Proposed Scottish Register of Tartans Bill
Item 4 is the proposed Scottish register of tartans bill, on which we have a paper. I am pleased to welcome Jamie McGrigor MSP. I invite him to make a few opening remarks if he so wishes.
I am pleased to be able to assist the committee this morning in its consideration of my statement of reasons on why a further consultation on my draft proposal is not required.
I lodged the draft proposal and my statement of reasons on 25 October. As members may be aware, my proposal for a register of tartans has been the subject of significant discussion over a number of years. I have been personally involved in the discussions since 2001, when a number of weavers and tartan enthusiasts first started to think in detail about creating a definitive Scottish register. Throughout the process, my aim has remained constant: to create a Scottish register of tartans that is independent, definitive, accessible and, above all, sustainable, and which will help to promote and preserve tartan.
In my view, although there are differences in the administrative arrangements that are now envisaged for the register, the principles of my proposed bill do not differ substantially from the bill that I introduced last year. In that respect, the responses to the consultation that took place in the previous parliamentary session represent the views of stakeholders on the bill that is now proposed.
My statement of reasons has been placed before members to help them reach a view, but let me summarise the main reasons why a further public consultation is not necessary. After I lodged the original proposal for a Scottish register of tartans bill in March 2005, a full public consultation was carried out. The consultation showed that there was good support for a register although, as is inevitable, there were diverging views on the detail. Links to the relevant documents on the Parliament's website are given in the statement of reasons.
My proposals were considered in some detail by the previous Enterprise and Culture Committee and they were debated in the chamber, where they attracted a good degree of cross-party support. When the previous committee consulted on the bill and made a call for written evidence, it received 28 submissions. The then Deputy Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning, Allan Wilson, then agreed to consider in more detail the options for creating a register. I withdrew the bill to allow that to happen.
Since then, I have worked closely with the Government on the rationale for a register and on identifying common ground between my proposed register and the Government's thinking on how a register might work. Consequently, not only are we clearer on the potential benefits of a register but we now envisage a more streamlined approach to creating the register than was the case previously. That will mean that the associated bureaucracy and expense to the public purse will be reduced. Key to that is the involvement of the Lord Lyon King of Arms and the Court of the Lord Lyon. On that basis, the Government supports my bill and the views and criticisms that were voiced in the previous consultation have effectively been taken on board.
Since then, the Government and I have also worked closely with the tartan industry and public sector stakeholders to develop and refine the proposals for a register. As a result, there is now solid support among Scotland's tartan industry for the bill proposals. The two main private sector registers—the Scottish Tartans World Register and the Scottish Tartans Authority—have agreed to share the data that they hold and to play a consultative role in the new Scottish register.
An economic impact study that was carried out for Scottish Enterprise underlines the economic reasons for working to support and promote the tartan industry in Scotland. A copy of that report is among the documentation that supports the statement of reasons. Crucially, the study involved a significant amount of additional consultation and it provides further evidence of a consultative approach to developing the proposals in my revised bill. It is worth mentioning that, whereas we initially estimated that the tartan industry was worth some £200 million, the economic impact study identified that it is worth £350 million and employs 4,000 people directly and 7,000 indirectly. Tartan is a significant industry in Scotland.
Going forward, the Government and I are committed to continuing to work with tartan industry experts on the detail of a register. Such strong stakeholder engagement is incredibly valuable and I certainly hope that it continues. Overall, the process of developing and refining the proposals in the bill that I introduced in the previous session has been, and continues to be, open and consultative. I hope, therefore, that the committee will agree that a further consultation exercise on the bill is not required.
Do members have any questions for Mr McGrigor?
I do not really have any questions. In light of the member's statement of reasons and the extensive explanation that he has offered—and given that significant consultation took place on the previous proposal and that the member has continued to consult on developing his revised proposal—I am content that we do not need to insist on a further consultation, which is what we need to determine today. I am content that the consultation has been adequate.
I am so minded, too.
In his opening statement and in the statement of reasons, the member has said that he envisages that the proposed more streamlined approach will reduce the cost to the public purse and reduce bureaucracy. Is he in a position to estimate what the cost will be? In addition, is he satisfied that the important change whereby he has secured the engagement of the existing private providers of registers is not such that it changes the nature of the bill?
I will defer to Mr McElhinney for the details of that.
Mike McElhinney (Scottish Government Enterprise, Energy and Tourism Directorate):
Unlike the original bill, the proposals as they now stand envisage that the function of keeper of the register will lie within the Court of the Lord Lyon King of Arms. In effect, that will mean that we are using a public sector resource but it will enable us to leverage some significant marketing advantage because that office has been around since before the 15th century and is pretty unique to Scotland.
The involvement of the National Archives of Scotland in helping to maintain and run the register's database will draw on the National Archives' expertise in preserving public records and will make the register accessible to the public in a way that is not possible with the existing private sector registers. That additional resource will come from within the public sector. In our view, the register proposal is about using existing public resources better. We also envisage working with the holders of private sector registers, to draw on the significant pockets of expertise that exist there. We will use that valuable industry expertise on a consultancy basis, so that we do not lose it.
As with any bill, the appropriate Government minister will need to produce a financial memorandum. I am sure that we will have a chance to come back to the issue that Lewis Macdonald has raised.
Members have indicated that they are minded to accept Brian Adam's suggestion. The committee will proceed on the basis that Mr McGrigor wishes and will not require a further consultation to be carried out. Good luck with the bill.
I am grateful to the committee. Thank you very much.
Items 4 and 5 will be taken in private.
Meeting continued in private until 11:43.