 Good morning, and welcome to the 7th meeting of the Powf and Chaffee Drainage Commission's Scotland Bill Committee in 2018. The first item on our agenda today is to consider the merits of the two objections lodged on amendment 9 proposed to the bill. Evidence on the objections was taken at our meeting on 12 September 2018. Given the evidence that we have heard and received to date, we will now consider the merits of each objection. While the committee is required to consider the merits of objections, it is optional for it to accept or reject the objections. The first objection that we are going to consider is that by Mr and Mrs Watkins, and I would like to invite members of the committee to share their views. Thank you, convener. Mr and Mrs Watkins' objection contained five specific reasons for objection, and the promoters have accepted the first two parts of the objection and have made amendments and adjustments to the charge that the Watkins would be liable to pay. Taking account of the evidence that the committee received at our last meeting, I do not believe that there is merit in the rest of the objection from Mr and Mrs Watkins, and I would suggest that we do not uphold it. To summarise, the committee notes that the promoters have actually agreed with the basic premise of the Watkins objection, namely that part of the plot is actually owned by another party and that some of the land should have been categorised as immunity rather than residential land. Accordingly, the promoters having agreed with these points have adjusted the schedule, which has reduced the Watkins assessment from nearly £1,400 to £538. I note that the Watkins were sticking a further reduction of the amount of the land that should be assessed as residential land. The promoters had not agreed with that. Indeed, the promoters have gone on to establish more accurately the exact boundaries of the protected monument site with Historic Environment Scotland and have reduced an updated assessment schedule. The committee is satisfied that the assessment of the Watkins property, as it now stands, is appropriate. Therefore, the committee upholds the part of the objection concerning the ownership and categorisation of land and is satisfied that it has been addressed by the promoters. The committee therefore rejects the other parts of the objection relating to methodology and appeals, as they are not affected by this amendment. We will now turn to the second objection, which is in the name of Mr and Mrs McGregor, a wanting formula committee that we have received a further submission from Mr McGregor and a response from the promoters, both of which are available on the Parliament's website. I would now like to invite the committee to make any comments with regard to the second objection in the name of Mr and Mrs McGregor. The McGregor's basic objection was that it viewed the property not to be in benefited land and that the stream did not drain directly into the pow. However, the promoters came back with strong evidence that showed that the McGregor's property is on the plot and that it is benefited land. As such, it should be treated in accordance with the terms of the bill. I would support what the promoters produced and I would agree with the promoters in this instance. I agree with the comments that have been made that we do not uphold the objection. As a committee can tend to accept the promoters' reasons for saying that the McGregor's property is and indeed has always been on benefited land, it therefore seems appropriate that the property should be assessed as set out in the bill. I agree with the comments that have been made that the committee therefore rejects the objection in full. That concludes our consideration of the objections. Objectors will be contacted by the clerk and informed of the decisions taken. As our next item is in private to consider a draft report, I will shortly suspend the meeting. The next meeting of the committee will be on Wednesday 24 October at 12pm and will be to consider the amendments to the bill at consideration stage. The committee will now move into private.