Make Poverty History
The final item of business is a members' business debate on motion S2M-2207, in the name of Des McNulty, on the make poverty history campaign 2005. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament welcomes the UK Government's commitment to the millennium development goals; welcomes the First Minister's recent statement that Scotland's devolved government can contribute to international development; notes that the crucial G8 meeting will be held in Scotland in July 2005; notes with concern that the current debt crisis, trade injustice and shortcomings of aid further exacerbate poverty, inequality, the HIV/AIDS crisis and environmental degradation across the developing world; notes that, if the international community is to make poverty history, then there needs to be further co-ordinated political action by the world's governments, including the United Kingdom, aimed at trade justice, dropping the debt and providing more and better aid, and considers that the UK Government should lead the way for change and use its influence when it holds the presidency of the G8 and chairs the EU to make poverty history in 2005.
The 1945 United Kingdom Government set as its objective the eradication of what Beveridge called the five great wants. The foundations that were laid at that time, which included the creation of the national health service, have relieved the population of this country from ignorance, idleness, poverty, illness and squalor. We have ensured that people in this country have food on their tables and roofs over their heads. When someone falls ill, doctors provide treatment without charging. Our children have school places that do not depend on their parents' ability to pay.
Sixty years after the creation of the welfare state in Britain, the challenge that we face is to overcome those great wants once again, this time on a global basis. In tackling that task, I do not pretend that the same solutions that were appropriate here will provide the answer, but I believe that we all have a shared responsibility to respond to the needs of Africa and other parts of the world where people are living in misery and distress. This year—here in Scotland—we have a great opportunity to usher in changes that are even more far-reaching than those that were wrought by the great reforms of the post-war Labour Government.
I could talk about the role that Tony Blair and Gordon Brown have played in waking up international Governments across the world to those issues, but I do not believe that tackling the wants to which I have referred should be a politically partisan issue; we should all support the objectives of the make poverty history campaign. I am grateful to the 49 colleagues from across the parties that are represented in the Parliament for signing my motion, as well as to the 412 MPs at Westminster who supported an early-day motion along similar lines.
I recently travelled to Ghana with Oxfam, where I met rice and tomato farmers who eke out a precarious existence from their land. Although Ghana has water, sunshine and other natural advantages for growing those and many other crops, it has become a net importer, rather than a net exporter, of foodstuffs that it could easily grow for itself. There is a lack of equipment, especially machinery for harvesting, processing and packaging the crops. Ghana needs practical aid and assistance in the agricultural sector, as well as in education and health, so that its people can make the most of their tremendous potential.
The aid for local projects that is provided through Oxfam and other aid organisations is vital, as is the development aid that is provided through our own and other Governments. Relatively small amounts of financial support can make a huge difference to a small community—and there are many needy communities in sub-Saharan Africa. The Governments of rich countries like our own have a heavy responsibility: they should increase significantly the proportion of aid that they provide to at least the United Nations target of 0.7 per cent of gross national product.
It is arguably even more important for the arrangements that govern world trade to be changed than it is for countries to meet their aid obligations. Western Governments are imposing trade arrangements on the rest of the world that undermine the development of agriculture and the manufacturing industries of those poor countries.
Currently, poor farmers in countries such as Ghana are excluded from world markets. Indeed, they are even undercut in their own local markets by subsidised farmers and food corporations from the west. Sophisticated marketing and packaging, together with the huge subsidies that are paid to farmers in the United States of America and Europe hobble development in Africa. How can we credibly proclaim our concern for the world's poor if we do not end unfair trade across the world?
The make poverty history campaign is a coalition of 400 charities, campaigns, trade unions, faith groups and celebrities, all of whom are united by a common belief that 2005 offers a unique opportunity to radically change the face of world poverty. Those of us who support the coalition do not want empty commitments or commitments that are rendered meaningless because of the long timescales that are attached to them. We do not want tied aid, which benefits the economic interests of the donor and not of the recipient. We do not want an out-of-balance trade system that helps the wealthy and harms the poor. We do not want debt relief to be offered with conditions that harm instead of help the countries that need our assistance.
There are only 68 days left until the G8 summit at Gleneagles in July. I will be at the demonstration on 2 July; not to protest, but to express my commitment towards the creation of a more just world. Hundreds of thousands of people will also be at Gleneagles to do the same thing. So far, 100,000 people have registered as supporters of the make poverty history campaign website and, as we speak, over 1 million white wristbands are being worn.
If we look for inspiration, let us look no further than Nelson Mandela. His commitment to majority rule through 27 years of incarceration on Robben Island and his commitment to reconciliation during the transition to democracy in South Africa shows that each of us can make a contribution.
Since stepping down as president of South Africa, Nelson Mandela has continued working to bring the world's attention to the life-and-death matters that affect millions of people in Africa. He has courageously and openly talked about the terrible impact that HIV/AIDS has had on members of his own family. His example is a beacon to us all: it should awaken us all to the devastation that that disease, and poverty more generally, has wrought in Africa.
Earlier this year, Nelson Mandela said:
"Like slavery and apartheid, poverty is not natural. It is man-made and it can be overcome and eradicated by the actions of human beings.
… overcoming poverty is not a gesture of charity. It is an act of justice. It is the protection of a fundamental human right, the right to dignity and a decent life.
While poverty persists, there is no true freedom. …
The G8 leaders, when they meet in Scotland in July, have already promised to focus on the issue of poverty, especially in Africa.
