 Rwy'n credu, wrth i ddweud, a dyfodd y gwaith y gyf yr hwnwnaeth yma, a amgylchedd ar gyfer amgylchedd ar ein bod nhw'n gael. A y dyfodd y gwaith yn gallu i'w ddweud hyfforddiol ar gyfer codi digwydd ymgylchedd gyffyrdd gyfrifiadol. Beth angen i wneud diwg i nhw'n weithio ym mhwysh已 mwyn i gael y ferfynedd ynghylch, Sean, unrhyw blaen. Murdoedd, Ser financing MerdDr debating. My name is Sean Cosgrove and tonight, along with a proposition with my colleague David Campbell, I will be arguing strongly favour of the motion, this house believes that historic debt between common wealth countries should be written off.' The purpose of her arguments this evening is to articulate three main points. Firstly, the moral case for cancelling the debt that I shall express. My colleague David will then go on to discuss the economic case for cancellation, and together those will form a combined approach to the issue, both the heart and the head, of the argument. We as the proposition would define this evening's motion as cancelling all unsustainable debt accumulated over a number of years. Unsustainable debt would be debt over and above an amount that would severely limit the ability of a nation to function if it is continued to be paid. I would like to open my arguments by briefly summarising the effects unsustainable debt has upon poorer economy of countries. I would like to point out that the motion is historic debt not unsustainable historic debt should be written off. The motion does say that, but we have defined it as unsustainable debt as this is a debt that should be written off first and foremost, as sustainable debt can obviously, as it suggests, be sustained whereas unsustainable debt leads to problems for countries as I shall go on to discuss. Every year, through the many charity campaigns that we see on television, we glimpse the suffering and developing commonwealth nations undergo partially due to the effects of debt. The key to economic development in the 21st century is a healthy, well-educated workforce, something that requires well-funded social care to materialise. As a result of unsustainable debt, this money is not available to many nations within the commonwealth that are developing. In 1997, Zambia spent 40 per cent of its total budget servicing its foreign debt. As a result, health and education received less than 8 per cent. The House last year, Zambia also managed to spend a whole 1 per cent of its budget on lavishly hosting a summit for African unity. Admittedly, some expenses from African budgets may seem frivolous compared to health and education and debt, but we are focusing on the effects that the debt has not other spending. The reality is that debt is a millstone around the nex of developing commonwealth countries. Whilst it is indebted, it simply cannot move forward. That leads on to the first part of the moral case in favour of debt cancellation. The morality of this debt can be questioned by first examining who, in fact, took receipts of the loans that has led to this debt. Countries and transnational banks have been happy to loan money to developing commonwealth nations since the first Americans during the last century. Unfortunately, many of those developing members of the commonwealth, primarily those within Africa, have suffered under dictators and junters. The debts that are amassed via the militarisation and brutal oppression of these dictators are now outrageously being paid back by their victims. The great freedom fighter in the statement. If the House makes regime change a valid reason for debt cancellation, it will surely promote instability and revolutions of violence in the country. We are not suggesting current regime change, but this is a historic debt. Those are previous regimes that are no longer in existence, as I will go on to show through one of my examples. The great freedom fighter in the statement, Nelson Mandela, finally won freedom for black South Africans in 1994, with his election as president, and how he is rewarded. He was duly presented with a bill for $21 billion, the debt of the apartheid government that was in prison. With the white minority government gone, it was left to their victims, the black South Africans, to pay back. £29 billion has already been spent by South Africa servicing its foreign debts. All the while, creators like the IMF have demanded the privatisation of essential services such as electricity and healthcare, thus denying it to millions of South African citizens. Nobel Prize winner Adolfo Peres Esquivel once said, Transnational banks know the price of everything, but have no values. How is it right that debts incurred by brutal dictators are demanded back from the pockets of their very victims? Debt campaigners argue that such odious debt should be cancelled not for the economic reasons that my colleague Dave will go on to discuss, but as a matter of social justice. The moral reasons for debt cancellation are extended by examining its effects on human rights. The Commonwealth Charter sets out a commitment for its members to defend the human, civil and social rights of their citizens. As a result of unsustainable debt, developing Commonwealth countries such as Zambia and Rwanda cannot perform this task. They are unable to meet the basic rights of their people, such as access to education and health, because they simply cannot afford it because they are paying back such unsustainable levels of debt. As a result of their demands for repayments, Commonwealth creditors like the United Kingdom are complicit in the suffering of those people. By demanding ever-rising and more ridiculous repayments from developing Commonwealth nations, we deny them the ability to provide for their people, then we chastise them for failing to do so. Britain and indeed all other developed Commonwealth nations must take a long hard look at themselves. We are supposed to be the leading lights of this organisation. Other members look to us as an example. What example, I ask you, are we setting them by draining their budgets and denying them the opportunity to care for themselves? Ladies and gentlemen, so far you have heard the moral case for debt cancellation, a heart of the argument. The fact is that demanding billions of pounds in debt repayments is