Scottish Parliament, 7 March 2007

285 contributions from 51 members. The official report.

Official Report 7 March 2007

Time for Reflection

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Good morning. Our first item of business is time for reflection, for which our leader today is Rabbi David Rosen, who is president of the International Jewish Committee for Interreligious Consultations.

Business Motion

George Reid (None, Ochil)

The next item of business is consideration of business motion S2M-5711, in the name of Margaret Curran, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a timetable for stage 3 consideration of the Christmas Day and New Year's Day Trading (Scotland) Bill.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees that, during Stage 3 of the Christmas Day and New Year's Day Trading (Scotland) Bill, debate on groups of amendments shall, subject to Rule 9.8.4A, be brought to a conclusion by the time limit indicated, that time limit being calculated from when the Stage begins and excluding any periods when other business is under consideration or when the meeting of the Parliament is suspended (other than a suspension following the first division in the Stage being called) or otherwise not in progress:

Group 1: 45 minutes.—[Ms Margaret Curran.]

Motion agreed to.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

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 of the bill—SP bill 59—the marshalled list, which contains all the amendments that I have selected for debate; and the groupings that I have agreed.

The division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for five minutes for the first division. The period of voting for the first division will be 30 seconds. Thereafter, I will allow a voting period of one minute for the first division after a debate. All other divisions will last 30 seconds.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

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.

Cathy Jamieson (Labour, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

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. There is no doubt that the bill is motivated by the desire to keep Christmas and new year special. In these materialistic times, it is important that those annual celebrations are kept special and that most people can take time off to be with their families. It is also important to bear it in mind that at stage 1 and since then, no one has desired that either of those days become general trading days in Scotland.

The bill is about trading: it is not about employment rights—which are reserved to the Westminster Parliament—and legislation cannot cover every eventuality. For example, many people who are involved in essential services need to work or to be on call on public holidays, which include Christmas day and new year's day. Some people choose, for a variety of reasons, to work on those days and to take holidays at other times. As members throughout the chamber will acknowledge, some trade union members—including Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers members—work well behind the scenes in the retail and distribution sectors: the bill would not necessarily cover them.

As we said at stage 1, we agree broadly with the bill's purposes. However, in debate at stage 1 and subsequently, it has been clear that a range of views exists in Parliament. Some concerns were expressed at stage 1 and a range of views continues to exist in Parliament and, I suspect, within political parties. Some members wish to reject the bill entirely and prefer a more free-market approach, to which I do not subscribe. Others argue—mainly on economic grounds—that Christmas day and new year's day should not be treated in the same way. We have debated that. Others feel that the bill should be passed and that it might not go far enough.

The Executive's job is often to weave its way through the intricacies and complexities of the arguments to find the right balance of views, to establish a consensus—if possible—and to find common ground and agreement about how to enact Parliament's will. In this instance, the question is how to protect the special nature of Christmas day and new year's day without unnecessary regulation.

At stage 1, cross-party support was expressed for action in relation to Christmas day—no one would argue about that. However, as I said, the debate about new year's day was unresolved, which is why the Executive made it clear at stage 1 that it would lodge amendments to allow the debate to take place, which we have done.

The Justice 2 Committee acknowledged at stage 1 that both sides' evidence on the impacts on enterprise and on tourism had weaknesses. Another new year's day has taken place since the bill was introduced, which has added a bit to our knowledge, but the evidence is still incomplete and that is why it is important to conduct a full assessment of the economic and social impacts of banning opening on new year's day, and of the impacts on family life of opening shops on that day. I want to do that properly and thoroughly.

My commitment, on the Executive's behalf, is to proceed with that work in conjunction with all the relevant interests. Amendments 1, 2 and 3 spell that out. Organisations that have interests include trade unions, the Scottish Retail Consortium and local authorities—particularly those in Glasgow and Edinburgh, which have expressed concerns. Amendment 2 says that all councils—all have an interest—will be consulted.

Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

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 within the bill's scope. Is that still the Executive's view?

Cathy Jamieson (Labour, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

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 at stage 1.

However, I state clearly that that does not mean that we should do nothing with the bill. Amendments 1, 2 and 3 are designed to ensure that further work will be done. I make it clear that they come as a package. Although we want to gather further information, to analyse it and to report back to Parliament before taking a final view, the amendments are designed to enshrine in statute both Christmas day and new year's day.

We are sending out a clear message that we expect the retail industry to heed what Parliament is saying about its having a social as well as an economic responsibility. We expect the trade unions and various other interests to work with us to gather information. If it appears to the Executive that people are defying the will of Parliament, there is no doubt that we will use the powers that we will take in the bill. If amendments 1, 2 and 3 are agreed to, Parliament will send out a message today that further work will be done and that, if it seems to us that any sector of the industry intends to flout the will of Parliament, we will use the powers in the bill.

It is important to recognise that amendments 1, 2 and 3 come as a package, so it is important that both amendment 1 and amendment 2 be agreed to this morning: amendment 3 will make a consequential change to the long title of the bill. Parliament should note that the amendments will require ministers to give reasons for concluding that an order to enact the powers for which the bill provides is necessary. It is important to point out that those could be reasons of principle, as well as reasons deriving from empirical evidence regarding the economic impact and the social impact on family life of trading on new year's day.

We have before us a package of amendments that represent the best possible way forward to protect everyone's interests, to keep Christmas and new year's day special and to give the trade unions and business an opportunity to work together to ensure that our aspirations are put into practice. Amendments 1, 2 and 3 will ensure that, if those aspirations are flouted, we can use the powers for which the bill provides without introducing further primary legislation.

I move amendment 1.

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

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 Justice 2 Committee accepted that there was a complete lack of robust evidence for the assertions that were being made about the bill's economic impact, its impact on tourism, the number of people who will be affected by it and almost every other point. Some committee members took one view of that, but others took a different view—that is why the committee split 4:3 on the bill.

Amendment 2 is the crux of the matter because it deals with the basic problem at the heart of the bill, which is the lack of robust evidence. Given the differences of opinion that exist regarding new year's day, the only sensible option is for us to pause to gather evidence before legislating. To go ahead without evidence and to legislate in a vacuum would be a mistake that we could regret in the future, and it would take primary legislation to rectify that mistake. Amendment 2 will allow us to do the research, to be sure that we agree that the provisions relating to new year's day should be enacted and to have Parliament decide whether it wants to do that, based on both the principle and the evidence.

The Scottish National Party will support amendment 2 and the other two amendments in the group.

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

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 Scottish Retail Consortium was unsure about how the code would pan out: it has member organisations in the retail sector, but will it be able to persuade them to sign up to the code? There are stores that do not want to open on new year's day, but want to keep it a special day, just as Christmas day should be. They want well-rested and happy staff who are much more productive. However, we know that if other stores start to open, they will follow suit. It is much like the smoking ban in that voluntary schemes will not work and we need a level playing field. We owe it to the responsible and caring retailers to provide them with legislation that gives them reassurance.

We know that pressure can be put on staff, as happened this year at Debenhams. We know that staff are told that if they do not work on new year's day they will not get promotion, days off when they want them, the holidays that they want or the jobs in the store that they want. That is unfortunate, so how do we protect those people?

We also know about the subtle pressures that are put on people. A staff member may be told that if he or she does not work, Mrs Smith who has three children—a bigger family—will have to work in his or her place. I have seen that happen and know about the pressures to which shop workers are subject.

Shops are not essential to tourism in Scotland. People may go into the shops when they come here, but ultimately that is not what they come for. If it is the reason that they come here, we have real problems. People do not come to Edinburgh or even to Glasgow to shop, because there are bigger and better shopping centres elsewhere.

People come to Scotland, especially at hogmanay, because of the atmosphere, the events and the tradition that is behind them, and they want to see that in action. Does the economy or tourism collapse in England because shops are shut at Easter? I do not think so. We are seeking equality. In England shops shut on Christmas day and Easter Sunday. We want a Scottish day—new year's day—to be recognised in Scotland. People come to Scotland for its hogmanay celebrations. The events that are held in Edinburgh are world renowned. Are those events to be for everyone except shop workers in Edinburgh and elsewhere in Scotland? The minister still has much to do to convince me that the voluntary agreement will hold, and that I will be able to say to shop workers that they have our protection and we will be able to defend them against bosses who put them under pressure to come in to work against their will. Today we have an opportunity to help to establish a real life-work balance. We should take that opportunity.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

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 difficulty with the provisions relating to Christmas day, although there is no evidence that there is demand for shops to open on that day and the case for legislation has not been made. However, we have a specific problem with the proposal to ban shops above a certain size from opening on new year's day, for the simple reason—as members of the Justice 2 Committee heard in evidence—that there is a developing trend, especially in Edinburgh and other large cities, for shops to open for part of new year's day.

The Scottish Retail Consortium made it clear in its evidence that it sees the opening of shops on new year's day as an important part of the economy. The city authorities think that it is important to the development of the tourism trade around hogmanay and new year's day. As I said at stage 1, I can remember no more depressing place in previous years than Princes Street, Edinburgh, on the afternoon of new year's day, with all the shops shut and tourists wandering up and down looking forlornly in the windows. Parliament should not be in the business of closing down the economy, especially when steps are being taken to expand it.

I listened with great interest to what Mary Mulligan had to say. She asked why shop workers should be the only people who are excluded from participating in the Christmas and new year's day holidays, but we should remember that many other people have to work on new year's day; for example, new year's day is one of the busiest days of the year in the hospitality industry. Why should only workers in large shops be given a protection that will not be given to people who work in the hospitality industry or other industries? There is clearly inconsistency in the bill.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

Does Murdo Fraser agree that there is a difference between a person who works in an essential service or a continuous manufacturing process being contractually required to work on new year's day and a person who is coerced—sometimes subtly—against their wishes by a bad employer into working that day?

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

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 particular shops and not in the hospitality industry? The bill is flawed.

We support amendment 1, which makes it clear that the bill will not apply to new year's day. However, amendment 2, which will keep the door open to a future ban on new year's day trading, is a fudge and represents a feeble attempt to find a compromise and spare the Executive's blushes by postponing a decision on new year's day trading, perhaps until after the election. We need legislation that is clear and not confused. Amendment 1 meets that test, but amendment 2 does not and we will not support it.

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

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 general trading days.

There is a range of views about the bill. Some Liberal Democrats think that the bill goes too far while others think that it does not go far enough, but the vast majority of members of our group do not—for a number of reasons—favour the inclusion of new year's day in the bill. We think that there should be a choice for consumers and employees and we think that the bill's approach is inconsistent in that it would not provide a level playing field for shop workers or other people who have to work on new year's day. We prefer the voluntary approach, so we welcome amendments 1 to 3.

I am an Edinburgh member of the Scottish Parliament and I argue against the inclusion of new year's day in the bill predominantly because I want Edinburgh's winter festival, which has suffered setbacks in recent years, to prosper and to go from strength to strength. I would be unhappy about being party to a legislative change that contributed to sending a message that Edinburgh is closed for business at one of the most popular times of year for people to visit the city. My view chimes with comments that were made by VisitScotland and other tourism bodies.

I welcome amendment 2, which would allow us to consider the issue in greater detail. When the Justice 2 Committee considered the bill, it was clear that there was a lack of robust data on both sides of the argument. As the minister and other speakers have acknowledged, there is a need for more work.

Amendments 1 to 3 offer a commonsense approach, which acknowledges that in Scotland Christmas day is special for families—people of faith and people of none. That is a view that a clear majority of members support. Amendment 2 will allow Parliament to move forward and to acknowledge the rights of shop workers and the needs of business. I congratulate the Scottish Retail Consortium on engaging in serious and meaningful discussion on the possibility of a voluntary code that would mean that no shop workers in certain types of premises were forced to work on new year's day. We are putting the ball back in the employers' court; they can voluntarily end pressure on, and coercion of, workers in the retail industry—subtle or otherwise. I worked in the retail industry in my younger days and have family members who work in the retail industry, so I can assure members that the pressure that I am talking about is not imaginary.

The Liberal Democrats think that there are good reasons for pursuing a voluntary approach with businesses and unions, instead of legislating needlessly in respect of new year's day. A worker should be able to choose to say, "I do not want to work on new year's day" and workers should also not be compelled to work. The range of views in respect of retail mean that there would be great merit in further investigation of the impact on the economy and on family life of extending the provisions in section 1 to new year's day.

We are content that amendments 1 to 3 offer a way forward for people on all sides of the argument. The approach acknowledges the importance of a work-life balance—although many MSPs' families might think that we are the last people who should be lecturing anyone about that. The approach gives businesses the opportunity to voluntarily treat their staff fairly and it guarantees a Christmas day holiday for shop workers and the possibility of fairer arrangements for new year's day. Under the provisions of amendment 2, ministers could come back to Parliament if voluntary schemes do not materialise or work, or if reports suggest that a restriction of new year's day trading would benefit family life and would not have a negative economic impact. There would be full and proper consultation, not only of councils, businesses and workers, but of the tourism industry. Ministers could make an order on the matter if they thought that was necessary, without having to introduce primary legislation. The Liberal Democrat group supports amendments 1 to 3. I hope that all other members will do so.

Mark Ballard (Green, Lothians)

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 described the dangers of coercion of employees and of the creeping commercialisation of Christmas day and new year's day. Those days are the most important traditional holidays and we should not allow their status as holidays to be undermined. That is why the Greens supported Karen Whitefield's bill at stage 1. We acknowledged the breadth of support that the bill had attracted.

The Scottish Grocers Federation said that people should have the opportunity to buy bread, milk and batteries for children's toys on Christmas day and new year's day, but asked why the larger shops should stay open—[Interruption.] I am being accused of talking "populist rubbish". The Scottish Trades Union Congress was right to set out shop workers' concerns.

We are debating the principle behind the bill, which generated a great deal of discussion in the Justice 2 Committee during the proper bill process. The lodging of amendment 2, which would confer on ministers the power to make a statutory instrument, does not improve the quality of the debate.

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

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 work-life balance is important.

Mark Ballard (Green, Lothians)

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 be coerced into working, as Mary Mulligan said. We are talking about very different situations.

This debate is about the principle of how we want to treat new year's day and Christmas day. The process envisaged in amendment 2 is not the right one; why should there be primary legislation for Christmas day but secondary legislation for new year's day? Murdo Fraser said that there is an issue of principle. I urge members to reject the uneasy compromise in amendments 1 to 3 and to support or reject the principle behind the bill. If we do that, we will have clarity instead of an unnecessary fudge involving secondary legislation, which might be an abuse of the parliamentary process.

Colin Fox (SSP, Lothians)

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.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

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 intimidation that she mentions on a factual basis. If people had such evidence, they could have gone to court. I find it strange that the issue has just been brought up this morning.

The USDAW representatives who came along to give evidence to the committee claimed that the Christmas Day and New Year's Day Trading (Scotland) Bill was their bill. They spoke about employment, but the bill is about a restraint on trade. One of the biggest restraints on trade is the marketplace itself. Businesses will not spend money trying to meet a demand that does not exist. Many people—we took evidence from them—would like to be able to get work on new year's day for an additional fee. We heard no evidence whatever at the committee about trading on Christmas day, and I think that all members agree about that. New year's day is a different animal, however.

The bill is an attack on the freedom to trade and on the freedom to work for those who choose to work. People are not intimidated into turning up. If there was evidence of that, it should have been laid before the Justice 2 Committee. That was not done, however.

As for the size limit on premises, it was plucked from the air. Why was it not 5ft2 more or 5ft2 less?

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

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?

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

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 retailers more or less said that there is no demand for that.

I find it staggering that the Deputy Minister for Justice lodged amendments at stage 2 so that we could have a debate, but then failed to move the lead amendment at the Justice 2 Committee's meeting. The Executive cannot have it both ways. I moved the lead Executive amendment at stage 2 so that we could have a debate—although I voted against the Executive amendments—simply because the Executive did not have the courage to do so at the time.

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

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 and appeasing one or two of the elders among their members?

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

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 misplaced.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

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 otherwise, and someone who works to meet public demand for something sold by the retail trade? Mark Ballard spoke about batteries. A battery bought from a small shop is obviously very green and very nice, but a battery bought from a big shop is apparently a bad thing. Come on—members must be consistent. If the bill was to achieve anything, it should have been about the range of products that may be sold on the days concerned. We license the retailing of alcohol—there will be a debate about that later—but the bill is not about that at all. The debate has been about people jumping up and down without any real arguments.

I liked Colin Fox's comment about a "lassie fair". I have not seen one of those. I have been to horse fairs over the years, but not a lassie fair.