I say to all those leaders: do not look the other way; do not hesitate. Recognise that the world is hungry for action, not words. Act with courage and vision. …
Sometimes it falls upon a generation to be great. You can be that great generation. Let your greatness blossom.
Of course, the task will not be easy. But not to do this could be a crime against humanity, against which I ask all humanity now to rise up."
The great achievement of the generation of our parents and grandparents in the aftermath of the second world war was to lay the foundations of the modern welfare state in Britain and to eradicate the five wants. I want the great achievement of our generation to be the bringing to an end of world poverty. We need to make substantial progress towards that goal in 2005. If we do so, I believe that we will all be able to stand, as Nelson Mandela said,
"with our heads held high."
I am sure that I will not be the last to congratulate Des McNulty on bringing the motion before the chamber, because it is a subject on which there is cross-party agreement. I congratulate him on the endless work that he does on behalf of the cross-party international development group of the Scottish Parliament, which is one of the most successful cross-party groups.
The debate reflects many of the aspirations of the Scottish people. This country has not had a kailyard attitude. It has always reached out to other areas. We are a democracy, and we believe that not only should we address domestic matters, which are much in our minds, but we should look out to the international community. We have a long history and strong tradition of doing that. It is engrained in the psyche of the Scottish people. We saw that in a recent YouGov poll, which showed that 78 per cent of voters who were questioned on their major priorities said that they wanted all political parties and politicians to join together to ensure that world poverty was eradicated.
We must remember what is happening while we are speaking. Bob Geldof has many years' experience of working on poverty and he points out that we can all count—one, two, three—and click our fingers. Every third second a child dies from avoidable disease and poverty, which is a blot on the conscience of us all. We must endeavour more strongly to prevent that happening. If this debate lasts for 45 minutes, 900 children will have died by the end of it.
On the localised aspects of international development, broken promises lead to broken hearts. I would like to put that on our agenda. The main UK target is that by 2015 the number of people living in poverty should be reduced by 50 per cent. However, at the current rate of change, it will be 150 years before that target is reached.
That brings me to the important subject of debt relief. In Zambia, for example, debt repayment costs £25 million, which is more than the total education budget, yet 40 per cent of women in Zambia cannot read or write. Many aspects of debt relief, and many aspects of the motion, are not the responsibility of this Parliament, but we should address them and our voice must be heard. A step in the direction of debt relief would be significant, not solely in sub-Saharan Africa, but in many other parts of the world.
Targets are an issue. There should be a genuine attempt by all Governments to contribute 0.7 per cent of their national income to ensure that the rich north can help the poorer south. However, only a few countries have achieved that target—Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden. Those small northern democracies are working hard to achieve that target. I would be proud if Scotland joined them as soon as possible. I urge the Executive to use all its best abilities to bring Scotland into that premier league.
What can we do? We can do various things. The Parliament has a limited budget of £3 million per annum for such work. In responding, will the Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport confirm whether that is a set figure? The Scotland branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association has also brought forward a report indicating small things that could be done. I hope that the minister will show how the Parliament and the Executive can deal with international affairs, because it is a matter of great concern to people throughout Scotland and beyond.
If we have to choose a target, it must be Malawi. Having seen what we did on the CPA visit to Malawi, and given our traditions, there should be a facility for the Parliament to adopt many of the wonderful projects that are already happening there and to build on the good will and the history that we share.
In addition, there should be co-ordination of assistance, in particular to sub-Saharan Africa. I am grateful that the First Minister intends to visit sub-Saharan Africa next month. However, there is a genuine need to co-ordinate the manner in which help is distributed to small villages and remote areas. That can be achieved through simple measures such as exchange schemes, twinning and supporting enterprise, health, education and other public services. The parliament can help achieve that co-ordination.
We should have the courage and commitment to move beyond our limited resources and limited powers to achieve an unlimited dedication to eradicating the poverty to which Des McNulty refers in the motion.
I congratulate Des McNulty, not only for bringing forward the debate, but for the persistence and commitment he has shown on this issue in the six years since the re-establishment of the Parliament. I also congratulate Margaret Ewing on her leadership of the delegation to Africa. My colleague Ted Brocklebank found the visit moving and interesting, given that it was his first visit to the area.
It is important and appropriate that the Parliament highlights our concerns on this issue following last week's world poverty day. The International Monetary Fund and the World Bank were mentioned in an article in The Economist of 23 April last, which made reference to
"the exasperating charade that is the debt relief debate."
The article noted:
"behind the general pledges are deep divisions about what debt relief is really for."
A further article on page 89 of the same issue, referred to the American millennium challenge account, which is a good subject for debate. The Americans try to find out whether countries have high trade barriers, misaligned exchange rates, unstable prices and other indicators such as honesty, soundness and freedom from corruption, before giving them money. While I am not sure that that is entirely the correct way to proceed, it is a topic for much-needed debate.
Wealth can be redistributed only if it is first created. As Ted Brocklebank said earlier, it is the profits we make and the tax we pay that contribute to debt relief.
The make poverty history coalition has been successful in drawing renewed attention to this cause. The YouGov survey states that 72 per cent of Scots believe that they have personally taken action on the issue since the previous general election and that 79 per cent expressed their concerned belief that politicians and parties should do more to end extreme poverty.
Conservatives support and encourage free trade. We will continue to press the European Union to reduce tariffs and protectionist measures on imports from poorer countries so that they can participate in trade as equal partners, rather than having to trade with the fortress Europe that currently exists.
Although, as Des McNulty said, this is not a party-political issue, I put on record the fact that, like his party, my party is committed to increasing international development support by £800 million over the next three years and to working towards the United Nations target of spending 0.7 per cent of national income on aid by 2013.
