Christmas Day and New Year's Day Trading (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1
The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-5169, in the name of Karen Whitefield, on the general principles of the Christmas Day and New Year's Day Trading (Scotland) Bill.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Many of us have concerns about the inclusion in the bill of new year's day and the impact that that might have. We would welcome the opportunity to lodge amendments to allow debate and separate votes on Christmas day and new year's day. I have sought and been given assurances that such amendments will be admissible. Are you able to clarify the position, for the benefit of all members?
Under standing orders, decisions on the admissibility of amendments are the responsibility of the convener of the appropriate committee, once the bill has been approved at stage 1 and has moved to stage 2. I am not able to comment on the hypothetical circumstances of what Parliament may agree this afternoon. I can go a little further and say that considerations to be taken into account by the convener of the stage 2 committee include the advice that is given by clerks and, to a degree, the mood of the chamber during the stage 1 debate. However, I cannot say what the committee convener could or should not accept as admissible at some point down the road.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I thank you for taking my point of order without notice. Further to the point that was made by the Liberal Democrat whip, I understand that during today's debate ministers will seek to clarify the advice that the Scottish Executive has received and the guidelines that it will follow in this matter. I very much look forward to that.
I am not sure that a point has been put to me on which I am required to rule. With due respect to the Executive and its role in proceedings, the interpretation of standing orders is a matter not for the Executive but for the chair.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I am puzzled and seek further clarification of the position. Quite properly, you say that it is not for the Executive or for you to decide whether an amendment is admissible. Are you saying that that is clearly in the province of the convener of the lead committee at stage 2?
I had believed that those matters were widely understood, but for the avoidance of doubt, the decision on admissibility at stage 2 is entirely the responsibility of the committee convener. The Presiding Officer will be responsible for the admissibility of amendments at stage 3. All of that is predicated on the assumption that the bill proceeds and that there are amendments.
I trust that the Presiding Officer's "Dear Santa" letter is in the post. Mine is already winging its way. I like to think that I have been pretty good this year, but I wonder whether everyone here can say the same.
We all grumble that the festive season starts earlier each year, but some of us are worried that Christmas may not come at all. The Christmas Day and New Year's Day Trading (Scotland) Bill seeks to address that concern and I ask Parliament today to approve its general principles. I believe that, if passed, my modest bill can help to make Christmas and new year a happier and less anxious time for the majority of shop workers in Scotland and their loved ones.
I fear that we risk overlooking the truly important things at Christmas: children; family; celebration; rest and recreation; and goodwill and friendship.
Mary Ellen Chase said:
"Christmas is not a date. It is a state of mind."
I am pleased that the majority of the Justice 2 Committee found themselves in that state of mind. I hope that others will be similarly minded come 5 o'clock. People outside the chamber are also in that state of mind and are pressing us to support the bill. More than 6,000 shop workers have bombarded colleagues in all parties with postcards calling for support. More than 1,400 people supported the bill during my consultation, while the BBC switchboard this morning was inundated by people supporting the bill.
The bill will prevent large shops from opening on Christmas day and new year's day for the purpose of retail trading. The intention is to maintain the special nature of that time of year for shop workers and their families. In brief, the bill will make it a criminal offence for a large shop to open for the purposes of making retail sales on either of those days. It defines a large shop as one with a trading floor area exceeding 280m2; exempts specified trades or businesses and shops at specified places; defines who commits the offence; and provides a defence of due diligence. This Parliament has been declared the competent authority to legislate on the issue.
I welcome the Justice 2 Committee's stage 1 report and its majority support for the general principles of the bill. I note the minority view and would like to focus on some of the objections.
The Justice 2 Committee report stated that there is a lack of robust evidence to indicate the impact of the bill on tourism. I agree that there is a lack of evidence on how the bill will damage the important effort to increase tourism revenues. However, there is a lot of evidence to suggest that the bill will support tourism. Hogmanay is hugely successful and was voted the fourth best festival in the world; hotel occupancy rates in Edinburgh at hogmanay have risen from 50 per cent to a staggering 93 per cent; and 90 per cent of hogmanay visitors come from other parts of the United Kingdom, where the shops are open on new year's day—they choose Scotland, where they know the shops are closed. Are we in danger of killing the goose that lays the golden egg? If we allow shops to open on new year's day, it will fundamentally change its special nature.
Does the member not see the inconsistency in her argument? If the tourism sector has grown over hogmanay, does it not mean more people have to work in hotels, restaurants, cinemas and places of entertainment during that period?
The bill covers retail trading in Scotland. Tourism has continued to grow despite shops not opening on new year's day in Scotland. It is not a disincentive to people coming to Scotland. The argument that it is a disincentive is a bogus one.
The bill exempts small stores; 280m2 is a long-established standard in the retail industry and is recognised by employers and trade unions. Even the Scottish Retail Consortium acknowledged that without the exemption, there would be widespread breaking of the law. However, it said that the bill as currently drafted would be respected by retailers should it become law. I ask any member who questions the small-shop exemption to say whether they would prefer that provision not to be in the bill.
I want to dispel the myth that retailers bring staff into work when the front doors are shut and the shops are not open for business. That may have been true 20 years ago, when shops were open 9 to 5, with a half day on a Saturday and no Sunday trading, but in today's retail environment of 24-hour opening, shop preparation is done while the customers are in store. Members do not have to take my word for it: Debenhams told the Justice 2 Committee that on the only day on which it is not currently open—Christmas day—staff do not work in store. My bill will not prevent staff from working in a closed store, but retail employers do so.
Voltaire told us that "The best is the enemy of the good."
We should be mindful of that.
The bill will protect the majority of shop workers and a large number of non-retail workers. If shops open on Christmas day and new year's day, other workers who currently get those days off will be forced into work. My bill will not protect everyone—no legislation is perfect—but it will meet the policy objectives that I set out to achieve.
The bill is about preserving a special time that is a highlight of the calendar. It is a time that should be special to all those who wish it to be so and one that is both unique and universal. Without being too sentimental, it is a time that could even be said to be a little magic. If I was asked to decant that magic into a single sentence, I would borrow from Charles Dickens, who wrote:
"I have always thought of Christmas time, when it has come round … as a good time; a kind, forgiving, charitable time; the only time I know of, in the long calendar of the year, when men and women seem by one consent to open their shut-up hearts freely … as if they really were fellow passengers … and not another race of creatures bound on other journeys."
I urge all members and fellow passengers to support my bill and to show that we can make a positive difference to the lives of many shop workers and their families and to wider Scottish society.
I have great pleasure in moving,
That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Christmas Day and New Year's Day Trading (Scotland) Bill.
I congratulate Karen Whitefield on the work that she has put into examining how we can best protect vulnerable retail staff from having to work on Christmas day and new year's day. The bill seeks to prevent large shops from opening for retail sales on those days. In doing so, it aims to protect retail staff from being required or pressurised to work; to enhance work-life balance for hard-working people; and to protect the special nature of those holidays in the Scottish calendar.
The ban would cover shops with a floor area that is used for retail sales or display of more than 280m2, which is slightly larger than a tennis court. There would be exemptions for cafes, restaurants, pubs and takeaways, registered pharmacies—for the purpose of dispensing prescriptions—shops within transport hubs and shops that sell mainly vehicle fuels. The exemptions would take account of matters such as the need to travel and the demand for hospitality services on the two days. Small grocers would not be covered and could still be open for essential supplies. Breach of the ban would be a criminal offence. Enforcement would be for the police and the courts, with a maximum fine of £50,000.
I see good reasons to support the proposals, which are carefully constructed. Many retail staff already work long hours at that time of year and many already have to work at weekends, when children and other family members are at home. The two traditional holidays are precious times that are set aside for spending with families and friends, rather than the boss. Scotland has liberal trading hours and we are convinced that there is no need to have department stores and supermarkets open on these two days, as well as on all the others.
In considering the bill, the Scottish Executive acknowledges the increased cross-party support for action in relation to Christmas day. We also acknowledge the unresolved debate about new year's day and that members from all parties wish to explore that matter further.
The minister talked about department stores but, nowadays, many stores are in shopping malls and centres, such as the Gyle centre, Fort Kinnaird and Ocean Terminal in Edinburgh, in which anchor stores, which are large department stores, are surrounded by many retail outlets that are below the size limit in the bill. It would therefore be quite possible for shopping malls and centres to be mainly open, with only one or two of the larger stores closed. What does the minister say to that proposition?