The bill is a serious attack—it is an infringement—and I am not a believer in ministers reserving powers that they may or may not use.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

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 large shops stay open on new year's day if they wanted to. Where is the restraint on trade?

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Restraint on trade is the principle of the bill.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

It does not restrain—

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

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 run their businesses in co-operation and consultation with their staff. That is how the retail trade has been run for years and years, and it will not change.

I am astounded by the Executive's response. During the stage 1 debate, the Deputy Minister for Justice said that she would lodge some amendments. They were lodged, but the Executive refused to move them. That is an embarrassment for the First Minister and his Government.

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

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 work in large stores and many who work in smaller stores, who will also be protected under the bill because, if larger stores do not open, smaller stores will not open either. That is one of the important reasons why the Scottish Grocers Federation so strongly supports the bill. I point out that the federation is a member of the Scottish Retail Consortium.

I appreciate that the minister has lodged the three amendments before us in good faith. We have come some way—I have been progressing these issues in the Parliament for three and a half years, and I am grateful to the Executive for being able to reach the position that it has reached today. However, I have some reservations about what will happen if the amendments are agreed to.

If the amendments are agreed to, there is a possibility that the ban affecting new year's day could be introduced at some point in the future. Scotland's shop workers, their families and the many people from across civic Scotland who have supported the bill believe that Christmas day and new year's day are equally important. Therefore, the rationale behind the arguments on Christmas day is the same as that behind the arguments on new year's day.

I appreciate and understand the concerns that have been expressed at various points about the possible damage that the bill may do to Scotland's tourism industry. Let me say at the outset that I have no desire to do anything that would damage that industry, and it is important to remember that in the past three and a half years there has been ample opportunity for us to hear evidence from the tourism industry and for people to put across their point of view.

One reason why I referred to the damage that "may" be done is because we have pleasingly seen tourism in Scotland grow in recent years. Indeed, in its evidence, the Edinburgh Chamber of Commerce pointed out that the high numbers of tourists who are attracted to our cities at new year visit when the vast majority of our large retail stores are not open. The bill would change nothing in effect, but it would reinforce the status quo. I do not believe that one non-shopping day in the new year period would put people off coming to Scotland.

We should recognise the importance of the safeguard that not trading on new year's day gives Scotland's shop workers. For many, new year's day is a celebration. It is also a collective breather from the stresses and strains of everyday life. That is one reason why the Scottish Trades Union Congress has reminded us all in its briefing that the widespread opening of shops will have an impact on not just shop workers but all non-retail workers too.

For shop workers, new year's day is an important break in the busy Christmas and new year sales period. To meet our insatiable demand to shop during the winter festivals, they are generally not allowed to take holidays between the beginning of December and the middle of January and it is often expected that they will work long hours and will not take rest days.

I understand the tourism industry's concern that a message might be sent out that Scotland is closed. However, I do not agree. It is important that we send out the strong message that, with our hotels, pubs and other visitor attractions open, Scotland certainly is not closed for business.

I read with some interest an article in the Edinburgh Evening News yesterday claiming that, if the Parliament passes the bill, whether amended or unamended, we would send out the message that Scotland is closed to tourists and that they would go elsewhere: Dublin, Barcelona and Amsterdam were the examples that were cited. I should point out, however, that the shops in Barcelona are closed on new year's day. In Dublin, they are closed because it is a bank holiday, and I am also told that Amsterdammers likewise take their holidays seriously. Perhaps we in Scotland need to do the same. We need to give our shop workers protection and the right to be able to spend that day at home.

John Swinburne (SSCUP, Central Scotland)

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 same day for a plenary session and a full day's work?

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

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 many other non-essential workers in Scotland. The bill was introduced to recognise the hard work and contribution of many low-paid women workers who have to manage not only the normal, everyday stresses and strains of family life but the additional pressures that increasing consumerism brings during the festive period, with long working hours in the run-up to Christmas.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

As a lifelong trade unionist, I agree entirely with that perspective. Does Karen Whitefield agree that, contrary to what Mr Fox said, the prospect of a statutorily underpinned code of practice that would prevent the compulsion of workers to work on new year's day against their wishes will extend rights to a range of people who either are not covered by trade union agreements or are the subject of victimisation by bad employers?

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Karen Whitefield has about one minute left.

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

At this point, I should get on to my specific questions for the minister.

Will the Executive immediately introduce legislation to cover new year's day if there is any breach of the voluntary code? As Mary Mulligan rightly pointed out, many of us who have supported and had close associations with the retail industry and those working on the front line understand the silent coercion and the loyalty of workers who do not have children and who support colleagues who do. I would like some assurances from the minister.

I want also to know whether, irrespective of what happens today, the Executive will immediately initiate a study into the Scottish retail industry in the festive period. In any work that the Executive does, will USDAW and other representatives of Scotland's shop workers be involved? It would be helpful to have some assurances on those points.

The bill has been a long time in coming to fruition today, and I hope that we can get some assurances. It seeks to protect some of Scotland's lowest-paid workers, who deserve some recognition for the work that they do throughout the year.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

I will use my discretion to extend the debate by up to five minutes, which will allow the minister up to eight minutes for her reply.

Cathy Jamieson (Labour, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

Thank you for extending the debate, Presiding Officer. A number of important points have been raised, and I want to take some time to go through them.

I first refer to the fact that both Karen Whitefield and USDAW have acted responsibly throughout the process. There is no doubt that they have shifted a number of views and opinions during the debate, as well as raising general awareness. For example, the Conservatives have now come to the conclusion that they can accept the notion of putting in statute provisions on Christmas day.

I want also to set out clearly the fact that I see the amendments as a package and not, as the Conservatives have suggested, as a way of simply decoupling Christmas and new year's day and unpicking the clear will of the Parliament at stage 1, when we saw an argument for covering both Christmas day and new year's day in statute. However, there were some caveats on which the Parliament wanted us to do some work, and simply to follow the view that the Conservatives have suggested would not adequately reflect the will of the Parliament or put in place adequate safeguards in the way that Karen Whitefield and others have outlined.

As Allan Wilson said in reference to Colin Fox's speech, the bill is about being absolutely clear to the industry and to employers that, although we as a Parliament expect them to take account of the economic issues—and we need to consider the tourism and other industries that people have expressed concern about—equally we expect them to take their social responsibilities seriously. We expect them to take into account the impact on family life of people working on days during which other workers are traditionally at home with their families. As Karen Whitefield said, many workers have to work extended hours in the run-up to the festive season in situations that take them away from their families. I expect such matters to be considered.

I turn to the questions that Karen Whitefield asked. It is important to put on the record that we are not suggesting that the bill should simply be passed and things left to a voluntary code. Colin Fox was wrong to suggest that, because there will be a statutory underpinning of the code.

I understand the trade unions' reservations about voluntary codes. In the past, people have thought that they had an agreement, but have then felt let down for one reason or another. That is why having a voluntary code that is simply left on its own is not enough, and it is not what we have proposed.

I stress the importance of amendment 2 in that context. I say to Karen Whitefield that amendment 2 will provide an opportunity for us to begin work immediately and ensure that we bring together the industry, the trade unions, the local authorities and everyone else who has an interest in making what has been proposed work. It will ensure that work is under way for the coming festive season. People should have no doubt that our amendments will allow us to use statutory powers to introduce legislation if there is a breach in the spirit or practice of what should happen on new year's day. I hope that Karen Whitefield hears the strong guarantees that I have given.

It is important to recognise that an opportunity will exist to consider the wider implications of what has been proposed. Again, I want to be clear about what we have in mind with respect to a code of practice or protocol. I recognise that it can sometimes be hard for many people in a workforce—particularly those on low pay or those who depend on flexible working hours—to say no to working on a particular day. They may fear that their shift pattern will change, their promotion prospects will be altered or that the number of contracted hours that they must work will be reduced. That is why it is important for the amendments to be agreed to and for USDAW and the trade union movement to be involved in the monitoring process. The amendments will give us a basis on which to move forward.

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

Does the minister agree that, although it is important that the trade unions be involved in monitoring, their involvement should not be seen to undermine the position of USDAW or other trade unions, which is that they do not, as a rule, support or agree with trading on new year's day?

Cathy Jamieson (Labour, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

I am aware of and understand USDAW's position. USDAW does not believe that the trading that we are discussing should take place on new year's day. It has made that position clear in the course of the debate. However, the trade unions and the Scottish Retail Consortium have a vital role to play in helping us to progress matters. The Executive is making a commitment to put in train work immediately to assess matters and involve everyone in the process. There would be a gap if USDAW could not be involved in that process. Members have expressed concerns about low-paid workers feeling coerced. We want to send a clear message to industry that such coercion is unacceptable. We do not want such coercion to happen: we want people to work on a voluntary basis and we want responsible trade unions to help us monitor things. There is no doubt in my mind that USDAW has been a responsible trade union throughout this process. Responsible trade unions will help us to monitor the situation and gather evidence. I repeat: if we thought that the industry was abusing its position with respect to people working voluntarily or the impact of working on individual workers' family lives, we would do something about that abuse. I accept the unions' position, but I hope that the guarantees that I have provided will give members the confidence to accept that amendment 2 is necessary to ensure that we can progress matters as planned.

The debate has highlighted the range of views and opinions in the chamber. The process has been difficult. Moving to the right position has not been easy, but we did not want to move to the wrong position. We have tried to build consensus around the issues that matter most to people—namely, keeping Christmas day and new year's day special and preventing staff from being coerced into being involved in retail trading in large stores if doing so does not fit with their working patterns or family lives. The industry should be given the clear message that social responsibility as well as economic impact is important. It is important for the Executive to work with everyone, but members should have no doubt that, if anyone abused their position, the statutory underpinning in the legislation would allow us to act quickly.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The question is, that amendment 1 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

There will be a division. The division bell will now sound and there will be a five-minute suspension before the division takes place. The division will last for 30 seconds.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I ask members to take their seats as I am about to call the division, which will be a 30-second division.

I would be obliged if Mr Fox would switch off his mobile telephone.

We will proceed with the division.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The result of the division is: For 86, Against 23, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The question is, that amendment 2 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

There will be a division.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The result of the division is: For 83, Against 27, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 2 agreed to.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The question is, that amendment 3 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

There will be a division.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The result of the division is: For 84, Against 26, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 3 agreed to.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

That concludes consideration of amendments.

Christmas Day and New Year's Day Trading (Scotland) Bill

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-5436, in the name of Karen Whitefield, that the Parliament agrees that the Christmas Day and New Year's Day Trading (Scotland) Bill be passed.

I call Karen Whitefield to move the motion. She will be followed by Mary Mulligan, who will speak in support of it.

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

Presiding Officer, I have great pleasure in moving the motion in my name. With your permission, Mary Mulligan, who is a supporter of the bill, will make the opening speech.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that the Christmas Day and New Year's Day Trading (Scotland) Bill be passed.

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

I congratulate my colleague Karen Whitefield on introducing the bill, which will provide support for people throughout Scotland. I know that Karen Whitefield might not have taken on the issue if she had realised how difficult it would be to bring about that support, but we can now be positive about the protection that the bill will offer to Scotland's shop workers and the improvement that it will bring to their quality of life. I am sure that shop workers throughout Scotland will thank Karen Whitefield for the efforts that she has made on their behalf.

Presiding Officer, I should probably have declared an interest at the beginning of my speech as a member of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Just do it now.

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

I have done so.

When I first came to Scotland many years ago to work in retail, stores closed for two days at Christmas and two days at new year. We always sought to give an extra day with either of those holidays. How times have changed. Today, we need legislation to protect even one or two days. That shows the changing society in which we live, where shops are now very much 24/7 operations. The people who work in retail have been at the sharp end of that change.

I recognise that there have been many views on the bill from different groups, including businesses, shop workers and those who look at the way in which the economy as a whole is being developed. I must say that I was somewhat reassured to see the Conservative party return to its true roots. Despite David Cameron's leadership in trying to present his party with a softer and family-friendly face, the Conservatives are really the same old Tories who support the bosses and ignore the rights of the workers.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Would Mary Mulligan extend that criticism to her Liberal Democrat coalition colleagues?

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

I would extend that criticism to any Liberal Democrat who held the same views as the Tories.

As Karen Whitefield said earlier, the Conservatives have, as ever, tried to play both ends. Although they have frequently made such a criticism against our Liberal Democrat colleagues, on this occasion it applies to them. They agreed to the Christmas day holiday, but they could not agree to a new year's day holiday. Despite the economic arguments that they used, they recognised that if they were to vote against a Christmas day holiday, they would face flak from their members, especially—I notice that the Conservative leader is not in the chamber at the moment—from their church-going members. In that sense, today's debate has been quite revealing.

Some 250,000 people are employed in the retail industry in Scotland. They deliver a service that is first class, courteous and professional. Their work adds to Scotland's reputation and, by encouraging people to return to Scotland, they boost our tourism trade. As John Swinney said in the stage 1 debate—I am sorry to see that he is not present at the moment—tourism in Scotland will not collapse because the large stores are closed on Christmas day and new year's day. He was right on that. However, the bill will improve the quality of life for many shop workers.

This is not a shopaholics anonymous meeting, but I feel the need to confess. I like shopping. However, I do not feel that it is essential to shop 365 days a year; 363 days a year will do. I know that many essential workers work on Christmas day and new year's day and I offer my heartfelt thanks to them. However, big shops such as Marks and Spencer and Tesco do not provide essential services. In response to Mr Davidson's earlier comments, I recognise that those who work in the pharmaceutical industry are involved in work that is probably essential, but that is not a good comparison. Let us compare apples with apples.

If stores start to open, other services will be needed—refuse collectors and public transport providers, to name but two. Without legislation, Christmas day and new year's day risk becoming just like any other day. That would be a sad thing and I do not think that many people want it.

The Scottish Executive will be held to account to ensure that the voluntary code is kept to. I do not doubt the genuine reassurances that the Minister for Justice has given us this morning about how we will proceed if people do not adhere to the code. I believe that she recognises the difficulties in enforcing the voluntary code and I hope that she will look at measures to ensure that we overcome the subtle pressures that are put on workers at Christmas and new year. For the sake of shop workers in Scotland, I hope that her confidence in the voluntary code can be carried forward.

I understand that we need a strong economy in Scotland and much has been said about the risk that we would run if we support the bill today. I understand that a strong economy is for the benefit of everybody in Scotland, but more particularly for the most vulnerable in our communities. That is probably why I am in the Labour Party and not the Scottish Socialist Party. I recognise that shop workers are among the more lowly paid workers and more vulnerable people in our community. Anything that we can do to protect them is right. Karen Whitefield's bill goes some way to offering them protection, which I hope will apply to both Christmas day and new year's day.

Cathy Jamieson (Labour, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

I congratulate Karen Whitefield on all the work that she has done on the bill over an extended period and in putting the case for how we should protect vulnerable retail staff from having to work on both Christmas and new year's days. We heard from Mary Mulligan about the important principles that underpin the bill and its aim to prohibit large shops from making retail sales on what I have described today as two of our most important public holidays in order to protect the special nature of those holidays in the Scottish calendar and to promote family life.

As I said earlier, we did not hesitate to support the proposals as they concern Christmas day. Many retail staff already work long hours at that time of year. We know that many retail staff, not just those who work in the shops but those who work in distribution and behind the scenes, have to work at weekends when their children and other family members are at home and increasingly, many of them have to work late into the evening or indeed during the night. Christmas is a precious time that is set aside for spending with their family and friends, rather than with their colleagues or boss, however much they might get on. We already have what could be described as pretty liberal trading hours. The vast majority of large retailers close on Christmas day and there has been no indication that people want to move away from that position. The Parliament need not hesitate in formalising that position through the bill.

I have outlined some of the issues about new year's day. I welcome the fact that the Parliament has expressed clearly that it accepts our amendments to the bill that will ensure that we develop the work that I promised. Karen Whitefield and Mary Mulligan have recognised the issues for Scottish tourism and hogmanay in particular, and I know that they will want to work with us as we develop the research and other assessments that require to be done. We need to balance Scotland's wider economic interests with the need to look at the social impact of trading hours.

I restate what I said when we debated the amendments—I do not think that anyone should be coerced or pressurised into working on new year's day. I expect those in the retail sector to take the appropriate steps to ensure that if they decide to open—the vast majority of the large stores have no intention to do so and do not wish to open at this stage—nobody will be coerced to work; if there is any evidence that that has happened, we will certainly want to know about it.

