(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab) [R]
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the role of Fairtrade certification in UK business and trade.
It is a pleasure to serve with you chairing for the second time in a fortnight, Mrs Hobhouse. I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I was employed by the Scottish Fair Trade Forum prior to my election, and am currently chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Fairtrade.
Can we all honestly say we know who made the clothes we are wearing? When we buy a chocolate bar, do we always consider who grew the cocoa and under what conditions they worked? With every drink of tea, do we consider whether the tea farmer was paid adequately for us to enjoy our brew? Even as morally conscious as many of us would like to consider ourselves, the answer to those questions is very likely no. In this deeply globalised world, it is not possible for individuals to investigate the ethics of every product they buy.
Equally many corporations use their market power to exploit farmers and workers, suppliers of tea, cotton, and cocoa, with little regard for the environment and human wellbeing. That is why certification standards are important: they empower individuals to make informed purchasing choices through visible certification symbols, while also transcending the individual by helping to create a more ethical system of supply and demand, often by offering fair prices for products, financing for farmers, independent auditing of farming practices, transportation of goods, and processing to ensure high standards for people and the environment.
Not all certification standards were created equal. Some schemes can be used for greenwashing or to hide unethical practices through poor auditing standards. We must continue to champion independent certification standards and verification systems, and challenge those who opt for less demanding alternatives or no standards at all. I welcome the Government’s responsible business review, which I believe provides an opportunity for the UK Government to learn from certification standards as a way of delivering ethical business practices. I would welcome the Minister’s reflections on this in his response.
With that, I come to the main focus of this debate: the Fairtrade certification mark, which is one of the most recognised and effective certification standards. It is a household name, with an estimated 91% of UK consumers recognising the Fairtrade mark and some 78% caring about it. The blue, black, and green mark has come to be synonymous with certification standards. What really makes the Fairtrade mark so important is not just its public recognition or popularity, but the impact it has had and continues to have for farmers and communities globally.
Fairtrade guarantees a minimum price for farmers, provides a Fairtrade premium, ensures labour and environmental standards, and provides support and training. In practice, that means there is a price safety net enabling farmers to sell their products to cover the average cost of sustainable production. That income goes directly to farmers to increase their income, improve their livelihoods and increase wages for their workers.
The premium is paid directly to farmers via co-operatives; for every kilogram of produce sold, the funds must be spent democratically to invest in a community development project. It has been estimated that over the 25 years to 2019, Fairtrade farmers and workers have received around €1 billion in Fairtrade premium as additional funds to be invested in their communities and businesses. In 2023 alone, producers earned more than €211 million in Fairtrade premium. The projects and numerous types of training on the ground, including improved agricultural practices, climate resilience, business management, literacy and gender equality, have been supported by the premium.
Although the Fairtrade Foundation here in the UK does more than just implement its certification processes, there will always be limits to how much such an approach can deliver improved conditions for people and the planet, due to structural barriers and the imbalance of power in the competitive market system. This is why Fairtrade’s advocacy is so important. It helps producers, particularly smallholder farmers and workers, who usually are not given access to participate in public debate or to influence legislative and policy frameworks for the benefit of people and the planet.
The certification scheme is one part of the work of the Fairtrade Foundation, and the foundation in turn is only part of the global Fairtrade movement, bringing together consumers, producers, businesses and campaigners in a unique global movement for change.
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. Through their pioneering work, the Fairtrade movement and other organisations, such as Transform Trade, have demonstrated that we can have a real impact on human rights abuses and working conditions abroad by upholding standards in our own supply chains. Does he agree that we should work with big companies to incentivise best practice and transparency, protecting small and ethical businesses in the process?
Martin Rhodes
I agree that it is important that we look at reforming global trade in different ways depending on the particular context. One of the great successes of Fairtrade in the UK has been getting products into mainstream retail, where most people do their shopping. When it comes to quantity, that is where those products need to be. However, it is also important that the Fairtrade movement has supported other Fairtrade businesses to do all of their business Fairtrade and provided an alternative model of doing business. Both approaches are why Fairtrade has been so generally successful, accepting the current situation and how we make it better while also looking at how we build a better system overall.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member on the way he is articulating the case for Fairtrade. It is important that it is robust and traceable and has strong integrity, but if we are to scale up, should we not also integrate international Fairtrade standards into the Groceries Code Adjudicator, which is part of UK legislation? After all, the GCA is looking only at the final supplier to the large supermarkets in this country. If we can establish a strong relationship between international Fairtrade and the Groceries Code Adjudicator, which is currently under review, would that not be another step forward?
Martin Rhodes
The hon. Member’s highlights that certification schemes, important though they are, are not the only answer; we need to look at legislation and statutory guidance that will drive change in the system overall. I will speak later about what we can do in legislative terms to ensure that all the supply chains involved in goods and services sold in the UK are properly regulated and that we have a system in place to look at standards in the UK and elsewhere in those supply chains.
A recent example of the advocacy work of the Fairtrade Foundation is its “Brew it Fair” campaign, which called for greater accountability and responsibility in the tea sector. Some 13 million people source employment from the tea industry, and 60% of the world’s tea is produced by smallholder farmers. Regrettably, this market is made up of a high number of farmers and workers with low incomes and wages, working in the context of increasingly difficult conditions for farming due to climate change. This campaign called on the Government to do more to collaborate with the industry to deliver living wages and incomes for those in the tea sector and to be bolder in how we approach supply chain due diligence, and called for the UK to continue to honour its international climate finance commitments. During Fairtrade fortnight, at the end of September, around 117,000 people across the UK engaged with more than 1,000 local grassroots activities in support of the “Brew it Fair” campaign. Many of them were Fairtrade communities, a network of local campaign groups across the UK.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Cat Smith) wished to speak today but is unable to do so due to prior commitments. However, she told me she wants on the record her recognition of the hard work of the Garstang Fairtrade community—passionate campaigners on these issues in the world’s first Fairtrade town.
Support for Fairtrade cuts across communities and generations, from faith communities who see it as an important part of their social mission, to student activists inspired by its empowering impact, to rural communities who know through lived experience where power lies in agricultural supply chains. When Fairtrade hosted tea farmers from Kenya and India to speak directly to politicians and policy makers, that demonstrated exactly why advocacy is so important: it closes the vast proximity gap, often spanning cultures and oceans, between those who make decisions in this place and in boardrooms and those working at the very beginning of supply chains to deliver so many of the goods we enjoy.
