 Welcome to the fourth meeting of the Pentland Hills regional park boundary bill of 2015. Everyone present is asked to switch off mobile phones and other electronic equipment as they affect the broadcasting system. Some committee members may consult tablets during the meeting, this is because we provide meeting papers in digital format. Our first agenda item today is to agree to consider our draft report on private as subsequent meetings. Are we all agreed? Our only item of business today therefore is evidence on the Pentland Hills regional park boundary bill and I welcome Dr Eileen McLeod, Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform, who is supported by Helen Jones, Head and Helen Hughes, Policy Officer of Landscaping Involvement with the Natural Environment Branch at Scottish Government. I'd like to start off by asking the minister what the benefits are of the existing Pentland Hills regional park and whether she considers that these would be enhanced by extending the current boundary. I'm happy to do that, convener, but I don't know whether we're... Would you like to have a short on the statement, my apologies? I'm quite happy to put that on the record. Thank you very much, convener, and good morning. I have obviously been following the work of the committee on consideration of this bill very carefully and we welcome this morning's opportunity to sit at the Government's view. Once the Government recognises the geographical reasoning behind wishing to extend the southern boundary of the Pentland Hills regional park, I would like to briefly just explain why the Scottish Government has concerns about supporting the bill at this time. There are two fundamental reasons. First of all, regional parks are a matter for local authorities, not the Scottish Government. Given the practical impact that such a designation could have in terms of local authority priorities, my view is that decisions on regional park boundaries, funding and management should continue to be made at a local level. As minister, you'll obviously appreciate that it would be inappropriate for me to intervene in what is properly a local authority matter. Local authorities already have the powers needed to extend the boundaries of the regional park, if they so wished. However, it has become apparent from evidence to the committee that the five local authorities are not aware of a demand to extend the park and do not support the bill, especially given current budgetary pressures. I am particularly conscious of the fact that the two councils that are most affected are not seeking boundary extension. Indeed, the Scottish Borders Council is strongly opposed to it and I understand from their evidence that the pressure for outdoor recreation in that area is simply not in the southern Pentlands, it is elsewhere. Secondly, convener, I have concerns about the procedures that are set out in the bill. The Scottish Government's memorandum explains that the bill represents a shift away from all the existing safeguards that are set out in the countryside Scotland Act 1967 and subsequent regulations. Those provisions provide framework procedures and process for consultation, which need to be properly considered. Your committee has heard from a range of witnesses that it has concerns about the proposed boundary extension. Because of that and the reasons that I have just set out, the Scottish Government is not able to support the bill at this time and I look forward to answering your questions. Thank you very much, minister, and I am sure that some of the points that you raised will be questions that are asked in more detail about it. Can I go back then to the question that I asked beforehand about whether you consider the Pentland Hills regional park being enhanced by extending the current boundary? The committee has already heard from the Pentland Hills regional park manager about the visitor management services provided in the park over the past 27 years. The benefits include catering for the visiting public through such things as access points, footpaths, rights of way, signage, visitor centres and advice about where to go and how to enjoy the hills responsibly. Another benefit is about aiming to balance the provision services to assist visitors to enjoy the hills responsibly with managing the landscape and the impact on existing land uses. Now, whether those services would be enhanced by extending the boundary would depend very much on the level of buy-in from the local authorities involved. Obviously, three of the councils, West Lothian, Cydolanicshire and Scottish Borders, have already told the committee that the area covered by a boundary extension would be peripheral in terms of their population centres and recreational demand. Further to that, do you consider that the existing governance arrangements are working well? To be honest, convener, this is not really for me to judge. The Scottish Government is not involved in the governance arrangements of regional parks and that is how it should be. The members of the Pentland Hills parks joint committee are in their best place to judge that. I am aware that the park manager told the committee that the park is managed as an integrated area across local authority boundaries and that they make a pretty good job of managing it as a whole. My last question to you at this stage is whether you are aware of any demand to extend existing regional park? No, I am not aware. I think that all the witnesses have also said that they are not aware of any demand either. Okay, thank you. I'll let you have a few questions. Good morning, Minister and officials. The member-in-charge of the bill has quite rightly said that the bill, if passed, would simply draw a line on the map, delineating an area of extension that she believes is desirable. Her reasoning for that is that by drawing that line on the map you would galvanise the then five local authorities that would be involved to work together to make it happen, basically. Regardless of the funding concerns that you've highlighted already, and it's quite clear that all the local authorities, even the ones that were vaguely were not against the principle of extending the park, had real concerns if there was no funding increase from somewhere to make it happen. Do you think that simply extending, putting a new line on a map, if you like, would have that desired effect of pushing local authorities to work closer together, particularly when they appear to be fairly against the extension in the first place? I certainly believe that drawing a line on a map would create expectations about how the park would be managed and funded. As the member has quite rightly pointed out, we've already heard the local authorities, and the national pharmacy for Scotland and the Scottish land and estates are all concerned about this, and the committee has heard about the