The Parliament has amended the bill to give us time to explore the matter further before enforcing a ban on new year's day trading. It is important to make it clear again that it is our intention to report to Parliament on the impact of new year's day trading on 1 January 2008. That report should contain whatever evidence independent researchers are able to obtain, a report on the consultation and a recommendation on whether a ban on new year's day trading is required to be commenced. We would have to report back to Parliament our reasons for that recommendation, which could and should be about issues of principle as well as of perception; it will not be a simple arithmetical exercise. I expect and hope that USDAW will be involved in that, as well as the Scottish Retail Consortium and the various other players in the industry, to ensure that we get the right mix of information so that those who might be vulnerable to being put under pressure are protected.

Everyone involved in raising awareness of the issue and in campaigning for it can be proud of what they have achieved. At decision time, we will pass a very important bill that not only adds value and protection in certain circumstances for some of our workers, but highlights some of the other issues about social responsibility, in both the retail sector and wider industry, that this Parliament and future Parliaments would do well to consider in more detail. We have heard some impassioned speeches and contributions on that subject.

We must ensure that we balance the needs of families—the work-life balance—that are important to everyone with the wider needs of industry. That message has come through loud and clear and I am sure that those in the retail sector who run the large stores will hear it. I hope that they hear being expressed very clearly today the will of Parliament on what is expected; that they will comply with it; and that we will be able to gather positive evidence that they have actively involved their workers in reaching solutions rather than creating problems.

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

The SNP intends to support the bill as amended by the Executive and we echo much of what the minister has said. However, we recognise that the amended bill is a compromise that seeks to balance family and cultural values, modern employment terms and conditions and economic reality. The bill recognises the interests of employees, visitors, business, Government and the brand image of Scotland as the new year capital of the world, in Edinburgh, Glasgow and the Highlands and Islands, especially when we are on the cusp of the 2009 year of homecoming, which I hope that the Parliament and this country will seek to make an annual event rather than just a one-off.

We believe that the amended bill deserves our support. We are particularly persuaded that the bill and its amendments offer an opportunity to ensure a sensible balance between the competing pressures of spending time at work, enabling people to earn and trade, and having the time to celebrate and relax with family and friends.

We recognise that the bill is far from perfect and look forward to a time when Scotland has the power to create more economic vibrancy, increased job opportunity and higher living standards. However, the bill and the amendments bank the status of the Christmas day holiday, protect our tourism economy and bring important issues into clearer focus.

The bill exposes our lack of economic powers and our lack of power over employment law, which could make Scotland a better place and give us the makings of a social contract that would see issues such as those in the bill fed into a wider framework such as has rewarded countries such as Ireland over the piece. In addition, the bill process has established that the Parliament cannot solve the problem of workers' rights, low pay and poor terms and conditions by damaging our tourism sector and giving comfort to our international competitors, especially in the absence of evidence. Such a strategy or law would send the wrong signals about Scotland internationally. It would be the wrong solution, because it would risk bringing to bear many adverse unintended consequences on Scotland.

Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

If Scotland and the Parliament had those powers and if Scotland found itself in the unfortunate position of Mr Mather having responsibility for such decisions, would he make more holidays legally enforceable? Would he increase the minimum wage?

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

The member would find that there would be an enlightened social contract. For example, we are watching with great interest what is happening in Ireland, which has just announced "Towards 2016", an update of the social contract on which its success since 1986 has been based. That framework is backed by real money, and the Irish are putting in place a national development plan that works in concert—

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

Will the member give way?

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Let me answer the first question. Under the national development plan that the Irish are putting in place, and which forms the physical framework for delivering the social contract, €184 billion will be spent over a six-year period.

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

Will the member give way?

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

No. The member is in his final minute.

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

That is equivalent to £20 billion a year—or two thirds of the money available under the Barnett formula—for six years. Having that kind of proper structure and framework will build Ireland's economic muscle, make the social contract real and meaningful and allow the country to move forward with genuine cohesion without needing Elastoplasts such as this bill. It will also deliver long-term economic growth that far surpasses ours; after all, while we express delight at 2.3 per cent economic growth, Ireland this year is sitting with 6 per cent. In the midst of the current global boom, even 6 per cent is pretty mediocre. Accession states such as Estonia are scoring 11.6 per cent.

We in Scotland have to get real and work together to lift living standards. It is an absolute disgrace that a third of people in work in this country earn less than £6.50 an hour. We will be able to fix that only by creating an economy that runs itself effectively.

We support the amended bill.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I will try to return to the subject that we are supposed to be debating. I commend Karen Whitefield for her efforts on this member's bill; even though I disagree with much of its content, I know that she has put a lot of work into it and that it has taken up a lot of her time.

However, the bill's passage through Parliament has been a sorry tale of Executive confusion. It is clear that, from the outset, the Executive has been in difficulty, and it has simply failed to provide leadership or set a clear line. That was summed up in the bizarre and sorry situation of amendments being lodged, but not moved, by the Executive during stage 2 consideration of the bill by the Justice 2 Committee, convened by my colleague Mr Davidson.

Today the Executive has lodged a number of manuscript amendments, presumably because it cannot agree what position to take, but its sorry compromise is simply a fudge designed to win support from Labour back benchers. We are left with the rather unfortunate impression of an Executive that is in the pocket of the trade union lobby.

Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

Will the member clarify a point? Mr Davidson had to move certain Executive amendments at stage 2, but it was not incumbent on him then to vote against them. However, the Conservatives voted for those very amendments this morning. Mr Fraser talks about bizarre events during the committee's stage 2 consideration, but why did the Conservatives oppose those amendments then and support them at stage 3?

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

If the Executive is not even prepared to move its own amendments, it can hardly expect other members to support them at committee.

Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

I am talking about the way that the Conservatives voted.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am sorry, but Mr Purvis should not try to shift the blame for the situation.

The trouble with the bill is that it tries to deal with two separate and distinct issues. I have no problem with the principle of protecting Christmas day—although, as I have pointed out before, there is no evidence base to suggest that we need legislation to do that at this stage. I accept that legislation might be required on this issue in future, but at the moment there is no evidence that shops are prepared to open on Christmas day.

The position with new year's day is quite different. As we heard, there is clear demand from the retail industry and bodies such as VisitScotland for shops to open on new year's day. That is part of the tourist market. Simply to pass the bill without amendment, which would have prevented large shops from opening on new year's day, would have had a detrimental effect on the economy.

The bill is inconsistent. For example, although the member intends the legislation to protect workers' rights, it does nothing of the sort. All it does is to prevent shops above a certain size from opening their doors to the public. Of course, many people work in shops when they are not open to the public. Moreover, why should those who work in small shops not have the same protection afforded to those who work in large shops? Why should we offer protection only to shop workers in large shops and not to those who work, for example, in the hospitality industry, for which Christmas day and new year's day are among the busiest times of the year? The bill is arbitrary, not properly thought out and riddled with flaws and inconsistencies.

The Executive keeps telling us that its top priority is growing the economy. However, this bill is a test of the balance between economic growth on the one hand and the lobbying power of the trade unions on the other. In deciding to lodge its compromise amendment, which puts the interests of the trade union lobby before the interests of economic growth, the Executive has made the wrong choice and come down on the wrong side of the debate. This is a sad and sorry tale, and we will not support the bill.

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

I thank Karen Whitefield and Mary Mulligan for their work on the bill. The fact that we have reached this point is a testament to their hard work and dogged determination. I also thank the convener, members and clerks of the Justice 2 Committee for their work; all those who gave evidence to the committee; and the many hundreds of members of the public and USDAW members who have done a good job of contacting MSPs and drawing their attention to this very important issue.

I am sorry that John Swinburne has left the chamber, because I want to respond to his intervention on Karen Whitefield. As some members know, I was working on new year's day; I was raising money for local charities by madly throwing myself into the River Forth. I should take this opportunity to thank everyone in the chamber who sponsored my efforts. I am happy to do the same again next year and, indeed, members might give me even more money if I drag John Swinburne in with me.

Cathie Craigie (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I acknowledge the member's point—and appreciate her cheek at attempting to raise funds for charity at such an early stage. However, I am sure that she will agree that her efforts were voluntary and could hardly be called work.

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

Well, they felt like work.

I welcome the position that we have reached with the bill and, for the reasons that I mentioned earlier, I am pleased that the amendments on new year's day have been agreed to.

This is all about choice. I accept that many retail workers, many of whom are women, receive low pay. However, I feel that workers have the right to choose to work if they might get time and a half, double time or triple time for doing so. Indeed, they might well feel that it is the right thing to do for their family or their circumstances. Other members have highlighted certain inconsistencies about the new year's day issue, but I have already expressed my views on the matter, which concern the tourism industry.

Murdo Fraser cannot say that the bill puts the Executive in the pocket of the trade unions. This is not about being in anyone's pocket; it is about trying to balance the views, needs and rights of various interests, including workers, employers, the tourism industry, the retail sector—and, indeed, Scotland's public—to find the best way forward. One constant problem in dealing with the bill has been the lack of data, and it would have been a leap in the dark to have gone forward with the new year's day proposals.

That said, the Parliament is sending out the important message that we feel it is important for shop workers to spend time with their families. As I said earlier, I know from members of my family that there is pressure on workers to work over Christmas and new year, and it is not always easy for someone to say no to an employer.

The bill seeks to give statutory underpinning to a voluntary approach. We can introduce legislation in the future if we decide that that is necessary. The amendments to the bill are based on a commonsense and fair approach and they demand and deserve a fair, commonsense response from key players, particularly those in the retail industry. The way forward is in their hands. The message is clear: the Parliament can and will move to act if they do not take seriously their social responsibilities in respect of new year's day.

We believe that the amended bill is the right way forward and I hope that the Parliament will support it.

Cathy Peattie (Labour, Falkirk East)

I thank Karen Whitefield and all the folk who have supported the bill, organisations such as USDAW and the Scottish Trades Union Congress, and the hundreds of shop workers who have written to me and to members of all parties.

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 do not spend it all in the January sales—which, of course, start on boxing day—I am sure that they will manage to save it until a few days after new year. People do not want to shop on Christmas day or new year's day. We need only remember the seasonal siege mentality that takes hold of people on every shopping expedition just before Christmas or new year, when they fill up their trolleys with enough to keep their families going for at least a month so that they do not have to go back out to the shops.

If one big store opens, it puts pressure on other stores to open, on workers to work and on consumers to consume. Surely it is not too much to seek to allow people to have a day off at Christmas and a day off at new year. The bill is about giving shop workers—who are mainly low-paid women—a day off. To the big stores that want to open, I say, "Give it a rest." The tourism argument has been made but, frankly, we have heard a lot of nonsense on that subject. Do people honestly think that visitors come to Scotland for new year to go shopping? People come to Scotland for hogmanay to experience our culture and our music and to enjoy simply being in the country over new year. Our celebrations are famous throughout the world. We have given the world a theme song for new year—"Auld Lang Syne"—and the wee dram, which is also associated with the event. Many people come to Scotland to join in the festivities. At that time of year, our hotels are full of people who want to experience new year.

In 2006, many members of my family came up from Manchester to see Scotland at new year. I can tell Margaret Smith that Princes Street gardens were hotchin with people. As we walked round Edinburgh, we came across loads of families. One shop was open, but when I looked through the window, I saw that there were only two people in it. People did not want to shop; they wanted to enjoy Scotland at new year. We have something very special.

Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

What protection would it be appropriate to give to all the hotel workers who work over that busy period?

Cathy Peattie (Labour, Falkirk East)

It is important that no workers should be forced to work. The Parliament could perhaps think about how to protect hotel workers and so on in the future, but it is clear that the bill is about shop workers and the people who support them. It is an important bill.

Christmas and new year are part of our culture and a time for families and friends to come together. The Parliament supported the creation of a public holiday on St Andrew's day. The fact that some members cannot defend the right of workers to have new year's day off makes me almost lost for words. I ask all members to support the bill at 5 o'clock and to send out the message that Scotland respects the workers who keep our trade going every day of the year.

Mark Ballard (Green, Lothians)

I join other members in commending Karen Whitefield and Mary Mulligan for all the work they have done to progress the bill through the parliamentary process. We will certainly support it tonight. However, I am disappointed that, at this late stage, we have ended up with only half a bill. I agree strongly with Colin Fox that it is in relation to new year's day that the immediate threat lies. We have missed an opportunity to draw a legislative line in the sand. Secondary legislation, which is what agreement to amendment 2 has left us with, is a poor way to draw such a line in the sand.

We cannot bind the hands of any future Executive, but I hope that any expansion of new year's day trading will be met with a statutory instrument, as laid out in the amended bill. The STUC was right to highlight in its evidence that there is genuine danger that new year's day and Christmas day will develop into normal trading days. Cathy Peattie was correct to say that we should give consumerism a rest for at least a few days a year.

The exemption for small-format stores is crucial to ensure the availability of items such as bread, milk and batteries, which are essentials for beleaguered parents on Christmas day, but the same argument does not apply to large retail stores such as those on Princes Street and it applies even less to out-of-town shopping centres.

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Mark Ballard (Green, Lothians)

No. I am sorry, but I am just coming to the end of my speech.

There is a clear difference between small-format stores and large retail outlets and I think that the bill strikes the right balance on that. Despite the last-minute amendments, which will stop the bill doing much of the important work that it could have done, we will support it.

Cathie Craigie (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I am pleased to have the opportunity to express my support for Karen Whitefield's bill. Like other members, I congratulate her on all the hard work that she has put in over the past three and a half years, in which she has been ably supported by her USDAW colleague Mary Mulligan.

I am sure that Karen Whitefield will not mind if I say that the bill belongs to a much wider group of people—the thousands of shop workers throughout Scotland who have offered their support for it. I have no doubt that many members have been contacted through the postcard campaign. The bill has been adopted by many church groups and voluntary organisations, which have supported Karen Whitefield's call for the special nature of Christmas day and new year's day to be preserved in a small way by ensuring that large stores are not allowed to trade on those days.

The criticism has been made that the bill suggests that we are in the pocket of the trade unions, but USDAW should be held up as an example of a trade union that works actively for its members and which promotes their interests. That is something that we should all be willing to support.

The consultation process provided strong evidence of widespread support for the proposed measure.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Cathie Craigie says that the evidence shows widespread support for the bill. Will she clarify why, under amendment 2, more evidence taking will be necessary, which I assume is the position that we will all vote for at decision time at 5 o'clock?

Cathie Craigie (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I refer Sandra White to the Justice 2 Committee's report, in which it acknowledged that more evidence might need to be taken. I am happy to accept that.

Although members of different parties have different views on whether the bill is necessary, it has received huge support from ordinary members of the public. Shoppers—including Karen Whitefield, who has publicly admitted to being a shopaholic—feel strongly that shop workers, who are mainly low-paid women, deserve to have a guarantee that they can have off the two days in question. With the exception of a minority of members, that is something we all support.

We have heard that the Scottish Retail Consortium and retailers in general oppose the bill, but that is not true. Many large retailers have offered their support for the bill because they want there to be a level playing field on Christmas day and new year's day. They do not want other large companies to pressure them into breaking their code and opening on new year's day.

Do I have four minutes for my speech, Presiding Officer?

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

As Mr Ballard took only two minutes, I will give you another minute.

Cathie Craigie (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

Thank you.

The key issue about the bill is that it does not seek to revolutionise what we do over the festive period. It does not seek to put restraints on the retail sector; it seeks to protect the convention that we have had for a number of years—that large stores should not open on Christmas day and new year's day. In fact, as Karen Whitefield said in speaking to the amendments, the bill seeks to retain the status quo.

I ask all members to consider, when they vote at 5 o'clock, the positive impact that the bill would have on the quality of life of shop workers and their families during Christmas and the festive period. I also ask members to consider the impact there would be on other services if new year's day became just another day. If that happened, we would need all the workers who are out on the other days of the year to provide the real services—to provide bus services and to pick up litter in the streets. We would also need more emergency service workers on duty, who give their time at Christmas and new year when we are enjoying ourselves. I ask members who have said that they might not support the bill to have another think and to consider the wider implications that not passing the bill would have.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

I am pleased to support the bill, and I am pleased that more shop workers will be able to enjoy new year's day as a holiday. I recognise the great amount of work that members from all parties have put into the bill. We have had an extremely interesting debate this morning.

I will make one specific suggestion to the minister, which I do not think has been made thus far. When he spoke to the amendments, Stewart Maxwell focused on the need to obtain evidence to inform the decision that ministers will make, as is referred to in amendment 2. The minister has said that, as part of that evidence-taking process, there shall be consulted large shops, their representatives and

"such other persons as the Scottish Ministers think fit."

Many members have alluded to the fact that pressure on workers can come in subtle forms. Pressure can be exerted without any explicit statement being made that a worker should work at a particular time on a given day. To get full evidence, would it be appropriate for the workers in shops that are open on new year's day to have the opportunity anonymously to provide a statement of how they feel about working on that day? I think that that would be a method by which genuine evidence could be obtained.

