St Andrew's Day Bank Holiday (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1
Item 4 is the St Andrew's Day Bank Holiday (Scotland) Bill. I welcome Dennis Canavan to the committee to discuss the bill. A factual paper about where we are has been circulated.
After the Parliament voted to refer the bill back to the committee, I arranged a meeting with the minister responsible, Tom McCabe. With his agreement, I invited Christine May and Dennis Canavan to the meeting, the purpose of which was to clarify the issues, so that the committee could take matters forward knowing the Executive's policy on the bill and on related matters. For example, given the reference to bank holidays in the Work and Families Bill that has been introduced at Westminster, I wanted to clarify with the Executive what status that bill would have in Scotland and whether it would have an impact on Dennis Canavan's bill. However, Christine May could not make the meeting, so it had to be postponed and has yet to be rearranged. That is where we are.
In my view, we need to clarify some issues with the Executive before we will be in a position to decide how to take the bill forward.
I thank the convener for the opportunity to address the committee meeting. I also thank the clerks for the briefing paper that has been circulated.
First, let me emphasise the fact that, contrary to some media reports, the bill has not been killed off and is still very much alive. I intend to make every effort to keep the bill alive and to see it reach the statute book. I am hopeful that the committee will assist me in my efforts, given its previous unanimous decision to support the general principles of the bill.
Let me comment on the clerk's briefing paper. Paragraphs 4 to 6 confirm that it is a "requirement"—not an option—for the committee to prepare a further report that will be debated in a meeting of the Parliament at a date that is to be decided. Paragraph 10 puts certain questions that need to be considered about how best to proceed with taking additional evidence if further evidence is thought to be required.
One piece of additional written evidence is the letter that I received from the Presiding Officer. Although the letter was addressed to me, I understand that it was also sent to the committee clerk, as it states:
"Copies of this letter go to the Minister for Parliamentary Business, Stephen Imrie, the Clerk to the Enterprise and Culture Committee, and Susan Duffy, Clerk to the Finance Committee."
In effect, the letter states that a financial resolution is not required for the St Andrew's Day Bank Holiday (Scotland) Bill. That is an important point, because allegations were made that huge increases in public expenditure would arise from the bill. The Presiding Officer's letter corroborates my previously expressed view that the bill per se does not involve any significant increase in public expenditure from the Scottish consolidated fund.
On the issue of additional oral evidence, I suggest that the committee has already received evidence from a wide spectrum of different individuals and organisations. The one serious gap in the committee's evidence taking was that it did not hear from the Executive. Despite the fact that we allowed 15 months between the start of the consultation process and the stage 1 debate, the Executive was significant by its silence for most of that period until, at the 11th hour, the committee received a letter from Tom McCabe. Subsequently, ministerial statements were made by Tom McCabe and George Lyon during the stage 1 debate. I respectfully suggest that, at an early opportunity, the committee should invite Tom McCabe to give oral evidence on behalf of the Executive. I understand that the agenda for next week's meeting has already been decided, so perhaps the committee could hear that evidence the following week, on 22 November.
I also suggest that the committee compiles a report in time for a parliamentary debate on or around St Andrew's day, which would be topical and would encourage more public interest in the celebration of St Andrew's day. In summary, I am suggesting that the committee has one session of oral evidence with Tom McCabe, with a view to finalising a report before the end of the month.
Okay. Thank you, Dennis.
I am afraid that I have to disagree with Dennis Canavan's last point about publishing a report by St Andrew's day. The evidence that was furnished to us by the banking sector—the sabre rattling about bank charges, payments being delayed and all that—sat unhappily in my mind with my understanding of a global banking economy, and I made that point in committee. I do not know whether colleagues agree with me but, if possible, I would like to haul those chaps back to go over what they said again. I have further questions to ask them—let us put it that way. To rush the report for publication before 30 November would not be to give it the attention that I would want to give it.
Picking up on the point that the convener and Dennis Canavan have made, I think that our first port of call must be to get evidence from the minister who will handle the bill. We must get back to first base, given that the matter has been referred back to the committee. There is no point in our producing a further report if the Executive is just not going to support the bill—full stop. That would put us in a position of reinventing what we have already gone over, and it would be as well for us to publish our previous report again. Before we go any further, we must clarify exactly what concerns the Executive has and see whether we can address them in any further evidence that the committee takes.
If the minister says that the Executive is not interested in the bill and will not support it in any form, what further evidence could the committee take to change the Executive's mind on the issue? We must clarify where the Executive is on the issue, first of all, to see whether we can address its concerns. If it would prefer another bill, we must find out what that bill would be like and whether the existing bill could be amended to accommodate that. Once we know where the Executive is at, we will be in a better position to decide how we should take further evidence, if necessary.
I express a view that I expressed at various stages when we were considering the evidence. I am genuinely disappointed that, in an area where there are some shared aspirations, we have not quite managed to come together and think about ways of achieving those aspirations. I agree that we should ask the minister to give evidence to us. That was one of the many things that, had we had more time earlier, we undoubtedly could and should have done. However, the idea that this should be some exercise in persuading the Executive or finding out which way it is going to jump just does not resonate with me. We should be trying to seek solutions to how we should celebrate St Andrew's day.