Given that time is short I will move on. My son is a qualified civil engineer with a masters degree and a specialism in providing clean water. He applied to VSO over a year ago and was prepared to give two years of his life to earn £20 a week because he wanted to help people. Despite the great need throughout the world and despite his going through all the courses and getting all the injections, VSO has not got back to him for 12 months. I do not mind naming and shaming, because when young people come forward to make such commitments, they should be accepted. My son spent nine weeks in Ethiopia at the tail end of last year and I was surprised to hear from him that the clothes that we send from the UK are not given out free of charge to people who need them, but are on sale in local shops and markets.
An end to global poverty can be achieved only by good governance, free enterprise, free markets and fairer trade. The growth of free markets will do more to lift people out of poverty than many of the aid programmes throughout the world. The most obvious example to give is the European Union's common agricultural policy, which I think I have mentioned before. Given that the Presiding Officer is knocking his microphone to get me to finish, I will do so now.
I am just trying to get everybody in. Not everybody will get in unless I take a motion without notice to extend the debate until 6.15 pm, which the minister has agreed to.
Motion moved,
That, under Rule 8.14.3, the debate be extended until 6.15 pm.—[Des McNulty.]
Motion agreed to.
Like others, I thank Des McNulty for lodging the motion for debate, although, having known him for as long as I have, I am not in the least bit surprised at his lodging such motions. I do not intend to speak for very long; I thought that I was going to be sitting where you are sitting, Presiding Officer, so I have not prepared much.
Many members, including you, Presiding Officer, will have been asked to speak at Burns suppers this year. When I was asked to speak at a couple, I did some rooting around to find out about Scots males, in particular, abroad. I was surprised and impressed by, and proud about, what I found out about some of the Scots who have worked and lived abroad, particularly in underdeveloped and poorer countries. Many have gone abroad to teach through their churches; indeed, the village school that Nelson Mandela attended was opened and run by a Scot from one of the churches.
Bernard Lunan, a doctor with whom I worked in Glasgow royal infirmary, spent his holidays working in small villages in Africa, teaching people how to give injections and medication so that they could help to prevent the avoidable diseases that Mary Scanlon mentioned.
Susan Bhaumik, who was a teacher in Drumchapel, spent a long time in Tanzania and asked us to send books no matter what they were, because the school in which she taught had only three books, which were so old that she had to keep Sellotaping them together.
In time for reflection today, Eilidh Letham from Airdrie told us about her experiences as a young girl spending a month with children in Peru. She said that, when she went across with her fellow sixth formers with her knapsack, iPod, mobile phone and make-up, she discovered that the girls in the village had no idea about any of those things and were more interested in the paper, pencils and crayons.
Scots have always given of their time, talent, skill and money, but what can we in this new Parliament do to address the issue of world poverty? I believe that global citizenship should be included more fully in the school curriculum—hearing the young girl talking today about her experiences in Peru made me think about that. Jack McConnell has said that he wants to make Scotland a fair-trade country. Fair trade had small beginnings in the Co-operative movement and we see where it is now. I for one would support that development. As Mary Scanlon said, ministers in Scotland can argue further about the reform of the common agricultural policy, which denies trade access to farmers from poorer countries.
Des McNulty mentioned HIV and AIDS. For some time, African leaders denied that there were problems in their countries, which is partly why we find ourselves in the situation that we are in today. However, drug companies have, at last, responded to the pleas to allow cheap generic drugs to be sent to Africa, which is now happening.
We must ensure that the specific sums that Gordon Brown has mentioned are clearly pledged at the G8 summit. We must use all channels—external, diplomatic and political—to champion trade justice, increase aid and cancel the debt. However, the aid needs to be focused and I hope that it can be focused on health and education.
The involvement of local and national communities is imperative. They know best the paths by which they can get themselves out of poverty. Aid must enable poorer countries to plan effectively and to take control of their own budgets in the fight against poverty.
The G8 summit offers us a unique chance. Let us ensure that, in this year of the G8 summit, this new Scottish Parliament can change the lives of those people who live in poverty.
I congratulate Des McNulty on sponsoring this important debate and on making a good speech. We must pay tribute to the people at various levels who genuinely promote the issues of overseas fair trade and removing poverty.
I will focus on some of the problems. First, Governments, including our own, do not do enough to challenge the multinational companies. We do not try to impose corporate accountability; instead, we allow those companies to have a voluntary system of so-called corporate social responsibility. However, many companies act irresponsibly and are harmful to poorer countries. We have to get a grip on the multinationals.
We also have to examine the conditions that are attached to aid. When aid is given—whether it is multilateral aid or our own bilateral aid—we often insist that the heavily indebted poor countries privatise public services, which is highly disastrous, and we try to get them to concentrate on producing exports rather than on farming to grow the things that they need to eat. We use our aid budget to pay for debt relief, which means that it is not real relief. It might help in one way, but we remove the help with the other hand because we reduce our aid budgets. In many cases, we are not acting as straightforwardly as we should be.
We spend huge sums of money paying consultants, although that ill is not limited to overseas activities. I think that, on the whole, we could quite happily remove consultants from the scene.
As some of our briefing papers suggest, we should concentrate on helping children. I particularly like the slogan "Help girls get even". I am sure that some of our female colleagues would support that notion. They think, quite rightly, that they are even, but, overseas, girls are not even and get a worse deal than boys in education and so on. We should concentrate on that.
