Meeting of the Parliament 26 January 2016
I have listened with interest to the contributions to the debate. The member in charge of the bill, Christine Grahame, described it as enabling legislation that would simply provide a line on the map. However, as we have heard, an extension of the park’s boundary would undoubtedly have significant implications for all the local authorities involved and for farmers and land managers, and it would create expectations about how an extended park would be managed and funded.
The evidence that was gathered by the committee shows that local authorities are not aware of a demand to extend the park. In addition, as I said previously, NFUS and Scottish Land & Estates reiterated yesterday that they do not support the bill, stating that it would create a public expectation that cannot be delivered and that the obvious funding requirements of an extended regional park have been completely overlooked. Indeed, on funding, I note the committee’s view:
“It is clear to us that there are financial pressures on the current management of the existing Regional Park and it therefore seems illogical to extend it thus requiring any available funding to be spread more thinly across an enlarged area.”
Extending the boundary of the Pentland hills regional park to include the complete range of hills might seem logical at first glance but, as I said in my opening remarks, the Scottish Government is not involved in the operation of regional parks and it remains our view that decisions on the Pentland hills regional park should continue to be made at a local level. That is why the Government cannot support the bill and will vote against it at decision time this evening.