 My name is John Scott and, as Deputy Presiding Officer, it's my pleasure to welcome you to the Scottish Parliament tonight and to the grand final of the 2013-2014 Donald Dure Memorial debating tournament. I am delighted to be chairing this prestigious event once again. The dual debate is indeed a highlight in the parliamentary calendar. Having presided over proceedings in this chamber throughout the week, I am greatly looking forward to hearing the arguments and ideas of our younger speakers this evening. 128 teams representing schools from around the country set out on the road to Holyrood in November last year. 32 first round heats, 16 second round heats and four semifinals have whittled down the field to the four talented teams who will be competing in this evening's grand final. My congratulations to the finalists, whom I will introduce shortly, and to the other six teams who will also be in seats in the chamber and who will have the opportunity to participate in the open floor debates during the course of the proceedings. This competition is superbly organised by the Law Society of Scotland and I offer my thanks to everyone from the society for all their hard work and efforts in this regard. I'd also like to thank the tournament sponsors, Hodder Gibson publishers and the Glasgow Bar Association for their much-valid support. Following the untimely death of Donald Dure, Scotland's first First Minister in the early years of this Parliament, this debating tournament was dedicated to Donald's memory. Donald Dure was himself a student of history and law and practised as a solicitor in between stints as a member of the House of Commons where he represented seats in Aberdeen and Glasgow. Donald was also a member of the Glasgow University Dialectic Society and was a frequent participant in its debates alongside his many well-known contemporaries. Donald retained his passion for debating right through his political career in the House of Commons and in the very early days of this Parliament. In his maiden speech in the new Scottish Parliament, Donald stated, Today there is a new voice in the land, the voice of a democratic Parliament, a voice to shape Scotland, a voice for the future. So it's fitting therefore that occupying the seats of our parliamentarians tonight are potentially the lawmakers, the politicians, the lawyers of the future. It's also fitting that this chamber continues to reverberate to the sound of a new generation of debaters through this annual competition. Finally, joining us in the public gallery this evening are many proud parents, classmates and teachers. It's wonderful to see all of you here tonight as well and I hope you enjoy your evening here at Holyrood. I wish all the finalists the very best of luck and I hope you all have an enjoyable evening here in your Scottish Parliament. Thanks very much. So before we begin I'd like to congratulate the four schools that have made it to the final and they are Craigmount High, Douglas Academy, Trinity High and Glenamond College. I would now like to outline the format of the debate. I will call on the first proposition speaker to speak. They will have six minutes. I will then call on the first opposition speaker to speak and they also will have six minutes. This is repeated for the second proposition and the second opposition speakers before we open the debate to the floor. During these four speeches I will verbally announce when your first minute is up and this will indicate that interventions are permitted thereafter. I will also verbally indicate when you have entered your last minute and at this point no interventions will be taken. When your six minutes is up I will ask you to wind up and if you continue further I will ask for you to wind up after 30 seconds. Please remember that I am well experienced in keeping my fellow MSPs to time Mr MacDonald and with plenty of clocks around the chamber I would expect our debaters to observe their time limits. The debate will then be opened up to the floor for a further 15 minutes before we hear the reply speeches from the opposition and the proposition. These reply speeches should last no more than three minutes and there will be no interventions and I will verbally announce when you have entered into your last minute. I would encourage as many of you as possible to participate in the floor debate and bear in mind that the judges will award a £50 book voucher to the best speaker from the floor over the course of the evening. I would like to remind the teams that it is your choice if you choose to answer any points raised during the floor debate and please be aware that your performance will not be judged in the floor debate. The motion for debate today is this House believes that historic debt between commonwealth countries should be written off. Our Presiding Judge is John Dye, former chairman of the English Speaking Union in Scotland. He is joined by Irene McGrath, chair of the Scottish School's international debating council. He is also joined by Stephen Doherty, head of conflict resolution at Wright Johnston and Mackenzie. Robb's Maher, former speeches and debates officer at the English Speaking Union in Scotland and also Mark McDonald, MSP, is a member for North East Scotland and that comprises a distinguished panel of judges tonight. I would now like to ask Trinity High and Glen Almond College to leave the chamber through the door at the back, and we will commence with the first debate. I would now like to call on Liam Stewart from Craigmount High to open the debate as the first proposition speaker. Liam, you have six minutes. We recognise the urgency of economic development to satisfy the basic needs of the peoples of the world and seek the removal of the wide disparities in the living standards amongst our members. Those words, taken from the commonwealth's statement of aims, seek to make poverty history, and the proposition is to do just that. In order to do so, we must write off historic debt. There is both a moral and economic imperative to write off historic debt between commonwealth countries, but first we must define historic debt. Money lent prior to the end of the Cold War when the developing world was dominated by dictatorships who were often UK supported and all subsequent refinancing agreements of those loans. In order to demonstrate beyond all reasonable doubt why that debt must be written off, I will make two points. First of all, it is a moral to extract money from poverty-stricken countries, and second of all, debt relief will benefit the affected countries. My partner, Mr Davidson, will be looking at the undemocratic nature of historic debt and the benefits of that motion to the commonwealth. To commence my first point, let me demonstrate the immorality of collecting debt from poverty-stricken countries. Ladies and gentlemen, far too many commonwealth citizens endure absolute poverty. One-third of the commonwealth's 2.2 billion people live on less than $1 a day. Almost two-thirds of the world's HIV cases and maternal deaths take place in commonwealth countries. More than half of the world's 150 million children without education are to be found