budgets of the local authorities that they are already stretched and that there is no flexibility within them. They have explained that it would have to divert scarce resources to an area where there is a low priority for them, but in terms of pushing the local authorities to work together, and that's really a matter for them themselves. I think that what you're saying is that, even if this bill were passed, the Scottish Government would have no remit over how it was all taken forward. Given that, this question may be irrelevant, have you any idea or estimate of what additional resources might be required if that was to go ahead? I'm pretty clear that the relevant local authorities are best placed to consider this. We know that, as I say, all five local authorities, and from what I've seen from the evidence that they have submitted, they have made it quite clear that the resources are already pretty stretched. By creating the regional park, were additional resources allocated to that area when it originally became a regional park, would the expectation be that somewhere additional resources would have to be found if it was extended? I think that we have to remember that local authorities take the lead on regional parks, and they were intended as local authority-funded and managed organisations, but I think that, at that point, I might bring in Helen Jones. Is this a reference to when the park was set up in the first place? Convener, that was 27 years ago. I'm afraid my memory doesn't stretch that far back. Would that bring expectations, which would bring funding priorities with it? Well, at that time, of course, there were two tiers of authorities. It was Lothian Regional Council that set the park up, and that's why the boundaries are as they are. At that time, Lothian Regional Council must have made resources available. I can go back and try to check if there are records, but I'm sorry, I can't confirm precisely what their decision was, but it must have been done. No, I appreciate that, and all I was trying to get to was if there are additional resources required because it becomes a regional park, therefore, if there was an extension, the same thing would apply for the extended area. It works, yes. Scottish Borders and South Lanarkshire would have to dip into their pockets. Thank you very much. Mike. Hi, convener. Good morning, minister. We've heard, obviously, from the five local authorities affected that they're concerned about the additional budgetary pressures and so on. And that's the kind of downside of this equation that they're shrinking from the prospect of more challenges on their budgets and a call for greater expenditure. That's the downside of this equation. The upside is potential benefits, perhaps, in terms of health recreational benefits. Do you feel that there are tangible benefits to be derived from extending the boundaries of the regional park as being proposed? Given that the committee has already heard that there is no evidence of demand for an extension, it's quite difficult to make a case for health benefits. I mean, statutory access rights already apply to the southern Petland Hills. People can already take access there and derive health and wellbeing benefits, if there's a situation. In addition, the fact that the extension is quite remote and it's away from the big centres of population, so I think West Lothian Council, they've also described it as the remotest part of West Lothian. Okay, Dave. Good morning, minister and officials. You would have gathered from our previous evidence sessions that consultation for those living in the proposed park area is a factor. And notwithstanding the minister's earlier comments that the Government is not supportive of the bill, what is the minister's view on consultation? Should those in the new area of the park be consulted as set out in the Countryside Scotland Act and the subsequent Mutional Park Scotland regulations 1981? Yes, absolutely. I think that this is very important. I don't think that we should dispose with the carefully thought-through procedures and the consultation arrangements that are provided already by the current legislation. I'm a final question. Again, notwithstanding the minister's earlier view about the Government not being in favour of this bill, assuming that that did go ahead, would the minister consider contacting a feasibility study prior to legislating for an extension? That is probably more a philosophical point in light of the minister's earlier comments. Like the local authorities and the NFUS and the Scottish land and the states, they have said that, before the bill is taken any further, a feasibility study should be carried out to properly assess the demand for boundary changes and the impact of extending the boundary. Now, if the local authorities did want to extend the park, it would be for them to agree on conducting a feasibility study in terms of the Scottish Government providing that funding—well, as I say, no—if local authorities wanted a feasibility study to assess the demand and the impact of extending the boundaries of the regional park, they would have to initiate and fund it themselves. The minister, of course, won't be aware of what happened when Lothian Regent set the original park up, but perhaps Helen Jones, when she was doing her research, could find out whether there was a feasibility study at that stage. That would be quite useful for the committee. We're more than happy to come back to the committee on that point. We heard from some of the objectives that the extension to the regional park would have the potential to increase bureaucracy and to increase the hurdles within the planning system. Do you have any comments to make on that? I think that, so far as planning is concerned, local authorities would be expected to follow the guidance in Scottish planning policy, which states that, in a quote, the proposals that affect regional and country parks must have regard to their statutory purpose of providing recreational access to the countryside close to centres of population. They should take account of their wider objectives as they are out in their management plans and strategies. Any proposal for development would be considered on its merits in the context of the planning system itself. Thank you very much minister. That is our evidence session over with you. I want to thank you for your time and your synced answers. We will suspend the meeting for a short intermission. I would like to welcome the member in charge of the bill, Christine Grahame MSP, who is supported by Diane Barre, the non-government bills unit and Neil Ross, solicitor in the Scottish Parliament. Christine, would you like to make a short statement? Thank you very much, convener. I want to thank first of all all the witnesses and all those who responded to the consultation and those who give evidence. First, I