Seòmar agus comataidhean

What I am hearing is that, prior to May, there had been extensive regular dialogue between the Scottish ministers, UK ministers and, obviously, officials—lots of engagement and discussion. Given where we are now—that is, things have not ended up in a good place—what discussions and engagement have taken place on the Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill? Are you confident that we will end up in a better place on that bill, or are there risks that we will end up having discussions such as this one on that legislation?

Yes, but they are all related, being about the restriction on the disposal of unsold goods. It would be good to get into a bit more detail on that. I start with Ewan MacDonald-Russell. Do you agree that there is a need to restrict the destruction of unsold goods in Scotland, and are you aware of the extent to which that is done in the sector that you work in?

If Colin Smith would like to develop that notion of unintended consequences, that would be helpful.

I will pick up on the point—[Interruption.] I am sorry, I have lots of Post-it notes. I will pick up on the point that was made that the power for ministers to require people to publish everything that they store is too wide. Cat Hay gave the example of what is in the stationery cupboard—although a lot of unnecessary purchasing can go on for stationery cupboards. If that power is too wide, how would the witnesses narrow it so that the provision still has meaning but strikes a better balance? What are your thoughts on that? It is an important point.

My final question is on the definitions of “consumer goods” and “unsold goods”. I am keen to understand whether there is enough clarity in them and whether you have a view on what goods should and should not be included.

I will come to Colin Smith because he has had a rest.

That is important. We will bring in Ailsa Heine in a second. We heard from earlier witnesses that they are nervous about the lack of certainty in relation to some areas of the bill and, because it is a framework approach, about some of the detail that would potentially come later and about not knowing what amendments will come forward. I would be interested to hear from Ailsa Heine on those points.

Thank you.

Convener, thank you for your earlier remarks. I think that we were all frustrated at the UK Government’s responses, or lack of them, and we all want more co-operation with the committee. Thank you for your stance on that.

Good morning to the minister and the witnesses.

The committee’s stage 1 scrutiny of the Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill is under way, and we are keen to understand what lessons have been learned about progressing circular economy policy under the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 and the common framework.

I start by referring to my entry in the register of members’ interests, which shows that I am a member of Unite, the GMB and the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers parliamentary group and that I am convener of the Scottish Labour trade union group.

I thank Keith Brown for bringing this debate to the chamber. It is good to see so many members taking an interest in the subject, because we can agree that anti-trade union legislation is harmful to workers in Keith Brown’s constituency, in my Central Scotland region and right across the UK. Points have been made about the scourge of in-work poverty, too. I believe that most members in the chamber care about those issues.

The Labour movement, of course, believes in more protection for workers. Indeed, that is what informed my political thinking. Growing up in Blantyre, in Lanarkshire, as the daughter of a health and safety officer, I was shaped by what was happening to working-class communities such as mine, and those issues relating to the wellbeing of workers were what shaped my early political thinking.

Today, those issues matter more than ever. We have heard from members across the chamber about the epidemic of fire and rehire practices, zero-hours contracts and precarious work. People in my neighbourhood are working three jobs—and often more—just to make ends meet.

I listened carefully to Keith Brown, who spoke passionately about the industrial history of his Clackmannanshire and Dunblane constituency and his important work in pardoning miners, which brought people together across the chamber. It brought Neil Findlay and Richard Leonard from Labour together with Mr Brown and Michael Matheson, to name just a few, from the SNP. What is uncomfortable about this debate for some people is that, actually, there is more agreement here than many of us want to admit. I see a majority in this Parliament for repealing the anti-trade union law that is letting people down. It maybe sticks in the throats of some members to recognise that what Labour is trying to do at a UK level, with the new deal for working people, is about being transformative and progressive.

Of course, we are not at the election yet and we do not know what the outcome will be, but let us focus on the things that we do agree on. Scottish Labour has been very clear: Anas Sarwar has said that it is about a race to the top, not a race to the bottom.

I do not know how much extra time I can get, but it is a very important question. I am speaking in the debate, because I care deeply about the issues. I have not signed the motion, but I have not signed the amendment either, because I wanted to stand aside from some of the politicking that is going on. Mr Brown’s motion is a very good one, but I have underlined the word “immediately” at the very end of it, because I am not sure what it means. The fact is that there is no big button that we can press today to devolve employment law “immediately”.

Of course, the manifesto that Scottish Labour stood on in 2021 sets out a clear position, and that has been reinforced by the Scottish leader Anas Sarwar. There is no bit of paper between what we are saying with regard to the STUC, and the TUC, which represents 5.5 million workers across the UK. There is a lot of agreement there.

I have eaten into a lot of my time but, in response to Kevin Stewart, I would say yes, let us rise up the world rankings. However, as we have heard, Scotland is the zero-hours capital of the UK, so let us do something about that, too.

I started today on a picket line at Royal Mile primary school and, tomorrow, I will be on a picket line in Hamilton near where I live, with Unison workers. As Pam Duncan-Glancy has alluded to, people who work in higher and further education might hear about fair work, but they do not feel that it is happening for them. Indeed, people at City of Glasgow College have been made redundant under the guise of fair work.

Let us therefore work together to get a just transition and justice for all workers. We can have all of these debates during by-election campaigns just to make points but, actually, that sort of thing backfires on all of us. I will continue to find common agreement and cause, because workers right now do not need debates like this. What they need is money in their bank accounts.