 Ryefyd, ond i'n munaidd yn Llandon cyffredinol, cyntaf yng Ngysyllt Wrthgaredd yn F announcement ond y ffordd cymdeithasol rhan. Rhefyd, mae'n bwysig iawn i gyd. Er rhaid i'n bwysig iawn i ddigonnod dwi'n gweld iawn i gynnwys ac i gyd ar gyfer y cyf erbyn cynnwys cydafol y gallu bwysig iawnu, ac ond hwnnaw'n bwysig iawn, yn gwyb gjwysig iawn, mae hi'n gwyb gwyb. I thank my colleagues for their support in enabling me to table this motion for debate in the Parliament tonight, and to comment that there are constituents who are very interested in the fact that we would be debating this issue tonight. It is important that we raise awareness of what needs to be done to tackle the conditions that led to 1,129 Bangladeshi garment workers who lost their lives and 2,500 who were injured in their Rana Plaza building collapse. 24 April was the first anniversary of this tragic disaster, in which an eight-story building collapsed in Savar near Dhaka in Bangladesh. I want to use my speech tonight to highlight what happened, why we should be concerned, what happened after the disaster and what are the wider lessons that need to be learned and action that still needs to be taken. The building that collapsed was not fit for purpose, it was not built to house the weight of machinery that was in it and there had already been a warning about safety which went unheeded. The workers were paid a pittons for their work and that is the case in many, many factories in Bangladesh where garments are produced. We should be concerned because some of those garments find their way into the chains that are experienced in Scotland and the rest of the UK. I want to highlight the fact that there were two key initiatives that happened in Bangladesh after that incident. Firstly was the Accord, which was signed by the Bangladesh Government, the key industries, the trade unions and the NGOs. In the immediate aftermath of the event it was estimated that 90 per cent of Bangladesh buildings do not meet their local building codes, never mind international building standards. In a country that is prone to earthquakes, that is a major challenge for the Bangladesh Government and local government to address. The Bangladesh Accord on safety in relation to fire and building has been a big step forward and Oxfam record that there will now be more than 1,500 factories that will be inspected in Bangladesh. We have to regard that as key progress. On the other major initiative that brought together the Government, the industry, trade unions and NGOs, there is much more that needs to be done. The Rana Plasad agreement, which is strongly welcomed by people, has led to a challenge because although some companies have made donations and some people have been able to be compensated for their loss, for the health implications where they need support afterwards and for people whose capacity to work has now been removed. Although some people have been compensated, there simply is nowhere near enough in the funds to enable the second set of compensation agreements to be made and to be debated and to be handed out to thousands of people whose lives have been ruined by that experience and the distress that has come from that experience. There has been some organisations and some donors that include well-known names such as the Gap, Asda and Debonams and some of the companies that have paid into the fund were not connected to the Rasa plan a disaster. Campaigns have sprung up to highlight the lack of contribution for some of the biggest retail companies whose names would be known to all of us. Only 40 per cent of the target set has been reached and there are many well-known companies still not just to make contributions but to make significant contributions. It has been suggested that although no Scottish company sourced clothes from the Rana Plaza, Alison Johnstone, who is not here tonight, proposed a motion welcoming the fact that the Edinburgh woolen mill, which sourced clothes from the Tazrin factory, where 100 people died in another incident. Alison Johnstone and Seed have suggested that there is still more that needs to be done in establishing accountability and contributions for that factory incident. Seed also wants responsibility chains to be established for companies involved in sourcing garments for the commonwealth games. He would particularly like the minister to respond to that issue. I believe that there are issues about compensation and building safety. There are also issues about asking questions about the pay and the terms and conditions that Bangladeshi workers experience when they produce garments that we want to import to developed nations. In the future, the day on which the Rana Plaza disaster took place will be commemorated by the fashion revolution day. That campaign aims to highlight the rights of garment workers so that we have an annual focus and we never forget the experience of the loss of life. It has been reported that Bangladeshi workers are some of the lowest paid in the world with workers taking home 62 per cent less than the living wage. Nearly 40 per cent of the garment factories in Dhaka fail to pay the minimum wage, and the international labour organisation and Oxfam highlight that problem. They challenge us to ask questions about the clothings that we buy. The issue was addressed in a motion by Kez Dugdale recently, so there has been interest across the chamber on making sure that we highlight those issues. I think that it is an act of international solidarity, it is an act of social justice and it is something that we as individuals, as MSPs, can promote but we can also work with organisations and NGOs in our communities. The clean clothes campaign was set up to particularly highlight known brands who have not made any or sufficient contributions to date. Those new campaigns, the fashion revolution day and the clean clothes campaign will sit alongside the work of established organisations such as Seed and Oxfam, who have long worked to lobby for justice