Enterprise and Culture Committee, 06 Dec 2005

Meeting date: Tuesday, December 6, 2005

Official Report 276KB pdf

---

St Andrew's Day Bank Holiday (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Item 2 is stage 1 of the St Andrew's Day Bank Holiday (Scotland) Bill. I welcome to the meeting Dennis Canavan, who is joining us for items 2 and 3. I also welcome the Minister for Finance and Public Sector Reform, Tom McCabe. I will let the minister introduce his colleagues and make a few introductory remarks.

Good afternoon.

I welcome the opportunity to come to the meeting to present to members the Scottish Executive's position on the St Andrew's Day Bank Holiday (Scotland) Bill and our views on how we should celebrate our national day. I am accompanied by Judy Torrance, Jane McLeod and Ian Donaldson.

I begin by emphasising that the Executive is committed to celebrating our national day and that we are by no means opposed in principle to Scottish employers recognising that day by giving their employees a holiday. Celebrations on St Andrew's day are growing and the Executive, the committee and the Parliament would all, I am sure, welcome and encourage that.

The First Minister has shown his personal commitment to enhancing the celebration of our national day. This year's activities under the theme of one Scotland, many cultures have demonstrated that progress has been made. Members know that we hosted the one Scotland ceilidh in Edinburgh's old town, for example, which attracted around 4,000 people and was opened by the Minister for Communities. The event drew on Scotland's strong traditions in music, but reflected our increasing cultural diversity. A number of international guests attended the pre-ceilidh reception at the Hub, including people from the international media and fresh talent scholars who are currently studying in Scotland.

The committee will also know that Scottish ministers have been involved in a number of events in Scotland and Brussels. The First Minister attended the Glenfiddich awards ceremony at Prestonfield House and the Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport attended a St Andrew's day event at the University of Glasgow's Crichton campus in Dumfries, at which Scottish songwriters performed. The Minister for Communities attended a race equality champions lunchtime event in the Parliament and, with the Minister for Education and Young People, attended an evening reception in the garden lobby that was hosted by the Scottish Inter Faith Council. I attended the St Andrew's day lecture in Brussels and the Minister for Environment and Rural Development hosted a taste of Scotland evening reception in Brussels the following evening. It is important to stress that the Executive sees such activities as being catalysts for other organisations throughout Scotland to get involved and to organise events to mark St Andrew's day.

Last month, I wrote to all 32 Scottish local authorities to ask for their views on the one Scotland message. I received around 20 replies, which were published on our website on St Andrew's day. I understand that South Lanarkshire Council hosted a successful St Andrew's night in Rutherglen town hall.

The First Minister sent a St Andrew's day message to people in all 272 Foreign and Commonwealth Office posts overseas, which was read out at many St Andrew's day events and was published in some local newspapers. We also wrote to all embassies to offer promotional material for St Andrew's day events that they were hosting. We had 59 requests from across the world for Scotland in a box promotional material to support various St Andrew's day activities—we have examples of that material with us if members want to see what it comprises. Some 41 of those events were organised or supported by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

This year has therefore taken us further and we are committed to building on the events that we have held this year, to bringing forward other ideas and to making resources available where doing so is necessary. I would very much like to work with this committee and others on considering ways in which we can collaborate further to celebrate our national day.

That is a pretty comprehensive account of where we were, how we built up to this year's activities and what happened on St Andrew's day both at home and abroad.

I turn my attention to the St Andrew's Day (Scotland) Bill. During the stage 1 debate, I said in my speech and in the Executive's amendment that there are two important principles that we think should underpin the Parliament's legislative work. First, we should legislate only when it is necessary to do so and, secondly, we should be able to give such legislation practical effect. I believe that concern about meeting those important tests led the Parliament to vote to return the bill to the committee.

The bill's only direct legal effect would be to suspend financial and other dealings on St Andrew's day. In effect, that would allow banks to close, although it would not compel them to do so, and would remove the possibility of penalties for delayed payments caused by such closures.

There is no legal concept of a mandatory public holiday in Scotland. Holidays are a contractual matter between employers and employees.

My concern about not being able to give practical effect to the bill is that if we add a day to the list in the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971, we cannot force the banks to acknowledge that day, and even if they do so, we cannot force anyone else to do so. What worries us is that we would raise public expectation of a new national public holiday, yet neither the legislation nor the Parliament's powers can bring that about.

However, the committee and the Parliament might feel that there is justification in trying to encourage a holiday on St Andrew's day. As the committee concludes its stage 1 report, which it will now consider as a result of deliberations today and perhaps on other days, it might wish to investigate whether anything further needs to be done to encourage a move in that direction.