in the commonwealth. No, thank you. Deputy Presiding Officer, there is an indisputable need to eradicate those ills, and that means eradicating the causes. To the proposition, it is clear that this entails wiping historic debt. Academic James K. Boyce has calculated that Africa is a net creditor to the rest of the world. He adds that since 1970, $700 billion have fled African members of the Commonwealth to the coffers of wealthy banks and wealthy Governments. It is an obscene spectacle. It has led to a reduction in vital Government spending, spending that could have saved lives. Some may say that money borrowed is money that should be paid back, but they forget that historic debt has been paid back. Some countries have paid over 165 per cent of the amount that is initially lent to them. What is being collected now is pure profit. Collecting it is morally abhorrent, profiteering by those who have plenty at the expense of those who have none. It must be condemned. Ladies and gentlemen, it is if Wonga has entered international relations, it is egregious to make money from the absolute poverty of others, and this is why the motion must be moved. Moving on to my second point, how debt relief will benefit the affected countries. We must understand the harms of historic debt. The financial pressure caused by those loans means that developing economies do not develop at all. If anything they regress, their health, education and infrastructure all suffer, would you not agree? I would say that most of the money that goes to those countries is actually stolen by the kleptocratic leaders that run them. For instance, I cannot remember his name, but the president of Uganda, I think it was, spent £30 million of aid on his own private jet, not on education. Why should future leaders have to adopt and take over debt-stricken countries? Why should we give future generations the chance to succeed? Why should leaders of the country in the future have to adopt a country that is going to be harder to rule? Without investment, it is impossible to develop exporting industries. It is impossible to acquire the foreign currency reserves necessary to pay back debt. All of that leads to developing commonwealth countries being trapped in a vicious cycle of debt. However, money that is spent on loans tends to be reinvested back into those economies. The health, education and road improvements that the country needs will use this newly liberated money. Take for example Zambio, who in 2010 was named by the World Bank as one of the world's fastest economically reformed countries. That can be credited to effective debt relief given in 2005 and the reinvestment of the liberated funds. Those liberated funds were spent on immunisation programmes, improved sanitation and improved drinking water, and it did not go into the pockets of dictators, as the Opposition speaker has tried to prove. We cannot dictate to countries how they spend their money, but even the threat of corruption does not justify failing to give the opportunity to these countries to make a real progress towards bettering their living standards. There is no reason why Zambio, whose life expectancy has gone up by over 10 years since the cancellation of debt, cannot be joined by many others. The way to do this, ladies and gentlemen, is to cancel historic debt. To conclude, forcing an individual to make repayments on a loan that greatly supersedes the original and borrowed is criminal. Forcing a country to do this for over 40 years is villainous. For many Commonwealth countries, the goals that I began my speech with are impossible to achieve until the historic debt has been eliminated. No one will be impoverished by our proposal, but plenty will if it is ignored. It is for these reasons and the reasons that Mr Davidson will bring to you in his speech that I urge you to move the motion. Thank you. Anna Wood-Rosie Duthey, from Douglas Academy, now responds as the first Opposition Speaker. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Tonight's debate is not about Commonwealth debt. It is about poverty. Crucially, it is about how best to tackle poverty, and historical precedent proves that for this, debt cancellation is ineffective. Within our case tonight, I shall first be addressing the way in which debt cancellation will not solve any issues concerning poverty and that this can only be achieved through economic reform. Also, corruption in many nations prevents age from achieving its aim. Following that, my colleague Amity will go on to explain the economic issues that are involved with the debate. However, I would first like to indulge in some rebuttal. We on-site Opposition firmly agree with the proposition that our primary aim is to reduce levels of poverty for the poorest citizens in the Commonwealth. However, we are not under the proposition's illusion that the best way to tackle this is through debt cancellation, as we can see that this is merely a simplified solution, promoted and motivated by liberal guilt. Side-proposition does not address any conditionalities with this guilt, and we believe that that shows that there is no guarantee that corrupt regimes will not direct resources into poverty reduction and infrastructure schemes. We also heard about them saying that we should make poverty history. However, we believe that the aims that they were talking about have not been achieved, and that that has been seen over and over again. Therefore, repeating what we have already seen, which is debt cancellation, will not change anything. We also heard that it is immoral to take money from those countries. However, we believe that in order to help those countries, which is the moral thing to do, we cannot repeat what has not allowed them to develop for and we must move forward and look for different solutions. My first substantive argument focuses on establishing that the true issue facing the Commonwealth's economically less-developed countries is not debt itself. We believe that the proposition has been honing in on a side issue, thus ignoring the actual causes of those nations' predicament. Ladies and gentlemen, it is in fact a failure to ensure economic growth and development that hinders those countries. Trade, enterprise and wise investment are the key elements in promoting their prosperity. How are these countries going to grow and expand if banks in Britain are taking 165 per cent of their money? We believe that the reason why those countries are unable to develop is that they do not have strong economies. We believe that we should be building their economies. That is by giving people in those countries chances that they are giving them investment in their own companies and allowing those economies to grow as a whole, not just taking debt relief, which will be a short-term fix. We say that it is evident that, if we were foolish enough to eradicate that debt, poverty would not be substantially reduced. Why do we say that? We on-site opposition believe that the ineffectiveness of debt relief becomes clear when we are counting its currents in previous years. Aid-dependent countries in the Commonwealth have consistently exhibited negative