 The next item of business is final stage proceedings on the power of enchafry drainage commission Scotland bill. In dealing with the amendments, members should have the bill that is SP bill 9A, the marshaled list and the group of amendments. The division bill will sound the proceedings will be suspended for five minutes for the first division of the afternoon. The period of voting for the first division will be 30 seconds, thereafter I will allow a voting period of one minute for the first division after a debate. Members who wish to speak in debate in any group of amendments should press their request-to-speak buttons as soon as possible after I call the group. Members should now refer to the marshaled list of amendments. I call group 1, minor and technical. I call amendment 1 in the name of Tom Arthur, group with amendments 2, 3 and 4. I ask Mr Arthur to move amendment 1 and speak to all the amendments in the group, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I move amendment 1 in my name and will speak very briefly to all amendments in these groups. As you indicated in your opening remarks, those are minor and technical amendments. Amendments 1, 2 and 3 refer to schedule 3A of the bill as it currently stands. This schedule was inserted as a consequence of an amendment at consideration stage. It makes provisions for an independent review of assessment. Those amendments 1 and 2 make a change with regard to one of the review bodies and the association of drainage authorities. In the bill, as it currently stands, reference is made to the chairman. Those amendments 1 and 2 remove that reference to the chairman, future proofing and allowing for any future restructuring that may occur. Amendment 3 makes reference with regards to another body, which reviews can be referred to the Royal Institution of Charter Surveyors. That amendment puts in addition allowing for future bodies. That again is a prudent and sensible measure because of the need for future proofing. To illustrate the need for future proofing, amendment 4 changes a reference to the original PIL Act, which was back to 1696. It was an act of the pre-union Scottish Parliament. That just makes a change to refer to the Parliament of Scotland rather than just an act of Parliament, as it is a convention that acts of Parliament refer to acts of the UK Parliament. As I said, very minor and technical amendments, which I am sure will be welcomed by the chamber. Can I just confirm with you, Mr Arthur? You did move amendment 1. Did you also try to move amendments 2, 3 and 4? I did, but I am happy to move them. You cannot do that just now. No, I did not. I moved amendment 1 and spoke to all amendments. That is fine. I was getting distracted there by Ms Harris, who I think wants to come in here. You are button pressed. No. No, it is from the amendments afterwards. I know that it is Thursday. It is tough. Right. I appreciate it. So, nobody else wants to speak. Mr Arthur. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Do you want to press or withdraw? I press. The question is that amendment 1 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Call amendment 2 in the name of Tom Arthur, a ready-baited amendment 1. Tom Arthur, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 2 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Call amendment 3 in the name of Tom Arthur, a ready-baited amendment 1. Mr Arthur, move or not move. Move. The question is that amendment 3 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Call amendment 4 in the name of Tom Arthur, a ready-baited amendment 1. Tom Arthur, to move or not move. Move. The question is that amendment 4 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That ends consideration of amendments, Ms Harris. As members will be aware, at this point, the proceedings that the Presiding Officer beidio i gyrfa dess i'r oedda, bydd y oedda rhoi chi i gyd yn ddiweddu gwybodaeth y bydd yn y bydd y byd yn y gobl o'i dod i fy nghymru y syddiadau yn gyrsbydd. Felly mae'n gweld yn iawn i'ch ddraethu eu sydd gyda gynhyrchu i'r sgolwm ysgolwyr Gwyddiadau, yn fawr,ol yn ddychgyrchu'r cyllid y byd yn y cyfanthu Llachraju. Dysgrifithau o'r ffordd y byd yn fyddai hwnnw erioednig ysdeg those when it relates to protected subject matter, therefore the bill does not require a super-majority to be passed at this stage. The next item of business is a debate on motion 14447 in the name of Tom Arthur. On the final stage of the power and Snapchat advantage Commission Scotland bill, can I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request to speak at Watkins and a call on Tom Arthur to speak to and move the motion. Mr Arthur, you have eight minutes. I'm pleased to open the final stage debate on the power of and shaft rate drainage commission Scotland bill. Before I comment on what has been an eventful and involving 18 months of work, I would like to thank all who contributed to the process, including the promoters of the bill, some of whom join us today in the public gallery, to those who objected and submitted written views, and my fellow committee members, Mary Fee and Alison Harris, who's hard work and commitment made my job, as a convener, that bit easier. Last but certainly by no means least, I wish to thank the clerks and researchers for their hard work and support throughout the bills for our longer than expected journey through the Parliament. It has been and remains an honour and a privilege to work alongside all of our brilliant Scottish parliamentary staff. On who read Philip Sims, a recent article in the BBC website titled, Dull is Ditchwater inside Holyrood's Forgotten Committee, we'll know that what may have been expected to be something of a dry and technical subject has proved to be anything but. Ditchwater that certainly is, but it has never been dull, something that I'm sure my committee colleagues will testify to in their remarks. To give a brief reminder of the background, as we have been called the Forgotten Committee by some, I have made sure that no one in my own group has forgotten I am on this committee. This private bill was introduced on 17 March 2017 and is promoted by the Powfyn Chaffrey Drainage Commission, which has responsibility for the management, maintenance and improvement of the pow. I'm sure that everyone knows what a pow is by now, but for anyone still in the dark, pow is a Scots word, meaning a ditch or slow running stream or channel of water. The Powfyn Chaffrey provides a drainage to approximately 2,047 acres of surrounding land near Creef in Perfyn Cynros, and the pow and its tributaries have a total length of 13.7 miles. The land that drains is defined as benefited land in the bill, and those who own land