Hansard

I thank all the members who have taken part in the debate and highlighted the exciting opportunities that the bill presents for the Scottish national gallery. I also thank the cabinet secretary and others for highlighting the importance of the Scottish collection and explaining how the bill gives us the ability to present it to the public in a much more dramatic and pleasing fashion.

In closing the debate, I have to go into a lot of technicalities. As the convener mentioned in her opening speech, at the preliminary stage of a private bill, the committee has to look at whether there is a need for the bill and to satisfy itself on that point. I want to cover that so that it is on the record.

The committee explored three areas when it looked at the necessity for a private bill. We looked at the necessity to revoke the inalienable common good status of this small part of Princes Street gardens. We also looked at the prohibition on building permanent buildings in the gardens, outwith the types of building listed in the schedule to the City of Edinburgh District Council Order Confirmation Act 1991. Finally, we looked at whether amending the 2003 act, the purpose of which was to facilitate the Playfair project, as Claire Baker mentioned, would have been a suitable vehicle to achieve what the promoter was looking for.

We took a lot of evidence on the revoking of inalienable common good status and we carefully examined and questioned the witnesses. The promoter chose the bill over going to court, which is the other way of changing the status of land from inalienable common good to alienable common good. It decided to do that for various reasons. The one that was compelling for us was to allow for a single authorisation process for this project.

That ties in with the second area that I wish to talk about: the 1991 act, which limits what can and cannot be built in Princes Street gardens. At the moment, the schedule to the 1991 act will not allow a museum or gallery extension to be built. The reason that the promoter and the council gave for not amending the 1991 act is that, as Liz Smith said, if they did, it would open the act up to a lot more amendment and could open up the gardens to more development. That is not what the promoter wanted to achieve with the bill.

We asked why the National Galleries of Scotland Act 2003, the purpose of which was to facilitate the Playfair project, could not be amended instead of another bill being introduced. The 2003 act could not deal with changing the status of the land in the gardens from inalienable common good to alienable common good, because disposal of land in the gardens was dealt with through the court process when the act was passed.

In my opening comments I said that we wanted to bring everything together in a single process that was open and transparent to the public. Our committee heard the evidence and is in agreement that the issue needs to be dealt with through a private bill, and therefore the bill should proceed.