Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee by Parliament



ENTERPRISE AND CULTURE COMMITTEE AGENDA 27th Meeting, 2006 (Session 2) Tuesday 14 November 2006 The Committee will meet at 2.00 pm in Committee Room 2. 1. Decisions on taking business in private: The Committee will consider whether to take item 4 in private. 2. Subordinate legislation: Allan Wilson MSP, Deputy Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning, to move S2M-5038— That the Enterprise and Culture Committee recommends that the draft Scotland Act 1998 (Transfer of Functions to the Scottish Ministers etc.) (No. 3) Order 2006, (SI 2006/draft) be approved. 3. Scottish Register of Tartans Bill: The Committee will discuss the written evidence received as part of its Stage 1 consideration of the bill. 4. Budget process 2007-08 (Stage 2): The Committee will discuss a draft report.

Stephen Imrie Clerk to the Committee Tel. 0131 348 5207 enterprise.committee@scottish.parliament.uk **********

The following meeting papers are enclosed: Agenda Item 1 There are no papers for this item. Agenda Item 2 SSI Cover Note – SSI 2006/draft Agenda Item 3 Scottish Register of Tartans Bill – written evidence Agenda Item 4 PRIVATE PAPER - Budget process 2007-08 (Stage 2) draft report Papers circulated for information only Clerk’s Bulletin, No 27 (2006) EC/S2/06/27/3 EC/S2/06/27/2 EC/S2/06/27/1

EC/S2/06/27/1 ENTERPRISE AND CULTURE COMMITTEE SSI Cover Note SSI title and Number: The Scotland Act 1998 (Transfer of Functions to the Scottish Ministers etc.)(No.3) Order 2006, (SSI/2006/draft) Affirmative – Standing Orders Rule 10.6.1(a) Wednesday 25 October 2006 Tuesday 14 November 2006 Thursday 9 November 2006

Type of Instrument: Date Laid Committee Meeting: Date circulated to members: Enterprise and Culture Committee deadline to consider SSI: Purpose of the instrument

Monday 27 November 2006

The purpose of the Order is set out in the Explanatory Note (page 6) and the Executive Note (pages 7-10) Allan Wilson MSP, Deputy Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning

Minister to attend the Enterprise and Culture Committee:

SSI drawn to Parliament’s The Subordinate Legislation Committee (SLC) considered the instrument on 31 October 2006 attention by the and no points arose. Subordinate Legislation Committee: Affirmative Instrument – Procedure 1. The Enterprise and Culture Committee has been designated the lead Committee and is required to report to the Parliament by 27 November 2006. 2. The draft Order was laid on 25 October 2006. Under Rule 10.6.1(a), the Order is subject to affirmative resolution before it can be made and it is for the Enterprise and Culture Committee to recommend to the Parliament whether the Order should be approved. 3. Nicol Stephen MSP, Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning, has, by motion S2M-5038 (set out in the agenda), proposed that the Committee recommends that the Committee recommends the approval of the Order. Allan Wilson MSP, Deputy Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning will attend in order to speak to and move the motion. The debate can last for up to a maximum of 90 minutes.


EC/S2/06/27/1 4. At the end of the debate, the Committee must decide whether or not to agree the motion and report to the Parliament accordingly. Such a report needs only consist of a short statement of the Committee’s recommendations.

Stephen Imrie Clerk to the Committee


EC/S2/06/27/2 ENTERPRISE AND CULTURE COMMITTEE Stage 1 consideration of the Scottish Register of Tartans Bill – written evidence Background 1. On 28 September 2006, Jamie McGrigor MSP formally introduced the Scottish Register of Tartans Bill (SP Bill 76) (“the Bill”). The Bill was subsequently referred to the Enterprise and Culture Committee by the Parliamentary Bureau for consideration at Stage 1. No deadline has been given to the Committee for this consideration. This Bill aims to create a register of tartan. Currently there is no ‘official’ register of tartan in Scotland, although there are a number of privately owned ‘registers’ and databases 1 . The Bill and the accompanying papers can be found at: http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/bills/membersBills.htm 2. At its meeting of 3 October 2006, the Committee agreed to publish an open call for written evidence and to write to a number of relevant organisations for written evidence. The Committee also agreed to defer a decision on which witnesses to invite to give oral evidence until it had reviewed any written evidence received. The deadline for submission of written evidence was given as 10 November 2006. Written evidence received to date 3. The Committee has received written evidence from the following— Broadly supportive of the general principles of the bill: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Clan Gregor Society Highland Council Dr Andrew Cubie CBE, FRSE Kinloch Anderson Falkirk Council The Lord Lyon Roddy Martine Blair Urquhart Angus Council Royal Highland and Agricultural Society of Scotland Scottish Borders Council The Standing Council of Scottish Chiefs Universities Scotland VisitScotland Dr Bruce Durie


Such as the Scottish Tartans World Register and the International Tartans Index.

EC/S2/06/27/2 Broadly unsupportive of the general principles of the bill: • • Neil King Scotweb Marketing Ltd Unsupportive of certain aspects of the bill but supportive of the general principles: • • • • • • • • • • J Alistair Buchan Colin Hutcheson Keith Lumsden Macnaughton Holdings Ltd Mark Osweiler James D Scarlett Scottish Tartans Authority (STA) Scottish Tourism Forum Scottish Textiles Peter MacArthur and Co Ltd Unsupportive of the creation of the ‘keeper’: • Barry Winetrobe.

A copy of all the written evidence is available at Annex A. Action 4. Members are invited to review the written evidence received and agree whether to invite any witnesses to give oral evidence and if so, which. Stephen Imrie Clerk to the Enterprise and Culture Committee

EC/S2/06/27/2 Annex A Written evidence – broadly supportive: SUBMISSION FROM THE CLAN GREGOR SOCIETY The Clan Gregor Society supports the spirit and intention of the Tartan Bill, realising that there are details which still require to be considered and finetuned. We wish Jamie McGrigor all success with the Bill.

EC/S2/06/27/2 SUBMISSION FROM HIGHLAND COUNCIL SCOTTISH REGISTER OF TARTANS BILL – CALL FOR WRITTEN EVIDENCE Thank you for your letter dated 6 October 2006 extending an opportunity to submit issues of support for the above. With the recent increase in the number of tartans, it would be sensible, and would avoid disputes, to create one official Register which would replace existing unofficial registers and databases. In terms of location it would seem appropriate for the Register to be lodged in the Scottish Highlands because the majority of families that use tartan at present have their ancestral roots in the Highlands. The proposed £10.4 million Highland Archive Centre, due to open in 2009, the Year of Highland Homecoming, would provide an appropriate location for the Register, whether in paper or electronic form, as state-of the-art facilities for the preservation of records in both formats will be available at the Centre. The Archive Centre could also house the existing unofficial registers which would need to be closed once the official Register is established. Highland Council Archives is already the custodian of the Tartan Archive created and deposited by Mr JD Scarlett of Moy, who has placed his collection in the care of The Highland Council so that it may be made available to the public for research. The Highland Archive Service could take on the role of ‘Custodian’ of the Register, and ensure its safekeeping, and Highland Council would be keen to discuss the specialist role of Keeper of the Register which would involve adjudicating on the contents of the Register, and which would require a level of expertise beyond that of Archives staff.

EC/S2/06/27/2 SUBMISSION FROM DR ANDREW CUBIE CBE, FRSE I have a long involvement in the business of Scotland, as a former Chairman of CBI Scotland, as the former company secretary of one of the largest finishing plants for Harris Tweed and currently as a director of Kinloch Anderson Limited. There is world wide interest in tartan. Tartan is one of Scotland’s greatest statements, now offered in a contemporary way in all manner of applications. There are currently two main registers that are privately run. Tartan recognition does not and indeed should not belong to a limited private group or to individuals, however well intentioned they may be. The proposed Bill is inclusive and its benefit to Scotland, Scottish people and indeed all who enjoy wearing and using tartan would be considerable. When asked, most people think that an official tartan register already exists and are amazed to learn that this is not the case. I believe that an official register of tartan would greatly benefit not only the limited number of commercial weavers who call themselves the ‘tartan industry’, but also the entire Scottish tourist industry and tourist relate activities, including genealogy. A Steering Committee set up to establish facts, guidelines and information as a basis for this Bill included senior representatives from both the existing Registers (the Scottish Tartans World Register (STWR) and the Tartans Index of the Scottish Tartans Authority). I understand that two governors of the Scottish Tartans Authority (STA) attended a meeting held at the office of the Lord Lyon (himself a member of the Steering Committee) and representatives from the National Museum of Scotland, the Scottish National War Museum and the Standing Council of Scottish Chiefs. The legal and archivist professions, and the retail industry have all attended meetings and given their opinions on various occasions. This Bill has been well prepared with much careful thought and consideration. In my view existing registers have everything to gain from the passing of the Bill. The STA’s excellent Tartan Index could well be of invaluable assistance to the Keeper and the use of it could presumably generate much income for the STA in the future. It is by no means imperative that the Keeper should be a tartan ‘expert’ but rather a person of standing who must be able to sustain the profile, the value and the role of the Register. It is also possible that the Keeper would not manage the day to day running of the registration process but that he/she would delegate that management to the organisation with the most expertise in this field, such as the bodies with existing registers. These organisations have the opportunity to play a supportive and hugely beneficial role in the success of this project.

EC/S2/06/27/2 Existing registers, however, are commercial and the essence of this Bill is that tartan registration should be in the public domain. So this is the fundamental issue that the Enterprise and Culture Committee needs to consider. Tartan registration (and this register is intended only to be an archive and a record of tartans and not authoritative on the multitude of other tartan related issues) should not remain exposed to private commercial risk. The definition of tartan is of particular importance. It should be made absolutely clear that such definition is not in any way challenging or altering other definitions that are already in the market place. I consider the woven cloth aspect to be important (because tartan essentially belongs to textiles, clothing and our National Dress) but this could be covered at the time of application to the register rather than in the Bill. Finally the tartan register would not be involved with copyright or patent legislation. The tartan register would not affect pre-existing intellectual property rights.

EC/S2/06/27/2 SUBMISSION FROM KINLOCH ANDERSON Whether the creation of such a Register would be beneficial: The number of people interested in tartan worldwide is huge. Tartan is one of Scotland’s great icons, it belongs to Scotland’s cultural image and additionally it is a gift that Scotland has given to the world. The roots of tartan are in Scotland – its influence is global. There are currently two main registers that are privately run and therefore potentially vulnerable and this situation needs to be remedied. Tartan recognition does not and indeed should not belong to a limited private group or to individuals, however well intentioned they may be. This Bill is intentionally inclusive and not exclusive and its benefit to Scotland, Scottish people and indeed all who enjoy wearing and using tartan would be immense. When asked, most people think that an official tartan register already exists and are amazed to learn that this is not the case. It is my fundamental belief that an official register of tartan would greatly benefit not only the limited number of commercial weavers who call themselves the ‘tartan industry’ but also the extensive number of retailers and kilt hire companies, museums and castles, indeed the whole of the Scottish tourist industry and tourist related activities, including genealogy. The future for (fate of) the current registers in existence: A Steering Committee set up to establish facts, guidelines and information as a basis for this Bill included senior representatives from both the existing Registers (the Scottish Tartans World Register (STWR) and the Tartans Index of the Scottish Tartans Authority). Two Governors of the Scottish Tartans Authority (STA) attended a meeting held at the office of the Lord Lyon (himself a member of the Steering Committee) and representatives from the National Museum of Scotland, the Scottish National War Museum, the Standing Council of Scottish Chiefs, the legal and archivist professions, and the retail industry have all attended meetings and given their opinions on various occasions. This Bill has been well prepared with much careful thought and consideration. Existing registers have everything to gain. The STA’s excellent Tartan Index could well be of invaluable assistance to the Keeper and the use of it could generate much income for the STA in the future. It is by no means imperative that the Keeper should be a tartan ‘expert’ but rather a person of authority, wisdom and stature to successfully launch the profile, the value and the role of the Register. It is also possible that the Keeper would not manage the day to day running of the registration process but that he would delegate that management to the organisation with the most expertise in this field, such as the bodies with existing registers. These organisations have the opportunity to play a supportive and hugely beneficial role in the success of this project.

