In Confessions of an Eco-Shopper I devote a whole chapter – or ‘Aisle’ as they’re called in the book (it’s structured like a trip around a supermarket) to clothing challenges, including the difficulty of being eco-smart and sartorially stylish on a normal person’s budget. And since a normal person’s budget tends towards Primark jeans at £12 rather than ethical brand Del Forte’s (admittedly lovely) jeans that cost £134, that’s some challenge.

I just about live in jeans, so finding the ‘ethical’ kind – fairly traded, organic, not made in a sweatshop or by children, etc – is high on my list of priorities. But we’ve got very little spare cash to splash, so what to do? Well, I won’t be visiting Primark, that much is for certain.

I watched Panorama’s expose, Primark on the Rack (23 June 2008, BBC1) with a strong sense of déjà vu. Having seen all four parts of BBC Three’s revealing documentary series Blood, Sweat and T-Shirts, broadcast in May/June, Panorama’s hidden camera shots of young children working in slum factories sewing sequins and beads onto fashion pieces destined for the British High Street – specifically, Primark – seemed all too depressingly familiar.

Thanks to public pressure for better standards for workers in the garment industry, conditions in the big factories – which bear signs declaring ‘No child labour’ at their gates – have improved. Most of the major fashion retailers have now signed up to the Ethical Trading Initiative, including, belatedly, Primark, which eventually joined in 2006 (TopShop, TopMan, BhS, Miss Selfridge and Dorothy Perkins, which are all owned by the Arcadia Group, are still not members).

However, the Ethical Trading Initiative has been criticised for being little more than an ethical sticking plaster, and the ETI itself recognizes its shortcomings. While they can send in inspectors to check out the factories, they don’t have a hope of finding all the kids slaving away in the sweatshops (and, in Primark’s case, as reporter Tom Heap discovered, even refugee camps) that some of the big factories sub-contract the work out to.

It’s the fiddly, detailed work like embroidery and beading, which can’t be done by machines, that often gets sub-contracted out and may end up being done by the nimble fingers of children, as happened with the Gap case last year (unbeknown to Gap at the time).

These kids don’t have a childhood. The young people in Blood, Sweat and T-Shirts visited a refuge where children that had been rescued from sweatshops were given a new start, an education, hope. Hearing their stories about how they had been beaten and abused by brutal factory bosses brought tears to my eyes.

Watching the Panorama programme, I couldn’t help wondering (as Carrie Bradshaw would say) how Primark could be so – well, disingenuous – about what had gone on behind their backs. Heap found three of Primark’s suppliers were using child labour as well as breaking their promises on working hours and wages, and it was all the minutely detailed needlework – Primark uses one hell of a lot of sequins; even its nightwear is sparkly and spangly – that appeared to be cause of these breaches.

Given that this kind of work has to be done by hand, why don’t they just design them out, or find other, non-labour-intensive ways of embellishing their garments? Who needs sequins on a pyjama vest for heaven’s sake?

Primark’s knee-jerk reaction to the Panorama programme was to sack the three Indian suppliers that were responsible for the sub-contracting, which could cost hundreds of workers in the main, legal factories their jobs. In a statement, they said: ‘Primark rarely takes such severe action with the factories it buys from and prefers to work with them to improve standards. However, Primark will not tolerate a relationship which isn’t based on trust and transparency.’ (You can read the full statement on their new website).

So, were they making an example of them? I think so. And now that all these poor people could lose their livelihoods so that Primark can show us how very ‘ethical’ they are. Is that Panorama’s fault for doing their (rather portentous, it has to be said; dramatic music for the eBay clips really wasn’t necessary) expose? Is Primark, in a backhand way, rendering Panorama responsible?

Will the Indian workers blame Tom Heap and his hidden camera if they lose their jobs, or thank him for liberating little children? Primark has announced its intention to establish the ‘Primark Better Lives Foundation’, which will provide financial assistance to organisations devoted to improving the lives of young people, including those identified by Panorama. That’s great news, of course, but you’d rather it didn’t come at the price of sacrificing those other workers who had no part of the sub-contracting.

Why not just sack the middle men who were doing all the nefarious deals with the likes of Anthony, the man responsible for doling out the piecework to refugees and children? War on Want  has roundly condemned Primark for its reaction to the programme and says it should be working with suppliers to find solutions.

Meanwhile, what does the eco-smart shopper do? Continue to buy Primark clothes to keep the other Indian workers in business, or boycott the shop in protest? Four point two million people watched the Panorama programme last week. That’s a lot of customers. I’d say you vote with your wallet; it’s fast fashion that creates these exploitative supply chains in the first place and that system has to change.But, if you can’t resist Primark price, my advice is to steer clear of sequins. As for ethical jeans, I’ve just found a pair made from recycled denim in Marks & Spencer’s online shop. They’re £25 and they look great.