Hansard

I am very happy to have the chance to speak in this debate. We have already heard a few examples—my guess is that we will hear a fair few more—of local fair trade organisations in every corner of the country. The fair trade movement is in every community across the country.

I echo Colin Smyth’s comments in welcoming the fact that the current generation and the next generation of representatives of the fair trade movement are with us in the Parliament and watching at home.

In my region, Glasgow, one of the most familiar names to people who seek out fair trade products and to businesses that want to put fair trade products on their shelves is Greencity Wholefoods, which is a long-standing wholesaler that has done a huge amount to improve recognition and accessibility of fair trade products. However, there are also newer businesses, including coffee roasters and chocolatiers around the country, that might not necessarily have the Fairtrade logo on their products—or they might not have it yet—but which are making significant efforts. They are going above and beyond the bare minimum of what their businesses require in order to find ways to trade fairly and to ensure, and communicate, benefits to the producers around the world with which they have links.

As other members have said, the work of a wide range of such businesses and of a great many campaigners, voluntary organisations and others has been going on for a great deal of time. That is why, in our briefing papers, we see very positive statistics that show the high level of recognition of fair trade in Scotland, the number of people in Scotland who regularly buy fair trade products and the number of community organisations and local authorities that take account of fair trade as part of their procurement.

However, it is really important that we do not relegate or consign fair trade to the category of voluntary good works, because the fair trade movement is intended to achieve much more than that. It is intended as a provocation and, as Colin Smyth said, to challenge the unfairness of conventional trade. The fair trade movement is there to ask for, demand and achieve change in the way in which the whole global trading system works, and that change is absolutely needed.

I welcome the positive work that the Scottish Government has done on fair trade, such as it is. However, when I did a little bit of preparation for the debate the other day, I assumed that I would find information on fair trade on the trade pages of the Scottish Government website, but such information is absent from those pages. I looked at “A Trading Nation”, which sets out the Scottish Government’s approach to trade policy, but mention of fair trade is entirely absent from that document.

I do not single out the Scottish Government in that regard; the UK Government and a great many other Governments around the world also want to be seen to be doing the right thing when it comes to supporting voluntarism in relation to fair trade but do not join the dots by embedding fair trade principles in trade policy itself. There is a disjoint. Fair trade is seen as something positive but, basically, as an optional policy that is separate from trade policy.

There is a great deal of scope to take a much more expansive view of fair trade by adopting a wider ethical approach. For example, some businesses deal with the issues that arise from trading in conflict zones and areas of occupation. A number of fair trade businesses go out of their way to give space, profile and priority to, for example, Palestinian products and positively avoid stocking products that are produced by those who benefit from the illegal occupation of Palestine. That wider understanding of fair trade needs to go further.

There is nothing in the Government motion or the Labour amendment that I disagree with, and I will certainly support them, but the Conservative amendment is unsupportable, and I would be disappointed if the Government and the Labour Party support it. The idea that free and fair trade are part of the same sentence entirely ignores the fact that these concepts are, at the very least, in tension with each other—I regard them as being in conflict with each other, but, at the very least, they are in tension with each other.

The idea that trade liberalisation is central to fair trade must come from the head of someone who has never heard of the concept of structural adjustment. Far too often in the history of trade policy around the world, it has been the wealthy and the powerful who have imposed trade liberalisation on the poor and developing countries, particularly in the global south, while happily using protectionism to look after their own industries at home. There has been a great deal of hypocrisy from powerful countries using free trade as an economic weapon to impose on others while protecting themselves from its harmful effects.

There is no attempt to structurally adjust those powerful countries even though we know that the way that they trade is fundamental to activities that undermine progress towards the international development goals or net zero, and now we live in the context of Trump’s trade wars, which are based on the absurd idea that wherever a trade imbalance exists, the country with a surplus is doing something abusive or unacceptable to the country with a trade deficit, which means that, essentially, selling things that other people want to buy is inherently unfair trade.

At the same time, as the cabinet secretary mentioned, international aid is being slashed, not just by the US Government but by the UK and others. When those appalling cuts to UK aid were announced, far from opposing them, the Conservatives said that they were not deep enough. The fair trade movement will be less able to achieve the things that it has achieved in recent decades in the context of the decimation of international aid and the idea that powerful countries such as the US are simply going to dictate terms to the rest of us. Some countries are standing up to that nonsense, while others, including the UK, appear to be preparing to capitulate to powerful countries such as the US.

Fair trade should not be seen merely as a voluntary concession to producers in a minority of developing countries. If we accept that the global trading system is too often unfair and harmful, we should be seeking to achieve systemic changes that always protect the poorest and most vulnerable from exploitation by wealthy countries, big business and powerful Governments.

I regret that we will not be able to unite on an amended motion if the Conservative amendment passes tonight. I hope that we are united on the value of fair trade, but we are clearly not united on the idea that it is compatible with the deregulated, race-to-the-bottom free market economy that we live in today.