I agree with Patrick Harvie on the first point that he made, but I have chosen to deal with that question by saying that it is worth pursuing a balance of maximum freedom in trading arrangements that are fair. I appreciate the warnings from both history and the present day about what might be in the future if one does not get the balance right, and I agree with Patrick Harvie on that. We need to work towards that.

I was going to come to the specific point that Patrick Harvie made about the lack of an appearance of fair trade in Scottish Government trade-related documentation. He understands that trade is a reserved subject, but that is not a reason why the Scottish Government should not make more reference to fair trade online and in its documents. I will definitely take that point away, officials will take it away, and we will have a very close look at that.

There was one thing in Mr Smyth’s opening speech on behalf of the Scottish Labour Party that I noted down in particular, in relation to definitions and the law. I say directly to him that I want to take that point away and better understand what can be done there.

I was challenged on a particular subject by Willie Rennie, who is not in the chamber at the moment—actually, I see that he is: he has simply defected to the Scottish Labour Party benches for the moment. There is not a good future in that, Mr Rennie. He raised a question with me about the UK Labour Government and the purchase of solar panels, a significant number of which are produced in parts of the People’s Republic of China inhabited by the Uyghur community. I appreciate Willie Rennie’s point. I have had a look at the issue over the course of the debate, and I have already said to him privately that I want to learn more about it. These are challenges for us all. He referenced previous challenges and supply chain questions for the Scottish Government with regard to ensuring that we are doing the right thing on trade and understanding the conditions in which goods are produced and then exported to these shores. We need to be mindful of that, and I agree with him on it.

I thought that Alexander Stewart’s contribution in relation to education was sensible. It was fantastic to have had school students in the public gallery during parts of the debate. The more that we can do to encourage learning about fair trade in schools across the country, the better. We should all be supportive of that in our constituencies and regions.

Foysol Choudhury receives my praise for singling out Edinburgh, our great capital that we both have the joy of representing, as well as a country that he knows a lot about—Bangladesh—and the connections between Scotland and Bangladesh in the challenging opportunity around fair trade.

Other colleagues have spoken—Emma Roddick talked about Inverness and the Highlands; I could go on—with all contributors having much to say about what has been achieved in relation to fair trade and noting that there is more that we can do. Some of it can be done with small steps—one cup of coffee at a time—but I agree that we can aspire to do more.

It is right that, in the three-and-a-half minutes that remain for me to speak, I pay due praise, as other colleagues have done, to all those people—the small local groups, the churches and the community organisations—who have worked hard in their local areas to make a difference in the world as well as in their communities. Since the fair trade movement took hold, it has grown substantially, and it is clear that none of the enthusiasm or dedication of those involved has been lost along the way—quite the opposite.

For a long time, we have placed great value on the role of civil society in Scotland and the appetite for global citizenship in our local communities, whether in places of worship, schools or businesses, to name but a few. That local effort is an important part of how Scotland contributes globally to the delivery of the United Nations sustainable development goals. It has an important place alongside the work of Governments, Parliaments and others; that point was reflected on in a recent article in the Edinburgh Evening News ahead of this debate, which I commend all members to read. It was especially wonderful to hear about the initiatives that are being taken forward to engage more young people in fair and sustainable global issues such as fair trade. It is vital that the fair trade movement remains relevant and sustainable into the future.

At the end of the debate, I want to leave colleagues with three key messages that we are all in agreement on, regardless of how we vote at the end of our proceedings. The first is our long-standing commitment to being a good global citizen. It is an increasingly contested and volatile space for international development. Scotland is a nation that seeks to lead by example. That means standing up for the values that shape our domestic and international work, ensuring that fairness, equality and inclusion are at the heart of everything that we do and that the voices of those who are less privileged than us are heard and acted on. That is why today’s debate is so important. It is not just about what we are doing and saying in Scotland to promote fair trade; it is about amplifying the voice of the producers, workers and enterprises in the global south and standing in solidarity with them to build a fairer and more sustainable trading system.

The second message that I want to leave us all with is our steadfast commitment to delivering for our African partner countries. Our international development fund has been led by our partners to ensure that our portfolio is aligned with their national priorities to maximise impact. That has resulted in our programming focusing on often neglected and underfunded areas such as inclusive education, non-communicable diseases and tackling gender-based violence, delivered through grants rather than loans. That is key, given the debt repayment crisis that many African countries, including our partner countries, face at this time. As the world shifts and strains around us, we remain resolute in our commitment to our partners, and fair trade is a key part of that.

