provided employment for an estimated 3.6 million people.
Although Bangladesh has improved its economic outlook significantly in recent years, issues including workers’ rights, transparency and building regulations have not kept pace. In the garment industry, buyers demand low prices that are achieved by rival companies constantly undercutting one another, paying low wages and having scant regard for the health and safety of their workers. Furthermore, when one considers that Bangladesh has the lowest hourly wage rate in the world, and that many garment workers work long hours without extra pay just to meet targets, one begins to feel that it is an industry in which workers have little value.
Rana Plaza exemplifies that disregard for safety. On 23 April, the day before the collapse, cracks appeared in the factory’s walls. The media reported that the country’s industrial police had recommended that the factory owner suspend production until the situation could be investigated by independent inspectors. Indeed, the bank and shops on the ground floor were still closed when the collapse took place, but the upper floors, where the garment factory was located, had been reopened as a result of the factory owner’s having organised an inspection by his own contractor, who declared the building to be safe, which probably comes as no surprise. It is alleged that some workers were threatened with dismissal if they did not return to work, and that many returned to their machines just an hour before the building’s collapse.
What can and should be done to improve safety and conditions in Bangladesh? It is clear that a complex set of relationships are at play there. I was very impressed by the report that was produced by the Bangladesh all-party parliamentary group at Westminster. It has produced a raft of recommendations, many of which seem to be eminently sensible, based on conversations that they have had here and in Bangladesh. I will single out just a few of those and paraphrase them for speed.
The group suggests that western Governments use their influence to encourage Bangladesh to address Labour rights, minimum wage levels and enforcement; that the Bangladesh Government establish a disaster relief and fire emergency plan, with adequate funding and ministerial responsibility; that there be support for the minimum wage board that has been established in Bangladesh; that there must be greater worker participation and representation in the running of companies; and that a system of building controls with appropriate training and record keeping be established.
Another of the group’s interesting ideas is the recommendation that there be a kite mark for ethically produced garments. Given the hundreds of items that one can buy that are fair-trade marked, and that many of those are made using cotton and other fabric-producing materials, I wonder whether a separate kite mark would be needed for ethically traded and produced garments. However, it is worth looking into that issue.
It seems to me that we must consider whether the west’s insatiable appetite for low-cost garments also plays a part in this story. I believe that it does.
In debates on the Stockline tragedy, which John Mason mentioned, I have suggested that no one should die just because they go to work. In my view, that applies just as much in Bangladesh as it does in Scotland.
17:25
Like many members, I well remember the pictures from the immediate aftermath of the collapse of the factory at Rana Plaza. The aspect that sticks most in my mind was the look of sheer confusion on people’s faces and the general chaos that seemed to characterise the immediate response. Obviously, the scale of the tragedy quickly became apparent and, shortly after, the broader issues with the garment industry came to light. However, since then, the Rana Plaza incident has slipped from the front pages, and that is why I am very pleased that we are having this evening’s debate.
Although discussions on the safety of factories in the garment industry, conditions within them and the role of the industry have continued, the issue has received a good deal less attention than we would have expected a tragedy of such scale to have received had it occurred in another country. I congratulate Sarah Boyack and the many other people who are determined not to let the Rana Plaza disaster fade into history, and who are determined to ensure that, whatever else, the lives of the 1,000 or so workers that were lost were not lost in vain.
We cannot overstress the importance of all our individual responsibilities on the issue. Of course the UK Government should take action on it, and the fact that it has done so is most welcome. The provision of £1.8 million of funding for the trade and global value chains initiative is one such development that should strengthen the relationship between buyers and factory workers. It comes on top of the responsible and accountable garment sector challenge fund, which works with some of our top retailers to improve conditions for workers in the industry.
However, there is another link in the chain—ourselves, as consumers. The fact that the garment-marketing rules have been relaxed, thanks mainly to European Union regulations, means that “country of origin” labelling is no longer compulsory. That happened as a result of lobbying by the Spanish, who were keen that Mango and Zara should not have to disclose where their garments are manufactured. Since then, it has been nigh on impossible to say whether clothing is made in a foreign sweatshop. Therefore, I think that the kite mark idea is a sound one.
As someone who worked in the textile industry for long years, I always take a keen interest in where the garments that I buy are manufactured. I find that many people make assumptions about high prices being a marker for quality, but that is not the case. To put it frankly, we cannot make such assumptions. If we are to put pressure on retailers and drive up workers’ conditions, we must start informing ourselves better about the origin of our clothing. I am not talking only about the country of origin, because in all countries there will be factories that are safe to work in and which provide safe and reliable employment. We should not lose sight of that.
In relation to that, I am pleased that UK aid is providing money for factory inspections in Bangladesh, which I understand will number 2,000 next year, but we can always do more. The problem is that we put money into funds to carry out such factory inspections, but the bosses keep half the money and still pay the workers the minimum wage. It is extremely difficult to control that. As consumers, we should be asking questions about who is producing our clothes, what conditions they are working under and whether the retailer is doing all that it can to support better standards.
I hope that the increased publicity about compensation of workers surrounding the efforts of some of the companies involved will shame them into becoming more generous and proactive. The fact that so many companies whose goods were manufactured at Rana Plaza failed to attend the first meeting on compensation is shameful, to put it mildly. Those companies must do more, and we must keep up the pressure on them to do so. That goes beyond the issue of compensation, on which progress seems to be being made through the Rana Plaza arrangement, and extends to the broader issue of welfare and conditions for workers, in particular in the developing world. We need to be confident that the cost of our clothes is at the expense of the consumer and not of the welfare of those who make them.
