Official Report 303KB pdf
Good afternoon everybody. The technological issues are now resolved, so welcome to the 20th meeting of the Enterprise and Culture Committee in 2006. We have apologies from Alex Neil, the convener.
Yes. Thank you, convener, and good afternoon to you and the committee members. Thanks again for the opportunity to come along and say a few words about the St Andrew's Day Bank Holiday (Scotland) Bill.
Thank you. Members now have an opportunity to ask questions.
I thank Tom McCabe for that helpful statement. As you know from my previous statements, my preferred option was—and still is—that the St Andrew's day national holiday should be an additional holiday. However, I am realistic enough to recognise that my bill has virtually no chance of getting parliamentary approval without Executive support. It was in that context that I agreed to the joint statement that I made yesterday with the First Minister. Nevertheless, I hope and expect that, once the principle of a St Andrew's day national holiday is established, recognition of that holiday will grow from year to year and an increasing number of employers will grant it as an additional holiday for their employees. That remains to be seen.
I do not want this to turn into a mutual admiration society, but I acknowledge the fact that the approach that Dennis Canavan has taken has been extremely helpful. We have engaged in a joint search for solutions, which has been extremely productive.
I have one further question. In the letter that you sent yesterday to the convener, you refer to the fact that the Executive undertook consultations with stakeholders. Who were the stakeholders and did they all agree to what the Executive now proposes?
The people to whom I spoke agreed that it was an acceptable and sensible way forward.
Who were the stakeholders?
They included various members of the Parliament who had signed the bill and were considering their position. They were aware of the position that the Executive took at the stage 1 debate and were encouraged that there was a possibility of finding a way forward. There were also external stakeholders, such as the business community and others, who were pleased that we had arrived at a position that would allow the bill to pass into law, but with the accompanying statement.
I have two questions for the minister. The first is quite general. You mentioned stakeholders. Yesterday, I met a journalist who asked me whether I knew the definitive list of national holidays in Scotland. There has always been some confusion about that. In my workplace, before I entered politics, it was always an open-ended subject. I welcome what you and Dennis Canavan have said today, which is a positive way forward. How will what you propose be disseminated to the workplace? Does the Executive have a role in that? At the moment, there is confusion about what is and is not a national holiday. I am thinking of the two May holidays. Will industry, business, local government and so on be given advice on what exactly is meant and how it can be tied into the present context?
When I attended the committee previously, I said that we would be more than happy to encourage employers, especially employers in the public sector, to engage with the people whom they employ and to seek their views on when it will be best for them to take the range of holidays that are available to them. We are prepared to do the same with the staff of the Scottish Executive. By taking a lead, the Scottish Executive will send a signal to others, especially in the public sector. I mentioned that one business organisation was pleased with the situation that had been arrived at. Private sector employers are aware that they are involved in a constant dialogue with the people whom they employ. Employers will always want to test what range of holidays best suits the people whom they employ, because by making available the holidays that best suit those people, they make a positive contribution to their businesses.
In the joint statement by Dennis Canavan and the First Minister, reference is made to the fact that
It would be prescriptive to offer my thoughts on the matter, so I do not want to do that. It is a matter for discussion by individual employers. I have said that we will ensure that approaches are made to trade unions in the Scottish Executive. Those approaches will not be along the lines of suggesting a day. Instead, we will initiate a discussion and allow the people who work for us to consider the options that they think are most appropriate.
I very much welcome the conversion of the Scottish Executive to the stance that the Conservative party and I have taken on the issue since day one—namely, that we should have a St Andrew's day holiday, but that it should not be an additional holiday and should be substituted for a holiday at another time of year. We could have reached this stage much earlier. When the stage 1 debate was held on 6 October last year, the Executive argued against the stance that the Conservative party and I took. What were the key factors in changing your mind?
I was going to say that I do not mean to be disrespectful, but what I say will sound disrespectful. The opinions of the Conservative party are hardly likely to guide the overall consensus of opinion in the Parliament. You may wish that to be the case at some point in the future, but that is not the current situation.
I do not mean to be disrespectful, but the minister has not answered my question, which was about the factors that led the Executive to change its mind on the matter. However, if the minister will not answer that question, let me try another one.
First, I answered your question about the factors. I said that a major factor was the Executive's desire to improve our celebration of St Andrew's day and to find ways in which we could include in that the intention behind the bill. I answered your question, but you are entitled to your opinion on the matter.
Good afternoon, minister. I welcome the Executive's conversion to the proposed St Andrew's day holiday. I want to raise two points.