Yesterday, Fairtrade’s “Brew it Fair” campaign culminated in a cross-party group of MPs, activists, and representatives from business and the Fairtrade Foundation handing a petition in to Downing Street, signed by over 21,000 people, containing the main asks of the campaign. The petition calls on the Government to introduce a law on human rights and environmental due diligence to oblige the public sector and businesses to prevent human rights abuses and environmental harms across their supply chains. I look forward to the Minister reflecting on the asks of the campaign in his response. In particular, I ask that he updates us on the Government’s position on human rights and environmental due diligence. The petition’s ask is the most important of the campaign, and the clearest ask of this debate.
Andrew George
I am dreadfully sorry to ask, but is the hon. Gentleman aware that those who are campaigning for Fairtrade believe that it can succeed properly only if this Government lead the way with their official development assistance budget, which has been severely cut? Does he agree that to achieve the aims that we all want to achieve, the Government need to look at their ODA budget? I cannot see how we can help countries enough if do it purely through trade.
Martin Rhodes
Trading relations become more important in the context of cuts to aid budgets, not just here but elsewhere in the world. Trade and business become more important as means of supporting and helping countries, and of narrowing gaps of inequality globally. There is a separate debate, which we might have at another time, about the levels of aid from the UK and elsewhere, but in the current context, trade becomes more important, not less.
In recent correspondence I had with the University of the Arts London, it highlighted structural challenges that are particularly clear in the fashion and textile sector. The debate so far has concentrated on food, but the university’s analysis shows that, despite strong consumer demand for ethical clothing, uptake of standards such as Fairtrade remains limited because of the lack of regulatory pressure, opaque multi-tiered supply chains and the competitive disadvantage faced by responsible brands. Its research underlines exactly why certification alone cannot fix a market that rewards the cheapest, rather than the fairest, production. We need human rights and environmental due diligence legislation to create that system change.
Some may worry that such legislation is a recipe for more red tape that will hamper growth, but that need not be the case. Many UK businesses already have to follow EU directives because that is where a large part of their market is. We risk becoming a dumping ground for unethically sourced products while our own British companies, following best practice in order to trade with our closest and largest neighbours, are undercut. Some 50 global businesses have already signed statements calling for human rights due diligence legislation, including UK brands such as Tesco, Twinings and John Lewis. Organisations such as the Corporate Justice Coalition are working hard to advocate on the issue by proposing a business, human rights and environment Act.
Current legislation on supply chain transparency lacks effectiveness. Section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 requires companies only to report on their operations, but not necessarily to take responsible actions to address and prevent the problems. Having met the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, I am aware that they are pushing for mandatory human rights due diligence legislation in the UK. I would appreciate the Minister making reference to the commissioner’s work in his response.
Fairtrade shows that ethical trade can deliver; human rights and environmental due diligence would take it from optional to systemic. That said, the lessons of this debate for the Government are not just about the Fairtrade mark, a more ethical tea industry, or even important changes in due diligence laws. As we face a world of pressures and reductions in aid budgets, including our own, it places on us a greater and more urgent responsibility to use progressive approaches to trade and business and to promote progress on human rights, the environment and economic growth concurrently.
I shall conclude on that wider context. With the reductions in UK official development assistance, we should be viewing ethical trade and responsible business as cost-effective ways to put our principles into practice. Principles such as poverty reduction, gender equality and environmental sustainability can all be advanced through strong due diligence laws, and by growing our trade with allies that share the same high standards. But we are also required to take proactive action against regressive trade policies—most notably the use of investor-state dispute settlement provisions, which are mechanisms to allow overseas investors to sue Governments for taking legitimate regulatory decisions in the public interest.
The Government’s recent trade strategy contains very welcome and strong commitments to embedding human rights and environmental practices into our trade policy. I similarly welcome the Government’s responsible business conduct review, which shows their commitment to tackle the issues we are addressing in this debate. Such Government engagement, led by the Minister, is welcome.
The Labour Government was elected on an ambitious programme for workers’ rights and environmental sustainability. This is now an important opportunity for us to put those priorities into practice, not just here in the UK but in our global supply chains. I look forward to the Minister’s response and the rest of the debate.
Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)
I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to speak. I am going to call the Front Benchers at 2.25 pm at the latest. I do not think I need to impose an official limit on speeches, but it would be brilliant if Members keep their remarks within eight minutes.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is always a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) for excellently setting the scene, for his contribution today and for his hard work on this subject over the years, which is not forgotten about and provides extra context to the debate and to his speech.
The fairtrade system sets standards across the globe on ethical sourcing, fair wages, safer working conditions and proper environmental practices—four things that probably all of us in this Chamber would fully support. Fairtrade is a well-known organisation and it plays a key part across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, including in schools, so I am pleased to participate in this debate. In Northern Ireland— I hope this is true on the mainland too—children are very much aware of the Fairtrade organisation at an early age. As a result, they are well placed to tell their parents and other adults and remind them of the role they can play. The Minister is not responsible for education, but perhaps he can give us some idea of what is done to encourage schools more strongly?
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
The hon. Member is making an important point about young children in schools. Last month, Joshua, Leyla and Elizabeth from St George’s primary school in my constituency wrote to me about their campaign to promote sustainable palm oil labelling. They are carrying on a fine tradition in Bolton, where one of the first Fairtrade shops in the country, Justicia, opened in 1985. Does the hon. Member agree with Joshua, Leyla, Elizabeth and myself that sustainable palm oil labelling is crucial for informing consumers and promoting ethical businesses, alongside greater Fairtrade initiatives?
Jim Shannon
I certainly do. I am greatly encouraged by what the hon. Gentleman said, and by those three young children in particular in relation to their work on palm oil. That is one of the campaigns that school children in Northern Ireland are also part of. The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight that, and I am sure that the children he mentioned will be given a copy of Hansard, where their names will be printed for posterity. I thank them for all that they are doing—well done! That encourages me when it comes to the greater picture for children.
UK businesses use Fairtrade to demonstrate commitment to ethical practices. Northern Ireland has held Fairtrade status as a region since 2004. It is something we are greatly committed to and have a great interest in. The NI Fairtrade forum works with councils, schools, businesses and communities to increase awareness. One of my staff members remembers that in primary school they celebrated a Fairtrade week, when all pupils had to bring in the labels of any foods or packaging they could find in their homes that were Fairtrade. I can imagine children scouring their cupboards to find something in their house—hopefully there were plenty of products that represented Fairtrade.