growth rates over the past 30 years. Indeed, when Aid flow peaked from 1970 to 1998, debt relief across African and Commonwealth nations drew from 11 per cent to 66 per cent. If we consider the UN millennium development goals, we can see that Commonwealth sub-Saharan countries have singularly failed to achieve poverty reduction targets. We on-site opposition can see that debt cancellation is effectively a form of aid, and history has shown us that aid has failed to reduce poverty. Thus, it is obvious that the proposition's case is severely misled. In contrast, we see countries such as China and India, who have raised millions out of poverty at exponential rates. Between 1990 and 2005, China maintained an average GDP per capita growth rate of 8.7 per cent, far higher than Commonwealth nations such as Nigeria, with four. China's approach was referred to as the open door policy, which promoted trade and foreign investment. Furthermore, let us take a Commonwealth country who also did not receive debt cancellation, ladies and gentlemen. India's poverty reduction methods are undeniably successful. The success was primarily due to the country's public sector industrialisation strategy, which shows large investment in creating employment opportunities. So what have I shown you, ladies and gentlemen? Essentially, that debt relief is no guarantor of achieving better outcomes for the poor across the Commonwealth. My second substantive point this evening is this. Corruption within many Commonwealth nations is endemic. Thereupon, rendering any debt relief impotent. Currently, prosperity is being prevented by corruption, a positive investment in infrastructure and the lack of a just legal system to safeguard private property. In many Commonwealth nations suffering from debts, the kleptocratic leaders have already displayed their total disregard for the country's development. We see Mussavini of Uganda spending £30 million of UK aid on a private jet and countless other misuses of resources. Considering that, is it truly wise to presume, as the proposition irrationally do, that if Commonwealth countries were relieved of this debt, those leaders would suddenly begin to invest in development or social infrastructure? It is not, ladies and gentlemen. In fact, Ghana, which was approved for debt relief under the HIPC initiative, has an actual fact experienced an increase in debt from £8 billion to a shocking £23 billion since 2008. Hence, here yet again, ladies and gentlemen, historical present, has displayed the foolishness required to follow such a fruitless procedure again. For those reasons, and those my colleague Amitai will go on to develop, I urge you to oppose. Thank you, Rosie. I now invite Michael Davidson, the second proposition to give us his views. Michael, you have six minutes. The shackles of slavery have been exchanged for the shackles of debt. Countries that were previously oppressed by the empire gained their freedom during the cold war only to find themselves imprisoned by extreme debt. The Commonwealth should be our way of writing that wrong. It is filled with potential for a stronger block of countries working together to create an economic powerhouse. However, that cannot and will not happen while historic debt remains present between Commonwealth countries. My case will contain two points. How historic debt was lent and borrowed undemocratically, and how, by wiping historic debt, we will benefit the Commonwealth. However, before I do that, I must first take issue with some of the things mentioned by the honourable lady across the room. First of all, she addressed the idea that liberal guilt is the reason that we should be proposing this motion. However, we should be feeling guilty. That is the injustice that Britain and the rest of the western world has brought upon those countries, and we should be seeking to amend that immorality. In fact, that brings me on to a nice point. The honourable lady did not engage whatsoever with our point that it is completely morally bankrupt to extract money from poverty-stricken people. To do so is the most criminal thing to do. It is exploitation. Let's look at her first point. Debt relief will not solve the problem. Discuss the idea that, instead of writing off debt, we should be seeking to create economic reform within those countries. However, we feel that that is not mutually exclusive with the debate. We totally believe that economic reform is absolutely necessary in many of the Commonwealth countries. We believe that foreign aid is absolutely necessary within many of the Commonwealth countries, but that does not deal with the problem that debt is. Nowhere, ladies and gentlemen, have we said that debt write-offs remove the possibility of helping those countries in other manners. No, thank you. She also discussed the idea, ladies and gentlemen, that it is not debt and that it is actually a side issue. She has clearly not been listening to the clear issues that Mr Stewart has brought in his speech. Ladies and gentlemen, when your country has to spend 20 per cent of its annual budget like Jamaica on debt relief and you can only spend about 9 per cent on healthcare, there is clearly a link there. Would you not agree? You are suggesting that the only way that we can allow those countries to move on and develop is by removing this debt. However, not only have we seen countries succeeding without debt relief, however, this removes the incentive for countries to improve their economy in order to get rid of this debt. That again fails to engage with the notion that debt relief is damaging to those countries' economies. The fact that they have to put such an enormous amount of their budget into paying for the profiteering of western governments is morally bankrupt and it is damaging to their economies and failing to engage with that is wrong. No, thank you. I will also discuss foreign investment, and very quickly let us move on to that. Ladies and gentlemen, we do not think that the foreign investment that the opposition seek to put in is actually any good, because what it leads ends with is predatory multinational companies exploiting the natural resources of those countries and that, ladies and gentlemen, is wrong. She further discussed the idea that India and China are the reason that is what we should be looking to, but, ladies and gentlemen, India still has half a population that does not have access to clean sanitation. It is clearly not an example of a country that has succeeded. Some people are very rich, but the vast majority of people in that country are still suffering from absolute poverty. Let us move on to my main case, how historic debt was lent and borrowed undemocratically. That money was borrowed by dictators for dictators. The money minimally benefited the people within those countries, and now they are the ones who are suffering from their own loan repayment. No, thank you. Post-colonial countries found themselves without economic or democratic infrastructure following independence. The cold war left them vulnerable to dictatorships, and the west was inclined to support anyone who opposed communism, regardless of their