Scottish Register of Tartans Bill: Stage 2
Item 4 is stage 2 consideration of the Scottish Register of Tartans Bill. I welcome to the meeting the member in charge of the bill, Jamie McGrigor. I remind members that at stage 2 only members of the Parliament may take part in proceedings. Jamie McGrigor is entitled throughout to take advice from his officials, but he requires to do so in private, as they will not be entitled to participate themselves.
Section 1 agreed to.
Section 2—Meaning of "tartan"
Amendment 3, in the name of Jamie McGrigor, is in a group on its own.
At stage 1, there was significant and lively discussion about whether tartan is a design or a woven product. I welcome that discussion, which showed the strength of people's views, some of which were passionately held. I have been clear from the outset that I want my bill to encourage and promote interest in tartan and to make it accessible in ways that have not been possible before. That includes putting the tartan register on a statutory, sustainable basis, with a statutory definition of "tartan", the National Archives of Scotland overseeing the register and facilitating public access to it, and a range of stringent criteria and quality-assurance measures for new tartans coming into the Scottish register.
I want the register to raise interest and awareness in tartan and to become a focal point for tartan and tartan research. I also want the register to have efficient and effective linkages to the Scottish tartan industry. That will position the Scottish industry to capitalise on the increased interest in tartan that the register will generate and to pursue the commercial opportunities that I believe will come from inquiries to the register about where and by whom in Scotland existing or new tartans can be woven or produced.
I firmly believe that Scotland's Parliament should do all that it can to promote and grow the tartan industry in Scotland. At stage 1, the committee heard that the tartan industry in its entirety—including weavers, textile merchants and manufacturers and producers of kilts, tartans and accessories—comprises a significant part of overall employment in the Scottish textiles sector, supporting about 4,000 direct jobs out of an overall employment total of about 17,000. We also heard about the economic importance of the tartan industry to the Scottish economy. It contributes about £350 million to our gross domestic product, which is significantly more than previous industry estimates.
We heard about the importance of woven tartan. I agree with much of the argument that was put forward that woven tartan is an inherent and vital part of the tartan industry in Scotland. Section 6(7)(c) of the bill as introduced requires that the thread count should accompany an application for tartan registration. That means that a design that is submitted for registration will be capable of being woven. The committee acknowledged that at paragraph 39 of its stage 1 report, which said:
"the provision … for the description of the tartan in the application to the Register to include a thread count already places a de facto requirement that the design be capable of being woven."
The committee heard strong and passionately held views about the central role of woven tartan in the Scottish tartan industry. The same paragraph of the report continued:
"the Committee is of the view that tartan has been historically defined by its woven character."
We have heard that the thread count is central to the woven character of tartan. Designing a tartan using thread count is relatively straightforward. However, some people might see thread count as an esoteric area. It could be argued that knowledge of what thread count is and how people go about setting it out and recording it is most commonly found among tartan weaving or tartan enthusiast circles. Getting applicants interested in using thread count in tartan design will—I hope—help to increase interest in tartan and make it more accessible, while forging closer links with tartan weavers and experts on how to design a tartan will help to deepen knowledge of tartan and tartan weaving.
Committee members also heard that a universally accepted definition of "tartan" would be difficult to arrive at and might be very lengthy. However, as the bill's principles are all about making tartan and Scotland's tartan records more accessible, I am more than happy to accept the committee's suggestion that the definition be amended to clarify that, to be included in the register, a tartan must be "capable of being woven".
To get a clearer view of the importance of woven tartan to the tartan industry, we have undertaken further work to identify how many of the 4,000 direct and 7,000 indirect jobs and how much of the £350 million relate to weaving and woven tartan. Results suggest that around 3,000 or 75 per cent of direct tartan industry employment and 5,200—or, again, 75 per cent—of indirect jobs are attributable to woven tartan, which is estimated to account for £280 million or 80 per cent of the industry's £350 million contribution to the Scottish economy. That clearly shows that woven tartan is very significant to the Scottish tartan industry, supports a considerable number of jobs and makes a hefty contribution to the Scottish economy.
I fully support the tartan industry, which is in large part made up of tartan weavers and producers, and supporting and helping to grow the Scottish tartan weaving industry is one of my key and long-held aims for the bill. I believe that we all share that ambition. The committee's suggested amendment to the definition can only help to improve what I believe is already a good bill by embedding the clear and obvious importance of woven tartan in the first ever statutory definition of "tartan", as honed by Scotland's Parliament.