The committee might also feel that there is a case for an additional holiday and might wish to investigate what the various consequences might be in terms of cost, service disruption or indeed the beneficial effects of such a holiday. Equally, the committee might wish to consider what could be done to encourage employers to consider swapping an existing holiday for one on St Andrew's day, as they are currently at liberty to do without any intervention from the Parliament. The Scottish Executive would be very happy to consider the committee's recommendations that might emerge from any rigorous examination of the variety of options that are available.

Having said all that, I stress strongly that in offering those thoughts we are trying to be helpful and to find a way forward. It is not for the Executive to determine the approach that a committee takes in its scrutiny of a bill; we recognise fully that that is for the committee to do. However, experience—sometimes hard experience—tells us that even the best of intentions can be misinterpreted, which I want to avoid.

If the committee is minded to do further work on the bill, incorporating some of the suggestions that I have made, or adopting some other approach, we would be happy to consider the outcome of its work at that time.

Thank you, minister. That was helpful. Thank you for agreeing to the private meeting that we had, which was helpful in giving the committee a steer on its options.

Thank you for that statement, minister. I found at least parts of it to be helpful.

During the stage 1 debate on 6 October you told Parliament:

"Referring the bill back to the committee will keep it alive".

Your deputy, George Lyon, went even further. He was asked by Mike Rumbles:

"Will the minister guarantee that the Executive will support the committee in bringing the proposal back at stage 1 in the next few months?"

Replying on behalf of the Executive, George Lyon said:

"I certainly give that assurance. We expect the committee to bring the proposal back as quickly as possible".

He went on to say:

"it is only sensible to refer the bill back to the committee to do further work and to seek answers to the questions before the bill heads to stage 2 for amendment."—[Official Report, 6 October 2005; c 19875, 19898 and 19899.]

The Executive gave Parliament the clear impression that the bill would be kept alive and that it would proceed to stage 2. Would it not be in keeping with the will of the Executive and of Parliament for the committee to compile a further report for the Parliament? Would the Executive give serious consideration to that report before deciding how to respond to any recommendations in it, particularly those that refer to the bill?

You raise several points. You are perhaps putting a particular interpretation on Mr Lyon's words. I will explain what I mean by that. When the Parliament passed the motion—it was the Parliament that did so, not the Scottish Executive—the intention was that the bill should come back for another round of scrutiny at stage 1. As normal, when the committee concludes its stage 1 consideration, it will produce a report for the Parliament to consider. I have no way of prejudging what recommendations may be contained in that report and it would be wrong of me to try to do so. It would be entirely wrong of the Executive to try to pre-empt decisions of the Parliament at stage 1. We have no way of knowing whether the bill will find its way to stage 2, as that is dependent on the decision that the Parliament takes on the principles of the bill after its next stage 1 debate.

You said that one of the principles is that we should legislate only when it is necessary to do so. Do you accept that, for the Scottish Parliament to create a bank holiday, it is necessary to legislate by amending schedule 1 to the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971?

No, I do not. As I said a few moments ago, no legal concept of a public holiday exists in Scotland. Although it is possible to legislate to add a day to the list of days in the 1971 act, that in itself would not automatically create a bank holiday.

How can the Scottish Parliament create a bank holiday without legislation?

We are talking at cross purposes. You asked whether it is in the power of the Parliament to amend the 1971 act and add a day to the existing days that are listed as potential bank holidays. The answer to that is yes. However, the answer to the question whether the Parliament has the power to compel banks and other financial institutions not to trade on that day is no. Further, it is not in the power of the Westminster Parliament to compel banks not to trade on those days.

Can you name any other mechanism that is available to the Scottish Parliament to declare anything resembling a nationwide holiday?

No.

Can you name any national or nationwide holiday in Scotland or in the UK that is not a bank holiday?

I can certainly name holidays in Scotland that are not bank holidays.

I asked about a national or nationwide holiday.

A variety of holidays are taken here, which is an important distinction between Scotland and England. South of the border, the recognised bank holidays tend to be adhered to, but in Scotland we have always had a different tradition—we have a range of local holidays that take place on a wide variety of days.

The tradition in Scotland is not all that different. Do you accept that exactly the same mechanism, namely schedule 1 of the 1971 act, was used to create bank holidays in the United Kingdom, including Scotland, on days such as Christmas day, boxing day, new year's day, 2 January, good Friday and, more recently, May day?

I do not accept that statement in its entirety, because May day was formalised as a holiday for banks by the Bank Holiday Act 1871. That was then overtaken south of the border in, I think, 1978 by royal proclamation. The holiday continues to take place south of the border by annual royal proclamation.

