Back to the Scottish Parliament Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee Report
Archive Home

Business Bulletin 1999-2011

Minutes of Proceedings 1999-2011

Journal of Parliamentary Proceedings Sessions 1 & 2

Committees Sessions 1, 2 & 3

Annual reports

SP Paper 115

EE/S3/08/R2

2nd Report, 2008 (Session 3)

Stage 1 Report on the Scottish Register of Tartans Bill

CONTENTS

Remit and membership

Report

Introduction

Background to the Bill

The Consultation process

The general principles of the Bill

The Register
Meaning of “tartan”
Keeper of the Scottish Register of Tartans
Functions of the Keeper
Existing collections of tartans
Applications to register tartans
Fees
Subordinate Legislation Committee Report
Financial Memorandum
Policy Memorandum

Conclusion

ANNEXE A: REPORT FROM THE SUBORIDNATE LEGISLATION COMMITTEE

ANNEXE B: LETTER FROM THE FINANCE COMMITTEE

ANNEXE C: EXTRACT FROM THE MINUTES

8th Meeting, 2008 (Session 3), Wednesday 16 April 2008
10th Meeting 2008 (Session 3), Wednesday 14 May 2008
12th Meeting 2008 (Session 3), Wednesday 28 May 2008
13th Meeting 2008 (Session 3), Wednesday 4 June 2008

ANNEXE D: ORAL EVIDENCE

ANNEXE E: LIST OF WRITTEN EVIDENCE

Remit and Membership

Remit:

To consider and report on the Scottish economy, enterprise, energy, tourism and all other matters falling within the responsibility of the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth apart from those covered by the remits of the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change and the Local Government and Communities Committees.

Membership:

Tavish Scott (Convener)
Brian Adam (Deputy Convener)
Gavin Brown
Christopher Harvie
Marilyn Livingstone
Lewis Macdonald
Dave Thompson
David Whitton

Committee Clerking Team:

Clerk to the Committee
Stephen Imrie

Senior Assistant Clerk
Katy Orr

Assistant Clerk
Gail Grant

Subordinate Legislation

Stage 1 Report on the Scottish Register of Tartans Bill

The Committee reports to the Parliament as follows—

Introduction

1. The Scottish Register of Tartans Bill1 (the Bill) was introduced to the Scottish Parliament by Jamie McGrigor MSP on 25 March 2008. The Bill was accompanied by Explanatory Notes (SP Bill 8-EN), including a Financial Memorandum, and by a Policy Memorandum (SP Bill 8-PM). The Explanatory Notes have been prepared by the Scottish Government on behalf of Jamie McGrigor MSP. The Policy Memorandum has been prepared by Jamie McGrigor MSP, with the assistance of the Scottish Government.

2. On the 16 April 2008, the Parliament agreed that the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee be appointed as the lead committee in consideration of the Scottish Register of Tartans Bill at Stage 1.2

3. The provisions of the Bill that confer powers to make subordinate legislation were referred to the Subordinate Legislation Committee under Rule 9.6.2 in order that the latter could report to the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee as lead committee. In addition, the Convener of the Finance Committee wrote to the Committee on the Financial Memorandum accompanying the Bill. The Subordinate Legislation Committee report and the letter from the Convener of the Finance Committee are attached at annexes A and B respectively.

4. The Bill proposes to establish a Scottish Register of Tartans, requires a Keeper of the Register of Tartans to maintain and oversee the Register and new registrations, and sets out the procedures for registering new tartan designs in the Register.

Background to the bill

5. The Bill represents a revised version of a Member’s Bill introduced by Jamie McGrigor MSP in the second session of the Scottish Parliament. The initial Scottish Register of Tartans Bill (SP Bill 76) was introduced on 27 September 2006, after a final proposal had secured cross-party support from 28 MSPs. The Bill was considered at Stage 1 by this Committee’s predecessor at three meetings: 14 November 2006, 5 December 2006 and 16 January 2007.

6. At a debate in the Parliament on the promotion of tartan and Scotland's tartan industry,3 the then Scottish Executive indicated that it was supportive of the legislation and that it would explore options for the establishment of a Register. Allan Wilson MSP, then Deputy Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning stated—

“Further consideration of the proposal for a Scottish register of tartan is merited, and I propose to take that work forward by carrying out an economic impact assessment of the importance of the tartan industry in Scotland and by considering the potential economic and promotional advantages of introducing a national register. Moreover, I suggest that the Scottish textiles team and my officials engage with key players in the tartan industry on possible legislative and non-legislative options and on the way forward for a national register of tartan in Scotland.”4

7. On the basis of the commitments made by the then Deputy Minister, Jamie McGrigor MSP withdrew his original Bill on 16 February 2007.

8. On 25 October 2007, following the elections to the Scottish Parliament held on 3 May 2007, and the subsequent change of Scottish Government, Jamie McGrigor lodged a draft proposal for a Scottish Register of Tartans Bill. The Policy Memorandum for the Scottish Register of Tartans Bill states that the Bill has “the support of the Scottish Government which has assisted in its preparation and drafting.”5 In addition, when giving evidence to the Committee, the Minister for Enterprise, Energy and Tourism – Jim Mather MSP - stated that “the Government supports Jamie McGrigor’s member’s bill, which is a good example of the Parliament working on areas of consensus.”6

9. Under Rule 9.14.3 of the Standing Orders, a member wishing to introduce a Member’s Bill must first lodge with the Clerk a draft proposal consisting of the proposed short title of the Bill and a brief explanation of the purposes of the proposed Bill, together with either a consultation document or a written statement of reasons why, in the member’s opinion, a case for the proposed Bill has already been established.

10. In accordance with Standing Orders, Jamie McGrigor lodged a statement of reasons, which was considered by the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee at its meeting of 7 November 2007. The Committee agreed that it was satisfied with the statement of reasons provided and that the proposed Bill could proceed to a final proposal. Jamie McGrigor’s draft proposal for a statutory Scottish Register of Tartans Bill in session 3 receive cross-party support from 25 MSPs.

The Consultation process

11. The consultation process on the original Scottish Register of Tartans Bill was conducted between March 2005 and May 2005. A total of 62 responses were received from the tartan and weaving industry, local authorities and other organisations and individuals with an interest in tartan. As noted above, the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee agreed that the consultation on the proposed Bill had been sufficient when it considered Jamie McGrigor’s statement of reasons on 7 November 2007.