Lastly, I leave us all with a call to action. As I said at the start, fair trade nation status is not just a title. The assessment report challenges us to go further, not only to maintain that status in future but to set the next generation an example of what good global citizenship is and to show the important role that fair trade plays in that.

I thank members for their input today and look forward to working across the chamber to deliver for Scotland and for our partner countries.

I am grateful to Willie Rennie for raising the issue. I have a confession to make: I have not read those reports yet. I commit to doing so, and will look closely at the points that he raised. I am just being frank with him; I have not yet read those reports.

Fair trade, with its focus on global solidarity and marginalised producers, is an important part of our international development programme, alongside other key areas. Over the past year, we have launched new programmes on health and inclusive education, from new strategic education partnerships with the World Bank to support at a very local level for girls and learners with disabilities to better access school, and from a new strategic partnership with the World Health Organization on non-communicable diseases to developing community palliative care within our partner countries.

Beyond our support for our partner countries, through longer-term programming, we have also continued to contribute globally where humanitarian crises occur. It was reported that 2024 had the highest number of countries engaged in conflict since the end of world war two. Climate change is increasing the risk of conflict, with more frequent extreme weather events and the world hitting 1.5°C for the first time last year.

According to the December 2024 report by the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, 305.1 million people are expected to require immediate humanitarian assistance in 2025. We have continued to respond to global crises, principally through our standing humanitarian emergency fund panel, including for the less well-known crises, such as that in Sudan.

I turn to our commitment on climate justice. Scotland remains committed to addressing the injustice that is at the heart of climate change—that those who have done the least to cause the crises are suffering the impacts worst and first and are often the least able to respond. That is becoming ever more evident, with some global south Governments’ budgets so consumed with responding to the latest climate disaster and debt relief payments that little or nothing is left for health and education. This is why the Scottish Government established the world’s first climate justice fund, with the £36 million fund specifically focused on supporting the most marginalised communities around the world to address the impacts of climate change. That support extends to the very producers that we are discussing today. For example, the climate justice fund water futures programme in Malawi worked with UK retailers to ensure water sustainability for communities in Malawi to protect their key exports, namely tea and coffee.

It is in recognition of the challenges that our partners face that we remain committed to growing the international development fund to £15 million by the end of this session of Parliament and to maintaining a £1 million humanitarian emergency fund.

Scotland also faces its own challenges, of course, and we cannot shy away from the fact that there are increasing pressures on public finances. However, our international development funding reflects our commitment to support and align with the sustainable development goals domestically in Scotland and to contribute overseas as a good global citizen. We have been clear that we do not want to

“balance the books on the backs of the poor.”

Today’s debate on Scotland’s renewed fair trade nation status serves as an important reminder that we live in a world that is facing immense challenges and that we need to work together to ensure our planet is more equal, fair and sustainable for everyone. Promoting fair trade does just that.

I am pleased to move the motion, and I ask members across the chamber to support it.

I move,

That the Parliament welcomes Scotland’s renewed status as a Fair Trade Nation; recognises the dedication and hard work of Fair Trade campaigners, businesses and communities across Scotland in sustaining this achievement; congratulates Scottish Fair Trade for its leadership in promoting and strengthening Scotland’s Fair Trade commitment; acknowledges the vital role of Fair Trade producers, workers and enterprises in the Global South in building a fairer, more sustainable trading system; recognises that Fair Trade is a partnership that supports the rights, dignity and livelihoods of those throughout the supply chain, and commits to uphold and advance Scotland’s role as a Fair Trade Nation as part of its broader commitment to global citizenship and international solidarity.

I agree with John Mason that the level of support will vary from one part of the country to another. I will use his intervention as a springboard to encourage the local authority areas that are not yet playing a part to begin to do so. I hope that, through encouragement and with the support of campaigners, we can broaden, widen and enhance the fair trade movement’s impact across Scotland. He is right to wish that the level of support be increased, and I would welcome the minority of local government areas in Scotland that are not yet part of the process being part of it in the future.