Yes, but it is based on the 1971 act. It is based on legislation.

No. I am afraid to say that, south of the border, May day is a holiday by royal proclamation. We exhort Her Majesty to make that proclamation each year.

What about the other public holidays? What about Christmas day, boxing day, new year's day, 2 January, good Friday and so on?

I believe that those holidays are within the generalities of the schedule in question, but I do not have any knowledge of how that came about. They probably go back a fairly long way, but I will take advice on that.

Most of the days that you have mentioned are specified in the schedule to the 1971 act but, for Scotland, boxing day and the late May holiday are appointed by royal proclamation. I should point out that the act contains a provision that allows for extra or substitute days to be appointed by royal proclamation.

The Scottish Parliament does not have the power to make a royal proclamation. However, am I correct to say that under the terms of the Scotland Act 1998, we have powers to add to the list of Scottish bank holidays in schedule 1 to the 1971 act?

We might have powers to add to the list, but we have no power to give practical effect to any additions. As a result, we can add as many days as we like to the list, but we have no power to ensure that, on that day, everyone takes a holiday, the financial institutions cease trading and so on.

But that is the traditional way of encouraging a national holiday in Scotland and the rest of the UK. If the Parliament were to pass the bill, would it not be declaring the desirability of having such a holiday? You yourself have said that the Executive has nothing against encouraging the celebration of a holiday on St Andrew's day. Passing the bill would serve as such a declaration or encouragement.

My point is relevant to the second of what we think are the important principles that should be followed, which is that we should legislate only when necessary. No legislation is required to encourage individuals in the public or private sector to move an existing day's holiday to St Andrew's day. Our Parliament did not legislate to give its staff a holiday to celebrate St Andrew's day. Public authorities and private concerns could consult their employees. If they prefer to take an existing day's holiday on St Andrew's day or at any other time, they are perfectly free to do so without recourse to legislation.

But you are unable to give me an example of anything resembling a nationwide holiday that is not a bank holiday.

I have one final question, convener.

Okay, but I have to move on and give committee members a chance to ask some questions.

I know that you are rather sceptical about the bill, Tom, but I hope that you are still open to persuasion. I remind you of that story in the New Testament in which a simple fisherman called Andrew showed much greater faith than doubting Thomas.

You do not need to answer that, minister.

Even though it was very profound, I will resist the temptation to respond.

I will try to avoid biblical references, if I can.

Even to David?

Sadly, there is no Goliath in there, so David is bound to win.

I thank the minister for his presentation on the celebration of St Andrew's day and I am sure that committee members across the political spectrum welcome many of the initiatives that the Executive is pursuing. However, the committee's remit was not to examine the wider context of the celebration of St Andrew's day but to consider the general principles of Dennis Canavan's bill. Members unanimously felt that we should support the bill's general principles, despite the fact that we had different perspectives on the matter. For example, my support was predicated on its being a substitute for another holiday.

That said, in the debate and in your comments this afternoon, you have made a good case against the bill's general principles, because you have explained why we should legislate only where necessary and where we can give practical effect to the legislation. However, would it not have been more honest for the Executive to have opposed the bill's general principles instead of remitting it to the committee for further consideration? Given that we have already considered the matter once, I am not entirely sure how the committee is supposed to do so again.

That places me in a dilemma. I am not sure that Mr Canavan, the bill's promoter, would have appreciated it if we had shown outright opposition to the bill. We are genuinely trying to be helpful. As I said at the start of my opening remarks, we have no objection to employers asking the people whom they employ whether they would like to move an existing holiday to St Andrew's day. However, there is no need to legislate to bring that about.

You say that you are in favour of substituting St Andrew's day for a holiday at a different time of year. I can see that there is a case for that, but we do not need to pass legislation to make that a reality. We did not need to do that to make it a reality for the staff whom we employ and I do not see why any other employer in Scotland needs legislation to be passed to make it a reality. They would need to consult the people whom they employ and do their best to put their views into effect.

The logic of your position still seems to be that the Parliament should oppose the general principles of the bill. I put it to you that it was embarrassing for the Executive to be seen to oppose the bill and the creation of a St Andrew's day holiday, so, instead of doing the honest thing and simply opposing the bill, you kicked it into the long grass by sending it back to the committee.

I take it that you are not saying that we behaved dishonestly in the chamber—I would object to that kind of language. I do not know whether we need guidance from the convener, but that is not the kind of language that we should be employing in these exchanges. The Executive said at that point—we have said it again today—that we are doing our best to be helpful and that, if the committee wants to undertake a rigorous examination of any actions that it thinks would be necessary to move an existing day's holiday to St Andrew's day, we would welcome that. The committee may wish to examine whether there should be an additional day's holiday on St Andrew's day. It may wish to examine exactly what that would entail in terms of cost, service disruption and the beneficial effects that the holiday might have on Scottish society.