As I said, there is an unresolved debate about new year's day, and such issues can be explored further if the bill gets to stage 2.
We want that process of exploration to take place and to be engaged in it with the objective of securing the best possible legislation for Scotland by balancing the various legitimate interests. We recognise that, at this stage, engagement in that process would be incompatible with a declaration of our position on the issues that are to be explored, so the Executive expects that amendments to be lodged at stage 2 that would give the Parliament an opportunity to express its views on Christmas day and new year's day separately. We also recognise that such amendments might come from back benchers, the Executive or both.
The point that Brian Monteith raised could be covered by a simple amendment that would provide that smaller shops that operate under the brand name of, or are owned by, large stores would also be caught by any decision that we take on which shops should be open or closed.
I thank Margo MacDonald for that helpful intervention. I was trying to say to Mr Monteith that his question would not be sufficient reason to kill the bill at this stage.
We intend to form an ad hoc ministerial group, involving ministers from all portfolios that have a direct interest; we also intend that the group should engage with the member in charge of the bill and representatives of various political parties prior to stage 2. On that basis, ministers are prepared to vote for the bill at stage 1.
I understand the concerns that have been expressed about the so-called domino effect. I am not aware of any large shops that open on Christmas day at the moment. Some, but not many, open on new year's day. However, to legislate now would let employers and employees know where they stand. Without the bill, employers may feel under pressure to open in future to compete with others who do not observe the holidays. The next step may be that employees feel pressured to work. They may not all be contractually obliged to do so, but it is not always easy to stand up for one's rights in such circumstances.
A voluntary code has been suggested as a possible way forward, but I acknowledge that it is an uncertain solution, as it might not attract widespread support or stand the test of time. The consultation on the bill suggests that most people with an opinion would prefer legislation now.
It is clear that people have strong views on the debate. There are particular issues with Christmas day and new year's day. It is a temptation to make everything entirely black and white, and there is a desire to do so. Those broader issues could be explored at stage 2, but I have no doubt that they will also be explored in this debate.
The committee acknowledged that there were some weaknesses in both sides' evidence on the impact on enterprise and tourism and it is important that those matters are explored further. I have outlined the Executive's position on taking the bill beyond stage 1 and I hope that members will reflect on those points when we come to the vote.
The Scottish National Party intends to support the bill, which seeks to balance family values, our cultural values and modern terms and conditions. In particular, we are persuaded that the bill offers an opportunity to start to ensure a sensible balance between spending more time at work hard on the heels of a hectic and stressful period and having the time to celebrate and relax with family and friends.
In addition, the bill offers an opportunity to halt an escalation in the erosion of the Christmas and new year holidays, with more businesses succumbing to the commercial pressure to open, which would increase the number of direct and indirect support staff who would eventually be required to work on Christmas day and new year's day. The SNP is keen to do anything that contributes to the much-needed constant improvement of living standards to which it is committed.
I hear what the member says about the SNP position. Has he consulted Sandra White?
Yes, I have consulted Sandra White.
Will Jim Mather give way?
I ask Bill Butler to let me build another point before I take another intervention.
As with any move to improve the quality of life in Scotland, we are mindful of the current limitations of the Parliament's powers to improve living standards and the work-life balance in Scotland. The fact is that, if we want to deliver a decent and improving quality of life for the people of Scotland—and we do, because we know that it has fallen far behind that in the rest of the United Kingdom and the rest of Europe—we need the power to make Scotland more competitive. That is the only way in which we can deliver genuine economic and population growth, rising living standards, increased life expectancy and a better work-life balance. The bill is therefore a start that will need to be underpinned over time by more powers, including reclaiming for Scotland immigration policy and employment law and giving Scotland the ability to broker a real and authoritative agreement—
I am glad to see that the SNP seems to have performed a U-turn. Is it disowning the position expounded by its previous representative on the Justice 2 Committee, Mr Stewart Maxwell—yes or no?
This party does not dictate how members vote in committee, and it has reflected on the majority view in the committee.
We want to broker an open and authoritative agreement that goes beyond the bill, defending the right to work, the right to time off work and the right to trade, and ensuring that management, shareholders, staff and taxpayers all benefit from future economic growth. That would be much easier to achieve if we were talking about Scottish businesses that were registered in Scotland, that paid their taxes in Scotland and that were interested in the overall well-being of Scotland.
That proposition has had an enormous boost in the past week with the Economic Research Institute of Northern Ireland producing a report on corporation tax. The report is a bombshell. It tells us that the current policy powers that we have here and that Northern Ireland has are unfit for purpose. It tells us of the criticality of our having more economic powers and makes the point—
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Will you rule on the relevance of Mr Mather's speech to the subject under debate?
I call Mr Mather.
I am talking about impact and the fact that, in a jurisdiction that is identical to Scotland, the analysis is the same as ours and puts wind in the sails of the people whom we are talking about—those at the bottom. The report tells us that the burden falls heavily on those who suffer lower wages. That is true in Northern Ireland and Scotland, and the only way to move forward is to give Scotland a proper basis, which means a full range of economic powers.
Let me try to address the bill before us.
The bill is designed to prohibit large shops from opening their doors to the public on Christmas day and new year's day. The issues around the two days are separate, and it is unfortunate that we are being presented with one bill that deals with both days together as if the issues were identical.
I will deal first with the question of Christmas day. I am sure that no member, and few people across Scotland, would want Christmas day to become another normal shopping day. We have got used to shops being shut on Christmas day and to it being a day for families and for most people to have a holiday and, if they wish, to engage in Christian worship. That is worth preserving.
It is worth mentioning that the celebration of Christmas as a holiday is a relatively recent development in Scotland. For some of my parents' generation and certainly for my grandparents' generation, Christmas day was a normal working day. It is only in the past 50 years that Christmas day has become established as the holiday that we now recognise. Indeed, the celebration of Christmas as we know it, with Christmas trees, holly branches, decorations and all the rest, is largely an importation to Scottish culture from south of the border and has happened over the past 50 years. It is as good an example of the anglicisation of Scottish culture as one can find.
Nobody passed a law to say that shops and other businesses should not open on Christmas day. Society changed, and as a result there was pressure on commerce to change too. We now have an established position in which Christmas day is a holiday for many people, and many Christians value the status that Christmas has as a religious holiday. That is not something that anyone would want to change.
Karen Whitefield's bill is weak in that regard, as there is precious little evidence of there being any demand from retailers to open on Christmas day. Paragraph 18 of the Justice 2 Committee stage 1 report on the bill quotes the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, which admitted that there was no "hard evidence" to support the idea that larger stores wanted to open on Christmas day at the moment.
In any parliamentary democracy, it should be a basic rule that we pass legislation only when it is necessary to do so as a last resort and when all other non-legislative routes have been exhausted. In this case, it is hard to see where there is the demand for legislation affecting Christmas day. If the member in charge of the bill were able to make that case for protecting Christmas day, we would consider it sympathetically.
The position with new year's day is different. There is a clear demand, particularly from the tourism sector, for certain shops to open on new year's day. We have seen Edinburgh and Glasgow develop their tourism market over the Hogmanay and new year holiday period. As part of that, the city authorities, backed up by bodies such as the chambers of commerce, the Scottish Retail Consortium and the Scottish Tourism Forum, wish retailers to have the opportunity to open on new year's day, at least for part of the time.
I remember a few years ago there being no more depressing place in the land than Princes Street in Edinburgh on the afternoon of new year's day. It was full of bored tourists wandering up and down, looking forlornly in the windows of shops with "closed" signs on their doors. I cannot believe that that is good for our economy or our expanding tourism market. We therefore cannot support the proposal to compel large shops to close on new year's day.
I find it hard to believe that anybody is ever bored in Edinburgh. The tourists could try Morningside, Bruntsfield, Stockbridge or any of the other villages in the city; they do not need to wander up and down Princes Street.
I am sure that Ms MacDonald could offer personal tours of Edinburgh to bored tourists on new year's day. The simple fact is that many tourists gravitate to the city centre and in the past they have found many of the shops closed, which does not present them with a happy experience.
Will the member give way?
Mr Fraser is finishing.