start with what is the purpose of the bill. It is simply to extend the current Pentland Hills Regional Park to include the whole of the Pentland Hills range. Nothing more than that. You see much of the evidence in my view that has been led in respect of this bill is addressing a bill that is not the bill before you which was not drafted. That bill would have contained sections about management, funding for wardens and so on, none of which is relevant to the terms of the purpose of this bill. My bill simply draws, as we keep saying, a line on the map. What is a regional park? The statutory definition is, quotes an extensive area of land, part of which is devoted to the recreational needs of the public countryside Scotland Act 1981, section 48A1. It is quite distinct from a national park and all that goes with that. I would think that you would agree that the Pentland Hills range fits that definition. Why is it necessary to do so? First, there is an obvious argument that if you are defining in legislation something as the Pentland Hills Regional Park, it should encompass the entire range, not 45% of it. That is what my bill sets out to do. Why bother apart from that pedantry? Green space is important, particularly green space, situated next to urban areas. The access rights and responsibilities under the Land Reform Scotland Act 2003 and the Scottish Outdoor Access Code have widened access to countryside and increased recreational opportunities, not always accompanied by proper use by the public. That has led to increased pressure on green space and if we are serious about retaining that for future generations, it needs to be protected and the increasing demand managed. Putting the whole of the Pentland Hills range on a statutory footing can provide that protection. As you know, it has been three decades since the Pentland Hills Regional Park was created. I do not think that we should wait another three decades to understand its importance. So what does it do, the bill? It extends a sudden boundary of the Pentland Hills Regional Park back to that line on the map. What it does not do, it does not change public access rights. It does not place additional planning restrictions on land owners or farmers. It does not place additional government's conditions on local authorities and it does not place any financial obligations on local authorities other than those detailed in the financial memorandum. The bill provides for this to happen in one of two ways, either by Scottish ministers making regulations to alter the southern boundary outlined in the bill or to alter it in line with an alternative proposal agreed by five local authorities. A two-year period is provided to enable the five local authorities to consult and agree on a new southern boundary. That period is also useful to agree how the regional park will be managed to investigate funding options and that is a welcome by-product but it is not a requirement of the bill. As you know, the bill has already acted as a catalyst for taking a fresh look at governance and funding arrangements. This is just the beginning and I very much hope that those discussions continue, although they are tangential. Finally, convener, I welcome the committee's scrutiny of the bill and thank you for the opportunity to provide evidence today and I am very happy to take questions. Thank you very much for that. Christine, you have said what the bill does not do but can you explain for me in practical terms what benefits will come from extending the park? I think that the first thing is that it cures that rights are wrong because the original intention when the park was first set up would include the entire range. That is the first thing that rights are wrong and the benefits are that it gives an opportunity not just to local authorities but to other interested bodies to set up a new management scheme. Only an opportunity, that is all. There is no obligation but it gives them that opportunity and it also, of course, the benefits to the public are, as we see, the green space around our cities and villages and communities shrinking with house building and developments, more and more pressure. I am asking you to look 30 years ahead, not just next week but next year. The pressures will build up over that time on these. It will open up an opportunity to offer protection to the hills. I know that they already have some kind of opportunity. There have been areas of special scenic value but all the councils have said that. Five councils are adjacent to the proposed extended park but that does not offer any kind of real protection to them. That would give the opportunity to offer more real protection. You have told us that it is just a line in the map. It is just a line in the map. I keep saying that it offers the opportunity. That is all I am saying. It offers the opportunity. For example, the current management of the hills in the north is under pressure. We know that. My concern, and I think that it is a concern that is shared by many, is that the support that is given to that part will diminish, perhaps, to diminish over time. By giving a two-year period, though I am happy to consider a longer period, but not three decades, I am giving a two-year period after royal assent, as I propose, for the bill to come into force. It gives not just local authorities but other interested parties an opportunity to look at the management that they have, to look at levering other funding in. It is not the purpose, but it is certainly a welcome consequence, if that happened. Your responses to me suggest that, as has been mentioned by others, there will be a rise in expectation if the park is extended to the area that is now going to be in the park. Do you agree with that? In any event, I do not support the view that suddenly, when the bill comes into force, there will be mass exodus from cities to use the recreational assets of the Pentland hills. It is already happening. It is already extending to quad bikes, horse riding and so on, on all parts of the hill. I do not think that the public is necessarily aware when they move, I am sure that they are not, from one part of the park, which is designated a regional part to another. I do not foresee that. There may be a little but nothing like the fear factor that has been put that suddenly people will depart from Edinburgh and Glasgow and wherever and pile themselves into Pentland hills, not at all. Thank you. Good morning, Christine. Good morning to your officials. Can I ask a slightly more general question based on something that the minister said before I move on to the area that I want to ask about specifically? When the minister gave his evidence, she made it quite clear that previous regional parks and regional parks still are the sole preserve of local authority. In the past, when they have been set up, the demand has come from the local