If we are talking about trying to be as straightforward as possible, a straightforward examination of the situation says that employers the length and breadth of Scotland could move an existing holiday to St Andrew's day without the Parliament taking up its time in legislating to bring that into effect. The Executive was a bit surprised that the committee did not recognise that. Perhaps, following the debate that took place in the chamber, the committee may wish to examine other aspects of that option. Perhaps the committee is unconvinced—as you would be entitled to be—that an existing day's holiday could freely move to St Andrew's day without legislation.

I remind committee members that we must treat the minister with a degree of respect and be careful in the language that we use.

I take that reprimand, convener.

Nevertheless, it seems almost insulting, minister, for you to come along to the committee and suggest that members of the committee did not properly understand or consider the issues when we examined the general principles of the bill. I assure you that we examined all the issues carefully before we came to our considered opinion on the general principles.

I have a final question for the purpose of clarity. Is the Scottish Executive, in principle, in favour of a holiday on St Andrew's day?

As I think that I said in my opening remarks, we have no objection in principle to employers consulting the individuals whom they employ on whether to move an existing day's holiday to St Andrew's day. In fact, if the committee felt that it would be helpful, we would positively encourage employers—especially in the public sector—to do that. Ultimately, however, it is a decision to be reached between employers and the people whom they employ. I offer Mr Fraser the assurance that, far from wishing to insult the committee, the Executive is doing its best to be helpful in the consideration of the bill.

Good afternoon, minister. From your meetings with various groups around the country, do you have any feel for whether people wish there to be greater recognition of St Andrew's day?

There is undoubtedly a wish to see a greater recognition of our national day. People are pleased that we are upscaling the way in which we mark that day. That is reflected by the fact that 4,000 people attended the ceilidh that I mentioned earlier. That does not happen by accident, so it is clear that there is a warmth for the idea.

In Brussels, I attended the St Andrew's day lecture and Mr Finnie attended the taste of Scotland event. We received strong feedback from our European representatives, our staff in the Brussels office and representatives of other countries that we had done a good job of promoting Scotland in the way that we marked St Andrew's day this year. Having personally attended the event, I can testify to that. Alexander McCall Smith's lecture on St Andrew's day was certainly well received.

Let me move on to my second question. The minister can correct me if I am wrong, but I get the strong sense from what he has said today that, although the Executive is not convinced of the need to legislate, for the reasons given, it is convinced that more could and should be done to celebrate St Andrew's day.

Yes, that is right.

If, after taking further evidence on the costs and discussing the issues with employer and public sector representatives, the committee determined that there was a case for giving a steer on the issue in legislation and presented evidence to that effect, would the Executive's view remain as it is now? Could you be convinced by those arguments?

As I said earlier, if the committee wished to undertake a rigorous examination of the variety of options that are available to it, we would be obliged to consider that and we would do so at that time. However, it would be wrong for me to try to predetermine that decision.

I approach the issue from a slightly different perspective, as I was not a member of the committee when it considered the bill. When I listened to the stage 1 debate in the Parliament, I was somewhat confused by the fact that some members seemed to want an additional bank holiday, whereas others, such as Murdo Fraser, wanted an existing bank holiday to be transferred.

The Presiding Officer has confirmed that, as no financial implications are attached to the bill, it does not require a financial memorandum. I think that I am right in saying that.

The bill does not require a financial resolution of the Parliament.

Yes. That leads me to the view that any St Andrew's day bank holiday would need to replace an existing bank holiday rather than provide an additional one. We need to consider that further. In my view, it would be difficult to move any bank holiday other than May day but—like Dennis Canavan—I would be inexorably opposed to moving the May day holiday. We would therefore need to find another national holiday in Scotland that could be moved to St Andrew's day, although I accept that it is possible that a local holiday could be moved.

Has the Executive carried out any calculation of the cost of having an extra bank holiday? Given that passing the bill might be seen as a declaration of encouragement to the public sector to have an additional bank holiday, what preliminary work has the Executive done on the costs that might arise to the public sector from having an additional public holiday on St Andrew's day?

I am not fully aware of the depth of the work that was carried out by the Parliament's Finance Committee, but I understand that that committee concluded that the costs for the public sector would be in the region of £40 million. However, I do not know what factors were included in that committee's consideration of the matter. As I understand it, no study has yet put a figure on what the potential costs are for the private sector.