wrong, plain and simple. It increases the suffering of people in underdeveloped Commonwealth nations, it adds insult to injury for the victims of oppression, it denies people the basics of human dignity. For those reasons, and all others that I have expressed, I urge you to support this motion. I would now like to ask Robert Wilson from Glenamond College to respond as the first Opposition Speaker. Robert, you have six minutes, please. Deputy Presiding Officer, members of the House, today I will put forth to you as the first Speaker for the Opposition why we believe that the historic debt between Commonwealth countries should not be written off. I will present two main points. Firstly, it would be better to encourage countries to sustainably develop towards paying off debt, and secondly, cancelling all debt would not actually resolve any long-term problems. However, first, I would like to make a rebuttal. Surely if we wanted to take the moral high ground here and help these countries develop, surely it would make more sense to help them through aid projects rather than just wasting money from our aid budget in debt relief. Many poor countries within the Commonwealth of Nations do indeed have huge debts to wealthier countries. There is no denying that. However, there are far better ways of helping to reduce global inequalities and encourage development than to just write off all their debt. Perhaps it would be sensible to cancel some debt to a more manageable level, but to simply cancel all debt would be foolish that does not resolve the problems which caused debt in the first place. No, thank you. What we need to do is encourage sustainable development. Through development projects and other methods, we can help to develop these less wealthy countries sustainably and help to reduce global inequality. Aid can and has been used to help to develop communities and even nations sustainably. Through large-scale projects such as hydroelectric dams, we can help areas to become self-sustaining and less reliant on other countries for things such as energy. For example, a number of projects have taken place across Western Africa. Those projects include a 102-megawatt hydropower dam at Formie in Guinea, a 25-megawatt plant in Tusa, Mali and the 565-megawatt dam in Niger. Those aims to boost hydroelectricity and irrigation, reduce desertification and flooding, and improve economic activities across the region. Would you not agree that it would be better to allow these countries to help themselves rather than having them rely on us to provide them with aid to build such things, as you have mentioned, hydroelectric dams? At the current point, they cannot help themselves. We need to help fund them so that they are less reliant on the future. That is the point of developing them. For methods like this, we can create more sustainable economies and communities. Many countries lose vast quantities to political problems such as corruption. Surely it would be more sensible to encourage poorer countries to tackle problems like this and create more efficient and successful economies than to just let them off their debt without resolving this problem. Partial abolition of debt may contribute to this. However, in cancelling all debt, we would leave little reason for these countries to need to change and we have not actually aided their development. We need to help these countries to develop in a sustainable way and to help them to pay off their debts themselves. Cancelling debt does not resolve real problems. Furthermore, writing this debt off will not actually resolve any underlying problems. If we cancelled all debt between Commonwealth countries, sure, the poorer countries would be less affected by the cost of debt right now, but 20, 30 years down the line, we will most likely encounter the exact same problem. Cancelling all of this debt would not actually resolve any of its causes. Much of this debt originated from poorer countries, recklessly learning money from wealthier countries and wants to stop this happening again. Do we really want to create a never-ending spiral of debt abolition? Yes, please. I talked about the old days' debt that was built up, so surely with many of those regimes now downfallen, surely that countries would now be in a position to pay back their debt and not get in the problems they were before? When cancelling their debt, like I will go on to say, it is just creating more space for dubious lending at higher interest rates. We can cancel off now, but the exact same thing will just happen 20 or 30 years down the line. Ghana, for example, has used the space created by debt relief from the HIPC screen to borrow more money from international markets on the international markets. It interests rates 10 times higher than institutions like the World Bank and African Development Bank. In doing this, we would be merely encouraging poorer countries to squander the money they are lent, safe in the knowledge that they will never have to pay it back. Besides, some wealthier countries have struggling economies too, and if they constantly lend money and are never paid it back, this should have a dire impact. One of the aims of the Commonwealth is to help to reduce global inequality. Perhaps that might resolve some of the basic problems of economic inequalities for now, but other social and political inequalities and underlying economic issues are not being addressed at all. In failing to resolve those problems, we are not helping the people of the country. Cancelling debt does not resolve political unrest, it does not reduce crime and it does not stop countries recklessly destroying their rainforests in order to generate wealth. You might believe that these problems cannot be addressed until after the debt is cancelled. However, we believe that we can cancel a portion of the debt between countries in order to allow breathing space to help resolve these problems and develop the countries sustainably. In order to resolve global economic inequalities, poorer countries need to become less dependent on wealthier countries, and writing off all their debt does not achieve that. Many countries in the Commonwealth do have serious problems due to the debt that they are currently unable to pay off. There is no