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.