If the committee decided to consider the matter further, could the minister's officials assist us in trying to put a figure on what an additional bank holiday would cost the public sector? Also, is the minister prepared to work with the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning to encourage private sector representatives to work out how much it would cost the private sector to have an additional bank holiday? Will officials also assist in considering whether we could substitute one bank holiday for another?

Yes. We would be more than willing to do that, with the caveat that although we are genuinely trying to assist the committee in its deliberations, there is a very thin line between giving every assistance and being accused of steering the committee.

I would be more than happy to encourage the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning to work with private sector interests to quantify the potential costs. That would be helpful, because if we pass the bill in its present form, the fear is that we will create an expectation among the Scottish public that we have created an additional day's holiday when that is not the practical effect.

My view, for what it is worth, is that if we passed the bill, the Parliament would be obliged to give the public agencies that we fund an additional day's holiday—if the bill is not merely to be a symbolic piece of legislation. It would be useful to have an indication of the financial impact of having an additional day's holiday on St Andrew's day, even if only for the public sector. I welcome the opportunity to get such information.

If the committee is desirous of examining that position, the Scottish Executive will do all that it can to assist its consideration.

Before we start examining the bill again, is it possible to get clarity on the Executive's position? Is the Executive opposed to the idea of an additional bank holiday being created on St Andrew's day?

We think that considerable costs would be attached to creating such a holiday. We have not been able to quantify those costs, and we have not been able to discuss with the variety of interests across Scotland—public and private—their view of creating an additional holiday. We would rather carry out the work that Karen Gillon asked us to do and give you our view once we have done that.

Therefore, at this stage, the Executive is open to the possibility of adding a bank holiday to the existing list.

The Executive is open to the possibility of the committee examining rigorously the potential implications. If the committee were minded to make recommendations on the matter, we would consider them and give our view.

Therefore, the Executive does not have a view at present on creating an additional holiday.

If the committee is minded to carry out its examination, it would be wrong of me to try to pre-empt it.

I understand what you say, but before we can begin that process, it would be helpful to know exactly where the Executive stands on the issue. Do you not support the idea of an additional day?

I cannot give a definitive answer at the moment, as the implications of an additional holiday have not been quantified. Therefore, it would be irresponsible of me to give a commitment on behalf of the Scottish Executive. Although it is unlikely that the committee will say, "We think that it will cost the economy £1 billion," none of us knows, so it is too soon to give a view.

Would any benefits come from having a bank holiday on St Andrew's day?

Certainly, there would be benefits. There could be benefits in employers consulting their employees with a view to moving one of their existing holidays in order that we mark better our national day. However, it is not for me or the Parliament to proclaim that people must do that. There is no requirement to introduce legislation to allow that to happen—the Parliament reached such an agreement with its employees and an existing holiday was moved to mark St Andrew's day better. That facility is open to people in either the public or the private sector. If they decided to operate in the same way as the Parliament and to agree that with their staff, we would have no objections whatever.

If there is a possibility of gaining benefits from having a St Andrew's day holiday—and you conceded that point—what do you believe those benefits would be?

From an additional holiday or a moved existing holiday?

Either/or.

It is not as simple as either/or.

Well, let us go for your preferred option of transferring a holiday.

I am not necessarily saying that that is our preferred option. I am saying that it is an option that employers in any sector of the economy can take up if they choose. It is also an option on which employees in any sector of the economy could make representations to their employers through their trade unions or workforce representatives. If people in Scotland were minded to move one of their existing holidays to St Andrew's day, the nation would be indicating that it was prepared to mark its national day much more comprehensively than it does at the moment.

Michael, you will need to make your next question your last one, because the minister has a time constraint and three other members want in.

I will let the others in.

I hope that we take the decisions seriously and do not rush them. I respect what Karen Gillon says and the attachment of some of my colleagues to May day. I am not presuming what the committee will decide, but does the minister agree that, if the committee agreed to move one of the other holidays early in the year to St Andrew's day, the nation—including the banks—might be encouraged to recognise it if we were to legislate to make 30 November a bank holiday?

No, I do not. It was not necessary to legislate when we did that for the Parliament and it has not been necessary to legislate for employers and employees throughout Scotland to move holidays regularly as they currently do. You will see examples of that in the next few weeks, when people will move holidays to bridge the gap between Christmas and new year. A variety of different local holidays are taken at different times in Scotland. Such practices are and should be generated from the bottom up.