authority, the structure has been agreed by the local authority, the funding has come from the local authority. Why should we as a Parliament suddenly decide that we should dictate the boundaries of a national park? We are not actually dictating the boundaries if we pass the bill. No, you are not actually. Forgive me, committee member, that the fact that there is a default position that after a period of two years, if the five local authorities have not come forward with other proposals for it, then those would be the boundaries. However, the local authorities, while not under an obligation to do this, have an opportunity within that two years collectively to come to view where those boundaries are. However, they have to be within the area that I have with the roads, and they must contain three of the major hills, but we are not dictating. I certainly would hope that local authorities—it is not mandatory—would come to an agreement about where those boundaries should be. Unfortunately, my concern is that, unless I have a fallback position in this bill, they will not do it. Besides, it is primary legislation. There is a duty on the member to have surety in legislation proposed. The surety that I have is that there is the position that if the local authorities do nothing, there is an alternative that if they do something, they can determine specific boundaries within the roads that I have designated. I am not in any way commanding local authorities. In fact, I am hoping that they will be co-operative. I thank you for your answer, but while you rightly say that this is about drawing a line on a map, it seems to me that it is a thin line when it comes to whom we are passing the responsibility. I hope that the member in charge would agree that, while this is about drawing a line on a map, the committee would have been remiss not to have looked into the potential consequences of that in our scrutiny and the questions that we have been asking. One of which concerns the section 8 of the Countryside Scotland Act 1981, which, as I am sure the member is aware, inserts section 48A into the Countryside Scotland Act 1967. What that states, and she would hear me asking about this last week, where a planning application is made in relation to lands which fall within an area designated as a regional park, the planning authority shall have regard to the fact that the area has been so designated in considering the application. I fully accept that the responses that we got when witnesses last week were questioned about that were not exactly black and white on the impact. I wonder what her view is on what that actually means when it comes to a planning application from within a regional park. The words that we must focus on shall have regard to, and if we look at the precedent of how they deal with areas of great landscape value, which they have regard to, is that each local authority has interpreted that differently. That is a non-statutory designation in areas of great landscape value, with regard to planning applications, as you quite rightly say, when challenge witnesses could not give any examples where there was any distinction between planning restrictions by various local authorities on the Pentland Hills throughout, and yourself will know from your background on farms, for example, they are quite tough about farmers wanting to build a bungalow on it for retirement. That is through all of that, and that will not impact on it. It may give some protection to, let us say, wind farm development. It may, but it is a may. It is not a must. I cannot really accept that, absolutely. We have asked for some clarification from one witness who said that they were aware that it had some impact, but I think that I would take it from the fact that that is written in to the legislation that has regard to the fact that it is not going to make it any easier to get planning commission, even if it does not make it harder. Wrth in the evidence, Scottish Borders Council argued that the extended area of the park is already protected by numerous designations, including special areas of conservation, sites of specific scientific interest, additional environment. What do you think that those mean in practice? I think that I have just expanded to some extent on that. I think that the concern is that people think that when somebody is designating an area of great landscape value that Scottish Borders Council on with the other four councils do, it actually does not mean an awful lot at the end of the day, as each council can do. It does not give protection to those areas. It is not guaranteed protection against development. Neither would I add particularly is a regional park, but I think that making something in a regional park will not only have councils to have regard to it, but perhaps the public will be aware that there are assets on their doorstep, and they will have regard. There is no better, as I say, critique of planning consent than the public at large. It is not like a national park, which has huge planning restrictions. I hope that over the years, we will watch what we are doing with the Pentland Nills. We had a witness from Bollern who explained at that end how the pressures are impinging there to build at that end. While it does not make it mandatory, I hope that the bit that it will have regard to will come to have some purpose over the decades. I keep repeating over the decades, because my concern throughout the matter with the bill is that we have sat here for 30 years. Many people are not aware that there was a part of a regional park in the Pentland, and we are also taking it to granted for a bit. I do not think that we can continue to do that. You say that those designations do not really protect, but they make people aware that they are there to some extent, and therefore they might make a place more attractive to be about. Would that not then raise the expectation if the same thing applies to the regional park? We go back to that expectation all the time, that you would get more visitors there than there would have to be more facilities to look after. I think that I have dealt with that. I really do not see an explosion of people. Remember that this has deferred for two years, so it is not enforced for two years. It has been interesting to see if the bill were to get through stage 3, and the Parliament agreed to defer it for two years, because the public often thinks that, when a bill is passed in Parliament, it is enforced. It would be interesting to see what would happen in those two years. I suspect that there might be a sort of interest at the beginning, and then it might just peter away. I hope that more people are visiting it more responsibly, but I do not think that we are going to have an exodus of people from the cities to the Pentland hills. I think that you have heard me say before that, inevitably, if