The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-08974, in the name of John Lamont, on the City of Edinburgh Council (Leith Links and Surplus Fire Fund) Bill. Members who wish to speak in the debate should press their request-to-speak button now. I will allow a few seconds for those who are noisily leaving the chamber to leave a bit more quietly.
14:31
I am pleased to open the final stage debate on the City of Edinburgh Council (Leith Links and Surplus Fire Fund) Bill and to provide Parliament with some background on the bill and the committee’s scrutiny.
There have been no objections or amendments to the bill, which is the fourth private bill to come before Parliament this session. The bill has proved uncontroversial, but it has been unusual in the sense that it is the first private bill to come before Parliament that deals with two different and unconnected purposes. The first purpose of the bill is to amend section 22 of the schedule to the City of Edinburgh District Council Order Confirmation Act 1991, to allow for the erection of a statue of John Rattray on Leith Links in Edinburgh. Section 22 currently prohibits the erection of buildings, including monuments or statues, on the links.
The subject of the statue, John Rattray, was the first captain of the Company of Edinburgh Golfers, which staged the first official golf match at Leith Links in 1744. That came about when Rattray and his fellow golfers asked the city council for a silver club to be awarded annually to the winner of an open golf competition, to replace the previous prizes, which included legs of mutton and firkins of whisky. The council agreed to offer such a prize only if rules were set down and signed by Rattray, as it wanted to change the custom of the rules being made up on the day of a game. The rules written down in 1744 form the basis of the rules of today’s game of golf.
Rattray himself was a very interesting character. He was a surgeon and a member of the Royal Company of Archers, as well being a keen golfer. After winning the Leith open golf competition in 1744 and 1745, he left to join the Jacobite army, and tended to the wounded at the battle of Prestonpans. He accompanied Bonnie Prince Charlie’s army south to Derby and back to face defeat at Culloden, where he was seized. John Rattray was saved from being hanged only when his golfing partner and Scotland’s top judge of the time, Lord Forbes, made a personal plea on his behalf.
The sculptor commissioned to create the statue is David Annand, who has created a number of statues of prominent Scots, including the motor racing world champion from the Borders, Jim Clark; famous accordion player Sir Jimmy Shand; poet Robert Burns; and this Parliament’s very own Winnie Ewing.
As I said in the preliminary stage debate on the bill, the committee is satisfied that the bill will create an exception only for this particular statue and that no further development can take place on the site at Leith Links. The committee was also satisfied that the Leith Rules Golf Society will provide to the council between 10 and 15 per cent of the capital cost of the statue for its on-going maintenance, in keeping with normal practice.
The second objective of the bill is the revitalisation of a fund that was originally set up to assist people caught up in a series of fires in Edinburgh High Street in 1824. The Surplus Fire Fund has grown from the £11,000 originally collected to £1.25 million, which generates approximately £30,000 per annum.
The fund had fallen into a state of dormancy until the Fire Brigades Union contacted the City of Edinburgh Council in 2001, which led to its reactivation. The council’s pensions and trusts committee discussed the future management of the fund during 2011-12, considering how its assets might be better utilised in keeping with the spirit of its current purposes, changes in society, the effectiveness of its present constitution and engagement with key stakeholders.
On 31 January 2013, the City of Edinburgh Council agreed to promote the bill, which proposes three changes to the fund: to transfer the assets, rights and liabilities of the Surplus Fire Fund to the Edinburgh Voluntary Organisations Trust, which is a Scottish registered charity; to amend the purposes for which the fund can be used; and then to dissolve the fund as it is currently constituted.
Ella Simpson, the director of the Edinburgh Voluntary Organisations Council, which is the organisation that will administer the fund under the proposals in the bill, gave evidence to the committee on its wide experience of running restricted funds and grant programmes and the large network of organisations that it works with, which could refer possible beneficiaries of the fund. She reassured the committee that the fund will be managed and awards will be apportioned across the year but that, if it cannot cover particular applications, EVOC will be able to use other funding streams at its disposal to meet the needs of the people who apply.
At present, there are few applications to the fund from private individuals, with most of the awards being made to the burns units at the Royal hospital for sick children in Edinburgh and St John’s hospital in Livingston. The promoter explained to the committee that modernising the purposes of the fund—for example, by removing the serious injury criterion—will make it possible to make awards to those who have minor or psychological injuries.
Based on the evidence that the committee received, we support the bill’s objectives and agree that a private bill is necessary and appropriate.