Like other members, I believe that the vast majority of people would like to enjoy new year's day as a family day and a holiday, away from the commercial pressures that put so much strain on families, especially families who do not have very much money coming in. I think that the vast majority of shop workers want the day as a holiday, but there may be a small minority who might like to work for, perhaps, a half day. I am thinking of younger people.

Cathie Craigie (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

Some of my colleagues were nodding in agreement when Fergus Ewing was commenting on the commercial pressures. If we gave in to what he suggests, the pressure would be on the people who say that they do not want to work. The pressure on the work force to work and on companies to open their stores would continue.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

I have a lot of sympathy with that view. My main point is that, as part of the evidence-taking process, we should ensure that we do not omit to consult the workers as well as the representatives of the businesses. In consulting them, it is right that we ensure that they have the opportunity to give their views under the cloak of anonymity. Perhaps they can do so directly to the minister, rather than through their employer. I think that that would be sensible.

Nevertheless, a small minority of people may want to work at a time when they would be paid overtime or double pay. We should recognise that.

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

Will the member give way?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

I have only one minute left. I am sorry.

Many arguments about tourism have been put forward. I agree with what John Swinney said in the debate on the amendments. The tourism industry will not collapse if shops are closed on new year's day—but I want to know the views of those in the tourism industry. They need to be more specific and give more evidence than they have so far on the impact of the bill on tourism.

There are also inconsistencies in relation to the hospitality and retail industries. In the Aviemore centre, for example, a retail unit is part of a complex of hotel premises. What is the difference between a worker in the retail premises and a worker in the hotel? I want to know the impact of the bill on the Aviemore centre, which offers an all-round facility for tourists who come to Scotland for many reasons, one of which might be to do a little bit of shopping. We must hear to what extent there is evidence that that is an important factor.

For those reasons, I welcome the minister's approach. I hope that she will respond to my suggestion in her closing remarks.

Charlie Gordon (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

Having had to work on Christmas day in the construction industry and, later, on Christmas day and new year's day in the railway industry, I identify with workers who do not want to be forced to work on those days. The bill is well intentioned, and I congratulate Karen Whitefield on the way in which she has pursued the issue.

The United Kingdom has a culture of long working hours compared with other countries, and I am pleased that the Labour Government at Westminster is currently consulting on a proposal to increase the number of public holidays from 20 to 28, benefiting some 400,000 workers in Scotland. I am sorry if Mr Mather finds that fact confusing. I am taking the opportunity of the consultation around that proposal to advocate personally that employers in all industries should show that voluntary rostering of staff has been tried first when trading on any public holiday is regarded as necessary.

When I was a shop steward in the railway industry, I helped to persuade local management to arrange rosters of volunteers on Christmas day and new year's day when there was a service. There was usually no shortage of volunteers. People had a variety of reasons for volunteering, but there were obvious incentives in the form of an enhanced pay rate and time off in lieu.

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

I wonder whether Mr Gordon is aware of the understandable concern among many shop workers, who have seen their terms and conditions change, that, if new year's day is just like any other day, they will not get an enhanced rate of pay. That is what has happened on Sundays—the offer of enhanced pay has not been followed through.

Charlie Gordon (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

Yes. If that trend continues, it will be outrageous. The Westminster Parliament, as well as the Scottish Parliament, has a responsibility to protect workers' rights from erosion. It is absolutely clear to me that, not just on Christmas day and new year's day, but on any public holiday, voluntary rosters are preferable and practicable. I say that from my own experience.

I accept and agree that most people should have the day off on Christmas day. Those who must work on that day should, preferably, be volunteers. There is no desire among retailers to trade on Christmas day, and the level of tourism on that day is negligible. Hotel occupancy in the city of Glasgow on Christmas day is around 18 per cent.

There are some 19,000 tourists in the city of Glasgow on new year's day and hotel occupancy is around 90 per cent. The most recent survey, in 2004, indicated that 56 per cent of those 19,000 tourists cited shopping as the main reason for their visit. Glasgow city centre is not just a shopping mall; it is an interesting place with lots of interesting architecture and excellent restaurants. Given an average spend of £116 per head, the potential loss of trade to Glasgow retailers would be about £1 million.

There is therefore some, although not much, evidence from Glasgow to justify the Executive's precautionary approach in its amendments and its desire to leave the door open for more evidence gathering. The issue is not about being pro shopping per se—personally, I regard the term "leisure shopping" as an oxymoron—and neither is it about being pro business per se. We should be pro workers and pro jobs, because full employment is our overarching objective.

Colin Fox (SSP, Lothians)

Like other members, I congratulate Karen Whitefield on her bill and on raising important issues in the Parliament in the past couple of years.

We are discussing the bill today because our biggest department stores have for the past three years opened on new year's day—because there is money in it for them. We are here because there is clear evidence that their staff—the vulnerable retail staff so many members like to talk about when we discuss the issue—are being coerced into working on new year's day. I predict that, as a result of the Executive's amendments today, not only will that continue, but new year's day 2007 will be far busier than it was this year and far more stores will be open. In effect, the Executive has given the green light to employers that want to open.

When retail traders open on new year's day, that puts pressures on other sectors to open. Who here has not noticed that the tourism industry has been desperate for our tourist attractions to open, for the same reasons as it wants our department stores to open? The industry wants Edinburgh castle and other attractions in Edinburgh to be open. Pressure will be brought to bear on public transport. Charlie Gordon rightly talked about trains. There will be a need for more buses and trains, so more bus and train drivers will have to work to get people to and back from the stores. Local authority staff, such as parking attendants and car park workers, will also be required to work. In other words, the retail sector will become the Trojan horse for a wider cultural change.

The impact on Scottish cultural life of new year's day becoming just like any other day will be widespread. In its evidence, the tourism industry overlooked the grave danger of strangling the goose that lays the golden egg. People come to Scotland for a unique experience at new year and hogmanay. By making the experience the same as what they can get in New Orleans, Beijing or Auckland, we will lose the imperative for people to come here.

The Scottish Socialist Party has supported Karen Whitefield's bill throughout the process. We are proud to work with USDAW and the Co-operative movement in supporting it. I fear that the amendments that were passed earlier this morning have rendered the bill, on which Karen Whitefield has worked for four years, absolutely meaningless. The minister made a plea to employers to consider their corporate social responsibility, but if employers took their social responsibility seriously we would not need a trade union movement. The fact is that employers do not take their corporate responsibility seriously. That is why we are considering the bill. The minister should not talk to us about employers' social responsibility just weeks after the debate on Farepak. The minister should tell that to the workers who used to work at Solectron or NCR, or to those who have lost their jobs in Irvine. The employer's interest is to make profit. The minister's threats to employers and all she says about a code are so much hot air.

Murdo Fraser could not have been more wrong when he said that Labour and the Executive are in the pocket of the trade unions. I do not know whether his tongue was in his cheek, as he sits a long way from me in the chamber but, to be frank, the reverse is true. The Labour Party has not been comfortable with the bill from the beginning, which is why it has taken a view on it only this morning. It is trying to face two ways at once—it is electioneering and appealing to vulnerable retail workers, but it jumps to attention when the Confederation of British Industry speaks.

After the stage 1 debate on the bill, a representative of the CBI appeared quickly on television to say that it did not like the bill and did not want it as it would restrict trading. As far as I am concerned, the CBI's complaint that trade will be restricted is behind the amendments that the Executive lodged for stage 3.

During the debate on the amendments, one Labour member—I think it was Susan Deacon—expressed her discomfort, which I am sure other Labour members share, about the fact that we are considering an employment bill that is dressed up as a trading bill. They know fine well that the bill deals with a Westminster issue—employment—but that if it were considered at Westminster it would not have a chance in hell of being passed because Westminster would not support improved employment rights for trade unionists.

Cathie Craigie let the cat out of the bag when she warned Jim Mather that the big retailers are not against the bill—they are not against it now, because they are behind the Executive's amendments. Those amendments are a sell-out of vulnerable trade union members and vulnerable retail staff, who looked to the member's bill in the Parliament for help and assistance, but who have been left standing on their own.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Members seemed to have forgotten that nobody is forced to go shopping and that it is a matter of choice for individuals. It should also be a matter of choice for business owners to decide whether there is a market or public demand. They would then have to negotiate with their staff, as they do currently.

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

Will the member give way?

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Not at this time.

Jeremy Purvis asked why I moved the minister's amendments at stage 2 and then voted against them. As I said earlier, the answer is simple: I voted against them because the minister did not have the courage to support her own amendments.

Cathy Jamieson (Labour, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

I was not there.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Sorry. The deputy minister would not move them on the minister's behalf. The Scottish Executive fudged the issue and left it to the last minute—today—to produce something.

As Jim Mather and Murdo Fraser said, the issue is about a compromise. Good legislation often is a compromise, but the bill will not do anything at all if it is passed with the amendments that have been approved today. Colin Fox was right that the tourism industry wants facilities to open when people are here and wish to use them. It is strange that we have had a debate about protecting workers in shops of a certain arbitrary size and in a certain arbitrary type of business when there is no protection at all for the vast majority of people who work on new year's day, such as hospitality workers. I could go on and on, without even mentioning those who do essential work, such as people in the health service. The bill is flawed in principle, because it cherry picks one type of business to get the measure agreed to.

The minister talked about retailers' social responsibility. Is that not proof that it should be for employers to trade and to deal favourably with their staff, in consultation with them? The evidence that the Justice 2 Committee received was clear that some people want to work. For example, many students want to work because of the extra money. If people want to work, why should they be deprived of that opportunity? Why should a business be denied that opportunity if it thinks that a market exists? As Charlie Gordon rightly said, the issue is about employment and job creation. Our economy needs to grow, because it is not doing terribly well and has not done so for the past eight years under the Liberal-Labour pact.

Cathie Craigie said that some stores support the bill. That is their choice. All that I have ever argued is that businesses should have choice. If stores support the bill, they do not have to open, because nobody will force them. However, if they want to open, they should have that choice.

Cathy Peattie said that we need to expand the measures in the future. She seems happy to go down the route of not allowing hospitality workers to work on new year's day, which I find staggering, when the hospitality industry is part of the attraction of coming to Scotland.

Many issues have been discussed today, but the bill fails to grasp one point, which is that if there is no trade, no businesses will want to open. Businesses respond to public demand. The minister is allowing that to carry on, which in a sense I welcome. However, I would like the minister to tell us how she will use her powers if she gets them today. Trade is about satisfying public demand and wealth creation. Wealth creation leads to taxation, without which we would not have public services.

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

The debate has been interesting. It was certainly interesting being a member of the Justice 2 Committee as it considered the bill, given the competing demands and views of the large number of witnesses from whom we heard.

I will talk about workers being coerced into working. I used to work on Christmas day because my father coerced me into working in his small business—so the issue of whether workers are coerced into working is not always as black and white as we sometimes think. That may be a tangential and amusing point, but the important point is that workers in small stores often have fewer rights and less opportunity to defend themselves than do workers in large stores. The bill refers only to large stores, but there are issues to do with the rights of workers in small stores and their ability to defend themselves against employers who can be keen to exploit their workers to the nth degree.

I do not believe that people have any appetite for shops to open on Christmas day. Despite its flaws, the bill has been improved by the amendments that we have agreed to this morning. I do not want either Christmas day or new year's day to become normal trading days, and I do not believe that anybody really does. However, we now have a much more sensible balance between the competing demands on those days.

Murdo Fraser and Colin Fox cannot both be correct in their respective assertions that the trade unions and big business have won. Either only one of them is correct or, more likely, neither of them is correct.

Christmas day and new year's day are very different. Throughout the passage of the bill, Karen Whitefield has asserted that the days are similar, but there is a big difference. Although, like many others, I feel that business should be allowed to trade as freely as possible, it should not be allowed to do so at the expense of workers' rights—which brings me on to one of the biggest problems with the bill. Had this Parliament had powers over employment rights, I do not think that anybody would have introduced a bill on trading.

In effect, Karen Whitefield has spent a long time building a square peg before trying to ram it into a round hole. We all know the advert about the product that

"does exactly what it says on the tin."

That claim cannot be made for the bill. It is not the member's fault—she has done as much as is possible using trading laws—but, given normal circumstances and normal powers, I am sure that she would have used employment laws.

The bill will ensure that certain shops in certain circumstances will not be open for business on Christmas day—and perhaps new year's day, depending on the evidence. Shops do not open on Christmas day. I do not believe that they want to open, and nobody would expect them to. New year's day, however, is different. In some parts of the country, a limited number of shops open. They do so because there is demand, and that usually occurs in tourist centres. A reasonable argument can be made for allowing that to continue, but only if workers are willing to go in and work. I accept all members' comments about asserting the right of workers to have those two days off if they so wish. Fergus Ewing's point about workers being able to give evidence anonymously was worth while and should be considered.

Tourist centres must be allowed to grow and thrive, and we must not put unnecessary obstacles in the way of economic growth. I am, therefore, pleased that, at this late stage, we agreed to amend the bill this morning. We can now pause and consider the evidence relating to new year's day.

It has been claimed that the bill will guarantee days off, but it will not really do that; it will only stop trading. It has been claimed that the bill will keep the days special for workers, but that is true only for a minority of workers, and certainly not for those in small shops, in railway stations or in airports, and not for workers in smaller Tesco stores, although it is true for workers in larger Tesco stores. Other members have pointed out other anomalies.

The biggest problem from the start has been the lack of robust evidence on both sides. However, we can now move forward and consider evidence on new year's day trading. We can consider whether trading will have an impact on our tourist centres, on our economy and, in particular, on the right of workers to have the day off and spend time with their families. Today's amendments have inserted important provisions into the bill, and we will support it at decision time.

Cathy Jamieson (Labour, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

I will start by referring to Colin Fox's speech. To suggest that the bill is meaningless in the form that will be put to members at decision time is to do a great disservice to Karen Whitefield, to Mary Mulligan, to USDAW members throughout the country, to the Scottish Retail Consortium and to the industry. Those people have worked to put forward the case and arrive at a solution. Colin Fox should not underestimate what we are doing in this bill. Both Christmas day and new year's day will be covered in statute and there will be a real power.

The question was rightly asked about how the minister would use that power. I hope that the minister would use the power in the same way as they would use any other power. If I were the minister, I would—like any other minister—use the power wisely. The minister would use the power after taking into account the evidence that was brought before them, and they would use the power to advance the will of Parliament. Today, we have heard clearly what the will of Parliament is.

It was difficult to arrive at a consensus, because there is a range of views. I see that David Davidson has not managed to stay in the chamber to hear my response to his comments. The reason why the Executive did not argue a firm position at stage 2 was, quite simply, because one had not been arrived at. It is far more honest to say, "We haven't arrived at a firm position. There is still work to do. Let's go and do that work and come to a conclusion," than to pretend otherwise.

I heard Murdo Fraser's suggestion that various members were in the pockets of the trade unions. That is quite an outdated view of the world, and outdated language.

Cathy Peattie (Labour, Falkirk East)

On that point, does the minister agree that it is important that the Scottish Executive works alongside the trade unions in Scotland and that the trade unions have just as important a role as the Confederation of British Industry Scotland or any other stakeholder?

Cathy Jamieson (Labour, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

I absolutely endorse that view. Throughout the bill process and the debate, I have been at pains to recognise the work of USDAW and the wider trade union movement in introducing, supporting and helping us to refine the bill and making the case for their workers. Murdo Fraser and others talk about workers in the hospitality sector and other industries. I might have had a bit more sympathy with that if the Tories had any track record of considering low pay and of supporting workers in any industry, but they do not.

It is important to recognise that we will put in statute the fact that we can consider the legislation in future on the basis of the evidence. I gave a commitment earlier that the Executive will consider new year's day 2008—I appreciate that Colin Fox was perhaps a year behind us when he mentioned 2007. I want to consider the impact of 2008 and introduce a suitable report to Parliament.

One or two members seem to have a cosy view of what it is like to work in a family business. I am the only person in my family who has not worked in the family business at some stage, and I know that many of them work as many hours in the week as I do as an MSP and a minister. We have heard some strange views of the world from members who have not had to deliver in that context.

I am sorry that Fergus Ewing is not here to listen to my response to his comments on anonymity. He raised a point that has been raised directly with me by USDAW members during the passage of the bill. It is important that we gather evidence in a way that allows people to remain anonymous, so that they do not fear for their position in the workplace. It is also important that we are both proactive and reactive. We could simply sit and wait for the evidence to come in, but that would not be good enough. In order to assess the economic and social impact, we must be proactive and find a way of working with the trade unions and the retail sector. I have been at pains to point that out today.

