Fairtrade Certification

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Thursday 11th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

I think I can see a Liberal Democrat hand gesturing at me.

[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.