12. Further consultation on options for the establishment of a statutory register was carried out by the previous Scottish Executive. This included consultation and engagement with the tartan industry and other key stakeholders. Scottish Enterprise commissioned an economic impact assessment of the tartan industry in Scotland. In addition, the new Scottish Government has continued to work with an expert group, including the Scottish Tartans Authority (STA) and the Scottish Tartans World Register (STWR). The Policy Memorandum states that “there has been extensive engagement with key tartan industry stakeholders, including the holders of the existing tartan registers, to build a consensus on the way forward. The Scottish tartan industry therefore supports the proposals for a Register as set out in the Bill.”7

13. The Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee considers that adequate consultation has been conducted on the proposals contained within the Bill. It commends the Member in charge of the Bill and Scottish Government officials for building consensus within the industry around the proposal to establish a statutory Register.

The general principles of the bill

14. The purpose of the Scottish Register of Tartans Bill is to establish a statutory Scottish Register of Tartans and designate a Keeper of the Register who is required to maintain and oversee the Register and new registrations, and establish a process for registering new tartan designs in the Register.

15. In practice, the Register will incorporate the 3,000 tartans held in the Scottish Tartans World Register (STWR) and the 6,000 tartans held in the Scottish Tartans Authority’s (STA) register. Jamie McGrigor, the Member in charge of the Bill, presented this as one of the key achievements in developing the Bill. He stated—

“That the Scottish Tartans Authority and the Scottish Tartans World Register have agreed to share their tartan collections with the national Register is a major and positive step forward, as there was a previous reluctance to do this. These collections will form the cornerstones of the Register.”8

16. The tartan collections of the STA and the STWR will form the basis for the register and all new tartans will be registered in accordance with the procedures set out in the Bill and elaborated on by the Keeper of the Register.

The Register

17. Section 1 of the Bill establishes the Register as a repository for the preservation of tartans and a source of information about tartans. The Register will be kept in an electronic form.

18. One of the key arguments presented in support of the establishment of a Register is that there would be economic benefit to the industry in having a single national, public register. Jamie McGrigor MSP, identified the following tangible and real economic benefits—

  • It will help promote and preserve tartan in Scotland and worldwide.

  • It will help the tartan industry in Scotland to capitalise on the commercial opportunities that will flow from the Register.

  • It will provide a springboard to promote the Scottish tartan industry – and open up marketing opportunities for the unique, authentic, high value, high quality products that the tartan industry in Scotland produces. 9

19. The economic impact assessment commissioned by Scottish Enterprise indicated that the overall contribution of tartan to Scotland’s GDP was approximately £350 million per annum.10 It is argued that a publicly held register will provide readily accessible information on existing tartans as well as providing greater opportunities for marketing and profiling tartan. Scottish Enterprise described the economic benefit of the Bill in the following terms—

“The economic benefit will probably be an indirect benefit to the sector. We work with a lot of companies across the textile industry in Scotland and our sector groups have strong representation from tartan-related companies, primarily those in weaving and manufacturing. In general, they warmly welcome the bill because it recognises the importance of tartan as a national resource. Once the register is established, they will seek, individually and collectively, to use it as a profile-raising or promotional tool, in line with their global marketing efforts.”11

20. The Keeper of the Records of Scotland emphasised the potential importance of the cachet and kudos of a tartan being registered in a single official register for marketing purposes—

“I hope and expect that a tartan’s registration number or the fact that it appears in the register of tartans will be used in the sales and promotional aspects of the tartan industry. Alongside “Made in Scotland” or “woven in Scotland” will be the tartan’s number in the official tartan register.”12

21. The Policy Memorandum contends that the establishment of a Register will also secure the preservation of existing and future tartan designs in a public repository that “will be established permanently and in perpetuity for the nation.”13 The historic archive will be kept at Register House under the auspices of the National Archive of Scotland, rather than being held privately. The Policy Memorandum describes the existing records as “piecemeal, relatively inaccessible, and run by narrow, commercial and sectoral interest.”14 It further states that “there is also a risk that information in the privately held registers may be restricted for commercial or individual gain or lost or damaged and, as they are dependent on the efforts of a handful of key individuals, there is also a risk that these registers will become unsustainable in the long term.”15 The Kilt Makers Association of Scotland echoed this view, emphasising that “tartan is one of Scotland’s most instantly recognised symbols and is uniquely Scottish and The Register of Tartans under The Keeper of Tartans will create a safe accessible national repository of all the old and new tartan records.”16

22. The proposed link between the Register and the Family History Centre, to be opened shortly by the National Archive of Scotland, will offer additional opportunities for those interested in genealogy to also research tartans at Register House in Edinburgh. Thus, the establishment of the Register will secure the preservation of the existing archives and future tartan designs and make them accessible to the public.

23. The principle of establishing a statutory Register appears to have been central to gaining the support of the STA and the STWR. As mentioned above, these two organisations currently hold significant private collections of tartans and the Policy Memorandum indicates that “it has been on the basis of a statutory approach to a Register that the holders of the existing private registers have agreed to share the data that they hold.”17 This will allow all of the existing information on tartans to be gathered in one place for the first time.

24. The Member in charge of the Bill, Jamie McGrigor MSP, also emphasised the wider benefits of making the existing records relating to tartan more readily accessible, stating “not only will it help raise interest in tartan but it will also provide a focus for tartan for academic, family and genealogical research …and act as a stimulus for further academic research into tartans and how they have evolved.”18

25. Some of the evidence received and heard by the Committee also referred to the cultural importance of tartan and its association with Highland and Scottish identity, particularly among the Scottish diaspora. In written evidence submitted to the Committee, Deirdre A. Kinloch Anderson articulated the broad cultural importance of tartan and the role that a Register would have in promoting this—

“From the outset this project has addressed the perceived value to Scotland of a National Tartan Register in its widest sense: the issue is a national one and not one confined to those who work within the Tartan Industry. The recognition and indeed the love of tartan is worldwide and the Register will, I believe, have international implications for the profile of Scotland, the tourism industry, education and inevitably also for the economy.”19

26. The Committee recognises that the principle of establishing a statutory Register has been central to the negotiations to secure the existing tartan archives held by the Scottish Tartans Authority and by the Scottish Tartans World Register. It acknowledges the importance of protecting and preserving these archives and considers that there may be benefits in the Register being linked to the Family History Centre which will shortly be opened by the National Archive of Scotland. The Committee also recognises the potential benefits to the textile industry of the establishment of a Register.

