Meeting of the Parliament 26 January 2016
I thank the Pentland Hills Regional Park Boundary Bill Committee for its consideration of the bill, and I thank everyone who gave oral and written evidence. I also acknowledge Christine Grahame’s commitment to the issue, which has focused minds on the regional park’s aims, success and future challenges, so I thank her for all the work that she has done in getting the bill to this stage.
As I said when I gave evidence to the committee in November, although the Scottish Government recognises the geographical reason for wishing to extend the southern boundary of the Pentland hills regional park, I agree with the committee, which concluded in December that it could not support the general principles of the bill. Yesterday, NFU Scotland and Scottish Land & Estates, which represent farmers and land managers in the Pentland hills, said the same. I, too, cannot support the bill, and I will explain why.
First, the Scottish Government is not involved in the operation of regional parks, which are created, managed and funded by local authorities. Local authorities already have powers to extend parks’ boundaries if they so wish. My view, therefore, is that decisions on the Pentland hills regional park should continue to be made at that local level.
Secondly, the local authorities told the committee that they are not aware of any demand for an enlarged regional park. Indeed, the two councils into whose areas the park would be extended said that the southern Pentlands is a low priority in terms of pressure for outdoor recreation.
South Lanarkshire Council noted that the area is remote from its main centres of population. The Scottish Borders Council opposes the bill and said that an extended park would draw disproportionate resources from elsewhere.
Third, I have concerns about the procedures that are set out in the bill, because they represent a shift away from all the existing safeguards that are set out in the 1967 act and subsequent regulations.
Finally, I note that the lead committee, the NFUS and Scottish Land & Estates all say that the bill and its “line on the map” approach would create expectations and has therefore overlooked the funding requirements of an extended regional park.
For all those reasons, I cannot support the bill.
14:30