Above all, we should concentrate on helping communities to help themselves. A lot of the Governments of the countries that we are talking about are crooked and a lot of multinationals are immoral. However, the people at a local level are genuine and need some help. I think that we can do more to help them to help themselves.
Ernesto Sirolli has a great reputation and has set up an institute that helps communities to help themselves. When he was young, he was an aid worker in Africa. People in Rome told him, "Get these guys to grow carrots," so everyone carefully grew carrots. One morning, however, they woke up to find that all the carrots had been eaten by the local hippopotamuses. From that, he learned that great schemes that are devised somewhere else are absolutely no use. We have to help communities to help themselves.
A couple of ideas that are mentioned in the briefing papers are well worth pursuing. One is the use of gold reserves to fund debt relief. The other is an innovative and ingenious idea that would be effective if we could implement it: a worldwide tax on aeroplane fuel. Obviously, no country will introduce such a tax if it thinks that doing so will disadvantage it in relation to its competitors, but a worldwide tax to tackle poverty is an idea that we should pursue.
Like everyone else, I welcome this debate and congratulate Des McNulty on bringing it forward. Once again, we should take pride in the fact that our Parliament has been outward looking since it was founded in 1999. We have had a number of debates on similar themes over the years and the subject of tonight's debate is one on which we can all unite. Trish Godman mentioned Burns suppers and I think that, if Rabbie Burns was around today, he would have something to say about the fact that the developed world is so wealthy while there is such chronic poverty elsewhere on the planet. We remember the sentiments of "A Man's a Man for a' that", which is the Parliament's unofficial anthem.
This debate will help to add momentum to the run-up to the G8 summit in July, the twin themes of which are Africa and climate change. It will be good to see the heads of state coming together to discuss those issues. The world is getting smaller, but, unfortunately, globalisation has so far been about some countries economically exploiting others rather than about intervening to try to tackle poverty. When people come together in the future, the objective should be to tackle poverty and not to exploit economically countries in the developing world.
Both themes—Africa and climate change—relate to making poverty history. Throughout the debate, many people will eloquently roll statistics off their tongues, but in the tsunami that happened a few months ago we saw how the most vulnerable communities in the world are hit hardest by such events. Of course, that brings to mind the issue of climate change. When we consider the devastation that climate change can wreak, we realise what a threat is posed to many developing countries. We know that climate change will mean warmer summers, wetter winters, extreme weather conditions and rising sea levels. We must remember that the wealth that exists in the developed world was built on the back of the developing world. The emissions that occur because of our prosperity in the developed world are causing climate change, which will impact on the whole world, but particularly on the poorest societies.
When we talk about making global poverty history, we have to think about how we will help to tackle poverty. Members have put forward many solutions, but we must remember that the developing world needs energy. That is perhaps the biggest challenge that it faces in the coming decades if poverty is to be tackled. Economic development requires energy, but at the moment many societies have problems with accessing it. On the one hand, we in this country have to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to limit the impact that climate change will have throughout the world. On the other hand, we have to help countries to develop economically so that poverty can be eliminated, and that means that they will need access to energy.
Our water industry helped some of the Asian regions that were hit by the tsunami a few months ago. We can lend our expertise in that field, but we also have huge expertise in energy. If we want to help to develop the economies of developing countries, we will have to lend some of that expertise. Believe it or not, some of the world's experts on solar energy are based in Scotland. Of course, the potential of that form of renewable energy in the developing world is huge. Perhaps we should consider how we can use our energy expertise to help the developing world. I believe that that is an area in which the Scottish Parliament can contribute.
In the run-up to the G8 summit, Scotland has an opportunity to make its voice heard. The people of Scotland will, no doubt, turn out in great numbers at the march in Edinburgh on 2 July. We should pay tribute to the many thousands of people in Scotland who, year in, year out, do their bit for the international community to tackle poverty overseas. As the response to the tsunami showed, hundreds of thousands of Scots want to do something to help and they are more aware than ever of the level of global poverty.
In the run-up to the G8 summit, hundreds of thousands of Scots will have the opportunity to make their voice heard and to join the make poverty history campaign. At the summit, the world's leaders will have their opportunity to join the campaign and to make a real difference. We should all bring our voices together and put the pressure on in the run-up to the G8 summit in July.
I join other members in thanking Des McNulty for initiating the debate and for making an excellent introductory speech. What is more important in the world than working to make poverty history? The 400 non-governmental organisations that are involved in make poverty history have undertaken a brilliant campaign to increase awareness of the need for more and better aid, for dropping the debt and for trade justice.
What does that mean in practice? I will start with more and better aid. As has been said, only four countries meet the 0.7 per cent UN guideline. The amount of aid that rich countries give as a proportion of gross domestic product declined from 0.34 per cent in 1990 to 0.23 per cent in 2002. Britain stands out because it has made a commitment to increase aid to 0.7 per cent on a timetable that runs to 2013. I think that 2013 is too far away, but I am glad that we have a timetable.
We need better aid. As has been said, about a quarter of global aid is tied to products that are from a donor country. Too much aid is connected to the imposition of free-market economics—neo-liberal economics that do nothing to aid countries.
We have seen positive commitments on debt, such as the British Government's commitment to wipe out £5 billion of the debt that is owed by the most indebted third-world countries. However, only £1.2 billion of that debt has been dropped, because the countries that are involved must follow the heavily indebted poor countries programme, which forces them into a pattern of structural adjustment.
We must think about how to challenge the reasons why we need to give those countries aid. We must challenge the causes for those countries' overwhelming debt levels. Sub-Saharan Africa was given £212 billion of aid between 1990 and 2002, yet poverty there increased.