Meaning of “tartan”

27. Section 2 of the Bill proposes that “for the purposes of this Act tartan is a design consisting of two or more alternating coloured stripes which combine vertically and horizontally to form a repeated chequered pattern.” Accordingly, the Bill proposes that the Keeper will only register designs that conform with this statutory definition. Whilst the definition of tartan in section 2 makes no reference to the need for it to be capable of being woven, Section 6(7)(c) of the Bill states that an application for the register must include “a description of the tartan including its colours, thread count and sett”. It was acknowledged in evidence that this latter provision, de facto, places a requirement for the design to be capable of being woven.

28. In terms of whether the definition should be extended, it should be noted that an official from the Scottish Government’s Legal Directorate commented that “there is a power under the Bill for the Keeper to issue guidance, and that may be the more appropriate place to make it clear that a tartan must be capable of being woven.”20

29. The definition of tartan contained in section 2 of the Bill was developed with industry experts and the STA and the STWR. In giving evidence on the definition of tartan, a Scottish Government official acknowledged that “to find a definition that will be acceptable to everyone who has an idea about what defines tartan would be extremely difficult” and that those drafting the Bill had “tried to frame a definition that is to be used solely for the purposes of the Bill; that is, for the Keeper of the Register of Tartans to apply to new registrations for entry in the register.”21

30. In both the written evidence submitted to the Committee and the oral evidence taken by the Committee there were divergent views on whether there should also be a reference to the capacity to weave a tartan in the definition, as well as – or in addition to – the requirement in section 6(7)(c) for the description of the tartan to include a thread count. The views fell into two distinct camps: the “modernists” holding the position that tartan was a design that could be reproduced in a number of formats including ceramics and screen prints, and the “wovenists” who were of the view that tartan was historically a woven design and that this should be reflected in the definition. That is, for the tartan to be registered there must be a requirement for a woven sample.

31. In written evidence to the Committee, the Scottish Tartans World Register argued that tartan was a woven pattern and that the Register should be a Register of woven tartans—

“They have been historically and culturally woven and were considered a cloth or plaid. Their images were not possible to produce accurately until the advent of cameras and computers. Those in painted portraits are only approximations.”22

32. Similarly, evidence submitted by Blair Urquhart emphasised the woven character of tartan—

“My contention is that tartan is first and foremost a fabric, distinguished from other fabrics in that it is woven with self coloured threads in stripes that are broadly symmetrical in repeating patterns of 6 inches or thereabouts, and that the warp and weft are broadly the same.”23

33. The division between the “wovenists” and the “modernists” was explored by the Committee in oral evidence. Whilst the “wovenist” position was based on the assumption that a tartan design is a woven design, the “modernist” position recognised the value of a minimalist definition that would be, in effect, more inclusive of a variety of designs and which could include designs developed primarily for application in other mediums, such as ceramics, screen-printing or even on the tailfin of an airplane. Mr Robin Blair, the former Lord Lyon King of Arms, stated that “it would be a disadvantage if the definition limited designs that could be registered to those that had been woven.”24

34. Scottish Enterprise emphasised the many Scottish Textile companies involved in weaving tartan also had interests in tartan outside woven cloth and therefore that “textile companies and the wider business community derive greater benefit from considering tartan in a broader sense.”25 This was reinforced by Dr Nick Fiddes, who stated—

“I do not think that a requirement that the tartan should be woven should be an essential part of the definition. A lot of the tartan goods that we sell are not necessarily woven—for example, tartan mugs or even quaichs. Normally, the tartans that we use for such goods can be woven, too, but the requirement that you raise is not an essential part of the definition.”26

35. This point was further expanded on by the Minister for Enterprise, Energy and Tourism. He observed—

“We accept and respect the varying views on woven and non-woven tartans. The fact is that most tartan is woven, but not all of it is. Again, the issue is pragmatism, and we believe that we should maximise the commercial opportunities for non-woven tartans—through measures such as screen printing, their use on ceramics and printing on to fabric—by considering tartan to be the design or pattern and not purely the woven iteration of the design. That will maximise the register’s relevance and potency.”27

36. Jamie McGrigor MSP, the Member in charge of the Bill, argued that it was important to recognise the value of the non-woven design in the context of the objective to increase the commercial benefit from tartan—

“The approach in the Bill is that the Keeper will accept registrations of tartan designs that are both woven (as the vast majority will be) and non-woven (of which the current registers receive about a handful each year). But if we are serious in the commercial intent to help the industry market itself, we should not discount the commercial and intrinsic value of the non-woven design.”28

37. An issue related to the definition of tartan and whether it should include a requirement to be capable of being woven, is that of whether an application should include a swatch (a woven sample) of a tartan. When questioned about whether a requirement of this nature would have the effect of promoting Scotland’s indigenous textile industry, Scottish Enterprise pointed out that many of the applications to one of the existing registers came from outside Scotland so the effect would be limited—

“…the hope would be that the cloth would be woven in Scotland, but of course there would be no guarantee that it would be woven here. It is a question for the Scottish Tartans Authority as to where the majority of registrations come from, but they obviously come from global sources—there are commissioned weavers worldwide. Having to provide swatches of cloth would not have a huge impact on the Scottish industry. The wider premise of the bill would have a benefit for the Scottish industry, but having to provide swatches of cloth when registering would not make a big impact.”29

38. The Committee recognises the divergent definitions that exist among stakeholders in relation to tartan, particularly those that pertain to whether tartan should be woven or be capable of being woven before registration is permitted. It notes the argument that by taking a minimalist approach to the definition of tartan in the Bill, the Register could be more inclusive of a variety of tartan designs, including those that may be developed for use in forms other than woven cloth.

39. The Committee notes that the provision in section 6(7)(c) for the description of the tartan in the application to the Register to include a thread count already places a de facto requirement that the design be capable of being woven. However, the Committee is of the view that tartan has been historically defined by its woven character. The Committee therefore suggests that the Member in charge considers bringing forward an amendment should the Bill proceed to Stage 2 consideration that broadens the definition to include the requirement that the design should be capable of being woven.

40. The Committee considers that the evidence is inconclusive as to whether a requirement to include a swatch with an application to register would help promote the textile industry in Scotland or whether the cost of producing a swatch would act as a deterrent to some applicants. The Committee therefore calls on the Member in charge to address this issue in the Stage 1 debate in order to inform a decision by the Committee on whether it wishes to revisit this issue at Stage 2.

Keeper of the Scottish Register of Tartans

41. Section 3 of the Bill provides for the Keeper of the Records of Scotland to take on the function of Keeper of the Scottish Register of Tartans. The Policy Memorandum indicates that in running the Register, the Keeper will consult and engage where necessary with the Lord Lyon King of Arms and others with an expertise on tartan.