commitment to democracy. Those dictators maintained their power by borrowing, not to build the economy but to build their regimes. Tyrants such as Uganda's Idi Amyn spent money on guns and bombs, not schools and hospitals. No, thank you. The west knew this and lent the money anyway. The only people who did not have a say about those loans were those who were most affected. No, thank you. The one million children, often by age in Uganda, did not get to benefit from those loans. The one million children who did not get to go to school in Mozambique do not benefit from those loans, but they are the ones who have to bear the cost of it. The people did not ask for the dictator and therefore did not ask for the loans. It is unjust that they should have to suffer. Extracting payment of any quantity from those countries is exploitation. No, thank you. As Mr Stewart mentioned, it is profiteering from empty stomachs, dictatorial legacies and shattered economies. We will not stand for this. Do we want to my second point, the benefits to the commonwealth? A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. Having weak economies makes the commonwealth weak. If these countries are not able to grow, it leaves an image of the commonwealth that cannot help its members. Furthermore, the commonwealth builds trading links and acts as a market. That market is hampered severely by limited potential to trade goods and services between nations. The BRIC countries are expanding significantly. Apart from India, none are commonwealth members. In order to be the world power developing nations look to, the commonwealth needs to follow the example of Brazil that has written off 900 million pounds worth of debt. As Mr Stewart has demonstrated, the reason that poverty-stricken countries do not develop is the debt. By writing it off, the UK will create new markets and genuinely fair trade. With a strengthened set of economies, the commonwealth market stands a real chance at improving the prosperity and wealth of everyone within it. Other nations that are a competitive advantage due to this debt, it is time that we levelled the playing field. To conclude, the age of empire is over, the cold war is finished and the potential of the commonwealth is greater than it has ever been. However, that potential can never be fully met until we cast off historic debt. As Mr Stewart and I have demonstrated, historic debt is immoral, undemocratic, undermines the war on poverty and undermines the commonwealth as a whole. We urge you to move the motion. After 40 years of aid and debt relief, totaling hundreds of billions of dollars, where do the commonwealth's poorest countries stand? Sierra Leone, Uganda, Kenya, Rwanda and countless others still flounder in disease, corruption and incredible poverty. Sadly, the proposition and suggestion that we relieve their debt is a simplistic quick fix to a complex and enduring issue. My colleague Rosie has already explained how debt relief is an ineffective approach to solving poverty and suggested that we look to countries such as India and China as examples of how to widely improve the living standards of impoverished communities. I will go on to explain how clearing debts in poor countries discourages free trade, encourages further corruption and creates a moral hazard where debt loses its legitimacy. Before I go into that, I would like to indulge in some rebuttal. First of all, both speakers touched on the idea that it is immoral for us to be taking money from these countries. What you have to understand is that we are not actually taking money from these countries, we are taking money from reckless corrupt regimes which have borrowed the money and which are not aiding the benefits of their people. If we let them away with these debts, if we don't make them pay for what they have done, they will just do it again like we have seen countlessly in the past. No, thank you. Second of all, you said that once we relieve the debts of the Government, that the Government will be able to use this money to invest in the economy. Well, what have we seen for the past 40 years? We have seen countless debt relief programmes, we have seen hundreds of billions of dollars of foreign aid and where do these economies stand, what do these economies look like? The economies are all a wreck despite all the no thank you, despite all of the attempts to improve them. The only countries where I have seen substantial increases in the living standards of people are, as my colleague said, China and India, where there was no debt relief and there was no aid provided to these countries. You also said, no thank you, that countries would be able to use the money that is freed up from debt relief to put into the education system and to give clean sanitation to the people. But what you don't understand is that these economies are producing absolutely no revenue, they're getting no money from their country. So how do you, no thank you, how do you expect the countries to provide further education and further water once that money runs out if there's absolutely nothing in their economy? But now on to my substantive case, ladies and gentlemen. Economically speaking, foreign aid is an inherently flawed idea forged out of liberal guilt and based on bad economics. What the proposition fails to acknowledge is that the problems faced by the Commonwealth's poorest members do not begin and end with their debt or with the size of their economy. These countries are trapped in poverty because within them exist weak financial systems, instability, corruption and unaccountability which repels any capital investment, no thank you. By forgiving the debts of a country such as Wanda, we will free up money for a country who today their main expense is the importations of weapons from abroad and not any form of domestic investment. In order to pull countries such as Wanda out of poverty, we need to make them attractive to investors and debt relief does exactly the opposite. First of all, economic studies have shown that the mere fact that a country is receiving debt relief deters investors, no thank you, weakening the economy in the long term. Debt forgiveness may make a sum of money immediately available or relieve pressures on a government, but without the interest of foreign investors, it is only a matter of time before the next influx of aid will be needed in order to keep the economy afloat. Ladies and gentlemen, let's discuss the idea that India and China are ideal examples. Ladies and gentlemen, he's clearly not been listening. India is a terrible place to live if you are poor. China is a terrible place to live if you are poor. I understand your point. India and China still have bad people living in terrible living conditions, but the point is that, over the past few years, they have significantly improved the living standards of many of their people. The percentage of poverty levels have dropped very significantly, and we see a lot of investment from foreign countries and people looking to strengthen the economy. China now has the fastest-growing economy in the world. No thank you. Secondly, ladies and gentlemen, injecting money into an economy discourages enterprise. That is a fact. How does a country sustain an income, ladies and gentlemen? It does so through exporting goods, creating intellectual assets and encouraging tourism. Let me tell you that every single country in the Commonwealth has the potential for a thriving industry in all of these fields. No single country in the Commonwealth is lacking in resources, skilled workers or innovative individuals, and yet many countries cannot even get their feet off the ground. The current solution that the proposition suggests is to pour money into these countries in an unsupervised manner, and clearing debt does exactly that. This influx of money is undoubtedly a bad thing as it turns the attention of the economy from stimulating growth towards grabbing available money. How are countries like Guyana where 40 per cent of its yearly budget are spent on debt repayment, meant to build the infrastructure to not have to import goods and actually build as an export market? 