EC/S2/06/27/2 Existing registers, however, are commercial and the essence of this Bill is that tartan registration should be in the public domain and not the private domain. So this is the fundamental issue that the Enterprise and Culture Committee needs to consider. Tartan registration (and this register is intended only to be an archive and a record of tartans and not an authority on the multitude of other tartan related issues) should not remain exposed to private commercial risk. The definition of tartan: This is extremely important and at the same time extremely difficult. There are countless definitions to be found in dictionaries etc. It should be made absolutely clear that the ‘definition of tartan’ as finally decided for this Bill is applicable to this tartan register and is not in any way challenging or altering other definitions that are already in the market place. I consider the woven cloth aspect to be important (because tartan essentially belongs to textiles, clothing and our National Dress) but this could be covered at the time of application to the register rather than in the Bill. What information regarding the tartans should be registered: This has already been well thought through and is satisfactory as given. What would the role of the Keeper be and who would make the appointment: As I have already indicated I consider that the Keeper’s role to be one of wise counsel, diplomacy, authority and if possible high profile. He / she should be the front PR person to lead the team of tartan experts. The arrangements to make the appointment are satisfactory. The appointment procedures should be strictly impartial and in the public domain. The suggested procedures seem satisfactory. Likely costs and fees for registering both old and new tartans: Some initial setting up costs will be inevitable. From the outset it has been the intention that this register should be self funding. However, the relatively small amount of money suggested for this project would enable one of our finest assets to be safeguarded in perpetuity. The suggested fees are satisfactory. Section 48 (Policy Memorandum) mentions no charge for registering tartans from existing collections. I believe this to be intended to cover the transfer of data in existing registers in their entirety. A one to one re-registration process for individual tartans in existing registers to the new register has not been discussed and indeed is therefore not envisaged. Implications for copyright and intellectual property law: The tartan register would not be involved with copyright or patent legislation. The tartan register would not affect pre-existing intellectual property rights.

EC/S2/06/27/2 SUBMISSION FROM FALKIRK COUNCIL Whether the creation of such a register would be beneficial The difficulty with defining tartan for the purposes of the legislation is that it might also be used to restrict the creative talents of designers and the development on new designs which could legitimately be called tartan. The proposed definition is welcome as it is sufficiently broad to encompass new designs. The statement that the definition “should not prevent or restrict the use of other interpretations of tartan in the market place” is, however, illogical, if the intention of the legislation is to provide a definitive statement of what tartan is. Any definition given authority by legislation would of necessity imply that other definitions were not authoritative. The fate of the current registers in existence The creation of an authoritative register should make the existing registers obsolete. It would be appropriate to draw on the many years of research undertaken for these registers for a fee commensurate both with any commercial loss and with the effort which has gone into creating these registers. What information regarding the tartans should be registered In addition to the information already suggested in the consultation document, it is recommended that there should be a registration code for each tartan, a note of the registration code used by any existing registers, a set of standards for identifying colours and a record of the sources used to research and verify the pattern (including the location of samples and research collections). What would the role of the Keeper be and who would make the appointment If there is to be any control over the use or production on tartans, (as per the list of information on each tartan) the appropriate person to maintain this would be the Keeper. Designers of new tartans will have recourse to existing copyright and designs legislation to protect their interests, but ancient customs, such as the exclusive use of particular tartans by specific clan chiefs, are not currently protected in law. It may be appropriate to add this duty to that of the Lord Lyon, King at Arms or make the post of Keeper an adjunct of that Court. If created, the post and any additional research staff should be funded by the Scottish Parliament. Likely costs and fees for registering both old and new tartans The main costs would be research and verification of information provided by the applicant. A reasonable guide to costs would be obtained by consulting academic salary scales, the fees charged by reputable professional genealogical researchers and the costs incurred by the Court of the Lord Lyon. It seems unlikely that this research-intensive scheme would be selfsupporting either in the initial stages or in the long-term and government funding would be required to cover salaries and infrastructure, including website and IT support and an office. If sanctions are envisaged (as per the list of information on each tartan) there may be substantial additional costs, particularly if there are legal disputes in foreign jurisdictions.


A reasonable fee would be commensurate with the costs of 5-7 hours research plus any additional expenses incurred. Researching existing tartans is likely to cost three to four times as much as researching new tartans. The difficulty with charging a fee for the registration of an existing tartan is establishing who would be prepared to pay for registration. Commercial companies would benefit from registering exclusive new designs. The industry as a whole would benefit from the establishment of authoritative designs but no single company, clan, association or individual would directly recoup the cost of registering an existing ancient tartan. The danger is that the register would therefore only contain new tartans which would significantly reduce its effectiveness. It would be more appropriate to persuade the industry to make contributions to the initial development of the register, much of which could be used to compensate the existing registers for their research. The creation of a single authoritative register of tartans would have considerable benefit for the tourist industry. However, the research required to create it will incur significant costs and it is likely that even an experienced research team will require several years of work before the register becomes authoritative. It should also be noted that we feel Falkirk would be an ideal location for the Register of Tartan office.

EC/S2/06/27/2 SUBMISSION FROM LORD LYON KING OF ARMS I very much welcome the Bill and entirely agree with its main principles. When I became Lord Lyon in 2001 I was surprised to discover that the Court of the Lord Lyon did not have any jurisdiction at all in respect of tartan, given the importance of tartan as a symbol so closely connected with Scotland and particularly with the Scottish clans, in relation to which the Lord Lyon has a crucial role. The legislation governing the Court of the Lord Lyon limits the Lord Lyon’s functions to heraldic and ceremonial matters and does not permit the Lord Lyon to widen these functions. In view of this I have been closely involved in the discussions amongst members of the tartan community which have led to the Bill. These discussions began late in 2001 and led to a meeting of representatives of various interested parties, including the Scottish Tartans Authority (STA), the Scottish Tartans World Register (STWR), National Archives of Scotland, Museum of Scotland and the Standing Council of Scottish Clan Chiefs, in March 2002. Since then many meetings have been held to progress the idea of a tartan register and since mid 2003 these have been attended by Jamie McGrigor MSP. I have attended most of these meetings as have representatives of the STA and STWR. These meetings have been constructive and have proceeded with the agreement of all parties. Because of concerns expressed at one point by the STA a meeting was held in my office with the Chairman, the Director and one of the other governors of the STA when these concerns were discussed. The concern of the STA was that they believed that legislation should be sought by which the register which they currently operate should be given official status, but still continue to be operated by the STA. The STA is an organisation representing a number of commercial and other interests. The possibility of the STA being converted into some kind of statutory body was discussed but this idea did not commend itself to the STA governors and the STA accepted that it was not a practical proposition to seek legislation to give official status to their register. The STA thought that it might be possible, if the legislation proceeded in the form proposed, for the Keeper of the tartan register, if he or she so decided, to enter into an arrangement for the STA to manage the new register on behalf of the Keeper, but it was accepted that this could not be prescribed by the legislation in any way. Would the creation of a Scottish Register of Tartans be beneficial? The Court of the Lord Lyon receives numerous enquiries about tartan. It is widely believed that there is in existence an official register and that the Lord Lyon has jurisdiction in relation to tartan. Enquirers are astonished to be told that this is not the case.

EC/S2/06/27/2 The Lord Lyon has a very limited role in relation to tartan. As part of his heraldic function the Lord Lyon can record in his books, documents such as nominations of successors to coats of arms. This facility has been used by Clan Chiefs to define the design of their Clan tartan and have the design officially recorded in the books of the Lord Lyon. The Lord Lyon has no role in regard to tartan apart from receiving such requests and recording the information. Roughly 100 tartans are recorded in this way. It is an unsatisfactory state of affairs that the two main registers of tartan that exist have no official status and are not able to provide definitive official information about tartan. They are run by commercial interests and they are not safeguarded in any way against the possibility of discontinuance for commercial reasons. I would prefer that the proposed Register was called the “Scottish Register of Tartan” rather than “of Tartans” since it is tartan as a generic concept that the Bill hopes to safeguard through the recording of individual designs. What should happen to the current registers? In the course of the discussions that led to the Bill the representatives of both the Scottish Tartans Authority and the Scottish Tartans World Register indicated their willingness to make available a copy of their computer-held data to the Keeper of the proposed Register free of charge. This would be available as a historic record of data that these bodies held but would not necessarily be incorporated into the proposed Register. The Bill proposes at Section 11(3) that details of tartan from existing registers may be recorded in the new Register free of charge. This goes beyond what was discussed but would be a useful provision. It may be that there will be a reluctance on the part of the STA and the STWR to register details from their holdings in the new Register. However I do not think that this should detract from the main object of creating a vehicle which, over time, should become the definitive source of information on all tartans. There is no reason why the existing registers should not continue as commercial operations. There are many sources of information about tartan available to members of the public. The databases of the STA and the STWR are two of these, but there are other tartan databases and information on tartan is also available from museums, shops, academic records, libraries and many other places. The creation of an official register would not seek to force any of these existing sources to discontinue providing information. The situation would be analogous to heraldry where there are many heraldic databases and collections but there is only one official register. Definition of tartan I do not think that the word “alternating” in Section 3 is necessary. A tartan design does not need to have a particular band or colour appearing more than once in each direction.

EC/S2/06/27/2 What information should be registered? I believe that what is proposed is satisfactory. What would the role of the Keeper be? I believe that what is proposed is satisfactory. Who should appoint the Keeper? I believe that what is proposed is satisfactory. In the course of the discussions that led to the Bill it was suggested that the Lord Lyon should be the Keeper of the tartan Register. This would require amendment to the legislation establishing and governing the operation of the Court of the Lord Lyon. In my view it is not desirable that the tartan register should be run by a Court of Law whose proceedings rely on rules of evidence and procedure appropriate to cases which may be contentious. Such rules and procedure, which are essential for disposing of contested claims to arms and associated titles and chiefships, are not necessary for the management of a register such as is proposed. What are the likely costs and fees for registration? I believe that what is proposed is satisfactory.

EC/S2/06/27/2 SUBMISSION FROM RODDY MARTINE As the author of Scottish Clan & Family Names - Their Arms, Origins and Tartans (Mainstream) first published in 1987 and which is currently being reprinted in its ninth edition, I am especially well aware of the vast importance attached to Tartan worldwide. Over the past nineteen years I have received thousands of letters on the subject, all positive and curious. Since it was first commented upon in the Highlands of Scotland in the 16th century, Tartan has remained an extraordinarily versatile and decorative cloth catching the eye of the international fashion industry and interior designers globally. This can only be of benefit to the international image of our Nation. Having attended Scottish gatherings in America (Grandfather Mountain Highland Games In North Carolina, the Virginia Games, and Tartan Week in New York and Washington since 1997), Canada (the International Gathering in Nova Scotia in 1983 and the Antigonish Highland Games), and been the guest from Scotland at Sydney Scottish Week in 2004, I can assert the enormous significance which Tartan holds in the hearts and minds of the expatriate Scot. I can also assert that among the Scottish communities overseas, if not those in Scotland, there is an extreme awareness of its misuse by individuals who have no interest in its provenance or traditional significance. While I have no problem with a Tara or Yukon tartan, or a Welsh National tartan (all of which exist), provided they are registered, I have strong reservations about the use of established tartans with family and territorial affiliations being used indiscriminately to promote commercial interests without sanction. In defiance of this, the two main existing registers undoubtedly provide an invaluable service, but the appointment of a Keeper with legal authority is long overdue. Tartan, despite its ancient provenance being subject to debate, has been an acknowledged badge of Scottish identity for at least two hundred years. Before that, it was an ingenious Highlands of Scotland industry dating back through the centuries, an astonishing and unique cottage industry given where it came from, the process of its manufacture, and the technical expertise that is required to process its thread counts. Scotland could have no more versatile or instantly recognisable icon and it is absolutely essential that its integrity be protected from exploitation.