denying this. However, writing off 100 per cent of their debt is not the right solution. As I have mentioned today, there are better ways of resolving these debts and the writing them off does not actually deal with the causes. We are not saying that we can arrive off some debt to countries to help them for all the reasons that I have put forward and my partner will go on to put forward. To cancel all debt would be reckless and wrong. I now invite David Campbell, who is the second propositions speaker, to give us his views. David, you have six minutes, please. Deputy Presiding Officer, hon. judges, fellow debaters, ladies and gentlemen, my name is David Campbell. As Sean has already said, we the proposition believe that historic debt between Commonwealth countries should be written off. Sean has already given the heart of the argument, the model case, but what I will go on to talk about is how writing off this debt would economically help developing nations within the Commonwealth and also us here in the UK, but first let me offer some points of rebuttal. The Opposition argued that if eradicating this debt, the exact same situation would eventually come up 20 or 30 years down the line in these developing nations. However, as Sean has already said, many of those situations were brought up by odious debt but all by dictators, so those new and tested regimes might not necessarily encounter the same problems. Developing nations within the Commonwealth have a hole in their bucket. What do I mean by that? Will I mean that those nations pay nine times more back to bigger nations in terms of debt relief than they receive in grants per year? In a more simplistic argument, in 2013, Comet Relief raised roughly £75 million to help out in humanitarian projects and developing nations throughout the world. However, developing countries in the Commonwealth paid that back in three days in the form of debt repayment to the west. Debt is crippling to the economies of those countries, it is crippling to the people of those nations in terms of keeping them impoverished and it is bad to the trade opportunities of those countries. Why do I mention trade? Trade is the way— In several poor Commonwealth countries, less than 5 per cent of their debt burden is to other Commonwealth countries and more than 50 per cent is to countries such as China. I want to talk about how the significant relief of debt to the Commonwealth would actually help the situation in those nations. I mentioned trade, and why did I talk about trade? Trade is the way that India, South Africa and Brazil have managed to climb their way up in the global financial ladder. Trade is a way to lift yourself out of a dire economic situation, but right now the situation of those countries is too bad to do so because they get themselves in a vicious cycle of debt. To make more money, countries need to increase their exports, and due to demands of the developed nations, oversaturation of markets occurs and countries' financial situation worsens, which puts them in a vicious cycle that means that they are unable to get out of this debt on their own. The main thing that the allocation of debt would do is to make those countries more attractive trading partners. The benefits of that are unlistable, but I am going to give the name of a few. It would help to reduce the cost of their inputs, it would help them to acquire finance through investments, it would help to increase the variety of volume and value of their products and, overall, it would help them to climb up in the global financial ladder. God, that is a mouthful. Debt is a symptom of far greater problems such as inadequate infrastructure in institutions and simply cancelling the debt is not going to make it more attractive for foreign investors. As I am going to say, it is a start. It is a start to make it possible to focus on these institutions rather than having to focus on paying back money that they cannot afford to pay back. It is a start to allow them to focus on improving health and education rather than focusing on money that they cannot afford to pay to developed nations. However, let us look at what that motion would do for the financial situation in the UK. In an era where the Eurozone GDP is flatlining, Commonwealth growth is at an average of 3 per cent per year, and in some of the developed nations within the Commonwealth, such as India, that growth is at 5 per cent. To do away with the eradication of debt could see a re-engagement of British trade and industry with the rest of the world, particularly the Commonwealth who already share a rich history and relationship with. In 2011, William Haig was stated to say that the Commonwealth could become a leading voice in the global economy, working to liberalise trade and break down barriers for international markets. What that says to me, ladies and gentlemen, is that we are looking to the east like we have not done in 30 years. However, where does the eradication of debt come into solving Britain's own economic and trade problems? As I have mentioned, many developing nations within the Commonwealth would benefit from that motion. Countries such as Zambia, Kenya could be potential trade partners in the future because they are allowed to focus on improving their infrastructure and their economic systems, which creates genuine two-way trade between us and them. It is not only good for the developing nations, but it is also good for us in these uncertain financial times, excepted. The Commonwealth already is a highly lucrative organisation. That is why countries such as Moes and Beacon Rwanda, with no historic links to Britain, have asked to join it. Yes, they have asked to join it, but what I am looking to do is to exploit the current situation and to improve on it, especially in the uncertain financial times for the UK and nations. What I would also do for the UK is to give it increased trade opportunities with the bigger nations within the Commonwealth, increased trade opportunities with the lights of India, Singapore, New Zealand and Canada. However, we also need to look at what we would do for the bigger nations in the Commonwealth, such as Australia, who are suffering some debt crises at the moment. That would help to bolster their economy and