Hansard

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am pleased to open today’s debate on the Pentland Hills Regional Park Boundary Bill. It is a short bill, but in my view it deserves something better than a 20-minute debate slot, so I am disappointed in the Parliamentary Bureau for not allowing it more time. We often have debates in the chamber that are far too long and in which members have to think of more things to say and are given extended times when they have little to say. Many people have put a lot of work into the bill; I hope that the Parliamentary Bureau will take account of that.

I thank the members of the Pentland Hills Regional Park Boundary Bill Committee for their considered scrutiny of the bill, all those who gave evidence orally and in writing, and—not least—the Parliament’s non-Government bills unit.

My bill simply provides for extension of the southern boundary of the Pentland hills regional park to include the whole of the Pentlands range. It would do nothing more than that; it is simply about drawing a new line on the map to include 100 per cent of the range instead of 45 per cent, which is the current position. If we were starting from scratch today, we would not call it a regional park if it were to include only 45 per cent of the range.

My bill would not change public access rights, place additional planning restrictions on landowners or farmers or place additional governance conditions on local authorities. The direct financial implications for local authorities would be de minimis. The financial memorandum says that the cost would be some £20,000 overall, across five local authorities, for consulting about the boundary.

The bill would provide a two year lead-in period, which would enable the five local authorities whose areas bound the Pentland hills to consult and agree on the new southern boundary. It would also provide them with an opportunity—no more than that—to look at the future management of the regional park and to investigate future funding options. The key word is “options”. There is nothing mandatory in the bill about financing. Any arrangement on financing the administration of the park would be—as it is now—contractual and therefore consensual.

The bill is simply about drawing a line on the map—nothing more and nothing less. That is what the bill committee was asked to consider, but did it do that? To be frank, the answer is no. The committee has reported on a bill that does not exist—a bill that would oblige local authorities to fund it. I ask members where that is in my bill. The bill that the committee reported on is, in the words of Ernie Wise, not the bill what I wrote, but one that the committee wrote for itself.

There was also criticism of my consultation, but the Government said that I had “consulted widely”. Perhaps I will get a moment to deal with that when I sum up.

It is three decades since the Pentland hills regional park was created. I do not think that we should wait another three decades before we complete the job and extend the park to include the whole range.

In the very, very brief time that I have to speak, I ask members to focus on the line on the map—nothing more and nothing less—and to support the bill at stage 1. The committee’s report does not deal with my bill. It deals with the bill what the committee wrote, not the one what I wrote. I ask members to read my bill and to support it.

I am pleased to move,

That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Pentland Hills Regional Park Boundary Bill.