Martin Rhodes MP: speeches

Speeches

• 25 Jun 2026 · UK-EU Relations · Hansard source

  More

  Improving our relationship with the EU is about trade barriers, but it is also about standards. Many UK companies already follow the EU’s corporate sustainability due diligence directive in order to trade with our biggest external market. Without alignment, we risk becoming a dumping ground for unethically sourced products while responsible UK companies are undercut by less responsible enterprises. What conversations has the Minister had with Cabinet colleagues about aligning our human rights and environmental due diligence regime with that of the EU, to protect UK companies that do the right thing?

• 2 Jun 2026 · Glasgow City Region Economy · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. I agree and will go on in my speech to talk about how the work of the city deals needs to be developed further. Those structures and activities need to be built on to ensure we get the most from that initial interest to develop it further. The Glasgow city region economy has seen real investment from the UK Labour Government but much more can be done. With greater devolved powers over areas such as infrastructure, skills, investment and public health, the region will be better placed to shape solutions around the needs of its communities. That would not be devolution for the sake of it. Greater local autonomy can help reduce inequality, improve health outcomes and create new jobs and opportunities across the region. As the city region is right now, I welcome the significant investment that the UK Labour Government are already delivering. The new local growth fund, combined with the Pride in Place programmes, is set to deliver nearly £94 million in investment over the next three years. The combination of those funds delivers long-term infrastructure and renewal. That approach will help the Glasgow city region to invest in long-term renewal, an ambition that needs to be matched by sustained adequate local government funding from the Scottish Government. This UK Labour Government have delivered the largest spending review settlement in the history of the Scottish Parliament, which amounted to £50 billion in last year’s settlement. That is in stark contrast to the Scottish Government, which instead of passing that funding increase to local government, continued to enforce cuts to communities. From 2013 to 2026, Glasgow city council alone has seen a £1.5 billion loss in Scottish Government funding. Those cuts to local government funding have left councils across the region overstretched and focused on struggling to deliver core services, with little left over for the long-term investment the city region needs.

• 18 May 2026 · Backing Business to Create Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  Hon. Members across the House have already referred to the fundamental and structural challenges we face as a society and an economy. One that has been mentioned is the challenge around the rapid rate of technological change. That brings opportunity and benefits for many, but it also brings uncertainty and exclusion for others. It is a challenge that highlights the more general need for Government intervention to nurture and protect, for regulation that does not hinder but encourages growth, and for growth that is necessarily inclusive. Because of the limits of time, I will concentrate on one area, the European partnership Bill, which will focus on rebuilding our relationship with Europe in this fractured geopolitical and economic world. Europe is our largest and closest trading bloc, and breaking down trade barriers with it will help businesses to grow, create jobs and ease cost pressures for UK households. I support these positive moves, prioritising trade, business and jobs above refighting past political debates. That said, we should be more ambitious in aligning requirements for British businesses with EU standards where possible and appropriate. Many UK companies are already required to follow the EU’s corporate sustainability due diligence directive in order to trade with our biggest external market. We risk becoming a dumping ground for unethically sourced products, while UK companies—following best practice in order to trade with our closest and largest neighbours—are undercut by less responsible enterprises. Some 50 leading businesses have already signed statements calling for human rights due diligence legislation, including brands such as Tesco, Twinings and John Lewis. Such legislation could promote more ethical consumption, allow companies to better manage risk and help British businesses to grow. The European partnership Bill is an opportunity to align our due diligence regime with EU standards. Following the responsible business conduct review, I hope that the Government might see the Bill as an opportunity to make those changes happen. I am proud to support this Government’s agenda of regulating the market, so that it works for consumers and small businesses, and of putting fairness and dignity at the heart of our economic system. I welcome the proposed legislative measures in the King’s Speech to support good business, and over this parliamentary Session, I will continue to urge Ministers to take forward measures to ensure human rights and environmental due diligence in supply chains. The successful future of our economy, further growth in our economy and good-quality jobs can be based only on responsible and sustainable business practices, with strong workers’ rights and protections for consumers. I am confident that measures in the King’s Speech will build on legislation in the previous Session on delivering those goals.

