Chamber and committees

This Parliament has lost one of our very best today. I offer my deepest sympathies and those of my party to everyone who knew and loved Christina McKelvie.

Today is a moment of pain and sadness, but Christina’s life and her extraordinary spirit deserve to be celebrated, as well. In her first speech, she said that she

“would rather be a citizen of a nation that looks to persuade and co-operate than bully and cajole”.—[Official Report, 14 June 2007; c 718.]

She might have been talking about Scotland as a nation, but I think that those words also captured the kind of person she was and the kind of politician she was.

Lots of people in politics start out with those kinds of values and ideals. Christina was someone who held fast to them. Compassion and kindness were at her core. As Christina’s partner and our colleague Keith Brown said today, she

“lit up every room she was in”.

That was certainly true of this room—our Parliament. She brightened it in every sense.

The only question that I would like to ask the First Minister today is how he thinks that we can all bring kindness and compassion into our work, as Christina did. [Applause.]

I join other members in thanking Maggie Chapman not just for bringing the debate to the chamber but for opening it with the words of some of the people who are most directly affected—voices that are so often unheard in the debate. I also express my appreciation to Professor Jen Ang and to everyone who has contributed in any way, either to the report or in other attempts to address the issue of ending destitution in Scotland.

I pause for just a moment, at my first use of the word “destitution”. We have all been talking about destitution in Scotland. It is 2025, in one of the wealthiest countries in the world, and we are debating whether to end destitution. That in itself should shock and shame us all. It is worse still because that destitution is not merely the result of reckless or complacent economic policies. There is a false but prevalent idea in much of our politics that poverty is a shame but that we cannot really do anything to end it. This is worse—this is destitution that has been deliberately created as a tool of policy makers who want this country to be a hostile environment for asylum seekers.

That has been the case for as long as I have been in this place. When I was first elected, the dawn raids that were being inflicted on asylum seekers in Glasgow were a national controversy. Even then, there were those who argued that we needed a robust asylum system. What we need is an asylum system that is designed to give asylum—to give refuge—to everyone who needs it. Instead, we have an asylum system that is designed to turn away the maximum number possible, and to make the experience so humiliating, degrading and frightening that it acts as a deterrent. That is the asylum system that we have, and it has continued to work in that way under successive Governments.

I contrast that, however, with the response that we so often see from members of the public. Even after decades of anti-migrant propaganda coming from so much of the political and media landscape in this country, we find groups of people, in every community, banding together and reaching out to one another to find ways of helping and supporting asylum seekers in their communities. In the days of those dawn raids that I mentioned, local communities would gather outside an asylum seeker’s flat to protect them and keep them in when the Home Office officials came to take them out. More recently, we have seen the astonishing display of solidarity at Kenmure Street in Glasgow.

The human instinct to help and to recognise another human being’s desperation is still strong—it is innate within us. It is so strong that it has not been demolished by those decades of anti-migrant propaganda. Most people understand that, although the right likes to portray hosting asylum seekers as a burden for the nation, that is not what bearing a burden is. To be asked for asylum, and to be in a position to be able to help—that is what it is to have privilege in this world. The person who has to flee, and who has to act out of desperation and ask strangers for help—that is what it is to bear a burden.

The UK Government must be put under pressure to change direction, but the Scottish Government can and must do more as well. I hope that the minister, in responding to the debate, will lay out an expansive and ambitious approach to implementing, to the maximum degree possible, everything that we possibly can do to end destitution in Scotland. Migration will always be part of the human story, and it should be seen as something that enriches us and makes us proud, instead of the shame that the issue brings us.

To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on the regulatory approach to AI and any impact that differences between regulations in the United Kingdom and the European Union could have on Scotland’s economy. (S6O-04485)

It is increasingly clear that the rapid development of AI potentially carries great benefits and catastrophic risks. Therefore, only a balanced approach to regulation gives us a chance of gaining the benefits while reducing the risks.

That is what the EU is seeking to achieve, unlike the US or, apparently, the UK, but any divergence on regulations could also impact on Scotland. The AI strategy from the Scottish Government has little to say about risk, but it endorses one of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s principles, which is that potential risks should be continually assessed and managed. Will the minister tell us what specific actions the Scottish Government is taking to systematically carry out such risk assessment? When will it publish a breakdown of what risks have been identified, how they are being managed and what the implications are for regulation?

Sound judgment.

No, it is not a start. The fair trade movement started in the 1940s. If we are going to persuade ourselves that buying a cup of coffee a year is a start, we will not achieve the kind of change that the fair trade movement provokes us to achieve. If fair trade is merely a choice, unfair trade will remain the default.