Fairtrade products are widely available in supermarkets across Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Glasgow North referred to some of the businesses that carry Fairtrade products. I am glad to report that the likes of Tesco, Asda, Sainsbury’s and the Co-op all carry Fairtrade products that are sourced globally. Those shops are making these products practically and physically available across Northern Ireland, and they take in a large proportion of shoppers—although not all of them, of course.
Let us honest about the situation: some smaller, perhaps family-run, businesses will struggle slightly more because producers are paid a fair minimum price and premium. Smaller businesses with tight margins and sometimes unpredictable cash-flow will struggle to source Fairtrade products, for fear of passing the cost increases to customers. It is not possible for everyone to source Fairtrade products, but for those who commit to it and wish to do it, there is a way of making it happen. The smaller businesses in my constituency rely on the local wholesalers and independent distributors which, again, may not carry a whole range of Fairtrade products. Some of those suppliers perhaps need a greater awareness, so they can do more. People want to do their best, but in terms of finance they must work with what is available to them.
The hon. Member for Glasgow North also referred to the role of churches. I am pleased to say that in my Strangford constituency there are a great many churches and churchgoers—those who practice their faith in a very practical and physical way. They are committed to Fairtrade because of their beliefs. They also want to do their best to help in a physical way, which they do by purchasing available Fairtrade products so that the money goes to people who need it in the right places. It is a pleasure to thank all the people in Northern Ireland who buy from and support the Fairtrade networks. Northern Ireland has some strong Fairtrade networks, and we should be proud of that, but of course people want to do more. The hon. Gentleman was right when he said that people want Fairtrade. I think most people I meet, if not every person, wants Fairtrade, but some may be restricted by what is available on the shelf or where they shop.
I am so proud of the education on Fairtrade in schools and universities—the very thing referred to by the hon. Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) in his intervention. It is really encouraging to know that our children probably know more about it than their parents, and that they want to do something about it. There is an innocence that children have, where they see the good—things can be very black and white for them, but it is good that they have that.
The United Kingdom Government can do more to incentivise public bodies such as schools and hospitals to consider options for Fairtrade, such as tea and coffee, or prioritise ethical trade standards to make procurement easier for small public bodies. I should have welcomed the Minister to his place; it is always a pleasure to see him. He has been a busy man today—he has been in the Chamber and now he is here, so he has definitely earned his money today. Can he indicate what has been done to encourage public bodies to purchase Fairtrade goods? I know there is a campaign, but for those who are maybe hesitant, is there is a follow-up to encourage them?
Fairtrade plays a positive role by promoting ethical standards in Northern Ireland and further afield in the United Kingdom. It strengthens our commitments to human rights. I am a great believer in and a huge supporter of human rights, and Fairtrade helps us to support human rights across the world. We can make an impact through everyday purchasing, and to build on that I ask the Government again to do more to make the procurement process easier. If that is possible, it would be a step in the right direction. I thank all Members for their participation in advance of the debate, and I look forward to the other contributions and to the Minister’s response.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) for securing the debate. I also thank the team at Fairtrade UK for their incredible work; it was a pleasure to attend their festive reception in Parliament yesterday afternoon.
I have been a supporter of Fairtrade for some time, inspired by some of the wonderful activists in my home city of Wolverhampton. I am very proud that recently the Wolverhampton City Fairtrade Partnership celebrated Wolverhampton’s 21st year as a Fairtrade city, showing the care and compassion of my constituents in Wolverhampton West and others in the city. I recently attended a tea party at the City of Wolverhampton College to celebrate Fairtrade fortnight, and it was a joy to see that the students had baked delicious cakes to promote the event, and to hear more about the work that Wolverhampton Fairtrade has been doing. I continue to work with the group on a regular basis to support the consumption of Fairtrade products in our city.
As we know, Fairtrade is much more than just a label: it is about justice, equality, humanity and sustainability. Fairtrade benefits the planet by helping the fight against climate change. Fairtrade certification enables farmers to respect human rights and tackle environmental risks, including by banning toxic pesticides, protecting biodiversity and encouraging sustainable organic farming practices that are free of hazardous waste and use water efficiently.
Shoppers in the UK know that when they purchase Fairtrade products they are making an ethical purchase, supporting fair, sustainable farming practices around the world. Most importantly, Fairtrade helps farmers across the globe who would otherwise live in deep poverty and very poor conditions to receive guaranteed minimum prices, with improved working conditions and a proper say in how decisions are made. On top of that, Fairtrade certification offers an additional financial premium that allows farmers to democratically decide how to invest the money in community development projects, such as schools, training and water treatment systems, thereby actively improving local communities and securing their livelihoods.
From my constituents who are choosing which teabags to buy, to major UK retailers and brands, to the more than 2 million farmers and workers across more than 70 countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America, Fairtrade ensures that human rights and environmental risks are taken seriously throughout the supply chain. From protecting the climate to ending child labour and supporting farming communities around the world, Fairtrade does it all, with Fairtrade community development premium funds being used to reinvest in education, healthcare, housing and environmental initiatives. As parliamentarians, we must continue to champion Fairtrade and the farmers and workers it supports, for the present and the future. Our planet and its people depend on it.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) for presenting the case for Fairtrade, and for fairer trade practices overall, so compellingly. I also pay tribute to everybody who has been part of the Fairtrade campaign for many decades. I have been involved in it for at least 30 years, and it is a fantastic example of a widely supported public campaign that has, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, found its way into our schools and communities, and also into our supermarkets, making it easy for people to choose Fairtrade products. That is fantastic and to be celebrated.
This is not just about individual shopping choices, important though they are; it is also about ensuring a level playing field for all producers, so that good environmental, human rights and workers’ rights practices are not an optional add-on but fundamental to the way we do business. That is why I warmly welcome the Brew it Fair campaign and the petition handed in at Downing Street yesterday. I was involved in the delivery of a similar petition a few months ago with the Corporate Justice Coalition. Again, that had well over 100,000 signatures from citizens across the country calling for mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence legislation. We have to ensure that the positive practice encapsulated by Fairtrade is not just an optional extra, but how business is done.