create a potential giant of a trade partner for us back here. Ladies and gentlemen, I see three main things that the eradication of debt would do. It would help to relieve nations of debt, which has been a burden for generations. It would help to relieve nations of change, which have stopped them being viable trade partners in the past. It has helped to relieve nations of financial situations that have stopped their growth and grossly affected the populations of these countries. Getting rid of unsustainable debt can only be positive, because that is what we have defined the motion as unsustainable debt. We are not looking at a closing down sale of all debt in the Commonwealth. It is not a next superstore. Sean gave the heart of the argument. I have given the common sense an economically sensible argument. What we need to do is patch the whole and the bucket of those developing nations. We need to give more certainty to the economy of Britain in the future. We need to stimulate trade in the Commonwealth. We need to bolster economies in the Commonwealth. We need to create better lives in the Commonwealth, and that is why I urge you to accept the motion proposed to you tonight. Thank you very much. I now invite David Campbell, the second Opposition Speaker, to give us a second Opposition Speaker. Isy, you have six minutes. My apologies. Mr Speaker, members of the House, I shall conclude the case for the opposition with two arguments. First, the repercussions of a cross-the-board debt cancellation, and second, the development of my partner's point that debt cancellation is ineffective. Firstly, I would like to restate my point that the motion does not specify unsustainable historic debt, but, even if the proposition decided to define it so, the World Bank defines unsustainable historic debt at that above 65 per cent of GDP. That includes Britain. Our debt is 90 per cent of our GDP, and Singapore, which is the richest country in the Commonwealth, whose debt is 110 per cent of our GDP. It seems to me nonsensical to want to cancel off those debts, which are also defined as unsustainable. I would also like to reinforce a point that I made as a point of information, that the majority of debts—over 50 per cent of debt—is not from Commonwealth countries. It is from China and other institutions such as the World Bank, which this motion does not cover. It would seem much more sensible to have a need-spaces approach focusing on those kinds of debts rather than the tiny proportion of Commonwealth debt. To my first point, the proposition assumes that writing off debt between Commonwealth countries means that poor nations will get more money, but that is simplistic and flawed. It does not take into account the complex composition of debt. It proposes to write off bilateral, that is, Government to Government debt, between Commonwealth countries but are forgetting debts to non-Commonwealth countries, multilateral organisations and private creditors. The proportion of the different kinds of debts varies hugely between countries. 80 per cent of Samoa's debt is to multilateral institutions, and bilateral Commonwealth debts make up less than 5 per cent. Cancellation of that 5 per cent is not going to have much impact. Only Tonga and Mauritius have bilateral debt near 50 per cent, but that is not fair. The Commonwealth's core value is equality, and that motion would have such an uneven impact that it would undermine that principle. Approaching the issue on a need-spaces would be much more equitable. I do not agree that, by cancelling the unsustainable Commonwealth debt, it could lead to a start, as David has mentioned, of other debts cancelling, surely that by cancelling one we could lead to others. By putting all that effort and resources into cancelling 5 per cent of Kenya's debt, and then maybe 30 per cent of Singapore's or other countries with unsustainable debt burdens, it would be much more sensible to continue the work of the Commonwealth Development Initiative, which works with the World Bank and the IMF already to sustainably manage Commonwealth debt. As I just said, debt management needs to be tailored and not a one-size-fits-all and hope for the best. Moreover, the poorest nations will benefit at least from this Commonwealth debt because they have the highest proportion of Chinese loans. Over 50 per cent of Kenya's debt is to China and Japan alone, and that would focus on a tiny proportion of the problem just cancelling Commonwealth debt. Further, it would be a catastrophe for countries that both borrow and lend. To simplify, think of a person who rents out his flat. He relies on his tenant's rent to pay his mortgage, but if they do not have to pay their rent any more, how is he going to pay his mortgage? Say Australia has lent to India or any other Commonwealth country that happens to have unsustainable debt and borrowed from a non-Commonwealth country like China. The proposition would cancel the Commonwealth debt owed to it, which would then leave it unable to repay its non-Commonwealth creditors. Because bilateral borrowing is so interlinked and global, the proposition's ill-conceived meddling would have consequences around the globe. We need to target the few that would benefit from debt relief by continuing the work of the Commonwealth debt initiative, which supports countries to manage their debt. Would you not agree that cancelling some of the debt between Commonwealth nations would serve as a start for those nations to lift themselves out of the tough economic times that they are going through? Thank you. It's a very inefficient way to start. A more, as I said, a needs-based approach, a tailored look, I do agree that debt is a serious problem and more needs to be done, but we need to put more effort and resources into the debt management schemes that already exist and make them more effective than cancelling a one-size-fits-all across-the-board debt cancellation without looking into the individual needs of each country. To my second point, the proposition is right. Poverty is unjust and it has to change. We want to blame something and debt is a highly visible target, but I must reinforce my partner's point. Writing off debt does not solve underlying problems and will not help the poor. Cornell