Hansard

I commend Karen Gillon for her motion and congratulate her on securing the debate, which is on a subject that is dear to her heart and to many of us around the chamber. With several other members, I was part of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association delegation that visited Malawi just over a year ago. My memory of that visit is fresh, as Dr Jean Turner's obviously is. I say honestly that that trip was one highlight of my parliamentary career to date.

The motion refers to the Scotland Malawi Partnership's pledge, which has been circulated. I am pleased to say that I have signed that pledge and that I have encouraged other members of the Scottish Parliament to sign it. I have also circulated it to Conservative party candidates, many of whom will join me on these benches after 3 May. I hope that they are signing up to it and that they will be committed to supporting the Scottish Executive's work in Malawi when they come to the Parliament.

I recognise that some people are concerned about the role that the Scottish Executive plays in Malawi. Some will say that international development is a reserved matter for Westminster. As a general rule, that view is correct. If the Scottish Executive were to launch a hugely ambitious international development programme in an attempt to take over the ground that is currently occupied by the Department for International Development, which is the responsibility of Westminster, that would be a legitimate cause for concern, but the relationship that the Executive and the Parliament have forged with Malawi is not at all in that league. The Executive has made a total commitment of £3 million a year to promote links with Malawi, which is one ten thousandth of the Executive's annual budget of £30 billion a year. I do not regard that sum or proportion as outrageous. It is entirely reasonable and proper that a devolved Parliament such as the Scottish Parliament and a devolved Executive should seek to build links with other small countries around the world, especially places such as Malawi. Scotland has historic links with Malawi that go back hundreds of years, to the times of the early Scottish missionaries.

Karen Gillon referred to the "Frontline Scotland" programme on Malawi. I did not see it, but I have heard enough about its contents to concern me. I accept that free countries and open societies such as ours need journalists who are prepared to question what Governments do. In particular, journalists are needed who are prepared to question how taxpayers' money is being spent. However, my experience of the many Scottish voluntary organisations and charities that work in Malawi is that, far from wasting money on administration, they run extremely lean organisations. Virtually every penny that is raised is spent on the front line. It would be a tragedy if the programme that was shown on the BBC affected the flow of cash into organisations that do exceptionally important work in Malawi. I appreciate that people who make television programmes want people to watch them and that they want to generate headlines, but the media have a responsibility and an obligation to act in a reasonable and responsible way. I am concerned that the "Frontline Scotland" programme crossed the line.

The relationship between Scotland and Malawi is important, and I want us to develop it and build on it. We in Scotland and the Parliament should be proud of it.

I commend Karen Gillon for lodging the motion and—perhaps more important—for all her work on developing links.