I am very happy to take on board the committee's views and to underline our shared recognition of the importance of woven tartan. As a result, I am pleased to deliver the undertaking that I gave to Parliament to lodge at stage 2 an amendment to the definition of "tartan" in section 2 to emphasise that the tartan should be "capable of being woven".
I move amendment 3.
I very much welcome Jamie McGrigor's response to the committee's comments, as it certainly addresses some of the points that were highlighted in the stage 1 debate. We will no doubt come to other points that were raised when we discuss the next group of amendments.
Do you wish to respond, Mr McGrigor?
No. I am happy with what has been said.
Amendment 3 agreed to.
Section 2, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 3 to 5 agreed to.
Section 6—The application
Amendment 1, in the name of David Whitton, is grouped with amendment 2.
This is your first day in office, convener, so you did not have the pleasure of being present for our earlier debates on the bill. The intention behind amendment 1 is to boost the Scottish tartan industry, particularly the weaving sector, by insisting that any application to the register be accompanied by a swatch of cloth, proving that the design had been turned into tartan. We have just heard from Jamie McGrigor about woven tartan's massive contribution to the tartan industry. Others, however, did not agree, stating that, if the design itself met the "capable of being woven" criterion, that should be enough. In other words, the argument was between the wovenists and the modernists.
In truth, there is not much between the two sides. Indeed, since I lodged this amendment, I have received a lot of correspondence, which proves that, as Jamie McGrigor has said, both wovenists and modernists hold strong views on the matter. The committee supports Mr McGrigor's intent and, on behalf of Labour, I hope that the register boosts the weaving industry. The question is whether the industry will receive a boost if the amendment is passed.
I have been advised in correspondence that demanding a swatch of cloth with each application to the register will be too severe a test. The example that was given to me was that of the Caledonian Club of San Francisco, which had a tartan designed and woven for it. However, when it asked for the tartan to be placed on the Scottish Tartans World Register, it was refused, as its design already existed. It was argued that, if the design had been presented first, with weaving to follow, a lot of red faces would have been prevented in San Francisco.
However, we have also received an interesting submission from Mr David McGill. According to him, the US Congress will remove the duty on tartan if it can be interpreted as a form of national cloth. The key word is "cloth". Mr McGill argues that a sample of cloth should be provided at registration, regardless of cost. However, others say that it is not practical to produce a small swatch of cloth and that weavers would insist on producing a minimum of 4m, and perhaps even as much as 10m. We were given the example of schools that might want to produce a tartan, for which the cost of providing a swatch would be prohibitive. I checked on the experience of Mulbuie primary school in Muir of Ord. The school designed a tartan called golden bloom, which was used for the Highland year of culture. It asked a local weaver to produce 50m of the tartan, but that was too much for his loom. After searching, the school eventually had its tartan made by a mill in the north of England—which surprised me—with a bolt costing about £550.
The modernist wing has made much of the fact that tartan designs that were produced for the golfer Colin Montgomerie and O2 were subsequently turned into woven cloth. I venture to suggest that that presents us with a possible way forward. We have agreed to Mr McGrigor's amendment stipulating that, to be accepted, a design must be capable of being woven. Perhaps the keeper should have the discretion to accept unwoven designs, as long as it is intended that they will be woven at some point in the future, as happened with Mr Montgomerie's tartan design. Those designs would be placed on a provisional register, but not on the final register, until such time as they had been woven and a sample produced. If, after a period to be determined, they had not been woven, they could be removed from the register. If Mr McGrigor accepts that proposal, I will consider withdrawing my amendment.
I move amendment 1.
Keith, would you like to comment?
I hope that you are not confusing me with Keith Brown.
I am sorry—it was a mental aberration. I am sure that there will be several of those over the next few years.
I have a tremendous amount of sympathy with the proposals behind Mr Whitton's amendment and asked a number of probing questions about the bill in committee and in the chamber at stage 1. On balance, I think that the changes that have been made to the bill, especially the change to the definition of "tartan" that Mr McGrigor proposed, which has received the committee's support, address the concerns behind the amendment. They protect the brand in the long term, which was our principal concern.