The commodity prices for the top 10 tropical products mean that, if we had had sensible intervention in the markets for those products, the countries that are those products' primary producers would have earned an extra £242 billion of income from trade. That money was wiped out by the unfair trade rules. That is why Des McNulty and others were right to say that the trade rules are the fundamental problem. We must tackle them if we are to move towards making poverty history.
The so-called free-market model that bodies such as the G8 are imposing on third-world countries involves forced import liberalisation—more of our stuff going there. That is matched with an uncertain future for export earnings and difficulties for those countries in exporting their products to us. Time and again, the World Trade Organisation's international trade rules are biased in favour of big business from the west and against the interests of poor countries.
I favour a rule-based system of world trade, but I oppose a rule-based system for world trade that is biased against the interests of the poor. We must tackle that problem if we are really to make poverty history. We need a different basis for trade—a basis that tries to distribute resources fairly. No more than a fair share of the earth's resources and no less than a decent standard of living for everybody should be our goal, not the interests of a few big countries and big companies. If we accept that, we can take a step to make poverty history.
I join others in congratulating Des McNulty on lodging this motion and on making such a passionate speech. More generally, I congratulate him on the work that he and others do on raising such issues, week in, week out, in the Parliament through the cross-party international development group. It is also appropriate to recognise the contribution that you made, Presiding Officer, to developing that group in the first session of the Parliament before you obtained your current, elevated position.
I join other members in recognising the magnificent work that is done by the hundreds of NGOs in building up the remarkable movement that is the make poverty history campaign. It is also important to recognise the work that has been done and is being done tirelessly at a local level. I shall mention just two examples. The first of those is my next-door neighbours at the Traidcraft shop in Portobello. Through years of voluntary effort, they have promoted fair trade and have, quietly and effectively in the local community, highlighted the issues and politics surrounding that at the same time as developing their range of excellent products.
Here in the Parliament, another activity that caught my imagination was the lobby that we received several months ago from a group of women clergy—the first lobby of this Parliament on the make poverty history campaign. Those of us who attended the lobby, including the First Minister, could not fail to be moved by the prayers and songs in which those women led us on that day. Indeed, it is women's role and gender issues that I want to focus on today. We must recognise that, just as women are having a disproportionate impact in raising these issues at so many different levels and in making a significant contribution, women are also disproportionately affected by poverty throughout the world. In that context, I will elaborate on the point that Donald Gorrie raised.
One of the millennium development goals is to reach gender parity in primary education. Some progress has been made, but that goal has certainly not been met. There are more than 100 million children in the world who still do not receive an education, and more than 60 million of those children are girls. The disproportionality varies in certain parts of the world and increases at later stages of life. In Africa, for example, only one in five girls attends secondary school. The impact of that cannot and should not be understated. The global campaign for education has said that world Governments need to take drastic action now to prevent devastating economic and social costs. It has predicted that the slow progress on girls' education will account for 10 million child and maternal deaths and will cost impoverished countries as much as three percentage points in lost economic growth. If the make poverty history campaign can influence world leaders—not just in the G8 nations, but in many of the nations that are affected—to take action in that key area, that will leave a tremendous legacy for the world and will have an enormous impact for generations to come.
I will conclude by making a couple of observations about the make poverty history campaign. I am delighted that the Parliament is engaging so directly in the issue. It is right that, as individuals, we can and should voice our opinions. As an institution, we have a role to play and I hope that, as the Parliament grows and develops, we will strengthen our voice on global issues. As politicians and political parties, too, we have much to learn.
Many people are engaging in this movement and the campaign who are not engaged in more conventional politics—perhaps because of the scale of the ambition and the importance of the goal; perhaps because of the passion and conviction; or perhaps because of the fact that the movement is based on peaceful protest and co-operation: who knows? Many of us cut our teeth in politics in campaigns such as the fight against apartheid and international liberation struggles. Most of us are a bit greyer and wider these days, but we are hopefully a bit older and wiser. I hope, too, that we are no less passionate or committed to building a fairer and more just world in the future.
I call Rosie Kane, to be followed by Linda Fabiani. I ask members to keep speeches tight, please.
Thank you, Presiding Officer. I will do that.
I thank Des McNulty for securing the debate and congratulate him on the work that he does and the speech that he made. Making poverty history should always be at the top of our agenda, and we should try to keep it there. As someone said earlier, it is about deeds and not words. I hope that the work of the cross-party international development group, the NGOs and others is about deeds and not words.
Our briefings from NGOs and other organisations inform us about the subject but they make very painful reading. Friends of the Earth tells us that one third of the world's population currently lives in water-stressed countries. That figure will increase dramatically in the near future. It is bad enough to live in such an area, but that stress often leads to war, exploitation, movement of people, disaster, hunger and, of course, poverty. Each day, 30,000 children die of poverty. We have heard all the statistics and figures but we cannot say too often that 800,000 people suffer from chronic illness and 1.1 billion lack access to safe drinking water—I have two bottles of water beside me and I have almost finished both of them. That beggars belief in 2005. We have to address those issues if we are to make poverty history.
The total debt of the 52 poorest countries in the world is around $375 billion. G7 countries promised to write off $100 billion of that debt but the actual amount that was written off was $46 billion. That is only 12 per cent of what was promised and so leaves 88 per cent not dealt with.