42. This approach differs from that in the original Bill introduced in session 2 in that it avoids the creation of an additional public body or involvement of the Lyon Court in the registration of tartans. This is reflected in the costs for establishing and operating the Register, which are set out in the Financial Memorandum. At a cost of £100,000 to establish the Register and £75,000 per annum to run it over the course of the three years of the current spending review period, the costs are lower than those foreseen in the original Bill (£137,868 in the first year and £95,368 in subsequent years).

43. In written evidence to the Committee, Jamie McGrigor, MSP indicated that he was “pleased that the proposals for the Register will minimise cost to the taxpayer, utilise existing public sector expertise and infrastructure and – importantly – avoid adding to the public sector landscape by creating a new public body.”30

44. In response to questioning from the Committee on the public benefit of having the Register in the public sector, the Minister for Enterprise, Energy and Tourism stated that—

“The public benefit is the added legitimacy and the increase in the number of jobs that will flow through the textile industry from the interest in tartan and from the motivation of more people to produce tartan goods. We think that the interest will be huge. … It is a matter of raising the profile of tartan and giving it legitimacy and a central domain that people can access and browse, allowing them to see designs and to motivate themselves to produce more. The key thing is building economic value from what has been very much a latent brand to date.”31

45. In evidence to the Committee, a Scottish Government official emphasised that the public benefit was twofold: “One is preserving the archive that exists in perpetuity for the Scottish Nation” and one which allows the Scottish textile industry to promote itself.32 Similarly, the former Lord Lyon King of Arms stated, “the justification for using public money to create a Register is simply that a Register would preserve what is thought to be an important aspect of Scottish culture for the nation in perpetuity rather than leave it at the mercy of a commercial operation.”33

46. In relation to whether it was appropriate for the Keeper to be the Keeper of the Records of Scotland as opposed to the Lord Lyon, as had been previously mooted, there was support for the approach taken in the Bill. The former Lord Lyon King of Arms, Mr Robin Blair, explained the reasoning behind the change in approach—

“When we looked into the details of how the previous proposal might work, we realised that the Lyon court is not constituted in a form that would enable it to hold the register. Legislation might be required at Westminster because a lot of the functions that are carried out by Lyon are not devolved.

Secondly, and perhaps more crucially, the Court of the Lord Lyon is a court of law. In Scotland, uniquely, heraldry is governed by a legal court. That does not happen anywhere else in the world. It would be difficult for a judicial operation to carry out the administrative function of registering tartans. If an application to register a tartan conflicted with the views of a clan chief, somebody would have to make a decision, and it would almost certainly be the Lord Lyon. The Lyon court would be in an impossible position.”34

47. The Committee is of the view that it is appropriate that the Keeper of the Records of Scotland be the Keeper of the Scottish Tartans Register, and acknowledges that this avoids the establishment of a new public body. The Committee considers that there is a particular benefit to the Keeper of the Records of Scotland taking on this role in terms of the preservation of the existing records relating to tartan and the classification of tartans for public use.

48. The Committee recognises that much of this information already exists in two, privately owned registers. However, there are serious questions as to the accessibility and also the long-term preservation of historical information.

Functions of the Keeper

49. Section 4 sets out the functions of the Keeper of the Scottish Register of Tartans. It confers the functions of establishing, keeping and maintaining the Register. It includes a requirement for the Keeper to make the Register available on a website, or by other electronic means, to the public. It also requires the Keeper to make appropriate arrangements for the care and preservation of documents or physical things connected to the registration of tartans. On payment of an appropriate fee, the Keeper will allow members of the public to inspect the documents and other physical aspects relating to the Register of Tartans.

50. An area that the Committee explored in oral evidence that is not included on the face of the Bill, other than in reference to the general requirement in section 4(1) for the Keeper to maintain the register, is the classification of tartans and whether this could protect the unique value of some of the historic, clan-based tartans. Unless there are duplicates in the existing registers, the new Register will see approximately 9,000 tartans once it has been established.

51. The STA currently operates a degree of classification in its register, including such categories as family, clan, corporate, geographical and military/regimental. Brian Wilton of the STA pointed out that a tartan might come under a number of categories: “A corporate tartan, for example, might also be a sporting tartan if the corporate body is a sporting body and it might also be a rugby tartan.”35 This view as reinforced by Dr Nick Fiddes, who observed—

“I think there are still on-going discussions about how the National Archives of Scotland will handle classification. An element of classification is certainly useful, but the reality is that classification often ends up being arbitrary, because particular tartans can slot into several different categories.”36

52. The Keeper of the Registers of Scotland acknowledged that “we require to classify tartans to allow people to find them” but that the approach adopted was “not to put the provision in the bill but to make it part of the way in which the register will operate.”37 He indicated that he intended to introduce a simple approach to classification that would help to find information in the Register. The Keeper’s view was reiterated by the Jamie McGrigor MSP who stated, “the sensible approach is not to make things inflexible by including classification in statute; it is better to have classification in the secondary stage.”38

53. The Committee is of the view that the functions of the Keeper as set out in section 4 will allow the Register to be maintained in a suitably protected environment as well as making it more accessible to the public. Whilst it recognises that primary legislation is not necessarily the appropriate place to set out the fine detail of a classification scheme, it is of the view that a classification scheme would not only facilitate access to, and searches of, the Register, but would also allow the differentiation of historically significant tartans from those developed for other purposes, such as corporate tartans. We would urge the Keeper of the Register to give very careful consideration as to how to use the classification system to differentiate those tartans that have played such an important role in our nation’s history from those that have been registered for entirely separate reasons (e.g. a corporate or sporting design).

Existing collections of tartans]

54. Section 5 provides for the Keeper to make entries in the Register in respect of tartans contained in existing collections, providing the owner or keeper of the existing collections consents.

55. In evidence to the Committee, a Scottish Government official indicated that a memorandum of understanding was being developed with the Scottish Tartans Authority in order that the latter body would cease to register tartans and that the Scottish World Tartans Register would migrate its designs to the national register. Although the Committee understands that both the Scottish Tartans Authority and the Scottish Tartans World Register have committed to making over their existing collections of tartans to the proposed new statutory register, the Committee notes that in oral evidence, the Scottish Tartans Authority indicated that it would retain its register, although it would not continue to register tartans. It perceived that this would be “a continual two-way stream of information between the Scottish Tartans Authority” and the National Archives of Scotland.39

56. The Committee commends the Scottish Tartans Authority and the Scottish Tartans World Register for committing to making over their collections of tartans to the proposed Register of Scottish Tartans. It considers that these existing collections will be vital in establishing a significant and comprehensive Register. The Committee urges the STA and STWR to ensure there is no capacity for ongoing confusion as to where new tartan designs should be registered.