40 per cent? That is almost half. I understand that. The way that they are supposed to do that is from us and their country making a way for capital investors to be interested in their country. The very fact that that country is receiving debt relief deters investors from their country and damages the economy and makes the economy unable to grow. The problem with debt reliefs does not end there. A further danger exists that with extensive debt forgiveness that will create a moral hazard where a country is not afraid to take a risk by becoming indebted under the pretense that their debt will always be cleared if they cannot afford the repayment. Debt relief is a reward for reckless behaviour and it will ensure its repetition. Guyana, for instance, as Rosia said, accumulated 23 billion US dollars of debt despite having been part of several debt relief programmes over the past 40 years. Her Government borrows 1.2 billion Ghana sedes each month from the domestic market alone and yet can show absolutely no economic return. Why should we support and reward this sort of reckless borrowing? The Government of the Commonwealth's poorest countries have irresponsibly borrowed and poorly invested. Their own people have paid the price and if we clear their debt they will do it all again. The answer to this crisis is not to, once again, score a line through some unpayable debt but instead to ensure that investors provide small targeted loans to local businesses and follow them up with planning and management in order to ensure a stable and thriving business. Ladies and gentlemen, clearing historic debts between Commonwealth nations will achieve but two things. It will damage the economies of already poor countries and it will encourage Governments to continue to borrow recklessly. The issue at hand is more complex than the proposition would have you believe and so too is the solution. Ladies and gentlemen, let's finally get it right. I beg you to oppose debt forgiveness and to oppose the motion. Thank you very much. Thank you Amitai and thanks to all our speakers. I will now open this debate to the floor. The floor debate will last for 15 minutes and I will invite speakers from the floor to raise points in relation to the debate. If you wish to speak please raise your hand and if asked to speak you should wait for the red light to come on on your microphone stand and then tell the chamber your name and the name of your school before you make your point. You should give short speeches please or ask questions of the speakers. 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 wish to concentrate on constructing your reply speech which of course is smart. As I said before there's a prize of a £50 book token for the best floor speech on the night. So I now ask our timekeeper Lindsay to set the clock and I'll look forward to the first contribution. Yes young man over here with the white shirt pull your microphones up these are directional microphones so they should be pointing at your mouth. My name is Daniel Joffey I'm from Craig Monk High School and I ask to the opposition how are countries in the Commonwealth with this sort of debt supposed to try to invest money into their economies when they don't have any money because they need to spend it all on paying off debt? Yes, if you'd like to answer you just answer. Well we believe that the fundamental issue here is that we've seen debt relief happening before and it has done nothing for these economies. These economies haven't grown in any way so not only have we seen that this debt relief isn't helping however we're also seeing that we believe that the way to move forward is economic reform and these countries can manage the debt often they rearrange conditions on the debt the payback time limits can be very long and really the debt isn't hindering the countries it's just if we give them debt relief it's injecting it as aid which has already been proven to be ineffective. Thanks a young lady on the right one of three yes on that group yes. This question is for the proposition so they were kind of like trying to tug in our heart strings by referring to sort of poverty stricken individuals for example in India but if you look at countries like India although they've got a lot of you know like poor sanitation for example they've also got like a multi billion pound space industry you know if we were to clear debts and pump money back into these economies the way that this money would be spent would be at the discretion of that country so I don't really understand how we'd be evolving and moving on from like imperialism by pouring in infinite amounts of money into these economies and sort of legitimising this reckless behaviour and we're just taking the issue of you know money management out of these countries hands for a short while when in fact we're kind of promoting a kind of like neo colonialism we're kind of just saying okay we'll take care of this issue we'll look after it for you know a short while when in fact we just recreate the vicious cycle and leave these countries like back where they started albeit you know 10 years later and your name in school was Emma Johnston Douglas Academy very much gentleman in blue up with the right hand side at the back oh and um my question is for the proposition and it's that um the international monetary fund has stated that restructuring debt in any form always adversely affects the economy of the creditors so how does this in any way benefit the members of the commonwealth proposition want to answer please well first of all we see that the IMF are obviously going to say that they disagree with us because the IMF makes millions every year from exploiting these countries and adding huge interest rates and also could I previously address a previous speaker yes what we see is well this wouldn't be Britain saying to India oh we're taking control of your money because one India's in the commonwealth so they're saying it to themselves but also this doesn't cost anyone anything you're not giving anyone money you're just simply saying this profit that we've collected because what they are collecting now from countries