EC/S2/06/27/2 SUBMISSION FROM BLAIR URQUHART I have read text of the Bill as introduced and the Explanatory Notes. I strongly support the Bill in broad terms. I have been involved with the practical implementation of both the original design of the software developed at Stirling University which became of the STWR database with Keith Lumsden, and the STA database with Brian Wilton, but have taken a back seat with regard to filling in the content. I take the view that continuity and progression are the most important aspects of creating a lasting record of tartans, and I hope that the new official arrangements for tartan registration would follow this path, rather than attempting to start afresh. This work is contained in the Specification submitted at an earlier stage in the Bill. My view is that the STA as a organisation, has the best hope of fulfilling the aspirations of the Bill. That some pre-conditions might be agreed with the STA, to insure that the appointment (or the recommendation for an appointment) was in some part democratic and that the membership was free to all. That the STA might take advice from the National Museums of Scotland on the preservation of the physical archive. I would argue that the appointment of Keeper be for one year and up to a maximum of 4 years with one year before becoming eligible again. The effect being that some energy might be retained in the appointment. Finally, that the Keeper be barred from recording his/her own designs while in office. (Item 4.1 that any person, barring the Keeper, may apply...)

EC/S2/06/27/2 SUBMISSION FROM ANGUS COUNCIL Would the creation of such a Register be beneficial? The Council believes that the creation of such a Register would be beneficial in terms of the marketing and tourism that it could bring to Scotland. Registration would mean that official tartans could be proclaimed as such and attract a fee. Tartans are now sought for more than family use. Businesses, corporate organisations, Government and other official bodies as well as world-wide events and activities all want their own tartans. The fate of the current registers. We agree that the future of the current registers would have to be addressed and a compromise reached especially in relation to the Clan tartans that date back to the 18th Century. The registration of non-family tartans may have to start from scratch. The definition of “tartan”. The definition of “tartan” is not as straight forward as it seems. The National Museums of Scotland have already produced a fine publication on the subject which accompanied an exhibition and it is suggested that advice should be sought from that source. What information should be registered? We would suggest that the tartan making industry as well as the Clans and the National Museums should be able to produce a technical description. What would be the role of the Keeper and who should make the appointment? The role of the Keeper should be parallel to that of the Lord Lyon who has powers regarding the registration of Coats of Arms. It may even be possible for the Keeper to be part of the Lord Lyon’s office. What would be the likely costs and fees for registration? As indicated above, we believe there should be a compromise in relation to the historical tartans. However, all new tartans and perhaps all existing nonclan tartans should register. Costs could be in parallel once again with those applied by the Lord Lyon’s office. Fees should be considered in terms of covering administration costs but also for generating income that could be used for marketing Scotland as a tourist destination? What are the implications for copyright and intellectual property law? The implications would presumably be the same as applying to the Lord Lyon’s office for registering Coats of Arms.

EC/S2/06/27/2 SUBMISSION FROM THE ROYAL HIGHLAND AND ARGRICILTURAL SOCIETY OF SCOTLAND The RHASS supports the spirits and intentions of the proposed Bill. The existing registers should be involved with the proposed Register, utilizing the skills, knowledge and expertise from the tartan industry. However, it should also be made clear that there are also other means of obtaining information about tartan via museums, academic records, libraries and many other places. The Bill would be beneficial to Scotland and would protect the heritage of tartan, with specific guidelines and for public information purposes. The voluntary register will be used for those interested in sourcing the background history of tartan designs. The proposed Bill would be inclusive and protect the history, as well as the future, of the tartan industry. This would also show recognition for the country’s tartan industries. The existing registers are valuable and precious asset and should be used to assist the Keeper. All current systems need to be fully understood to allow improvements or amendments, if any, to be made. The Keeper need not be a tartan specialist but a person of influence, wisdom and stature to effectively launch the profile, the value and the role of the Register. The Keeper should delegate the day to day management to the organisation with the most expertise in this field, such as the bodies with existing registers. These organisations should continue to have the opportunity to play an encouraging, influential and beneficial role in the success of this project and, again, should continue to be involved in the decision making process. Cost of registering tartans and what should be registered should be decided by the Keeper and agreed with specialists and kept separate from the Bill. The fundamental nature of this Bill is that tartan registration and information should be for public use – the only official register for tartan.

EC/S2/06/27/2 SUBMISSION FROM SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL Scottish Borders Council welcomes the Scottish Register of Tartans Bill introduced in the Scottish Parliament on 27 September 2006. As highlighted within the policy memorandum, ‘tartan is one of Scotland’s most instantly recognised symbols’ and as such, is a brand value which cannot be understated. VisitScotland recognise the importance of tartan as a key icon for Scotland and have for many years used the tartan and related imagery for key target markets. More modern designs and different interpretations and use of tartan add to its flexibility and use in a modern contemporary context, appealing to a more youthful target market across the globe. Such a significant traditional brand item combined with a modern contemporary interpretation should be protected in a regulatory but non constrained manner. The development of a Register of Tartans will protect and maintain the integrity of this iconic element of Scottish identity and industry. From an economic development perspective, Scottish Borders in particular has a number of notable designers and manufacturers of high quality Scottish tartan and related garments in particular Lochcarron of Scotland. Textile manufacturing including tartans accounts for 43.2% of manufacturing employment and 7.5% of the total employed within the Scottish Borders. The importance of maintaining, and where possible, increasing job creation in an industry which has faced significant challenges over the last decade, is paramount. Maintaining and protecting tartan and its integrity will help local businesses which contribute to the local and national economy. Tartan is a key element of many Scottish families and an integral element of their family history and the global interest in family history and genealogy presents a significant potential niche visitor market for Scotland. VisitScotland have recognised the importance of the potential for tourism with the development of the ancestral tourism initiative. However, the role and the development work accomplished to date by the Scottish Tartan Authority must be recognised and integrated with any future developments proposed by national agencies. The Scottish Tartan Authority, an industry led body, has committed significant resources in developing their database for tartan. We would recommend that any proposals under the parliamentary bill builds on and complements the database and other resources established by the STA to ensure a unified register of tartans and important historical archive is developed for future generations.

EC/S2/06/27/2 SUBMISSION FROM THE STANDING COUNCIL OF SCOTTISH CHIEFS The Executive of The Standing Council of Scottish Chiefs is pleased to support the Tartans Bill on behalf of its members. The Executive met today to discuss the objectives of the bill, and would like to make the following recommendation. That whilst the role and the independence of the Keeper is clearly outlined, it was felt that this new office would benefit from operating under the auspices of the Lyon Court, which has all the authority of a statutory body dating back to 1672. The Lyon Court is still involved in matters pertaining to tartans and their ownership, especially in relation to the clan chiefs, whose tartans make up the majority of the original “classic” tartans that are worn all over the world. The Executive also requested that the Standing Council be added to the list interested organizations, to be consulted as and when it was felt appropriate and be kept updated on the progress of the bill. The Lord Convenor.The Rt.Hon. The Earl of Caithness The Vice Convenor.The Rt Hon. The Lord Sempill The Rt.Hon. The Earl of Eglinton and Winton The Rt.Hon. The Lady Saltoun Madam Margaret Eliott of Redheugh David Irvine of Drum Danus Skene of Skene Andrew Durie of Durie

EC/S2/06/27/2 SUBMISSION FROM UNIVERSITIES SCOTLAND Universities Scotland is the representative body of Scotland’s 21 higher education institutions. We welcome the opportunity to respond to the Scottish Register of Tartans Bill as the majority of our members have developed their own tartan as a symbol of the university brand. Universities Scotland has considered the issues raised by previous consultations and our views are detailed below. The creation of an official register of tartan Universities Scotland welcomes the creation of an official register of tartan that would make it easier to identify what tartans are in existence and where and why they were created. Cost and information of creating an official register The majority of higher education institutions that have a tartan already have their tartan registered with the Scottish Tartan Society. As institutions are already registered with the Scottish Tartan Society, Universities Scotland believes that there should be no cost (as is indicated in the Bill) for those organisations whose tartans were already registered prior to the commencement of the Bill. Similarly, for institutions that are currently developing a tartan or for those institutions that aren’t registered with the Scottish Tartan Society and which, under the proposed legislation will be required to register under the proposed Register, the cost should be kept to a minimum. While we understand that a Keeper of the Tartan must be appointed to maintain the Register and provide information to those who required it, the cost of registering should not outstrip the benefits of the Register. Universities Scotland recognises that for the proposed Register to be effective, it must contain appropriate information about the tartan that describes it origins, when and why it was created and by whom. However, all higher education institutions have to balance limited resources with an increasing number of administrative tasks. We would therefore strongly support that information gathering would be proportional and not excessively prescriptive. However those organisations that wanted to provide a large amount of detail should be allowed to do so.

EC/S2/06/27/2 SUBMISSION FROM VISITSCOTLAND VisitScotland, as the national tourism agency, has a strategic role as the public sector agency providing leadership and direction for the development of Scottish tourism in order to get the maximum economic benefit for Scotland. It exists to support the development of the tourism industry in Scotland and to market Scotland as a quality destination. Many of the issues raised by the Bill are not areas on which we have a view, as a result our comments are more general in nature. However, I hope they assist the Committee with its consideration of the Bill. Visitor Insights Tartan is seen by many as the trademark of Scotland and we recognise the value of tartan to tourism. Indeed, tartan conjures immediate associations with the scenery, our culture and heritage and our world-renowned hospitality. The VisitScotland Tourism Attitudes Survey (TAS) 2005 that was conducted between July and October 2005 to assess the attitudes of both domestic (UK including Scotland) and international (German, French, Swedish and Italian) visitors to Scotland demonstrates that Tartan Goods are a popular gift or souvenir for visitors to Scotland. The TAS shows that 11% of visitors from England and Wales, 16% of German visitors, 21% of French, 41% of Italian visitors and 28% of Swedish visitors bought tartan good. In addition, the survey shows that 80% of respondents thought that the quality of the ‘tartan products’ was either, ‘excellent’ or ‘very good’. Use of Tartan in VisitScotland’s International Marketing The VisitScotland pan-European campaign, with the slogan ‘Welcome to our Life’, has been key to an increase in return on investment of £23 for every £1 spent by VisitScotland up from 13:1 in 2002. This particular campaign has received wide industry acclaim with a 2005 strategic marketing excellence award from the Marketing Society of Scotland and two awards from the Marketing Research Awards, for Best International Research project and the Marketing Award for Outstanding Research. The campaign uses an element of tartan in the design of adverts and other marketing materials. This is to attract immediate recognition from consumers that we are promoting Scotland, however, we combine this with contemporary images of the country to make them aware of the wide range of holiday activities and attractions available in Scotland. The pan-European approach arose from research which showed that people’s holiday preferences are more likely to be determined by age, gender, lifestyle and income rather than nationality and included everything from direct marketing and online promotion to eight-page newspaper supplements. The research with European consumers showed the following associations with Scotland - Countryside, Wilderness, Lochs, Peaceful, whisky, old buildings, mystery and legends. Some 'traditional' associations which were mentioned included tartan/kilts, bagpipes and haggis.


Whether the creation of such a register would be beneficial There is currently no definitive National Register of Tartan; those that currently exist are incomplete or represent the interests of a specific area. Therefore, we can see the merits behind the creation of such a register, but we do not have any evidence that the register will attract additional visitors to Scotland, or add significantly to tourism revenues. However, the register does have potential to generate positive media coverage for one of our key icons.