the bill did pass at stage 3, there would be a headline in the papers in the Pentlands regional park extension agreed and a large area showing exactly where that extension had agreed. You said yourself, and I think that you are absolutely right that there would be an initial explosion, might be too strong a word, of an initial increase of interest from members of the public as to what this was about. They are going to go out there and they are going to find absolutely nothing has changed from what it was the day before. We come back to this business of expectation, and the fact that expectation leads to increased interest leads to pressure. Pressure needs to lead for resource, and it is quite clear that there is none. I really think that that is a flaw that would, even if the thing carried through in the way you would hope it would, and eventually the local authorities agreed to come together and fund the extension, it would inevitably have been damaged in the meantime. I just wonder what your thoughts on that are. I think that we must already look that we passed legislation that gave the public, if we put it in common parlance, the right to roam. There are obligations and duties already on the public. The existing legislation will still prevail. The public does not have a right to roam. There is a right of responsible access. I was coming to that. I said in common parlance that it is known as the right to roam. It is not my language, but that is how the public think about it. The point that I am making is that there are duties upon the public. As I said to the farmers before you last week, I am on their side. My position is that the last thing that I support on this planet is people recklessly using the countryside and thinking, I am entitled to run, I am entitled to walk here, didn't you talk to me like that? That is absolutely opposed to that. I have seen too much of that. Obviously, when I was going into this bill, I went about the pentland hills and saw the issues that were arising, particularly where access was quite easy in car parking. Those restrictions quite rightly will remain. I would want them to remain. Perhaps I can flip the coin to the other side and say, by saying, if this were to pass, the pentland hills regional park is now extended to the entire range. We then open up the whole debate about how we use the countryside that is on our doorstep and particular on our doorstep responsibly. It is about time. I take your argument that you think that suddenly people might be, but I think it is an opportunity to say that might be the case—the fact is that it is not for two years—but, while we are at it, you do not just take your dog and let it run about. You do not just do this, you do not do that. Those are working hills and the main custodians of the hills are the farmers that work them. I know that. It gives you that opportunity. All of which comes as part of the countryside access code. I think that there is a strong case to be said that the right of responsible access came about as a result of public demand. Where is the public demand for the increase in the pentland regional park? I tweak the word demand into support. There is huge support and all the responses to my bill. Sorry, I was asking about demand. Well, 51 per cent were in favour of my bill, who responded to the consultation. Apart from the statistics of 51 per cent, it is enough. 51 per cent were in favour. I think that there is a great deal of support for this happening. The word demand—how often do we have things about demand from the public? You get support from the public about proposals that are put forward. I did not pick this out of the blue. I did just suddenly say, what can I do a bill about? People came to me and said, Christine, I would like you to look at the issue of the pentland regional park that does not cover 100 per cent about what is happening on it and so on. It has not been touched for 30 years. That is how it is. If you like, I can get demand at knocking at my door to have a look at this, and then having put out the proposals and having met people in advance of the legislation being drafted, I met with friends of the pentlands who do not all agree. Many of them do. I have met with ramblers, organisations and, of course, as I say, 51 per cent responded in favour of the bill. I prefer the word support rather than demand. People do not usually demand legislation, but they support it. I still think that there is a significant difference between demand and support, but we will maybe leave that to one side just now. In terms of environmental and landscape benefit, what are your thoughts on how your proposals would bring benefit in those two areas? Of course. What will be at the end of the day if I may repeat that line on the map is drawn will be what was there the day before. Nothing will have changed. There will be no more additional developments. There will be no more change to the hills. Nothing will have changed. What I am probably going to repeat myself again is what I hope will happen, but it is not part of the bill, is that over the period of two, perhaps three years, depending on what I am happy to tweak, that not just local authorities but other organisations look at how these assets are properly maintained. The thing that is important here is that the farmers will be part of that, which they are not at the moment, so far as maintaining their own paths and fences. However, in the northern part, the farmers are part of the consultative forum and the landowners are part of it. The walkers and the ramblers, all the people who treasure and use it, are part of this. While it is not in the bill, over the period of years, when they can look at this, they are in a team together, and they have the same views about what they want to happen to the hills. They are not in conflict with each other and what is to the benefit of the farmers and the landowners is to the benefit of the responsible users of the hills. That would come. It is not part of it, but in that period of time. If we do not do that, nothing will have changed about what a responsible right to access the countryside is, nothing will have changed in that sense. It is neutral or better than neutral, it is highly positive and it takes things forward in respecting and especially the green space on our doorstep. Belernau community council, objected to the bill on the basis that the proposed extended part does not include areas to the fuels to the south-east and west of the Belernau village boundary, can I ask him what way that area is distinct from those areas that are included in the revised part boundary in the bill? First of all, I congratulate Richard Henderson on his evidence because he turned out to be very positive about my proposal, notwithstanding the fact that Belernau was not forming part. I think that there are huge sympathies for