I think that local authorities said that, as they have demonstrated for a long time, they are keen to speak to their employees. Local authorities in different parts of Scotland will be keen to engage in a dialogue with their employees about the possibilities. There must be a dialogue rather than a diktat.
If the bill is passed, how will the Executive try to encourage bodies such as local authorities to ensure that they switch one of their local holidays to St Andrew's day?
We can do that by indicating to people that we have approached our own employees and offered them the opportunity to consider the St Andrew's day holiday. For instance, the Executive can suggest to local authorities that we are keen to improve the comprehensive nature of the way in which we celebrate our national day and that, if their employees consider taking a holiday on that day, the celebrations might be improved. Ultimately, the decision is for the people whom local authorities employ. Those are two obvious examples of how the Executive can make its view very clear to different parts of the public sector.
What factors led the Executive to decide that the best way to pursue the issue is to try to switch a local holiday, rather than a national holiday, to St Andrew's day?
I do not know that anyone has put a particular emphasis on the fact that it will be a local holiday. It is for employers to approach their employees and, considering the totality of their holidays, engage in a discussion with people about the possibility of moving one of those holidays to St Andrew's day.
Would you be happy for people to switch one of the several national bank holidays that we have, rather than one of the local holidays, to St Andrew's day?
Ultimately, the decision is for them. I would be very unhappy if anyone considered moving May day; I think that that would be tragic, but most people in Scotland would not do that. Some people might raise it as a possibility, but my strong view is that such a move would not be advisable.
How about going for the Queen's birthday?
We can discuss that in detail when we discuss our report.
As you rightly said, minister, the bill on its own will not create a St Andrew's day holiday; other work will need to be done to support that aim. Will the Executive continue to promote events that help people to celebrate St Andrew's day? I hope that you will develop a number of events in that respect.
Certainly; as I have indicated, we very much wish to improve the range of celebrations that mark our national day. We will do that on an on-going basis and, I hope, in conjunction with other organisations. The more that we do that, the more we will add to the overall weight of the celebrations. Certainly, our minds are not closed to any potential option.
I would be happy for the Queen's birthday to be moved.
I am sure that Mr Matheson will put any proposal to the committee in due course. We will decide on any proposal that we receive.
I am sure that Mr Matheson will not mind my portraying what he said as the SNP having something of a disregard for the Queen.
Minister, you said that lessons may need to be learned before consultants are commissioned again. Can the Parliament or the Executive apply other lessons from their experience of the bill?
We all benefit from discussion. The view that I am about to express is not a new one. Indeed, I express it as someone who was the Minister for Parliament. At times, we can run too quickly at legislation. If there is a bit more space in the timetable, we can take the opportunity to think a bit more about legislation and to indulge in conversations that are not allowed for under a tight timetable. The lesson that we can learn from the bill is that getting the chance to step back a bit may allow us to make an examination of the issues. Frankly, in this case, time did not allow for that.
For example, using the bill as but one experience, will the Executive reflect on the ways in which it could engage with non-Executive bills at an earlier stage? I am thinking in particular of instances where there is an element of shared aspiration and objective.
That could be the case, yes. The Parliament is only seven years old; we will still be learning lessons when it is 70 years old. It would be foolish of me to say that there will never be a case for saying that there are no ways in which we could, on reflection, approach certain subjects differently.
The joint statement says:
To be honest, I was concerned about that and I continue to be concerned, although my concern is more for the institution of the Parliament than anything else. One of the worst criticisms that has been levelled against us is that we do not take our legislative responsibilities seriously. Some people have alleged—I do not necessarily agree with them—that we have concentrated on legislation that is not exactly of the moment, if I can put it that way. On this occasion, the accompanying joint statement qualifies and explains clearly to people exactly what we are doing. It is always extremely important that we treat with great caution our ability to legislate. We must always avoid the possibility of giving people the impression that we are being, in some way, flippant about it.
On the Experian report, I remind Mr Fraser that we specifically asked the consultants not to come up with conclusions, but simply to do research.
The economic benefits are hard to define, as the Experian report demonstrated. People might have different opinions on the economic benefits, but it is hard for anyone to say conclusively that they have empirical evidence that there would be a benefit one way or another.
Do you see merit in the argument that the holiday will extend what is traditionally a fairly low season for tourism and festival-type activities into something that extends from the beginning of December to the end of January?
The proposal certainly raises that possibility. However, it is clear that imaginations have to be applied to the way in which we develop the celebration. The fact that the celebration might not be focused on one day and might, in time, spread out on either side of that day could contribute in that regard.
The Experian report refers to the unit that has been set up by the Irish Government to revive interest in the St Patrick's day celebration, particularly in Ireland. It also refers to work that has been done in other countries that have recently created holidays based around national days. Have you yet given consideration to that? If not, are you prepared to do so?