Applications to register tartans

57.Sections 6-9 of the Bill relate to applications to register tartans. These sections set out the processes for applying, determining and reconsidering refused applications. As intellectual property matters are reserved, a Scottish Government official emphasised that “registration does not confer any intellectual property rights, copyright or designer protection.”40 Any Bill that seeks to provide for rights, trade marks etc. would be ultra vires and outwith the competences of the Scottish Parliament under the 1998 Scotland Act.

58. Section 6 includes provisions to ensure that an applicant seeking to register a tartan has a right to do so and that an application is sufficiently unique to warrant an entry in the register. This provision is aimed at ensuring that there is an association with any claimed name and that the tartans that are registered are sufficiently unique to warrant entry. Such an approach is designed to reduce the risk of diluting the authenticity or uniqueness of registered tartans. In relation to the naming of tartans, a Scottish Government official assured the Committee that—

“One of the criteria for registration will be that an individual who claims an association with a name or an organisation must be able to link to that name or organisation. There is nothing to prevent someone from producing a tartan for an organisation, but unless they can demonstrate that they have a viable and genuine link to the organisation it will not be accepted for registration.”41

59. The Keeper of the Records of Scotland recognised the potential difficulty of defining what constitutes a sufficient link between an applicant and their right to authorise the Keeper to register a tartan, particularly where this relates to names. However, he argued that “there has to be a discretionary power – the keeper will have to deal with it case by case.”42

60. Subsection 6(8) includes a provision disallowing an application to be made to register a tartan with a name which is the same as the name of an already registered tartan. A Scottish Government official suggested that the inclusion of the year of the registration including a geographical location were methods for differentiating between tartans of the same name—

“A sporting organisation or a commercial organisation might change its corporate tartan, so including the date of registration would be one possible way of ensuring that the entry was sufficiently distinct. Families might have branches in different parts of the world, so including an indication of where the family comes from would be another way of ensuring that the entry for the tartan was sufficiently distinct.”43

61. The Committee is concerned by the lack of definition on the face of the Bill as to what constitutes a sufficient link between an applicant and their right to authorise the Keeper to register a tartan. It calls on the Member in charge to find a means of further clarifying this either on the face of the Bill or through the development of guidance by the Keeper.

Fees

62. Section 14 of the Bill provides for Scottish Ministers to specify, by order, the fee payable in respect of matters mentioned in the Act and in relation to the Register. The Policy Memorandum notes that “a reasonable level of charging for tartan registration will ensure that applications for registration are genuine and those seeking registration of a new design are serious enough about the design and its uniqueness to seek to register it in the Scottish National Register.”44 In oral evidence to the Committee, the Keeper of the Records of Scotland indicated that the likely fees would be between £80 and £100. The Keeper also confirmed that the power for the Keeper to waive the fee meant that the existing registers would be incorporated into the new Register without any fees being charged.

63. When questioned about whether the Keeper will operate a full-cost recovery principle in relation to fees, the Keeper of the Records of Scotland stated that—

“We do not intend to set charges to recover the full costs of operating the register. Of course, we cannot predict the number of registrations that will be made. You will recall that in our previous evidence we indicated that the charge will be around £80 to £100. At the moment, there are about 150 registrations, which would mean about £12,000 of income. As the expected cost of running the register will be nearer to £75,000 a year, there will be a shortfall.”45

64. The Committee is of the view that the balance between identifying a fee which does not deter genuine applicants and one that deters frivolous applicants is crucial.

Subordinate Legislation Committee Report

65. The Subordinate Legislation Committee submitted a report on the delegate powers provisions in the Scottish Register of Tartans Bill at Stage 1 to the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee under Rule 9.6.2 of Standing Orders. A copy of this report is attached in Annexe A.

66. The Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee notes the clarifications provided by Jamie McGrigor MSP to the Subordinate Legislation Committee and that the latter is content with the powers under section 14 and that they are subject to negative procedure. The Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee also notes that in relation to section 16 the Bill departs from the general presumption modifications of the application of primary legislation should be subject to the affirmative procedure. The Committee accepts that the Subordinate Legislation Committee is content with the justification provided in this case at to the narrow purpose of section 16(1). The Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee concurs with these views.

Financial Memorandum

67. The Finance Committee adopted a ‘level 1’ approach to scrutiny of the Financial Memorandum for the Scottish Register of Tartans Bill and did not, therefore, take oral evidence on the Bill or produce a report. A letter from the Convener of the Finance Committee with a copy of the evidence received is attached in Annexe B.

68. The Committee is content with the Financial Memorandum.

Policy Memorandum

69. The Member in charge of the Bill prepared a Policy Memorandum, which accompanied the Bill when introduced. The Committee agrees that the Policy Memorandum provided a comprehensive explanation of the policy objectives of the Bill and that alternative approaches were considered. It is content that that an inclusive and in-depth consultation process took place, and that there was an adequate consideration of the impact of the Bill on equal opportunities, human rights, island communities, local government, sustainable development, equal opportunities, local government and business.

Conclusion

70. The Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee recommends that the Parliament agree the general principles of the Scottish Register of Tartans Bill.

Annexe A: Report from the subordinate legisltation committee

Subordinate Legislation Committee

Scottish Register of Tartans Bill at Stage 1

The Committee reports to the lead Committee as follows—

Introduction

1. At its meetings on 29 April and 13 May 2008, the Subordinate Legislation Committee considered the delegated powers provisions in the Scottish Register of Tartans Bill at Stage 1. The Committee submits this report to the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, as the lead committee for the Bill, under Rule 9.6.2 of Standing Orders.

2. The Member in charge provided the Parliament with a memorandum on the delegated powers provisions in the Bill.

3. The Committee’s correspondence with the Member in charge is reproduced in Annexes 1 and 2.

Delegated Powers Provisions

4. The Committee considered each of the delegated powers provisions in the Bill. The Committee approves sections 4 and 18 without further comment.