University of Professor of Economics, Christopher Barrett, agrees, saying categorically, debt cancellation does not reduce poverty. It's not debt that prevents poor governments from doing simple, inexpensive things to improve lives of the poor. Pakistan's disease problems arise from the Government's unwillingness to spend money on the rural poor rather than the nuclear weapons programme. Take Nigeria, vast oil reserves, a space programme pays its legislators the highest salaries in the world, yet 70 per cent of its population live in poverty. Since 1960, they have received £257 billion of aid, 245 of which is estimated to have been stolen. Debt cancellation feeds this corruption and won't help the poor. It's the lack of basic infrastructure that we need to change in order to allow growth, roads, education, property rights and access to credit markets. Without addressing those problems, debt cancellation is only a short-term measure throwing good money after bad. It distracts from the infrastructure problems that we should be tackling. A report from Stanford University used the comparison of offering a plaster when bones are broken and radical surgery is required. Targeted aid is the best way to tackle poor infrastructure and promote growth. A fresh start must come at a time when a country is best able to use it. The proposition is putting the cart of debt cancellation before the horse of infrastructure development. I have shown that writing off debt between commonwealth countries is unequal, will generate economic problems and will not help the poor because the causes of poverty have not been addressed. Members of the House for the overwhelming reasons vote opposition. Also, a big vote of thanks to all our speakers in this debate. Once again, please, a vote of thanks. I'm now going to open this debate as before to the floor, and we would like to invite again everyone to participate. As before, the floor debate will last for 15 minutes, and I again ask you to raise your points in relation to the debate. If you wish to speak, please raise your hand. If you have selected, you should wait for the red light to come on on your microphone stand and tell the chamber your name and the name of your school before you make your point. If you can give short speeches or ask questions, that would be helpful. I would like to remind you that the teams can choose to answer the point, but their performance is not judged against their response or teams can choose not to answer. You may decide to concentrate on constructing your reply speech, which is smart. I would like, if I may, to take upon myself to invite people who haven't been asked to speak before to put their hands up first so that everyone gets an equal chance to have something to say. Once we've got through that group of people, then I will open it up again and allow people to perhaps speak for a second time. Young man, over here. Thank you. I would first like to talk a bit about morality and address the opposition. You talked about how to have them all at high ground. You have to provide age. First of all, surely to have them all at high ground, you have to look at the bad things that you've done and then realise that they're bad, and then put a stop to them. You can provide aid to a country and also cancel historic debt. They are not mutually exclusive. You also talked about the causes of this debt, but the main thing that causes this debt in the first place is that these countries exploit them. They didn't say, here's money to help, you need to pay it back. They said, here's money to help, you need to pay more than that back, because they're actually paying off more than what they were given, which is why we see it so immoral. By canceling off all the debt, you're giving these countries a chance to invest in the things that they can't currently because they are having to put it into it, and you're giving them a chance to solve the problems themselves. We're not saying that what we did before was good, we're saying that we should certainly right our wrongs, nor are we saying that debt itself is good. We think that we should cancel some debt, we think that the motion is not the right way to go about sorting the problem, and that aid and partial, and as my hon. Friend said, focused debt abolition would be much more effective. Thank you. Young lady up here in the middle will start here. Emily Tang from Douglas academy. If unsustainable debt is written off, debt often caused by corrupt leaders, how are countries going to sustain any long-term solution? Where's the line going to be drawn on the needs of a country, and how many chances can a country be given because there will continue to be a vicious cycle of debt? By having a solution where countries are encouraged to pay off this debt, countries will have an incentive to maintain or strive for a sustainable economy and to improve their governing systems. Thank you. Other side, far corner at the top, young lady. Chloe Lindsay of Trinity High School. My question for the opposition is what other ways are there to help the economies of these countries and other than to remove the debt which is strangling them and preventing them from making the transition from developing countries to developed countries? Well, like I mentioned, there are much better methods through aid development. Like I said, the hydroelectric dams that are taking place across West Africa are much more sustainable than just cancelling all the debt, which doesn't resolve the problems. Young lady in the blue top and the middle at the back. Mary Harvey Crawford from Glenarmand College. Not all indebted countries are led by dictators or led by dictators when they made the loans, so why is it ridiculous for them to pay off a loan that they owe, and why don't you just extend the deadlines from the ones that were run by dictators at the time? We would accept that not all debt amassed was by dictators, and you're right that not all those countries are currently or were led by dictators, but we focused on that point as we felt that that was truly the most outrageous statistic that people of those countries who suffered are being forced to pay it back. Much of this debt was amassed 56 years ago, so there has been a very long deadline and they still