for workers and to lobby for action by major companies to take responsibility for tackling poverty pay. No workers' life should be put at risk due to a lack of an appropriate safety measure and the first-year anniversary is a day that we need to commemorate in the future. We need to acknowledge that those who died died in tragic circumstances and we need to use those deaths to serve as a reminder of the importance of health and safety at work abroad and at home and to campaign for the rigorous protection of workers' rights for all. In the workers memorial day that I know that many of us celebrated this year, there was a campaign for workers across the world to agree that we would stand in solidarity to remember the dead, fight for the living and ensure that lessons are learned that tragedies are not repeated in the future. There are issues that we need to be taking up in our own communities. There is a challenge to make sure that Scottish consumers and companies operating in Scotland support stronger accountability from companies who source clothes from factories across the world for sale here. There is a chain of responsibility. We need to highlight that chain of responsibility and encourage our constituents and organisations and companies that are active in Scotland to look at that chain of responsibility in terms of their own procurement policies and in terms of their sourcing policies. Today, in the Scottish Parliament, we can add our voices for justice for government workers so that they receive fair pay and decent and safe working conditions. It is an act of solidarity with some of the lowest-paid workers who experience working conditions that would simply not be acceptable here and in the rest of the developed world. Let us use our political influence to support them. I thank you for having the opportunity to raise that motion. I hope that, in his closing remarks, the minister will be able to think of issues where the Scottish Government can help to highlight those campaigns and to look at issues where the Scottish Government can help that train of accountability and support corporate social responsibility for our Scottish companies. John Mason, to be followed by Patricia Ferguson. Four minutes or thereby, please, Mr Mason. First of all, I want to thank Sarah Boyack for bringing forward this debate. It is one of the subjects that we wish we were not having to speak about, but which we most certainly do have a duty to speak about in this Parliament. There is clearly quite a lot of ground covered in the motion and Ms Boyack has covered quite a lot in her speech. I am very happy to associate myself with all that. Clearly, the focus of the motion and the debate today is on Bangladesh and the particular Rana Plaza disaster. I am more than happy that we support the call for contributions to the compensation fund. However, the next main theme is to reduce the risk of such disasters happening again. In their briefing, Amnesty International emphasised human rights and the relationship there is between Government and business in Bangladesh, which seems to be unhealthily close in some instances. In Oxfam's briefing, they talk about our responsibilities as consumers to be responsible for the clothes that we buy, and Sarah Boyack mentioned that as well. At the very least to question why is something so cheap, I am myself and probably all of us here like to get a good bargain, but there has to be a reason why a shirt or a pair of jeans are incredibly cheap. That reason might be that the wages are far too low or that there are virtually no health and safety standards in wherever it was produced. That brings us on to the whole topic of fair trade. We have made real progress on food and drink. From years ago, the tea was pretty poor, the coffee was pretty poor, and we have moved on to good-quality products, tea and coffee, other fair trade products such as chocolate, sugar and wine, which many of us buy. I know that, when we go out to buy those kind of food products, we regularly choose fair trade products, because at least we have some assurance that the workers have a decent wage and there will be some kind of health and safety standards in there. However, it seems to me that we have not made the same progress with clothing products and that concerns me. Perhaps it is more difficult to change that kind of product from the grass roots, because clearly tea and coffee can be sold at a small stall, a school fair or a church, and that is not possible with a range of clothing. However, somehow we have to address and tackle this situation. One suggestion that I would make, and I know that it has had success in the past, is through pension funds. Local authority pension funds, among others, have huge investments in a range of companies around the world. When I was a councillor, I served on the Committee for Strathclyde Pension Fund, and one of the things that we felt we could do was to be ask the fund managers to bring reports to us on corporate social responsibility and whether companies, big companies like BP and Shell and others, were they paying proper local wages, were the conditions locally healthy and good? That, at least, was some kind of pressure on some of those companies that they knew they had to report back on those things. To be fair, corporate social responsibility has moved forward. I think, too, we have to be clear that it is not just rich nations, rich western nations trying to impose their standards on the developing world. This is about having decent wages and health and safety all over the world. We get it wrong, too, quite frankly. On 28 April this year, I was at Glasgow Green commemorating workers memorial day, which Sarah Boyack also mentioned. From memory, I think that Patricia Ferguson was there and I think Drew Smith was there that day. Patricia Ferguson was talking about her proposed bill and there was also a real focus on the stock line tragedy that happened in our very store step in Glasgow. I hope that we can