Hansard

I am pleased to support the bill in its totality, although, as the local member for Leith Links, I have a particular interest in the first part of the bill. I believe that the bill has local support, as is evidenced by the local community councils and other groups and individuals that support it. The only concern that I have occasionally heard has been about the bill maybe taking up public funds. However, it clearly involves not public funds but fundraising by the Leith Rules Golf Society.

There is a great sense of history in Leith. We have a rich and varied history, and there is an on-going campaign for a Leith museum, which I shall speak about in Parliament on another occasion. Part of that history is the significance of Leith Links, which is one of the first places where golf was played. I do not want to enter into an argument about where golf was played for the very first time, but it is indisputable that the rules of golf were first written down by those who played golf on Leith Links. Indeed, in the 1740s, the City of Edinburgh Council, the promoter of the bill, offered a silver club to the winner of a golf competition on Leith Links on the condition that the rules be written down. I am pleased that the rules were written down on 7 March 1744, which is my birthday—well, 7 March is.

It is appropriate that a statue of John Rattray will be put up, as he won that trophy on three occasions. He was a very colourful character, being a surgeon, an archer and a Jacobite as well as a distinguished golfer. It is fitting that his statue will be put up on Leith Links as quickly as possible. It is also timely, given that there will be heightened interest in golf in Scotland this year because of the Ryder cup. I hope that that will provide a boost to the fundraising for the statue.

For the reasons that John Lamont has explained, it is clear that a bill is required to change the law. I know that explaining that to people has provided a great deal of amusement and attracted interest, but that is in the nature of some private bills. It was not quite so clear that a bill was required to change the Surplus Fire Fund. In fact, I was rather alarmed to read that the drafting of section 42 of the Charities and Trustee Investment (Scotland) Act 2005 was ambiguous and that its interpretation was difficult. Apparently, the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator thought that legislation was not required, but the City of Edinburgh Council decided that it would play safe and ensure that nobody could challenge the way in which it wanted to broaden the scope of the purposes of the Surplus Fire Fund in order to attract more applications for grants and awards.

I support that objective. The reason why I was disturbed by the comment about section 42 of the 2005 act is that the people who were responsible for that act are Johann Lamont and myself. I was amazed to think that we should be in any way connected with defective legislation.

That apart, I commend the committee for its very detailed and conscientious examination of the bill. I read its report and the Official Report of the evidence session, and I thought that the committee interrogated every nook and cranny of the bill. I am pleased that the next member to speak, Anne McTaggart, was one of those distinguished interrogators.