haven't paid it back. If they haven't paid it back by now, they never are, so we're better to cancel it than rather force them to suffer through poverty for many more years trying to pay back debts that they simply can't pay back. Any thanks, a young lady in blue there in the right hand side, yes? My name is Emily Wilson from Dublin High School, this is for the proposition team. I would like to draw attention to the possibility that by constantly relieving countries of their debt they will feel assured that they will always be relieved of it, thus meaning it is of no consequences to them if they spend their money inappropriately. I would like to ask the Opposition how they think that aid really works. Most aid that countries give is tied aid. In other words, the country is expected to pay it back when the investment from this aid comes through. Any source of aid—as they have already talked about, countries are a lot of money to multinational companies—the only true source of aid and investment to a developing country that doesn't ultimately hinder them later, to some extent, is investment directly from the Government of that country. We have seen from the proposition that the clearest way to give this Government more resources to invest in its economy is to reduce its debt burden by cancelling its common wealth debt. My name is Robin Baker and I am from Craigmont High School. I would like to raise a point that I do not understand how debt cancellation is not helping them in any way, shape or form. I believe that when we are cancelling this debt, we are giving them, and in the famous words of Pastor Muskell, a chance to start something new. I would like to also say that debt is like an attempted murderer. The developing countries are like the victims. Without the stop of the murder, they cannot move forward, they cannot have something to be great potential, they cannot do what they need to do to help themselves. Sure, some might say that dictators are like two-year-olds not knowing what to do with this money, but when they have been in power for a longer, they learn and they learn, and they know more about everything that they are doing. That is why I said that we should move the motion. Christina Gordon from Craigmont High School This debate is riding on the topic of historic debt. We see that this debt was made by our ancestors and has little to do with the people of 2014, so why is it the people of 2014 who are feeling the consequences, especially in the less developed countries? We do not punish modern Germany for the historic actions of Hitler, so why do we punish our commonwealth neighbours by inflicting large debt with high interest on them when it was actions of their previous historic leaders? We are not inflicting large debt on them. As I said, in many of the traditional colonial countries that are considered poorest, such as Zambia, Kenya and such, bilateral debt between commonwealth countries is less than 5 per cent. It is 50 per cent to China, 20 per cent to Japan and the rest is to the World Bank. The fault is not all with us. The proposition tried to lay the blame on us, but the majority of it is China, and this commonwealth motion is not going to help that. Samuel Milne from Douglas academy This is for the proposition just to expand on something that the opposition said, but I do not think that you answered quite clearly. The whole reason why countries require aid is because they cannot afford to pay for things such as education and healthcare. We are not aiding those countries, as the first opposition said. Our donations have been used recklessly and leave them confidently to not have to pay those debts back. Ergo, we are not aiding those countries economically or socially. By removing that debt, how can you ensure that that does not happen again in years to come and how can you ensure that donated money will be spent on the basic necessities such as healthcare and education? By removing the debt, we are giving those countries a chance to keep the money within their own borders and spend it on health and education as they see fit without having to take aid money from the developed world. If we reduce the need for aid money, we can reduce the likelihood that it will be spent on things that it is not targeted for. By allowing those countries to target the money themselves, they will learn how to develop themselves and they will learn how to not make the mistakes that they have made with the aid that we have given them. They will learn how to properly handle their money and how to develop. Many thanks. I young man up there on the black top on the right-hand side in the middle. Alexander McLaren, St Mary's music school. I was wondering if I could continue the discussion about morality. It seems to me that the main moral issue that we have discussed so far is that of social injustice. When I connected to debt I was wondering if I could put it to the proposition that, at the end of your first speech, you said that debt was wrong. If you could link that to the very coherent point that the opposition made at the end of their speech, the cancellation of debt is not necessarily causal to the rectification of poverty. I accept that canceling the debt would not lead to immediate changes with poverty, but, as I have already said, it would give them the chance to keep the money and use it over time to solve those problems. We are not expecting overnight to cancel the Zambia debt and that it will all be happiness and sunshine. Nobody will be putting Zambia. It will take time, but by allowing the countries to keep the money in their own borders and using it to spend on their people, we are tackling social injustice, but it will take time. It will not happen overnight. Young lady in blue at the right hand of the three ladies and three girls. My name is Maia Nicol and I am from Dumblin High. My question is directed towards the opposition and regards the morality of making those already in poverty pay back such a large amount of money, driving them only further into a seemingly never-ending spiral. Young man up there on the white shirt on the far right hand side. I cannot recall from Trinity High School. That is to the opposition about when they said only cutting some of the debt, but surely