EC/S2/06/27/2 SUBMISSION FROM DR BRUCE DURIE The case does not need to be made here for a Tartans register. Tartans are a central part of Scotland’s cultural identity. England has no national costume. Wales has no national drink. Scotland (as does Ireland, for that matter) has a widely-recognised costume and a beverage, as well as music, poetry, language and other indicators of cultural identity. The consumer lobby will say: “let the market rule, and let the customers decide where and how they buy whatever tartan”. In which case, let’s all make Parma ham from Ayrshire bacon. Champagne cognac, Wensleydale cheese, and many hundreds of products from other EU countries have Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) status. While this bill does not propose to go that far, a Tartans register would be an important step should we choose to. The tartan weaving industry will say: “we produce it, let us hold the ring”. In which case, let the food industry set its own hygiene and quality standards and police them. There is a wider interest at stake than that of the producers. The tartan selling industry will say: “regulation will restrict our business”. In which, let anyone who wants produce “Your Family’s Coat of Arms”. A Register of Tartans There is need for a database of tartans, if only so that the correct thread counts and colours are available. Should it be restrictive, in that only certain tartans are allowed? To an extent – no-one wants to see a tartan in pink and gamboge (and it probably wouldn’t fit the definition anyway). Should it be exclusive, so that only “official” tartans are recorded? There is no practical way to stop anyone producing whatever tartan they want. But the key is imprimateur. Customers, the paying public, want to know that a tartan is genuine, has in some way passed muster. Therefore, let us have a database which could record all tartans and to which anyone could submit a design. But it should also record whether any given tartan is “ancient”, approved by a Clan Chief or Head of a Family, has the blessing of a Name Society etc. and/or is copyright (which is an issue, as newer tartan designs certainly will be). Then no-one could be misled by false claims, and reassured by some form of kite-mark.. This needs to be the province of an official Keeper of Tartans who, if not given the judicial and ministerial powers of the Lord Lyon, at least should have the teeth to refuse submissions, expunge miscreants from the database and generally keep order. Ideally, this office should be allied to (and probably administered via) a body such as the Standing Council of Scottish Chiefs, the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland or the Lyon Office, who would have the clout to be taken seriously. There is no reason why an industry group should not be contracted to maintain and promulgate the database. But such a group should not control it. Why? Quite simply, because a commercially-owned Register could potentially be sold to Walt Disney or Michael Jackson. The

EC/S2/06/27/2 current situation is chaotic, which is not to the benefit of either the customer, nor the Scottish cultural sector. Some may say this proposal is anti-freedom and anti-democratic. Freedom is allowing wolves to eat sheep; democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on the menu for lunch; liberty is an armed sheep monitoring the outcome.

EC/S2/06/27/2 Written evidence – broadly unsupportive: SUBMISSION FROM NEIL KING Scottish Register of Tartans Bill – Call for Written Evidence Though no longer resident in Scotland, I am Scottish by birth and lived there for 43 years. I have no connection with the “tartan industry” but I still own property in Scotland and pay Council Tax there so I hope that gives me the requisite qualification to comment on this bill. In short, this bill is a piece of absolute nonsense. It incenses me that tax-payers’ money is being spent on it. Firstly, by MSP’s and parliamentary officials having to spend their time on it and, secondly, if the bill is passed, in the public expense associated with maintaining this register. This is the sort of thing which risks bringing the Scottish Parliament and Devolution into disrepute – “fiddling while Rome burns”. The Committee needs to focus on the question, is any damage being done to the Scottish economy by “unregulated tartans”? If the answer to that is “No”, then Parliament has no business debating this at public expense. If the answer is “Yes”, then a bill which includes in its first section the wording The purpose of the Register is only to provide a depository or archive of tartans for reference and public information purposes … this Act does not create any rights to, or in connection with the use of, any tartans … and does not require any person to have a tartan registered before that person can weave, sell or otherwise deal with it is a toothless tiger! I urge the committee to reject the principles of this bill so that no more time is wasted in having to put it through subsequent stages of Parliament at public expense.

EC/S2/06/27/2 SUBMISSION FROM SCOTWEB MARKETING LTD I must be frank and declare that my view of this Bill's progress to date has been far from positive. My initial enthusiasm when the idea was first mooted quickly turned to deep concern when we discovered that despite our credentials as a widely respected and significant 'player' in the tartans industry, my company had been omitted from the supposedly representative consultation process. Despite repeated requests for consultation by email, letter, and phone, I was unable to elicit so much as an acknowledgment. I became so alarmed at the failure of the Bill's sponsors to include us in their process that I resorted to writing to a number of MSPs about a year ago, to alert them to my serious concerns. Since then it has become clear that the bill's sponsor has, to put it mildly, been badly advised on critical points of facts as well as on solutions. The Bill as presented confirms all my worst fears. The documents make a number of statements that are simply untruthful, and a number of recommendations that far from improving the current situation would massively add further confusion and costs to the industry and to the public at large, for no benefit at all. Specifically, the claim that no proper registration body currently exists is pure nonsense. The Scottish Tartans Authority is accepted, respected, and supported by the vast majority of tartan industry professionals as an effective and reliable registrar, adhering to the highest standards of professionalism and disinterested integrity in its activities. It already fulfills most if not all of the functions that the Bill claims are required. All it lacks are official status and adequate funding. Any attempt to replicate the STA's functions as described in the Bill would be a disaster. The industry at large would not support the transfer of allegiance or assets. This would then result not in greater clarity but in catastrophic confusion, with two major registrars, one claiming 'official' status, and the other claiming 'industry recognition' status. The STA archive would remain far more comprehensive for the foreseeable future, not least as it is the repository of the world's largest physical archive. The costs outlined are also ludicrous, talking of vainglorious ambition rather than of practical requirement. Such expensive facilities are utterly unnecessary in a context where all the services discussed are already being delivered by the STA. As a taxpayer I would object hugely to such waste of public funds, when a very much lower level of funding subscribed directly to the STA would achieve far more. In brief, I would support the Bill were its terms to be rewritten to make it clear that the choice of registration body would be based on (and not simply 'take into account') full and proper consultation with the tartan industry in general. This would ensure that the bodies who have been the custodians of tartan's heritage until now would continue to support the outcome, as this is essential to its success.

EC/S2/06/27/2 But were the Bill to proceed as it stands, I would have no choice but to oppose it through every avenue available. It would be nothing less than a disaster for the tartan industry and for tartan heritage (which remains of immense importance to the Scottish economy, both directly and indirectly for example through tourism). It would also bring huge embarrassment on the Parliament that facilitated such a catastrophic outcome for a key national symbol. I trust mine will not be the only representation to point out the foolishness of that path.

EC/S2/06/27/2 Written evidence – unsupportive of elements of the bill but supportive of the general principle: SUBMISSION FROM J ALISTAIR BUCHAN I am writing to you as a Director of Lochcarron of Scotland and in my capacity as Chairman of The Scottish Tartan Authority, regarding the proposed Parliamentary Bill to create a ‘Register of Tartans’. Whilst most of those involved in the trade approve of the principal, we do have concerns with the proposed format. I will try to give you an idea of where we have all come from to reach this stage, which hopefully will help you to better understand our situation. Probably around 1958/59 a gentleman called Captain Stuart Davidson created an informal organisation called The Scottish Tartan Information Centre. In 1963 this became a registered charity called The Scottish Tartan Society. The Scottish Tartan Society was run by three officers and many patrons including leading clan chiefs such as The Dukes of Argyll & Athol. There was also an advisory group of leading authorities in tartan. The organisation prospered and in 1976 Stuart Davidson proposed the creation of a Tartan Monitoring Committee. Many of us from industry, retail, and private individuals, agreed to join this committee. Initially all went well with an invaluable service being provided. In the ensuing years, The Society’s plans became over ambitious, including a global tour of a repeal exhibition. This more than exhausted their funds and caused considerable strife, with many of the stalwarts resigning, including the founder. The Society struggled on managing to alienate the remainder of the original members while bringing themselves into considerable disrepute, with the press having a field day. By this time the Society had ceased to provide any service. In 1995 all the commercial members that had not already been expelled, resigned and quickly reformed as the Scottish Tartans Authority, in order to resurrect the service that had been provided by the Society. During this time The Society had managed to upset the sister American organisation who broke away as an independent group. They happily joined with us, leaving a group still attached to the Society supervising their satellite museum in Franklin North Carolina. (I believe this operation is now running independently). The Scottish Tartan Authority has certainly gone from strength to strength, helped greatly through the considerable investment by a group of ‘Consortium’ members (including Lochcarron) who have contributed around £180,000 to help create an International Tartan Data Base, incorporating a

EC/S2/06/27/2 collection & database from one of our American members, who’s son donated the entire collection to the Scottish Tartan Authority in Scotland. The Authority now has a computerised database containing around 6,000+ renditions of tartan, with notes including origin and available information. This ongoing programme has already cost over £100,000. We now have a head quarters at the Crieff Visitor Centre and a full time Director of Operations, providing an information service to the industry, the public, and schools. We create income by supplying recording certificates for new tartans and from membership subscriptions, increasingly through our web site www.tartansauthority.com. I am the present chairman having followed our main tartan competitor Blair Macnaughton Senior of House of Edgar in Perth. Our existence has proved of considerable interest to the textile sector of Scottish Enterprise through the voluntary cooperation of so many competitive Scottish weaving companies, willing to promote a quality Scottish image jointly. What we have created is designed to promote and protect what must be one of Scotland’s greatest assets, which, in a positive manner, uniquely sets us apart from our competitors. After our efforts over the last 10+ years we are more than a little concerned that our relevance to this bill is in danger of being ignored. We always felt that our achievements and what we have created should eventually be recognised as a National asset and during the initial discussions it was conceded that it would make sense for our organisation to be given the responsibility, of maintaining the proposed Scottish Register. However while the draft bill was being formulated we received no contact and can only assume that one of the few companies who has chosen not to become involved with us, but who has been active in promoting the bill, has had considerable influence in changing its direction. From the literature that we have received and the draft of the bill, it would appear that it is proposed to spend a fortune in taxpayers’ money, reinventing the wheel. In earlier discussions we had with the Lord Lyon there was a consensus that what was required was a figurehead to be appointed as Keeper, whose roll would be to sign certificates of recording and head up promotional activity, with our organisation providing the proposed back up and information service. In spite of the considerable sums supplied by the consortium members, the organisation at present is under funded, which curtails our promotional activities and does limit the service we should be providing. By using our present set up however we would substantially reduce the estimated cost being budgeted in the draft paper.

EC/S2/06/27/2 We also feel there is a potential confusion in claiming to register tartans, as we see registration being considered a protection supplied by the patent office. I do not think there would an issue in changing the name of our organisation and I would suspect that given a Royal or National title, our members and many others would like to maintain their association with an organisation that was dispensing information and promoting tartan, as well as being custodians of a National Tartan Register that recorded all new and existing tartans. Many of our members in the USA, voluntarily attend Scottish functions throughout their country, dispensing information and lecturing on tartan and all things Scottish. We realise it would difficult for the Bill to intimate the appointment of an existing organisation to control the Register, however, the present wording and thinking behind the Bill, does not appear to lend itself to this solution. This makes it very difficult for us to believe, or persuade our members and investors that they should support the bill in its present form. There is also the problem of other tartan databases which private individuals are attempting to maintain and use commercially. However without the support of the Scottish tartan manufacturers, they are unlikely to learn of the many new tartans woven annually. I personally have just returned from a North American trip which included a visit to Stone Mountain Games in Atlanta. This is where our American group hold their AGM, before once more promoting tartans and our heritage for two days to around 30/40,000 visitors. I was able to relate the news of a further constructive meeting between our Director of Operations and Jamie McGrigor. In the hope that a happy and satisfactory conclusion can be reached without destroying the good intentions of the Bill.

EC/S2/06/27/2 SUBMISSION FROM COLIN HUTCHESON I have been made aware of the correspondence of your office about the Bill pending for a Scottish Register of Tartans. I speak as a (retired) member of the Scottish Tartans Authority, a former longstanding, Board Director of Kinloch Anderson Ltd, and a Lifelong Supporter of Scottish Tartans and the Scottish Textile Industry after more than fifty years in the Trade. I have no doubt at all that the Register of Scottish Tartans held and maintained by the Scottish Tartans Authority in Crieff should be only the Register that is maintained for the future in Scotland or anywhere else. It is with doubt the only honest and professional Register, run by a dedicated Board of Directors who have the right motives in mind for the continuance and wellbeing of our Tartan Inheritance.