put the emphasis on working with countries like Bangladesh and not talking down to them as I fear that western countries have sometimes done in the past. Finally, if we are going to be idealistic, I would like to move towards things like a worldwide minimum wage, albeit at appropriate local levels. I was trying to remember the singer who mentioned that in one of his songs. I think that it was somebody called Ian Davidson, but I am not entirely sure on that. I accept that some of that may be a long way off, but at least we need to talk about those things. We need to keep our focus on this. We should not just think about those who are struggling in Scotland much as we should in the UK and in Europe, but really on people who are struggling all around the world, because each person is of equal value. I now call Patricia Ferguson to be followed by Cameron McAnon. Thank you, Presiding Officer. May I offer my congratulations to my colleague Sena Boyack for securing this debate about one of the world's worst industrial accidents, and can I offer my apologies to myself and to the chamber, Presiding Officer, as I will have to leave when I have concluded my speech. As we have heard, over 1,100 people lost their lives and a further 2,500 were injured when the Rana Plaza complex collapsed on 24 April 2013. Having witnessed the effect on my local communities of an industrial disaster where nine people lost their lives, I can only begin to imagine the effects such a devastating event had on the Sabar district of Dhaka where the plaza was located. We know that many of the survivors are still struggling with injuries that affect their ability to work and that many families have lost their breadwinner and are experiencing brutal hardship to this day, which is why the Rana Plaza agreement and the compensation process attached to it is so important, but, as we have heard from Sena Boyack, it is woefully inadequate. Of course, what happened at Rana Plaza was not the first large-scale disaster in the ready-made garment industry in Bangladesh. Months earlier, in November 2012, 112 people were killed in a fire at Tazrin fashions. Between 2006 and 2009, 414 garment workers were killed in 213 separate factory fires. In the five months following the fire at Tazrin fashions, a further 28 factory fires were reported, with eight workers killed and at least 591 injured. What is it about the garment industry in Bangladesh that makes it so vulnerable to tragedies of this kind? First, it is worth noting that this industry is a key driving force of the Bangladesh economy and that it is highly politicised. In 2011-12, Bangladesh was the second largest exporter of apparel in the world and the industry accounted for 13 per cent of the country's GDP and provided employment for an estimated 3.6 million people. Although Bangladesh has improved its economic outlook significantly in recent years, issues such as workers' rights, transparency and building regulations have not kept pace. Within the garment industry, buyers demand low prices that are achieved by rival companies, constantly undercutting one another, paying low wages and having scant regard for the health and safety of their workers. When you consider that Bangladesh has the lowest early wage rate in the world and that many garment workers work long hours without extra pay just to meet targets, you begin to get a feel for a sector in an industry where workers have little value. Rana Plaza exemplifies that disregard for safety, as on 23 April, the day before the collapse, cracks appeared in its walls. It was reported in the media that the country's industrial police had recommended that the factory owner suspend production until the situation could be investigated by independent inspectors. Indeed, the bank and shops on the ground floor were still closed when the collapse took place, but the upper floors where the garment factories were located were opened as a result of the factory owner having an inspection organised by his own contractor who declared it safe, probably not much surprise there. It is alleged that some of the workers were threatened with dismissal if they did not return to work and that many of them returned to their machines just an hour before the building collapsed. What can and should be done to improve safety and conditions in Bangladesh? It is clear that a complex set of relationships are at play in Bangladesh, and I have to say that I was very impressed by the report produced by the Bangladesh All Party parliamentary group at Westminster. They have produced a raft of recommendations based on conversations that they have had both here and in Bangladesh, and many of them seem to me to be eminently sensible. I will single out just a few of those, and I will also paraphrase them for speed. They suggest that Western Governments should use their influence to encourage Bangladesh to address labour rights, minimum wage levels and enforcement, and that the Bangladesh Government should establish a disaster relief and fire emergency plan with adequate funding and ministerial responsibility, and that there should be support for the minimum wage board that has been established in Bangladesh. They also suggest that there has to be greater worker participation and representation in the running of companies, and that a system of building controls with appropriate training and record keeping should also be established. One of their other ideas that I thought was very interesting was that there should be a kite mark for ethically produced garments. Given the hundreds of items that they can now buy that are fair trade marked and given that many of those are made with cotton and other fabric producing materials, I wonder whether you need a separate kite mark for ethically traded garments and ethically produced garments, but I think that it is something that is worth looking at. It seems to me that we must also consider whether the west's insatiable appetite for low-cost garments also plays a part in this