is in the amount that they borrowed it is the interest rates and what we see is places like Guyana where 40 percent of its budget every year is spent on debt repayments countries such as india that have been talked about india is a hundred and thirty third out of 184 on each gdp per annum of per capita sorry what this means is although it has a lot of billionaires and a lot of monies like you said it goes on space programs i asked everyone this how does a space program benefit the poor man who's starving how does a space program very good i'll draw you to a close please thank you very much uh lady behind yes miller from lannet grammar school the proposition talked about the use of loans in military matters i put it to you that regardless of what the money loan has been used for for the issue here is not the morality of the loans but whether they should be cancelled countries who have taken money must be compelled to pay it back for the alternative is little short of theft uh yes if you like but briefly please simply i'll say to that really is what they have paid these loans back it's the interest that they're struggling to pay back because if you're having to take money to pay back loans then your the interest like 65 percent you're not very much in a bargaining position to say you want the interest to be lower you're kind of forced to accept what you get so they're paying back interest and not the loan so it's theft from the loner it's not the loneys right thank you gentlemen over here yes spectacles on standing up hello my name is rurima cloud and i'm from st mary's music school and the opposition says that the main issue is not so much the debt can you give me your name in school please sorry let me speak to quickly speak up my name's rurima cloud of st mary's music school enbra and the opposition said that the main issue is not so much of the debt as of encouraging trade in these countries which are feeling economically deprived and they cited china as their main example with the atmosphere in china being what is now considered not so much a socialist country but certainly it's famous or rather infamous perhaps for its work ethic and things like that. Does this not contribute quite a lot particularly in the opposite of the countries in the commonwealth which are more capitalist? Does this not rather change the situation within making it less applicable towards commonwealth countries and less of a good comparison with china? I think really the main point there is that although china may personally not be in the commonwealth we can still use the way in which it has you know exponentially increased you know the economic standards of that country. I mean you know for the average person in that country standards are improving although you know proposition have pointed out countless times it still may not be one of the best countries perhaps to be living in when you are poor however china has improved the rates far more than any commonwealth country so I believe it only makes sense for commonwealth countries to want to follow this example also we also use the example of india perhaps to link it more into the commonwealth and india perhaps not so obviously as china has also followed this regime and both of them have done it through using economic reform through investing in infrastructure through ensuring that local companies have money to make sure that the people on the ground have money not just allowing debt relief and this debt relief will only go to governments and will not actually reach the everyday citizens very good thank you and in order to get as many people into the debate as possible where the opposition and proposition speakers choose to respond I prefer if they did it briefly to allow as many people as possible to contribute from the floor young woman up at the back there the lady behind you the red red here yes that's the right colour Catherine Cranston from Craigmont high school so people in dictatorships have no say in who their dictator is and they also have no say in whether their dictators borrow money so why is it that they are the ones who suffer for the things that their dictators do why is it that they have little to no access to basic things like education clean water and food ladies and gentlemen many thanks and the lady young woman in front thank you ladies and gentlemen my name is Llewina Llew Patti from Craigmont high school how is it possible for countries to pay back to pay back money if they can't get foot on their own table these developing countries already suffer with poverty and I believe it is an extra burden for them to pay money which isn't directly benefiting them so doesn't historical debt just exacerbate the situation also the opposition I believe quoted that the countries were reckless regimes this is about historic debt isn't it about recklessness before the cold war these countries are merely the victims to their recklessness and their fellow commonwealth nations aren't helping them by asking them asking them historic debt thank you very much rosey I think really the main point on that is the fact that we have seen through 40 years of debt relief that debt relief isn't targeting the citizens on the ground we aren't making a difference to the citizens of these countries we may be buying their leaders benthleys and private jets but we are not making a difference to these citizens and that is why debt relief is not the only way forward for this debt relief only opens up money for the government to use and in these corrupt governments and as the proposition did not establish any conditionalities there is no proof and no guarantee that this won't be used for these reasons and in terms of the fact that we need to be helping the citizens on the ground the way forward for that is through economic reform and investing in development and social infrastructure good young man up here on the right hand side of this alley yes second from the top Matthew West Glenarm in college for the opposition they described debt relief would only solve a side issue but the key word in that is that it's still an issue so if even by cancelling debt relief if it only decreases poverty by a little bit is that still not worth to get a few people maybe a couple thousand out of poverty and the young man in front of him too yes i'm adam agar from st morris's high school i just a point for the opposition your say well the whole point of the commonwealth is to create an equal footing with all the countries surely by making them pay this debt you're not achieving that at all thank you thank you gentlemen on the left hand side over are you are you going to speak amity right on you go use make your contribution yeah so the problem with debt relief is that it's not just not helpful it's actually damaging to the economies of these countries it deters investors and it puts money into the system which stops enterprise and which stops people from being going out going out and being innovative and going out and you know creating big businesses and and you know doing great things and improving the economy but they said everyone just turns their attention toward grabbing