Hansard

I cannot begin by thanking Christine Grahame for bringing forward the bill, but I congratulate her. It takes no little commitment and effort to bring forward a bill to this stage and, whatever the outcome, I am very happy to recognise that she has applied a great deal of both during the best part of two years that have passed since the proposal for the bill was lodged.

I also have some sympathy with Christine Grahame’s vision of extending the existing regional park boundaries as the bill seeks to do, in that there is a certain logic in assuming that a Pentland hills regional park should encompass the whole Pentland hills range. There, I am sorry to say, is where I think that the vision should be left for the foreseeable future—as a vision.

The bill does not seek to create an extended park or to establish the infrastructure to manage it. It seeks, as Christine Grahame has often reminded us, and has done so again today, to draw a line on the map within which an extended park could operate. The committee was surely right to look at what the consequences of that would be. Ms Grahame’s belief is that it would drive the five affected local authorities towards putting in place the necessary management structures and funding them to bring about a successfully extended park. So far so good, but the problem with that—this was made very clear to the committee—is that four out of those five affected local authorities do not want an extended park and that the other would not consider it at all unless sufficient funding were made available by the Scottish Government. In turn, the Government made it equally plain that it was not in its plans to do so.

Indeed, the minister pointed out in giving evidence that regional parks have always been the preserve of local rather than national Government. Traditionally, they have been demanded by local authorities and managed and funded by local authorities. It seems to me that it would be inappropriate for our national Parliament to impose extended boundaries on local authorities when they have shown no desire themselves to extend those boundaries.

If we were to agree to extend the Pentland hills regional park boundary, even if it was just a line on a map, we would have to ask ourselves what the consequences would be. In my view, an extended boundary would mean increased expectation, which would increase pressure on the park, particularly within the extended area; that increased pressure would lead to a demand for increased infrastructure and the funding to back it up, but we already know that that would not be forthcoming.

It is not just the local authorities that seem to be lukewarm, at best, about the proposal; there appears to be little, if any, demand for the proposal from the likely users of an extended park. I am sure that that is largely due to the success of the right of responsible access that was brought in by the Scottish Parliament back in 2003, which gives people access to all the land in Scotland. Indeed, we heard from land managers from the area within the proposed extension, who have already diversified into providing various services for walkers, cyclists and other access takers. They said that they had not experienced any pressure for greater access to the area beyond the existing park, which is another sure sign that the demand for an extension is not there.

The one and only witness who enthusiastically favoured an extended boundary was the chair of Balerno community council. I believe that Balerno is an area that is under increasing pressure from the existing park, but it is not actually included within Christine Grahame’s proposed extension.

We have a proposal before us that, if passed, would impose new park boundaries on five local authorities, four of which are opposed to them and one of which would consider them only if sufficient funding were available, which it will not be. There is little, if any, demand for the proposal from either the public or land managers; no feasibility or environmental impact studies have been carried out on the proposal; and I believe that it would be irresponsible for the Parliament to dictate to local authorities on an issue that has always been their sole preserve, even if it is just to put a line on a map.

I support the committee’s recommendations, and the Scottish Conservatives will not support the bill at decision time this evening.