Section 14: Fees

The Committee is content that the powers taken to fix fees for the following functions listed in the Bill:

Section 4(3)(a) – the inspection of documents or physical things held by the Keeper or the copying of any such document;

Section 4(3)(c) request for information or research;

Section 4(3)(d) – such other services to the public in relation to the Register as the Keeper thinks fit

Section 6(10) – making an application for an entry in the Register

Section 8(2)(c) – a request to reconsider an application following its refusal by the Keeper (fee refundable if request granted);

Section 9(5) – obtaining a copy of a certificate of registration;

Section 10(6) – a request to amend an entry in the Register; and

Section 13(3) - obtaining a copy of an amended certificate of registration.

and that additional matters in relation to the Register in respect of which a fee may be made payable in the future, are suitable to be exercised under delegated powers.

6. The Committee requested an explanation however from Mr McGrigor in relation to the provisions contained in sections 14(4)(b) and 14(5). Section 14(4) provides that different fees may be specified (by order) for different purposes and the order may also specify the circumstances in which no fee is payable. Section 14(5) empowers the Keeper to waive a fee which has been specified by order under the Bill in such circumstances as the Keeper may specify with the approval of the Scottish Ministers. The Delegated Powers Memorandum does not explain why both provisions are necessary and how it is intended they will be used.

7. The Committee found the response provided by Mr McGrigor to be very helpful in explaining the intention behind these provisions and how it is proposed that they will operate in practice.

8. The Committee is content for Ministers to have the ability to exempt fees in particular circumstances. While the effect of waiving fees would increase the burden on the public purse, the Parliament would have the sanction of annulment of the order if it found this to be objectionable.

9. The Committee also considers that it is appropriate to provide discretion to the Keeper to waive fees in individual circumstances. A reasonable example of circumstances in which the Keeper may choose to exercise that discretion is given in Mr McGrigor’s response. The Committee notes that the exercise of this power of waiver requires the consent of Ministers. Although Parliament has no role to play in that process, having consented to it on the face of the Bill, the Committee is content that this seems to be an administrative matter which can properly be left in the hands of Ministers and the Keeper as the administrator of the register.

10. The Committee draws these provisions to the attention of the lead committee on the basis that in light of the response received from Mr McGrigor it is content with the powers available under section 14 and that they are subject to negative procedure.

Section 16: Ancillary provision

11. Section 16(1) of the Bill provides that the Scottish Ministers may, by order, make such consequential or incidental provision as they consider necessary or expedient for the purposes of, in consequence of or for giving full effect to, any provision of this Act.

12. Section 16(2) provides that such an order may make different provision for different purposes, and may modify any enactment.

13. Section 16(3) and (4) provides that such an order shall be subject to negative resolution procedure, except where it adds to, replaces or omits the text of an Act, when the order shall be subject to affirmative procedure.

14. The Committee is content with the scope of the ancillary powers as these are framed only to enable consequential or incidental provisions for the purposes of, in consequence of, or for giving full effect to, the provisions of the ASP.

15. In relation to the procedure applied, the Committee agrees with the view in the Delegated Powers Memorandum that the separation between negative procedure and affirmative procedure (for ancillary modifications of enactments) is appropriate. However, the Committee noted that the Bill provided for affirmative procedure only in respect of modifications which add to, replace or omit any part of the text of the Act in question. Such a restriction would permit future modifications of the effect or application of an Act, other than by textual amendment, by negative procedure.

16. The Committee observed that the Act itself would make a number of modifications to enactments without making actual textual amendments. It considered that it could transpire at a later date that there are other provisions concerning the Keeper’s existing statutory duties which should be disapplied and which, in contrast, the Parliament would not have the opportunity to approve. The Committee therefore asked for an explanation as to why affirmative procedure should not also apply in the circumstances where the ancillary provisions provide for the modification or disapplication of Acts without making textual amendments.

17. In his response, Mr McGrigor stated “In this case, however, any changes to primary legislation (whether textual or not) will be minor because of the narrow limits of the power in section 16(1). In these cases it is arguable that draft affirmative procedure even for textual amendment does not strike the correct balance. If the Committee agrees, I would be happy to consider amending the Bill to remove section 16(4) so that all exercises of the power in section 16(1) are subject to negative procedure.”

18. While there is a general presumption in favour of affirmative procedure where power is taken to amend primary legislation the Committee accepts that this is not an absolute rule. As in relation to any delegated power, it considers that a balance requires to be struck between administrative efficiency, expediency, best use of Parliamentary time and proper scrutiny of the content of the measures brought forward having regard to its significance or effect.

19. The Committee notes that the subject matter of this Bill in essence concerns the creation of a particular register which has a narrow purpose. The ancillary powers available under section 16(1) relate to making consequential or incidental provision necessary or expedient for the purpose of giving full effect to the Bill. There must therefore be some clear connection to the purposes of the Bill and the register before the ancillary powers are available and the Committee accepts that the scope of the ancillary powers in this case are therefore restricted in scope. Nevertheless, in relation to amendments to the text of primary legislation, there is to be added to the factors to be weighed in considering any departure from the general presumption, the value of Parliament (as the source of primary legislation) being afforded the opportunity to consent to changes to it.

20. The Committee remains of the view that draft affirmative procedure should apply to textual amendment of primary legislation arising out of the exercise of ancillary powers under this Act. The Committee is however persuaded that modifications of the application of primary legislation may be subject to negative procedure given the restricted scope of the power.

21. The Committee draws these provisions to the attention of the lead committee on the basis that –

(a) it is content with the scope of the ancillary powers as these are framed only to enable consequential or incidental provisions for the purposes of, in consequence of, or for giving full effect to, the provisions of the Act;

(b) it is content that justification has been provided in this case for the departure from the general presumption that modifications of the application of primary legislation should be subject to affirmative procedure; it remains of the view however that textual amendment of primary legislation should be subject to affirmative procedure; it does not agree with Mr McGrigor’s suggestion that all modifications to primary legislation should be subject to negative procedure.

ANNEX 1

Letter from the Subordinate Legislation Committee to Jamie McGrigor MSP

1. The Subordinate Legislation Committee considered your Bill today and seeks further information from you in relation to the delegated powers in Sections 14 and 16.

Section 14: Fees

2. The Committee asks why it is thought necessary to provide for both––

the circumstances in which fees provided by order are not payable (section 14(4)(b)); and

the power of the Keeper to waive a fee which has been specified by order (section 14(5); and

for an explanation as to the circumstances in which the member envisages each of these powers being exercised.

Section 16: Ancillary provision

3. The Committee also asks why the draft affirmative procedure should not apply in the circumstances where the ancillary provisions modify or disapply any enactment (without a textual amendment of the Act), given that the Bill contains examples of such provision and more may subsequently be required.