EC/S2/06/27/2 SUBMISSION FROM KEITH LUMSDEN Founder, Director and Registrar of the charity, which trades as the Scottish Tartans World Register (STWR). Ex Registrar to the Register of All Publicly Know Tartans (ROAPKT) 19932000. Ex –Consultant to the Scottish Tartans Society (STS) 1992-2000 Member of the Lord Lyons Tartan committee, Member of the Tartan Bills steering committee The following principles should be followed in the creation of a Tartan Register Bill. 1. The bill should not seek to control tartan but to record it providing a reference point to the general public. 2. It would be politic to ensure the free inspection of the register whilst charging for the any services that the Register may do otherwise. 3. The commercial neutrality of the Register must be ensured. 4. The fact that the Register exists should not fix the culture of tartan so that it cannot develop. 5. Tartan is the culture of the people not that of the Tartan trade. Below are comments made against various paragraphs of the ‘Scottish Register of Tartans Bill (as introduced)’ Para 1 - The Register (1)The title/name of the Register should indicate it includes all tartans Worldwide not just Scotland’s. (2)Historically the data involved in tartan has been in the records of the tartan trade so was not available to the Public. The trade perceived that this had commercial value and jealously guarded the information from each other. As a result the Public was excluded. Even today there is lack of commercial trust in those holding tartan databases. Commercial neutrality is a must. The STS from 1963 collected together all tartans into a database. This collection was bigger than any tartan company’s records. Even as a charity the Society did not give free access to the Public until the creation of its Internet site in 1997. The Register should be able to charge for its services but without denying free Public access to the Register otherwise we have people paying for the inspection of what is their culture Para 2 –The Keeper The limitations of who may be the ‘Keeper of the Register’ should include that he/she should not be earning his living partially or otherwise in the tartan trade at the time or during the appointment Para 3 - Definition of Tartan “A pattern created by the three dimensional process of weaving of a minimum of two colours or shades of colours which carries a message by it name or it presence that is acceptable to contemporary culture”

EC/S2/06/27/2 This should allow the two dimensional representation of a tartan, as in the printed form, so long has it has the weaving background e.g. a clear photograph is acceptable whereas a computer printout is not. Para 4 - The Application (5) (b) Adequate proof of weaving to the discretion of the Keeper is acceptable where the production of a woven sample is not practical. Para 5 – Consideration of Application Further application entries should be allowed for the Registrar for tartans that come into the hands of the Keeper where not all the ‘considerations of application’ are know. They should be recorded, at his discretion. This often applies to historic tartans. They could form a level of recording called ‘Noting’. Most of the old established tartans that are included in modern databases are this type. (4) The rejection of tartans is a difficult area. It requires the Keeper’s discretion in the interpretation of what is within the culture of tartan at the time. Those tartans that are obviously sexist, sectarian or racial could be ‘clarified elsewhere (such as a court)’ but there may be others that might bring tartan into disrepute, trivial or in bad taste. Para 6 – Reconsideration following rejection The Keeper may need to appoint a committee to consider and advise him as to rejections, particularly those where modern tartan culture is concerned. He should have the power to appoint such a committee Para 7 – Entry in the Register (2)(b) Add adequate proof of weaving see my suggestion for Para 4 (5) (b) (f) Some other particulars to record would be:There may be items, which in the convention of tartan are not legally enforceable but are respected by users and the trade. The legal status:Is the Tartan under the Design Act? Where known, who is the copyright owner particularly where it is not held by the proposer or designer? The category/cataloguing of the tartan may well need professional advice in setting up. Para 8 – Amendment of the Register (10) One function of the Keeper is to update the Register by amending records when need be. It must be supported by adequate evidence, normally documentary Para 9 – Keeper’s functions (1) See comment at Para 8 - Amendment of the Register (2) There is an opinion that the public access to the register should be free thus preventing the accusation that the users are paying for what is theirs anyway, their culture. It also reinforces the idea that the Register is a ‘public place’. Services provided by the Register should be charged for.

EC/S2/06/27/2 (6) It is normal for educational services except for registrations to be given as free of charge. Para 10 – Publication of the Register (1)Inspection of the Register where ever should be free to the Public but any other use or service should be charged for. There is a difference from looking at the register and taking a copy of some of it. The latter should be charged for. (See comment of Para 9 (2) above) Para 11 - Fees (3)This is important to encourage other Registers/Collections to contribute their archives. Because at start the Register will have very few tartans on it, the adding of these external databases will be the major work for the Keeper. Entries from such sources will have to be treated as formal entries, see Paras. 3 – 5, to ensure that they have the correct criteria. Unless this is done carefully the credibility of the Register will be affected and its ability to earn. Para 14 – Interpretation (1) “thread count” means the proportionality between the colours expressed by the number of threads for each colour in the tartan when woven. The thread counts proportionality can equally be expressed in linear measurement, usually inches, as found in some historic publications. Schedule (introduced by section 2(2) Appointment 1 (2) Disqualification should include anyone who is earning his living in the tartan trade. Thus reinforcing the commercial neutrality of the Register Delegation of authority 10 The Keeper may authorise any person except those who are actually involved in the tartan trade. By making comments through the bill most of your areas of interest and discussion have been covered. Therefore the below should be read in conjunction with them:Whether the creation of such a Register would be beneficial: The Scottish Diaspora is a worldwide phenomenon. A register of tartans is expected. By many is thought to already exist. It will improve tartan’s image and give confidence to its users. The present plethora of tartan lists/Registers will become less relevant and should diminish. One of the aims in the articles of the STWR was to campaign for a statutory Register. The official recognition that tartan is a cultural item by such a register might well reduce the import taxes that are applied to it by certain countries (see USA). The holding of tartan archives in private hands as at present is likely to lose the cultural information to the public and Scotland in general should they fail for any reason. The future for the current registers in existence:

EC/S2/06/27/2 It is within their interests to support the National Register. Only in the area of Registration will they loose but any other of their functions will continue as before. As indicated above the STWR will hand over its data base some 3000 tartans. The STS‘s records are included in them. It will make the National Register sufficiently strong to mean any others will become minor. Which over time will encourage the joining of their records as well. The definition of tartan: The one provided in the comments made above should be sufficient. The inclusion of the cultural connection is important. A legal mind that specialises in copy right and intellectual properties should be consulted, not to give it any special powers but to make sure that it falls into the use today. What information regarding the tartans should be registered: Other than what has been said the Keeper should have the discretion to add to the information recorded. What would the role of the Keeper be and who would make the appointment: What has been already suggested is acceptable so long as the commercial neutrality is observed. An additional role either by the keeper or his staff is a significant PR area. Likely costs and fees for registering both old and new tartans: It is unlikely that even with the modern production of new tartans that the Register would be self financing. Other services offered might help. The level of cost to Register new tartans should be as high as possible conducive with not discouraging Registration. Present day Registers charge around £50. A National Register could double or triple this. It would be a mistake to discourage data bases from joining the National Register by charging for their entries. Only the entries at the discretion of the Keeper would be added to the National Register. Implications for copyright and intellectual property law: The only function of the Register that may carry some sway with copy right and Intellectual property is that it would provide another public place to display designs and their legal status. Otherwise the Register will be outside such law.

EC/S2/06/27/2 SUBMISSION FROM MACNAUGHTON HOLDINGS LTD The Respondent 1. Macnaughton Holdings (MHL) is a private limited company, registered in Scotland, conducting a business that was established in 1783 and which is still managed and owned by the seventh generation of the founding family. The company, which styles itself as a manufacturing wholesaler, has its head office and main distribution centre in Perth, but also operates two manufacturing factories; a weaving shed in Keith and a kilt making factory in Paisley. The company is also a founding shareholder in a Selkirk yarn dyehouse. 2. The company turns over between £4 and £5 million pounds per annum, and employs just under 100 staff at its three sites, with a further 20-25 at its subsidiary dyehouse. More than 35% of the company turnover comes from exporting. 3. Macnaughton Holdings, trading under its brand name “The House of Edgar”, is one of the largest businesses currently operating in the Highlandwear market, and one of only two weavers which is currently able to market its kilt tartan fabric as wholly manufactured in Scotland. 4. The company was a founding member of the Scottish charity, The Scottish Tartans Authority, and has over the years made substantial donations to it, to enable it to continue its work of promotion and the registering of tartan. Definition of Tartan 5. In referring to the lecture notes on Colouring and Finishing, written by my great-uncle whilst taking his degree at The Yorkshire College (later Leeds University) in 1904, tartan is described as; ”….suggestive of crossing or striping of warp or weft fabrics. A tartan consists of equal squares of colour of various sizes and arrangement” a definition, that has been taught to students from around the world for generations. 6. Although respondent is aware that ten scholars will have ten different definitions of the term tartan that of the Yorkshire College in 1904, which is more or less mirrored by that of the Bill, would appear to be adequate. The Need for a Register and Information Service 7. Sections 29 to 32 of the Policy Memorandum accompanying the Bill, detail the current arrangements for recording tartan designs. The Memorandum does not make it clear that the bodies referred to in sections 29 to 30, are indeed registered charities, and that only the Scottish Tartans World

EC/S2/06/27/2 Register (STWR) and the Scottish Tartans Authority (STA) actually operate and currently register new tartans. 8. To a family, company or association, registration confers on the new design a “public recognition” of the new design and its association with the organisation. This is a valuable service, not only to those bodies seeking a registration, but also to the trade, for whom the registering body acts as a kind of umpire. The registering body will ensure that the design is not too similar to existing tartans, and provide some guidelines and rules on the naming of the tartans. 9. As the largest commercial weaver of kilt tartans, MHL currently boasts a holding of almost one thousand stocked tartans. The company will be asked to design and weave as many as 100 new tartans annually, of which generally 65% are registered with the STA. 10. Both active registers not only perform this recording and registration service, but also provide an information service. Indeed, the Scottish Tartans Authority website receives up to 1150 hits per day, in addition to many telephone inquiries. A representative from the STA has even lectured to ethnic societies within the Arctic Circle, on the role of tartan and Scottish ethnic design! 11. There is no doubt in the mind of the respondent, that a register is needed, however an incomplete new register would not provide the service required and would not therefore be used by MHL. The Need for a Commercial Woven Sample to be Produced 12. Subsection (5) requires that a woven sample support an application for registration, and this is undoubtedly to prevent the new register being swamped by numerous CAD designs supported applications, many of which would be speculative by nature. 13. The respondent would seek to strengthen this section, by requiring to applicant to provide some evidence that the design has been (or will be) woven in commercial quantities. The Fate of the Current Registers 14 The fate of the current registers does not lie directly in the hands of the Bill, but the success of any new register will naturally greatly affect the operations of both the STA and STWR. 15. If the new register is successfully established, becomes authoritative and provides the services currently offered by the existing registers (paragraph 8), then there will be little need of any competing register. It may be assumed therefore that both the STA and STWR would then wither on the vine, as both registration income and/or donations dried up.

EC/S2/06/27/2 16. It is unlikely however that the new Scottish Register of Tartans could become authoritative, without full access to the largest database that is supported by scholars worldwide; that of the STA. 17. The Policy Memorandum is incorrect in its assertion that the information would be “lost to the nation” in the event of the cessation of operation by the existing registers. In the case of the STA, the fate of the collection upon a winding up, is clearly defined in article 9.3 of its Memorandum of Association, and provides for the collection to be transferred to the Local Authority within which the head office is based, that Local Authority being empowered to run the register itself or transfer it to another charitable body with similar interests. The Role of the Keeper, the Information to be Recorded and Fees 18. The model used by the Scottish Tartans Authority should be emulated.