I will finish with one further comment on the Conservative amendment and by reflecting on why I am unable to support it and would be unable to support the amended motion, if that amendment were to be agreed to. It is not just about the conflation of free trade and fair trade—because those concepts are, at the very least, in tension if not in conflict. It is also because, regardless of whether we believe in a more or less well-regulated economy, a fairer one or a freer one, a large single market can help to achieve either objective. I cannot possibly support an amendment that bemoans arbitrary trade barriers from a political party that imposed and raised those arbitrary trade barriers by taking us out of the European Union and ripping up young people’s freedoms in the process.

The global trade system, as it stands, remains far too tied to the inheritance of colonial injustices. If we seek to change that and to build a fairer global trade system and a fairer world, we will have to recognise that the change that is required is deep and that it will not be done with one cup of coffee.

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.

Would Willie Rennie agree that the solar panel example that he gives is a good argument for why a systemic change approach is required? There is no way that the Scottish Government or any other Government could simply take over something like solar panel procurement and buy them on behalf of everybody. That would massively reduce people’s choice in installing the right kit in the right place. We need to prevent unfairly traded products from getting on to the market in the first place. Consumer choice cannot do that alone; it needs Government action.

As I expected, a number of very positive examples from right across the country have been brought up in the debate, which I think are worth celebrating. I will take a minute or two to do that, and then I will come on to the reasons why—I say this with great regret, and I want to emphasise that—it seems that Parliament will not be able to unite on a final amended motion. That is a shame.

The positive examples are worth celebrating. A couple of members started with ones from within the Parliament, including John Mason’s history of the improvement of the quality of the coffee. Another local example given was the fair trade shop in Edinburgh. There was a rare mention of Paisley from George Adam. He does not talk about his constituency nearly enough—we have all recognised that—but he finally got round to talking about Paisley. There was praise for the work of universities, including the University of St Andrews and the University of Edinburgh. Colin Smyth told us about the cakes in—if I am reading my writing properly—Kirkcudbright. I hope that he enjoyed them.

I want to mention a couple of speeches in particular. Karen Adam gave a local example of uniforms—if I heard her right, in Peterhead. She also used a phrase that stuck with me:

“the deep solidarity at the heart of the fair trade movement”.

That was a powerful expression of what, I hope, we all want to see the global trade system move to. This is about more than just a nice optional extra that makes us feel good in the moment of buying something; it is about provocation and a systemic change.

Emma Roddick also reflected on that. She gave local examples of art that she saw at the botanics that addressed climate and intersectional injustices, but she also used a powerful phrase when she said that without “fairness for all”—and now I am paraphrasing—we will not achieve what the fair trade movement is intended to achieve.

That is the critical point that I hope we all can reflect on. Those local examples are great—they are wonderful and feel good and positive. People feel somewhat empowered by taking such actions in the face of what can often be a frighteningly disempowering world. Local examples provide leadership, but they are not an end result; they are a provocation and a demand for wider change. I come back to the phrase that Colin Smyth used at the beginning of the debate about fair trade challenging the unfairness of conventional trade. We need to accept that provocation and to respond to it by taking responsibility for addressing the systemic change that is required.

Several members have talked about public procurement, and of course there is room to improve there. The £16 billion public procurement budget has been mentioned. Although it is clear that we do not have the research that would enable us to understand what percentage of that is being spent on fairly traded products, I would be very surprised if anyone would counter a bet that that percentage is very low. I suspect that the percentage of private spend by people and businesses that goes to fair trade products is even lower.

Several people talked about the scope for fair trade to move into other categories of products. John Mason mentioned that. I have mentioned his speech a couple of times, and I want to praise it. John Mason and I profoundly disagree on certain other values in politics—areas in which he perhaps has more in common with the allegedly pleasant Murdo Fraser. However, he spoke very well in this debate and he very clearly articulated the conflict between free trade and fair trade: the freer that any business is to behave in the way that it wishes, the less fair the outcome is likely to be.

John Mason and several other members mentioned the impact on developing countries of the way that clothes are produced. We cannot change that through public procurement. There might be a few areas that we could affect, such as school or NHS uniforms, but if we really want to change the role of fair trade in the clothing sector, that is about changing a wider market, and that will not be done with a handful of ethical retailers who choose to put products on the shelves. It will require deep and fundamental change. The idea that fast fashion could ever be compatible with an approach to fair trade is ludicrous. If fair trade remains merely a choice—one of many choices alongside the unfair choices that occupy more shelf space in more outlets—it will never achieve the systemic change that is required.

At one point, I think that Alexander Stewart was reduced to defending the idea that buying a single cup of fair trade coffee in a year is a start—

Clearly, I am not expecting to change the cabinet secretary’s mind on his voting intention at this late stage in the debate—he has made his decision—but would he at least acknowledge that, far from being a positive, “trade liberalisation”, which is mentioned in the Conservative amendment, has far too often been forced on developing countries and has had an effect that is the opposite of what the fair trade movement seeks to achieve? Further, will he tell us why fair trade is not referenced in the Government’s trade document “A Trading Nation”?