writing off some of the debt would only bring the negative effects of cutting debt such as disencouraging for investors, but it would not give the full benefit of not having to pay back debt, so therefore not fixing the problem but only changing it. Is he briefly, please? What we are arguing for is continuation and support of the Commonwealth Debt management initiative, in which writing off some levels of debt where it really is properly unsustainable like Caribbean countries was over 100 per cent, they do consider that as an option, but they work really hard to try and negotiate debt buybacks and swaps and massaging interest rates down so they can manage it without getting the bad credit rating of having their debt written off. Thank you very much. Young lady at the back on the left, please. My name is Hannah Benard from Douglas Academy. The proposition is said that unsustainable debt will prevent countries developing and cripple our economy. However, debt relief is just feeding money into the corrupt governments which have led them into this corruption and have crippled our economy. I believe that we are just promoting them, punishing their citizens. We must reinstate the fundamental principle that the Commonwealth stands for, which is equality. To solve this issue of poverty, we must tackle this issue at its root. Having to repay this debt will put pressure on the governments to support their countries and therefore improving healthcare and infrastructure in their countries. I believe that, essentially, by allowing this debt relief, we are not going to spark the motivation that is needed for the governments to help to support their countries and to relieve their countries from this poverty. The education, for example, whereas the people of our age could be the future politicians, future businesses that change the situation in these countries, international businesses could also help from the economic situation in these countries. Young ladies here, on the left of the two girls there, yes, my left. I am Freya Nicolle from Dumlein High. The proposition is said that we should be ashamed of ourselves. Surely it is not our fault that places like Zambia have put themselves in so much debt. We are only asking for the money that was borrowed. We should not be ashamed that we are taking money back that was borrowed from us. I will take on you, and I will show on very briefly what to get everyone in. I would argue that, by taking this debt, we should be ashamed of ourselves because, by taking the debt and taking the money away, we are essentially taking food away from the mouths of poverty-stricken people in these countries. By canceling the debt, allowing them to keep the money, they can focus on providing for the people rather than having to provide us with money that we can technically afford to lose. Right. We are running out of time, so I am not going to allow any more contributions from the Opposition or Proposition speakers. Gentlemen, they are on the right, on the right. Have you not spoken already? No? No? I will go on then. My name is Luke McVee and I am a pupil at St Morse's High School, and this is for the Opposition. To argue from the perspective of the Commonwealth, in order for the Commonwealth to truly thrive, there cannot be any weak countries within it, as weak countries does indeed equal a weak Commonwealth. Surely in order for the Commonwealth to thrive, those countries are required to grow and develop. However, they cannot, as their growth and development is somewhat halted by those debts that they need to pay. May I remind you that the original debt has actually been paid off and the rest now is pure profit. That not only makes the country, that not only mocks the country itself or the global reputation of the Commonwealth but the models of the Commonwealth as a whole. Microphone gets to you. I am Helena Wilson from Dumberline High School. I asked the Opposition why it believes that alternative methods of developing commonwealth countries are not as effective as completely writing off their debt. Right. Is there anyone who hasn't spoken yet who wants to make a point? If so, put your hand up now or forever hold your peace. I can't see anyone. So, I think we'll draw this part of these proceedings to a close now. And so, I would again thank you all for all your contributions and I think I'm very pleased that everyone who has wanted to speak has managed to speak. That's very, very important in institutions such as this, as I'm sure you'll understand. So, I'd now like to ask Izzy to reply on behalf of the Opposition. Izzy, you have three minutes please. Deputy Presiding Officer, members of the House, first I'd like to focus on the moral aspect of this argument because the proposition has allowed the issue to become emotionally charged. Writing off debt sounds kind but, as we've pointed out, it's really a very ineffective way to go about reducing poverty. They're very keen to establish the moral high ground and are focused on the heart of the argument, but economics shouldn't be led by the heart. We need sound policies and not just kind thoughts. It seems that writing off debt in the past and in the propositions proposals is a way of displacing our guilt for the third world. We are right to be guilty and we need to do something to help, but that isn't an effective way. In fact, it's a relatively cheap way because, as someone in the floor debate pointed out, we've had most of the money paid back already and it's just interest. It's a cheap way of asserting our moral legitimacy when really we need to be focusing on the needs of the developing world. Another point that's been raised a lot is the problem of odious debt. We agree that what we've done in the past has not always been the right thing, but simply writing debt off without any acknowledgement of this or putting things in place to stop the same thing happening again is not going to help the problem. As recently as last year, we lent to Kenya, I believe it was, after a member of their Economics Department of the Government had just defected to the west and said that the Government at the highest level, the Prime Minister, was embezzling funds and yet we went ahead with this donation. Clearly we need to straighten this out in western