Copyright Implications 19. There are none. Intellectual law is well established, and whilst the registration of a design may assist an applicant in proving ownership, it should not be confused with copyright, trademark or registered design rights. The Financial Costs of Setting up the New Register 20. With a mentality of public expenditure, it does not surprise the respondent that the Bill is proposing to spend nearly £138,000 in year 1 and £95,000 annually thereafter. The expenditure of this public money, which is currently many times larger than either of the budgets of the two active charitable registers, is extravagant and wasteful. 21. This is likely to be a perfect example of the public service stepping in to provide a more expensive and less effective service, than that being provided at the moment by private (charitable) companies. Alternative Approaches 22. The policy memorandum suggests that the status quo is the only alternative approach that can be considered. This is absolutely not the case, as at least one further option exists. That of providing public funds to support one of the existing registers. 23. Any such alternative approach would need to be covered with guarantees that the existing register chosen was a worthy recipient of support, properly constituted, run professionally, and enjoying a broad spectrum of support from industry, academics and the public. Furthermore, the respondent would suggest precise budgetary and reporting controls. This might be supervised by Lord Lyon’s office perhaps, enabling the “new” register to benefit from the implied heraldic gravitas.

EC/S2/06/27/2 Conclusion 24. The policy objective of the Bill is to create an accessible archive of tartans, and this is akin to reinventing the wheel. No new register can succeed in its purpose as a depository or archive, or to provide information on tartan, if it does not have access to the most informative and complete archives currently available. The new register must therefore have the support of the existing registers before it can fulfil its self proclaimed role. 25. The respondent considers the proposed Bill to be both ill conceived and extravagant and could not support it in its current form. The respondent would further urge the Enterprise and Culture Committee to consider an alternative approach, along the lines of the one proposed in paragraph 23.

EC/S2/06/27/2 SUBMISSION FROM MARK OSWEILER CPHT I am a Tartan Designer and a Member of the Scottish Tartan Authority USA. It seems to me that creating a new entity to handle Tartan would not only be a mistake but a costly one as well. The Scottish Tartan Authority has the support of the Scottish Weaving Community. It also has in place all the needed items to take on the task of Official Register. The Scottish Tartan Authority is and has been recognized as the leading if not the only expert on tartan. I urge you to not vote for this bill as written but consider amending, with the recommendations as proposed by the Scottish Tartan Authority. There is no reason to reinvent the wheel.

EC/S2/06/27/2 SUBMISSION FROM JAMES D SCARLETT Tartan Register I was consulted in the initial stages of the Bill but am indebted to a friend who passed me a cutting from THE TIMES of 7th October. In finalizing this Bill it will be of the greatest importance that those dealing with it should know something about tartan, especially in the matter of definition, and I enclose a couple of pamphlets that may help with this. Especially it should be borne in mind that the word Tartan has several shades of meaning; originally, it was a type of cloth and did not need a pattern, then it became, successively, a type of cloth with a particular type of pattern woven in, the type of pattern woven into any kind of cloth and, finally, the type of pattern applied to any type of material, textile or otherwise. If these different meanings are not taken into account I can foresee the occurrence of awkward anomalies. Compiling a register, should the proposal get that far, will be no simple matter. To my knowledge there are two possible bases, one more comprehensive than the other but both derived from the same sources; I have studied the more comprehensive version and found it so seriously flawed and muddled as to be nearly impossible to correct. Under one name - Campbell - which I looked at in detail, 85% of the entries required correction or deletion. With the knowledge that there are about 6000 entries in all, the magnitude of the task becomes clear. I hold the only two uncorrupted copies of the Tartan Register compiled by the old Scottish Tartans Society, and any rights that may exist regarding their use. They are twenty-five years out of date but are the best possible basis for a new Register and could be made available under suitable conditions. __________________ ENCLOSURES:THE TARTAN ARTFORM. Tartan is a form of abstract art which is governed by strict arithmetical and geometrical rules; the structure of the fabric also has a bearing on the visual impact. The 'standard' tartan pattern, which is normally expressed as a 'half-sett', comprises a group of stripes, the same in both directions of the cloth, which repeats along and across the web, reversing at each repetition, so that each half-sett is the mirror image of its neighbours. There are exceptions to these rules, in that the pattern may repeat without reversing, as in the case of the Buchanan tartan, or that the stripes in the weft may differ from those in the warp, but these are uncommon and outside the scope of the present paper. ________________________________

EC/S2/06/27/2 The unit of tartan pattern, the SETT, is a square, composed of a number of rectangles, square and oblong, arranged symmetrically around a central square. Each of these elements occurs four times, at intervals of ninety degrees, and each is rotated ninety degrees in relation to its fellows. The proportions of the elements are determined by the relative widths of the stripes that form them. Each stripe in one direction of the cloth crosses every stripe in the other. Where a stripe crosses another of the same colour, the resultant rectangle is of that colour and where stripes of different colours cross an equal mixture of the two results. The plain twill weave which is traditional for tartan produces a diagonal rib in the woven pattern and the two colours thus appear as alternating lines of colour, analogous to pencil shading. A subtle change in appearance according to the direction of viewing gives 'life' to the composition. Historically, tartan was an unbalanced cloth, with the weft up to one third thicker than the warp, so that this effect was enhanced; old tartans often appear more striped than chequered. No plain colour can appear next to another plain colour and the total number of colours, including mixed shades, increases rapidly out of proportion to the number of base colours, in accordance with the formula T = (B + 1)B/2, where B is the number of basic colours and T the total number of colours in the final product1. Thus, the more stripes to the sett and the more colours used, the more diffuse and 'blurred' the pattern. Research suggests that the basic colours of aboriginal Highland tartans were red, green of approximately equal 'weight', which gave colour contrast, and dark blue, which supplied 'grey-scale' contrast with both. In less specific terms, this would indicate that any basic tartan type of design should have for its background2, a 'high impact' colour and two others, of which one should be the complement to the first and the other a darker and more neutral shade; other colours, introduced to break up the pattern or as accents, should be a matter of taste. It is important that no colour should be so strong as to 'swamp' another; otherwise, the blending of colours at the crossing will be adversely affected. Notes. 1. Two base colours give a total of three, and seven, the normal maximum, twenty-eight. 2. Strictly, since the pattern is woven into the cloth, tartan does not have a background colour, but it is convenient and aids explanation if the principal colour is so regarded.

Tartan: A descriptive specification Despite attempts to give it some Gaelic meaning, the most probable origin of the word Tartan is in the French Tiretaine which became the Scots Tertane. The Larousse Nouveau Dictionnaire Encyclopedique, defines tiretaine as “Nom de plusieurs étoffes anciennes en laine pure ou mélangée". Credulity is tested by the assertion that it originated at Tire, in Babylon, but it seems more likely that the name derives from the French verb ‘tirer’ and relates to a woven, rather than knitted, cloth. The cloth woven by the Highlanders, for

EC/S2/06/27/2 which we have no technical name, matches well to the general description of tiretaine. From observation, it was fine and made from hard-spun wool with a markedly thicker weft than warp1, and woven in plain (or 2/2) twill which, for a given gauge of yarn, yields a cloth 50% heavier – and hence more weatherproof – than the simple 1/1 weave. A further corruption of the original name led to its being called Tartan but, at this stage, it did not need to have a pattern; well into the third decade of the nineteenth century merchants were ordering ‘plain coloured tartan, without pattern’, from the weavers, William Wilson & Son. Highland cloth was ‘tiretaine’ but it had a pattern, so they called it ‘breacan’, which means almost any kind of parti-colour, and gradually the two meanings converged, so that ‘tartan’ came to mean a particular kind of cloth with a particular kind of pattern; to-day, tartan is the pattern and it is applied to anything, not necessarily even a textile. Tartan is a complex abstract art-form with a strong mathematical undertone, far removed from a simple check with a few lines of contrasting colours scattered over it. It appears in Bhutan, at archaeological sites in mountainous southern China and in Alpine central Europe, and in Scandinavia before reaching the Scottish Highlands where it reached its peak of development and gathered strength to reach out into the Lowlands and the rest of the world. The characteristic tartan pattern is square and comprises a symmetrical arrangement of squares and rectangles around a central square; the warp and weft patterns being the same, each element appears four times, turning ninety degrees at each occurrence2. Each weft stripe crosses every warp stripe; therefore, where a stripe crosses another of the same colour a block of plain colour results, whereas where it crosses one of another colour the result is an equal mixture of the two3. There is an insufficiency of material for safe diagnosis, but it appears probable that the main colours of ‘aboriginal’ Highland tartans were red, green and blue, the two former, lighter and brighter, supplying colour contrast and the latter, dark to very dark, taking care of light and shade. Such specimens as have survived show that precise shades varied according to locality; in particular, where a good black was easily available, dark blue was less used4. Specimens from the period immediately before The ’45 indicate that the sett of a typical Highland tartan of the ‘aboriginal’ type would have been red, with broad stripes of green and blue and a leavening of fine lines of the principal or contrasting colours. Examples of these can be seen in the Ross and Mackintosh groups of patterns and in the MacDonald patterns styled ‘of the Isles’ and ‘of Sleat’. With black and white (or, at any rate, undyed yarn) and the three primary colours used in varying strengths and in shades that depended, to some extent at least, on locality, the Highland dyers were able to produce the colours they needed; it may be supposed that the limited range was forced upon them, but the dyers were highly skilled and those few colours can be blended to make many shades that were not used, so it seems at least arguable that they knew where to stop. The ‘rules’ for tartan that emerge from the above analysis are:a) The pattern is ‘warp as weft’ and consists of two half-setts which reverse along and across the web. b) There are three main, ‘background’, colours of which two are bright and complementary and one dark and tending towards neutrality.

EC/S2/06/27/2 One of the bright colours should predominate. For best effect the cloth should be woven in 2/2 Twill5. The transmutation of meaning from cloth to pattern, and particularly to a pattern denoting identity, allowed many anomalies to creep in and while a pattern conforming to these rules would be a tartan there are many patterns regarded as tartans that do not conform. Simple universal definitions have been attempted, but the final arbiter is the informed human eye. If it looks like tartan, it probably is a tartan. NOTES. 1. The spinning wheel came late to the Highlands and spinning was, perforce, by the drop-spindle. A standard weight of whorl and a little practice can produce a very fine and consistent yarn, and cheapness and portability, given the availability of a large number of spinners, would have offset the labour-intensiveness of the spindle. There would inevitably, however, have been some inconsistency in the product and the best way to deal with this would have been to use the finest and best yarn for the warp and let the weft take care of any inequalities. I have seen a specimen in which different colours in the weft are of different thickness. 2. The unit of pattern, termed the Sett, is composed of two opposed Half-setts which repeat, reversing at each repetition, along and across the web, so that each half-sett is the mirror-image of its neighbours in all directions. In a significant proportion of tartans the half-setts do not reverse but join end to end, so that the half-sett becomes, in effect, a whole sett. In such cases, the elements occur only twice each and the ‘central’ square is in a corner. Rarely, the weft pattern differs from that of the warp on these occasions the strict rules cannot be followed. 3. The twill weave produces a diagonal ribbing in the cloth and the two colours appear as alternate lines and not as ‘pepper and salt’ as they would in a plain-woven cloth. The number of mixed colours increases rapidly out of proportion to number of ‘starter’ colours, in accordance with the formula M = ½[N2 - N] where M is the number of mixtures and N the number of ‘starter’ colours. Two ‘starter’ colours give one mixture and seven, the normal maximum, give twenty-one. 4. Red, blue and green have been recorded as the first colours to appear in all primitive art, so there may be some deep physiological or psychological reason for the predominance of these colours. 5. In theory, there are sound reasons why such a type of pattern-textile should have developed almost automatically in isolated, self-sufficient mountain communities. Such communities are unlikely to possess large dyevats, and so cannot piece-dye woven cloth; such processes as Batik and tiedye are unavailable. Even to-day, exact matches of successive dye batches are almost impossible to achieve and so a plain-coloured would be streaked. Stripes are the practical solution, since they use small quantities of a colour at a time and are interspersed with other colours, but the scope is limited, the c) d)

EC/S2/06/27/2 result is not very exciting and the colours are degraded by a white basis; stripes across both brighten the colours and add many mixtures. From there on it is really only a matter of getting organised; the – now – geometric pattern reduces to a small unit, easier to remember and to follow in a world where little was written down, it is further simplified by being split into two equal halves and, with weft as warp, the weft pattern can be followed from the warp. And then there is the extra density of the twill-woven cloth, a real benefit to mountain people. All of which appears plausible, though no proof is likely to be forthcoming. For an extended explanation, see my Presidential Address to the Inverness Field Club, March 1999.