USDAW has a strong record of campaigning. Its influential freedom from fear campaign highlighted the need to stand up for the workers in the retail sector. I hope that everyone remembers that the next time they go into a shop. They may be a bit hard-pressed, they may be in a hurry and they may not be all that pleasant to the shop worker who serves them. As well as the people who choose a professional career in retailing, many shop workers are students or people who will move on to other things. Everyone should remember that the person they are not being particularly pleasant to might be their dentist, their child's teacher, their financial adviser or maybe even their MSP in future.

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

I have a number of people to thank. The title "member's bill" is a bit of a misnomer, because it takes a lot more than one MSP to take a bill through the Parliament.

I offer my sincere thanks to those people who have helped to get us to the point at which the Parliament is ready to vote on the bill. I begin by thanking all the staff and activists at USDAW for their unflinching support. In particular, I thank John Hannett, who has provided me with support and guidance at all stages of the bill. Most important, I thank the individual members of USDAW, because they are who the bill is about. I thank those members of the retail trade who are not members of a trade union who campaigned, took the time to contact their local MSPs and played their part in the democratic process, which, after all, is the reason the Parliament was established.

I also give special thanks to the members of the non-Executive bills unit, particularly Rodger Evans, whose knowledge and understanding of the parliamentary procedures for members' bills proved invaluable.

I thank the members of the Justice 2 Committee, even those I did not always agree with, for their close scrutiny of the bill. I also thank all those who gave evidence and ensured that all the arguments were fully debated.

I should add my thanks to the Justice 2 Committee clerks, who ensured the smooth and efficient passage of the bill through stages 1 and 2. Thanks also go to the clerks of the Finance Committee, which also played an important part in the process.

So many of my colleagues on the Labour back benches have to be thanked, but I give particular thanks to Mary Mulligan, a fellow USDAW member, for her support and for the vital points that she has made today and throughout the process in supporting the bill and reminding us all of the importance of promoting the protection of Scotland's shop workers and the special nature of Christmas day and new year's day. I cannot mention every member of the back-bench Labour group who supported me—there are too many of them—but their support has been invaluable.

It is important to acknowledge where we have come from. Colin Fox suggested that the bill is in some way meaningless, and I take issue with that. It is simply not the case. We might not be where we wanted to be when we started this process, but there was no consensus in the Parliament. If Mr Maxwell had had his way, the Parliament would have voted down the general principles of the bill. We made this happen and we made sure that, while we might not have got everything that we wanted, we have delivered for shop workers. I assure the chamber and Scotland's shop workers that I will work with them and USDAW to hold the Scottish Executive to account. They need be under no illusion about that.

I should mention a couple of the contributions that have been made. I am not surprised that Jim Mather wanted to talk about other things. The nationalists will take any opportunity to talk about independence rather than concentrating on the powers that we have today and the difference that we can make to ordinary people's lives.

I say to Murdo Fraser that I am not in the pocket of any trade union, but I am proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with any trade unionist in this country, to work for the people who elected me and to represent them by ensuring that this Parliament delivers legislation that protects them. I will never be ashamed of that.

This bill has come about because of the hard work and campaigning of individual shop workers. We are not on the wrong side of the argument. Although the Executive might not have been as quick to understand the issues as I would have liked, it has finally come down on the right side. Today, the Tories will be on the wrong side if they vote against the bill.

Mark Ballard has been very supportive of the bill and I am grateful to the Greens for their support. However, I do not believe that because we have not got everything that we wanted the position has not changed. We have more than half a bill. It might not be everything, but it is more than half a bill.

As I have already said, I assure members that I will work to ensure that the commitments given by Cathy Jamieson are followed through. It is important that the study begins now and that we work together to examine what will happen next new year. It is important that the Executive will work with unions—USDAW in particular—in doing that work. We should be constantly vigilant to ensure that it is not tolerated or accepted for any shop worker in Scotland to be coerced into working, no matter how subtle the coercion, even when it is done not by employers but by colleagues who workers do not want to let down. We need to be aware of the different forms that subtle coercion can take and the need for the Executive to take an innovative approach to monitoring such difficulties.

We have moved some way and there is a choice to be made, but it is not a choice between doing good for business and doing harm, nor is it a choice between growing tourism and holding tourism back. We have a choice between the precious time that is spent with family and friends and an unwelcome shift on the shop floor, which is what we will get if we do not support the bill. We also have a choice between preserving the essence of two special days and creating another two standard shopping days to add to the other 363.

I have said all along that the bill is a modest ambition—it does not ask the earth of retailers. By working in partnership, we can deliver for Scotland's shop workers. I hope that the bill will retain the special nature of the two days. I hope that tonight I can go out and celebrate not by raising a glass in toast but by shopping—as many members know, I like nothing more. I will be able to do that because of the hard work and efforts of Scotland's shop workers.

I do not think that it is too much to ask that the Parliament support the bill.

Small Business

George Reid (None, Ochil)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-5690, in the name of Jim Mather, on the economy and small business.

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Members will know that we in the Scottish National Party want to create the conditions that will make Scotland more populous and more prosperous. Members of other parties will no doubt claim that that can be achieved by sticking to the current constitutional settlement, but we know that to be a false hope. We believe that those objectives can be achieved only through independence, which has energised and enriched many other small countries. It is our absolute conviction that such a resurgence is impossible in this union and that the proof of that is there for all to see.

Those who attended last night's meeting of the cross-party group on Scotland's financial future heard Professor Robert Wright show us the challenge that we face in relation to our population decline. He characterised the input of people from the European Union accession states as a blip and told us that the issue is urgent and that, if we do not do something about it, the solution will be neither easy nor obvious. However, he outlined a path that we can take, which involves economic powers and immigration powers.

More important than those issues, at least in the short term, is the need to focus on Scotland's economic growth. Even a poor measure such as gross domestic product, which overstates wealth retained in Scotland, shows us an interesting picture, especially when we cut through the deceit.

At the moment, the Executive indexes Scotland and England's GDP to equal 100 points as at 2003. It does not show much of a difference just now: the United Kingdom is at 105.3 points and Scotland is at 104.4 points. But if we clock the base back to 1998 and calculate it forward, the difference is six points; if we clock it back to 1985 and calculate it forward, the difference is 14 points; and if we clock it back to 1975, we see that Scotland is at 170 points and the UK is at 198 points, which is a difference of 28 points. That understates the position, as can be seen by examining other supportive data, such as VAT registrations.

Between 1999 and 2006, Scottish VAT-registered businesses grew at a level of 4 per cent, compared with 9.5 per cent in England, 7.1 per cent in Northern Ireland and 4.4 per cent in Wales. During that same period, Scotland's share of the UK population of businesses dropped to 7 per cent, even though we have 8.5 per cent of the population.

The Scottish people have a compelling rationale for putting the SNP in power to sort that out and to get Scotland back on the right track.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

The problem is that people do not know which SNP to put into power. Is it the SNP of Jim Mather, who wants to cut taxes, or the socialist republic SNP of Christine Grahame, who said:

"We need to raise taxes and redistribute the wealth in Scotland"?—[Official Report, 19 January 2005; c 13601.]

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

We will raise taxes by growing the economy. The member should read his newspapers. If he had read The Scotsman five months ago, he would have seen the editorial that said that the SNP's blend of enterprise and social democracy could be a winning formula. I would go further and say that it will be a winning formula. We should not take lessons from the Liberal Democrats, who dot around the political spectrum.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

Jim Mather talks about raising taxes by growing the economy. By how much will he grow the economy to fill the £11 billion gap that is the differential between the taxes that are raised in Scotland and the amount that is spent on public services in Scotland? How will he fill that black hole?

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

The minister wears his fantasy like a badge of pride, which it is not.

If the calculations included our oil, a proper allocation of civil service jobs and defence spending, and the fact that people are cross-border trading into Scotland with no corporate representation or headquarters here, we would see that Scotland's economic growth can exceed that of any of the small countries around about us.

A native of Edinburgh, Professor John Kay, who wrote "The Truth About Markets: Why Some Countries are Rich and Others Remain Poor", tells us that countries that have embedded institutions, legal systems, banking, local government, good infrastructure, health and education are predisposed to be wealthy, especially if they share borders with other wealthy countries and do the right things. The Executive has been doing the wrong things. We are going to do the right things. We will take things forward.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the member tell us how the SNP's plans for a local income tax of 6.5 per cent, which would be paid on the profits of every unincorporated small business in Scotland, would help to grow the economy?

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

If the member listened to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which tells us that the rate will be about 3 per cent, he would perhaps copy our policy on that, just as he copied our small business policy.

We intend to give Scotland a unifying worthy aim that will link everyone in Scotland, including Scottish Water, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and the rest of them. Our objective is to have an ever-increasing number of working people in fulfilling and rewarding work in Scotland. We think that that will unify Scotland, and the big token that we are putting down now is the practical step of our small business bonus scheme, which will take 120,000 businesses out of the rates net—those with a rateable value of less than £8,000—and give graduated relief for those with rateable values up to £15,000. It will invigorate the quiet parts of our towns and cities and provide a lifeline and an important sign of hope to rural Scotland.

That step, like our other practical steps on procurement and more cohesive support for small businesses, is a signal of what else we will do when the Scottish people enable the Parliament to claim more powers and roll back the adverse trends. We will adopt and customise good ideas from elsewhere. That will encourage co-operation and competitiveness in Scotland in pursuit of our worthy aim. After all, Jean-Philippe Cotis, the chief economist of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development says that a failure to converge is a failure to learn. Scotland and its people have some rewarding and life-enhancing converging to do.

We will aim to achieve a 4 per cent growth rate. We will do that by being empowered. We will follow the lines of John Kay and his advice and we will make the Scotsman editorial come true by delivering enterprise and social democracy in taking Scotland forward.

I move,

That the Parliament recognises the need to make the Scottish economy and hence Scottish businesses increasingly competitive and therefore welcomes the SNP's Small Business Bonus Scheme, which will remove 120,000 small businesses from eligibility to pay business rates and reduce the rates burden on a further 30,000 small businesses by either 25% or 50%, thereby increasing small business viability and bringing increased vibrancy and job opportunity to cities, towns, villages and rural Scotland.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

I call Allan Wilson, to speak to and move amendment S2M-5690.3. [ Interruption. ]

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

The fact that I am being attacked before I have said anything is a badge of pride that I wear in the chamber.

In the five minutes that are available to me, it would be impossible to scotch all the myths that we have just heard on the Scottish economy and, indeed, the United Kingdom economy. Today's debate should focus on small businesses. I thought that its purpose was to focus on the importance of small businesses to Scotland's growing economy. It is important to have the debate in the wider context in which the Scottish economy is set. I do not dispute that for a minute. It is important to have a stable environment in which Scottish businesses, large and small, can thrive.

After decades of instability, we have achieved sound economic management, which has brought us unprecedented stability against which we can pursue the necessary changes that are critical to Scotland's success. Gone are the previous Administration's days of boom and bust, which afflicted so many of our communities in the 1980s and 1990s. The Scottish economy is now in a strong position.

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

We are in a global boom at the moment, but all Scotland can muster is 2.3 per cent, so yet again we are working on low growth. Does the minister equate low growth with stability?

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

What I equate with stability are the fundamentals of economic growth. That view is held not simply by the Labour and Liberal Democrat Scottish Executive but, more important, by the business community. If the member asks any business, large or small, anywhere in Scotland, what the business community thinks is critical to economic growth in this country, he will receive a one-word response: stability. With all due respect to Jim Mather, businesses do not want the instability that he promotes at every cut and thrust.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Will the minister give way?

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

No. I will carry on, if the member does not mind.

We have almost the lowest unemployment since quarterly records began—the rate is below the UK rate for the first time for generations. The most recent GDP data indicate that during the year to the third quarter of 2005, the Scottish economy grew by 2.3 per cent. Growth has been above the long-term annual average for nine successive quarters. Growth in gross weekly earnings is higher than the UK rate as a whole in three of the past four years and productivity growth is above the UK rate in each of the past three years. Who can dispute that the Scottish economy is strong and growing?

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The minister is fond of saying that Scotland is being subsidised by the rest of the UK to the tune of £11 billion. I do not accept that figure, but the minister clearly does, so will he say whether that gap is being closed as a result of the economic success that he describes? When will his policies bring the gap down to zero?

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

Unlike Mr Morgan, I am not a nationalist who thinks that the gap necessarily requires to be closed—[ Interruption. ] Members of the Scottish National Party are laughing, but Scotland benefits from the devolution dividend that the £11 billion expenditure represents. SNP members are fond of promoting the idea that taxes are too high and should be cut so that we can match Irish levels of social services spend, but do the Scottish people want the levels of spend that exist in Ireland, where people have to pay to see their doctor? Do they want to follow the Norwegian example, in which the basic rate of income tax is well beyond the rate in Scotland? SNP members cannot have it both ways: they cannot promote a low-tax economy and high social services spend. The £11 billion that they regard as a drag on economic growth benefits this country, because it helps to fund the levels of social services that we require. We are able to provide a free health service out of the UK Exchequer as a whole. That is the devolution dividend.

We want to—and we can—do more. We want to help Scottish business achieve the competitive edge that is necessary to succeed in an increasingly dynamic global economy. That is why we took the decision to halve the rate poundage gap with England this year, which benefits not only small businesses, but all businesses, in Scotland. We are determined to build on that, which is why we announced our intention to go further and cut the poundage to the level in England on 1 April 2007. The new rate for Scotland represents a full 2p cut in rate poundage since 2005-06. The average non-domestic ratepayer in Scotland will pay around £800 less in 2007-08—a reduction of around 9 per cent—as a result of our policy of equalisation with England. That will give Scottish businesses a competitive edge.

I noticed recently that the SNP proposes to shelter small and medium-sized enterprises from open and genuine competition for public procurement contracts. The SNP set a target of 20 per cent. That would represent a cut in the current level of participation by Scottish SMEs in public procurement. It demonstrates the level of the SNP's ambition in relation to public procurement contracts for small and medium-sized enterprises—the SNP actually wants to cut their rate of participation in public procurement.

As part of our on-going work, the Executive is gathering data on procurement spend on goods and services across the public sector. That data-gathering exercise is far from complete, but preliminary analysis indicates that spending with SMEs in Scotland is well in excess of the SNP's proposed target. I suggest that SNP members send their researchers back to think again.

Far from being complacent, we believe that the decisions that we have taken are vital to growing a successful, dynamic and stimulated economy. When we are returned after the election, as we undoubtedly will be, we will make further proposals for growth in the SME sector, to build on the economic growth and the success that has already been achieved here in Scotland.

I move amendment S2M-5690.3, to leave out from "to make" to end and insert:

"to continue to grow the Scottish economy and to support the competitiveness of Scottish businesses; welcomes the steps that the Scottish Executive has taken to achieve that by listening to business and reducing the level of business rates; supports measures to encourage innovation, including supporting links to Scotland's science and research base and easing access by business to public sector contracts; welcomes support from Scottish Enterprise and the Business Gateway through investing in a highly skilled workforce in Scotland, such as through the modern apprenticeships scheme, and increasing investment in the infrastructure necessary to build a modern competitive economy."

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I welcome this afternoon's opportunity to debate the future of the Scottish economy and, in particular, support for small businesses. The debate is timely as, only on Monday, I launched our Scottish Conservative business manifesto, which proposes a range of measures to benefit small businesses in particular. We have produced a fully costed package for annual business rates reductions of £150 million, aimed at small businesses. A small business with a rateable value of £7,000 or less would receive a 100 per cent discount on its rates. It would pay nothing at all. There would be a sliding scale of discounts for businesses with rateable values up to £15,000.

I know that such measures would deliver a real saving to more than 100,000 small businesses across Scotland. Small businesses have been struggling with the weight of business rates, water charges and overregulation over the past 10 years of Labour government at Westminster and over the past eight years of the Lib-Lab pact in Edinburgh. We should never forget that it was Jack McConnell who, when he was Minister for Finance, raised the business rate in Scotland above the rate that was payable south of the border—a measure that has cost Scottish businesses more than £900 million in additional taxation.

Our proposals do not stop there. We are also planning a £20 million annual town centre regeneration fund, which would be available for local communities throughout Scotland to bid into to pay for much needed improvements to, for example, car parking, signage or toilet facilities—or to pay for a shop-front scheme, for instance. We all know that many of our traditional town centres are suffering because of the growth in out-of-town retail parks and the construction of many new supermarkets, which are cheap and convenient and have free parking on their doorstep. We have to start levelling the playing field and breathing life back into our traditional town centres. That is exactly what our policies will do.

