Hansard

I find myself in the unusual position of being in disagreement with my Government. It is a strange place to be.

I go back to that ubiquitous line on the map. Nothing in the bill—I repeat, nothing—obliges any local authority to provide any funding, with the exception of £20,000 divided across five authorities to consult on the extended boundary. The rest is fiction. The current financing by three local authorities is by agreement and contractual, and is very precarious. Over 30 years, the pressure on the Pentland hills has increased and it will continue to do so. Regional park status delineates a boundary only for administration purposes, protecting those hills, those who work in them day in, day out, and those who use them for recreational purposes.

We are all guilty at times of doing something only when it really needs doing. For example, most of us would not, by choice, defrost a freezer. Usually, we do so only when we find that the door will no longer close no matter what the physical effort. In the same way, there is a danger that discussions concerning the future of the Pentland hills will be deferred until we are forced into action, perhaps when the money from the existing three local authorities completely runs out. I hear what members say about local authorities having power, but they will not do anything. We know that they will not do anything; that is why they all object to it. The issue will be left to wither on the vine and they hope that it will go away. It will not go away, because I can assure David Stewart that if I am re-elected I am coming back with it.

The bill provides the impetus for change and would provide a chance—just a chance—to look at the future management and funding of the park. It is a pity that Murdo Fraser is not in the chamber, because he could tell members about some worthwhile points that he made in a recent BBC article about creating and preserving national parks. Much more humble is the regional park, but I agree with him about the important role of parks in conservation and I think that the bill goes some way towards achieving that, so I look forward to Murdo Fraser pressing his button to agree with me when it comes to decision time.

In conclusion, I want to leave members with the thoughts of Richard Henderson, whom I think the committee called to give evidence thinking that he would sabotage me, but who did completely the opposite. He said, and I paid him no money to say it:

“Can I say first that the bill is par excellence? It is aspirational legislation. As you have said, it says in effect, ‘This is a line. We want somebody to fill it in.’ There is nothing wrong with aspirational legislation. The regional park would not be being talked about at all if it was not for the bill.”—[Official Report, Pentland Hills Regional Park Boundary Bill Committee, 12 November 2015; c 16.]

What a lovely man. I could not have said it better myself.

I ask members to focus on that line on the map, nothing more and nothing less, and to support the bill at stage 1. Remember, it is the bill what I wrote, as Ernie Wise might have said, not the bill that the committee thought I had wrote.