 Rhaiddoch chi, Ann. Welcome to the fourth meeting of the Powell and Shaffery Adventsions Commission's Scotland Bill Committee in 2018. The first item on our agenda today is to consider the merits of the three objections to the bill. Evidence on the objections was taken at our meeting on 13 December 2017. Following that meeting we received the responses we sought from the promoters and Scottish Water. Earlier this year, the committee agreed to defer further consideration of the objections until the issue regarding the accuracy of the Jóaidio chi'n deall iawn a chawddiaeth o hanfod a tydd a chrin ar y cynghraifft nesafegau agorau a'i meddwl o'r comlwysau, rwy'n meddwl i'n gobylch i'r objeent. Nid ddifeniadau bod hynny nid yn beth, rwy'n meddwl i'n meddwl i'r objeent. Lleidio chi'n meddwl i'n meddwl i'n meddwl i'r objeent, y gallun ffordd i'r meddwl i'r meddwl i'r objeent. Rwy'n meddwl i'n meddwl i'n meddwl i'r objeent, a allu i'n meddwl i'r objeent. itwch yn ddigon i dd бойon ni'n cael ei ddal hwn na hefyd o'r Gareth Bruce. Mae'r newid i chi'w gwneud cael ei pariwyr i leidio ar amddol y paw i'r newid i'r cyfleu i'r gwneud, maen nhw yn ddigon i'r paw i'i llei, ac mae gennym eich ddweud y mewn ei ddweud yn cael eu credu i'u gwneud mwy o'r gwneud i'u paw i'r gwneud i'u cyfleu i'r gwneud i'u paw i'n cyfleu i'r gwneud i'u paw i'n cwm diem i'u paw i'r gwneud is liable for costings. The bill contains suitable safeguards in terms of the definition of land categories, which was another area that concerned Mr Bruce, and I would be minded to reject his objection. I agree with Mary Fee that I would be very minded to reject Mr Bruce's objection on points raised by Mary at this stage. On various other issues, I do not think that he fully appreciates that when you look at his objection in referring to a survey using fictitious values and commissioners in relation to giving and compensation, I do not think that he is appreciating that they do not really have that sort of money. It is the heritors who are paying into this commission and it is not really the commissioners money as such. I feel that the overriding part is that, definitely, his property does benefit from the power and, as such, he should be included in Pee. I say that it is the view of the committee that none of the objections from Mr Bruce should be upheld and that the committee disagrees with Mr Bruce and that his property does benefit from the power. Yes, I agree. In that case, I can confirm that the committee rejects the objection from Mr Bruce in full. The second objection is in the joint names of Mr and Mrs Beesroom. I would like to invite members to make any comments that they have on that particular objection. In a similar vein to the previous objection, the objection in the name of Mr and Mrs Beesroom again says that their property does not have any benefit from the power and they are not liable to any costs. Again, because of the investigations that the committee has done and the responses that we have received from the promoters of the Bill and the commissioners, I am content that their property does benefit from the power and they are liable to pay a charge towards it. The fact that they have not paid before is unfortunate but the land plans have been redrawn and it is quite clear that everyone that benefits should pay. I am minded to reject their objection. Alison Harris. I agree with Mary Fee that the points that she raised are absolutely correct and I am also minded to reject this objection. I think that it is clear that the committee does not wish to uphold the objections in the name of Mr and Mrs Beesroom. Therefore, the committee's decision is that the objection is rejected in full. Finally, the third objection is in the name of Tom Davis. Again, I would like to invite members to make any comment. I think that Tom Davis is in a slightly different position. When we took evidence from Tom Davis himself, he had to admit that the inclusion that was in his title deed is that he is entitled to pay and should be paying. Therefore, I think that it is only correct that it is in your title deed that we should uphold that and that he should be involved in paying. I agree with the points that have been made by Alison Harris. Tom Davis raises several points and he raises a very relevant point in relation to the right of appeal in setting of the annual budget. It is a fair point that Mr Davis raises. Again, it is something that the commissioners should look very favourably on having a right of appeal in regard to the rest of the objections that he makes. He did come and give evidence to the committee. He acknowledged at the end of that evidence session that he was liable to pay, given the proximity of his property, to the power in the accepts that he needs to pay, but I would uphold the part of his objection relating to the right of appeal. We are putting elements to the objection from Mr Davis. With regard to the first two parts relating to benefited land and the requirements of heritors to pay towards the promotion of the bill, there is a committee content that there should not be upheld. With regard to Mr Davis' objection on concerning the right of appeal to the level of the annual budget, is the committee content to uphold that particular element? Yes. I can confirm that the committee rejects the two parts of Mr Davis' objection concerning benefited land and the requirements for heritors to pay towards the promotion. However, the committee does uphold the element relating to the level of the annual budget that is the right of appeal. With that, that concludes our consideration and disposal of the objections. Objectives will be contacted by the clerk and informed of the decision taken. As our next item is in private, to consider a draft report, I will shortly suspend the meeting. First of all, I would like to confirm that members of the committee are now able to lodge amendments to the bill and to clerk will liaise with the promoters accordingly. The next meeting of the committee will be on Wednesday 20 June 2018 at 10 am, at which the committee will consider any amendments lodged for consideration stage and decide under rules 9A, 9.7B and 7C whether any adversely affect private interests and, if so, whether they have sufficient merit that there is a possibility of them being agreed to after further scrutiny. I now suspend the meeting and move into private session.