More than 80 MPs have signed an early-day motion in support of the Fairtrade tea campaign and mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence legislation. The reasons for supporting such legislation are clear. Introducing that horizontal legislation that obliges all UK businesses to take steps to prevent human rights and environmental risks in their supply chains, all the way down to smallholder farmers and workers, is the single most cost-effective measure we could take to support sustainability in the food system and to improve the UK’s international reputation for action to create a climate- compatible, sustainable, rights-supporting economy.
We have some legislation on supply chain transparency, but it is insufficient and riddled with loopholes. Section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 requires companies to report on their operations, but not to take reasonable steps to address and prevent the problem—and prevention must be central to this. Schedule 17 to the Environment Act 2021 applies only to commodities identified as key drivers of the UK’s deforestation footprint, such as cattle products excluding dairy and cocoa, palm oil and soy. That is important, but it is narrow in scope.
Human rights and environmental due diligence should not be addressed in silos, where businesses often face the challenge of potentially trading off one sort of risk against another. If we had mandatory requirements on human rights and environmental due diligence, that would provide the consistency and level playing field that businesses need. Businesses that already source their food responsibly—whether voluntarily or because they are covered by the direct scope of the European corporate sustainability due diligence directive—would not be put at a competitive disadvantage by mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence legislation in the UK.
If the legislation were designed correctly, it would reduce the risk of abuses or poor practices in supply chains, put farmers and workers on track to earn a decent livelihood to keep their families’ heads above water, and help end issues such as gendered, racial and pay discrimination, forced labour, child labour, undignified and unsafe working conditions, the denial of workers’ rights to freely associate, and lack of care and consideration for water sources and biodiversity. All those problems could be better prevented if we made such a change in the law.
I warmly welcome the Department for Business and Trade’s responsible business conduct review. It is a critical opportunity to introduce comprehensive, inclusive and enforceable legislation on human rights, labour rights and environmental protection in supply chains, and it is crucial that we take it forward.
Finally, I want to echo a point that a couple of other Members have made. We need to ensure that trade is fair. We need to ensure that these fundamental rights are built into the normal way of doing business. The UK’s foreign aid budget is a crucial element in supporting this work. It is vital that we restore it, so that we play our part in supporting and enforcing human rights globally. Will the Minister tell us whether the responsible business conduct review will include mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence legislation, and will he respond to my point on the aid budget?
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Hobhouse.
Picture the scene: Downing Street in December and jolly Christmas trees sparkling away. No, it is not “Love Actually”, but the moment—exactly 24 hours ago, I think —that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes), other officers of the all-party parliamentary group and I handed in the petition of 22,000 constituents. Such was the volume of names, the petition was in a blue cardboard box, carrying the logo that my hon. Friend described, with the distinctive swirly light-green and blue with a dot connoting a person. It was the Fairtrade logo, which people trust. It is like a kitemark.
When we buy stuff with the Fairtrade logo—bananas or whatever it is—we know what it means. As people have described, there is a minimum price guarantee for the farmer, and there is the Fairtrade premium—the financial bonus for community projects. Certification is a two-way bargain. On their side, the person being supplied has to provide transparent contracts. There are lots of things that these smallholders—they are often tiny farmers—find difficult, like getting finance up front, before the harvest season. Under the Fairtrade scheme, they can get money up front.
The scheme is about people, sustainability and community first, before naked transactional profit. Smallholding farmers can club together and get a lot more access to international markets than they would be able to get on their own. The scheme increases their bargaining capacity. It is also democratic and run on co-operative—I am a member of the Co-operative party—principles. The premium could go to football pitches, tuition fees or classrooms; that is decided by the community.
I do not know whether I am the only one in the room old enough to remember the 1980s and the advert with the man from Del Monte. Do you remember him, Mrs Hobhouse? He was a little bit neocolonialist in his hat and linen suit, and he swooped into a paradise-like community. Well, it was not all paradise, was it? He was on a plantation somewhere or other—it was an unnamed location—stroking his beard and inspecting fruit produce. It was some far-off location—somewhere in sunny climes. He was this western impresario and the community were all there, with their great expectations. In the end, the cliffhanger was resolved with a thumb up—“The man from Del Monte, he say yes!”, as one of the urchin children said. I like to think that in this day and age, it would be a certified, kitemark-able, Fairtrade business and the little urchin would be going to a school provided by this system and enjoying kicking a ball about on a pitch built with these community funds. That is what we would like to think, but it is an uneven playing field, as people have described.
The Minister is wearing a jolly waistcoat himself for this debate. It is very festive—I like it.
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Chris Bryant)
It is British.
Dr Huq
It is made in Britain, but not everything can be. Bananas, coffee, chocolate—that is what we are talking about. The man from Del Monte said yes. In the time that has elapsed since the mid-’80s, when that advert was first shown, British consumers have become more demanding and sought more reassurance. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) referred to palm oil. In 2018, there was the advert for Iceland—not the country; the frozen food giant—that showed the orangutan who was sad that his habitat was disappearing because of palm oil. People are becoming more and more discerning. There is a worry, though, because we are in a cost of living crisis and people are looking for cheaper alternatives, which are not necessarily the ethical things, if the prices of those things are too many multiples of the cost of the standard-price item.
The petition that we handed in says that manufacturers should not be penalised for doing the right thing. We should not always be rushing to a lowest common denominator situation. This campaign for fair trade, which all our constituents are behind, links to concerns about deforestation and about fast fashion. Is it worth getting something for £4 from Primark if it comes with a real cost of many litres of water and hardship?
The petition looks particularly at tea, the national drink—we all enjoy a cuppa. At a time when the UK is seeing the biggest uplift to workers’ rights ever, in one go, this debate is about those things we cannot get at home: bananas, coffee, chocolate, flowers, tea, cotton and gold. They are all implicated when we hear of a dark side of undesirable practices in businesses’ supply chains: human rights abuses, environmental damage, child labour—all sorts of things. We are now outside the EU—something that I regret—and we are looking for free trade agreements. In that pursuit, let us not forget fair trade. We do not want farmers to be subject to naked exploitation—modern slavery.
The indicators are good. Quarter 3 of this year spanned Fairtrade fortnight, which was the end of September to the beginning of October, and figures from the Fairtrade Foundation show that Fairtrade tea sales were up by 40%—it was a record quarter—confectionary up 20% and coffee up 15%. All the polls show that 95% of shoppers believe that businesses should take responsibility for upholding human rights throughout their supply chains. What we were all trying to say with the petition is that those who already invest in ethical sourcing should not be penalised. Introducing mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence would level the playing field so that those operating responsibility are not undercut by those cutting corners and exploiting loopholes. Such legislation would be the single most cost-effective way to enhance the UK’s reputation as a champion of net zero, too.