• 11 Dec 2025 · Fairtrade Certification · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 11 Dec 2025 · Fairtrade Certification · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 27 Nov 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Budget set out yesterday by the Chancellor. The Labour party was founded on the principles of social justice, redistribution and universal rights, and the progressive nature of the Budget helps to deliver on those principles. It will ensure that the very wealthiest households pay a fair share to support public services. On average, households on the lowest incomes benefit the most from this Budget and last year’s Budget policy decisions, while the increases in tax are concentrated on the highest earners. In practical terms, 90% of households will see an average net income benefit, while the richest 10% will contribute more. We are tackling the cost of living by cutting energy bills, increasing wages and protecting the value of the state pension. This Labour Budget delivers an average of £150 off energy bills. The Budget also raises both the national living wage and the national minimum wage, putting money directly into the pockets of working people. For older people in our communities, the increase in the state pension means that 1.1 million pensioners in Scotland will be better off. All those are tangible differences that people will notice in their everyday life, thanks to this Labour Budget. The removal of the two-child cap on universal credit will help to reduce poverty across the country, including in my constituency of Glasgow North, where 2,130 children will be better off. We are delivering that through a progressive Budget, but there is more to do across a whole range of Government Departments. I very much welcome the removal of the two-child cap, but we need to look at other policy areas, too. That is why I welcome the fact that in their mission to end child poverty, the Government and their taskforce are not just looking at the social security levers, hugely important though they are, but identifying all the levers available. The Budget invests in Scotland. It has made an extra £820 million available for investment in our public services in Scotland, taking the additional funding to date for the Scottish Government to over £10 billion under this Labour Government. What we need now is a Scottish Government who will use those resources to invest in our public services and not fail to spend them. We need a Scottish Government who are focused on delivering for and with the people of Scotland, not focused on division and constitutional posturing. This Labour Government, with this Labour Budget, are building a stronger and fairer country; one where living standards rise, child poverty falls and public services are renewed. This is a fair Budget, a redistributive Budget, a Labour Budget, and it is a privilege to support it.

• 23 Oct 2025 · Civil Service Jobs: Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  15. What progress his Department has made on the relocation of civil service jobs to Scotland.

• 23 Oct 2025 · Civil Service Jobs: Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Minister agree that having different roles and different levels of positions within the civil service in Glasgow and in Scotland is important so that people can progress their careers while remaining in Glasgow or in Scotland?

• 22 Oct 2025 · Devolution in Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for securing the debate and for his thoughtful and reflective opening speech. Although the Scottish Parliament may be a place of hotly debated politics, the importance of Scottish devolution is unquestionable. It is right to refer to devolution and the Scottish Parliament as the “settled will” of the Scottish people. As predicted, it has become a cornerstone for Scottish democracy in the UK, but closing the political and social gap between the decision makers and the people those decisions impact upon cannot and should not stop at devolution from London to Edinburgh—from this place to Holyrood. In recent years we have seen the benefits of further devolving power and funding to city regions across the UK, with the ability at local level to create and tailor policies to better serve communities. In Scotland, however, devolution appears to have stalled at Holyrood. In recent years, the SNP has followed the principle of “devolution for me and not for thee”. There seems to have been little appetite from the Scottish Government to pass power and more funding to the Glasgow city region and other communities across Scotland. Devolution has effectively stalled. This is even though further devolution is the logical continuation of the principles of power sharing, representation and accountability that were pivotal in the creation of the Scottish Parliament in the first place. Such a continuation of devolution is important for the Glasgow metropolitan region—a city region with a well developed and established collaboration system. This includes the city deal—one of the largest in the UK—the UK Government’s shared prosperity fund and the city region innovation accelerator, to name just a few. These investments have already delivered jobs and major regeneration for areas across Glasgow city region. This is proof that the Glasgow region can handle more responsibility while also creating a case for more necessary accountability and governance. The Glasgow city region is now at a point where the Scottish Government and the city region need to look at a range of policy areas and levers, including powers over transport, housing, skills, economic development and public service reform, and to devolve those appropriate powers to allow the Glasgow city region to tailor its policies to the needs of our communities. For our communities, this could mean better buses that turn up on time, people no longer on housing waiting lists for years and years, and more opportunities for neglected communities. The devolution of powers and responsibilities must be based on strategic aims, providing the processes to deliver the policies to achieve those aims, and those processes must be accountable and transparent with robust governance, but all of this must be rooted in the outcomes that we want to achieve: to reduce inequality and poverty; to improve access to healthcare and improve health outcomes; and to create new jobs and opportunities. A recent report by the Centre for Cities makes this case for further devolution, too. It estimates that if Glasgow performed in line with cities of comparable size, Scotland’s economy could be 4.6% larger. When I campaigned with so many others during the referendum in 1997 for the establishment of the Scottish Parliament, it was to devolve powers from this place as appropriate to the Scottish Parliament. It was not for those powers and responsibilities then to be hoarded by Holyrood; it was part of a wider process to devolve power down through local government and to communities and citizens. During next year’s Scottish election, the Scottish people again have an opportunity to revitalise devolution. By electing a Scottish Labour Government with Anas Sarwar as First Minister, they can have a Government who are committed to the principle of devolution and who will deliver on the priorities of the Scottish people, instead of continuing with constitutional posturing. We can build on the successes of the Scottish Parliament and develop a stronger Scottish Parliament. It will be made stronger not by grasping on to powers but by devolving powers further. We can renew the commitment to devolution, renew the commitment to empower communities and renew our direction—all of that in the service of the Scottish people.