As I have said from the outset, I have never had any difficulty with that general idea, although I have continuously struggled with the questions of whether legislation is necessary and what the bill would do. The Parliament must be careful about the use of primary legislation. We must be confident and content that we are putting on the statute book legislation that will be effective. It was only at the end of the two evidence sessions that we had on the bill that it became clear to the committee—we discussed the matter openly—that the bill would not result in a holiday actually happening. I could not take part in the debate in the chamber, as I had lost my voice—many of you will be disappointed to hear that I have got it back again—but if I had had the chance to do so, I would have made that point.
I listened to the debate carefully and heard many members make different claims about what the bill would and would not do. We had only just got to the stage of recognising the limitations of the bill. The policy memorandum to the bill lists three objectives, the first of which is to establish a bank holiday on St Andrew's day. At one level, that is accurate, but what we established clearly in committee is that even the banks would not necessarily go on holiday. The public understanding of what establishing a bank holiday means in practice is an issue. I am not going to dwell on the matter now, but the other two policy objectives that were listed are certainly open to debate. There is definitely not a direct cause-and-effect relationship between putting the bill on the statute book and achieving those two objectives, although that is not to question the merits of those objectives.
The simple point that I want to make, perhaps more in hope than in expectation, is that we should try to examine how we come up with solutions and make progress on the issue, rather than batting it around and pointing fingers. There was certainly an awful lot of that in the parliamentary debate.
My final comment is a procedural one for the future. A lot of stuff was discussed in our wash-up sessions in committee to which, because it was discussed in private session, we could not really make reference in full parliamentary exchange, in the spirit of the rules and procedures. I think that there is a difficulty with that. When I was a member of the Procedures Committee, I argued in favour of discussing draft reports in public. I remember that Karen Gillon and I disagreed on that point in the chamber in the subsequent parliamentary debate. For me, this is a case in point. I would have liked our first discussion on the draft report—perhaps not the later discussions about dotting the i's and crossing the t's—in which people shared their views, thoughts, anxieties and concerns, to have been in public and put properly on the record, rather than the whole thing fracturing into a series of claims and counterclaims and party politicking, as happened in the parliamentary debate.
Our job has to be to get good legislation on the statute book, so my exhortation is this. Let us, by all means, get the minister in front of us, but let us not do things in haste, because we want to get things right. Let us also try to ensure that our questions for whomever we call to give further evidence are solution oriented. The big challenge set by the Parliament was not just about giving views on Dennis Canavan's bill but about finding ways to celebrate St Andrew's day. We did not get far in asking witnesses that wider question and inviting their positive suggestions. We discussed the matter only in terms of picking away at the specific proposal in the bill that Dennis Canavan had helpfully put before us, and I am not sure that that is where future deliberations should begin and end.
I have come to the matter from the outside looking in and have found the debate somewhat difficult. I do not think that parliamentary committees should find themselves in such a position and I believe that there are lessons for everybody to learn from how the bill has proceeded.
I am drawn to the way forward that the convener has suggested, which is that he, the deputy convener and Dennis Canavan meet the Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform and try to gauge where he is coming from. I assume that the committee has taken quite a large body of evidence in the past.
Not really.
You have not?
Not a tremendous amount.
I am not necessarily convinced that there would be no financial implications from Dennis Canavan's bill. Whatever happens, a bill that will introduce an additional public holiday will result in a price to the public purse. If we enact legislation, we will be expected to provide what is set out in that legislation to the people whom we employ. I am not convinced that there would be no financial implications.
I am interested in finding out whether the clerks have stripped away any of the evidence that we have received to see what we have and what we do not have and where the gaps are.
The committee did not take much evidence because the bill had already been round the houses twice as a result of a change in procedure. Dennis Canavan had already undertaken extensive consultation and, because of the changes in procedures, had to go out to consultation a second time. By the time we got the bill, that was the third time there had been consultation on it. I say that so that you are aware of why we did not take more evidence.
With respect, convener, there is a difference between consultation and the taking of evidence by a parliamentary committee. In a consultation, the answer depends on the question that is asked. We have a duty to explore the issues to see whether everything ties up or there are gaps.
Parliament has made its views known and we have to take cognisance of that; it would also be useful for us to get an idea of where Mr McCabe thinks we should be going. To find that out, it might be productive for there to be a meeting between him and the convener and deputy convener. However, I am open to the idea that the committee should have a public meeting as long as that meeting is productive and does not become a slanging match between different sides of the argument.
I am grateful for your clarification, convener, of paragraph 7 of EC/S2/05/22/2 because when I read it, I thought that the minister had made an arbitrary decision to cancel the meeting.
I am also grateful that we have more time. The main questions that arose—to do with whether the bill would do what it said it would do—came very late in the day. For various reasons, we did not have time to discuss them. We now have an opportunity for the convener, me and Dennis Canavan to meet the minister. We could then consider whether the committee should take evidence.