or property there are called heritors and must pay the commission a share of its annual budget. The bill seeks to modernise the arrangements for managing the pow to reflect changing circumstances including the building of many new houses on benefited land. The focus of the committee's scrutiny remained consistent throughout. Is the bill proportionate, reasonable and fair to the commission and heritors? Does it make the commission transparent, accessible and accountable? From the start, it was clear that there were concerns about some of those issues and around who benefits from the drainage that the pow provides. There was a great deal of interest from local people about who should pay and how much they should pay. It was also clear to us that there was a division between some agricultural and residential heritors. We had a great deal to wrestle with to try and resolve. The last time the bill was debated in this chamber at preliminary stage over a year ago, we knew that there were free objections to the bill and we knew that there were some complex issues to be grappled with. The committee was also confident in saying that the bill was generally to be supported as an improvement on the 1846 act. Consideration stage was lengthfair and more complicated than we expected. That was because, thanks to the endeavours of an interesting member of the public, it came to light that the land plans, which are so fundamental to the bill, were not accurate. A knowledging this to be the case, the promoters commissioned surveyors to draw up new plans using more robust methodology. The new plans had some significant differences from those originally submitted. The acreage of the benefitted land increased by almost 100 acres. All heritors' estimated annual assessments changed, several new residential and agricultural heritors were identified and one previously identified heritor was removed from the schedule of assessments. Once the land plans were finally settled, we considered the free objections to the bill. All objectors were invited to attend a quasi-judicial hearing and one objector took up the opportunity. The meeting saw the objector and the promoters making their respective cases and cross-examining each other. The committee rejected two of the objections in full, as we were not convinced of the arguments put forward as to why the objectors should not be heritors. An upheld part of the third, which was related to the lack of any rights for heritors to appeal the level of the annual budget. We then moved to the amending part of the process. The promoters responded to issues raised throughout the scrutiny process and proposed amendments to address them. That resulted in 15 amendments being lodged all by me as convener on behalf of the promoters. I will briefly comment on the most substantive amendments. One concern that raised with us was that there was only to be one commissioner for the Balgauan section, where many new houses have been built in recent years and where more than 70 per cent of all heritors live. The promoters responded by proposing an amendment to increase the number of Balgauan commissioners to three. The committee agreed that that was a much fairer position. Another group of amendments sought to improve accountability by ensuring that commissioners could not continue in their role if they ceased to be heritors. Crucially, the majority of heritors from a particular section can agree to dismiss a commissioner for that section. Responding to part of an objection that was upheld and to concerns expressed by many throughout the process, there were amendments that introduced new appeals processes. Those important amendments improved the accountability and balance of power between the commission and heritors. The Balgau now has two possible routes for heritors to appeal the amount of the annual budget. A single heritor can appeal if the annual budget exceeds the threshold, which is set initially at £60,000, and 10 or more heritors can appeal the annual budget at whatever level it is set at. In both cases, appeals will be considered by an independent body. There were also amendments that improved transparency and accessibility by requiring the commission to publish the land plans and the register of heritors electronically, making them freely accessible to anyone who wishes to see them. The power may date back for centuries, but it is important that it operates in a way that is fit for the 21st century. There was also an amendment that gave effect to the new land plans. It was this amendment that led to a parliamentary first, as we became the first private bill committee to determine that an amendment adversely affected private interests using new procedures introduced in 2016. As a result, consideration stage was put on hold to allow objections to be made to that amendment. We received two objections to the amendment and heard from the objectors and the promoters again in a quasi-judicial setting. On that occasion, we partially upheld one objection and rejected the other before going on to agree all 15 amendments. The bill that is before us today, as amended at consideration stage, is improved in terms of transparency, accessibility and accountability. It is fairer and more appropriately balances the rights and needs of the commissioners and heritors, while ensuring that the valuable work undertaken by the commission can continue effectively. I will conclude by returning to Philip Sims's article for the BBC. He observed that the power may not attract a wide interest, but as it involved the complex administration of a communal resource, he stated, this is precisely what elected representatives are for—it's textbook stuff. Under that note, I move the motion in my name. