Scottish Register of Tartans Bill: Stage 3
The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the Scottish Register of Tartans Bill. In dealing with the amendment, members should have the bill as amended at stage 2—SP bill 8A—and the marshalled list. Should there be a division on the amendment, the division bell will sound. The period for voting will be 30 seconds.
Section 9—Registration
Amendment 1 is in the name of David Whitton.
In the world of tartan, it is a great day to be a wovenist. I have to add that the modernists also have something to celebrate.
When the Scottish Register of Tartans Bill came before the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, there was a lively debate between the two factions. For the uninitiated—looking around the chamber, I see several of those—I point out that the wovenists, of which I am definitely one, argued that tartan is a woven cloth and that an application for a design to appear in the new national register of tartans must be accompanied by a piece of woven cloth, to illustrate the fact that the design could indeed be turned into tartan.
Who would have thought that I could use the words "modernists" and "Jamie McGrigor" in the same sentence? However, I believe that Mr McGrigor falls into the category of the modernists, who maintain that, as long as a design fulfils the criterion that it is capable of being woven, it passes the eligibility test. Happily, I can report to the Parliament that Mr McGrigor and I have been able to reach a compromise, in much the same way as the formerly opposed factions of the Scottish Tartans World Register and the Scottish Tartans Authority did.
I will briefly explain the difference between this amendment and those that I lodged at stage 2. As with everything, the key is in the timing. Earlier, I suggested that any application to the national register must—I emphasise the word "must"—be accompanied by a piece of woven cloth that proved the design. People in several quarters urged me to accept that that was too severe. They pointed out that some designs that were submitted might fail the application test and that in such circumstances the applicant would have gone to the expense of having their design woven for nothing.
Indeed, we heard of an example from America—where else?—in which a society had a tartan designed and turned into smart kilts only to discover that its tartan was a direct copy of one that already existed. Clearly, no one wants to put applicants to unnecessary expense, as the whole point of the register is to boost the tartan industry, not to put unhelpful barriers in its way.
I thank the clerks to the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee and their legal advisers for helping me to come up with what I believe to be a suitable solution to the conundrum. I hope that new applicants to the register will have done enough research and will be confident enough to have had their design turned into tartan cloth, or at least to have commissioned a sample. However, the key point is that that will not be an absolute requirement for registration. My amendment states:
"Where an application did not include a woven textile sample … the Keeper may"—
I emphasise the word "may"—
"when sending a certificate of registration to an applicant or at any later time, request the applicant to submit such a sample."
Under the terms of the amendment, if 20 new applications were submitted, 10 of which came with samples and 10 of which did not, the keeper would at some stage contact the applicants who had not provided a sample to find out whether they had since turned their design into tartan cloth and, if so, to ask them to provide a sample.
I am also persuaded by the argument that those who register designs will find that, after some time, weaving companies will approach them anyway to find out whether their design is now ready to be woven into tartan cloth. That is what happened with the golfer Colin Montgomerie, who commissioned a tartan design for his company and liked it so much that he had some cloth made up. Indeed, I believe that he wore a kilt of his own tartan at his recent wedding.
As Mr McGrigor has indicated that he will accept my amendment, wovenists and modernists can now come together to celebrate the creation of the first official national tartan register.
I move amendment 1.
I want to speak about the general merits of the bill as well as amendment 1, which I believe will be accepted by Mr McGrigor.
The debate is on amendment 1, Mr Stone.
I am so sorry; I have been called at the wrong time.
We seem to be on the verge of a welcome outbreak of political harmony, with all members supporting amendment 1 and, I hope, the bill. Like Jamie McGrigor in his debates with Mr Whitton, I welcome amendment 1, which is better than a compromise. Indeed, I believe that it will be welcomed by the wovenists and the modernists as a win-win amendment.
From our first day in office, the Government has shown willing to work across political lines on areas where there is a genuine meeting of minds. In supporting the bill we are firmly delivering on our commitment to work with back-bench MSPs on developing good ideas, wherever they come from in the chamber.
I have welcomed the interest that has been shown in the bill and the joint working by and consensus among parliamentary colleagues that have brought it to its current shape. The contributions of the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee and its members have been and will continue to be incisive and ever helpful. Debates such as that between the modernists and wovenists, and anything else that draws more attention to tartan, must be a good thing.
As Mr Whitton made clear, amendment 1 will give the keeper of the register of tartans scope to seek a woven sample once a tartan has been registered. In cases where a woven sample has not been provided, the keeper can flag up an opportunity for it to be woven. Such an approach can only help to create commercial opportunities for Scottish weavers to weave from designs registered by the keeper, and I understand that close and efficient communications between the register and the Scottish tartan industry will help that to happen.
This genuinely sound suggestion can only help the tartan weaving industry in Scotland and I understand that it has the unanimous support of the tartan industry's stakeholder group. On that basis, I am pleased to indicate the Government's support for amendment 1.
I am grateful to Mr Whitton for lodging his amendment. I have to say that I prefer to sing from the wovenist and modernist hymn book.
During the bill's passage, the Parliament has heard passionately held and diverging views on tartan, its genesis, its production and how it is worn and used. Those issues have generated and will continue—for ever, I hope—to generate much debate and discussion.
Members might have been surprised by that. However, having worked for a number of years with tartan experts, I am not. I have learned that those long-held and wide-ranging views are immensely valuable to deepening awareness of and debate about tartan. I want those views to continue to contribute, to raise debate, to inform, to educate and to challenge as the register and the keeper become, I hope, operational.
Central to the debate has been the significant discussion on the importance of woven tartan, not only to the industry but in history. Historically, tartan has been defined by the fact that it can be—and is—woven. Mr Whitton and I differ on many varied and important issues, but I believe that there is much common ground between what I am trying to achieve with the bill and what Mr Whitton is trying to achieve with his amendment. We agree on the importance of working to promote and grow the Scottish tartan industry, on acting in the interests of the industry as far as we can and on the importance of woven tartan.
Indeed, as the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee suggested, I strengthened section 2 of the bill by including in the definition of tartan the words, "capable of being woven", to establish the importance of the woven tartan fabric. It was clear to me from the outset that I wanted to introduce the best possible bill to establish a statutory Scottish register of tartans. However, it is fair to say that I have been willing to take on board views that improve what was already a good bill. I listened to the committee's advice and lodged an amendment on the matter.
The committee did not agree to the amendments that Mr Whitton lodged at stage 2, but amendment 1 is differently worded and would give the keeper discretion to seek a woven tartan sample in support of an application for entry on the register, if such a sample had not been provided. I can think of instances where such discretion might be useful. Amendment 1 would give prominence to the importance of woven tartan, as did the amendment that I lodged at stage 2, and it would provide helpful clarification to the keeper and to applicants that a woven sample is important, although not essential, when an application is made. The proposal is workable and will be beneficial. I am happy to accept amendment 1.
I am grateful to Mr McGrigor. We had an amicable discussion about the matter in his office and I am delighted that he accepts amendment 1.
Amendment 1 agreed to.
That concludes consideration of amendments.