Chamber
Plenary, 07 Mar 2007
07 Mar 2007 · S2 · Plenary
Item of business
Christmas Day and New Year's Day Trading (Scotland) Bill:<br />Stage 3
The Executive is in an utter mess over the bill. The minister told us that the bill is important in that it will prevent trading on Christmas day. She said that she has no desire for there to be general trading on new year's day and that she broadly agrees with the purpose of the bill. However, as all members know, her problem is that big business disnae agree.
Quite frankly, in lodging amendments 1 to 3, the Executive has sold its jerseys. What is the point of amendment 1? Parliament agreed to the bill's general principles at stage 1. At stage 2, the Executive lodged an identical amendment to amendment 1, which the Justice 2 Committee unanimously rejected—indeed, the Executive had so little faith in that amendment that it did not move it. Amendment 1 is nothing more than a wrecking amendment, which makes a laughing stock of Parliament. It will delete the only part of the bill that has any meaning or effect and will leave us in a position where we might ban something that nobody is likely ever to see. The Executive knows full well that evidence that we have heard in Parliament over many years has shown that nobody is interested in opening on Christmas day. The bill is about new year's day, or it is about nothing.
Murdo Fraser spoke on behalf of the business community: it might want a laissez-faire attitude and to send the message that we should leave it alone and let it trade when it wants. I reject that attitude. The attitude of people in big business is that they want to avoid any interference from the state—they want to be left to do what they want and to trade when they want and how they like. They are wrong. The evidence shows us that far too many owners who are opening, or who want to open, big shops are involved in coercing their employees, not just on Christmas day and new year's day but throughout the month of December. They ignore the impact that the bill would have on wider Scottish society.
Members will highlight the important part that the tourism industry plays in Scotland—they have not done that much so far in the debate, but I am sure that they will later. That it plays such a part is, of course, the case, but that is not all that is at stake. As Karen Whitefield's bill and what she has said about it have made clear, the hogmanay niche market, as it has been called, has thrived in Edinburgh and elsewhere in Scotland and the shops have not been open. The idea that that market is going to go away unless we open the shops is ridiculous.
The minister tells us that the three amendments come as a package. Amendment 1 is an insult to Parliament. If we have to reject amendment 1, we have to reject all the amendments—and we should reject them all.
Amendment 2 is a move from a bill to a ministerial order. The member in charge has spent two years on the bill, and Parliament has examined it, but amendment 2 would toss aside its provisions aside in favour of a ministerial order, which Mary Mulligan described as a "voluntary code". I have no faith in such a voluntary code. The Executive had years to analyse the information, years to produce a report and years to come forward with a statement of view. Amendment 2 mentions the Scottish ministers setting out a statement of their view. The Executive has still not presented its view on the bill to Parliament—we could be waiting for another two years.
The minister is saying that the package includes amendments 1, 2 and 3—we take them all or we take nothing. In that case, I will have none of the three. The position that the Executive has taken is a disgrace and amendment 1 makes Parliament a laughing stock. Here we are at stage 3—we should be passing the bill in its entirety because it means something, but amendment 2 will reduce this member's bill to something far less meaningful. Amendments 1, 2 and 3 are a sell-out for USDAW and the people who had faith in Parliament to protect them from trading on new year's day. The Executive has let them down badly.
Quite frankly, in lodging amendments 1 to 3, the Executive has sold its jerseys. What is the point of amendment 1? Parliament agreed to the bill's general principles at stage 1. At stage 2, the Executive lodged an identical amendment to amendment 1, which the Justice 2 Committee unanimously rejected—indeed, the Executive had so little faith in that amendment that it did not move it. Amendment 1 is nothing more than a wrecking amendment, which makes a laughing stock of Parliament. It will delete the only part of the bill that has any meaning or effect and will leave us in a position where we might ban something that nobody is likely ever to see. The Executive knows full well that evidence that we have heard in Parliament over many years has shown that nobody is interested in opening on Christmas day. The bill is about new year's day, or it is about nothing.
Murdo Fraser spoke on behalf of the business community: it might want a laissez-faire attitude and to send the message that we should leave it alone and let it trade when it wants. I reject that attitude. The attitude of people in big business is that they want to avoid any interference from the state—they want to be left to do what they want and to trade when they want and how they like. They are wrong. The evidence shows us that far too many owners who are opening, or who want to open, big shops are involved in coercing their employees, not just on Christmas day and new year's day but throughout the month of December. They ignore the impact that the bill would have on wider Scottish society.
Members will highlight the important part that the tourism industry plays in Scotland—they have not done that much so far in the debate, but I am sure that they will later. That it plays such a part is, of course, the case, but that is not all that is at stake. As Karen Whitefield's bill and what she has said about it have made clear, the hogmanay niche market, as it has been called, has thrived in Edinburgh and elsewhere in Scotland and the shops have not been open. The idea that that market is going to go away unless we open the shops is ridiculous.
The minister tells us that the three amendments come as a package. Amendment 1 is an insult to Parliament. If we have to reject amendment 1, we have to reject all the amendments—and we should reject them all.
Amendment 2 is a move from a bill to a ministerial order. The member in charge has spent two years on the bill, and Parliament has examined it, but amendment 2 would toss aside its provisions aside in favour of a ministerial order, which Mary Mulligan described as a "voluntary code". I have no faith in such a voluntary code. The Executive had years to analyse the information, years to produce a report and years to come forward with a statement of view. Amendment 2 mentions the Scottish ministers setting out a statement of their view. The Executive has still not presented its view on the bill to Parliament—we could be waiting for another two years.