We have not considered a specific unit.
Late in the day, Jamie Stone has asked to be allowed to ask a short question. I propose to indulge him.
You are good to me, deputy convener, it cannot be denied.
I believe that those links provide opportunities. As I said, we believe that we should be upscaling our activities at home and abroad and the examples that you have given are useful in that regard. Many countries have St Andrew's night celebrations. An invitation has been received to attend one outside our borders, and there may be other invitations. We have to pay attention to those things and underline to people that the way in which St Andrew's day is celebrated in other countries is important to us.
I thank committee members, Dennis Canavan, the minister and his officials.
That was a very helpful session. We should follow up the minister's response to my first question. At the previous stage 1, the Executive was rather critical and said that the bill would not achieve its objective. It implied that that was what the committee agreed, but in fact the committee was more specific in saying that the bill "of itself" would not achieve the objective of a nationwide celebration of St Andrew's day. The phrase "of itself" is significant.
Thank you. Does any other member have any thoughts on our approach to the stage 1 report? Our previous report was relatively short, and the bill is a relatively short one. Given the positions that appear to have been adopted, I wonder whether members want to prepare a much lengthier report this time or whether we are content for the next report to be similarly short, with other matters left for debate in the chamber.
We need to address some of what Dennis Canavan has said on the wider issues. We prepared a very brief report last time, accepting that what the bill seeks to achieve is fairly limited. Our new report should probably expand on the broader issues, as there is quite a lot in the Experian report about the celebration of national days in other countries. It is not for the committee to dictate how St Andrew's day might be celebrated, but it would be helpful if our report at least explored some of the issues.
We can probably judge from members' comments whether it is appropriate to include that and whether we will get consensus on that.
I am content with the general direction of travel and the likely end result. On numerous previous occasions in the committee, I have said that I am personally supportive of the idea of moving towards a national celebration of St Andrew's day. It would be honest of us to say that the bill would not deliver an additional holiday. It is important to clarify that.
I propose to go round the table and ask all members whether they have comments to make.
I align my view with much of what Susan Deacon has said. I am slightly disappointed that the Executive's decision was not conveyed to the committee in the first instance, but so be it. The point that Susan Deacon makes about not setting a precedent for the kind of legislation that we pass is important. We should legislate for a purpose rather than for symbolic reasons.
The Executive has finally been converted to the idea of having a St Andrew's day holiday, but I am not persuaded that it has thought out exactly how it intends to build on that to the extent that is possible, given what the Experian report says has been achieved in countries such as the Republic of Ireland. If the Executive views the bill as symbolic, it is important that, in our report, we major on the need to ensure that the Executive builds in the right package of measures to support the bill to ensure that the celebration happens in an effective way.
I must invite you to Fife sometime, to let you see how patterns of bank holidays and local holidays mean different things in different places. In some parts of Fife, people do not take bank holidays but take their holidays at different times. I suspect that something similar happens in the rest of country, with people following local traditions. Whether the new holiday is a bank holiday is likely to be irrelevant to many people. However, I take Michael Matheson's point.
The research showed that in places such as France employers and employees reach agreements—I presume on a local basis—on which days should substitute for national holidays. I presume that here, too, things will be agreed locally and not imposed from the centre. I am therefore not sure how much more clarity we need from the Executive on this point at this stage.
I think that we are missing a unique opportunity to celebrate Scotland fully by making the day a national holiday but, like Dennis Canavan, I accept that we have to go for second best. I do not know whether that view can go in our report, because other members might not agree with it.
The minister reflected that view in his response to my question. As you say, the Experian report picked up on it too.
I am not sure that I agree with the notion that we are accepting a conversion or something that is second best, or that we are missing an opportunity. Dennis Canavan thought up the idea and, because of the nature of this Parliament, was able to take the bill as far as he did. There has been constructive discussion. When Parliament decided to refer the bill to the committee for further work, it was an example of something that we do well. To see the First Minister stand together with Dennis and say what he said yesterday was good. I wonder whether that kind of thing could happen in Westminster. I do not know, but I think possibly not.
Thank you—there have been useful comments from round the table. Will the Experian report be appended to our report for Parliament to consider? Will we be able to extract key points to support what members have said?
Yes, that will be the case.
I hope that, when the issue is debated, we will reach a sensible compromise between the need not to impose another burden on the economy and the need to recognise that Scotland will have social and economic opportunities. I would like that to be reflected in our report—on the assumption that other members agree with me. We will find out next week whether that is so.
Members indicated agreement.