Belernau and the huge pressures there, but if you look at it coldly, Belernau does not naturally form part of the Pentland hills. While the green belt is coming under pressure, that is not part of what I was looking at. I was looking at what one would see as the Pentland hills range, because that is largely an urban settlement. It was also rejected by the majority of respondents on that basis. I think that there are problems for Belernau, but I think that it is a matter for the City of Edinburgh council in terms of their planning policy on green belt, but it really did not fit in common parlans fit into the range of the hills. I hope that Belernau accepts that, because I do have sympathy towards the difficulties that they have. Thank you for that answer. A number of witnesses expressed concerns about safety. The one witness had concerns that increased number of visitors would be perhaps subject to safety concerns like getting lost in the fog due to the nature of the topography in that part of the part that is currently excluded from it and which the bill proposes to encompass. One of the farmers expressed concerns in terms of the differing nature of farming in that southern part of the park. There are more cattle, as I understand it, in fields there and so on, and that gave rise to a safety concern on his part. Do you feel that, given those concerns that have been expressed, that some kind of safety assessment should be made of the proposals? If so, whose responsibility would it be to carry out that safety assessment? I have to say to Mr Mackenzie that, as I said to Alex Ferguson, I see this if the bill were to go through as a refreshing course for the public in knowing how, yes, they think—I say this again inverted comments—that they think that they have a right to roam, but in fact what they have is a right of access of responsibility and to know how to not only impinge on the farmers' livelihood in the way that they may distress animals by the way they are behaving or be reckless or ignorant of what they are doing, but also to realise that you cannot go into a field of cows just willy nilly, they can rally around you and go for you and have been there once upon a time. My ignorant days, my teenage days, they have to know what they are dealing with. Now, if you are in a town, you know how to look left and right before crossing the road and you have safety rules about that. In the same way, when you are using the hills responsibly, you know which paths you should be on. I know that some farmers already indicate the paths that people will take and show them how to do it. They should know that you do not go and cross into fields of a certain kind, so that is the issue. It will raise all those things. I really do not subscribe to the idea that additional safety issues will occur on the hills. You have some personal responsibility for what you are doing in life. Do not go out with thick fog walking on the hills. If you get a weather warning, there is going to be a thick fog. Do not set out if you do not know what you are doing. I think that the issue is there, but the other issue about safety where animals or equipment or whatever is involved is a matter of back to looking at the act, which gives people the right to access the countryside responsibly. I see that as a positive thing on the bill. I have to say that nobody paid any attention to the pentall hills regional parts since I raised this. Now people are beginning to pay attention and say, so we have a regional part and it is kicked off a whole discussion of how we use those hills and use them responsibly. I see that as a positive, not a negative, but I am an optimist in life Mr McKenzie. I welcome the discussion that is surrounding the bill. I think that that is a positive thing. That is a good thing that we give those issues an airing and that this has provided a forum for it. The point that the witnesses were making is that by drawing attention to the part that is currently excluded and saying this is now within the boundary of the park that that would give rise to greater numbers of people visiting that part of the park and that that in turn would give rise to greater safety concerns and potential incidents. I think that it is difficult to argue against that and given the fact that the public can on occasion be quite silly. There was a report last week during this, I do not know if it was a hurricane or a typhoon but this storm Abigail that a man apparently went to the top of Ben Nevis and you can understand therefore where safety concerns arise if we are actively encouraging people into the countryside and I assume that it is at least part of the intent to encourage. But Ben Nevis in a hurricane you get what you deserve if you are blown off. I mean there are certain things I can protect the daff folk from. I want to make a point about safety on regard to the current park. I do not know of any particular issues that have arisen of I mean there have been tragic cases of particularly young men swimming in reservoirs which are freezing cold despite fences saying do not swim in here. There have been incidents of that. That is the only thing in my personal recollection that I can say that has been a safety issue in that respect. I do know that there are issues, very different issues, about sheep being worried by people letting their dogs off the leash. That is a concern because that is happening in places where the farmer cannot monitor it. That is happening across the Penton hills where they are in the regional part, you are not in the regional part. So there are more safety issues to livestock frankly than there are to individuals. They are not the mountains, they are hills. As I say, if you are going out in a mist and you are not experienced, you are daft and nobody can legislate for daftness. I give the opportunity to Christine Grahame to put on the record the underlying aspirations and benefits of the bill. Oh sorry, I thought that was you. I thought that was you making a statement in favour of it. Well, the benefits, what can I say, and I know you have been here, Mr Stewart, with your own bills. You appreciate it, you get, it becomes your baby. The benefits to all aspects in my view are substantial, potentially substantial. Let's take the benefits to those who object, for I fully understand. In due course, if the bill gets, as I say, past stage three and we have a deferral period for it, it gives the opportunity for all the parties who cherish those hills to get their heads together and look at a way of ensuring that all their proper needs are met and respected, whether it's the farmer, whether it's the hill walker, whether it's a casual visitor, whether it's the school party. That's one of the benefits. The other benefit is, another benefit is, I think that we've not used them enough and I know that I've talked about pressure, but we've