Thank you, Presiding Officer.
We on the Conservative benches are sympathetic to the protection for Christmas day, although we remain to be convinced of the necessity for legislation.
As far as new year's day goes, we are concerned about the adverse impact on the economy if the bill is passed. Accordingly, to be consistent with the view that our member on the Justice 2 Committee took, we cannot support the bill as it stands.
I do not doubt the sincerity of the member in charge of the bill, who has worked extremely hard to get it to this stage. Other than in a few cases, such as workers who carry out essential duties, no one should be forced to work on Christmas day or new year's day.
My mother worked as a retail assistant for 17 years until her retirement last year, and this year—like many when I was growing up—my dad, who is an ambulance driver, is working on Christmas day. Therefore, I appreciate fully the need for worker protection. The issue for me is whether the bill as introduced would do what it is intended to do, which is to protect workers and the special nature of Christmas day and new year's day. The core of the argument relates to the statement in the policy memorandum that
"the intention is to maintain the special nature of Christmas day and New Year's day."
In evidence to the committee on 19 September, the member in charge said that the bill
"would give the majority of shop workers the right to two days' holiday, which would be of positive benefit."—[Official Report, Justice 2 Committee, 19 September 2006; c 2710.]
Would the bill, whether amended or not, maintain the special nature of the days, and would the majority of shop workers benefit from the right to two days' holiday? If we believe that that would not happen, we cannot support the general principles.
There are further questions. Why just shop workers? Why not delivery staff, warehouse staff, security staff or cleaners? The list could go on. What about people who work in hospitality and other sectors? The bill is for one part of one section of our national workforce, which, in my view, is wrong. Would the special nature of the days be protected only if big shops did not open? Of course not. The argument is presented that, in the future, if large shops wish to open, small shops will follow. There is some logic to that, but why not exempt all shops now? Even then, that would still mean that only a minority of the workforce would be covered. We would not support employment law if it made such unfair distinctions. Therefore, in protecting workers, we would be better served by changes to wider-reaching employment law.
There is confusion about the genuine protection that would be offered. Emotive language is used to allow Santa to give an early present to—
Would Jeremy Purvis favour further devolution of powers to the Scottish Parliament so that we can address the point that he made about employment law as well as the other differences that exist north and south of the border?
I support the Westminster Parliament having another look at employment law, which covers the United Kingdom. This is not an opportunity to have pathetic arguments about the constitution. The issue is to do with whether the bill would make a significant change to the status quo. However, as the member in charge of the bill told the Justice 2 Committee, the bill
"will not make a significant change to the status quo".—[Official Report, Justice 2 Committee, 19 September 2006; c 2719.]
The committee's report on the bill shows that it was unable to determine clear evidence to support the assertions of the member in charge. That was disappointing. Paragraph 30 of the report says that:
"there is no reliable data available in relation to the number of employees that will be ‘caught' by the Bill",
and paragraph 32 highlights
"the lack of robust data available relating to the number of employees that would be affected by the legislation."
I have considerable difficulty in supporting the bill. One of its intentions is to protect the majority of shop workers, but it would not have protected my mother when she worked in MacKays, and while it would protect my constituents who work in Matalan in Galashiels or Tesco in Penicuik, it would not protect other shop workers across my constituency. I find it difficult to agree with USDAW's campaign, as it would protect only a minority of workers.
You should be finishing now, Mr Purvis.
Official figures that were given to the committee by the Scottish Executive show that the bill would protect only a third of workers. If we are to protect the rights of the majority of shop workers and seriously protect the days that the bill is concerned with, we should have employment law that covers all workers, not just one section of one part of the workforce.
I will speak on behalf of the committee and—unusually—will not be taking a political stance. Accordingly, I begin by thanking the clerks, the Scottish Parliament information centre and others who supported the committee, the members of the committee who worked on the bill and the witnesses who gave evidence to the committee.
The bill was introduced in March 2006 by Karen Whitefield. The aim of the bill is to prohibit shops with more than 280m2 of floor space from trading on Christmas day and new year's day. Any breach of the prohibition would be liable to attract a maximum penalty of £50,000. The committee anticipates that such a fine would be largely symbolic and that the damage to a firm's reputation would have a greater impact than the fine.
There are a number of exemptions to the bill's provisions: restaurants, pubs, takeaway food outlets, pharmacies dispensing prescriptions and so on.
The figure of 280m2 was chosen as being the largest size of store that can be staffed by one person. The threshold is the same as that previously applied to Sunday trading legislation. The committee received evidence both in favour of this limit and against it. The then Deputy Minister for Justice, Hugh Henry, noted that unless a complete ban was to be imposed on all stores opening, there would inevitably be a degree of inequality. The committee acknowledged the rationale behind the choice of the threshold.
The committee received 27 written submissions from organisations, including unions, individual businesses, organisations representing the business sector, faith groups and tourism-based organisations.
The committee took oral evidence over three sessions and heard from unions, business representatives, tourism groups and faith groups, as well as the then Deputy Minister for Justice and the member in the charge of the bill. The committee especially thanks the individual retail workers and business representatives who were able to demonstrate how the bill would impact on them personally. If people read the report, they will see that those views were divided.
The committee received a number of divergent views. Some organisations, such as Deregulate, the Glasgow Chamber of Commerce and Kingfisher, opposed any legislation that would force shops to close. Others, such as Argos, HMV and Scotmid, supported the bill in its entirety.
The member in charge maintains that Christmas day and new year's day have a special nature and that on those days most people would expect to spend time with families and friends rather than work. Some faith groups argued that additional days such as Sundays and boxing day should be added to the scope of the bill. Other groups suggested that, in singling out those two days, the bill discriminated against those with non-Christian religious beliefs. USDAW, the Scottish churches parliamentary office and the Humanist Society all supported the idea that Christmas day and new year's day have special significance and that human values should take precedence over big business and retail interests on those days.
The committee acknowledged the evidence that Christmas day and new year's day are viewed as significant. Some suggested that different considerations apply to the two days and that they cannot be dealt with uniformly. However, the committee concluded:
"Despite receiving evidence on treating the two days separately the Committee acknowledges that an attempt to remove one of the days could be viewed as a wrecking amendment."
Does Mr Davidson agree that the words
"could be viewed as a wrecking amendment"
are not a definitive view?
Absolutely. That was the view of the committee.
Mr Davidson, you should be finishing now.
Having considered the other evidence, the committee acknowledged that there was more pressure on businesses to trade on new year's day than on Christmas day. The idea of a voluntary code could not be explored further because it was rejected by the Office of Fair Trading. Some of the other evidence has already been mentioned by other members in the debate.
In conclusion, by a majority of four to three, the committee agreed to recommend that the general principles of the bill be agreed to. Turning to the dissenters—
Mr Davidson, you should finish now.
Stewart Maxwell and Jeremy Purvis dissented from the recommendation on the basis that the bill lacks robust supporting evidence and that it fails to meet the objectives of the member in charge, which are to protect the majority of shop workers in Scotland and to retain the special nature of Christmas day and new year's day.
I am sorry, Mr Davidson, but you must finish.
I dissented on a broadly similar basis. Those views are available in the report.
Finally, I ask the minister meet me to discuss the legal position on which her ad hoc ministerial group is based.
A considerable number of members want to speak. I will keep members to a very strict four minutes. When I say to members that they have one minute remaining, that is exactly what they will have.
I draw members' attention to my entry in the register of members' interests.
I am delighted to have an opportunity to support the bill. I congratulate Karen Whitefield on introducing the bill and on pursuing it so determinedly. On behalf of USDAW members—including the latest new member, my fellow MSP, Alasdair Morrison—I say that we appreciate her efforts.
I support the bill for a number of reasons. As a Christian, I recognise Christmas as a special holy day, but I believe that even non-Christians in Scotland recognise Christmas as a special day that should be spent with family and friends. In Scotland, new year's day has also been recognised as special. Traditionally, new year's day has been important. Will we really just drop that tradition and become like everyone else?
Will the member give way on that point?
Let me get started.
One criticism of the bill is that it would affect business, especially tourism. Rubbish. As the Christmas and new year season has been promoted over recent years, the number of people coming to Scotland has increased without the need for shops to open. People come for the special atmosphere, the Princes Street hogmanay party and the natural attractions of the Highlands and Islands. They do not come for the shopping.