The minister is saying that the package includes amendments 1, 2 and 3—we take them all or we take nothing. In that case, I will have none of the three. The position that the Executive has taken is a disgrace and amendment 1 makes Parliament a laughing stock. Here we are at stage 3—we should be passing the bill in its entirety because it means something, but amendment 2 will reduce this member's bill to something far less meaningful. Amendments 1, 2 and 3 are a sell-out for USDAW and the people who had faith in Parliament to protect them from trading on new year's day. The Executive has let them down badly.
In the same item of business
The Presiding Officer (Mr George Reid):
NPA
The next item of business is stage 3 of the Christmas Day and New Year's Day Trading (Scotland) Bill. In dealing with amendments, members should have copies ...
Section 1—Large shops not to open on Christmas Day or New Year's Day
The Presiding Officer:
NPA
Group 1 is on the application of the bill to new year's day. Amendment 1, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 2 and 3.
The Minister for Justice (Cathy Jamieson):
Lab
The bill is an important measure that sets out to prohibit large shops from making retail sales on our two traditionally most important public holidays. Ther...
Jeremy Purvis (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD):
LD
I acknowledge the minister's constructive comments. At stage 1, the Executive presented evidence that about 80 per cent of all shop workers will not fall wit...
Cathy Jamieson:
Lab
As Mr Purvis has suggested, many shop workers will not be covered by the bill, such as those who work in small shops. That is a given and we understood that ...
Mr Stewart Maxwell (West of Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
No one wants Christmas day and new year's day to become general trading days, and I agree with much of what the minister said in her opening remarks. The Jus...
Mrs Mary Mulligan (Linlithgow) (Lab):
Lab
I still have concerns about the proposed voluntary code. Although I am not a member of the Justice 2 Committee, I sat through the evidence on the bill. The S...
Murdo Fraser (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con):
Con
The Scottish Conservatives' position on the bill has been clear from the outset—I made it clear when Parliament debated the bill at stage 1. We do not have d...
The Deputy Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning (Allan Wilson):
Lab
Does Murdo Fraser agree that there is a difference between a person who works in an essential service or a continuous manufacturing process being contractual...
Murdo Fraser:
Con
The minister makes the argument for extending the bill to cover shops of all sizes and other industries. Why does the bill restrict trading only in particula...
Margaret Smith (Edinburgh West) (LD):
LD
I pay tribute to Karen Whitefield. The Liberal Democrats in Parliament share her desire to keep Christmas day and new year's day as special days that are not...
Mark Ballard (Lothians) (Green):
Green
It is clear that the case has not been made that Scotland will miss out on income if the largest stores cannot open on new year's day.Mary Mulligan clearly d...
Karen Gillon (Clydesdale) (Lab):
Lab
Why does the member think that it is okay to work in a small business but not in a big business on new year's day? I am in a quandary about that, because the...
Mark Ballard:
Green
The Scottish Grocers Federation clearly pointed out the difference between a family shop and a big business in which there is the potential for employees to ...
Colin Fox (Lothians) (SSP):
SSP
The Executive is in an utter mess over the bill. The minister told us that the bill is important in that it will prevent trading on Christmas day. She said t...
Mr David Davidson (North East Scotland) (Con):
Con
It would have been nice if Mary Mulligan had attended the Justice 2 Committee and laid before it the evidence that she claims she has, identifying all the in...
Mrs Mulligan:
Lab
If Mr Davidson sees the bill as an infringement on trade, why is he happy to accept the measures for Christmas day, but not those for new year's day?
Mr Davidson:
Con
Very simply, we do not think that there should be a bill at all. There was no evidence that anybody, at this stage, wants to trade on Christmas day. The reta...
Karen Whitefield (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab):
Lab
Is it Mr Davidson's viewpoint that people do not want to trade on Christmas day, or are the Tories playing to the church vote that they think they might get ...
Mr Davidson:
Con
I am sorry, but given that I ran retail businesses that had to operate on Christmas day to provide a public service, I think that that comment is a wee bit m...
Members:
That is not the same thing.
Mr Davidson:
Con
I hear members shouting from a sedentary position, but what is the difference between somebody who works to meet a public need, whether related to health or ...
Mike Rumbles (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD):
LD
How can the bill be a restraint on trade? The bill prevents large shops from opening on Christmas day, when they do not open anyway; the amendments would let...
Mr Davidson:
Con
Restraint on trade is the principle of the bill.
Mike Rumbles:
LD
It does not restrain—
Mr Davidson:
Con
I did not introduce the bill; Karen Whitefield did. The point is that, if there is no market, people will not open their premises. People should be left to r...
Karen Whitefield:
Lab
It is important to concentrate on the real issue before the Parliament this morning: the needs and rights of many of Scotland's shop workers, both those who ...
John Swinburne (Central Scotland) (SSCUP):
SSCUP
Does Karen Whitefield agree that everyone who votes for ordinary working people going to work on new year's day should be prepared to come in here on the sam...
Karen Whitefield:
Lab
I have some sympathy with that argument. It is unlikely that anyone in the chamber works on new year's day or Christmas day. We take that for granted, as do ...