not used them for, for instance, health purposes. You know, instead of the doctor prescribing pills, perhaps we could prescribe a wee walk in the hills. We've not used them for educational purposes, sufficiently. There are so many advantages in their properly exercised, and I stress properly exercised to Mr Ferguson, where children can be aware of the wildlife on their doorstep when they can be made aware of simply where their meat comes from, of what farming really means, of the issues prevailing. I went recently up, I have to say, happily on a great big four-wheel drive thing on a farmer's land, away up in the middle of nowhere. Apart from the fact that it was wonderful, I realised the difficulty for the farmer, for instance, in preventing rustling, which is actually very common in Scotland, but often the sheep farmer doesn't know till he brings them down from the hill how many have been taken, and this is professional work. There's actually a benefit that if people are walking these hills and see something amiss, they can tell the farmer, because season can't be everywhere at once, so I can see benefits of a huge kind. If you ask me about the disbenefits on the negative, I honestly am at a loss to find them. I think that this is an opportunity, not a problem. I'm delighted that we've had the negatives put in because it makes me have to rise to answer them, which I'm hoping I try to do to you. I cannot see disbenefits. I can see benefits to generations to come. I'm to say to you, Mr Stewart, in my short lifetime, I have seen green space melting away around wherever I have lived. Now, if that happens in my span, what's going to happen in the next 30, 40 years to come to the green space around it? Now, maybe you're in Galloway or in the borders or in the Highlands, and it's not so obvious, but it's very obvious when you have a huge conurbation like Edinburgh and extensions down places like Penicook that are expanding that embrace the Pentland Hills. It really is to ensure that we don't just let a creeping urbanisation happen, that's part of it. Also, if we do find that we need more people to access these hills, it's done in a responsible fashion, and hopefully we will have in place proper warden services and so on. That's not part of the bill, but that's part of my, if you like, vision. If I may use that awful word, vision for what would happen. That's awful. My final question is about local authorities, and Christine Grahame has obviously sat through our evidence and followed it closely. Now, the five local authorities concerning the Scottish Borders, South Lancer, Council, Midlothian, City of Edinburgh and Westlothian were asked specifically by the convener whether they would support the proposals in the bill without additional funding, and they were all clear, convener, to say, no, how would you respond to that as a member in charge, because rightly or wrongly funding is crucial to this, so how would the member in charge respond to that evidence? I can say absolutely, and when I saw how the current funding of the current part of the 45 per cent of the regional part was, I was shocked to see how it diminished over the years, and they're leaning very heavily into City of Edinburgh Council to provide a quarter of a million, that will not continue, but to get back to the bill, I didn't put in my bill management, I didn't put in my bill funding, well aware that these were issues beyond my scope and beyond anything that this could establish, and things that, if they're soluble, they're not soluble by this, by imposing anything on anybody. What I'm doing is giving an opening by that line on the map for a breathing space for people to consider other issues. For example, my bill would only cost, and I'm looking at it, some 7,000. That's all. The other things, like the 20,000 that's mentioned and parking, these are all not costs of the bill, the 20,000 would be the proposed or prospective cost to local authorities should they wish to do a different boundary, the costs of parking they're not part of the bill, they're put in in some kind of fairness to say these things might occur, but they're not part of the bill. My concern, so that's a straight question to what are the costs, that's the costs of this bill to local authorities in Ternbyn. There's no cost, of course, to the Government. The other material, I absolutely understand why you went to all the funding costs and local authorities are saying this, because they think, oh, this is just the beginning, we'll have all these demands put on us, no, no. Everything has to be consensual. The current costing arrangements between the existing three local authorities are by minute of agreement, that's a contract, that's tripartite, consent, if you like, so there's no way anything can be imposed on them by this bill and I wouldn't want it to be like that. You recall, I think, I raised some questions about funding with the local authorities and if I summarise that, that convener, basically they were saying their existing budgets are squeezed, and I then asked, could you name or identify some other funding that you could bring to the table? On memory, I don't think that any of the five local authorities could actually provide me with any viable, sustainable, longer-term funding. I mean, I know that you can't answer Christine Grahame for the views of local authorities, but would you accept that it is difficult to identify non-standard or additional funding sources if the part was to be extended? I had this set, yes, I've got it here, I've got it, thank you. I don't expect them, I mean, I've actually said them in informal meetings, if you've got people in your ward who are needing repairs to their houses or potholes, they're not going to want to put money into a regional part, they want that stuff done. I am very pragmatic as a politician, very realistic. I'm not actually saying to local authorities, dig into your coffers, which will probably be even smaller as time goes on. That's part of the reason I looked at this. The main reason was to take in 100 per cent, but part of the reason was all to say, in times of recession, where can money come from that's not just directly from taxation? Already what's happened with regard to the northern part of the park is approaches have gone, because I don't see the five local authorities, if they set something up, it's up to them, if they do a management thing, it doesn't have to be them, it must be a whole range of people. If we look at it, we've got the Cairngorm Mountain footpath appeal, we've already had Cairngorm Outdoor access trust, that's the current park is now levered in funding from another trust. So what they were looking at, and I've just sat through their meetings, it's not really something for me to tell them what to do. As far as I know, they don't want to form another trust, they're not thinking about a