There are many communities in my region—towns such as Kinross, Crieff, Blairgowrie, Brechin and Kirriemuir—where a package of business rates cuts for small businesses and a town centre regeneration fund would go a long way to reduce the number of empty properties and "to let" signs, which seem to be a feature of too many small town centres.

Our proposals go even further. We are determined to tackle red tape and to bring in sunset clauses on new legislation. We will charge all quangos such as SEPA and Scottish Natural Heritage with an overriding obligation to promote economic growth. All too often, it is the actions of those quangos that hold up and hinder businesses that are trying to grow.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

If the Conservatives are so against quangos, why does Murdo Fraser's amendment propose a new quango—a dedicated skills agency? How much would it cost? How many employees would it have?

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

It will have a budget of £170 million. We are proposing to transfer away from Scottish Enterprise—which is a largely discredited organisation that deals with economic development—its remit for skills and training. We propose also to take Careers Scotland, which is currently an orphan organisation that nobody wants to have, and create a new skills agency that is focused on upskilling the economy. The current Scottish Enterprise budget for dealing with skills and training would be transferred over to that new agency. That is a sensible suggestion that I hope the Scottish National Party will be prepared to support—if it gets round to costing its own manifesto.

We will bring in new procurement rules to create a single point of entry to the public sector for businesses, and we will examine the application of European Union tendering rules to ensure that small businesses and social enterprises get a fair slice of the cake.

One key difference between our plans and those put forward by the SNP is that, unlike it, we would not penalise small businesses with the introduction of the ludicrous local income tax. We need to remember that the vast majority of small businesses are unincorporated, so they pay income tax rather than corporation tax on their profits. Every penny of their profits is taxed at income tax rates and would be subject to the 6.5 per cent local income tax proposed by both the SNP and the Liberal Democrats.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

rose

—

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Mr Neil is now going to justify that outrageous tax grab against small businesses.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Not at all—Mr Neil is simply going to ask two straightforward questions. First, how are the Conservatives going to fund the council tax rebate to pensioners that they have promised? What are they going to cut to fund it? Secondly, in the Conservatives' fund for roads—a key part of their regeneration package—they have set aside £15 million to take out bends and straighten roads. How many bends will they be able to straighten for £15 million?

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

We have made it perfectly clear where the money to fund our pensioner council tax discount will come from. When we move Scottish Water out of the public sector and create it as a mutual company, we will save the revenue subsidy that is currently paid. It is interesting that we have talked about mutualising Scottish Water for years and that we have been derided for being out of touch and extreme in proposing it, yet we now hear that the Liberal Democrats are joining us and support our policy. Is it not reassuring that Ross Finnie—the Scottish Executive minister responsible for Scottish Water—has now adopted our policy on Scottish Water? That proves that the Conservatives are the trend setters in Scottish politics.

Mr Neil did his best to deflect us from talking about the local income tax, but he is not going to get away with it. The SNP is proposing uncosted plans for rates cuts for small businesses and proposing to take the money back through imposing a local income tax. The SNP and the Liberals would clobber small businesses with tax rises. They cannot be trusted.

Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

Will the member give way?

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Do I have time, Presiding Officer?

George Reid (None, Ochil)

You have a maximum of about two minutes.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I will happily give way.

Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

Have the policies that Mr Fraser is outlining been met by an explosion of indifference across the country because the Tories have said that they have no desire to implement any of them after the election in May? They do not want any role in government.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Nobody can prejudge the outcome of the election. Who knows where we will be after it? The Conservatives may be sitting here with a much expanded group and—as everybody is starting to accept—holding the balance of power. Let us not rule anything out. Who knows what may happen?

We already see other parties taking their lead from us. I am pleased that Mr Purvis and his party have taken our lead on Scottish Water, and I am pleased to see other parties reacting to the lead that we have given on drugs policy. The Conservatives are setting the agenda. Even the SNP is following, with Alex Salmond talking about procurement on Monday. I am delighted that he has read our manifesto on procurement and is taking some lessons from us. It is encouraging to see that; it is just a shame that he will not be here after May to implement any policies.

Small businesses in Scotland have been neglected by government at all levels for too long. It is time to give them a boost. They are the backbone of our economy. For too long they have borne the brunt of high rates, high water charges, poor transportation and excessive regulation. It is time to redress that balance, which is exactly what the Scottish Conservatives will do. I have pleasure in moving my amendment.

I move amendment S2M-5690.1, to leave out from "welcomes" to end and insert:

"condemns the proposals put forward by the SNP and the Liberal Democrats for a local income tax which would represent a significant new financial burden for the many small businesses that are unincorporated; further condemns the policies of the Lib-Lab pact which have done so much to harm business, especially the decision taken by Jack McConnell MSP to abolish the uniform business rate in 2000 which has cost Scottish businesses an extra £900 million, and welcomes the fully costed proposals put forward in the Scottish Conservatives' business manifesto, including the abolition of business rates for all firms with a rateable value under £7,000, a tiered rates cut for all firms with a rateable value of between £7,000 and £15,000, a £20 million annual town centre regeneration fund, a dedicated public procurement unit to cut through the bureaucratised process of approval when businesses are tendering for public contracts, five-year sunset clauses on all primary legislation, a presumption against gold-plating of EU regulation, a new dedicated skills agency to work with business, schools and colleges to tackle the skills shortage, extra investment in the road network to prioritise improvements on key links such as the A9, A75, A96 and A82, and the building of a new Forth crossing, a package which will deliver real benefits to Scotland's small business and lead to higher economic growth."

Andrew Arbuckle (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I find it interesting that the SNP motion is on small businesses rather than the large business sector and that Jim Mather provided a pretty rosy-eyed romp through the few statistics that suit the SNP vision but ignored the multitude that pick up on the big holes in the SNP view.

We know that big business has seen through the SNP hype. When the SNP could not answer the simple questions about the economic impact of Salmond's separate state, the Confederation of British Industry was understandably as dissatisfied as the rest of us. Alex Salmond's response was that the CBI should butt out of politics. As the representative organisation of some of the most influential companies in Scotland—indeed, some of the most influential companies in the world—the CBI has every right to seek information and state its views on how a supposedly prospective Government wants to direct the economy in which companies work.

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Will the member take an intervention?

Andrew Arbuckle (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

No. If the SNP had not shoehorned two debates into the time that is normally allowed for one, we would have had more time to debate the issues properly.

Of course, if the CBI had agreed with the SNP on the creation of a separate state, we would never have heard the end of it. Alex Salmond is fond of name dropping the Royal Bank of Scotland as a former employer, to try to boost his economic credentials, but the SNP accuses that bank of mounting a conspiracy as soon as it points out that his sums do not add up. Basically, the SNP's economic policies do not stand up to scrutiny, and its reaction in attacking the CBI was unacceptable and immature. That is no way in which to debate the future of Scotland's economy.

The unanswered questions on the economy are not just questions for big business. Increases in personal and business taxation, the level interest rates are set at, by whom they are set and the costs of a new pay-as-you-earn system will affect all businesses. It is interesting that Jim Mather did not answer the minister's question about the funding gap.

I am surprised that the Conservatives have at last come out in favour of the small business rate relief fund. When the rate relief package was announced back in 2000, Annabel Goldie pledged to abolish it. She said that it was no more than

"an exercise in gloss and spin"

and that

"Scottish Conservatives are strongly opposed to any divergence away from the principle"

of the unified business rate. The Conservatives are U-turning yet again—although, because they are opposed to being in government, as Mr Purvis pointed out, there is little point in noting their policies on business.

In government, the Liberal Democrats have made a difference for Scottish business. As the minister said, Scottish business rates and English business rates have equalised. A further cut in business rates to below English levels would give Scottish business a real competitive edge. Liberal Democrats want to make that happen.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

Will the member take an intervention?

Andrew Arbuckle (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

No. As I explained, SNP members should not expect to make interventions if they limit the time for their debates.

The Liberal Democrats will maintain the very successful small business rate relief scheme.

Cutting business costs is vital. Energy costs can be significant for small businesses. When a business installs microgeneration, which is supposed to cut its costs, its rateable value goes up, so it loses some of the money it might have saved. We would end that anomaly. Small businesses, which are the life-blood of local rural communities and were once a feature of every town and village in the country—the local corner shop, the post office, the butcher, the baker and the chemist—now battle to survive. We want to support those crucial local shops by allowing them to be exempt from business rates. That could make a huge difference to their overheads and give them a chance to invest in improvements and survive. Local authorities would be given the power to exempt essential local shops such as post offices from paying business rates. The Liberal Democrats will tackle excessive costs, regulation and inspections without introducing any of the uncertainty that is associated with separation and independence. That package of support would make a difference for Scottish business.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

We move to the open debate. There is a bit of time in hand, so members may add a minute to their four-minute speeches if they take interventions.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I want to be parochial and talk a little about my constituency of Banff and Buchan. It is approaching 20 years since Scottish National Party parliamentarians began to represent Banff and Buchan. The constituency provides a micropicture that illustrates what can be done when people put their trust in the SNP as a party and in SNP parliamentarians.

I will start with unemployment. In the first quarter of 1987—the last quarter in which the Conservative party represented the constituency—116 out of every 10,000 unemployed people in Scotland were in the constituency that is now Banff and Buchan. That figure is according to the offices that measure unemployment in Banff, Fraserburgh and Peterhead. Today, the equivalent figure is 92, which represents a 20 per cent drop in unemployment in Banff and Buchan relative to the rest of Scotland. I express the unemployment figures in that way because to do so takes account of the change in unemployment levels in Scotland as a whole and the change in the way in which unemployment is measured. The improved employment levels are the first indication of the success that Banff and Buchan has enjoyed since moving from Conservative to SNP representation.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Will the member take an intervention?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Yes—unlike the Liberals, I will accept an intervention.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

I point out that the SNP was not in government at any level during that period. Aberdeenshire Council is run by the Liberal Democrats, the Scottish Executive is run by a Liberal Democrat and Labour coalition, and the UK Government is run by Labour. The SNP has had nothing to do with that success.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I am extremely grateful to Mike Rumbles for making my point for me. In the two other seats in Aberdeenshire—which were not represented by the SNP but were subject to exactly the same local council, Scottish Executive and Westminster Government regimes—unemployment relative to the rest of Scotland has risen rather than fallen. Therefore, the distinguishing feature of Banff and Buchan is its SNP parliamentary representation; the distinguishing feature of Mr Rumbles' constituency is its Liberal representation.

Similarly, although we are told that a deficit economy is good for Scotland because our good old pals in the south will bail us out, Banff and Buchan has moved to a position in which the average wage in the constituency is above the Scottish average. Previously, our average wage was below the Scottish average. We also have the second highest level of self-employment, whereas our levels of self-employment used to be much lower than those for the rest of Scotland. Finally, VAT registration in Banff and Buchan has not fallen at the same rate as it has in the rest of Scotland. The bottom line is that, in the most entrepreneurial constituency in Scotland, people have confidence that the SNP will represent them, promote their interests and deliver for small businesses as well as big businesses.

Banff and Buchan now has businesses that did not exist when SNP representation of the constituency commenced: for example, we have 650 people who work in the offshore oil industry for Score Limited, and 180 apprentices are being trained there. Our problem—which we would love to see in the rest of Scotland—is that we, in our SNP-represented area, do not have enough people to fill those good-quality jobs, which are paying the wages of people across Scotland.

I promised that I would be parochial and I have delivered on the first promise that has been made in this debate.

For VAT registrations, between 1999 and 2006 Scotland had a 4 per cent increase whereas England had a 9.5 per cent increase. That picture is repeated across our whole economy.

When the SNP runs things, things are run better—as in Banff and Buchan, so would it be in Scotland.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

I apologise for being two minutes late for the debate, which I had thought would begin at the usual Wednesday afternoon starting time of 2.35.

However, I managed to get the general drift of Jim Mather's opening speech, which Stewart Stevenson tried to back up. Their speeches showed three characteristics: first, they displayed the usual doom and gloom about the current state of the economy; secondly, they ignored all the action that is currently being taken to support small businesses in Scotland; and thirdly, they were completely silent about all the negative features of the SNP's economic policy and constitutional position.

In relation to so-called doom and gloom, this very week, as it happens, the Committee of Scottish Clearing Bankers' quarterly statistics were released. They show that the number of new business start-ups last year was up from 21,383—in itself a significant figure—to 23,468. In fact, over the past seven years the stock of small businesses in Scotland has risen by over 33,000, which is in keeping with the general economic good news that we have experienced during the years of the Scottish Parliament.

More than 210,000 people have entered employment since 1999, which gives us the second-highest level of employment in the European Union. Growth is significantly above the long-term average and above that of the United Kingdom in the past nine quarters. I hope that that serves at least partially to redress the general analysis of the situation that we had from the SNP and, to a considerable extent, from the Conservatives.

The Opposition parties were silent about the action that is being taken. I cannot go into the detail of all the support schemes that are available to small businesses, but among the grant schemes that we have are, for example, the small firms merit award for research and technology, or SMART, support for products under research, or SPUR, and SPUR plus, which are being improved and extended. Those schemes have already helped hundreds of small businesses over the past few years.

Partly on the back of the debacle of the SNP's public procurement announcement a couple of days ago, we know that 22 per cent of public contracts already go to small businesses. I am not sure where that puts the SNP commitment to reduce to 20 per cent the award of such contracts to small businesses.

We have a new model for the business gateway, a key principle of which is change that will make business support accessible to a larger number of businesses. We have a robust better-regulation agenda, which Scottish businesses are working in partnership with the Executive to deliver. I remind members that we will from April have a competitive advantage over English small businesses because of a change in the rate poundage. That is over and above the existing small business rate relief scheme, which is generous and is already helping nearly three quarters of small businesses.

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

If everything is so rosy, will Malcolm Chisholm explain why in the middle of a global boom, Scotland is forecast to grow at 2.3 per cent while Ireland grows at 6.6 per cent?

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

As I said, the Scottish growth rate in the past nine quarters has been above the long-term trend. Even in an extended speech, I would not have time to go into all the obvious differences between the backgrounds of the Irish economy and ours.

I am the last person to stand here and say that everything is rosy. I want to do better. Of course we want to do better, so I will describe how we intend to do that. My party has robust policies for the election that will build on existing success, but it is not just the Government that must take responsibility. I was shocked by the news this morning—I am sure that members who saw it were, too—that women who start up small businesses appear to be charged higher rates of interest than men who start up small businesses. I was pleased that my Westminster Government colleague, Margaret Hodge, has said that she will address that issue vigorously in the next few days and weeks. We have to deal with various problems.

Small businesses have flagged up the key issue of skills shortages. That is why that is at the heart of our election proposals. We recognise that Scotland's top economic priority has to be learning and skills, which is why investment in schools and colleges is at the top of our agenda. There will be 100 skills academies, regional science centres and more flexible modern apprenticeships to meet the needs of small and medium-sized businesses. Skills do not seem to be a priority for the SNP; it makes the wrong things its priorities.

Were we to go along with the SNP proposal to offer further help with non-domestic rates to small businesses, that would cost £180 million. No doubt arguments can be made for that proposal, but we must again ask the SNP where, on top of all its other spending pledges, it will find that £180 million.

The success of the Scottish economy depends on greater openness, improved competition and more flexibility, but very many SNP policies run counter to those objectives. For example, Murdo Fraser was quite right to point out the effect that a local income tax would have on unincorporated businesses. Moreover, if the SNP wants to start talking about a tax of 3p in the pound, it will have to explain where the corresponding £1 billion of cuts will have to be made. In any case, its stated plans for a local income tax of 6.5p in the pound would be bad for small businesses and worse for all the individuals who work for or use them.

If the SNP believes in a competitive economy, why is it proposing to cancel the Edinburgh airport rail link and the Edinburgh tram project, which are fundamental to the city's economy? Why was it so opposed to planning reform, in spite of the fact that, before the Planning etc (Scotland) Bill was passed, its front-bench spokesperson was telling business groups something different? Why is it proposing in the long term a different regulatory regime for businesses in Scotland from the regime in England? Finally, why is it presenting policies that pose a direct threat to fundamentally important Scottish sectors such as financial services and life sciences, which are directly embedded in the UK market?

The choice before us in this debate—and, more fundamentally, in the coming election—is between maintaining stability and creating instability, between investing in skills and investing in statehood, and between building up Scotland and breaking up Britain.

Shiona Baird (Green, North East Scotland)

I am grateful to the SNP for spending part of its debating time on a discussion of the role of small businesses in Scotland's economy.