If a demand exists for a St Andrew's day holiday, it will be stimulated by the increased activities that we are generating around St Andrew's day. We have increased the focus on our national day through the range of activities that I mentioned earlier. I have already indicated that we are determined to try our best to add to that range of activities and, as we do that, it will help to stimulate the demand, if one exists. That will manifest itself in individuals in different locations and different sectors of employment throughout Scotland making representations to say that they would rather take a holiday on St Andrew's day than on another day.

I know that you are not tempted to legislate, but if the bill sought not only to make St Andrew's day a bank holiday but to delete one of the other holidays, would you be more inclined to warm to the concept?

I honestly cannot say what the benefit of that would be. Are you suggesting that we would add St Andrew's day and take away another day?

Yes, but I am not suggesting anything as dangerous as removing Christmas day.

That would be a matter for the committee to consider, but it raises the potential of removing some sensitive days. You would get a reaction if you decided to abolish Christmas day—the committee would certainly get a headline. Equally you would get a reaction if you decided to move May day. You would certainly get a reaction from me, because I think that we should keep May day.

We would get a reaction if we decided to abolish the holiday on 1 January as well, I would think.

The discussion today, like much of the discussion about the bill, has centred on places of work and what employers might do to facilitate a holiday, but I will ask the minister about school holidays, about which I have asked other witnesses, including Dennis Canavan. What mechanisms exist to create school holidays in Scotland? How might it be possible to encourage more local authorities to move towards a St Andrew's day holiday? How might the bill contribute to that process, if at all? Do you care to comment on how important or otherwise you think that school holidays are in the debate, given that one of the bill's secondary objectives is to create a more family-friendly environment in Scotland?

In its totality, the bill will not make any difference. As you know, there is a legislative requirement for 190 school days. If schools are currently in on St Andrew's day, and they cease to be, that day will have to be replaced, because they need to make an overall 190-day envelope.

You are well aware that the arrangements for school holidays in Scotland are extremely diverse. Sometimes it seems as if there is not a day in the year that some school or other in Scotland is not off for one reason or another.

The Minister for Education and Young People is better able to speak on those matters than I am. However, thinking back to my previous experience as a council leader at the time of reorganisation, I naively thought that it would be simple to harmonise school holidays across Scotland or even, dare I say it, within Lanarkshire. I failed spectacularly in that and there is still a great diversity of holiday times even in a geographical area as small as Lanarkshire. The motivations for when holidays are taken seem to vary greatly throughout Scotland.

Last Easter, because of the exam cycle, we even had a situation in which schools in some areas only took a weekend and then took their holidays after Easter. That was a strange situation, but it underlines the diversity in when school holidays are taken.

The 190-day envelope is an important point. If a school takes a day off that it does not currently take, it would have to work out a way of fitting that day back in.

If that was an issue that the committee was minded to explore further, would it be possible for your officials to provide further details to us on the existing situation and how that might be influenced—or not, as the case might be?

As I am sure you appreciate, the situation is varied across Scotland, but we will do our best to get whatever information you request from us.

Does the Executive's St Andrew's day holiday replace an existing holiday, or is it an extra one?

The Executive does not have a St Andrew's day holiday; the Parliament does.

I beg your pardon; I meant the Parliament.

Yes. As I understand it, an existing holiday was moved to accommodate the St Andrew's day holiday.

Can you tell me which one it was?

No. I was not involved in that.

It might have been the September holiday.

How much consultation of staff was done about that?

Again, that is a matter for the parliamentary authorities, not the Scottish Executive.

I was just interested to know about the process by which the decision was arrived at.

I am sure that it would have been done through consultation. I would be very surprised if, in this place of all places, it was done by diktat. I am sure that there was extensive consultation.

I do not know about that.

The decision was the responsibility of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, not the Scottish Executive, so it is unfair to ask the minister about that.

I am sorry; my mistake.

Minister, you mentioned royal proclamations. For the sake of argument, let us say that the committee, having undertaken additional work, reaches the conclusion that there should be an additional holiday, recognising that adding St Andrew's day to the schedule of bank holidays does not make it a public holiday per se. If there was a royal proclamation, that would make it a public holiday. I see that your officials are nodding their heads.

Who makes recommendations to Her Majesty the Queen on royal proclamations? Is making such a recommendation a reserved matter or is it within the power of the Executive? What status does it have in terms of enforceability?

None, is the short answer. Each year, south of the border, the Queen is requested to make a royal proclamation with regard to May day. It is legal, but—and I do not mean this to be disrespectful to Her Majesty—it is not enforceable.

Who advises the Queen on royal proclamations?

As I understand it, it is the Government of the day.

Does the Executive have the power to recommend royal proclamations?