At the moment, we have a fragmented system, with different logos, such as the swirly one I mentioned and those of the Rainforest Alliance, Red Tractor and so on. It is a little inconsistent. We should have one system for all, with an enforceable and consistent framework to protect people and planet. We should protect small-scale farmers and workers worldwide against a race to the bottom with fair prices. When we delivered the petition yesterday, I found out that Sainsbury’s has a human rights department—that I did not know. Other supermarkets are available, of course—Waitrose, the good old Co-op and so on.
We also want to continue our transition to net zero. The hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) has gone—that’s Lib Dems for you—but he mentioned the aid budget cut. It was in our manifesto that we will work towards restoring that budget, so I hope that we will be able to do that when time allows. The main asks of the petition are a UK law on human rights and environmental due diligence; encouragement of multi-stakeholder collaboration in the tea sector, progressing towards living incomes and living wages for tea growers; and honouring of our climate finance obligations and, when time allows, restoration of our aid budget.
This is not just something for far-off places and the man from Del Monte. In 2003, Ealing council passed its first fair-trade measure and the Ealing Co-op was very active in Fairtrade fortnight, garnering some of those 22,000 signatures. My alma mater, Notting Hill girls’ school, is apparently now a Fairtrade school. St Stephen’s church and many other faith communities locally have also campaigned for fair trade.
If you want any more persuading of the good souls behind this cause, Mrs Hobhouse, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North can attest, yesterday our cardboard box attracted a lot of attention from, if not Downing Street’s most famous inhabitant, certainly the most consistent one in my time in this place, which has spanned six different Prime Ministers: the contented purring that we heard proved to us that Larry the cat is on side as well.
Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) for securing this debate. Clearly, fair trade matters, and it does to all of us. I will spend a little time outlining why it matters so much to me and where I first came across it. Too often in global trade, people who grow and produce the food that we enjoy here in the UK take all the risks—unstable prices, poor conditions, climate pressures—while others further up the supply chain take the reward.
Nearly 20 years ago, I was fortunate enough to be part of a delegation organised by Banana Link, where we met those working on the plantations that produce the majority of the world’s supply of bananas for export, across central and South America. Yes, among those exporters and suppliers was Del Monte. We saw at first hand the exploitation that the banana workers experience: the complete control by the companies and multinationals, the non-payment of wages, the non-provision of healthcare—healthcare is provided only by the plantation owners—and products being sold only in the stores of the companies that people get their wages from. I live close to Robert Owen’s New Lanark, and I was reminded of the things that we got rid of 200 years ago at the beginning of the co-operative movement.
We saw the effect of the environmental pressures. Banana plants showed ash from volcanic eruptions hundreds of miles away. We also met small producers. The good companies—ironically, the ones that had leadership from Scandinavian countries—saw that treating workers fairly is important, that it is good to pay good wages and that Fairtrade is worth shouting about.
Although Fairtrade is important for bananas, it is also important for tea, coffee, cotton, wine, cocoa and sugar cane. Millions of people around the world depend on those products for their livelihoods, yet only a tiny shave of what consumers pay for them reaches those who grow and pick them. That imbalance is not accidental but a result of supply chains that prioritise low prices over fair outcomes. Fairtrade challenges that model and proves that there is a better way.
It is not all international; hon. Members have talked about the choices that we make here at home. I am proud that those values are being lived in my constituency. North Lanarkshire council, which covers Cumbernauld and Kilsyth, is a recognised Fairtrade zone. That reflects a commitment across schools, community groups, workplaces and public services to choose Fairtrade, and the steering group has recognised North Lanarkshire as one of the major distribution hubs in Scotland. Working with the wholesale market on Fairtrade is just as important, so we must ensure that all companies, including small businesses, are able to do that. In Kirkintilloch, East Dunbartonshire council has made similar commitments. The School Yard Kitchen, which is just over my constituency boundary, specialises in how to grow a community between Kirkintilloch and Ghana through chocolate.
Fairtrade is not abstract. For UK businesses, Fairtrade certification makes absolute sense. Colleagues have expressed that in much greater depth. Support for Fairtrade across my constituency shows that the public already understand that, but the Government and business must keep pace and ensure that Fairtrade certification plays a central role in building a fairer, more resilient and more responsible UK trading system.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) for his work in securing this debate and for his authoritative opening speech, which set out the case for Fairtrade with clarity and thoroughness. It was very impressive.
Fairtrade is a global system that connects farmers and workers from developing countries with consumers and businesses across the world to change trade for the better. For more than three decades, Fairtrade has been having an impact on the way that trade works. Fairtrade believes that every farmer and worker should have access to a better way of doing business and a better way of living. As a leader in a global movement to make trade fair, Fairtrade supports and challenges businesses and Governments, and connects farmers and workers with the people who buy their products. It has been a real pleasure to hear from the hon. Members for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) and for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray) about their experiences of being active in that movement.
Fairness is an important principle for the Liberal Democrats, and that should apply to the way that supply chains are managed by big companies working abroad. In our recent manifesto we committed to introducing a general duty of care for the environment and human rights in business operations and supply chains. Businesses are the principal engines of growth and prosperity in the UK. When businesses succeed, our communities succeed. We must work in partnership with business to provide stability, encourage investment and help maximise opportunities for growth and employment across the country. In return we ask that businesses not only commit to promoting skills, equality and good governance, but protect human rights and the environment in the communities where they work, whether at home or in the global supply chains on which they depend.
The Liberal Democrats support the introduction of a business, human rights and environment Act to require companies to take adequate measures or conduct due diligence to manage the impacts of their activities on people and the environment both in the UK and globally. We would also introduce a duty of care for the environment and human rights, requiring companies, financial institutions and public sector agencies to exercise due diligence in avoiding specified activities such as child labour or modern slavery in their operations and supply chains, and to report on their actions. We would ensure that all large companies have a formal statement of corporate purpose, including considerations such as employee welfare, environmental standards, community benefit and ethical practice alongside benefit to shareholders, and that they report formally on the wider impact of the business on society and the environment.