Those who argue that the bill would not prevent shop staff from having to work misunderstand the retail trade. A shop will pay staff only if they are simultaneously taking money at the tills. Shelves will be restocked and sales prepared for while the customers are in the shop spending their money, not while the doors are shut.
Will the member give way now?
I will do so briefly.
Mike Rumbles must be quick.
Mary Mulligan pointed out that Christmas is a special day for Christians. If that is her logic, does she recognise that the bill should also apply to a special day for Sikhs, Muslims, Hindus and other members of the multicultural Scotland in which we live?
I said that members of other faiths and of none recognise that Christmas is special. As Mike Rumbles will have heard, if members of other faiths approach USDAW, the union will be more than happy to represent them.
In response to the other criticism that was made by Brian Monteith, I point out the reality that, if big stores do not open, smaller ones will not open either. Why do major shopping centres such as the Gyle centre have an anchor store?
Will the member give way?
Not at the moment.
Why are chains such as the Edinburgh Woollen Mill, which has many stores that are smaller than 3,000 square feet and so would not be affected by the bill, so keen to allow big stores to open? The answer is that they rely on the big stores. Those smaller shops will not open.
Furthermore, it is important not to prevent small corner shops and family businesses from opening if they want to open. There is no question of staff in such businesses being coerced into working.
I recognise that some people will still have to work on Christmas day and new year's day. Doctors, nurses and ambulance drivers—I say that to Jeremy Purvis—will have to work because they provide an essential service. Shops are not an essential service. We do not need to shop.
Members have an opportunity to secure the status quo and make life a little more predictable for hard-working, low-paid workers. I hope that women members will bear it in mind that low-paid workers are predominantly women and recognise that we are not here to discuss only traditional women's issues, but to discuss anything that affects the lives of women, many of whom work in shops.
I am not surprised that the Tories have reverted to type. They are trying to be touchy-feely, but they are hard-nosed businesspeople who do not care about the potential effect of the proposals on family life. However, I am pleased that the Scottish National Party supports the general principles of the bill.
The arguments for having a holiday on Christmas day and a holiday on new year's day are the same. I warn members that a holiday at new year cannot be sacrificed for a holiday at Christmas because retailers will be back in a few years' time for Christmas day, too. I ask members to do the right thing and support the general principles of the bill.
I was glad to hear from Mary Mulligan that Alasdair Morrison has joined USDAW. He must be starting to prepare for his working career after the elections in May next year by ploughing alternative furrows.
The important thing about the Christmas Day and New Year's Day Trading (Scotland) Bill that all members should remember is its limited purpose. The world will not come to an end if it is passed, as some people would encourage us to believe. It will do something within Parliament's limited powers to address issues that my colleague Jim Mather raised; it will address people's work-life balance and ensure that employees have protection that can be offered within the constraints and confines of Parliament's legislative powers and competences.
Members will understand that I would like to do a great deal more than has been proposed to protect employees in our society, but I accept the reality that Parliament's powers do not allow members to tackle employment protection issues in the fashion that my colleague Brian Adam mentioned. I am sure that members will reflect on such points in the debate. We should see the bill as a modest measure that will do something about people's work-life balance, which is perpetually being eroded in our society. I do not criticise anyone for eroding that balance; indeed, I help to erode it by shopping at unearthly times of the day and night in shops that are open for 24 hours. However, we should do something to protect people's work-life balance at special times.
The committee's report, which is thorough, tries to establish the possible economic impact of the bill, but that impact is difficult to quantify. There will still be opportunities for economic activities to take place. It has been suggested that there will be nothing for visitors to Edinburgh to do if big shops on Princes Street cannot open.
There are emporia in Edinburgh.
There are plenty of fantastic small emporia in Edinburgh, as Margo MacDonald says, and in other parts of the country, to which people can travel. People could shop in them. The bill will not result in the shut-down mentality that has been suggested.
For clarification, should only employees who work in large stores have a work-life balance? The member is content for people who work in small stores not to be protected by the proposed legislation. Will the SNP therefore support an amendment at stage 2 that will make the bill's provisions apply to all retail staff in Scotland?
I will not speculate on what will happen at stages 2 and 3. What will happen then is for members, including my colleagues, to reflect on.
I return to my central point. We are talking about a modest bill. Its supporters do not claim that it will ensure that everybody will get the work-life balance that they are entitled to; the bill is simply a step in the direction of promoting a better work-life balance. It may also give some members comfort that the bill is a mechanism whereby we can bite back against the supermarkets, which dominate so many aspects of life. The bill might provide more opportunity for smaller stores to prosper against the all-encompassing supermarkets.
Karen Whitefield has consulted people from different religious denominations in Scotland, and the fact that the religious organisations have no problem with the bill gives me a great deal of comfort.
I thank Karen Whitefield for introducing the bill—an initiative that has afforded us the opportunity to debate an important subject. I also thank the Justice 2 Committee for the hard work that it undertook on behalf of Parliament at stage 1. I hope that Parliament will support the general principles of the bill, in order to allow us to proceed to stage 2. Especially at this time of year, we all get caught up in the raging 24/7 consumerism that now exists in our society. I believe that the bill is significant and is intended to ensure a sensible work-life balance.
The bill has its origins in USDAW's recent campaign against large stores opening on Christmas day and new year's day, and I congratulate USDAW on the success of its campaign. Many retailers have supported the bill's proposals but have said that they will, if their competitors open on those days, have to open to protect their market share. There is a fear that, if legislation is not passed now, it could become common for large stores to open on Christmas day and new year's day, which will result in a domino effect that would have no perceived economic benefit for stores but would incur the possible cost of the loss to shop workers and their families of two national holidays.
Those concerns are shared by the Scottish Trades Union Congress which—countering the argument that has been made by Tory members—says that
"if Christmas and New Year's Day were to develop into normal trading days in Scotland, the knock-on effect would be that subsequently more people will have to work—including cleaners, security staff, police, health and public transport workers, where there will be pressure for a full service."
The intention of the bill is to maintain the special nature of Christmas day and new year's day, which are traditionally the two holidays in the calendar—especially in Scotland—when most of us hope to spend time with our families and friends. I believe that we should act to ensure that those important days are not undermined. That is especially significant for our most vulnerable women and children. I urge members to take that into consideration before casting their votes this evening.
What protection under the law should be provided to people who work in small shops?
That question has been answered. I have only four minutes, and I would like to continue.
As a Labour and Co-operative MSP, I am pleased that the Co-op supports the broad policy proposals of the bill. The board of the Co-operative Group has taken the view that none of its UK shops—regardless of their size—should be open on Christmas day. Other co-operative societies that are trading in Scotland, including Scotmid, have also taken a policy decision not to trade on Christmas day. In addition, the Scottish Co-op does not believe that new year's day should be regarded as just another day, but that new year's day is a special day for the people of Scotland and is more culturally significant here than it is in England and Wales. It is, therefore, supportive of the bill and its detail. I am proud of the policy lead that the Co-op has taken with regard to fair trade and the positive stance that it is taking in supporting the bill.
An argument has been made against the bill on the ground that it would be to the detriment of the tourism industry, but no evidence has been given that that would be the case. The evidence that has been given by USDAW is that that is a myth, and VisitScotland has confirmed that it has no evidence to suggest that tourists regard retail activity as an important part of their hogmanay experience.
I ask members to support the bill to keep these two bank holidays in Scotland. Moreover, they are two dates in the year that are considered by most people as special and as national holidays. By safeguarding the uniqueness of these days, we will send out a strong message that we support a commonsense approach to our country's work-life balance and the right of shop workers and their families to continue to enjoy these national holidays.
The Scottish Socialist Party has supported the bill proudly since its introduction, when we were among its initial signatories.
Sitting on the Justice 2 Committee and listening to all the evidence, it became clear to me that shop workers are currently being coerced into working on new year's day and that they will face considerably more pressure if the trading rules are not regulated. One shop worker after another reported to the committee that it is extremely difficult to get time off to spend with their families during December. Retailers, perhaps understandably, reported that they are motivated by commercial imperatives. They can make high profits at that time of year, so they feel pressured into making their employees work. The bill will be an effective instrument for ensuring that wider considerations than retailers' profitability are taken into account.