the aid and getting the aid that comes into their country which is not what we're trying to to encourage in these countries right thank you our young lady up on the left here use you my name is venard from douglas academy and this is for the second proposition speaker he mentioned that poor citizens will not be benefiting from these loans however i feel by cancelling these debts that this could simply make the situation worse for the citizens it's fostering those attitudes within these corrupt governments that they can take these debts for granted these loans for granted and they can simply forget about paying these back instead i feel a much more positive way forward would be for these countries and their governments to feel responsible for improving their country's situation personally and therefore helping themselves and creating sustainable long-term solutions that will improve the country's situation and benefit their citizens thank you thank you right this young lady here on the side here yes you i'm christy waters from craigmont high school i address the opposition when i say some countries are like little children they cannot be trusted with our money and they buy things such as as jets but like little children they grow they become more mature and they learn we cannot judge them for what they have done in the past and even if they haven't grown up and they are still in infancy we cannot let innocent citizens suffer from previous problems front yes you john rousing from awkan harvey academy uh are there other ways can i ask the proposition this are there other ways to help them could we help them with medical needs food needs housing needs by writing off debts we'll just uh we would not be giving them anything we'd just be stopping them from having to pay us money someone behind you yes yet no you you yes eshita danduri from craigmont high school surely the opposition can see that developing countries are suffocating under the barrier of debt many developing countries have had huge debt levels that are unsustainable leading to scarce resources needed for poverty reduction to be diverted towards interest payments to external creditors rich world countries can easily wipe off debts they have enough money to it's just they are reckless negligent and self-interested to agree with michael india is writhing in poverty i've been there myself actually just a few months ago and have seen sick and injured children and many other atrocities rich world countries lent in order to buy support in the in the cold war or to secure contracts for their companies they should not now and demand this money back from the port say jubilee debt is young man over here on the right ian miller lannock grammar school and just a point for the proposition i wish debt relief was the sort of instant answer to the poverty that grips the commonwealth but as i see it surely it's more logical and indeed moral to actually firstly address the human rights violations that exist across the commonwealth ensuring that our expertise and our help actually directly help the citizens who really need it all right we have one minute left so yes gentlemen the black jersey yes you yes hello james rogers craigmont high school i just want to direct us to the opposition the opposition talks about you know you're going to solve poverty in countries by getting foreign investors and getting capital investment and that's going to you know attract foreign economic interests and you know how are these countries attractive in any way when they lack clean water you know education proper roads you know how are you going to make how you're going to make those countries attractive by wiping off foreign debt that money's going to go back into the economy it's going to create infrastructure it's going to create schools it's going to get an educated population that's going to attract foreign investments get attract foreign capital and that's how you're going to build a nation ground up you're not going to do it by sort of giving the other eye and saying oh well you know wiping off the steps of bad thing for the bankers are sort of making millions off of this that's not how you're going to fix this problem all right thank you very much young man at the back thank you so it's Patrick plan on college the opposition said that uh indias economy is increasing but um by indias biggest city it's uh a fact that uh over half of its population live in slums so where is the money from this economic boom going i'm intending to just take a few more contributions if the judges will bear with me since the quality of the contributions have been so good thus far young man there uh third in yes and in adin shill's crement high school ladies and gentlemen we see that debt is like damp and these countries are like a wooden house and unless we completely get rid of the damp from these houses they can they will they will break they'll collapse and eventually they'll be wiped out and bad things will happen and we see that as the sort of the rich people who are getting in this debt we see that we should wipe it all out and we should be the handymen and we should go in and to and rip up all the floorboards and take up all the furniture and remove the damp because as i said before if we don't if we don't do this holes will be made and and eventually the house can collapse but like the citizens who live in these houses can't fix them because they don't have the tools to fix them and they and even if they did they have to concentrate on surviving and not get and not being following through holes or whatever but you so since they can't solve the problem and since this damp is becoming a bigger and bigger problem for for their homes and their and the country's economies we see that as the handymen we must fix this damp we must rid the the debt of the economy and we must propose this motion. Thank you i'm going to take two more contributions from people who haven't already spoken this lady young lady up here yes yes you. Ellie Kirkland, Glenamon College. I just wanted to make the point that by abolishing historical debt we wouldn't be giving Commonwealth countries money but rather we'd be giving them the fundamental right to choose how to spend their own budget their own money and surely this is crucial for every kind of development that as both sides seem to agree almost all the Commonwealth countries desperately need. In the middle, yes you. Scott Booth, Craig Bryant High School. This to the proposition over there. Basically we're talking about 40 years of debt so basically after the Cold War so you're talking about actually only helping those that were fighting against Communism to keep the Commonwealth clean from Communism in any way whatsoever but what about those that were in fact in debt due to the Second World War? I mean Britain has only recently around 2000s paid off a debt to America so imagine the debt of the Commonwealth to Britain for the stuff that they used during the Second World War also you cannot just take away alone I mean you can't go to longer and say yeah I've been paying this for about 20 years can I get rid of it you must see things through