17:29
I thank Sarah Boyack for bringing her motion to the chamber for debate. She has a long and notable history of securing debates on issues of importance across the world, and I commend her for again doing that with the motion that we are debating this evening. I also thank the members who signed it and those who have spoken on it.
As we all know, 24 April 2014 marked the first anniversary of the tragic Rana Plaza disaster, which claimed the lives of at least 1,129 garment factory workers and left many more injured.
As Patricia Ferguson pointed out, the disaster came only a few months after the Tazreen Fashions fire in Dhaka, which killed 112 workers. These tragedies, and many others like them, are a stark reminder of the human cost of our demand for cheap, fast clothing and of the horrendous working conditions of those who produce them. John Mason was correct to suggest that, because of that demand, we might all, at one time or another, have been guilty of being part of the problem, albeit in an indirect way and without realising the consequences of our actions.
We should recognise that the issues surrounding the garment sector in Bangladesh are complex and are not as simple as might have been portrayed previously. The industry is worth more than £13 billion and provides jobs for more than 4 million Bangladeshis, the vast majority of whom are women. On the one hand, the industry is absolutely vital to poverty reduction and the economic empowerment of people, particularly women, in Bangladesh. It gives women opportunities to work outside the home, earn their own money and help support their family. It also offers an alternative to early marriage.
However, the flipside is, as members have suggested, that people might have to work in exploitative conditions. There is no excuse for the appalling working conditions that led to the tragic Rana Plaza factory collapse, and it is imperative that those affected by the disaster—the child who lost his mother, the woman who was left disabled and all those who are now unable to support their families—are properly compensated. In response to Sarah Boyack’s question about what the Scottish Government can do in that regard, I can tell her that we urge companies to stick by the agreements that they have signed, which I will go into in more detail. I also commit to raising the issue with the honorary consul for Bangladesh and with the high commissioner, when I next meet him. I am certainly happy to raise the Parliament’s collective voice on the matter.
As members have pointed out, one year on, progress has been made in improving building safety, conditions and, indeed, inspections, which are very important. Buyers have also been urged to take responsibility for their supply chain, and I welcome the introduction of the Rana Plaza arrangement compensation process to support the victims. However, as I said, it is vital that the fund adequately compensates all affected, and I reiterate the call made in the motion and by every member in the chamber for
“companies operating across the Lothian region, Scotland and the UK, especially companies that sold clothing that was produced at the Rana Plaza”
to make sufficient and appropriate contributions to ensure that the £24 million target is reached. Sarah Boyack will understand that neither I as a Government minister nor the Government itself has the legislative power to force them to do so, but the Parliament should send a strong message to the UK and Scottish companies in question to ensure that they live up to their important responsibilities.
We all agree that it is completely unacceptable for people to face a threat to their lives every time they go to work. Patricia Ferguson and John Mason very poignantly reminded us of the Stockline incident, and the point is that whether we are talking about Scotland or Bangladesh, everyone should have the right to work in safety and expect to go back home after a hard day’s work.
As consumers, we all have a responsibility to think a bit harder about what we are buying; after all, sometimes there is no such thing as a good bargain. The Government has a responsibility to be a good global citizen, and our achievement of fair trade nation status, in particular, gives us the leverage to do more on this issue. Moreover, the Procurement Reform (Scotland) Bill, which was recently passed by Parliament, was amended by the Government to ensure that ethical and fair trade policies are reflected in guidelines for public contracts. That is a step in the right direction and gives us some influence over public contracts in ensuring that those who exploit workers are made to answer for that in the public procurement process. I also think that we as a Government can do more on the issue by using our fair trade nation status.
We are very proud of the work that we do with Bangladesh, which is one of our international development priority countries. We are currently funding four projects, which are worth just shy of £1 million, over the three years between 2013 and 2016. The projects work on food security and with marginalised communities in mitigating the effects of climate change.
On what more the Scottish Government can do, many of us will know the United Nations guiding principles on business and human rights, which the UN Human Rights Council endorsed in 2011. The UK launched its implementation plan in September 2013, and the Scottish Government has liaised closely with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in that process.
We have in Scotland a national action plan for human rights, which was facilitated and drafted by the Scottish Human Rights Commission and launched on 10 December 2013. It contains a commitment to develop a co-ordinated plan of action in Scotland to give effect to the UN guiding principles, which are also known as the Ruggie principles. Many members across the chamber will know about the Ruggie principles, which relate to providing respect for human rights in the context of business activities. UN member states have a positive duty to take all necessary steps to prevent business-related human rights violations. In the context that we are in, but even if Scotland votes for independence, we as the Scottish Government will, of course, be an advocate of those principles.
I note, as others have done, that workers memorial day was marked on 28 April 2014. The purpose of that day is to remember all those who have been killed through work, but also to ensure that such tragedies are not repeated. I completely share that sentiment and believe that the work on Scotland’s national action plan for human rights has an essential role to play in improving business practices. However, we need collective action across the globe and the community of nations to pull together. The Ruggie principles are certainly one way of achieving that.
I once again thank Sarah Boyack for keeping the issue in the spotlight. I am sure that the message from the Parliament will be loud and clear: we must never see another tragedy such as that of Rana Plaza.
Meeting closed at 17:37.Previous
Decision TimeNext
Correction