I thank all those who gave evidence to the committee, my fellow committee members for their robust scrutiny of the bill, and the efficient clerking team for the support that they provided to me as convener and the rest of the committee.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that the City of Edinburgh Council (Leith Links and Surplus Fire Fund) Bill be passed.
14:37
As a member of the City of Edinburgh Council (Leith Links and Surplus Fire Fund) Bill Committee, I am pleased to contribute to the final stage debate today, although, having listened to John Lamont and his full explanation of what the bill is all about, I am not sure that there is a great deal more for me to add.
I am struck that, when in future I speak to school groups about my experience in the Scottish Parliament, I will be able to describe the great contrasts and diversity in my job, which takes me from discussions about the future of Scotland to discussions about a statue on Leith Links, and from being convener of the Referendum (Scotland) Bill Committee to serving on the City of Edinburgh Council (Leith Links and Surplus Fire Fund) Bill Committee. There is quite a contrast in the work that we get to do.
I take this opportunity to thank all those who gave evidence to our committee, either in person or in writing. I do that today because unfortunately I was not in a position to contribute to the preliminary stage debate on 21 January. I also thank John Lamont for doing an excellent job of convening the committee, as well as my fellow committee members and the committee clerks. Of course, if the Sunday papers are anything to go by and John Lamont gets his way, he will no longer be in this place in future and he will not be in a position to convene such important and august committees of the Scottish Parliament.
I return to the bill. As we all know, it proposes a statue on Leith Links in recognition of the golfer John Rattray. During our evidence-taking sessions, I was particularly taken by the evidence that was produced by Pat Denzler, the chair of the society for the John Rattray statue. She gave us a fantastic insight into the history of Leith Links and the good reasons why John Rattray was chosen as the subject for a statue. He is a wonderful choice. As John Lamont said, he was a talented golfer and was instrumental in setting down the rules of golf, but we also learned that he was so much more. Again as John Lamont said, he was Bonnie Prince Charlie’s surgeon during the 1745 Jacobite rebellion, but he was also a fantastic archer who won the prestigious Edinburgh arrow on two occasions, as well as being a clan chief. He was a remarkable man and, as I noted in one of the committee’s evidence sessions, his story would, given the colour of his character, make a fabulous plot for a James Robertson novel.
On a more serious note, I asked at preliminary stage for clarification of why the council had decided to proceed with a private bill rather than following the approach that was taken, for instance, for the National Galleries of Scotland extension on Princes Street. The council representatives explained that there was a restriction in existing private legislation on the construction on Leith Links of buildings, including monuments. Although certain categories of building are permitted, monuments are not, and there was no way to get round that other than by introducing primary legislation that either expressly or implicitly amended that restriction.
I am glad that the community of Leith has been so involved in the process. We heard that more than 4,000 residents were involved in the plans and attended the public information meetings that were held to inform local people. The statue will be a fantastic addition to Leith Links and will enhance the landscape and act as a reminder of the area’s history.
As John Lamont described, the second part of the bill deals with the Surplus Fire Fund, and it is right that we open the fund to many more across the City of Edinburgh Council area. The bill will allow applications from those who have been affected by fire and will change the conditions that must be met to obtain financial support, and it will allow hospitals to get support for extra facilities in their burns units and so on.
All in all, the bill is a good piece of work on the committee’s part. I commend those who introduced the bill, and I will support it at decision time.
14:41
It is slightly surreal to move on to such a debate following the preceding controversies. It is perhaps the perfect antidote, having dealt with the main controversy of the age, which Bruce Crawford introduced this afternoon: the currency in an independent Scotland. No one, as far as I know, opposes the bill that is before us, and people in my constituency welcome it.
I heard from two people on Twitter who objected to the use of public funds for the proposed strategy, but when I explained that no public funds were involved, their mild opposition dissolved. I am sure that the Parliament will unite in supporting the bill at decision time.
Although the bill is uncontroversial, John Rattray—as previous speakers have indicated—was not. I suppose that the early-18th-century political controversy that was the equivalent of the big constitutional debates of today was the question of who would be king of Scotland. John Rattray was a Jacobite as well as a surgeon, an archer and a golfer; it would be difficult to find anybody at any point in Scottish history who combines those four attributes. He is certainly an important part of Leith history, which is why people there are pleased that a statue of him will be erected.