The committee received no evidence to suggest that there is likely to be a desire for trading on Christmas day. The issue that is before Parliament is, as we all know, the high street retailers' desire to open on new year's day. The committee was advised that any amendment that would propose that retailers not trade on Christmas day but would allow them to trade on new year's day will be a wrecking amendment. I will use clearer language than that: to be frank, it would be a selling-out of shop workers if the Executive made such a move. Mary Mulligan was right—stores want to open because there is money in it.
As other members have said, if large department stores open, we will need car-park attendants, traffic wardens, bus and train drivers, emergency workers and other public sector workers to cater for the movement of shoppers. Before we know it, the whole country will have changed and the days will have lost their special identity—both will be just another day. As things stand, both days are family days that are special in the Scottish calendar.
Will the member give way?
Very briefly, Ms MacDonald.
I will be brief. Customs have changed already; for example, there is so much online shopping that the big department stores might find that they do not lose much. Of course there is the other type of electronic shopping.
I bow to the expert on online shopping.
It is inevitable that the intersection between culture and commerce has been thrown up by the arguments of the tourism industry, which argued that people who come to Scotland to spend their hard-earned cash want the fullest possible experience, of which shopping is part. It is certainly better that tourists should come here than go elsewhere, but Karen Whitefield rightly nailed the point when she said that there is a danger that we will strangle the goose that lays the golden egg. What will be different about coming to Scotland at new year if it is the same as everywhere else? That will just make the experience more common.
In giving its evidence, the Edinburgh Woollen Mill was anxious to stress that how Scotland appears to tourists is important. I agree with that. With that view in mind, that company should reflect on the view that tourists would take if they knew that the Edinburgh Woollen Mill paid its staff at Mackinnon Mills in Coatbridge just £3.29 per hour, which is £2 per hour below the national minimum wage. That firm is apparently fully conscious of its public image, but it refused to negotiate with its mainly female workforce, who have been out on strike for 10 weeks over a pay rise of 12p an hour. It is hard to believe that a company that has such an attitude does not coerce its staff to work on new year's day.
I will finish by talking about the politics of the matter. The Scottish Socialist Party supports the bill on principle. We voted for it in committee and we will vote for it again tonight. Unlike other members, Karen Whitefield has been gracious enough to admit that the Scottish Socialist Party's support at the Justice 2 Committee was crucial.
You should be finishing, Mr Fox.
Indeed. The bill would have been voted down at committee because the SNP, the Liberals and the Conservatives voted against it. They are prepared to allow workers to be coerced and to abandon the special character of new year's day.
Mr Fox, you should be finished.
There has been a fudge in this debate and it reeks. We will be sticking to the principles behind the bill.
It is a pleasure to be able to take part in this debate and to have the opportunity to support the general principles of the Christmas Day and New Year's Day Trading (Scotland) Bill. I congratulate Karen Whitefield—who, as some of us know, is a self-confessed shopaholic—on this bill and on remaining true to her principles. She was helped by the knowledge that she was doing the right thing.
Some politicians and some interest groups do not support the principles of the bill; as Colin Fox said, there is a minority who would be happy for the bill to be binned now. However, the vast majority of Scots, whether they are shop workers or not, support the bill because they, too, know that it is the right thing to do.
It is right to protect those two special days for family and friends—to protect the special nature of Christmas day, and to protect the significance of new year's day as a holiday in Scotland. I thank everyone who has supported the campaign, which has had an obvious effect on politicians in Parliament. I welcome their support. Karen Whitefield has demonstrated to Parliament and beyond that the bill has the overwhelming support of the Scottish public. Their support is important.
People acknowledge and are grateful for the sacrifices that are made at Christmas and new year by people who work in our emergency and public services and by people who work in the hospitality trade. Those people have a hard time: I can remember teary Christmas mornings when members of my family had to leave for work—not that I am old enough to remember Christmas day trading, in case anyone thinks I am. I remember sisters having to leave the house to go to their work as health care providers. They had to perform essential tasks, but I say to Parliament that it is not essential to have large shops open on Christmas day and new year's day. It is, however, essential that we take action to stop that happening in the future.
People who say that a voluntary code would work are kidding themselves: it would not, and to see an example we have only to look at the way Sunday trading has gone. The voluntary code did not work to protect shop workers. Smaller shops had to open to compete, even though shop workers were told that they would not be forced to work and that they would have a choice about whether to work on Sundays.
Will the member give way?
I would be happy to.
Very briefly.
I am sorry. In that case I do not have time.
Yes—you are in your last minute.
Parliament should remember the women in Aberdeen who were sacked because they refused to work on a Sunday, and members should remember the subsequent need for legislation to offer protection.
Apart from letting shop workers know that they will not be asked to work on the two days out of 365 that will be protected, the bill will also offer a shield to me and my family. It will offer us all a shield in that on two days of the year we will not have to go to the shops as if it was just any other day.
To those in the tourist trade who foresee the end of the world as we know it if the bill is passed, I say that that is rubbish. I ask them to examine their own figures. Tourism in Scotland is on the up, which is great for all of us. Tourism is a major plank in our economy and we all wish to see continued growth. Major shops have not been open on Christmas day and new year's day, but we have seen tourism grow.
We should sell our country for what it is on those two special days—a place where people will always find a welcome. The bill will protect thousands of low-paid workers, most of whom are women, and it will give them certainty that will allow them to plan time to enjoy with their families and friends. I hope that everybody will support the bill.
Green MSPs will support the general principles of the bill.
In arriving at our decision, we debated how much the bill would impinge on the freedom of people of different religious persuasions or of none. Our resolution was reflected most effectively by the Humanist Society of Scotland, which in its supportive evidence to the Justice 2 Committee said that
"there should be two days in the year when other human values are placed ahead of the commercial interests of big business."
The Humanist Society continued on a theme that very much echoed my concerns and those of others in our group. It said:
"We feel that the whole run-up to 25th December has become a consumerist extravaganza and that this is one of the less pleasant aspects of our modern society in which conspicuous consumption has become an end in itself."
There is no doubt that, on Christmas day and new year's day, most people expect to spend time with their families and friends. Those holidays give us the opportunity to offer the hand of friendship to those who live away from home or who have no close family, and to show that we have compassion and that we care about things beyond the commercial pressures in our lives.
During the Enterprise and Culture Committee's consideration of the St Andrew's Day Bank Holiday (Scotland) Bill, it became apparent that the number of bank holidays in the United Kingdom is among the lowest in Europe. That reflects rather badly on us—we have a societal acceptance of a much poorer work-life balance.
Will the member give way?
No. I want to cover all my points, which refer to different matters.
Despite the fact that it clearly defines the real value of all that is worthwhile in our society, the concept of quality of life does not attract the support that it deserves. In fact, in its scrutiny of another major bill—the Bankruptcy and Diligence etc (Scotland) Bill—the Enterprise and Culture Committee heard evidence about the increasing debt burden on individuals. It appears that all is not well in respect of how we rank what is important in life.
I was interested to find that most commercial pressure is being exerted in respect of new year's day opening and that not so much pressure is being applied, as yet, to Christmas day opening. That flies in the face of Scotland's tradition of celebrating new year's day over Christmas and I have no doubt that the pressure is being applied by England-based stores, which have a different emphasis. It is important that we retain our identity and respect our traditions and culture.
Much has been made about how defining large stores by floor area might result in inequity. However, I agree with USDAW's comment that
"If one or two stores open, others will do so, because of the pressure and a snowball effect."—[Official Report, Justice 2 Committee, 5 September 2006; c 2605.]
Ensuring that the larger stores are closed will have a positive effect down the line.
I am also concerned at evidence on the watering down of the once-special nature of Sunday trading from USDAW and Deregulate, which confirmed that major retailers now offer contracts for five out of seven days and that the premium pay rates that most of us assumed applied to Sundays are no longer universal. If Christmas and new year trading were ever to be introduced, the implications would be obvious.
Moreover, we cannot ignore certain strong equal opportunities issues. The majority of retail workers are women who still play a major role in family life and child care. The bill will provide at least some protection for two important days to ensure proper emphasis on family-friendly policies and work-life balance.
The pressure to open on either of the two days must be resisted. In supporting the bill, we will send the clear message that we in Scotland recognise that there are more important things in life beyond opportunistic consumerism.