All those facts and figures are the reason why we cannot look to the G8 leaders to make poverty history because they are part of the problem. For example, G8 leaders are hand in glove with the arms industry, which relies on instability and death for its existence and development. There are around 639 million arms and light weapons in the world today; 8 million more are produced every year. Workers' skills are used to make those machines and company directors need folk to use them to ensure their profits. Death, destruction, mayhem and, of course, poverty are the outcome.
Will the G8 leaders tackle their big business friends and other world leaders or will they continue to plough taxpayers' money into weapons instead of bread, scanners and solutions for environmental destruction and poverty? As we speak, children around the world are involved in armed conflict instead of being at school and learning to read and write. In 2003, children made up 40 per cent of some of the armed groups in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Sadly, if any of those little kids find their way to our shores for safety, it is likely that some of us will end up struggling with the Home Office to keep them safe. We often have to wave them back to dangerous and difficult situations.
I fear and predict that the current situation will prevail. I fear that the G8 leaders will make noises about making poverty history but we cannot rely on those guys—and they are all guys—because they and their good buddies would not be able to ply their trade in a world in which there was no poverty.
I know that we in this chamber care about making poverty history. Des McNulty has been active and vocal on the issue, as have others—all are to be applauded. However, if we are going to move forward, we have to move forward hard and honest and straight.
I know that my time is running out but if members will indulge me for a wee minute, I will tell you about two children in Glasgow, one from Mozambique and one from Sighthill. The child from Mozambique is asked by the Glasgow child, "What does your dad do for a living?" The child from Mozambique says, "He digs diamonds." The boy from Glasgow says, "You must be loaded. I cannae afford diamonds." The boy from Mozambique says, "I've never seen a diamond and I certainly couldn't afford one. We can't afford food and that is why we are here."
I know that poverty will be history when world leaders unite in the struggle in our streets and say, "Please donate. We want to create mayhem. We are greedy. We want instability. We want war. We plan to destroy the environment. Give generously." When they are rattling cans and wearing badges, poverty will indeed be history.
There are four speakers left so I ask them to try to give their speeches in three minutes.
I welcome the opportunity to debate the subject; I also welcome the motion in general. I particularly endorse the call for necessary political action by the world's Governments. I would like the United Kingdom to take this year's opportunity to lead by example. At the beginning of the debate, Margaret Ewing spoke about how we will not achieve the millennium development goals, judging by current progress. So let us have the UK lead the way by immediately implementing the 0.7 per cent of GNP target. I would love to see this Parliament lobby the UK Government to achieve that target in the year in which the G8 meeting takes place in Gleneagles.
In reality, the UK's pledge to pay 0.7 per cent of GNP is 35 years old, so it is no great shakes that the Chancellor of the Exchequer now says that he will meet the target some time in the future. After some 35 years, the Government is spending only half that amount on aid. I ask members to think about this: since making that pledge in 1970, the UK Government has underspent its aid budget and short-changed the world's poorest by £76 billion. We owe that to the undeveloped countries. If we are serious about leading the way, let us start by promising something extra. It would be good if we were leading the way.
I have loads to say, but I assure the Presiding Officer that I will look at the clock all the time while I run through these points quickly. On the role of women, which was mentioned by Susan Deacon, I firmly believe from my limited experience of visiting underdeveloped countries that women are key. We must educate girls and women, who can pass that education on to their children. Women lead civic society in all the underdeveloped countries. The saying that men talk but women do may be a cliché but it is often also a reality. We need to fund women from the bottom up.
I also want funding to be given to small initiatives. We are good at pointing out all the big things that need to be done, but small initiatives in countries and communities are what really help things to happen. Such initiatives can also bypass corrupt Governments, which people always cite as an argument for not delivering aid.
We also need communication strategies. Let us consider the use of community radio, mobile phones and existing solar technology. When I was in the Andean region of Latin America, I was fascinated by the dependence of the indigenous populations on community radio for so much learning. That was absolutely fantastic.
I am aware that I am running out of time, but I want to congratulate the NGOs on the way in which they have co-ordinated their actions in the make poverty history campaign. Such coming together is not new, although it is wonderful that it is very formalised this time round. However, the NGOs have been co-ordinating for years in initiatives such as the jubilee 2000 campaign. Oxfam and all the other organisations have always worked together towards the goal of eliminating poverty.
While I am on the subject of the jubilee 2000 debt campaign, I want to mention that we need to revise some of the debt relief stuff. The way in which we currently administer export credits is an absolute nonsense. We need to look at that again.
We also need to consider other initiatives. I am not convinced about the use of gold bullion, which Donald Gorrie suggested, but whatever happened to the Tobin tax? I bet that loads of members were once signed up to that idea. Perhaps we should reconsider such a tax on currency transactions.
Finally, I must mention—as it is also a local issue for me—the campaigners of the jubilee 2000 drop the debt campaign, who will do a wonderful cycle around the UK that will culminate at Gleneagles. Those folk have done such things for years. They have been at every single summit since the one in Birmingham in 1998. For the record, I can say that although I will not be able to cycle with them I am happy to sponsor them.
It is difficult to work out what to say in three minutes, so I will cut to the chase. Des McNulty's motion gives us a superb opportunity not only to acknowledge the points that he passionately and articulately put on the agenda tonight but to think about what we can do next. That is the key challenge.
When I met South Africa's Minister of Water Affairs and Forestry yesterday, it put into context the debates that we have about Scottish Water and the problems that we face in Scotland. Her challenge is to bring sanitation and drinking water to 15 million people. I was quite proud that she was visiting Scotland to look at our technology and to discuss what support we can provide. Our problems pale into insignificance beside those that South Africa faces.