If we are to take tackling climate change seriously, businesses must play their part. That is why the Liberal Democrats would require all large companies listed on UK stock exchanges to set targets consistent with achieving the net zero goal and to report on their progress. We would reform the regulation of our services sector to encourage climate-friendly investments, including requiring pension funds and managers to show that their portfolio investments align with the Paris agreement and creating new powers for regulators to intervene if banks and other investors fail to manage climate risk properly.
Ethical supply chains and Fairtrade certification do not exist in isolation. They connect directly to our responsibilities in development and reducing global poverty. For that reason, we have called for the immediate restoration of UK aid spending at 0.5% of GNI and a road map to restore 0.7% of GNI as soon as possible within this Parliament. We would ensure that the UK’s international development spending is used effectively, with a primary focus on poverty reduction, including by putting the United Nations sustainable development goals at the heart of the UK’s international development policy, funding genuine partnerships that are rooted in local needs and developed on grounds of mutual respect, and tackling the growing global crisis of food insecurity and malnutrition by increasing the proportion of ODA committed to delivering lifesaving nutrition interventions.
Fairtrade certification has shown time and again that when we create systems that empower producers, protect rights and support sustainable agriculture, everybody benefits: farmers, consumers and business alike.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) on securing today’s informative and thoughtful debate. All the contributions have been insightful, but I particularly enjoyed the speech by the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) who spoke about the man from Del Monte, taking me back down memory lane. I had not thought about him for a long time, probably not since the ’80s.
This is a timely debate. It rightly draws attention to a topic that has relevance to how the UK positions itself as a responsible trading nation and global partner. Fairtrade certification schemes have become a visible and recognised feature of British consumer life. They are well understood by the public, well supported by major retailers and increasingly used by UK businesses to demonstrate transparency and ethical practices across global supply chains. This debate invites us to reflect on how Fairtrade sits within the wider landscape of British trade and business policy, and how it might continue to support responsible sourcing, environmental sustainability and long-term development goals.
At its core, Fairtrade is a voluntary certification scheme applied to consumer goods such as bananas, cocoa, coffee, tea and sugar. It sets minimum prices for producers, offers a Fairtrade premium to be invested in community projects, and lays out standards on labour rights and environmental protection. The scheme is built on a partnership model between producers in the global south and businesses and consumers in the global north. Over time, Fairtrade has come to play a role in supporting responsible UK sourcing practices. The UK has long been a leading market for Fairtrade goods, and British supermarkets were among the first in the world to adopt the Fairtrade label at scale. The distinctive mark is now found on thousands of product lines sold in every part of the country, from major supermarket chains to small independent stores.
Beyond consumer familiarity, the benefits of Fairtrade certification also flow into business practices here at home. For British companies, certification helps to meet environmental, social and governance expectations from investors and consumers alike. It offers reassurance on the ethical provenance of goods and helps to reduce reputational risk in complex and sometimes opaque global supply chains. More broadly, Fairtrade fits into a wider framework of responsible sourcing in which UK firms are increasingly engaged. For example, the cocoa industry has seen significant improvements in transparency and long-term planning due to Fairtrade and similar voluntary schemes. British food and beverage companies, in particular, have drawn on Fairtrade principles to strengthen resilience and quality across key import lines.
There is also a trade policy angle. Fairtrade is not only about individual transactions; it reflects a broader outlook on how the UK interacts with developing markets. As the Government have observed in the recent trade strategy, trade and development are not mutually exclusive goals. We can support UK business while also encouraging more ethical, sustainable and secure supply chains. The developing countries trading scheme, launched in 2023 under the last Conservative Government, is one such example. It reduces tariffs on goods from low and middle-income countries and allows for easier trade in value-added products, helping to support economic diversification.
The previous Government were also clear that they recognised the role that voluntary schemes like Fairtrade play in complementing formal legal frameworks, such as the Modern Slavery Act 2015, which continues to apply to large UK businesses. In this context, Fairtrade certification can be seen as one of several tools that enable the UK to act as a responsible trading nation, championing higher standards while maintaining competitive access to key goods.
One of the great strengths of Fairtrade is the strong grassroots support that it enjoys. I saw that at first hand earlier this year when I was contacted by my local Reigate Fairtrade steering group to draw my attention to the “Brew it Fair” campaign. The campaign highlighted that, while the Government have committed to protecting human rights and environmental standards by endorsing the UN guiding principles on business and human rights, and by passing the Modern Slavery Act, wages, incomes and working conditions remain inadequate for the majority of the people involved in tea farming. As such, the Fairtrade Foundation called on the Government to introduce a law on human rights and environmental due diligence.
Again, good work was done in that space under the previous Conservative Government. The UK was the first country to create a national action plan to implement the UN guiding principles on business and human rights, which are widely regarded as the authoritative international framework to steer practical action by Governments and businesses worldwide on this important and pressing agenda. More recently, the UK has taken a number of steps through the Modern Slavery Act to ensure that no British organisation—public or private, and unwittingly or otherwise—is complicit through their supply chains in human rights violations. I am sure that the Minister will have more to say on that in a moment.
I conclude by noting that this has been an excellent debate, and I repeat my thanks to the hon. Member for Glasgow North for securing it.
Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)
There is plenty of time, but I remind the Minister to leave a couple of minutes for the hon. Member for Glasgow North to wind up.
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Chris Bryant)
I am not sure how long you think I will go on for, Mrs Hobhouse, but I will take that admonition in the way I think it was intended. It is obviously an enormous delight to have you in the Chair, notwithstanding your admonition. It is also a great delight to have this debate, which plays an important role in the Government coming to a view on responsible business conduct.
I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes). He would have been my mother’s MP if she was still with us, so I know his patch very well. My grandfather also lived in his constituency when he played for Glasgow Rangers. That was a very long time ago, so I am terribly sorry if my hon. Friend hates Glasgow Rangers—it has nothing to do with me.
My first point is that the world is fundamentally more connected, or even interconnected, than ever. I particularly feel that at the moment, as in the few weeks I have been in the job, I have been to Brazil, Argentina, Germany, Switzerland, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Australia, New Zealand, Spain and, arguably, Singapore— I was also in Brussels yesterday, so there have been quite a few. The truth is that, while in the past people might have only considered a holiday in France or Spain, even under Franco, their opportunities for holiday travel around the world are now much more extensive than ever before.