story, and I believe that it does. In previous debates about the stockline tragedy that John Mason mentioned earlier, I have often suggested that no one should die just because they go to work. In my view, that applies just as much in Bangladesh as it does in Scotland. Like many members, I will remember the pictures from the immediate aftermath of the collapse of the factory at Rana Plasar. The aspect that sticks most in my mind was the look of sheer confusion and the general chaos that seemed to characterise the immediate response. Obviously, the scale of the tragedy quickly became apparent, and shortly after the broader issues with the garment industry came to light. However, since then, Rana Plasar slipped from the front pages, and that is why I am very pleased that we have got this debate this evening. Indeed, whilst the discussions on the safety of the factories and the conditions within them have continued and the role of the garment industry, the attention that this issue has received has been a good deal less than would perhaps expect from a tragedy on this scale had it been anywhere and in other countries. I would like to congratulate Sarah Boyack and indeed the many other people who are determined not to let this Rana Plasar disaster fade into history, and are determined to ensure that whatever else the lives of the thousands or so workers which were lost were not lost in vain. In this instance, we cannot stress the importance of all our individual responsibilities in terms of this issue. Of course, the UK Government should and has taken action on this matter, which is most welcome. The provision of the £1.8 million funding towards the trade and global value chains initiative is one such development, which should strengthen the relationship between buyers and factory workers. This coming on top are the responsible accountable garment sector challenge fund, which works with some of our top retailers in order to improve conditions for workers in the industry. However, of course, there is another link in the chain, and that is ourselves as consumers with garment marketing rules relaxed, thanks mainly to the EU regulations, where it is no longer compulsory, which, due to the lobbying of the Spanish, were keen that both Mango and Zara did not want to disclose whether garments were manufactured. It has been nigh and impossible to say if the clothing is made in a foreign sweatshop or not, so I think that this kite mark idea is a very sound one. As someone who has worked in the textile industry for a long, long number of years, I always take a keen interest in whether garments I buy are manufactured. I have to say that I find many people make assumptions also about high prices being a marker for quality, which is not the case. Put frankly, we cannot make such assumptions, and really, if we are to put pressure on retailers and drive up workers' conditions, we must start better informing ourselves over the origin of our clothing. And I don't just mean country of origin, as in all countries there are factories that are safe to work in and provide safe and reliable employment, and we shouldn't really use sight of that. In relation to that, I'm pleased to see that the UK aid is providing money towards factory inspections in Bangladesh, which I understand will number 2,000 next year. But, of course, we can always do more. The problem is also because we do these factory inspections and then we put money into the fund, but it's the bosses that keep half the money and still pay the workers the minimum wage, and it's very difficult to control that. As consumers, we should be asking questions as to who it is that is producing our clothes, what conditions they're working under, and whether the retailer is doing all it can to support better standards. Indeed, I hope that this increased publicity over the efforts of some of the companies involved with the compensation of workers will shame them into becoming more generous and proactive. The fact that so many companies who had goods manufactured at Rana Plaza failed even to attend the first meeting on compensation is really shameful, and that's a mild word for it. These companies must do more, and we must keep up the pressure on them to do so, and that goes beyond the issue of compensation, which at least seems to be moving forward with the Rana Plaza arrangement. But to the broader issue of welfare and conditions for workers, particularly in the developing world, we need to be confident that the cost of our clothes is at the expense of the consumer and not the welfare of those making them. We now move to the closing speech from the minister, Hansa Yousaf. The minister is seven minutes or thereby. Thank you, Presiding Officer. My thanks to Sarah Boyack for bringing this motion forward. She has a long history and notable history in this chamber of bringing forward issues of importance across the world. I commend her for doing that once again with this motion and for all the other members who have signed it and indeed spoken on it today. As we all know and has been mentioned, 24 April 2014 marked that first anniversary of the tragic Rana Plaza disaster, which at least claimed the lives of 1,129 garment factory workers, potentially even more than that, and left many more injured. As Patricia Ferguson was saying, that disaster came only a few months after the Tizrin fashion fire in Dhaka, which killed 112 workers. Those tragedies, and like many others like them, are a stark reminder of the human cost of our demand for cheap, fast clothing, and of the horrendous working conditions of those who produce them. John Mason was correct to say that some element and some respect, probably all of us at one time or another, have been guilty of being part of the problems indirectly, perhaps without the knowledge that we had of the consequences of those actions, because we wanted demand for cheap and fast clothing. I think that it is important that we recognise that the garment sector in Bangladesh is a