Yes. The Executive writes to the Privy Council about royal proclamations for bank holidays in Scotland about a year in advance to advise the Queen of the dates that it recommends, for the second bank holiday in May in particular.

But it is still not a statutory public holiday.

That is correct. It is a bank holiday but not a public holiday.

So that has the same net effect as adding the day to the schedule; it is not another route. It achieves the same end.

Yes.

It was useful to clarify that—I had never heard of the power of royal proclamations before.

Under our next agenda item, we will discuss how to move forward. I emphasise that the discussion is not an opportunity to go back over old ground about the debate that we had in Parliament. We want to draw a line under that and to decide how to make progress.

I thank the minister and his officials for giving evidence today.

I thank the convener and members—I appreciate the way in which the conversation was conducted.

We will now discuss the St Andrew's Day Bank Holiday (Scotland) Bill. Paper EC/S2/05/26/3, in my name, with some ideas and options, has been circulated. The options are not exhaustive by any means and members might suggest other ways to proceed.

A fairly basic decision needs to be taken about the extent to which we want to take the matter forward. As a result of the resolution passed by Parliament, we are obliged to report back to Parliament the next time we consider the bill at stage 1. At one extreme, we could decide simply to send back the existing report; at the other extreme, we could undertake a three-year inquiry into St Andrew's day. I am sure that the answer lies somewhere in between.

I was critical of what happened to the bill during the parliamentary debate, but we have to move on. I think that the committee should reconsider the issue in some detail. We should consider what happens in other countries, costings and benefits to see whether we can get a better handle on what the net costs and benefits of a St Andrew's day holiday would be, on whether it should be a recommended holiday and on what other activities need to be undertaken to celebrate St Andrew's day.

Such an approach would be in the spirit of what the Parliament decided, but we should put a deadline on that work, not least because we have a lot of other work to do. My gut feeling is that we should impose a deadline of about three months. We should do what the Parliament asked us to do timeously. We will include additional, thorough work on costings, in particular, make comparisons with what happens in other countries and gather any additional information that would be useful.

We have a commitment from the Executive to provide us with some support and information if that is required. I ask Dennis Canavan, whose bill it is, whether he is thinking along the same lines.

Your suggestion is a good one. It is not for me to dictate the timetable of the committee—I am not a committee member and members know what other items are in their work programme.

I would not like a further investigation to go on indefinitely. The convener's proposal to impose a deadline of three months is reasonable and would give the committee time to gather further written and oral evidence.

Paragraph 12 of the paper states:

"Members are also invited to consider the extent to which the Committee wishes to develop an additional set of non-legislative alternatives to the bill".

I am all in favour of non-legislative measures to back up the bill, but I do not see those as alternatives to the bill. There is a legislative route and a non-legislative route; I do not see it as being an either/or situation. I believe that one set of measures would complement the other.

I accept that point.

I welcome the convener's statement of his personal view, which to a large extent coincides with mine. I also respect Dennis Canavan's position in defence of his bill. He has done much to generate the debate that we are having today, which it was legitimate to do.

On option A in the convener's paper, we should take account of the various points that members raised in their questions. For example, Karen Gillon asked about the Deputy First Minister and Minister for Enterprise perhaps encouraging employer organisations to talk to their employees and looking for employers to encourage greater recognition. It is essential that when we consider such suggestions, costings are done of both the benefits and the costs to the economy. We should get a balanced view.

Lessons can be learned from what other countries do to celebrate their national day. Although such events will not be without cost, they also generate a benefit. We must try to get a handle on the costs and benefits. I seem to recall that we tried to get such information in our original evidence, but we did not have time to do so.

Finally, I agree that three months seems about right. The inquiry will be concentrated and tight, but we should aim to do it in that time.

I must say that I do not entirely accept the premise that the committee did not examine thoroughly those issues first time round. I was aware of the various options that we were considering and I think that we gave the matter proper consideration. Having said that, in the interests of consensus, I am happy to go along with the proposal for further study. However, I am firmly of the view that, given the committee's heavy workload, we should truncate it as much as we can and come to an early view on the matter.

I have two points. Although I hear what Murdo Fraser says, I think that one of the questions that it would be interesting to put to business and the banks is the one that I hinted at in my second question to the minister: how would the Executive feel about it if we were minded to delete a holiday, such as the second May holiday, and replace it with St Andrew's day? We cannot predict what they would think, but that proposal might appear more cost neutral.

I do not know whether we can get to it, but it would be useful if in some way, shape or form we could understand the Executive's thinking apropos whether there should be the same number of holidays or an extra holiday. The minister could not be drawn on the issue, but it would be helpful if we could get an answer to that question so that we would at least know which way the tide is running in the Executive.