Edinburgh, where my Edinburgh Central constituency is located, obtained Fairtrade status in 2004. I commend the work of the Edinburgh Fairtrade city steering group for its work to support and promote fair trade across the city. I particularly congratulate the steering group and Scottish Fair Trade for their successful bid to host the international Fair Trade Towns conference in Edinburgh later this year, which will be the first time that the prestigious event has been held in Scotland.

Today’s global challenges—climate change, pandemics, conflict, poverty and inequality—can be addressed only if the global south and the global north work together.

I am proud to have the opportunity to open the debate, which will celebrate Scotland’s renewed status as a fair trade nation.

The title of fair trade nation is one that Scotland has held for more than a decade. We share it with only one other nation, namely our friends in Wales. However, being a fair trade nation is about more than just a title. The motion recognises the dedication and hard work of fair trade campaigners, businesses and communities across Scotland to achieving and, importantly, sustaining fair trade nation status. I had the chance to meet some of them at a reception ahead of the debate, and I am delighted to see them in the public gallery today. I thank them for their work in championing the cause of fairness in global trade, and I look forward to hearing more about their efforts from colleagues across the parties during the debate. I also thank Scottish Fair Trade for its leadership in promoting and strengthening Scotland’s fair trade commitment.

The report “Is Scotland Still a Fair Trade Nation?”, which was published earlier this month, notes that 97 per cent of the Scottish population have heard of fair trade. That is a phenomenal result, which reflects the work of Scottish Fair Trade and its members to ensure that fair trade remains at the forefront of people’s minds.

The report also reminds us of the turbulent context in which renewed fair nation status was achieved. It has been seven years since the previous assessment. Since then, we have had a period of unprecedented upheaval, with Brexit’s trade realignments, the economic and social disruption caused by the Covid-19 pandemic and the heightened urgency of the climate emergency. Yet, in the face of those immense challenges, Scottish civic society has held fast to its commitment to justice and equity in trade.

This year also marks a significant milestone in Scotland’s commitment to addressing poverty and inequality overseas, as it is the 20th anniversary of the Scottish Government’s international development programme. That milestone is significant not only for the Government but for the whole Parliament.

Twenty years ago, the G8 met at Gleneagles to discuss the challenges that Africa was facing at the time. Shortly after, the Scottish Parliament hosted an event called “Malawi After Gleneagles”, which brought together key Scots and Malawians from across Government, Parliament and civic society. The approach that was mapped out at that event—with a clear focus on people-to-people links and dignified reciprocal partnership—has guided our international development work ever since. That is reflected in the new international development principles that we co-developed with our partner countries and international non-governmental organisations in Scotland in 2021.

At that Scottish Parliament event in 2005, the then First Minister of Scotland, the Rt Hon Jack McConnell, made a point that is as true now as it was then. He said:

“The primary duty of this Parliament and our devolved government is to use our powers for the betterment of the people of Scotland. But we have another duty too, as elected politicians and as citizens of the world: a duty to be good neighbours and to play our part in global challenges.”

Strong cross-party support for international development in the Scottish Parliament has been a feature that has underpinned the international development work of successive Scottish Governments since 2005. It has been fundamental to the international development programme and therefore to the difference that has been made by contributions from Scotland over the past two decades to the lives of those who live in our partner countries and, through our wider aid, to the communities that live through humanitarian crises.

My express hope is that the Scottish Parliament will continue our proud tradition of supporting our partner countries for the benefit of the most vulnerable communities globally and that the Parliament will continue to show leadership on the global stage.

Members here today will, I am sure, share concerns about the deteriorating global order at this time and the cuts to aid that have been made over the past weeks by Governments around the world. The freeze and now newly-announced termination of 83 per cent of US Agency for International Development spend has seen the largest donor of humanitarian and development assistance pause and then cancel the majority of its programming. We know that that will have a serious global impact on the most vulnerable, including in our partner countries.

The United Kingdom Government recently announced further cuts in aid, with the amount of UK gross national income being spent on overseas development aid dropping from 0.5 per cent to 0.3 per cent, which will further compound that global impact.

The Scottish Government has been clear that, although we welcome the UK Government’s commitment to increased defence spending at a time of such acute need across Europe, we are deeply disappointed by the cut to the overseas aid budget, which will be the lowest percentage of UK finance spent on aid in over a quarter of a century.