ANNEX 2

Response from Jamie McGrigor MSP

1. Thank you for your letter of 29th April. I welcome the Subordinate Legislation Committee’s consideration of my Bill. You are seeking further information in relation to the delegated powers in sections 14 and 16.

Section 14: Fees

2. The Committee asks why it is thought necessary to provide for both––

the circumstances in which fees provided by order are not payable (section 14(4)(b)); and

the power of the Keeper to waive a fee which has been specified by order (section 14(5); and

for an explanation as to the circumstances in which the member envisages each of these powers being exercised.

3. I would respond as follows––

4. These provisions are not mutually exclusive. Section 14(4)(b) enables Ministers to identify circumstances where a person does not have to pay a fee which would otherwise be required under section 14(1) (in effect, creating an exemption or exception to the general matter so specified). In relation to the inspection of documents and other physical things underpinning the register for which a fee is payable (section 4(3)(a)(i)) the power in section 14(4)(b) might be used to exempt school children or pensioners or the inspection of all documents and other physical things on certain days, for example for “open days”, exhibitions or other promotional activity planned by the Keeper.

5. Section 14 (5), by contrast, operates where a fee is payable, i.e. in relation to a matter specified by order as chargeable and where no exemption or exception has been provided for. Subsection (5) gives the Keeper discretion to waive the fee, perhaps to ensure equity in the circumstances of a particular case (but of course only with Ministers’ approval). We suggest this could apply where the Keeper has received a request to amend the register under Section 10 to correct minor errors to an existing entry or to update an entry, perhaps where an applicant has subsequently noticed an administrative, clerical or other minor error, either in the application or the registration. It could be argued that a fresh request – and fee - is unwarranted and disproportionate in such instances.

Section 16: Ancillary provision

6. On ancillary provision, the Committee asks why the draft affirmative procedure should not apply in the circumstances where the ancillary provisions modify or disapply any enactment (without a textual amendment of the Act), given that the Bill contains examples of such provision and more may subsequently be required.

7. I would respond by saying that the power in section 16(1) is more limited than equivalent powers in many Acts of the Scottish Parliament (ASPs) in that it permits only consequential or incidental provision to be made. Negative procedure would normally be considered appropriate for such a limited power.

8. It is common for ASPs conferring ancillary powers to require draft affirmative procedure to apply where the powers are exercised so as to textually amend primary legislation. This is done as it is considered appropriate to allow the Parliament the opportunity to consider and vote on any proposed changes to primary legislation.

9. In this case, however, any changes to primary legislation (whether textual or not) will be minor because of the narrow limits of the power in section 16(1). In these cases it is arguable that draft affirmative procedure even for textual amendment does not strike the correct balance. If the Committee agrees, I would be happy to consider amending the Bill to remove section 16(4) so that all exercises of the power in section 16(1) are subject to negative procedure.

10. I trust this answers the points raised by the Committee and please let me know if there is further information the Committee would find useful.

Annexe B: Letter from the finance committee

Finance Committee

Convener: Andrew Welsh MSP 

Tavish Scott MSP
Convener
Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee
Via Email
Room T3.60
The Scottish Parliament
EDINBURGH
EH99 1SP

Direct Tel: (0131) 348 5451
(Text Relay calls welcome)
Fax: (0131) 348 5252
(Central) Textphone: (0131) 348 5415
finance.committee@scottish.parliament.uk

22 May 2008

Dear Tavish

SCOTTISH REGISTER OF TARTANS BILL – FINANCIAL MEMORANDUM

The Finance Committee considered its approach to the Financial Memorandum of the above bill and agreed to adopt level 1 scrutiny.

This level of scrutiny is applied where there appears to be minimal additional costs as a result of the legislation.  Applying this level of scrutiny means that the Committee will not take oral evidence, nor will it produce a report.  It will, however, seek written comments from relevant organisations through its agreed questionnaire, and then pass these comments to your committee. 

One submission was received, from the Keeper of the Records of Scotland (attached).  Comments were also sought from various weavers, design houses etc, but no submissions were received.

Please contact Allan Campbell, Assistant Clerk to the Committee, if you have any questions about the Committee’s consideration of the Financial Memorandum.

Yours sincerely

Andrew Welsh MSP
Convener

Questionnaire

This questionnaire is being sent to those organisations that have an interest in, or which may be affected by, the Financial Memorandum for the Scottish Register of Tartans Bill.  In addition to the questions below, please add any other comments you may have which would assist the Committee’s scrutiny.   

Consultation

  1. Did you take part in the consultation exercise for the Bill, if applicable, and if so did you comment on the financial assumptions made?

Yes, we discussed the financial assumptions with officials working on the Bill and agreed on the text of the Financial Memorandum.

  1. Do you believe your comments on the financial assumptions have been accurately reflected in the Financial Memorandum?

Yes

  1. Did you have sufficient time to contribute to the consultation exercise?

Yes

Costs

  1. If the Bill has any financial implications for your organisation, do you believe that these have been accurately reflected in the Financial Memorandum?  If not, please provide details.

Yes, the costs to us of operating the Register were discussed in detail and have been accurately reflected in the Financial Memorandum

  1. Are you content that your organisation can meet the financial costs associated with the Bill?  If not, how do you think these costs should be met?

Yes, subject to the proviso that a transfer of funds of £75,000 per annum is made from Enterprise to NAS for the 2008-2011 Spending Review period.

  1. Does the Financial Memorandum accurately reflect the margins of uncertainty associated with the estimates and the timescales over which such costs would be expected to arise?

Yes.

Annexe c: EXtract from the minutes

8th Meeting, 2008 (Session 3), Wednesday 16 April 2008

1. Decision on taking item in private: The Committee decided to take item 3 in private.

3. Scottish Register of Tartans Bill: The Committee considered and agreed its approach to the Bill.

10th Meeting, 2008 (Session 3), Wednesday 14 May 2008

The Scottish Register of Tartans Bill: The Committee took evidence on the Scottish Register of Tartans (Scotland) Bill, from—

Michael McElhinney, Head of Manufacturing Policy, and Helena Janssen, Senior Principal Legal Officer, Scottish Government Legal Directorate, Scottish Government;
George MacKenzie, Keeper of the Records of Scotland;
Mr Robin Blair, Former Lord Lyon King of Arms;
Brian Wilton, Director of the Scottish Tartans Authority;
Keith Lumsden, Director Scottish Tartans World Register;
Kirsty Scott, Head of National Textiles Team, Scottish Enterprise;
Dr Nick Fiddes, Managing, Director Scotweb

12th Meeting, 2008 (Session 3), Wednesday 28 May 2008

The Scottish Register of Tartans Bill: The Committee took evidence on the general principles of the Bill at Stage 1 from—

Jim Mather MSP, Minister for Enterprise, Energy and Tourism, Mike McElhinney, Branch Head, Manufacturing Policy and Neel Mojee, Principal Legal Officer, Education, Land and Pensions Division, Scottish Government and George MacKenzie, Keeper of the Records of Scotland;

Jamie McGrigor MSP, Mike McElhinney, Branch Head, Manufacturing Policy and Neel Mojee, Principal Legal Officer, Education, Land and Pensions Division, Scottish Government and George MacKenzie, Keeper of the Records of Scotland.