I, too, broadly agree with the convener's proposal. I will make a couple of points. The first is that, not for the first time in this Parliament, I have found it frustrating that we have taken a long time to plod through oral evidence to establish basic factual information that we could probably have elicited in other ways. To an extent, that happened today on issues such as royal proclamations and the like; it certainly happened in our earlier evidence sessions when we were trying to understand bank holidays.

My plea is that we should maximise the work done outside formal evidence sessions to establish the factual basis for the debate. We should be willing to utilise or to work in co-operation with the Executive. I appreciate the minister's comment that there is a fine line between assisting the committee and steering it, but I think that we are big enough and ugly enough to make that distinction. The Executive has the resources to do much of the work or, certainly, to work with parliamentary researchers and so on to feed in information. We should employ all the resources that are available to us—including the Executive—to commission research so that we have a good factual basis on which to build.

My second point is about the further work that we must do through written evidence or oral evidence sessions. We have still to conclude what further evidence we will take—the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has a particularly important role to play. I, for one, would like to explore the issue of school holidays a little further. There are also issues around local holidays and so on. I am not sure where that fits in, but I am open-minded about where and how it fits in—as long as we do not lose sight of COSLA's particular importance in that regard.

I agree with the position that the convener set out. I think that the three-month timescale for taking further evidence is reasonable. It is clear from the evidence that we have heard from the minister today that there is an issue over whether the St Andrew's day holiday should be additional, whether it should be a substitute day for an existing holiday that is transferred or, indeed, whether there should be a St Andrew's day holiday at all. We need clear evidence about the pros and cons of each.

I sound a note of caution, which goes back to Dennis Canavan's point about paragraph 12 of the convener's note. I do not believe that, in a stage 1 report, it is our responsibility to make a list of recommendations on how the Executive should go about celebrating St Andrew's day. Our job is to scrutinise the bill, its intentions and its various pros and cons. There might be additional provisions that we think ought to be built into the legislation to make celebrating St Andrew's day more beneficial should a bank holiday be made but, as I have said, I do not believe that it is our responsibility, in a stage 1 report, to provide the Executive with a St Andrew's day celebration programme.

Like Michael Matheson, I am keen for us to get a handle on each of the three options. When it came to the parliamentary debate, some of my confusion was about what members were talking about—whether they were talking about an additional day or a replacement day. I would be keen to get more of an idea about that—perhaps a briefing from the clerks—as I was not involved with the bill previously. I refer in particular to the evidence that the committee received about having an additional day's holiday. I am drawn towards the option of the additional day when it comes to proposed legislation. What evidence does the committee have on whether or not the banks in particular would implement the holiday differently? Are there other bank holidays—as opposed to public holidays—that are different north and south of the border? I am not clear about that. I am sure that the committee has such evidence; it would be useful for me to have a look at it.

The clerks can, I think, supply you with the evidence that we have taken on many of those matters.

I think that there is a consensus that we should undertake additional work, with a three-month deadline. I agree with Susan Deacon that the initial stage is more about research than taking oral evidence. My view is that we need some outside, professional assessment of the costs and benefits of the various options of having a replacement or an additional holiday, and that we need more hard evidence about what other countries do to celebrate their national days, taking into account the costs and benefits for them.

I suggest that we ask the clerks to prepare, in time for our next meeting on 17 January, a detailed work programme, building in a facility—subject to approval by the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, if necessary—to have outside research work undertaken, particularly with regard to costs and to what happens in other countries. There might be further aspects to take into account. We can then consider the matter at our meeting on 17 January.

We obviously need to undertake a fairly rapid piece of work. A number of companies will have information on the costs of public holidays and so on fairly readily to hand, so it should not be difficult to do the work within the proposed timeframe. We should think about having a report ready in time for the Easter recess, which would give us a reasonable period.

If we agree in principle to proceed along those lines, we will return with a proposed work programme for the committee's consideration on 17 January. Subject to approval of that programme, we can then move forward.

I would like the clerks also to consider what evidence might be obtained without particular cost. For example, a letter to COSLA would not generate enormous costs, and it would probably give us quite a lot of the public sector, local authority, or Executive—

The Executive, through the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, might be able to find out what happens in other countries.

Yes. Let us use external support where we absolutely have to or where it would be difficult for our staff to get the information. However, I suspect that we can get some of the information that we need.

The costings need to be independent of the Executive. We need to estimate the cost of undertaking a reasonably objective exercise. Susan Deacon is right to say that we should start with the facts and then consider the issues. Is everyone happy for us to move forward on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

I thank Dennis Canavan.