My second point relates to a letter that was sent to Mr Whitton and circulated to the committee. It is interesting that every member of the industry sub-group for the Scottish register of tartans signed that letter. The biggest battles between modernists and wovenists took place between the Scottish Tartans World Register, which is represented by Keith Lumsden, and the Scottish Tartans Authority, which is represented by Mr Brian Wilton. There was a time when many wondered whether the two would ever agree. A letter that is signed by all members of the sub-group, including those two gentlemen, is of massive significance, as it indicates that they are happy with the bill, have talked through all the issues, and think that the brand is protected and that we ought to move forward. I attach huge significance to that.
My final point is in response to Jamie McGrigor's comments. Although the woven element of tartan represents the vast majority of the tartan economy and jobs in the tartan industry, the non-woven element accounts for 20 per cent of the tartan economy—if the statistics that I heard are correct—and 25 per cent of the jobs. On balance, I do not think that we need Mr Whitton's amendment to address the concerns expressed by the committee at stage 1.
I welcome Mr Whitton's support for my bill, and his valuable and lively contribution to the stage 1 debate. It was good to see the wovenist/modernist/pragmatist argument catch the imagination not only of the committee but of the chamber. That shows how strongly people feel about tartan as an iconic symbol of Scotland.
There is much common ground between what I am trying to achieve with the bill and what Mr Whitton is trying to achieve with the amendment. We are in agreement that we should do what we can to promote and grow the Scottish tartan industry and to act in the interests of that industry as far as we can. I also think that we are in agreement on the importance of woven tartan, both in the historical sense—in that tartan has, historically, been defined by the fact that it is woven—and in the sense that it is an important commercial product to Scotland's tartan weavers.
As I said at stage 1, however, I also think that the register should be inclusive. The last time I brought forward a bill on this subject, Karen Gillon told me that I was being too elitist. I am now trying to be egalitarian, and I have to say that I regard Mr Whitton's amendment as being slightly elitist.
Accordingly, I am keen that the keeper should have flexibility to accept registration of tartan designs as well as woven tartans, as that will make the register more inclusive and accessible, help to raise the awareness of tartan as a design and a product and promote the entirety of the Scottish industry. That approach has been important in steering a consensus between the conflicting views on tartan among the tartan experts with whom we are working on the bill. The committee has heard some of those views and fairly reflected them in its stage 1 report and in the debate on the report on 19 June.
During the past few months, the committee has learned that people's views on tartan are long held as well as deeply held. I know that better than most, as I have been working with the tartan interests for a long period to shape the bill. We have reached a consensus among those views, although it has taken five years to do so. Indeed, the Scottish Tartans World Register and the Scottish Tartans Authority have contributed the tartans that they hold to the new Scottish register.
We have a good bill, which offers a sensible and workable way forward and establishes a goal towards which all of the Scottish tartan industry can work. I want those diverging views to continue to contribute, debate, inform, educate and challenge as the register and the keeper become operational. That should be a continuing process. I continue to believe that to exclude one part of the tartan industry, as Mr Whitton's amendment would do, would represent a missed opportunity to build on the consensus that we have reached for the mutual benefit of all.
My bill will help that to happen. It allows the keeper to accept registrations of tartan designs that are woven—as the vast majority will be—and those that are in design form, of which the current registers receive only a handful each year, at the point that the application is made. It gives flexibility for the keeper to help an applicant to refine their application to the point that it can be registered, and it opens up possibilities for Scottish weavers and the Scottish tartan industry to pursue opportunities to weave tartan designs coming into the register.
Mr Whitton's amendment would place a statutory requirement on the keeper to require a woven sample at the point at which an application was lodged. That is unduly restrictive, and I therefore oppose it.
The absolute requirement for a woven sample at the point of application is also more restrictive than previous approaches to tartan registration. For example, the Scottish Tartans World Register seeks proof that the tartan has been woven, but that proof can be either a woven sample, a photograph or some other evidence of weaving, and the Scottish Tartans Authority seeks a woven sample or other evidence of commercial production after the tartan has been registered.
I know that the committee will be aware that the tartan experts who gave evidence at stage 1 have collectively written to Mr Whitton to express the views that Gavin Brown was just talking about. They have told him that they are confident that the submission of a woven sample or proof of weaving can follow the approval of the initial application by the keeper.
