Hansard

As a serial member of private bill committees, it is appropriate that I thank the committee members and the convener in particular, the committee clerks and the legal team that provided us with advice. The City of Edinburgh Council (Portobello Park) Bill has been perhaps the most complicated private bill that I have considered so far, not only in a legal sense but because the committee has, in its quasi-judicial role, had to walk a very fine line in responding to the deluge of emails that it has received from the public. We have found it very helpful to have our convener supporting and leading us in our work.

I will focus on three areas with regard to our committee report on the bill: the alternatives to a private bill; the precedent that may be set by such a bill; and—if I have time—the consultation process that was undertaken.

When the City of Edinburgh Council suggested to the Parliament that a private bill was the correct route to go down, it listed the alternatives that it had considered, which the committee convener went through in her opening remarks. I draw members’ attention to paragraphs 74 to 96 of the committee’s report, in which we comprehensively go through the alternatives that the council considered and the reasons that they were rejected, and conclude that a private bill was the correct route to follow. Paragraph 97 on page 18 states:

“The Committee is satisfied that the Council was justified in pursuing the private bill process and none of the other possible alternatives to achieve its objective.”

We took a lot of time and care in coming to that conclusion.

Much has been made of the notion that, if the private bill proceeds and is passed, we will be setting a precedent that other councils throughout Scotland could follow. The convener has already addressed that concern, as did Cameron Buchanan. I refer members, when they are making their decision, to paragraph 68 on page 13 of the report, which shows that to some extent that can already happen. Motherwell, Kirkcaldy, West Dunbartonshire, South Lanarkshire and North Lanarkshire authorities have all used various routes to enable them to take inalienable common good land and use it especially for educational purposes. What the City of Edinburgh Council proposes to do in the Portobello park private bill is not unique, and follows a tradition. The bill will not set a precedent, as it is not the first time that such a route has been followed.

We commented at paragraph 120 of our report—as the minister mentioned in his remarks—that we thought that the City of Edinburgh Council had gone through a fairly comprehensive consultation process, but that some mistakes and areas in which it could have been better had been identified. We noted, however, that some of the problems that had occurred at the beginning of the process had since been rectified.

A lot of the emails that we received highlighted that the City of Edinburgh Council went out and consulted young people and pupils. I do not see that as a negative—it is entirely positive. There is no reason why young people and pupils should not or cannot be consulted on their future. I commend the report to Parliament.