I rise in support of Karen Whitefield's bill.
The arguments against the bill are short-sighted, particularly those that are motivated by profit. People have only so much money to spend and if they have not spent it all in the January sales—which, of course, start on boxing day—I am sure that they will manage to do so even if the shops stay shut on new year's day. People simply do not want to shop on Christmas day and new year's day. We need only remember the seasonal siege mentality that leads to the average household buying enough food and drink to allow them to survive for a fortnight if they get snowed in by blizzards.
However, if one big store opens, it puts pressure on other stores to open, on workers to work and—yes—on consumers to consume.
Does the member agree that the principle behind the bill is that we should give workers a day off and that it is unacceptable that, even when stores are shut, workers should still be inside stocktaking, preparing shelves and everything else?
Tommy Sheridan is absolutely right: the bill is about giving workers—mainly low-paid women workers—a day off.
To the big stores that want to open, I say, "Give it a rest." As for tourists, does anyone honestly think that people come to Scotland for our January sales? If people want to shop, other places can offer the same stores, better weather and—sometimes—cheaper prices.
People come to Scotland to experience our culture, and especially so at hogmanay. Our celebrations are famous throughout the world. We have given the world a theme song in "Auld Lang Syne", and we have given many a wee dram to go with it. However, shopping is not part of that experience. At new year, our hotels are full of people who want to experience the true Scottish hogmanay. For some, it is the spectacle that is important, and for others it is simply being here in Scotland. As we heard, we have spectacular events such as street parties and torch-lit processions, and there is a spirit of good will. It is not just about a guid-willie waught, although for some folk being fou and unco happy is essential. Hogmanay is about our full tradition.
Throughout Scotland, Christmas and new year are a part of our culture and a time for family and friends to come together. They are not a time to shop. I urge members to make Santa's visit to the gallery worthwhile and to support the bill.
Back in 1947, when I first started work, I was amazed to find that Christmas day was not a public holiday. Strangely enough, new year's day was a public holiday. With hindsight, I realise that employers throughout the country at that time must have acknowledged that there was little chance of getting a sober workforce into their place of employment on new year's day. At that time, we had two weeks' holiday in July but we received only two days' holiday pay. Yes, indeed—those were the good old days. Aye, right.
In the ensuing 60 years, great strides have been made in most spheres of public life. The exceptions are in pensions, which lag decades behind reality, and the retail trade. Supermarkets are intent on misguided projects such as 24-hour opening, and public holidays are simply not on their agenda. To me, those who are so disorganised that they cannot survive without the shops being open on Christmas day and 1 January are simply beyond hope. Why should families be unable to enjoy a couple of days' break during the festive period just because employers are obsessed with dragging the last possible bit of profit out of the public? The main reason is the supermarkets' fear that their competitors will remain open and declare greater profits than they would then manage. They are frightened that, if they do not also remain open, their market share might drop.
Karen Whitefield's bill has struck a chord with the public, but there are all sorts of misguided objections to her bill. My answer to those who oppose this little bit of 21st century enlightenment is this: "if you think that people should work on these public holidays, feel free to set an example by putting your name forward as a carer for a couple of days and giving some respite to those who have to care 24 hours a day, 365 days a year."
It has been argued that many people, such as nurses, doctors, the police and firemen, do not have the benefit of holidays at Christmas and new year. However, such people are employed in essential services that bear no resemblance to the services that supermarkets and other shops offer. In Parliament, we enjoy family-friendly hours, so it is incumbent on us to guarantee that those who elected us enjoy the same privileges when it comes to important holidays. It is on those days that families tend to get together and enjoy one another's company.
Christmas and new year are especially important to people of my generation. Any organisation that puts obstacles in the way of senior citizens being visited by members of their family on Christmas day or new year's day should be ashamed of themselves—although I would ask when shame ever prevented any organisation from trying to increase its profits.
It would be extremely churlish of us not to back the bill, which will be greeted throughout the country as a wee step in the right direction. At last, we will be seen to be making a little improvement in many families' lives.
I love Christmas and new year and I love having time with my family. I am passionate on the subject of work-life balance. I greatly dislike the drift to consumerism in our society. I believe strongly in employee protection and I do not particularly like shopping. However, despite all that, I have concerns about the bill, and I know that others have concerns, both within the Parliament and beyond. Those concerns deserve to be considered fully both today and in any subsequent stages of the bill.
There is the question of how best to achieve effective employee protection. It is important that that is best done at the right time and in the right place. I disassociate myself from Jim Mather's comments in that regard. Many Labour members are proud of what has been achieved on these matters by a United Kingdom Labour Government.
Negotiation in the workplace is vital. It is a pity that, ironically, the bill largely covers workplaces that are organised as opposed to the many in the retail sector that are not and do not have negotiating machinery.
A precedent has been set in the way in which the bill has come about. USDAW has fought a fantastic campaign, for which it deserves congratulation. I muse for a moment that it would be interesting to see which other unions might consider going down similar roads and finding aspects of our devolved powers on which they could make similar arguments. For example, the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, Unison or perhaps even the National Union of Journalists might do so. Remember that members of those unions do not provide essential services only—I certainly do not think that we are yet saying that newspapers are essential services, but who knows?
There are anomalies in the bill, in particular in relation to bigger and smaller workplaces. Those anomalies have been too quickly dismissed in the debate this afternoon. I do not want to repeat what has been said elsewhere and in copious evidence to the committee, but there are issues to do with garages, taxi firms, cinemas, cafes and smaller shops.
Another legitimate point is that as legislators we should be cautious about what we do that limits both consumer choice and employee choice. As the committee heard, for various reasons and in various sectors some people choose to work on public holidays, including Christmas day and new year's day. Often, one of the reasons why they choose to do so is that unions have negotiated enhanced rates. Let us be careful before we make too many blanket statements.
Does Susan Deacon accept that, although employers may say now that it is a matter of people volunteering to work on these days, as with Sunday trading, that will shortly not be the case? Subtle pressures will be put on workers to ensure that they attend.
A view that is widely shared, including by many who have expressed concern about the bill, is that measures should be put in place to avoid any compulsion and obligation. Time would be well spent in considering how best that can be achieved.
My final and perhaps main point is about new year and, in particular, the hogmanay celebrations. The issue that has been raised must be considered much more seriously than it has been and more evidence should be taken on it. Several of Scotland's cities have established a vital niche in the global tourism market through short city breaks centred on hogmanay celebrations. I think that some element of retail experience is a part of those overall packages to some extent—I believe that the evidence supports that point and I have heard many people in our cities argue it.
I have read the evidence, but I have also seen over many years how the Edinburgh hogmanay has grown and changed. Princes Street has gone from being a ghost town on 1 January to being a vibrant place, where visitors can spend the extra day and do a range of different things. I plead sincerely that as and when the bill progresses to the next stage—I suspect that it will do so—those issues are considered carefully. It is not only business organisations that are expressing concerns; I say to my colleagues that leading Labour councillors have also expressed concerns. We should take those concerns on board.
You must close.
The bill has led to the issues being aired, which is important. I hope that we will take a proportionate and pragmatic approach in the weeks and months ahead.
I believe that Karen Whitefield, caught the tone of the bill and the debate when she quoted Voltaire as saying that
"The best is the enemy of the good."
She also quoted Dickens, who said that Christmas is
"a kind, forgiving, charitable time".
She struck a chord around the chamber when she set out what we could get from the bill.
Johann Lamont set out the Executive's position, from which I and others take some comfort. She admitted that further evidence will have to be taken at stage 2 and she referred to the work that will be done by an ad hoc ministerial group. Brian Monteith's intervention on the minister was interesting, as he raised the issue of the big store that has smaller stores round it, but surely that is precisely the sort of issue that would be considered at stage 2.
Jim Mather used the expression, "the erosion of the Christmas and new year holidays", which I liked. I have some sympathy with what he said and admire and pay tribute to his adroitness—no matter what the subject of the debate, the member always manages to turn it round to his favourite subject.
Murdo Fraser began an interesting discussion that almost got into church history, which I might mention in a minute. He made the point that Christmas as our grandparents knew it—in the Highlands, at least—was somewhat different from the Christmas that I know now and which I knew as a child.
