Chamber and committees

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.

It would be helpful to hear more about the opportunities for redistributing, rather than disposing of, unsold goods. We have mentioned a few examples involving food banks and so on; it would be good to hear a bit more about those and about where innovation is happening.

I am also aware that, in France, supermarkets are now legally required to redistribute unsold food. What is your view on that? Does it make you nervous, or should we consider taking such an approach here?

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?

As an example, what can the Scottish Government do to hear the cries of the workers at City of Glasgow College, who are emailing MSPs tonight to tell us about cuts to teaching time, increasing workloads, ending of fixed-term contracts, targeted voluntary severance and compulsory redundancies? Is that fair work?

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.