you cannot just tell people that you're going to stop halfway through or even a third of the way through you must see things through and you must always let them happen excellent thank you all very much for your contributions and I would now like to move to the next part of the debate and I'm therefore going to call on Amitai Gottlieb to reply on behalf of the opposition Amitai you have three minutes please ladies and gentlemen today we have seen the naive and simplistic view that the proposition have of the global economy they think that we can fix the the economic problems of the poorest countries in the world with just scoring a line through some debt on a piece of paper and suddenly everything will magically be be okay again I've identified or we've identified two main points of clash in this debate and the first one I would like to to touch on is morality and they've said that we have a moral obligation to clear their debts that because these debts were incurred by dictators and people who didn't have the best influence of their country in mind that we now have a moral obligation to clear these debts well the fact is that this is an unhelpful idea their debt still remains and the fact is that relieving their debt will not help their economy and it will not help it for two reasons the first thing it will do is it will give money to regimes which are still corrupt which regimes which are still kleptocratic and regimes which still steal the money of their people and the second thing it will do it will deter investors from investing in their economy because no investor wants to invest in a country which is receiving debt relief it shows weakness and instability in the country and it's exactly true no investor is ever going to put their money into a country which needs debt relief the second thing that the second main point of the opposition propositions argument is that if we relieve debt they can use that money and they can invest it in the economy well we think this argument cannot stand ladies and gentlemen because we have seen aid and debt relief towards impoverished countries for the past 40 years and still these countries can show us no economic return hundreds of billions of dollars have been poured into their economy and still they live in poverty still they find no way of investing they find no way of getting education making getting clean water for these people and the reason for that is because we still have corrupt governments and naive governments who don't know how to properly invest the money and what clearing their debt will do is just give them an incentive to go out and borrow again and go out and buy weapons for their country by themselves mansions and cars for corrupt leaders who don't have the interests of the government and don't have the interests of their people in mind one minute if we clear the debt of these countries what will guarantee that the money that the money we free up for them will be invested correctly absolutely nothing we have no guarantee that these governments will use the the the proceeds that we give them responsibly as einstein said the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result ladies and gentlemen we are doing exactly that we continuously give these countries more and more money more and more easy more and more relief and and keep forgetting the crimes that they have committed towards their own people and unless we change what we do we will see absolutely no improvement to the living conditions in these countries thank you very much thank you so thank you and can i now call michael davison to reply for the proposition three minutes please michael thank you deputy president officer tonight si proposition has been faced with a callous opposition they reject that there is an issue with debt in the commonwealth and ladies and gentlemen tonight i will conclusively show through two points of clash that this is not the case my first point of clash will be the morality of historic debt and second point of clash will be does debt relief work and to both and to the lack that question we say yes it does so let's look at morality ladies and gentlemen this motion asks us to look into our hearts ladies and gentlemen if something is morally bankrupt it must be rejected it must be removed from the commonwealth and ladies and gentlemen side opposition have failed to to engage with the notion that at its very core historic debt is completely immoral at that point alone ladies and gentlemen it should be written off we also discussed ladies and gentlemen the idea that there is recklessness and corruption in commonwealth countries and to this we say that self-determination and the ability for an economy and a country and a government to learn to finance its own ability it requires them to have the finances at hand to be able to do so ladies and gentlemen self-determination of your own economy without having extreme amounts of debt being extracted from it constantly is an imperative in modern economics what's more ladies and gentlemen we had the notion that because the money hasn't been supposedly paid back that it needs to that we need to keep extracting this money but ladies and gentlemen it has been paid back 165% in some cases the money that these countries has lent them the money that has been spent and given to western countries means that Africa means that places like Jamaica are net creditors and will not suffer from having their debt written off they will not default one minute so let's go on to to my second point of clash does debt relief work so ladies and gentlemen throughout the entire debate side opposition have believed that no time and again debt relief has not worked but ladies and gentlemen in 2005 when 40 billion dollars was written off by the IMF countries across the globe saw a rapid increase in their living standards Zambia was the ideal example that we brought ladies and gentlemen if your country's life expectancy goes up 10 years after five years of having your debt debt relieved that ladies and gentlemen clearly indicates that side opposition have failed to to realise the reality of today's debate they also counterpropose the idea that economic reform and foreign investment must be the way forward ladies and gentlemen we don't deny this but ultimately that is mutually in exclusive with historic debt to write off historic debt does not mean to ignore the necessity of economic reform it does not mean that foreign investment cannot happen that ladies and gentlemen is why site opposition have lost and why the motion must be passed and so I would now like to thank both teams and those who have contributed to the debate as well all made valuable contributions towards today's motion and there will now be a short break and if anyone wants to go to the loo then please ask our event organisers at the back during the break could I please ask the speakers from Craig mark high school and Douglas academy to move to the seats in the row behind you and we can then welcome back Trinity High and Glenamond college for the second debate and please can I ask everyone to be back in their seats as near to 745 as possible please