That kind of thing brings home to us what we can do, both as individuals and as a Government or Parliament. In that context, I want to highlight two issues: fair trade and the importance of education. I am extremely proud of what we are doing to develop fair trade. Edinburgh has become a fair trade city; colleagues from around the chamber will be able to mention other fair trade villages, towns and cities in Scotland. The fact that we are to become a fair trade country is important for the long term. It is not just about individual consumer choices. It is about changing people's lives by giving them fairer trade opportunities, so that we know that we have paid a fair price for our goods, that the workers will not be exploited and will not work in environmental degradation, and that there will be investment in local schools and hospitals. The debate must be about what happens in July, but it must also be about the long-term links that we can develop.
I am very impressed by what has been done in our schools. In the run-up to the G8 summit, the City of Edinburgh Council has a huge programme of cultural, political and educational events to get people involved, so that we can build long-term links and build on the superb work that is being done, to which other members have referred. The summit should be not something remote that happens in Gleneagles and its impact should not be limited to a demonstration.
I went to Stenhouse Primary School for the First Minister's Malawi launch, at which he awarded an Orkney school the opportunity to go to Malawi. Stenhouse Primary School has had a five-year link with Malawi, which is a practical link. Schools across the country need to have such links, so that our young people can understand what they can do to change the world. Des McNulty was right to say that our generation can make a difference, but there must be long-term movement.
The last point that I want to make is about climate change. Richard Lochhead was right to raise the issue. Climate change is not just about flooding. Evidence that has been given to the Environment and Rural Development Committee's inquiry into climate change indicates that it will transform harvests around the world. The problems that countries have at the moment will be dwarfed by the changes that will come in the future. It is difficult to get one's head round those changes, because they are so significant.
There are changes that need to be made at national Government level, but there are also issues that we need to raise at the G8 summit. If we are to make poverty history, we must address some tough questions: climate change, cutting our carbon emissions and changing the way in which we do things. We have started to think about those, but we are only at the starting point. There is a huge agenda that I hope will be part of our long-term programme. The trade agenda and the trade justice movement are vital, but we must also examine our economies and change the business-as-usual rules, which will not allow the world to operate. Making poverty history must be linked to addressing climate change.
The final slot will be shared between Sandra White and Stewart Stevenson.
This is the first time that I have shared anything with Stewart Stevenson.
I congratulate Des McNulty and commend him for what he has done today. In all the years that I have known him—mostly on hustings during election campaigns—he has always put the issue of poverty at the forefront.
I want to concentrate on the millennium development goals. In 2000, almost all the countries in the world signed up to a programme for eradicating extreme poverty by 2015. Eight goals were set. I cannot go through them all, but Susan Deacon and Linda Fabiani spoke about empowering women. We also need to combat HIV/AIDS and to work towards providing education and getting rid of poverty and hunger. Sarah Boyack asked how we can achieve that in the future. One thing that we must do is provide more and better aid. Linda Fabiani mentioned the target for overseas aid of 0.7 per cent of GNP. The Parliament should pressurise the Westminster Government—whoever is elected to it—to ensure that that is achieved. There should also be better aid, targeted at the right areas.
Debt cancellation is one of the biggest issues that we must tackle. Other members have spoken about fair trade policies. Margaret Ewing mentioned Zambia, which offers an example of what is happening. Before 1975, Zambia was one of the wealthiest sub-Saharan African countries, but it is now one of the poorest. The life expectancy of Zambians is 33 years—they die earlier than people anywhere else in the world. Other members have mentioned the education system in Zambia and the suffering of women there. In 2004, Zambia used 7.35 per cent of its gross domestic product to repay its debt. What is the situation now? Despite all the efforts that have been made, debt reduction is only 5 per cent of what was promised under the HIPC initiative, which Mark Ballard mentioned. We must do something about cancelling the debt. After all, as Donald Gorrie pointed out, these countries have had to privatise their public sector industries so that outside firms will come in. Such a situation is ridiculous and cannot go on. We must support action to ensure that the Westminster Government reduces or cancels the debt of these poor countries.
I thank the Presiding Officer for squeezing me in. I will make a few, very brief points.
We should take a more radical approach to the things that we do to support the third world. First, and in our own self-interest, we could support the people who grow the crops that are used to make the drugs in our society. After all, that is a rich source of finance to our budget. The Scottish heroin industry, illegal as it is, is worth £2 billion a year. We should divert that money to support the farmers who are held captive in order to grow the raw materials for drugs.
Fuel is a great problem around the world, but many of the countries that face such problems have lots of sunlight, which is ideal for making biofuel. We could develop biofuel expertise in this country and go out and help other countries to develop their own biofuel industries. After all, biofuel can even power aircraft nowadays.
Some have suggested that poor countries can sell their CO2 emission rights to rich countries. We should stop such a proposal dead in its tracks. If we do not, we will cut off certain opportunities for poor countries, which need CO2 emissions for particular stages in their development.
Trish Godman mentioned fair trade. I think that fair trade products are great; I buy fair trade bananas all the time. However, we need a fair trade plus system in which our enterprises engage at a grass-roots level and invest in the people who produce products whose ethical and health aspects we value so much.
We must build self-sustaining economies in much of the third world, which means supporting people, not Governments. Interestingly, as the banks discovered in the squatter camps in South Africa, when money is lent to people who are poor and are not used to debt, they always pay it back. Such lending is safe and it is self-interest that takes one down such a route. For example, Freddie Laker's airline went bust because of a debt that was a fifteenth of the debt of British Airways at the time. However, British Airways did not go bust because the debtors could not and dared not pull in the debt. Third world countries should get together, pool their debt and call the first world's bluff.