trust to take over everything, that's quite cumbersome, but what they were considering, and that's just the existing ones, was three local authorities would, at partnership with other trusts, lever in funding, mainly for capital projects, but some developing revenue to add to the local government funding. So, you know, there are solutions out there, Mr Stewart, and they're not always to be found in just making local authorities scrape the barrel for more money, there are solutions. We use them for instance in other sectors, we use them for instance in high-chair justice, we use them in justice in the third sector, while it provides huge funds to support the justice portfolio. So in the same way, I think there's an opportunity here for other funding to be levered in, and that's part of the reason why I give the two possibly three-year extension period, so that a greater minds than mine can come up with solutions to lever in funding, both capital and provide revenue to maintain the part should it be extended. I think they're going to be doing it in the north anyway, because they can see the way the wind is blowing, but there's no harm in looking at it in the south as well. In fact, it would be excellent because people don't know when they're moving from the existing regional part into something that isn't, they don't know that, some may, but most people won't, but the facilities that are available under challenge in the northern part, the warden service and everything, are not available in the southern part. What I'm looking at is, let's look at it all together, and let's look at how we fund it. It is a funding issue, but not quite the same one. My question results from what one or two witnesses have brought to our attention, not least of which was Mr Henderson, who I think you quite rightly said, made a very credible witness last week, and one of the things he said, and I wrote it down at the time, when it was on the subject of a feasibility study into this whole issue, he said, I noted, if it hasn't happened, if it hasn't happened already, it should have happened. Now, that does require funding, it requires quite a lot of resource to do a proper feasibility study, and I just wonder what your thoughts on that are. What's happened is SNH has said that they would assist towards a feasibility study, and that is the very thing that could take place in the period of the two to three years between if the bill is passed in Parliament. I agree with you entirely. My question, though, is relating to Mr Henderson's point of view. If it hasn't happened, it should have done. Yes. In other words, a view that has come from others as well, that a feasibility into all of this should take precedence before any alterations are made. Well, my view is that it won't happen if this bill doesn't go through, because people will just sit back. There are other priorities on the desk. This will be a little stushy that's happened. My view is that the Pentland Hills Northern Parts funds will diminish, and nothing will happen about a feasibility study. I think we've both been here long enough to see feasibility studies a bit of long grass. I don't know how many feasibility studies I've seen in my time in here, but they've lasted a very, very long time, and some of them have delivered nothing. Part of it is that that's why there's space. Get on with a feasibility study. I say about Richard Henderson—he was quite right when he said that this should have happened, and I also got the impression from him that he was very supportive, because this might—I'm not wanting to really quote him on this—but this would push it forward. He saw this as aspirational legislation that would make the agenda move forward. Otherwise, 30 years' time would still be sitting back where we are now. It would be fair. I think that he was very keen that the only part of the regional part that he thinks should be extended into it is the area surrounding Ballerno, which is the one part that isn't. You've already explained the reasoning behind that, so I'm quite happy to move on. Thank you, Mike. You've already touched on the matter of the existing funding problems, and given the evidence that the committee has heard and that I'm sure you're aware of, the concerns expressed by the five local authorities, do you consider that it's likely at all that there would be a proposal from those local authorities to extend the park under section 1 of the bill? No. I understand why. I understand their position entirely. I don't think that the Government would do anything. I don't think that the local authorities would do anything, and they're the only parties that could move it forward other than myself, or I wouldn't be doing it. I fully understand why, on their entry, there are far busier things than doing this, but this is enabling legislation. That's all it is, and it's enabling that line on the map to be drawn. That focus is that particular thing. Years can go past, but then we have buffers to hit two or three years down the line, where the local authorities must have taken a view on whether or not they want that to be the boundary, and also it gives all the other organisations, not just local authorities, not in the burden just to follow them, to look at other better ways of managing the park, the whole park, in providing proper facilities to assist all the users and the people who work the land. That's what that's about, but no, they won't do anything. If this falls, I can assure you nothing will happen with the local authorities. They'll just say thank goodness, and I think they'll be very wrong, because in doing that, they'll have missed an opportunity to find other ways, and they'll still have levies. The existing ones will still have levies on them to put money into the northern part, which they can, and certainly the city of Edinburgh, can ill-afford. Thank you. Thank you very much. That's the end of the evidence session. I'd like to thank the witnesses for their time and their replies. The next meeting. Can I possibly just say a final thing with your leave, convener? It's a very brief thing. I'm not sure I believe that, Christine. It will indeed be brief. You see, it occurs to me that if the current defined regional park loses all its funding, it still remains a regional park, which really makes the case that the funding issue is a separate, very important but separate issue from the designation. I have to say that I don't basically understand how we can call the Pentland Hills regional park that, where it isn't the entire Pentland Hills range. That's thank you very much. Thank you very much. That was short indeed. Thank you. The next meeting of the committee will be on Thursday 10 December 2015, when we will consider a draft report on the Bill. Can I ask the other committee members to stay behind for five minutes after? I'll now close the meeting. Thank you.