countries as well as in the developing world. If we need to sort out odious debt, we should focus on odious debt and not do a blanket debt cancellation, which is something of a scatter-gun approach and hope for the best and hope that it will work without actually looking into individual countries and their needs. One minute. The second proposition, I believe, spoke about a vicious cycle of debt and that cancelling debt would allow countries to break out of this, when in fact it's the opposite. Simply reducing the debt without doing anything to change the underlying problems is going to lead to a vicious cycle of debt building up again. In the HIPC scheme, Uganda and Bolivia had their debts cancelled and yet they rose to unsustainable levels within a year because the underlying problems had not been fixed. Cancelling debt won't change the underlying problems, they need to have access to credit markets, proper financial institutions, property rights and laws to make investment more attractive. Moreover, many Commonwealth countries don't even record their debt, so if you try to find St Kitt's Nevis's debt, you really can't because they don't know, they don't have figures. We need to focus on this problem before we write off debt and the same problems will occur again. The point of aid and investment is that writing off debt, particularly when it's unsustainable, creates hypothetical money that would have been paid otherwise, but it's not real capital that is very clearly defined and they can invest in projects. It floats in the economic ether and will not lead to substantial social benefits. I now call on David to reply for the proposition. David, you too have three minutes. Deputy Presiding Officer, honoured judges and ladies and gentlemen, we, the proposition 3, see three main stages of conflict in this debate tonight. The first of those is regarding economics. The Opposition argued that much of the debt owed by nations in the Commonwealth is not for fellow nations in the Commonwealth and therefore cancelling the debt would be not effective, but I disagree with that. I disagree with that in terms that it is a start for those countries to get rid of money that they clearly cannot afford to pay back. It's a start because the benefits that would come from cancelling the debt are invaluable to the countries to whom it concerns. It makes them more attractive trading partners, as I said in my first speech, and that's not an argument purely of the heart, that is an argument purely of the head in a common sense argument. The Opposition also argued that cancelling the debt will not help the poor of those nations. However, clearly it will, because it's extra money that these countries do not need to worry about paying back and therefore these countries can focus on addressing issues within their nations such as health, such as education, such as their general infrastructure, which ultimately will filter down to the poor of those nations. The Opposition also said that underlying causes would not be solved by cancelling the debt. It says that countries will go back into more debt. However, we have highlighted various examples of where odious debt within the Commonwealth has been the cause of that debt in the first place. Dictators have built up this debt. Dictators that have run the country and destroyed the lives of people within those nations. We look at the likes of the apartheid regime and we see it's unfair that the likes of Nelson Mandela had to pay back the debt of the dictators who ran before him. We need to learn from the mistakes of events such as the Treaty of Versailles and we saw what damage it caused by leaving countries with debt that they couldn't afford to pay back. Current regimes are nations that are untested in paying back debt. We need to give them a new chance, a clean slate and a flesh start in these tough economic times. More importantly, we owe it to the people of those developing nations to do something, even if it is a small start, as the Opposition pointed out. When it boils down to it, it's about helping the people of those nations. It's about making a start to tackling inequalities by helping them to address issues such as health and education and general infrastructure. It's about stimulating trade within the Commonwealth and it's about improving the lives of those within the organisation. It's about both a head and a heart approach to this argument and that's why I urge you to support the motion proposed to you tonight. Thank you very much. Thank you, David. Thank you all for your contributions to this debate. It's been absolutely fascinating and I'm certain that we could carry on debating for hours to come. However, I now have to ask the judges to adjourn and decide who will win this year's debating tournament, an incredibly difficult task. I'll just remind them that they have until 9.20 to complete this task. Thank you. It now gives me a great pleasure to announce the winner of the Scottish Parliament and the Law Society of Scotland essay competition. The new lawyer's essay competition was open to all final and penultimate LLB students in Scotland and collects the views of promising future lawyers and politicians in Scotland. All participants were asked to submit an essay in no more than 2,000 words on which act of the Scottish Parliament passed in the second year 2012-13 of session 4 will have the biggest effect on Scots law and why. I'd now like to invite Alasdair Morris, President of the Law Society of Scotland, to join me in presenting the prize. I'm reliably informed that the standard of essays this year was once again extremely high. I'm delighted to announce that David Gallacher, a law student from the University of Edinburgh, has been chosen as the winner. David, can I ask you to come on to the floor to receive your prize, which is a £500 cash prize from the Law Society of Scotland and a three-week paid work placement in the Solicitor's Office of the Scottish Parliament. I would also like to invite you all to join me in the garden lobby for a short reception after the presentation and ask that all guests be seated back in the chamber by 9.25. Please could I ask those on the chamber floor to remain seated until instructed to leave by a member of the events team?