Leith Links is an important focal point for Leith history more generally for various reasons. It can claim to be one of the first places in the world where golf was played, which certainly led to the formation of the rules of golf. The then city council—City of Edinburgh Council happens to be the bill’s promoter now—offered a silver club to the winner of a golf competition on Leith Links on the condition that the rules were written down. As it happened, John Rattray won the competition, but the club was awarded only because the rules were written down, which is why the Leith Rules Golf Society exists today. Bruce Crawford mentioned Pat Denzler, and we should pay tribute to the way in which she has driven the campaign forward.
John Rattray and golf on Leith Links are an important part of Leith history. There is definitely a strong feeling in Leith about its history, as evidenced by the growing support for a museum in Leith. People have been campaigning for a museum for several years, but I have recently noticed that a much wider coalition of Leith residents is involved. I have written to the Cabinet Secretary for Culture and External Affairs, who is in the chamber, on that matter more than once, most recently a few days ago.
People are very interested in Leith history, and that interest is often attached to particular locations—Leith Links, in this case, is attached to golf. I have also been dealing recently with local concerns about The Shore, which is, of course, the historic port of the city of Edinburgh. There was a campaign for the basins of the Water of Leith to achieve scheduled monument status. Unfortunately, the idea was rejected by Historic Scotland but I am now supporting local residents who are pursuing a stronger conservation status for the area.
There is great feeling for the history of Leith and erecting a statue to John Rattray will be a small but significant part of recognising the history of Leith.
I have got 30 seconds left—20 in fact—just to say that, obviously, I support the second part of the bill and the Surplus Fire Fund. Its scope will be extended to attract more applications for grants and awards, and it will benefit a wider range of people. I certainly do not know anyone in Leith, Edinburgh or anywhere else who would object to that.
So I commend the whole bill and thank the committee for the very thorough way in which it heard the evidence and has presented its conclusions today.
14:45
As deputy convener of the bill committee, I am happy to close the debate. I thank those who contributed to scrutiny of the bill by providing oral and written evidence, the committee clerks for their assistance and, of course, my fellow members—John Lamont, Bruce Crawford, and Anne McTaggart—for all their help throughout proceedings on the bill. The committee convener has, helpfully, set out the background to the bill and the committee’s consideration of its broad principles.
Before turning to highlight once again the benefits of the bill, I will touch briefly on a procedural aspect of the committee’s work that has thus far not been covered. As well as considering the bill’s general principles, private bill committees must take a view on whether a bill should proceed as a private bill. To that end, the committee had to satisfy itself that the bill conformed with the definition of a private bill in standing orders, and that the accompanying documents were adequate to allow proper scrutiny of the bill.
On the first point, the committee was satisfied that the bill complied with the standing order definition of a private bill. We were also satisfied that the bill would confer on the promoter powers in excess of the general law.
On the second point, the committee was required to consider each of the accompanying documents—the promoter’s memorandum, the explanatory notes, and the promoter’s statement—and take a view on whether they were fit for purpose. For example, we considered whether the promoter’s statement contained sufficient information on how consent had been gained from organisations that would be affected by the bill. The committee was of the view that, overall, the accompanying documents were adequate to allow for scrutiny of the bill.
I turn to the benefits of the bill. I thank all members for their contributions but, in particular, I thank Malcolm Chisholm for his contribution on the history of John Rattray and Leith Links and the contribution that Leith Links made to the history of golf. Malcolm Chisholm and I had a conversation about that aspect of the bill and I am sure that I will again see Mr Chisholm and his granddaughter enjoying Leith Links, and perhaps they will enjoy a game of golf.
The statue will be an attractive addition to Leith Links, it will promote an awareness of the rich history of golfing on Leith Links, and the community will benefit because the statue will attract visitors who will make use of other facilities and businesses in the area.
The Surplus Fire Fund has been touched on, and the bill will revitalise what had become a dormant fund. The changes to the purposes for which the fund can be applied will improve its use by encouraging more applications from individuals who are affected by fire, because their injuries will no longer have to be deemed to be serious; by allowing claims for damage to domestic premises and household contents from people, many of whom will not be insured—that is a welcome addition to the bill; and by expressly allowing the provision of grants to burns units that care for people who are resident in the City of Edinburgh Council area.
I should mention the transfer of the fund to EVOC, which will enable EVOC to refer to the fund organisations within the large network in which it works that EVOC believes will have a
“cumulative impact on other charitable organisations and ... individuals”.
It will also make use of the wide experience of the trustees within EVOC and ensure that the fund is used to best effect.
Each of the purposes of the bill can only provide benefits to the community and, on behalf of the committee, I am happy to recommend to Parliament that the bill be passed at decision time.