Hansard

Having established the case for the school in my opening speech, I intend to address some of the counterarguments, the first of which is common good.

The status and future of common good land has been at the heart of the recent debate around the school on the park. Early in my tenure as an MSP for Lothian, I organised a public meeting specifically on the issue in Portobello town hall. Two hundred and fifty people came—so many that we had to open the upstairs part of the hall and sit people there, where there were not the tables, maps and materials that we were using to try to work our way through the arguments.

I invited Andy Wightman to speak and he came and talked to the community about the history of common good, what it meant and what it was for in an informative, engaging and enlightening way. After that, people at the public meeting sat round tables with giant maps and cut-out versions of the school and tried to work out where else in Portobello the school could go. Where could it possibly go on the map if it was not going to be in the park? The answer was that despite the 17 different options that we had, the park was the only credible option for the new school. The few alternatives that were available would have resulted in a school on a compromise site and would have taken far longer to deliver, at a much higher cost—money that would have been taken away from other schools in the City of Edinburgh Council area. The park clearly is the best site for the school. We took that very clear message from the public meeting of 250 people that night.

Common good by its very nature exists for the benefit of the community and the bill is in the best interests of the community. It is important to note that there will be no change to the status of common good land. The park itself will continue to be common good, but common good for the purposes of education. The neighbouring Portobello golf course, which was recently granted diamond jubilee park status, is protected in perpetuity for the purposes of public recreation.

I thank Fiona McLeod for highlighting the sections of the report that address the question of precedent—paragraphs 68 to 70—which are worth highlighting in detail. They say:

“While the Committee accepts that it will be open to other councils to follow the private bill route if they so choose, each case would have to be considered on its own circumstances and merits.”

Each case like this would require its own bill. Paragraph 69 says:

“The Committee is also of the view that, in narrow legal terms, this Private Bill by definition cannot set a precedent as it only makes specific application of law in these defined circumstances and does not itself change the general area of law.”

That is so clear in the report that it should allay anybody’s concerns.

“The Committee is, therefore, content that any such precedent effect is not closely enough linked to what the Bill actually does for it to constitute a valid reason why the Bill should not proceed to the next Stage.”

As I said, it is so clear.

I thank Alison Johnstone for raising the issue of green space. I recognise that all political parties support the school on the park. However, she was right to highlight the issue of green space. There are 74 hectares of green space in the Portobello area. We will lose 0.4 hectares when we build the school. PFANS put that fact in its briefing paper for today’s debate.

The new school will provide two full-sized pitches for the community, so that the Portobello park area will be able to be used as a community facility in a way that it is not currently.

Anyone who drives out to the A1 or on to the bypass through the site will see that the park is simply not used, except by the occasional dog walker. The idea that this facility is used regularly for sport just does not stack up.

We need to recognise that in many ways this is not just about Portobello high school. All the pupils of St John’s primary school, too, want a new school and our decision today will also impact on their future. What greater common good is there than the education of our children? The arguments for the bill stack up and I am pleased to add my name in support of it.