Exactly the same is true of supply chains. It might well be that the clothes we wear were stitched and made here—although they might have been stitched and made on the other side of the world—but the cotton or silk might have come from another part of the world entirely. The same is true of our furniture, tea and coffee, sugar and bananas. Even the glasses we wear are often not entirely sourced here in the UK. Neither are the medical instruments used when we are operated on by a surgeon, nor the medicines that we receive. All those supply chains are interconnected around the world.
Perhaps the most obvious instance of this is our choice of music. In the past, when we were young, we thought mainly about British music. There was perhaps a bit of alternative music from Latin America, Africa or wherever played by a few DJs late at night, but nowadays K-pop, African music and stuff from all around the world form our earworms.
In many ways, that interconnectedness is a good thing, but it also has potential downsides, because the arc of trade does not necessarily always bend towards justice. Quite often, because of price competition, the arc of trade can lead to quite the reverse—the abandonment of justice. I have always felt that the concept of fairness is a fundamental element of being human. It is why children will often shout and scream, “That’s not fair!” when they are told to go to bed, when they are not allowed to play with their tablet, or when they see their brother or sister staying up later than them.
We need to build on that sense of fairness in international trade. We need to make sure that the arc of trade bends towards justice and fairness. I have therefore always argued that we should strive for free and fair trade, not just free trade. Interestingly, the very word “boycott” springs from a moment in Ireland in the 1880s when a pretty awful land agent called Captain Charles Boycott was turfing people off their property on behalf of a pretty awful landlord. That has entered the language of nearly every country in the world—the concept of wanting to abide by good standards and fairness in trade.
This is why the Fairtrade Foundation is such an important concept. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) referred to the Christian churches, which have been big supporters of the movement, and led to the Jubilee 2000 campaign and so many other things. When I was training to be a priest, every church I went to had a Fairtrade stall at the back. I have to confess that early Fairtrade Foundation coffee was pretty dire, and now it is a standard part of the offer in Sainsbury’s, Waitrose, Tesco and Aldi—in every single supermarket. It is great that a complete transformation has happened because of the dedication of a large number of people working on an entirely voluntary basis.
Sarah Olney
I am interested in the Minister’s formulation of free and fair trade. Would he not agree that fair trade is free trade, and that free trade is fair trade? It is about bringing down barriers, which may have been put in place by the larger producers or people with a market advantage. The point is to create a fairer playing field, because that is what free trade is.
Chris Bryant
I suppose, on the whole, I was trying to say that I want to try to take down tariff barriers where I possibly can, so that we can engage in free trade, but that only works when we have fair opportunities underlying it. The hon. Member for Strangford will correct me if I have this wrong, but I think there is a phrase in the Bible about justice and peace kissing one another. Sometimes we strive for justice, but it is not real justice if we do not get peace with it; and sometimes we strive for peace, but it is not real peace if it is not based on justice. That is the combination of Shalom and Tzedek, to use the Old Testament terms, that we are striving for with free and fair trade.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North said, the Fairtrade Foundation has been around for more than 30 years. It has done an amazing job in certification. Indeed, I think there are now more than 5,000 Fairtrade-certified products in the UK, and many of our constituents search them out every day of the week.
I, too, was approached by the Brew it Fair campaign, which has raised specific challenges around tea, including the living conditions of workers, gender inequality and a series of other issues. I praise it for raising those issues and bringing them to everybody’s attention.
I am delighted that Rhondda Cynon Taff county borough council in my constituency was made a Fairtrade county in 2007. It has therefore had a considerable period of time to roll out these policies. I am sorry to keep referring to the hon. Member for Strangford, but he asked about procurement. Of course, procurement is a key issue. We often have discussions in Parliament about what consumers do, but it is also about what the Government do.
The hon. Member is quite right that we produced a new national procurement policy statement in February this year, which lays out new ways in which people can drive this agenda into procurement, on the back of taxpayers’ money. Similarly, the Procurement Act 2023, which came into force on 24 February this year, has a new central debarment list, which Ministers can put people on if they have been involved in modern slavery. In that way, we can make sure the supply chain is cleaner.
Fair trade is not just about the issues I have mentioned. The International Labour Organisation says that, around the world, 28 million people are in situations of forced labour. I am sure that any of us could cite some of the places where that might be true. Similarly, every minute we are losing forest area equivalent to 11 football pitches, which is a challenge to all our climate change ambitions.
Of course, the impact of climate change will be felt most intensely among the poorest peoples on Earth. To see that, we only have to look at places such as the Carteret Islands, off Bougainville in Papua New Guinea, or the outlying poorer lands of Thailand, where some of the very poorest people are in danger of losing their homes, their livelihoods and their access to clean drinking water. Similarly, a million animal and plant species are threatened with extinction, which is a threat to biodiversity, and whether biodiversity loss happens in our country or in any other country, it is a threat to us all.
There are two other issues that have not been referred to much so far today. The first is corruption. The danger of corruption in some political systems around the world, particularly where there is an authoritarian regime, is intense. That is why it is so important that, under the Bribery Act 2010, we have particular responsibilities to ensure that British businesses trading elsewhere in the world are not able to engage in corrupt practices.
The second issue is displaced people, which is slightly different from the issue of forced labour. I remember visiting Colombia in 2018 with ABColombia, where I was struck by two things. First, as we flew over vast territories, I was struck by how much of the land had been taken for palm oil. That massive agribusiness had effectively displaced many millions of people who had lost their property thanks to the activities of militias and the FARC, and the battle between the two.
Similarly, when I went to El Porvenir and La Primavera, which are not far from Colombia’s border with Venezuela, it was striking how people found it very difficult to make a living when they had been deprived of large amounts of their land—they had effectively been living in a warzone for the best part of 20 years. That is why it was so important that, when Colombia was able to bring about peace with the FARC, it was very keen to bring forward the idea of land reform—that work has never really been completed—so people have access to land again and can make a living.
I have a few principles that influence how I look at all of this as we go through the process of our responsible business conduct review. First, I believe in a seamless garment. Again, I am sorry, but that is another biblical phrase. When Jesus was on the cross, lots were cast for his garment because it was seamless. I think it is important that we look at all these issues together, in the round. As I said, it is not just one issue.