complex issue. It is not as simple as perhaps being or has been portrayed previously. The industry is worth more than £13 billion, providing jobs for more than £4 million. Bangladesh is the vast majority of whom are women. On one hand, the industry is absolutely vital to poverty reduction and to the economic empowerment of people, and in particular of women in Bangladesh. It gives women opportunities to work outside the home to earn their own money to help support their families. It also offers an alternative to early marriage. However, there is, of course, the flipside of that, which many members have mentioned. If those conditions are exploitative, there is no excuse for the appalling working conditions, which led to the tragic Rana Plaza factory collapse. It is imperative that those who were affected by the disaster, the child who lost his mother, and the women who have been left disabled, are now unable to support their families. It is vital that they are properly compensated. Sarah Boyack asked what the Scottish Government can do in that regard. We urge companies, of course, to stick by the agreements that have signed, which I will go into in more detail. I can certainly commit to raising the issue with both the honorary consul of Bangladesh and when I next meet the ambassador of Bangladesh to raise the issue. I might be happy to do that and take the collective voice of the Parliament in that matter. One year on, many members here have mentioned some of the progress that has been made in terms of improving building safety conditions and, also, very importantly, inspections, but the work that has been done to urge buyers to take responsibility for their supply chain. I welcome the introduction of the Rana Plaza agreement of compensation, which will support the victims. However, it is vital, as I said, that the compensation scheme adequately compensates all those who were affected. I reiterate the calls of every single member of the chamber for companies operating across the Lothian region, Scotland and the UK, especially those companies that sold clothing that were produced around the plaza to make sufficient and appropriate contributions to ensure that that £24 million target is reached by the minister and the Government. We do not have the legislative power to force them to do that, but the Parliament should send a strong message to those UK companies and Scottish companies to ensure that they are living up to their important responsibilities. Obviously, all of us agree that it is completely unacceptable to face a threat to your life when you go to work. Patricia Ferguson made that very poignant reminder to John Mason about the stock line factory. Whether it is in Scotland or Bangladesh, everybody should have the right to work in safety and to be expecting to go back home after a hard day's work. As consumers, we all have a responsibility to think a little bit harder about what we are buying. There is no such thing sometimes as a good bargain. As a Government, we have a responsibility to be a good global citizen. Our achievement of fair trade nation status last year, and it particularly gives us more leverage to do more on that issue. The Scottish Government, for example, and its recent passing of the public procurement bill included an amendment that came from the Government in terms of guidelines for public contracts regarding ethical and fair trade policy. That is a step in the right direction from where we have influence on public contracts to ensure that those who are exploiting workers will be made to answer for that in the procurement of public contracts. On top of our fair trade nation status, which we can do more on and more with as a Government in this particular issue, we are very proud of the work that we do in Bangladesh through international development priorities. Currently, we are funding four projects that are just shy of £1 million over three years between 2013 and 2016, and they work on food security and also working with marginalised communities in mitigating the effects of climate change. On what more the Scottish Government can do, many of us will know the UN guiding principles on business and human rights, which was endorsed by the UN Human Rights Council in 2011. The UK launched its implementation plan in September 2013. The Scottish Government has been liaising closely with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in that process. In Scotland, we have a national action plan on human rights, which was facilitated and drafted by the Scottish Human Rights Commission, which was launched on 10 December 2013. It contains a commitment to develop a co-ordinated plan of action in Scotland to give effect to those UN guiding principles, which are also known as the roggy principles. Many members across the chamber will know that the roggy principles are there to provide respect for human rights in the context of business activities. States, those who are in the United Nations, have a positive duty to take all the necessary steps to prevent business-related human rights violations. We, as a Scottish Government, are in the context, but even if Scotland votes for independence, we will be an advocate of those principles. I note, as others have done, that 28 April 2014 marked workers memorial day. The purpose of that day is to remember all those killed through work, but at the same time to ensure that such tragedies are not repeated. I completely share the sentiment. I believe that the work of Scotland's national action plan on human rights has an essential role to play in improving business practices, but we need collective action from the globe and for the community of nations to pull together. I think that the roggy principles are certainly one way of doing that. I thank once again Serab Boyack for keeping this issue in the spotlight and I am sure that the message will be loud and clear from this Parliament that we must never ever see another tragedy like that of Ranna Plaza. Thank you. Many thanks.