We feel that it is impossible to overstate the economic and social importance of small businesses. Economically, the figures speak for themselves. The vast majority—98 per cent—of Scottish businesses employ fewer than 50 people, and small to medium-sized enterprises account for 41 per cent of business turnover and 52 per cent of all private sector employment. These businesses are at the base of the economic pyramid, so we ignore them at our peril.

Statistics apart, there is a very good reason for taking our small businesses seriously: most are firmly rooted in their local communities and have a vested interest in the long-term viability of the local economy as well as the larger Scottish economy. If a supermarket is not making money, it is closed down. Head offices do not care about the local area; all they care about is making money. However, a small business cares about the community and small businesses in many areas play an absolutely essential role in holding communities together.

How do we give small businesses the support they need and deserve? I agree that the system of business rates needs to be overhauled, but instead of supporting the solution in the SNP's motion, I argue that small businesses would benefit from a shift towards a more sustainable tax base, which is why we support a move away from business rates to land value taxation. Such an approach would immediately level the playing field between large and small businesses. Not only would LVT stop the practice of land banking—which might be why it has never received a fair hearing—it would also tackle the inequalities that flow from out-of-town developments with free parking and ensure that town-centre landlords make the most efficient use of their properties. There would be no more empty shops on the high street.

We can support our small businesses by ensuring that they receive a fair share of the public sector pie. The current public procurement system discriminates against small operators, many of whom do not even bother to tender for public contracts because they know that they have next to no chance of success. Under our proposed sustainable communities bill, the Greens would ensure that sustainable procurement was mandatory, which would help to support small local businesses that have a stake in Scotland's sustainable future.

We can also help small businesses by making the regulation that they work under fitting and appropriate to the size of business. For example, a waste management license fee is petty cash for a large waste company, but for a community recycling organisation it represents the difference between staying in business and going bust. All companies need to be governed and regulated effectively, but the current one-size-fits-all system is not doing our small businesses any favours.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

The member keeps talking about sustainable business. Does that mean that she is in favour of economic growth?

Shiona Baird (Green, North East Scotland)

We have always maintained that economic growth is essential, but that it must be sustainable. When I say that, I am referring to the terms of the Brundtland definition of sustainability. If Mike Rumbles looks that up, he will find out exactly what we mean.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Tell us.

Shiona Baird (Green, North East Scotland)

Does the member not know the Brundtland definition of sustainability? I am sorry. [ Interruption. ]

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

You should be finishing now, Ms Baird.

Shiona Baird (Green, North East Scotland)

It is desperately disappointing that none of those members seems to know the Brundtland definition of sustainability, when the Scottish Parliament is supposed to be mainstreaming sustainability.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

The member does not know it.

Shiona Baird (Green, North East Scotland)

Of course I do.

Scotland's future sustainability will rely on the ability of our small businesses to meet the challenges of a world that is scarred by climate change and hampered by resource depletion. In the future, local economies will be more important than national economies. Increasingly, we will turn to small businesses. We must acknowledge that and put in place measures that will ensure their long-term survival.

I will meet Mr Rumbles outside for cup of coffee, when I will tell him what he wants to know.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

In the intervening period, before the Greens take power in Scotland, when we are still able to use the internal combustion engine to drive up the A9, I urge members to visit the Tomatin Distillery Company Limited in my constituency, which is located conveniently off that road, 15 miles south of Inverness. I recently had the pleasure of visiting the distillery. At a meeting of Inverness churches thereafter, I was asked by constituents the question that is most frequently asked about independence and which is, I believe, the key question as far as a great many people are concerned. Can Scotland afford independence? Having just visited the distillery, I was able to give a different answer because I had found out that the value of the stock—including its value to the Exchequer—that is held in storage at that distillery alone is £640 million. The distillery is just off the A9, which will be lucky to have received 1 per cent of that figure for improvements, even though it is one of the most dangerous roads in Scotland, on which many people lose their lives. That sends a stark message—which the minister will now explain to us.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

I am interested in the analogy that is being drawn. Can we assume from it that an independent Scottish currency would be tied to the whisky standard rather than to the gold standard?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

That is one of the minister's many suggestions that we will not take up.

Can members think of any other country in the world that has a sustainable industry, such as the whisky industry, which produces so much wealth, which is exported throughout the world and which has almost unparalleled opportunities for growth in the century ahead, as the people of the world become more able to afford our national product? Every country in the world would give its eye teeth for such a product.

The point that I am making is that Scotland has wealth in abundance, both in natural and human resources. At the beginning of this century, as we look forward to the next 100 years, we must ask ourselves what the nation most values. The answer is not oil—even though we still have it in abundance, to the tune of £6 billion or more a year—which was the gift of the last century, but it might well be water, natural resources or renewable energy, all of which Scotland has in abundance.

I turn from Tomatin to Trident, which, surprisingly, Mr Chisholm failed to mention in his tour de table, although he spoke about the alleged financial deficit that there would under the SNP. Of course, the UK runs a deficit every year. If we take Scotland's share of it and then add back the oil revenues, there is either no deficit or it is very small. The deficit argument is simply an attempt to scare the Scottish people out of their birthright, which is independence. We hear about the deficit—as members know, we hear about it all too frequently—because it is designed deliberately and calculatedly to scare Scotland out of the birthright that every other country in the world takes for granted.

One of the benefits of independence will be that we will be able to make the right choices. I have always thought that tolerance is among the many pleasing qualities of the good people of England. They have a lot to tolerate, given the number of Scots members in the Cabinet who are misgoverning their country, as they have in the past and will do in the future. No doubt, Mr Chisholm will agree that, instead of spending money on a replacement for the Trident system, we could spend it on all kinds of alternatives. The Trident costs were originally estimated at £15 billion; now, the figure is over £100 billion. The Government at Westminster is also considering investing £9 billion in the London Olympics—originally, the figure was £3 billion. We can see that the choices that Scotland will have made for it if we remain in the union will be simply the wrong choices. With independence, we will have the ability to decide how our money will be spent.

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

Does the member agree with the choice that was made by his SNP colleague, Angus Robertson MP, that any money that is saved from Trident should be spent on conventional defences?

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

You should be finishing, Mr Ewing.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

I think that I have another minute, Presiding Officer. Mr Reid said that I would have six minutes.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

He said five minutes, and you are at five minutes and 14 seconds. Please start to wind up, Mr Ewing.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

I will wind up. The savings from not having Trident and the Olympics would be so large that they would, to be frank, more than cover any fiscal problems that we may have.

The SNP's plans for business rates will end eight years of complete hypocrisy from both Labour and the Liberals—a period in which we have had higher business rates than England, despite the minister's having talked in his opening remarks about a "policy of equalisation". If the Executive's policy was about equalisation, why have we had higher business rates for the past eight years? It is bare-faced hypocrisy and the minister knows it. When we take power in May, we will bring that to a close.

Frances Curran (SSP, West of Scotland)

I am a believer in honesty in politics, so I would not pretend that the Scottish Socialist Party's manifesto has been drawn up with the interests of small businesses at heart. Nevertheless, Parliament may be surprised to learn—as I was surprised to learn—that a number of the Scottish Socialist Party's policies chime with those that have been put forward by the Federation of Small Businesses. A number of our policies would benefit small businesses, but before I come to that I will say something about the emphasis on growing the economy.

I welcome the fact that Murdo Fraser has come round to our previous manifesto commitment to abolish Scottish Enterprise and to spend that £450 million better—although perhaps we will disagree about our priorities. However, there is a strategic problem with the debate on growing the economy, which is a question that nobody has answered. For whose benefit is that growth? The reality of globalisation of the world's economies means that the whole economy is skewed towards benefiting the big transnational corporations. The lack of regulation of those companies, which trample the planet, means that—not just in Scotland and the UK, but in many other countries—small businesses are held to ransom.

There is no better example of that than the stranglehold that the big supermarkets have over local producers. Property developers have a similar stranglehold in our town centres. It is almost as though every spare part of our cities and towns is being gobbled up by big companies for retail development or housing. That is capitalism—if we go along with untrammelled free-market capitalism, that is what we will get. Every other party here is in favour of deregulation and wants more deregulation of the big companies.

HBOS and the Royal Bank of Scotland continue to post record profits and cannot provide a bank in every town in Scotland, but local banks are one of the big priorities for small businesses—74 per cent of them say that a local branch is a priority, because otherwise they have nowhere to bank their cash and cheques. I would force banks to provide that service. Banking should be a social service; it should not just be about international free-market capitalism with its teeth bared. Local branches benefit local businesses enormously, so the question that members must answer is how we provide that for small businesses throughout the country. The vast majority of small businesses rely on their local area for sales. Only 13 per cent derive the majority of their sales from regional markets.

Internationally, the G8, the European Union, the World Trade Organisation and other bodies take the view that we need to prise open public services, because the public sector is an enormously lucrative market in which a lot of money is spent. A conscious decision has been taken, particularly by the WTO, to open up that market. Given that public services are local and are delivered locally, we might think that small businesses would have access to some of that money and some of those contracts, but although the Government's policies are prising open the public sector and those services, local businesses and local economies do not benefit because only 9 per cent of them can tender for public sector contracts. The other 91 per cent must give up that opportunity to multinationals and big business. They benefit from opening up the public sector—none of those policies benefits small local businesses.

My final point is on the Scottish Socialist Party's free public transport policy. I could not agree more with the policy of the Federation of Small Businesses, which has stated:

"A modern and integrated transport system fit for the 21st century is a prerequisite for economic growth."

I hope that many FSB members will vote for us on the basis of our policy of introducing free public transport throughout the country, which would benefit workers and businesses through reduced congestion. We have not given up on that sector yet and we will campaign for the votes of people in it during the election by explaining how our policies will benefit them.

Marilyn Livingstone (Labour, Kirkcaldy)

I am pleased to take part in this debate on the economy and small businesses. Small businesses need a strong and stable economy to thrive. Working with the UK Government, we have delivered and are continuing to do so. We have made growing Scotland's economy our top priority. For more than half a century, our biggest economic challenge has been unemployment, but that is being tackled. More Scots are in work today than ever before and Scotland is second top in the European employment league. Population decline is being reversed and the growth in Scottish standards of living is outpacing the average for all OECD countries and the average for the EU 15 countries.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the member give way?

Marilyn Livingstone (Labour, Kirkcaldy)

I want to make my points.

Since the creation of the Parliament, 160,000 Scots have entered employment. Full employment is now not just a vague aspiration, but a realistic target that is within our grasp. Of course, small businesses play their part in that. Compared with 1999, an additional 19,000 people were employed in small businesses in 2006.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Does Marilyn Livingstone agree that it is entirely unacceptable that, in the past 25 years, Scotland has had the lowest growth rate in the European Union?

Marilyn Livingstone (Labour, Kirkcaldy)

I am setting out the progress that Scotland has made. We are now second top in the employment league.

We must continue to make progress by investing in our key sectors, including life sciences, financial services and energy, all of which are strongly integrated in the UK market. We must move further and faster together. We are committed to ensuring that the conditions for business are fit for purpose, which is why we are investing in the necessary infrastructure and why we have made a commitment to a new crossing across the Firth of Forth—I am not being parochial when I talk about that.

The regeneration of our town centres is an imperative and members should look out for our manifesto commitment on that. Forty per cent of people in Scotland live in towns that have populations of between 20,000 and 100,000. The Executive has done well on the regeneration of our cities, but it is now time to work on our towns.

Our commitment to skills and training is important. I am passionate about that issue. We must ensure that businesses can employ appropriately trained and skilled workers to meet their needs. As convener of the cross-party group in the Scottish Parliament on construction, I know that that message is coming out loud and clear from the construction industry.

In the short time left to me, I will talk about the excellent contribution of the skills and learning agenda to our economy. We should celebrate that contribution. The modern apprenticeship programme is making a real difference. More than 17,500 businesses are involved in the programme; that is a record number since the programme began and represents a 36 per cent increase over the past two years. In my constituency, I have seen at first hand how modern apprenticeships are making a difference. Only last week, I visited BiFab to speak to engineering apprentices, who are being given an opportunity and are helping the business in the success that it has achieved. Recent research has shown that 70 per cent of businesses participating in the programme show improvements in productivity.

All businesses begin life as small businesses, when one person invents or develops an idea for a new product. Only by supporting such businesses will we give them a chance to develop into Scotland's major employers of tomorrow. We can support them by providing grants, by investing in innovation, by embracing science and technology, and by investing in skills and training to ensure that businesses have ready access to the skilled workforce that they will need if they are to grow.

Do we want to trade in a track record that has been built on strength, on certainty not risk, and on stability not instability? Or do we want to build up Scotland? I will support the Executive's amendment to the motion this evening.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

The problem facing the SNP in this debate, and in wider debates across Scotland, is that people do not know which SNP they might be voting for. Is it Jim Mather's pro-business party, or is it Christine Grahame's Scottish socialist republican party? Socialist republican Christine Grahame disappeared from the chamber as soon as I made that point earlier.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

In a moment. Come on—I am only 30 seconds into my speech.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I only want to ask a question.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Okay, go on.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Is Mike Rumbles speaking for Charles Kennedy's Liberal party or Menzies Campbell's Liberal party?

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Nice try, but be serious. I will come back to the SNP later, but I turn to the Conservatives first because I do not have a lot of time.

Murdo Fraser outlined the Conservative party's plans for business very well. Unfortunately—and it is unfortunate—I am astonished that anybody would be interested in the plans of the Conservative party. Why? Because the Conservatives have gone out of their way to make it absolutely clear that they have no intention of entering a coalition with anyone else after 3 May. They do not want to work in Government with anybody else to implement any of their proposals. The message is clear: "Don't bother voting Tory, because they're not really interested in Government."

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Perhaps Mr Rumbles will enlighten us on Liberal Democrat policy. Is it still the policy of the Scottish Liberal Democrats to propose a 2p tartan tax cut, or has that now been ruled out?

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

We have never proposed a 2p tartan tax cut.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Yes they have.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

I want to move on.

My friend and colleague Andrew Arbuckle spelled out clearly what the Liberal Democrats have done for business and pointed out that we want to go further and reduce business rates. We want to go further and gain a competitive edge for businesses here in Scotland.

I am glad that Stewart Stevenson has returned to the debate, because he made his most bizarre speech yet—and that is saying something. As MSP for Banff and Buchan, he praised the Liberal Democrat-run Aberdeenshire Council's help for Banff and Buchan; he praised the Liberal Democrat and Labour Scottish Executive's help for Banff and Buchan; and he even praised the Labour Government in London's help for Banff and Buchan. He claimed that Banff and Buchan was SNP run. The fact is that the SNP runs absolutely nothing—no administrations that impact on Banff and Buchan, not the council, not the Executive, not the UK Government. In fact, I cannot think of any reason why the good people of Banff and Buchan voted for Stewart Stevenson in the first place. He has no influence on Government whatsoever.

I am conscious of time—I am in my last minute. However, I cannot miss out the Green contribution. It was interesting that Shiona Baird could not give us a definition of what she meant by being in favour of economic growth. It seems to me that the Greens are completely against growing Scotland's economy—that is a real tragedy.

Frances Curran outlined a Scottish socialist view of growing the economy; I wonder whether it is a bit like that of the Greens. At one point, after saying that transport in Scotland should be absolutely free, she said that banking should be a social service. She should realise that this is a joke, but I felt that she might be advocating free money for all from the local hole in the wall. I might have misunderstood her. In contrast to Frances Curran, Marilyn Livingstone gave a strong exhibition of Scotland's vibrant economy—an economy that can of course be improved and expanded, which is exactly what the Liberal Democrats are committed to doing.

We have seen Scottish business rates equalised with those of England, but we want a further cut in business rates to below the English levels; from our perspective, that would give Scottish business a real competitive advantage. We will maintain the successful small business rates relief scheme; cutting business costs is vital. That is what the Liberal Democrats want to do for Scottish business.

Derek Brownlee (Conservative, South of Scotland)

The debate has been interesting, albeit rather brief. The minister's amendment to the SNP motion is rather self-congratulatory, which is what we are used to from the Executive. It talks about the Executive's record of

"listening to business and reducing the level of business rates".

The Executive did not listen to business when it put those rates up in the first place, did it? It did not appear to listen to business in relation to the much-trumpeted but now quietly forgotten research and development business rates cut, which has vanished from the utterances of any Executive minister. In fact, the Executive will not even tell us in Parliament how much it cost to break business rates parity with the rest of the United Kingdom. We know that the figure is £900 million only because the Government had to answer freedom-of-information requests on the matter. It is ridiculous that the Executive, having imposed a burden of an additional £900 million on Scottish business over the past eight years, turns up today and tries to pretend that it is the champion of Scottish business.