In the light of what has become clear, we should also review the evidence that we have already taken. What has become clear is that, even if we legislated for a bank holiday, it would not automatically generate a day off for people—nor could it, because we do not have the power to do that.
We should, having reviewed the evidence in the light of such considerations, consider whether we wish to invite back the people who have already given evidence, and whether we wish to take evidence from other people. The big thing is that more time has been bought to consider the matter. I am not suggesting that we will have to spend a lot of time taking evidence, but we will want to ask specific questions; hearing from the minister will be the first step.
Yesterday, I visited a primary 6 group at St Joseph's RC School in Aberdeen to find out about the school's outreach programme. The pupils did a presentation on the St Andrew's day bank holiday and raised all the issues that we have talked about. The overwhelming result—obviously—was that the pupils thought that we should have a bank holiday to represent Scotland's culture. It is interesting that the idea is even being talked about at that level. I thought that the Executive intended to come forward with its own ideas, but perhaps I misunderstood.
We have to separate legislative from the non-legislative options. I understand that the Executive will not make any legislative proposals but will, in time, come forward with non-legislative proposals on how we can celebrate St Andrew's day more effectively.
Yes, we will have to explore that.
I was interested to note on page 51 of the draft budget paper that we were given—oh, the paper is private.
It is okay. I do not think that there has been a major breach of the rules.
I am sorry.
We missed it.
The paper says that specific work to promote equality includes continuing to drive forward the First Minister's St Andrew's day vision, building on the "one Scotland" theme of St Andrew's day. The Executive has a clear view of how St Andrew's day should be celebrated. If we are to make progress, we should hear more about that.
I am sorry if I breached any rules there.
No problem.
I have two quickies. First, further to what Shiona Baird said, there is a world of difference between the possible proposals that the Executive might come back with. For example, they might be to light a couple of bonfires and set off a few fireworks, or they might really move us towards a St Patrick's day type of celebration. Secondly, although we owe it to Dennis Canavan to say that we are not deliberately kicking the bill into grass so long that it will never be seen again—of which we have been accused in some quarters—we have a job of work to do and we must complete it thoroughly and conclude accordingly. My point is that the end of this month is far too soon to complete the sort of work that I want to do.
I will try to sum up the situation. First, the specific commitment that the resolution that Parliament passed places on us is that we prepare a report for Parliament on the general principles of the bill. We cannot take final decisions on how much additional evidence we require—if any—from whom we should seek it, or what it should be about until we hear the missing link, which is the evidence from the Executive. Various issues need to be clarified, in relation both to the proposed legislation and, as Susan Deacon said, to the non-legislative package that the Executive will propose.
I suggest that, subject to our initial meeting with Tom McCabe, we invite him as the minister to come and discuss the issue openly and not in an adversarial way, but in a constructive way so that we can clarify the issues. That would allow him to explain points that he did not explain fully in the debate. We can then agree a way forward. We should have that meeting as soon as possible, although we cannot yet commit to a specific date because the date will depend on the minister's diary. I hope that, like us, he will want to make progress. Is that suggestion agreeable?
I will go along with that suggestion. On the timetable, normally when a bill is referred to a committee for consideration, a timetable motion is put before Parliament saying that the committee must report back by a certain date. I understand that discussions will take place soon between the Minister for Parliamentary Business's office and the committee clerk about your preferred date for finalising the report.
Yes. We will do that when we are clear about how much time we require before we report back to Parliament. That is one reason why we want to meet Tom McCabe—we want to clarify the timescale.
Are you suggesting that you could invite Tom McCabe to give oral evidence to the committee, rather than have a private meeting with him?
A private meeting would be useful to clarify some of the issues. To return to Susan Deacon's point, I do not want to conduct the matter behind closed doors; I want it to be as open as possible. In that private meeting, we will invite the minister formally to give evidence to the committee on behalf of the Executive as soon as possible.
On another of Susan Deacon's points, I am happy for the committee to agree now to discuss our report—when we eventually come to writing it—in open session, at least initially. Given the history, there are many advantages to a discussion of the report in open, rather than closed, session.
On a separate point, the question about the financial memorandum must be clarified; obviously, we need to see the correspondence that Dennis Canavan has had with the Presiding Officer. That debate is inextricably linked with the fundamental debate about what the bill would or would not achieve. The matter is circular, but we must first be clear what the bill would achieve and thereafter we must be clear whether there would be cost implications.
We will get—we probably should have had—a copy of the Presiding Officer's letter and it will be circulated to the committee. Do members agree that the next step is to have a private meeting with Tom McCabe as soon as possible and, in the meantime, to invite him to give oral evidence to the committee? We will try to move the process along as quickly as possible.
Members indicated agreement.
Do members also agree to hold our discussion of our draft report—certainly the initial discussion—in public?
Members indicated agreement.
Before we move into private session, I congratulate Mr Fraser on becoming deputy leader of the Scottish Conservative party.
Thank you very much, convener.
We should commiserate.
I said "congratulate", not "commiserate". My only recommendation is that you should be careful about to whom you send e-mails in the future.
Meeting continued in private until 16:23.