This is a time when, globally, we all need to step up to support the poorest and most vulnerable communities in the world. One of the simplest ways that we can do that as a nation is through our support for fair trade. By promoting and purchasing fair trade, we support producers, workers and enterprises, particularly in the global south, to build a fairer, more sustainable trading system—one that supports the rights, dignity and livelihoods of people throughout the supply chain.

Businesses, schools, churches and local communities across Scotland are doing just that. The assessment report “Is Scotland still a Fair Trade Nation?” noted that fair trade activity regularly happens in 22 of Scotland’s 32 local authority areas. That level of civic engagement across all sectors of society in Scotland speaks to the deep and unwavering commitment to justice and equity in trade that exists across our communities.

I thank all members who joined me here today to shine a spotlight on the incredible work that is happening in their constituencies and to raise the profile of fair trade here, in Scotland. That has been fundamental to Scotland gaining and retaining its fair trade nation status.

I will begin by making the Government’s position on the amendments clear. We have had a relatively agreeable debate, with relative consensus. It is important that we aim for maximum consensus on an issue such as this. I would signal—in exactly the same way as Colin Smyth did—that, although I probably would not have drafted the Opposition parties’ amendments in exactly the way as they did, the Government is going to accept the Opposition amendments today.

On the Labour amendment, it is a fair challenge to consider issues around definitions, procurement and education. Labour states in its amendment that the Government and the Parliament should look at those and that we should be involved in a process of constant improvement. I see absolutely nothing objectionable in that.

On the Conservative amendment, I do not really want to get involved in a debate about the relative balance of free and fair trade, but I think that we should aim for maximum freedom and maximum fairness. Is that simple? No, it is not. Is it easy to achieve? No, it is not. We can be critical of any number of trading practices in any number of countries and territorial organisations and find fault in all of it.

I draw particular attention to something in the Conservative amendment that I think it was right to raise, which is the spectre of trade wars and the dangers of tariffs. We should be very concerned about that. The people who will be harmed most by that are the poorest in countries everywhere in the world. They are the ones who are hit because they pay, through the increase in costs for that which is imported. However, although I would not have chosen the exact wording in the Conservative amendment, members of my party will support it.

I think that it is fair to observe two things. First, there has not been significant progress between the UK and the European Union so far. Secondly, preparations are under way in Brussels, London, Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast for forthcoming meetings in which more substantive progress can be made. That is the stage that we are at.

I observe that the UK Government has been taking the issue more seriously within Government, which is welcome. There have been changes to the machinery in the UK Government to deal with that, including a new Cabinet committee on Europe, which the Prime Minister chairs.

Clearly, the UK Government is thinking about what is coming up. It would be remiss not to draw attention to the changing geostrategic peril that we all feel in Europe at present, and that dimension will perhaps loom larger in everybody’s considerations, here and in the other capitals, of how we work together.

What can I imagine will be coming up? I can imagine that both the United Kingdom and the European Union will be focused on advancing shared interests in defence and security. We would very much welcome for there to be a joint statement on co-operation in that area.

I note that, overnight, the European Union has announced a very significant defence package, which is not open to the United Kingdom defence sector. That might change, were there to be a co-operation agreement between the UK and the EU. That is strong encouragement for that to happen. I think that there is goodwill on all sides to make progress in that area.

For the Scottish Government’s part—I think that you have heard me make this point before—we have, for the longest time, advanced the need for what I call a food, drink and agriculture agreement. The terminology is important, because people might understand what that is as opposed to a “sanitary and phytosanitary agreement”.

For those of us who have been speaking with our food and drink sector and our rural stakeholders, it seems that the general view is that it is very important that we should have such an agreement. We have been impressing that view on the UK Government and sharing it with European Union interlocutors.

There are other areas of common interest to the UK and the European Union: greater co-operation on energy and on law enforcement; addressing irregular migration; and perhaps having something like the pan-Euro-Mediterranean convention for example. All those things might feature. Both sides have particular issues that might well be raised as part of the process. There is an expectation that the European Union is very keen to make progress on youth mobility, and we would share its interests in that. We will no doubt come back to that. There is also an expectation that fishing issues will be discussed, although there are no details about what that might involve. We very much hope that the UK Government will push for business mobility and mobility for touring artists.