EC/S2/06/27/2 SUBMISSION FROM THE SCOTTISH TARTANS AUTHORITY (STA) The Scottish Tartans Authority (STA) has always been very supportive of the concept of a Tartan Register Bill and is extremely pleased that it has reached its present stage. In broad principle the Authority has no objections to the draft Bill as presented although it has become too specific at times on topics that would be best left to the Keeper after consultation with the Industry. There are two identified instances of this which indicate a lack of awareness of industry practise and the mechanics of tartan registration. This in no way reflects badly on the sponsoring Member but rather on the information source that was used for that topic and for much of the Policy Memorandum. Suggested amendments: Para 4. sub Para 5(b) states that an application must include ‘a woven textile sample of the tartan.’ Para 7, 2(b) repeats that assertion. It should be understood that a tartan reproduced in a medium other than cloth is no less a tartan and such a clause should on no account be enshrined in the Bill. If it were, amongst the resultant exclusions would be existing, or as yet undiscovered, historical tartans for which no woven sample could be provided. Additionally, an application to Register a tartan need not be accompanied by a woven sample at the Registration stage. One of the prime functions of Registration is to compare the applicant’s design against a comprehensive master database to ensure its originality in both name and design. It follows that that function must be done prior to the tartan’s entry into production and not after. The STA classes each recording/registration as provisional until such time as it is in receipt of either a woven sample or a sample or illustration of the tartan in the medium in which it is to be reproduced. Policy Memorandum Mention was made above of shortcomings in the Policy Memorandum. Many of its major recommendations are not in line with the discussions and conclusions reached by the Tartan Register Committee which met for some three years prior to the formulation of this Bill. The Memorandum’s analysis of the present situation in the industry is also seriously flawed and runs the risk of misinforming the Enterprise and Culture Committee. The STA would like to stress that again, no fault is attached to the sponsoring Member of the Bill but rather to the source and quality of background information that was relied upon. There follows discussion of some specific points. Entries in bold are extracts from the Policy Memorandum. Responses in normal type are from the STA. Page 1 Para 4 The purpose of registration is purely to create, over time, a central authoritative source of information on tartan designs. This already exists in the STA’s International Tartan Index comprising (as at 1st November 2006) 6,192 entries. This is a not-for-profit ‘register’ regarded as the industry standard. In the month of October, in addition to daily written, emailed and telephoned enquiries, it was consulted by 23,493 online enquirers.

EC/S2/06/27/2 What fees are charged, help to maintain the free information services offered to the industry and the general public through the STA’s website and its Crieff HQ. Page 5 Para 34 There is no single secure central authoritative source listing existing tartan designs. This could mean the same design of tartan being affiliated to several different sources, each believing the design is unique to them. This is a repetition of Page 1 Para 4 and the same answer applies – there is already in existence a secure central authoritative source listing existing tartan designs. Whilst it is the only one of its kind, it is not a ‘single’ source and neither will any new Scottish Register of Tartans be a single source unless the operators of all other such lists/databases can be persuaded to shut theirs down. The second sentence “This could mean . . .” is not understood. Page 6 Para 35 Most importantly, the existing Scottish based organisations who currently register tartans are independently owned and managed and should they cease to operate then the information they hold could be lost to the nation. From its very inception, the STA has taken steps to protect the information for the nation. Its objective was to retain care and control of the International Tartan Index but pass the custody to a permanent organisation such as the Office of the Lord Lyon, The National Museum of Scotland or the Scottish Record Office. Discussions took place with all three organisations but unfortunately none of them felt they had the infrastructure to handle the task and the STA undertook to provide each with a periodic copy of its data for safekeeping and consultation by the general public. That arrangement was placed on hold when discussions were initiated on the Scottish Register of Tartans. As to the claim that existing Scottish based organisations who currently register tartans are independently owned and managed. The STA is the only organisation funded and operated by the major bodies in the tartan industry – weavers, retailers, manufacturers, academics and individual members. In so far as it is not under government control, then it could be said to be independent. In practical terms however it regards itself as a ‘servant’ to the Scottish industry. Page 6 Para 36 It will also provide reassurance to parties commissioning their own tartan that the design had not been previously registered by others. This would only be possible by the acquisition or use of a pre-existing, comprehensive and industry supported database such as the STA’s International Tartan Index against which new tartans could be compared. Page 6 Para 37 — Existing Registers. It is hoped that the existing privately owned and maintained registers wherever located will migrate their records to the Keeper of the Register.

EC/S2/06/27/2 The STA’s International Tartan Index is the Authority’s major asset that has taken ten years to amass and in excess of £100,000 investment in software, database acquisition, technical development and historical research. That includes some £21,000 of public money provided as grants for website and tartan software. That database and all its associated woven samples (numbering 4,000— the largest such collection in the world) and written records, form the very nucleus of the STA’s operation and is the major attraction for companies and individuals around the globe to inquire of and subscribe to, the STA. That asset and its income is essential for the STA to maintain its promotional and information services that have far reaching economic benefits in various world markets. Without it, the viability of the STA and its work would be in grave doubt. Migrating such an asset is therefore not seen as an option. Page 8 Para 44 onwards — Functions of the Keeper The following suggested functions of the Keeper have been included in the Policy memorandum: Prepare, keep and publish the register — Publicise the existence of the register — Make it accessible to the public — Make arrangements for the care, preservation, cataloguing and indexing of the register — Carrying out research — Providing information and other educational material in connection with the register —Providing information on tartan to the public by attending events, functions or conferences to promote or raise awareness of the register — Ensure the register is open to inspection by the public on payment of an appropriate fee. The allocation of the above functions and duties to the Keeper of the Register seems a superfluous and expensive expansion of his or her role which exactly duplicates the present role of the STA. It was never discussed in committee and was not part of its recommendations. The STA has a worldwide membership – including a formal network of officers in the USA – which promotes, at a wide range of Scottish events, the STA’s database resources and other services. Page 12 Paras 74 & 75 – Alternative approaches There is only one alternative approach considered and that is to maintain the status quo. There are two main disadvantages of this course of action. The first has been outlined in paragraph 35 above regarding the privately owned status of the existing registers and the potential of the information being lost to the nation should they cease to exist for whatever reason. The second is that the existing sporadic system means that there would continue to be no single central register of tartan. These claimed disadvantages have been discussed earlier but their repetition merits further clarification. The STA’s present database is not privately owned. Its records would not be lost to the nation.

EC/S2/06/27/2 The present system is not sporadic. The establishment of yet another database would certainly not create a single central register of tartan but only cause further confusion and unnecessary extra cost. Conclusions. It is most unfortunate that the Policy Memorandum indicates such a lack of awareness of what systems are in place in the industry, how they best operate and what complexities there are to deal with. In the interests of establishing a workable system for an official Scottish Register of Tartans, the STA feels that it would make for an extremely cost effective ‘running start’ if the Keeper – as the Bill empowers that office holder — were to authorise a person or body to exercise functions on behalf of the Keeper. If that body were to be the STA – in its present form or under any other title thought desirable - it would strongly recommend to the Keeper that a new Register should not be established but that a new category of tartan should – a Scottish Registered Tartan that would be incorporated into the existing International Tartan Index and clearly marked as an SRT tartan. That would have the great – it could be said essential - benefit of allowing the new tartans to be viewed in the context of their historical predecessors and, much more importantly, be compared to all existing tartans and checked for originality and thus eligibility for Registration. Without that historical benchmark, no meaningful Registration process could be implemented. The STA would also consider a name change to its International Tartan Index, to more accurately reflect the new official category of tartan enabled by the Bill. The Records should continue to be available for public perusal on the Internet and in hard copy at the STA’s Crieff headquarters. – together with the woven sample collection. In light of the recommendations contained in the Explanatory Notes regarding the budget for the Keeper and his or her duties; the STA would make the observation that dramatic savings could be made on that budget by subcontracting the task to the STA’s organisation. With reference to the specific areas of interest documented by the Enterprise and Culture Committee: Creation of a Register. The industry firmly believes that this would be of great benefit in bestowing upon Scotland’s international icon of tartan, long overdue official recognition and respectability which would reflect favourably upon the fortunes of the country’s tartan and tourism industries. This is of particular significance bearing in mind the threats to the industry from rapidly expanding production facilities in Asia.

EC/S2/06/27/2 The fate of current registers in existence. If the STA’s recommendations were accepted then the major register – the International Tartan Index - would be preserved and the only other operating register – the smaller privately owned Scottish Tartan World Register would – according to its operator – cease voluntarily. The definition of tartan. There is no one simple definition of tartan and this is probably best excluded from the Bill if at all possible and left to the Keeper and his advisors. What information regarding the tartans should be registered. Best left to the Keeper and his advisors. What would the role of the Keeper be and who would make the appointment. Very much depends upon the Keeper. He could be no more than a figurehead or he could enter into promotional activities in consultation with the STA. To confer the desirable ‘stature’ to the position, the appointment should be made by Parliament, possibly after wide consultation rather than expensive advertising and job applications — unless there is a legal requirement to undertake the latter. Likely costs and fees for registering both old and new tartans. Best left to the Keeper and his advisors – possibly in line with current STA fees which range from £60 to £110 depending upon the category of the tartan. The question of registering ‘old’ tartans has not been discussed and its complexity is best left to the Keeper and his advisors.

EC/S2/06/27/2 SUBMISSION FROM SCOTTISH TOURISM FORUM The Scottish Tourism Forum would like to thank the Enterprise and Culture Committee for the invitation to submit written evidence on the matter of the Registry of Scottish Tartans Bill 2006. Our response follows on from consultation with members of STF. In summary, we recognize the potential benefits derived from such a bill in terms of positive PR surrounding one of our icons, one that is uniquely Scottish. However, we remain very concerned over the potential costs of such a registry, the lack of impact on tourism turnover and the lack of powers that the bill introduces in respect of copyright law and protection of applicant intellectual assets. The Register, as detailed in the Bill, would be just a ‘nice’ list of tartans that has no additional power in preventing unauthorised use of designs than it would have under existing copyright law. We remain concerned that the Keeper would be a powerless position in respect of copyright law and therefore protector of tartans. As a tourism body we have confined our responses to matters affecting tourism but have also made comment on the matter of copyright and intellectual assets. Whether the creation of such a register would be beneficial There seems little evidence that the creation of such a registry will increase tourism revenues. We do not see the existence of a registry attracting additional tourism footfall to a central venue where the registry may be held. Access to the registry would be expected to be online and as such reduces the attraction of making a pilgrimage to the source register should it be on display at some iconic tourism/heritage location in Scotland. The fate of the current registers in existence STF feel that identification of the official registry would be hard to maintain given the number and range of existing listings and directories of tartans that exist. It would, in effect, add yet another directory of tartans to an already well supplied marketplace. We are also concerned that with such a broad range of lists being currently available the word ‘official’ will be undermined and so reduce the value to the Registry. The definition of tartan No comment. What information regarding the tartans should be registered? No comment What should the role of the keeper be and who should make the appointment

EC/S2/06/27/2 Within the scope of the Bill as presented it would appear that the keeper has very little if any powers. The appointment of any such keeper should be that of the industry in question. Harris Tweed has managed to keep a very strong identity and has been helped immensely by the Harris Tweed Act 1993 which set up the Harris Tweed Authority (“HTA”). HTA has the power, amongst other things, to register and maintain intellectual property rights such as patents, trade marks, designs etc. The HTA also has the power to authorise any user of these intellectual property rights on any terms and conditions that the HTA thinks fit. The HTA also has a much more active role in preventing infringement of those intellectual property rights. Likely costs and fees for registering both old and new tartans We had also hoped that the Register would be a centralised licensing agent and that people wishing to use a registered tartan would pay a licence fee for that right. Centralised licensing agents already exist on other areas of copyright law, such as music. This is not the case in the Tartan Bill. Given that: registering a tartan will not prevent anyone else from commercially dealing with that tartan; and the applicant is obliged to make their tartan publicly available upon registration we do not see why any applicant would want to pay a registration fee, which may be anything between £50 to £1000, to register a tartan and put him or herself in such a position. Concern has also been raised over the costs associated with the upkeep of the Register and drain on the public purse. Perhaps this aspect could have been offset if there were estimations of likely income from fees and other activities that could be used to offset the detailed costs? Given that the outline costs indicate a commitment of £0.5million over the first five years an estimation or target from income is understandable. Concern has also been raised regarding the likelihood of individuals willing to pay registration fees without there being any additional protection afforded by the Keeper. STF remain concerned that the costings would increase in time and potentially represent lesser value as a result if inflationary effects and a reduction in the rate of take up of registration. Implications for copyright and intellectual property law The Bill does not create any more intellectual property rights than already exist. The Bill also confirms that it does "not require any person to have a tartan registered before that person can weave, sell or otherwise deal with” that tartan.

