Hansard

I will pick up on a few of the points that were made in this afternoon’s debate, which has been constructive.

Elaine Murray raised the issue whether the bill somehow circumvents the 2012 judgment of the Court of Session. I refer to the important point that the committee made, that it is for the courts to apply and interpret the law and for the Parliament to legislate to change it when it is appropriate to do so. This is one such occasion. The court judgment highlighted what many of the experts have pointed out, including Roy Martin QC, who described in his oral evidence to the committee the anomaly whereby the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 allows the disposal of land with the consent of the courts, but not appropriation for another use. I mentioned that in my opening speech. I do not accept the argument of those who seem to believe that, when the court finds such an anomaly, it is for the Parliament to sit back and blithely accept it. Indeed, as I argued previously, although I do not see many similar cases coming to the fore in the short term, the principle should be addressed for the sake of consistency in the future.

I note the criticism of the process, which is not entirely unfounded. As everybody has said, there were shortcomings in the council’s consultation on the bill. It is extremely regrettable that fundamental mistakes were made with the organisation of the consultation. Indeed, the previous administration of the city council has by no means covered itself in glory over the whole affair. Evidence to the committee demonstrated that as far back as 2006 there were indications that the status of the land and the council’s right to appropriate it would be challenged in the courts. Why it was not done then, we have no idea. Given the inevitability of that court challenge, the fact that the council proceeded with the planning and delivery process solely on the basis of legal advice, regardless of how expert that was, meant that the project was always going to be a hostage to fortune. The land’s status and the council’s rights in that regard should have been established definitively long before the 2012 Court of Session judgment.

There has been some discussion about the effects of this contentious issue on the Portobello community. I understand the concerns of those within the community—and indeed people further afield—about the loss of common good land, or any parkland, in our cities and towns. As Alison Johnstone said, such land is of tremendous value, and we have less and less of it, so it is important. However, I do not think that that is the issue here. The issue is not about common land but about the school. We all agree that it is an excellent school, which is well founded and has great sporting abilities and a great future. However, Portobello needs a new school.

The important thing is the commitment of the City of Edinburgh Council to designate the existing site of the Portobello high school as a new park or similar recreation facility and give it Fields in Trust status. That undertaking is critical and we must hold the council to account over it. Its importance can hardly be overstated, as it means that the overall loss of green space within Portobello will be kept to a minimum.

Many have talked about the reason that we are here today considering Portobello park as a stand-alone case and not delaying for a general review of the legislation in the area of alienable common good land. That reason is the desperate and urgent need for a new school building in Portobello and the fact that we cannot delay the project any longer. Portobello’s high school is a good school: staff and pupils work hard and should be proud of their good reputation in the city. However, we have to question how we can produce confident learners and instil pupils with that all-important sense of belief and persuade them of their worth when at the same time we continue to teach them in a building that is not fit for purpose and is in desperate need of replacing. Quite simply, we cannot dismiss the effect that learning in such an environment has on the school ethos.

It is because the pupils of Portobello deserve a new school now and because there are no good reasons to oppose the bill that I am pleased to confirm my support.