13th Meeting, 2008 (Session 3), Wednesday 4 May 2008

1. Decision on taking items in private: The Committee decided to take items 3 in private and any future items relating to the draft report for the tourism inquiry and the stage 1 report on the Scottish Register of Tartans Bill in private.

4. Scottish Register of Tartans Bill: The Committee discussed a draft stage 1 report.

Annexe D: oral evidence

10th Meeting, 2008 (Session 3), Wednesday 14 May

12th Meeting, 2008 (Session 3), Wednesday 28 May

Annexe E: List of written evidence

Copies of all other written and supplementary evidence received by the Committee can be found on the Scottish Parliament website (www.scottish.parliament.uk)

Alastair Campbell
James Scarlett
Blair Urquhart
National Museums of Scotland
The Kilt Makers Association of Scotland
Dr Hugh Cheape
Scottish Tartans World Register
Deirdre Kinloch Anderson
Jamie McGrigor MSP


Footnotes:

1 Scottish Register of Tartans Bill (SP Bill 8), http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/s3/bills/08-TartanBill/index.htm.

2 S3M-1713 Bruce Crawford on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau: Designation of Lead Committee—That the Parliament agrees that the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee be appointed as the lead committee in consideration of the Scottish Register of Tartans Bill at Stage 1.

4 Scottish Parliament, Official Report 7 February 2007. Col31816

6 Scottish Parliament Economy Energy and Tourism Committee, Official Report, 28 May 2008, Col. 892.

7 Policy Memorandum, paragraph 10.

8 Jamie McGrigor MSP. Written submission to the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee.

9 Jamie McGrigor MSP. Written submission to the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee.

10 Quoted in Scottish Parliament Information Centre. (2008) Scottish Register of Tartans Bill. SPICe briefing 02/08. p.9.

11 Kirsty Scott, Scottish Enterprise, Scottish Parliament Economy Energy and Tourism Committee, Official Report, 14 May 2008, Col 782.

12 George MacKenzie, Keeper of the Records of Scotland, Scottish Parliament Economy Energy and Tourism Committee, Official Report, 14 May 2008, Col 763.

13 Policy Memorandum, paragraph 21.

14 Policy Memorandum, paragraph 36.

15 Policy Memorandum, paragraph 36

16 Kilt Makers Association of Scotland. Written submission to the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee.

17 Policy Memorandum, paragraph 38.

18 Jamie McGrigor MSP. Written submission to the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee.

19 Deirdrie A. Kinloch Anderson. Written submission to the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee.

20 Neil Mojee, Scottish Government, Scottish Parliament Economy Energy and Tourism Committee, Official Report, 28 May 2008, Col 904.

21 Mike McElhinney, Scottish Government, Scottish Parliament Economy Energy and Tourism Committee, Official Report, 14 May 2008, Col 757.

22 Scottish Tartans World Register. Written submission to the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee.

23 Blair Urquhart. Written submission to the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee.

24 Mr Robin Blair, former Lord Lyon King of Arms, Scottish Parliament Economy Energy and Tourism Committee, Official Report, 14 May 2008, Col 774.

25 Kirsty Scott, Scottish Parliament Economy Energy and Tourism Committee, Official Report, 14 May 2008, Col 774.

26 Dr Nick Fiddes, Scottish Parliament Economy Energy and Tourism Committee, Official Report, 14 May 2008, Col 783.

27 Scottish Parliament Economy Energy and Tourism Committee, Official Report, 28 May 2008, Col 892.

28 Jamie McGrigor MSP. Written submission to the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee.

29 Kirsty Scott, Scottish Parliament Economy Energy and Tourism Committee, Official Report, 14 May 2008, Cols 787-8.

30 Jamie McGrigor MSP. Written submission to the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee.

31 Jim Mather MSP, Scottish Parliament Economy Energy and Tourism Committee, Official Report, 28 May 2008, Col 894.

32 Mike McElhinney, Scottish Government, Scottish Parliament Economy Energy and Tourism Committee, Official Report, 28 May 2008, Col 906.

33 Mr Robin Blair, former Lord Lyon King of Arms, Scottish Parliament Economy Energy and Tourism Committee, Official Report, 14 May 2008, Col 788.

34 Mr Robin Blair, former Lord Lyon King of Arms, Scottish Parliament Economy Energy and Tourism Committee, Official Report, May 2008, Col781.

35 Brian Wilton, Scottish Parliament Economy Energy and Tourism Committee, Official Report, 14 May 2008, Col 771.

36 Dr Nick Fiddes, Scottish Parliament Economy Energy and Tourism Committee, Official Report, 14 May 2008, Col 786.

37 George MacKenzie, Scottish Parliament Economy Energy and Tourism Committee, Official Report, 28 May 2008, Col 901.

38 Jamie McGrigor MSP, Scottish Parliament Economy Energy and Tourism Committee, Official Report, 28 May 2008, Col 902.

39 Brian Wilton, Scottish Parliament Economy Energy and Tourism Committee, Official Report, 14 May 2008, Col 776.

40 Mike McElhinney, Scottish Parliament Economy Energy and Tourism Committee, Official Report, 14 May 2008, Col 763.

41 Mike McElhinney, Scottish Government, Scottish Parliament Economy Energy and Tourism Committee, Official Report, 14 May 2008, Col 767.

42 George McKenzie, Keeper of the Records of Scotland, Scottish Parliament Economy Energy and Tourism Committee, Official Report, 14 May 2008, Col 767.

43 Mike McElhinney, Scottish Government, Scottish Parliament Economy Energy and Tourism Committee, Official Report, 28 May 2008, Col 900.

44 Policy Memorandum, paragraph 31.

45 George McKenzie, Keeper of the Records of Scotland, Scottish Parliament Economy Energy and Tourism Committee, Official Report, 28 May 2008, Col 905