Hansard

Before I proceed, I have to say that I am disappointed that the previous speaker had to be whipped to speak in this delightful debate—he made such a delightful contribution. Members’ business debates should be free and easy and should not require whipping. I just wanted to raise that with the member, knowing that he is an experienced politician.

I thank my colleague Kenneth Gibson for bringing forward this motion for debate, particularly as it has introduced me—and I suspect other members—to the adopt-a-road concept, which is completely new to me. I am aware of the adopt-a-station programme; indeed, I am the sponsor of a planter at Gorebridge station. That arrangement, which is of some years’ standing, took a substantial effort by local residents and negotiations with Network Rail, including on issues of safety, a matter that I will return to with regard to the adopt-a-road scheme.

I also endorse everything that has been said about littering. It infuriates me—and I have to say that is not always caused by local people. People just drop stuff out of car windows and then drive on. Of course, for some people in society, leaving sofas by the side of the road is almost essential. I do not know why.

I have noted the experience in North America; in particular, I have taken California, Texas and British Columbia as random samples. Their programmes are not identical, but they are similar. In the Californian adopt-a-highway programme, individuals can donate materials, equipment and services, and they can also help prevent pollutants. Seventy-three per cent of the people involved are volunteers and 27 per cent are sponsors.

In Texas—only in Texas—they have the wonderful motto, “Don’t mess with Texas”. Any group can apply to their local co-ordinators, where they are provided with—and here I come back to the safety issue that I mentioned earlier—safety vests, which they call “trash bags”, and safety training. There are also signposts that identify the adopters, so the people involved get a bit of credit for what they are doing.

The rules in British Columbia are different. Participants between the ages of 12 and 16 must be supervised, which just seems common sense, but you also have to give a 10-year commitment, which is a lot to ask of volunteers. As we know, people can be dead keen at the beginning and then they start to drift away like the melting snow.

In principle, I think that the programme is a good idea. I can think of several communities in Midlothian, South Tweeddale and Lauderdale that would express an interest in it; of course, I am not going to name them and land them in it, but I know that they already take good pride in their communities. Such a move might also encourage motorists to attend to the 20mph speed limit through many of those communities, particularly if there are signs identifying community engagement and the need to keep the area tidy.

I want to take the idea to both councils in my constituency—Midlothian Council and the Borders Council—but I also come back to what for me is the key issue: safety. It is why I find the requirements in Texas of particular interest. It is one matter picking up litter in a park, but doing so beside a busy road is another matter entirely. Moreover, such a scheme must neither supplant nor replace the duties that it is incumbent upon the local authority to carry out as a result of the council tax that we pay. It is an add-on.

With that caveat about safety, I will, as I have said, be contacting both my councils. Indeed, I have already thought of slogans like “Don’t mess with Texas”. Please bear with me, as they are only works in progress, but the ones that I would suggest are “Don’t blight Borders” and “Don’t mess up Midlothian”.