If we are serious in our commercial intent to help the tartan industry to promote and market itself, we should not discount the commercial and intrinsic value of both the woven tartan and the non-woven design, and we must do all that we can to draw through every potential commercial opportunity for the industry.
I am confident that the criteria for registration in the bill and the classification of tartans by the keeper in the register strike the right balance between accepting genuine tartan designs, as happens at the moment, and recognising the importance of woven tartan. I have amended the definition in the bill to clarify that tartans coming to the register must be capable of being woven.
We should work to position the tartan industry in Scotland to maximise the commercial and creative opportunities of tartan, both as a design and as a product. We should not, therefore, unduly restrict that design to one iteration or mode of production, for example as a woven product.
I recognise the inherent and historical value of the woven tartan. The requirement to provide thread count information will mean that designs coming to the register will be in a position to be woven. In recognition of the importance of tartan as a woven product and to further embed that in the bill, I took on board the committee's suggestion and lodged an amendment to alter the definition of "tartan" in section 2 to emphasise that tartan is capable of being woven.
Earlier, I mentioned the additional work that has been undertaken to get a clearer view of exactly how important woven tartan is to the industry. I do not for one moment underestimate the significant part that woven tartan plays in the Scottish tartan industry. Supporting the Scottish tartan and weaving industry is one of the key aims of the bill. However, there are a significant number of jobs in the non-woven sector of the tartan industry, which makes a significant economic contribution. I do not think that we can ignore that or be unduly restrictive in a way that would lessen our efforts to support the wider Scottish tartan industry. I firmly believe that the 1,000 direct and 1,800 indirect jobs in the wider tartan industry—which are not directly related to weaving tartan—and the Scottish individuals, families and communities that they help to support are an equally important and valuable part of our tartan industry.
It is, therefore, my aim to maximise the commercial opportunities across the Scottish tartan industry from woven and non-woven tartans. It would be a shame if one of the unintended consequences of the bill—and of the promotion of Scotland's tartan weavers—was the stifling of commercial opportunities for the wider Scottish tartan industry.
Although I welcome Mr Whitton's support for my bill, I feel that his amendment is unduly restrictive and I oppose it. If Mr Whitton wishes to come back to me about his proposal to weaken his amendment, that is a possibility.
David Whitton, you may now wind up the debate and indicate whether you wish to press or withdraw your amendment.
I do not think that I have ever been described as elitist before, so today is a first. Nevertheless, I will take the description in the spirit in which it was given.
Mr McGrigor is not really addressing the point that I made. His speech was all about the amendment as lodged, but what I suggested to him was the possibility of changing that so that unwoven designs could be accepted as long as it was intended that they would be woven at some point in the future. The Colin Montgomerie example was given previously. That was a tartan that was designed for Colin Montgomerie to use on his own literature but which, because he liked it so much, was later produced as woven cloth.
The issue comes down to the definition of "tartan". Is tartan a design or a woven cloth? I have to admit that I am an old-fashioned guy, and I believe that tartan is a cloth. That might put me firmly in the wovenist camp, but I make no apologies for that.
I am trying to achieve the same aims as Jamie McGrigor, and I fully support his bill, but I think that anyone who puts forward a design that they are calling tartan should, at some point, turn it into woven cloth. That would give the weaving industry a further boost, and I cannot see any argument against that.
We will "maximise the commercial opportunities"—your words, Mr McGrigor—if we say to a person who puts forward a design to the keeper that at some, undefined point in the future they must turn their design into woven cloth. That might happen in a year's time or in five years' time—we can work out the timescale. If the design is not turned into woven cloth, it should not be on what I would regard as a register of tartans. If you are willing to accept that position, I will not press amendment 1; if you are not willing to do so, I will press the amendment. The difference between our positions is small.
I take the points that you make, although I do not particularly agree with them. Your suggestion might be workable, but the sticking point is whether we are saying that a person "may" or "must" produce a woven sample.
I am inclined to agree that it would be good to have a woven sample at some point following registration, if production of a sample were not mandatory and if no punitive action were consequential on a sample not being provided. I would not want a design to be taken off the register because a tartan sample had not been provided within a certain length of time. That might be the sticking point between us. I would be prepared to accept an amendment that provided that a woven sample might be a good idea at a later stage.
