Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Chamber

Plenary, 26 Feb 2003

26 Feb 2003 · S1 · Plenary

Item of business

Ethical Investment

Fitzpatrick, Brian Lab Strathkelvin and Bearsden Watch on SPTV

I, too, congratulate Angus MacKay on lodging the motion, which I am happy to support. I suppose that I should get the niceties out of the way and refer to my entry in the register of members' interests. I confess that I am a graduate of the University of Glasgow, but it is always nice to see a younger institution doing well.

I am pleased that David Davidson introduced some politics into the debate, because the issue involves political differences. Sometimes, members' business debates end up being nicey-nicey and do not get to the point. In listening to David Davidson, I was reassured that I still have to wonder sometimes what planet some people are on.

Angus MacKay is to be congratulated on raising ethical investing, because that is not just do-goodery or an add-on. It is a different way of doing business and of living in the world and in society. It represents a different way of making use of one's funds and involves our saying as citizens or consumers, "I'm sorry—I don't want you to do that. I would rather that you did this."

Choices must be made. For Labour members, poverty and exploitation are a zero-sum game. We are against that game and think that a better game can be played. Ethical investment can be good business. It can make sense for the community, the country and the investor.

Susan Deacon was right to mention the fact that, throughout the student movement in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, campaigns were undertaken—matching campaigns in the trade union movement—about what was done with people's money and with universities' funds. I remember that we were told, "You can't do anything about South Africa. Don't think that you can change a powerful country such as South Africa." In Glasgow, Edinburgh and other places, we wanted to aid the African National Congress. We stood with the ANC, said that we would do something and campaigned. We should be proud of and celebrate that. That process has not ended; it continues wherever there is injustice in the world. That is why some of us entered politics. We aim not only to interpret the world, but to change it.

Ethical stances mean that some political leadership is required. We cannot tell the developing nations of Africa, Asia or Latin America to change, build their markets, develop their services and increase their products if we maintain our trade barriers and use public subsidy to keep out their products or to distort or destroy their markets. We cannot say one thing and do another. An advocacy role in how investments are made is an important aspect of keeping the debate going.

Fiona Hyslop mentioned the interface of ethics and foreign policy, which is the subject of a legitimate, if sometimes difficult, debate. Politicians can find it difficult to look beyond their local or national interest towards a global interest.

I think that some particularly brave steps have been taken in that respect. I am sure that politicians around the chamber could work together to support the millennium goals, which are probably the most ambitious global development goals that we will see in our lifetime. By our actions we can inform decisions and support the making of different decisions.

As I said earlier, we can change the world rather than simply interpret it. I do not accept that the subject that we are debating is just a reserved matter. The minister can tell us what the Scottish Executive will do in some small way to change the world.