This may seem a slightly flippant way of looking at it, but I was watching “Do they know it’s Christmas?” the other day on a Christmas compilation TV show. Of course, it is great because it is dealing with human rights around the world, the lack of clean drinking water and people starving from famine, but I was struck that only three women were asked to take part in the filming of the 1984 version. That could be a test for anybody, but it was the three members of Bananarama: Sara Dallin, Siobhan Fahey and Keren Woodward. That made the point to me that we need to look at all these issues in the round. Gender inequality, human rights issues, corruption and environmental concerns all need to be addressed in the round when we are looking at the whole of our supply chain.
Secondly, I commend the voluntary efforts. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul), referred to how the previous Government recognised them, which is true. I think we have all done that, and we have done it for many years. I doubt that there are many MPs who have not been to some kind of Fairtrade event and shown willing.
I pay tribute to Howies, a Welsh clothing company, because sometimes it is not easy to prosper in this world. It is great that the company is owned by its staff—I, too, am a member of the Co-op—and it says that its
“award-winning men’s and women’s clothing is ethically produced using organic, recycled or natural fabrics wherever possible… we want to be a company that does things differently to others—one that does things honestly, responsibly and quietly.”
I think an awful lot of UK consumers would love to be able to think that, whenever they go into a supermarket or any of the major chains, that would be what influences the company they are buying from, going all the way back to the beginning of the supply chain. In fact, there is evidence to suggest that companies are more successful when they adopt that kind of attitude. Consumers like it, so the companies can prosper. For that matter, it also gives a sense of purpose to everybody who works in the company.
Thirdly, as several Members have mentioned, we do not want a race to the bottom. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North said that if we have worse standards or weaker requirements than elsewhere, the danger is that all the least-ethically sourced stuff comes to the UK. It would be a form of ethical dumping—similar to subsidy dumping or carbon dumping—into the UK. We are very keen that it should not happen, so of course we want to work alongside international comparators.
Fourthly, I am very keen for the UK to have requirements that are both effective and proportionate to the harm being dealt with. I have a question in my mind that was raised with me a couple of weeks ago, at a roundtable involving quite a few of the sorts of organisations we have talked about, including the anti-slavery body. I am not sure that having another annual report that is never read by anyone—including the person who wrote it, possibly—would be either effective or proportionate. Reports are costly for an organisation to produce, and they might not make the blindest bit of difference to whether a consumer or the company takes action on this.
Fifthly, notwithstanding that, section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 requires large organisations over a certain threshold to publish transparency in supply chain statements, and we provided new guidance on that in 2025. As has already been referred to by the Liberal Democrats, some of that is good, but there is a danger that it is just ticking a box, not driving forward change; and I am far more interested in driving forward change than I am in simply ticking boxes.
My sixth point is—there are not too many more, honestly—[Interruption.] I do not know why you are all laughing. We are engaged in a responsible business conduct review, and this debate is a very helpful part of that; it feeds into what we are hearing from businesses, because we want to make sure that what we eventually come forward with will be proportionate and effective. I was asked specifically whether we will also look at mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence reports. Yes, we are looking at how those would work, what would be most effective, and how they relate to requirements for multinational companies in other countries as well.
Seventhly, since we came to power, we have opened the Office for Responsible Business Conduct, which is a one-stop shop for industry. Again, I am interested in driving change, and sometimes businesses do not know where to turn. Smaller businesses might have no idea how to meet the law or best effect the kind of change we are all looking for. The Office for Responsible Business Conduct has a strong mandate there.
I have already referred to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North and the hon. Member for Strangford—who of course is a friend to us all, as we meet him in so many debates. It was great, too, to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) and from the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns), and from the man from Del Monte—or rather, from my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq); indeed, the one point she did not make was that it would be quite nice if there were a woman in charge. Maybe one day there will be a woman from Del Monte—although I note that Del Monte went into chapter 11 proceedings in July, so it is not clear what state it is in now. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray).
Many of us have effectively given the same speech, because we all feel quite passionately that we want to get these issues right. I know that many people work in retail in the UK in a whole series of sectors; quite a few of our discussions have been about food and beverages or fashion, but the same is true for furniture and other sectors, too. We simply want to get this right, because our aim here in Government is to ensure that British businesses have an opportunity to export and import, and that this is always based on free and fair trade.
Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)
I am enormously grateful to the Minister for leaving plenty of time for Martin Rhodes to wind up.
Martin Rhodes
First, I thank all those who have taken part in the debate. We have covered a lot of common ground but brought a lot of different perspectives to it.
A number of hon. Members, including the Minister and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul), and my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss), mentioned community campaigns, which are an important part of Fairtrade. Others, such as the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns), have spoken about campaigns more generally,.
Other hon. Members have also raised business— my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray) talked about what can go wrong when good practice is not in place, while others reflected on where business practice goes right. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) talked about what can happen when things are not done ethically and about the difference that the Fairtrade premium can make when they are.
Others emphasised the input of producers, including my hon. Friends the Members for Ealing Central and Acton and for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch. Those different perspectives show one of the great strengths of Fairtrade: it brings together consumers, producers, campaigners and businesses to look at what can be achieved through certification.
I very much welcome what the Minister said about global connectedness. That is what underpins all this: the recognition that we are much more connected through trade, culture, travel and everything else than we were previously. In some ways, that broadens people’s horizons, and makes them see and understand things that they never previously had the chance to think about or knew existed, and it can help uncover injustices and make action more possible. However, in other ways, we see trading activity that is based on entering into places to deliberately and repeatedly exploit them.
We had some discussion earlier about the aid budget. I, too, look forward to returning to 0.7% of GDP, but as I said, when the UK aid budget and aid budgets across the world have been cut, we must look much more at trade and other means to achieve the principles that we all want to achieve.
The Minister spoke about “free and fair” trade and discussed what that means with the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), but it is important to reflect on what was said. We want free trade, but if we free up trade and tear down barriers, and yet the underlying system does not allow for fairness, we will get an unfair outcome. We therefore need to make sure that fairness is embedded, and Fairtrade has shown itself for a number of years to be a proven way of doing trade that is mutually beneficial to all in the supply chain.
I welcome the Minister setting out the principles behind the responsible business review, and I very much welcome the fact that human rights and environmental due diligence are part of that. The Minister made mention of the Bribery Act 2010, which provides a framework for legislation—
Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)
Order. May I encourage the hon. Member to wind up?
Martin Rhodes
I have only 30 seconds left, and I am on my final point. I welcome the opportunity from including human rights and environmental due diligence, and the Bribery Act offers a framework for looking at how that might be done.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the role of Fairtrade certification in UK business and trade.