Members might remember Henry McLeish, when he was First Minister, launching the improving regulation in Scotland unit with some fanfare. It is worth speculating on just how important the burden of regulation is to the Executive, because we hear a lot of warm noises about it. In April 2006, unable to find a copy of the IRIS annual report because it had not emerged, I decided to ask the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning a series of questions about its effectiveness. As Stewart Stevenson has recently demonstrated, that is not always a quick or even a fruitful process, but I asked the minister what I considered to be a relatively simple question, which was how many calls the IRIS hotline had received in 2005. That was on 11 April 2006. On 12 May, the minister promised to reply as soon as possible. Six months later, a relentless enterprise minister had finally finished totting up all the calls to the reducing business red tape hotline. There were four calls in 2005, none of which was substantive. That demonstrates the Executive's record on regulation.

Of course, there are other ways of tackling the burden of regulation. Some might say, for example, that we should set deregulation targets. The Liberal Democrats say that—they passed a motion on it at their October conference—so I asked Nicol Stephen whether the Executive supports deregulation targets. Mr Stephen replied:

"The Scottish Executive does not set deregulation targets."—[Official Report, Written Answers, 28 August 2006; S2W-27534.]

What a bizarre attitude to deregulation from a party that talks about deregulation.

As the Burt report revealed, local income tax would be 6.5p in the pound on the basic rate of income tax. The tax burden of a small business that pays the basic rate of income tax would increase by a third. That is supposed, in some way, to help small businesses. At a time when the rest of the world is reducing the tax burden on businesses, a local income tax would increase it. In the debate on the SSP's service tax, we heard from the Deputy Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform—also a Liberal Democrat—that if we put up taxes in Scotland above the level in England, there would be fiscal flight out of Scotland. He does not seem to have considered that when it comes to local income tax.

Of course, we also have the statement on the tartan tax. Mr Rumbles says that there are no Liberal Democrat plans to reduce the tartan tax. Perhaps Mr Stephen should not have told Scottish Business Insider that there were.

In the final few seconds of my speech, I turn to the Executive's record and that of the Westminster Government. Much has been made of economic stability. This country has seen continual economic growth since the second quarter of 1992. However, as anyone who checks the records of the Finance Committee will find—and according to Professor Brian Ashcroft, no less—since 1996 there has been economic decline in Scotland relative to the rest of the United Kingdom. The question for the Executive is how effective stability has been and how much more the Scottish economy could have grown had the Executive not pursued the policies that it has.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

I, too, am grateful to Stewart Stevenson for his valuable contribution to today's debate. Let no one be in any doubt that the key to our future prosperity is a successful Scottish economy populated by successful businesses that drive economic growth. As Stewart Stevenson testified, we have in place an excellent business environment and support framework that works for Scottish businesses in Banff and Buchan as it does for those throughout the country.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Why is the success in Banff and Buchan, which is represented by the SNP, not replicated in Mr Rumbles's seat, which is represented by the Liberals?

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

Obviously that is down to Mr Stevenson's astute leadership of the good people of Banff and Buchan, as it is undoubtedly down to the astute leadership of Mr Rumbles that his constituency has the lowest unemployment rate of any in Scotland.

With all due respect to Mr Stevenson, he knows that that is bunkum, as was most of Mr Mather's predictable doom-and-gloom speech. I was shocked and appalled to be accused by the nationalists of promoting doom and gloom when I was, in fact, pointing out how successful the Scottish economy had been by saying why Scotland was performing well during Mr Mather's global boom.

To answer the questions that were posed by the Conservatives, in quarter 3 of 2006, Scotland's growth was well above the G7 average. It was above that of Japan and France and it was equal to that of the United States of America and OECD average. That does not suggest in any shape, manner or form an economy that is performing below average.

Scotland is one of the richest countries in the world. Based on the OECD definitions, it would fit comfortably into the category of high and middle-income groups along with the likes of Japan, Sweden and Australia.

Andrew Welsh (Scottish National Party, Angus)

Will the minister give way?

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

If the member does not mind, I would like to make my point.

Not being a nationalist, I am accused of negativity in relation to nationalism but if I could see anything positive about it, I would be positive about it. It is just so destructive and divisive. If I was going to be positive about nationalism, I would be a nationalist.

The Government expenditure and review in Scotland statistics are not misleading; Jim Mather refused to answer that question. Nor are they inaccurate. The existence of a fiscal transfer, or the union dividend as I like to call it—

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

It is the subsidy of a failing economy.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

That is where Stewart Stevenson is wrong, for the second time this afternoon. It is part of a resource, risk and revenue sharing that provides the economic rationale for the union. Derek Brownlee referred to it.

In the 1980s, Scotland was in technical surplus—I remember it well. We were also in the midst of recession and mass unemployment. Scotland receives greater value as a consequence of the union dividend and its population share of expenditure for legitimate geographical and social reasons. A growing UK economy, of which Scotland is a fundamental part—we are part of the second most successful global economy—along with Government policy has led to a rapid increase in Government expenditure and, as such, the union dividend has grown in recent years and will continue to grow. That is why we are able to enjoy low relative taxation and increasing public expenditure.

We have the best of both worlds. We have US-style low levels of taxation and Scandinavian levels of expenditure on health and social services. I say to Jim Mather that that is why not only the business community but the people of Scotland will return us on 3 May, when we put that rationale before them and they are asked to choose between us.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

The minister argues that Scotland is doing very well under the union and after 10 years of a Labour Government. If that is the case, why is the level of child poverty in Scotland 10 times that in Denmark and—this is based on the Scottish Executive's official statistics—two and a half times what it was 40 years ago under Harold Wilson? The minister should go and tell the children of Scotland, in particular the quarter who are living on or near the poverty line, that we are doing well.

An Executive, like any Government, has to be judged by its actions in relation to policy—in this case, on business. Let us consider recent examples of where the Scottish Executive has utterly failed the business community in Scotland. One such example, which is close to your heart, Presiding Officer, is that, at the stroke of a pen, by making a ship a grey ship, the Executive could award a contract to Ferguson's shipyard and save the 99 jobs that are under threat there.

Today we learned that the Executive has wasted £15 million—apparently, the BBC's figure was out by £2 million—on a tendering process for Caledonian MacBrayne services, whereby we have ended up with the status quo. That £15 million would have been better spent on creating jobs and tackling poverty or invested in education.

I turn to some of the other aspects of Executive policy. The finances of Scottish Water have been engineered to ensure that businesses have to face the highest water charges in the whole of the UK. High water charges, which are a tax on business and jobs, have been a mainstay of the Executive's policy.

The minister said that we have to stay part of the union with Britain and referred to the false black hole of £11 billion. The Executive does not mention that, according to its UK Government's figures, Scotland loses out to the tune of £550 million a year in what we pay towards the running of the UK Government, which is spent south of the border, not north of the border. If that money, which has already been paid for by the Scots, was spent in Scotland, an additional £550 million would be brought into the Scottish economy, with all the jobs that that would entail.

The Executive then paraded its expensive private finance initiative programme—the biggest backdoor privatisation programme in Europe—in relation to schools and hospitals. By a simple switch from PFI funding to bond funding, which an SNP Government will introduce, for the projects in the pipeline, we will save £106 million a year. That money could be invested in schools and hospitals, which would ensure that the taxpayer not only got a good deal but would own the asset that they had paid for at the end of the period.

As Fergus Ewing pointed out, Malcolm Chisholm did not mention the reason for his resignation from the Scottish Executive—a very principled resignation that was based on his quite correct belief that neither the UK nor Scotland requires Trident or the son of Trident. If we remain part of the union with England, we will have to pay our share of the £100 billion that the son of Trident will cost over a 30 or 40-year period. If our share of that money, about £10 billion, was invested in transport, education, housing and the health service, it would create far more jobs and be of far more benefit to the people of Scotland. If the Government spends £100 billion buying a system from America, it will create a lot of jobs in America but not many in Scotland or the rest of the UK. Does the Executive not understand basic, year one economics?

The Executive tries to tell us that it is financially competent. However, let us remember that this is the Executive that announced a new policy on business rates one week, telling us that it could give breaks to companies that were doing research and development work, but which had to withdraw the policy the next week because it had not checked its facts. This is the Executive that presided over the financial fiasco at Scottish Enterprise and the fiasco of the CalMac tendering process. It has no claim to financial or fiscal competence.

The reality is not that which is painted by the minister; it is that a quarter of our children and a fifth of our pensioners are living in dire poverty and that 150,000 of our people are willing to work but cannot find a job. That is the union dividend. That is the result of 10 years of Labour misgovernment. That is why, on 3 May, the Scottish people will turf out that lot and put people in place who will put Scotland first.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

I have just received further information about a serious matter that arose during this debate. During his speech, Mr Arbuckle made a claim about the views of the Royal Bank of Scotland, asserting that the Royal Bank of Scotland has expressed a view that the SNP's sums do not add up.

I want to make it clear that the position of the Royal Bank of Scotland is that it categorically denies that that is the case. It has not expressed any view on the sums or policies of any political parties. I seek your guidance on whether such a serious misrepresentation of a leading Scottish institution should be dealt with by the member concerned withdrawing the accusation and issuing an apology to the Royal Bank of Scotland.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

As I am sure you know, Mr Ewing, that is not a point of order. However, your point is now on the record.

Alcohol Misuse

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-5692, in the name of Kenny MacAskill, on tackling alcohol misuse.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

The Scottish National Party's motion seeks to express the concern that is shared throughout the Parliament—and increasingly throughout the land—that Scotland has a significant problem with alcohol. The problem has been with us not just in recent years, but through the centuries. We must now face up to it and address it.

We accept that there is no simple solution to the problem that we face and that we need to tackle a multitude of factors. The Deputy Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform is right to point out, in his amendment, the need for individual responsibility. Our position is clear. We need Executive action, but we also need culture change throughout Scotland. That will involve enforcing and extending existing legislation and changing the attitudes of all Scots. Our motion focuses on misbehaviour, often by young people in housing schemes in Scotland, but alcohol misuse is not restricted to the young or to those in marginalised areas. It is found among people of all ages and classes. The Government needs to act on the problem of alcohol misuse, but each and every Scot needs to look at his ways. As someone who offended in the past, I recognise the error of my ways and the requirement to address my consumption.

The figures on alcohol misuse that the Office for National Statistics published recently are frightening and shocking. We should be concerned that alcohol misuse costs our country more than £1 billion. The health service will struggle to cope, not just to provide liver transplants, but in other ways. There are also clear correlations between alcohol misuse and violent crime, and between youth disorder, including antisocial behaviour, and the availability of cheap alcohol throughout the land. We need to address those correlations.

Problems do not occur only on Friday and Saturday nights. Sadly, many communities are blighted by misbehaviour throughout the week. It is clear that we need to tackle the availability of cheap drink to youngsters—and, sadly, children—who are a danger to others and to themselves as they drink themselves towards oblivion.

Our position on the Tory amendment is that we would, of course, welcome additional police officers on the beat. It is clear, and we have argued, that a visible police presence reassures communities and deters crime. However, there is a time and a place for simply chanting a mantra and a time and a place for recognising that we have to target matters. That is why we will not support the Tory amendment.

We readily accept and support a great deal of the minister's amendment. Over the years, we have supported what the Executive has done to tackle alcohol misuse, including its work with the industry, which plays an important role. However, we believe that there has been a significant change in Scotland that, to date, has not been tackled. That change is the growth of the off-sales trade. There has been a significant shift in the sale and consumption of alcohol away from on-sales and towards off-sales—that is, a shift away from people accessing drink in pubs and clubs and towards people buying drink from supermarkets and off-sales. Almost 50 per cent of the alcohol that is sold in Scotland is sold by the off-sales trade. We need to ramp up the action on that.

The Executive is to be supported—and has had our support—in the action that it has taken against the on-sales trade. It is also fair to say that the trade has tidied up its act. There are still recalcitrant traders, but the licensed trade in Scotland has done remarkably well, and further measures are being introduced.

We must now tackle the off-sales trade, because in many instances the people—youngsters, in particular—who are causing problems are obtaining their alcohol through the off-sales trade. They are not stumbling out of pubs and clubs after buying pints of lager or whatever; they are obtaining bottles of cheap cider and other drinks from supermarkets and off-sales premises. They are causing mayhem and carnage in our communities and are a danger to themselves.

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

Does the member welcome the alcohol test purchasing scheme that is being rolled out, after being piloted in Fife, whereby retailers who sell alcohol to underage consumers are identified? Does he acknowledge that there is an issue to do with young people's access to drink at home and that there is a job to be done to educate parents too?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

The test purchasing scheme is welcomed in the motion, and the member's comment about education for parents and children brings us back to the culture change that is required, so I have no hesitation in agreeing whole-heartedly with him.

There is irresponsible promotion and pricing in the off-sales trade. It is perverse that a person in Scotland can buy a bottle of cider that is cheaper than a bottle of water, although we are a nation surrounded by water and quite often deluged by rain. The price of alcohol in pubs is being tackled. We are outlawing two-for-one offers and irresponsible promotions that encourage people to consume as much drink as they can as cheaply as possible. A measure on two-for-one offers in pubs should surely apply to such offers in supermarkets. If it is wrong to encourage someone to buy two pints of lager for the price of one, it is equally wrong to promote the sale of two cases of lager for the price of one. We must tackle irresponsible pricing and promotion by extending the Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005 to cover not just the on-sales but the off-sales trade and we must then enforce the law.

Under the law of the land, alcohol should not be sold or supplied to minors. However, communities throughout Scotland know that the law is routinely abused. The sale of alcohol to minors is not always deliberate—people can be leaned on and threatened—but it is unacceptable. We need a proof-of-age card, because there is clear evidence from Canada and the United States of America, for example, that such an approach works and supports licensees who want to abide by the law. We must ensure that people who sell or supply alcohol to minors are prosecuted and have their licences revoked.

The action that we need to take is widespread and is not limited to the measures that the motion and amendments describe. We must tackle the problem, because it is growing. We must tackle not just the on-sales trade but the off-sales trade. We must address the irresponsible sale and promotion of alcohol and the provision of cheap drink, in particular in supermarkets. We must stop the sale of alcohol to minors, for their benefit and for the benefit of communities.

I move,

That the Parliament notes with concern the recent alcohol statistics published by the Office for National Statistics which show that men and women in Scotland are twice as likely to die an alcohol-related death as people in the United Kingdom as a whole; recognises the huge cost of alcohol abuse to the health service and the economy and its impact on families; further recognises the clear links between alcohol abuse and crime and antisocial behaviour; further notes that youth disorder and violence in many communities throughout Scotland are often fuelled by cheap and easily available alcohol; welcomes measures such as test purchasing and calls for the strict enforcement of existing licensing legislation to prevent the sale or supply of alcohol to those under age, and calls for the powers contained within the Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005 to be extended to off-sales premises, thus stopping irresponsible drink promotions in off-sales premises and the practice of deep discounting of alcohol by supermarkets.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

I welcome the opportunity to talk about an important subject and describe actions that we have taken as part of a long-term process of changing culture—I am glad that Mr MacAskill acknowledged that we need to change the culture. There are no short-term fixes that can immediately change behaviour in relation to the misuse of alcohol.

We are all too aware of the damage that excessive drinking can cause to our communities, our economy and our way of life. The statistics speak for themselves. We acknowledge that action is needed to tackle binge drinking and underage drinking and to change the culture in Scotland.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the minister give way?

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

I have quite a bit to say and I want to make progress, but I will give way to the member soon.

We cannot have a short-term approach that targets one issue but ignores others. Unfortunately, the approach that the Scottish National Party has taken today tends to target just discount pricing.

The Executive has taken action, through the Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005. It is worth restating what that act does and the measures that are being taken to crack down on a wide range of irresponsible promotions in on-sales and off-sales premises.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Yesterday, the Local Government and Transport Committee considered a statutory instrument that will allow clubs to open to the public and sell cheaper drink, 52 weeks a year. I do not think that the instrument's implications were entirely clear to members of the committee. Extensive lobbying is going on. Will the minister consider the instrument's implications?

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

As Mr Crawford will remember from discussing the matter in committee, the occasional licences provided for by the regulations that we dealt with yesterday are for boards to give to clubs for one-off extensions for special occasions. They are not expected to be used on a wide scale. It is for the local licensing board to decide when that is appropriate. That is the context that members must understand in relation to those regulations.

For all premises, both on-sales and off-sales, we are banning promotions that encourage people to consume a larger measure than they had intended; promotions based on the strength of the alcohol; promotions that reward or encourage drinking alcohol quickly; and promotions that offer alcohol as a reward or prize.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

Will the member give way?