Jeremy Purvis, who made his own case, was correct to pay tribute to the sincerity that lies behind the bill. David Davidson summed up the Justice 2 Committee's deliberations nicely. John Swinney rightly drew our attention to the fact that the wider religious community is broadly supportive of the bill, which is an important point. Other members made valuable speeches in what has been a wide-ranging debate.
The debate has been not unlike the stage 1 debate on the St Andrew's Day Bank Holiday (Scotland) Bill, during which we learned as we listened. Listening enables us to progress. I pay tribute to the speeches of Marilyn Livingstone, Colin Fox, Cathie Craigie, Shiona Baird, Cathy Peattie and others. In her speech, Susan Deacon dealt with the important issue of new year.
I put on record that I respect the sincerity of those colleagues whose views are not necessarily the same as mine or those of many members of my party, but the fact is that Christmas—both as I knew it as a child and as I know it now—is a special day. It is a day for the family, and I hope that it will remain so. John Farquhar Munro and I have had conversations with constituents who adhere to that old-fashioned Highland viewpoint, which is important to us.
Does the member accept that, as recently as the 1960s, Christmas day was not a public holiday in Scotland?
That may well be the case, although the situation varied throughout Scotland. The arrangements that prevailed in the Highlands were not necessarily the same as those that prevailed in the central belt. That was then and this is now, and I speak of now.
In the Highlands, it has been traditional for new year to be a holiday. I say this tongue in cheek, but in some cases it was rather longer than just one day, so if one wanted some work done, one might have booked it later in the week.
One minute.
In my family, the children work in their holidays from college—not in big superstores, but doing other jobs. On occasion, we would have liked them to have been with us at Christmas and at new year. There were times when they could not spend those days with us because they had to go to work. They were frightened that if they did not, they might not be offered the job at the next holidays. I promise members that, within the dynamic of a family, that was a genuine fear. I think that the bill seeks to address such situations.
On the basis of what the minister has said and the caveats that she has provided about going into more detail at stage 2, and notwithstanding the fact that we have yet to address the issue of new year, I and others in my party will take pleasure in supporting the bill.
I begin by praising my colleague David Davidson, who is the convener of the Justice 2 Committee, and, to be fair, Jeremy Purvis for adopting a consistent approach throughout the bill's consideration. That is in contrast to the position of the SNP, which has flip-flopped on the issue. The arguments of Stewart Maxwell—who I note has learned from Jim Mather how to keep a diplomatic absence from the chamber—seemed to be ignored by his party. I listened with interest to the SNP speakers in the debate and not a word of explanation was given as to why their view differed from that of Mr Maxwell, who is a member of the committee that considered the bill.
In addition to the arguments that I used earlier, there are two further reasons why I believe that the bill is flawed. First, although Karen Whitefield's intention is that the bill should protect workers' rights, it would do nothing of the sort. Tommy Sheridan made a point about that with which I agree. All that the bill would do is prevent shops above a certain size from opening their doors to the public, but as has been mentioned during the debate, a shop does not have to be open for it to employ staff, for example to replenish the shelves. Over Christmas and new year, when the so-called January sales are about to begin or are in full swing, there is a particular need for people to work to set up the sales. The bill would do nothing to prevent people from having to work even though the shop may not be open. I have sympathy with the argument of Jeremy Purvis, who said that the debate should be about employees' rights and with the idea that we should protect employees' rights on these days and others. However, that is a matter for Westminster.
I put to Murdo Fraser the same question that I put to Jeremy Purvis. Does he favour devolution of employment law to the Parliament, so that we can protect employees' rights in the way in which he suggests?
The answer to the question is no. We are debating important subjects and should not turn every debate in the chamber into a debate on constitutional issues, as the SNP tries to do.
The second serious flaw in the bill is that it creates an inconsistency. It will prevent large shops from opening and attempts to give some protection to workers in the retail sector. However, what is the rationale for protecting those who work in large shops and not those who work in the hospitality industry, for which Christmas day and new year's day are probably the two busiest days of the year? Why should those who work in the retail sector have protection that those who work in other sectors do not have? That inconsistency ran throughout the speeches that we heard from Labour members. When I challenged Karen Whitefield on the issue, she did not have an answer for me. In her speech, Mary Mulligan said that it was great to have an expansion in tourism and to have more people working in hotels, bars, restaurants and places of entertainment, but that it was bad to have them working in large shops. I cannot see the logic of the argument. Surely what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
We have heard a lot of emotive language, especially from Labour members. Once again, depressingly and unsurprisingly, the Labour Party has dismissed out of hand the genuine concerns of the business community. The honourable exception was Susan Deacon, who made some fair points. Cathie Craigie described the concerns of the tourism sector as "rubbish". The true colours of the Labour Party are again on show.
Will the member give way?
I am sorry, but I am in my last minute. We have already heard what Cathie Craigie's views of the business community are.
Conservative members welcome the establishment of the ad hoc ministerial group to examine the issues relating to new year's day. There are serious questions to be considered. We will seek an amendment at stage 2 to exclude new year's day from the ambit of the bill. I am afraid that if there is no such amendment, the bill will be another bad piece of legislation to add to the pile that the Parliament has passed over the past seven and a half years.
I signed Karen Whitefield's bill and am pleased that it has reached this stage today. I am also pleased to support the general principles of the bill. There are undoubtedly concerns about the bill, but those relate to detail. In the parliamentary processes that are yet to come, we have the opportunity to resolve the difficulties one way or the other. If we cannot, those who wish to reject the bill will have the option of doing so.
I am in no way persuaded by the argument that some have deployed that if all workers cannot have the benefit of protection on the special days at new year and Christmas, none should have it. It is particularly galling that the principal advocate of that position is someone who continually tries to achieve what he wants by compromising his position in order to make what he regards as little advances. However, he now says that because we cannot give all workers the benefit of such protection, none should get it.
There are arguments surrounding the definition of big shops and small shops.
Does the member agree that the bill is a small step towards giving workers better rights and that the Parliament could be taking similar measures to protect people who are working on fixed-term contracts in the electronics industry, for instance, and are forced to work shifts that they do not want to work? That would restore the emphasis on the family and on family time, in particular.
As I indicated in my interventions, I would welcome the opportunity to consider such issues. However, I recognise that that is not open to us at present. Karen Whitefield is to be commended for introducing a measure that is within our purview.
I suspect that Brian Adam was alluding to my position earlier. Will he give us a steer on whether the SNP would accept amendments to extend the scope of the bill? My view is not that we should withdraw rights; it is that the bill does not go far enough.
I am delighted that the member's view is that the bill does not go far enough and that he does not have a closed mind on the issue. We will have to see what amendments are lodged, and listen to and participate in the debate. I assure him that the SNP will engage in the process.
There is no doubt that new year and Christmas day are special days. For someone of my age and background, new year has been the more important of the two. I do not accept the view expressed by some that we should respect only the Christmas day part of the bill. By targeting the legislation at bigger shops—which the bill rightly does—what exactly are we preventing people from doing? Are we preventing folk from going to the supermarket to stock up on food? Cathy Peattie dealt rather well with that issue. Are we preventing folk from buying furniture in the sales? I do not think that our tourists are coming here to buy furniture in the sales. That whole argument is fallacious. Some shops specifically relating to tourism might need protection—that can and ought to be teased out as part of the parliamentary process. The SNP, particularly those members who signed the bill in the first instance, welcome the opportunity to support the general principles of the bill and look forward to engaging further in the debate as the bill proceeds.
It is perhaps unusual for the Minister for Justice to be standing up to focus not on offences, penalties or whether people will end up in prison, but on issues concerning the principles of the Christmas Day and New Year's Day Trading (Scotland) Bill. As someone who, every now and again when I am particularly pressed, takes tips from Margo MacDonald on where the best online bargains are to be had, I would not claim to be as experienced as the bill promoter, Karen Whitefield—the self-confessed expert shopaholic.
On a serious note, this has been an opportunity for an important debate. It is good that we have had the time to consider the position of shop workers and indeed those who work behind the scenes in the retail sector—whether it is in the stores or on the distribution side—and to give some thought to those people whom we quite often take for granted. That is why I welcome this opportunity to speak. Karen Whitefield outlined her arguments coherently. Clearly, there are different opinions—I want to say something about that—and I thank the Justice 2 Committee for its work in trying to balance a range of different opinions over a fairly extended period.