I am sorry to have rushed members along, but the number who wanted to speak shows the commitment to the subject.
I join other members in thanking Des McNulty for bringing the debate to the Parliament this evening. As others have pointed out, he has been committed to the issue for as long as some of us have known him—which, for some of us, is probably longer than we would like to admit. I also join other members in congratulating the make poverty history coalition on the effort and resources that it has put in to building one of the UK's biggest movements committed to tackling poverty. I welcome its work in bringing issues of poverty to the forefront and in stimulating debate in Scotland on trade, aid and debt.
As we know, this year offers an unprecedented opportunity to make a real difference. Not only has the Commission for Africa published its report and not only will the UN summit take stock of progress on the millennium development goals, but this is the 20th anniversary of Live Aid, when the grim reality of the suffering and death of our fellow human beings in Africa was brought, perhaps for the first time, into the living rooms of millions of people in this country. Moreover, this year Britain holds the presidencies of the EU and the G8 and the most influential leaders of the prosperous world will meet in Scotland for the G8 summit. This is both a challenging year and one of great opportunity—I believe that Scotland must seize the opportunity to play its part in the fight against world poverty.
In passing, I have to say that I was very interested in Richard Lochhead's remarks about Robert Burns. I understand that a humanitarian award will be made at this year's Burns an' a' that festival, which is entirely appropriate for the man who wrote "The Slave's Lament". The song's depiction of the way in which the developed world treated the developing world at the time was a foretaste of the problems that we now have.
It is unacceptable that, in our world today, one in five of the population lives in abject poverty and that malnutrition, illiteracy, conflict, AIDS and death from hunger and preventable diseases are a reality that millions of people around the world have to struggle with on a daily basis. For progress to be made, prosperous countries such as Scotland must be more responsive.
As members know, foreign policy is reserved to the UK Government, but the Scottish Executive strongly believes that all levels of government have a role to play. We are playing our role by supporting the UK Government's programme and by taking forward our own international development policy, which the First Minister launched last month.
The immense response of people in Scotland to the Asian tsunami is just one example that demonstrates that people in this country care deeply and actively about the suffering of their fellow human beings in developing countries and that they want to help to make a real difference. The tragic tsunami disaster also showed us that, as Richard Lochhead said, impoverished people already living precarious lives tend to be the most vulnerable. Our international development policy sets out the part that Scotland will play in tackling world poverty and our contribution towards achieving the millennium development goals.
As we know, the UN summit that is to be held in September will discuss the millennium development goals. The summit will throw up both positive stories and negative ones. I believe that Scotland shares the concerns of many in the international community about those countries that are falling behind. We know that Africa, unfortunately, will be one of the regions that will need more support in meeting the goals. We want to target our efforts to ensure the best possible impact, which is why sub-Saharan Africa will be one of the main focuses of our long-term efforts.
Scotland already has strong and well-established ties with Africa, so it makes sense to use those relationships in making our contribution. The Commission for Africa report highlighted, among other things, the importance of tackling HIV and AIDS and the tuberculosis that can accompany those conditions and is often the killer disease. It also talked about boosting health and education capacity in Africa. Scotland has specific skills in those areas and we intend to put them to use.
As we have heard, the First Minister will travel to Malawi next month. He will use that visit to build links with the leaders of that country and with other stakeholders and to develop a relationship based on partnership working. As Sarah Boyack said, he will be accompanied by children from Sanday Community School in Orkney and by five Malawian children. They are the winners of our schools competition, held both in Malawi and in Scotland, which aimed to encourage children to think about the value of education. That trip is not just about building relationships; it is also about raising awareness.
I have been struck by the contribution made by a number of colleagues emphasising the role of women and the necessity of assisting women wherever we can. In the debate that Margaret Ewing led on the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association's trip to Malawi, I had the opportunity to mention Bottom hospital in Lilongwe, where one women in 27 dies in childbirth—a figure that is quite unacceptable.
The Scottish Executive warmly welcomes the strong lead that the UK Government is taking through its presidencies of the EU and the G8 in calling on the rest of the international community to tackle poverty. We also support the emphasis that the UK Government is placing on Africa.
The G8 summit is significant and it comes at a significant point in our journey towards alleviating world poverty. By publishing our international development policy, we hope to build on the momentum that will be generated by the G8 summit this summer. However, our work is aimed at the long term; it is the responsibility of us all to ensure that international development issues do not fade away into the background once July has come and gone. We must ensure that the momentum is sustained and we must continue to raise awareness of the issues. We must also continue to press ahead with actions that will bring about positive change for our fellow human beings who live in poverty in developing countries.
I commend the international development sector in Scotland for its dedication, its professionalism and its tireless efforts to tackle the problems that are related to poverty. Since I took on my current role, I have become only too well aware of the kind of work that is going on. It is often not lauded and it is often not heard about.
The make poverty history campaign is a good example of how individuals and groups with various backgrounds—NGOs, faith groups, trade unions and celebrities—can come together to use their collective voice to bring poverty-related issues to the public arena. The campaign shows the strength of force that a collective voice can have. It is important that the discussion continues, that the debate continues to rage and that the momentum continues to be built on over the coming years.
Sarah Boyack, along with other members, mentioned the idea of Scotland becoming a fair-trade country. I am keen to work with colleagues in the Parliament who have already indicated an interest in taking forward that idea, which I believe we can make a reality.
The Scottish Government is committed to supporting that process and to playing its part in making poverty history.
Meeting closed at 18:15.