We expect negotiations after the forthcoming summit to continue over the summer. We are not aware of discussions between the parties as yet on the timing of the next TCA Partnership Council or on the spring round of specialised committees. I think that we are at the cusp of making progress. We have been making our priorities clear, and no doubt we can go into that in detail.

In fairness to my opposite number in the UK Government, Nick Thomas-Symonds has been impressing on me and colleagues in Wales and Northern Ireland that the UK Government wants to take the priorities of devolved Administrations seriously. We are taking that at face value, and we very much hope that progress can be made on those matters as well as on the other areas that will be discussed.

No, there is not a co-decision mechanism in the United Kingdom. Sadly, that is not how the devolution settlement works. That, of course, was the advantage of the European Union. As a member state of the EU, we were formally part of a co-decision process, which also involved directly elected parliamentarians. We do not have that. We have an assurance that the UK Government will listen to the priorities of the Scottish and Welsh Governments and the Northern Ireland Executive, and that that will inform the UK’s negotiating position, but there is no formal mechanism whatsoever for decisions to be made jointly.

I do not have numbers next to the points that were raised, but it is clear that an agriculture, food and drink agreement and an SPS agreement would have a significant impact across our economy and would be important for our rural sector and our exports. I happen to think that the UK Government views that as one of the major priorities, although it has never said it like that.

Therefore, we are in a similar position. We are not at the stage of not getting everything that we want. We are not even at the stage of knowing what everybody’s relative priorities are, because we are at the stage of seeking to ascertain what those priorities are. However, I have made it clear that an agriculture, food and drink agreement is very important. Everything else is significant.

I do not see any technical or political reason why all those things are not deliverable. I cannot speak to what the European Union’s position on such matters will be. I know that the EU is very keen on mobility and on young people from the EU and the UK being able to enjoy the benefits of living, working and studying in one another’s countries, and I happen to agree with that. However, it is too early for me to be able to read the runes for Mr Bibby on the relative positions of the UK Government. We have talked about how important all these things are.

It is clear that all issues will bring advantages and disadvantages for different sides in a negotiation, but there are some aspects of this process in relation to which I see no downside whatsoever. Let us take the creative Europe programme, for example. I cannot see any downside to the UK being part of that. Thirteen other states and territories outside the EU are part of creative Europe. In our creative sector, co-operation with other parts of Europe is extremely important. In the screen sector, which is an area that Mr Bibby and I share a commitment to, co-production—working with other commissioning broadcasters and film and TV companies—is important. Anyone you speak to in that world will say, “We absolutely need to be part of creative Europe.” I have not heard a single person, in any context—whether in Scotland or the UK—question that, so, with a bit of luck, some of these things need not be complicated at all.

Other areas are also important. I have not yet mentioned energy. Energy matters greatly because of the geostrategic situation that we find ourselves in. Parts of the European continent are dependent on gas, and countries such as Germany are moving as quickly as they can away from being dependent on gas to hydrogen. They cannot produce enough hydrogen. Who can produce hydrogen? Northern European countries, including Scotland, can. It is really important for the UK Government to understand that issues around energy matter to us as well. However, that is a more complicated issue.

I concede that some things are much easier to deliver than others. On matters on which there are technical questions, the process might take a bit longer. In principle, however, I think that everything that we have said should be a priority from our point of view should be eminently deliverable. I am not in a position to answer on the relative order that the UK Government or, indeed, EU colleagues would give to those matters, but I will be happy to come back later in the process to talk about that.

The logic of Mr Kerr’s position is irresistible in as much as what was right for Horizon is right for Erasmus+ and is right for creative Europe. Those are three programmes that proved successful while we were in the European Union, and they have proven successful for countries that are participants but that are no longer in the EU—such as in our case—or were not ever part of the EU.

Mr Kerr did not name which institution he was visiting that was singing the praises of increased research funding and co-operation and all that, but I am sure that its experience is one that we would, in years to come, hear about from participants in Erasmus+ if the UK were to rejoin it and it is what we would be hearing about from the creative sector if the UK were to rejoin creative Europe.

To answer Mr Kerr’s question about negotiations, there are no details about the wishes for any potential changes to the fishing regime on the part of either the UK Government or the European Union.