Murdo Fraser seemed to suggest that the business community had spoken with one voice and that the Executive—or perhaps more specifically the Labour benches—was entirely opposed to that opinion. I preface my remarks by saying that the Executive does not need to take any lessons on employee rights from the Conservative and Unionist Party, after what it did in 18 years in government. The Executive is working with the Westminster Government to ensure that more people have the opportunity for employment and are able to take up those rights.
To return to the point about the business community, my understanding from the evidence, including that which the committee considered for its report, was that the Federation of Small Businesses, the Scottish Grocers Federation and a range of other organisations were not speaking entirely with one voice on the matter, nor indeed were the interests representing the tourism trade. It was recognised that there are different issues at stake for the larger stores and the smaller stores. Those are among the issues that we need to tease out further during the progress of the bill—[Interruption.] Did I hear someone trying to intervene?
Murdo Fraser.
With due respect to Mr Fraser, I thought that I heard someone behind me. If I did not, I stand corrected.
It is unusual to give way to someone when you do not know who it is, but I think that you intended to give way to Cathie Craigie.
Oh, for goodness' sake.
On the points that Murdo Fraser made, does the minister agree that the business community, particularly the tourism industry, defeated its own argument in providing the tourism figures for the Christmas and new year period, which in fact show that tourism is booming at that time?
Despite Mr Fraser's rather petulant outburst, I am prepared to consider an intervention from him. I acknowledge Cathie Craigie's point. Paragraph 39 of the committee's report states:
"the committee was unable to come to a view regarding the impact that the Bill would have on tourism due to the lack of robust evidence relating to the relative importance of shopping as a tourist activity and the average length of stay for visitors to Scotland at New Year."
Issues arise that need to be debated further and scrutinised properly. The correct way in which to do that is to let the bill proceed to stage 2 to allow that consideration.
I am happy to take an intervention from Mr Fraser.
I am grateful to the minister. Does she believe that it is helpful to the debate to have a Labour member dismissing the concerns of the tourism industry as "rubbish"?
It is important that members are free to express their opinions in the debate. Indeed, the opinions that Mr Fraser and some of his colleagues have at times expressed would not find favour in the Parliament either, but that is exactly why we are here—to debate the issues and to consider how to proceed and get the best possible legislation for Scotland. The Executive has a responsibility to ensure that we make progress with the debate, listen to all the arguments and do more work to engage with the various interest groups, including the tourism sector. We need to listen to the economic arguments and the views of the trade unions and employees who gave evidence to the committee. That is exactly why the Executive believes that we should support the bill's principles but engage in further work during stage 2.
Will the minister give way?
I will give way to Margo MacDonald.
There is not really enough time, so be very quick, Ms MacDonald.
Will the minister also please consider with an open mind the comments that have been made about holistic legislation on workers' rights being the Parliament's responsibility?
I hope that I have said that we will consider the issues with an open mind.
I want to refer to one point that the Justice 2 Committee convener raised earlier. I do not want to pre-empt anything that you might say, Presiding Officer, or necessarily to follow up anything that you said earlier, but the committee convener asked for a meeting with me to discuss the legal advice that I received in relation to an ad hoc group. There is perhaps some confusion on the matter. It is for the Executive to decide to set up an ad hoc group on the issue, and that is not necessarily related to any legal advice that the convener may receive on amendments at stage 2. As I understand it, the admissibility of amendments is entirely for him to decide on.
The debate has been interesting and stimulating and I welcome the opportunity to respond to some of the points that have been made. I welcome Cathie Craigie's support, and I reassure members that the motivation for introducing the bill had nothing to do with giving my credit card a rest, but was very much about protecting shop workers' rights and the special nature of Christmas day and new year's day.
I am particularly pleased that the Scottish National Party has finally got off the fence. Brian Adam, Sandra White and one or two other SNP members have supported the bill from the start. However, it says something about the party that claims to be the Government in waiting that it had to wait to see what the Executive was going to do before it could show any leadership. I welcome the SNP's support, no matter how late it is, and I am sure that Scotland's shop workers will welcome it, too.
Murdo Fraser seemed to ask, "If it ain't broke, why fix it?" but the point of the bill is that it is pre-emptive. We have given careful consideration to the current reality and to future indicators. Members do not just have to take my word for it because, in 2003, the Department of Trade and Industry stated that it believes that it is
"necessary to act now to avoid a gradual process of opening by large stores, for example as a result of perceived competitive pressure"
and that
"legislation is the only way to ensure that large stores will remain closed".
I say to Murdo Fraser that it is nonsense to suggest that Labour members are opposed to the business community and do not listen to it. The reality is that many members of the business community support the bill. Aldi, Argos, HMV, Scotmid, Waterstone's, Ottakar's and Habitat have all indicated their support for the bill, so it is not true to suggest that the retail industry in Scotland is speaking with one voice on it.
I will now turn to the Parliament's own man at C&A. Jeremy Purvis has suggested that, because the bill does not protect everyone, we cannot possibly protect anyone. It is quite ridiculous to suggest that, because the bill will not protect every worker in Scotland, we should give no one access to Christmas day and new year's day holidays. He is clearly wrong.
Jeremy Purvis also failed to recognise USDAW's claim—which was made in the evidence that was given to the committee—that the bill will protect 72 per cent of workers in Scotland. The figure that the Executive uses is a minimum of 31 per cent of workers, but the reality is that, even if we accept that the true figure lies somewhere in the middle, the majority of the 252,000 retail workers in Scotland—a substantial number of workers—will benefit from the measures in the bill.
Does Karen Whitefield agree that, if we took Mr Purvis's argument to its logical conclusion, the Parliament would not have introduced protection for emergency workers because not all workers in Scotland are covered by the Emergency Workers (Scotland) Act 2005?
Absolutely. Sometimes, arguments about red tape and bureaucracy are used in an attempt not to do anything and to negate our responsibility to offer protection wherever we can.
Some critics of the bill have suggested that it is yet another example of red tape for business. I must have missed the meeting at which that was shown, because the bill largely reinforces the status quo and requires no extra bureaucracy save the enforcement provisions that would be implemented if large shops chose to break the law.
We have heard much about tourism, about which Marilyn Livingstone, Cathie Craigie, Murdo Fraser and Cathy Peattie all raised issues. Some people have made unhappy noises about the possible impact on tourism if large shops are not able to open on new year's day. The reality is that, in Scotland, many shops do not open on new year's day—in fact, only Debenhams opens at the moment—but the tourism occupancy rates in Edinburgh have increased from 50 to 93 per cent. Ninety per cent of hogmanay tourists come from other parts of the United Kingdom, where the shops open on new year's day. They come in the knowledge that our shops are not open. Perhaps they want to do something a little bit different. I am reminded of the old Marx Brothers line:
"There ain't no Sanity Clause!"
Let us ensure today that Santa and sanity both prevail.
Shiona Baird raised a number of issues on shop size. I support the argument that 280m2 gets the balance right. That is the right size. It is a well-known figure and one that the retail industry in Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom is used to. It would work well.
Before concluding, I would like to thank all those who have helped me to reach this point. It has been a long process. I begin by thanking John Hannett, Bruce Fraser and all of USDAW's staff, without whom I could never have progressed the bill. They have provided practical and, more important, moral support from the thousands of their members who have written to me and my colleagues to support the bill.
I also thank Rodger Evans and members of the non-Executive bills unit for their tireless support and advice, both during the consultation process and in the preparation of the bill. I thank David Fagan, Marion Kirk and Daniel Orders from my office, who have also assisted.
Last, but by no means least, I would like to thank the 6,000-plus shop workers who have bombarded colleagues in all parties with postcards calling on them to support the bill. The general secretary of USDAW hosted a hogmanay party in the Parliament last week. He apologised for the extra work that the campaign had put on MSPs, but he rightly pointed out that it had showed the strength of feeling on the issue.
We have heard a wide range of contributions during today's debate, and I am pleased that many members support my proposals to help protect the special nature of Christmas day and new year's day. I hope that members will agree that it is not too much to ask that Scottish shop workers should have two days every year that they can spend with their friends and families.
As I am sure that members know by now, the bill is popular with the Scottish public, and I ask all members to support its general principles. Remember: Santa is watching!