I am pretty sure that Mr McGrigor does not agree with the point that Mr McGill made in his additional evidence to the committee, when he said:
"A piece of paper with a tartan image printed on it is not a piece of tartan but a piece of paper."
I guess that that is where Mr McGrigor and I disagree. A design on a piece of paper is no more than that until it is turned into tartan cloth—that is what I am getting at. If a person wants a design to be registered on a national register of tartan, at some point in future they must—not may—produce a piece of cloth.
I cannot accept that, because to require that a sample must be provided would be too restrictive.
When the committee took evidence on the matter, Kirsty Scott, from Scottish Enterprise, said:
"We want to encourage the textile trade, but many of the Scottish textile companies involved in tartan have interests outside woven cloth, and therefore see benefit in other product categories".
Nick Fiddes made a good point when he said:
"it is easy to run off a swatch quickly on a home loom, so providing a swatch would not necessarily indicate hard evidence of serious commercial use."
The former Lord Lyon said:
"I can see the disadvantages of insisting that a tartan is woven before it is registered. There are a number of situations in which such an approach would be unfortunate."
Brian Wilton, from the STA, said:
"Although tartan is woven most of the time, that should not close our minds to the fact that its origin is a two-dimensional design that can be interpreted in various ways, which are mostly woven but are frequently not woven."—[Official Report, Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, 14 May 2008; c 787, 788, 773, 772.]
I could go on and on producing such quotations.
In their letter to Mr Whitton, Nick Fiddes, the governor of the Scottish Tartans Authority, Deirdre Kinloch Anderson, the director of Kinloch Anderson, Keith Lumsden, the registrar director of the Scottish Tartans World Register, and Brian Wilton, the operations director of the Scottish Tartans Authority, say:
"We trust that the above explains to you why our key supporters of the Bill may have no alternative but to withdraw their support for the Register should your Amendment stand and this could effectively undermine the Bill. We therefore unanimously ask that you consider the withdrawal of your Amendment confident that the submission of a woven sample or proof of weaving can follow the approval of the initial application by the Keeper."
They say "can", not "must" and I do not think that they would say "must".
I remind members that there will be a further opportunity to amend the bill at stage 3. I ask David Whitton to wind up the debate and say whether he will press or withdraw amendment 1.
Jamie McGrigor quoted from the letter that I received from the people whom he named. I read the letter and thought long and hard about its contents. It says:
"proof of weaving can follow the approval of the initial application"
to the register. That is what I am asking for. I am happy to withdraw the amendment if Jamie McGrigor can reassure me that, once a design has been approved by the keeper, there will be proof of weaving—that a woven sample or proof of weaving will follow the approval of the initial application by the keeper. That is what the amendment says in black and white. I am following the advice that was given to me in the letter and taking on board what its authors said.
With due respect, the letter also asks you to withdraw the amendment.
Speak through the chair please, Jamie.
Sorry.
What I want from you, Mr McGrigor, is an indication that you are willing to accept that. If I get that, I will withdraw my amendment—that is what I have said.
Well, I agree with some of what you say, but I could not accept the inclusion of a mandatory "must".
The member's position on the matter is clear.
I beg your pardon, convener. I agree with the member to a certain extent, but I could not accept the inclusion of a mandatory "must".
I thank Jamie McGrigor for that. It is not really possible to have negotiations between members in bill proceedings. There will be an opportunity after this stage for you to discuss whether—
Well, as there is still a degree of disagreement between Jamie McGrigor and me, I will press my amendment.
Okay. The question is, that amendment 1 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Whitton, David (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Against
Brown, Gavin (Lothians) (Con)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Harvie, Christopher (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Abstentions
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
The result of the division is: For 3, Against 4, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 1 disagreed to.
Amendment 2 moved—[David Whitton].
The question is, that amendment 2 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Whitton, David (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Against
Brown, Gavin (Lothians) (Con)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Harvie, Christopher (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Abstentions
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
The result of the division is: For 3, Against 4, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 2 disagreed to.
Section 6 agreed to.
Sections 7 to 18 agreed to.
Long title agreed to.
That concludes stage 2 consideration of the bill. I thank Jamie McGrigor and the bill team for their attendance. I suspend the meeting for five minutes, to allow a changeover of panel members.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—