Hansard

Before I set out the committee’s findings, I thank the committee members and clerks for all their help and support during the committee’s consideration of the bill.

In June 2015, an ad hoc committee was established to consider the Pentland Hills Regional Park Boundary Bill. As the convener of that committee, I am pleased today to share with members the committee’s scrutiny of the bill. I thank Christine Grahame for introducing the bill—particularly following her kind remarks. She prosecuted her case with her usual forensic rigour and passion. Because of her, the subject matter, which is relevant to a lot of people who live or work near the hills or who use them for recreational purposes, has had a very public airing.

The bill is also ground breaking in procedural terms, so let me explain how the bill has pushed the procedural boundaries. I apologise for the pun. Although it is a member’s bill, it has the potential to “adversely” affect

“a particular private interest of an individual ... or bodies of the same category or class.”

That aspect aligns the bill with private bills. Should such a bill have been introduced by the Government, it would have been dealt with under the hybrid bill procedure. We wrote to the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee about that, and it confirmed that it will consider including that procedural point in its legacy report. The bill’s uniqueness and its potential to affect some individuals and bodies differently from others underpinned the committee’s approach to our scrutiny of it, which I will now set out. As has been mentioned, we have very little time today, so I will lay out the main considerations and conclusions in the short time that I have left.

Local authorities already have the legislative power to extend the park’s boundary under the Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967. Local authorities, farmers and objectors told us that they are unaware of any demand to extend the park. Some people thought that a feasibility study should be carried out before potential legislation is introduced, and Scottish Borders Council believed that a study ascertaining the current park’s effectiveness should take place before its resource burden is added to. We concluded that a detailed feasibility study would be appropriate in order to identify demand before potential legislation is introduced.

We also inquired whether designation as a regional park would provide any additional protection. A number of formal designations already apply to the area: for example, sites of special scientific interest and core and promoted paths are currently managed and maintained by local councils. We were, therefore, not convinced that designation as a regional park would provide any greater protection against development, given that regional park status is, by design, light touch.

Section 3 concerned us greatly, because it would automatically extend the boundary of the regional park if local authorities did not agree a boundary within a two-year period. That would override section 2, which would require every owner, occupier and lessee of land to be notified of the extended area and would allow representations. We agree with the minister, who said:

“We should not dispose of the carefully thought through consultation procedures and arrangements that are provided for by the current legislation.”—[Official Report, Pentland Hills Regional Park Boundary Bill Committee, 19 November 2015, c 6.]

We concluded that the bill is a significant shift away from current safeguards.

The funding of an enlarged park was of concern, too. The member in charge of the bill argued that the boundary change would not cost, because it would be just

“a line on the map.”—[Official Report, Pentland Hills Regional Park Boundary Bill Committee, 19 November 2015, c 7.

However, the committee disagrees with that interpretation. With a bill comes the expectation that it will deliver something. For example, people living or working near and using an extended regional park would expect an increased ranger service and car-parking facilities. We concluded that an additional financial burden on top of local authorities’ existing financial pressures would be unwelcome and would impact detrimentally on the current operation of the regional park.

For those reasons, the committee unanimously recommends that Parliament not agree to the general principles of the Pentland Hills Regional Park Boundary Bill.