The Register is not similar to the Land Register, in that the Keeper would satisfy himself as to the authenticity and right of the applicant to register the tartan. The Register does not act as the definitive authority on tartan, protecting both the tartan and the applicant’s existing intellectual property rights. We are

EC/S2/06/27/2 concerned that it is for the applicant to indemnify the Keeper from any liability caused by the registration of the tartan. The policy memorandum for the Bill states that the Keeper should do more than "keep" the Register and “be working to preserve tartan as a Scottish asset". If this is the case, the Keeper should have some power in order to ensure that the registered tartans and the applicants are protected from unauthorised use. On the matter of general law, tartans may be registered as a design under the Registered Designs Act 1949 as amended. Formal registration is required and the term is a maximum of 25 years. Unregistered design rights (under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988) last for 15 years from the creation of the tartan or 10 years from first marketing. Additional Comment: Tourism Growth After taking comment from members, STF cannot link the creation of such a Register with a boost in tourism and any material contribution to the national strategy of growing tourism revenues by 50% by 2015 (Tourism Framework for Change) Value for Money Little or no support was voiced for the proposed cost of maintaining a registry that would in effect have no ‘teeth’ to control or add to copyright and intellectual rights of a company. Comments were also received that such expenditure would be better spent on other matters more pressing. General Comments 1. It (the bill) will not stop a factory in China from making its own tartan. 2. In order for there to be any true tourism benefits we should make the resulting Act as strong and complete as the Harris Tweed Act 1993. 3. Registration should be mandatory otherwise we will have a body with no teeth. 4. Yes, a good idea to have a central register of Tartans. However, the following points should be considered; a. Where will this be kept and will there be access via the internet? b. What will happen to all the other registers that are around the country? c. What level of cost would be involved in registering a tartan, and will it be a "copyright"? d. Why do we need another "Quango" however small, and could it not be tagged onto another department? e. I cannot believe the costings as anything to do with Government has a habit of growing arms and legs and I'm sure that this will be no different. 5. I would like to see an effort to make sure the register is a complete register of tartans. Otherwise its value will be diminished.

EC/S2/06/27/2 6. I would like to see the register to be able to be accessed by people over the Internet. 7. I see absolutely no harm in the new tartan register. I have to ask why we are setting up yet another body to look after this? Why should the Lord Lyon look after this along with Scottish crests? 8. Total agree with the Tartan Bill – especially given the recent Indian and Pakistan tartan copying and mass production that has been going on 9. What is the purpose of this? If it is to protect Scottish industry and the icon branding of Scotland then fine. If it is to control who can use the tartan then this is ok but how you would police this is beyond me. At the moment the amount of "Scottish" goods (with tartan) that come from China is great and there is no IP protection there. 10. Not sure of the thought process behind this bill and what the real benefit is going to be for tourism. For me Tartan is an icon of Scotland and has survived through the centuries without the intervention of government, for me this is a piece of legislation that achieves little. 11. Who is going to pay for this nonsense? You can go on many web sites and get any tartan info you need. 12. Let’s keep our old and sick people look after, teach our kids better, than start up another totally useless thing. The above is submitted on behalf of the members and board of the Scottish Tourism Forum.

EC/S2/06/27/2 SUBMISSION FROM SCOTTISH TEXTILES Scottish Enterprise’s textiles team, known as Scottish Textiles has a Scotlandwide remit to support the textile and clothing industry, which includes several companies involved in the production of tartan goods. This response aims to represent their views, although we are pleased to note that significant players in this field have responded to you independently. Tartan is undoubtedly a key component of Scottish national identity as well as a significant contributor to Scotland’s economy. We acknowledge therefore that it may be helpful to those with cultural or economic interests in tartan to have clarity on issues that affect their current or future position. With regard to the definition of tartan, as you are aware, there is no one simple definition of tartan and as with other patterns such as paisley, tartan is universally known and easily recognised by the human eye yet, almost impossible to describe in written form without excluding some eligible patterns and/or including other patterns. That said we understand that for the purposes of the Bill, there is likely to be a requirement to give a broad definition of tartan. However, we would still like to voice concern that imposing a definition may be restrictive in adversely affect interest in creating and registering new tartans. On the register itself, we support the proposal to have a single authoritative register but do not consider that it is necessary to create a new register to achieve this. Existing registers, such as that maintained by the Scottish Tartans Authority are well known, accessible and comprehensive. We therefore suggest that the recognition and regulation of an existing system by a competent authority as the official register would therefore accomplish your objective effectively. We are pleased to note that the Bill allows for the register of tartan to be available electronically as the description in the consultation document caused us some concern as it suggested that the register would be available as a physical record, thus making it less accessible than existing electronic registers. We would wish to reiterate concerns highlighted in our response to the consultation document that should a new system be adopted, it should be neither more costly nor bureaucratic for the user than existing procedures. We are concerned that there is the potential to create a system that will dampen interest in tartan, with an adverse economic effect.

EC/S2/06/27/2 SUBMISSION FROM PETER MACARTHUR & CO LTD It is unfortunate that the Policy Memorandum indicates a remarkable lack of awareness of what systems are currently in place within the tartan weaving industry to control the registration of tartans. The Scottish Tartans Authority already maintains a not-for-profit register of tartans – International Tartan Index - containing details of more than 6,000 tartans. This Index has taken ten years to amass, investment in software, database acquisition, technical development and historical research, estimated to have cost in excess of £100,000 including some £21,000 of public money in the form of grants for the development of software etc. That database and all its associated woven samples (numbering some 4,000+ and believed to be the largest such collection in the world) and written records is the very nucleus of the Authority’s operation. That asset and it’s resulting income is essential for the STA to maintain it’s world wide promotional and information services. Migrating such an asset to any other body is not seen as an option by the STA. It seems that most, if not all, of the Functions of the Keeper, as set out in The Policy Memorandum – Page 8 Para 44 onwards, duplicate the present role of the STA. It is our submission that, if a Keeper of the Register is to be appointed, he/she should be no more than a figurehead and the Functions of the Keeper should be sub-contracted out to the Scottish Tartans Authority. To pursue any other policy would, in or opinion, involve a great deal of unnecessary work in the compilation of the Register with resultant considerable expense to the public purse.

EC/S2/06/27/2 Written evidence – Unsupportive of the creation of the ‘keeper’: SUBMISSION FROM BARRY K WINETROBE 1. This submission does not consider the substantive policy of the Bill. It relates solely to one aspect, that of the status of the proposed Keeper being that of a ‘parliamentary commissioner’ (esp s2 and Schedule). This is a public policy issue of some current significance, and is a subject I have been researching for some years. I co-authored a study on Westminster’s ‘officers of parliament’ in 2003, including a chapter on the growth of such posts in devolved Scotland, 2 and my co-author and I are currently convening a research project examining the development of such officers and commissioners in the UK in general, and in Scotland. We participated in an initial private seminar held by the Finance Committee as part of its recent accountability & governance inquiry. 3 I have also made submissions on similar lines as this regarding other Bills or proposed Bills, such as Scottish Commissioner for Human Rights Bill and Commissioner for Older People Bill. 2. This present Bill appears at a crucial time for the development of devolved Scottish policy on creation and operation of ‘parliamentary commissioners’. These developments have been the subject of much criticism in the media and in the Parliament, for reasons of their cost, accountability, operation and independence, and the burdens they place on the Parliament. These criticisms have received their clearest parliamentary focus recently in the Finance Committee inquiry and report, 4 and in proceedings on the Executive’s Scottish Commissioner for Human Rights Bill. 3. One central concern has been the criteria used, if any, for determining which posts or bodies are appropriate to be created under a ‘parliamentary commissioner’ model, which makes them independent of the Executive and accountable to, and supported by, the Parliament. Most Commissioner posts created to date have been ‘constitutional watchdogs’ of some sort, but concern has been expressed by the Finance Committee that the Commissioner for Children and Young People may not have been suitable for this model, as it serves the interests of a specific segment of society rather than society as a whole. In its Report, that Committee endorsed criteria that have been suggested in Commonwealth jurisdictions which, in effect, suggest that the model be restricted only to those posts which serve society as a whole, and which fulfil functions which a parliament could have undertaken itself, or which are closely related to the work of a parliament. 4. Whether these are practical criteria is a matter for parliamentary and wider debate. It is clear that some criteria should exist to ensure that any public officers or bodies established in devolved Scotland are created in a form appropriate to their role and function.
2 3

O Gay & B Winetrobe, Officers of Parliament: transforming the role, Constitution Unit, 2003 Our presentation is available at http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/finance/inquiries/actgov/fi_PSG_prese ntation.pdf 4 Accountability and governance, 7th Report, 2006, Sept 2006


The ‘parliamentary commissioner’ model should not be regarded as some ‘gold standard’ format for a public body, thereby implying that those which are created in other forms, such as an Executive ‘quango’, are somehow of lesser importance. Experience since 1999 demonstrates that too much attention has been paid to a perceived need for some bodies to be seen to be independent of the Executive, and so should be linked to the Parliament, and too little to the issues of accountability to, and dependence on, the Parliament that this model creates. 5. It is submitted that, whether using criteria discussed above or simply on the basis of good constitutional principle and administrative practice, no case has been made for the proposed Keeper to be established on a ‘parliamentary commissioner’ model. No supporting arguments have been put forward in the published consultation material or accompanying documents for this model to be appropriate for the proposed Keeper, beyond some generalised public support for it among a range of options, where no detailed explanation of the pros and cons of this and other models was provided. To support these provisions of the Bill would open the floodgates for many more new or proposed public bodies or officials to have a similar status, thereby overwhelming the limited resources of the Parliament, its committees, members and staff, and deflecting it from its core democratic functions. 6. The Enterprise & Culture Committee could contribute, not just to the scrutiny of the Bill, but also to the debate on the future development of the ‘parliamentary commissioner model’ by reporting to the Parliament that it does not support the provisions of the Bill relating to the institutional model of the Keeper. It should state that such a post is clearly not appropriate for this model, and that another institutional model be devised for it. 7. The Committee could also recommend that the Parliament should devise ways of ensuring that valuable, limited parliamentary time and resources are not devoted unproductively to the preparation, introduction and scrutiny of Bills which contain such inappropriate provisions. It could do this by, for example, proposing that the Parliament consider whether relevant criteria as described above should be added to the range of considerations it and the SPCB take into account when determining which non-Executive Bills should receive parliamentary assistance through NEBU etc. 8. I am happy to provide further written or oral evidence, if desired by the Committee.

To top