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I begin by thanking the convener, Tom Arthur, for moving the motion and also add my support to the thanks that he gave to all who have contributed so valuably to our work over the past 18 months. To all those who have appeared before us, sent us their views, including drawings, maps and plans, and everyone involved in the interesting and informative visit that we made to the pow last September. I thank the clerks to the committee for their diligence and support throughout the process, and I also welcome the promoters of the bill here in the gallery today. Looking back over the past 18 months, Presiding Officer, it was clear to us very early in the process that the bill was important to many people. It was important to the commissioners who gave up their time without recompense to manage and maintain the pow for the benefit of surrounding land and property owners, because no other body wants the responsibility. It matters to the heritors, agricultural, residential and commercial who live and work on the land that benefits from the pow, and who are required to pay annual contributions to the commission. As we discovered, it also seemed to strike a chord beyond those directly impacted, with those whose interest is peaked by community issues that can fall between the cracks or who are familiar with either the local area or the issues that the bill has highlighted. As the convener said, we had many issues to grapple with and to try to resolve to ensure that this bill, before Parliament at final stage, was fit for approval. It was a fascinating and challenging experience, one that we all took very seriously and one that we gave our full commitment to. We also learned more along the way than we may have ever expected to about ditches and drainage. As the convener said, much of our work involves listening to the views of the promoters on one hand and the objectors and those who sent in critical written views on the other and trying to facilitate and encourage exchanges of views and compromises that address concerns on both sides. It is evident that there are some different views among those who live in the benefited land, particularly between some of the agricultural and residential heritors. One argument was that the bill benefits agricultural heritors more than residential heritors. Another argument was that it benefits some residential heritors more than others. Some heritors also told us that the bill does not in fact benefit them at all. Of course, although the process provides for all sides to be heard, it is always possible and perhaps even inevitable that some of those involved will not agree with or be happy with the outcome. It is, Presiding Officer, difficult to please all the people all of the time. However, I believe that the bill before Parliament today is a testament to the parliamentary process. Although not everyone with an interest may be happy with the bill, I believe that it is a significant improvement on the bill that was introduced. It is also preferable to there being no bill at all, in which case the 1846 act would continue to be in place and would be enforceable. The majority of heritors would not have the rights now extended by this bill. No representation on the commission for new home owners, no right to dismiss commissioners, no requirements for land plans and lists of heritors to be published, no clarification of what constitutes the benefited land and no rights to appeal the annual budget to an independent expert. I would also like to take this opportunity to comment on the promoters, the power of enchafry commissioners. I am sure that this is not being the easiest process for them. It has been time-consuming, costly and, at times, very challenging. The committee has been critical about the commission at times, stressing the need for it to engage more effectively with all heritors and to take a little more care in some aspects of its affairs. However, I would like to commend the efforts that commissioners have made to listen to concerns, to understand them and to take them on board and to propose and support reasonable solutions. As the process continued, the commission showed a growing awareness of the perspective of heritors and others who had raised concerns. The commission needs and will need in the future dedicated commissioners generous with their time and with their efforts. Should Parliament pass this bill today, I truly hope that the commissioners and the heritors, and we should not forget that commissioners are heritors too, can put past disagreements behind them and move forward as positively and collaboratively as possible. I hope that the new powers afforded by the bill make a real difference to those directly affected. I hope that Bulgarian residents take up the three commissioner posts that will be available. I hope that the new commission works well together for the benefit of all heritors where possible. I hope that the commission operates more openly than it perhaps has done in the past. Finally, I hope that the piece of legislation will stand the test of time and allow the power to flow effectively for generations to come. I support the motion in the convener's name. Thank you very much. Andy Wightman, up to five minutes please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I am delighted to speak in this final stage of debate on the power of enchafred drainage commission Scotland Bill. First of all, I would like to thank Tom Arthur, Mary Fee and Alison Harris and the committee clerks for their diligent work, which I have followed closely, as someone with a long-standing interest in land governance matters. I would also like to pay special thanks to Philip Sim from the BBC for his work in publicising the subject matter in a quite effective way in illuminating some of the work that this Parliament undertakes that perhaps does not have the attention that it should. If, past this evening, this bill will be the 17th private bill to have been enacted by the Scottish Parliament, around half of the 16th to date have dealt with major infrastructure projects, projects that can now be dealt with in other ways, following the Transport and Work Scotland Act 2007. Two of the previous bills dealt with land issues, the National Galleries of Scotland Bill authorising the use of common good land and the City of Edinburgh Council Portobello Park Bill dealing also with common good, both of which are a reminder that the law on common good remains our cake with its origins, almost as far back as the power of enchafred in the common good act of 1491. Private bills are unavoidable where the intention is to review, update or amend older private acts. According to work undertaken by the Scottish Law Commission and the Law Commission, there were, as of 1974, 26,000 local acts and 11,000 private acts, still on the statute books across Great Britain. Local and private acts passed in the same year as the power of enchafred drainage act of 1846, including the burdening or selling the estate of Cumbernauld, Dunbarton for payment of debt and the Airdrie and Bathgate junction railway act. The most voluminous enactments historically were, of course, acts for works to build Britain's railways, canals and other infrastructures. As with the 2007 act in Scotland, the vast majority of infrastructure no longer requires private acts, but where infrastructure, such as a drainage scheme, such as the power with its ancient origins and governance, is still extant, there is obviously still a need. Throughout the middle ages, the abbey of enchafred was known as insula missarum, meaning the Isle of Masses, one of a number of islands rising above the flooded marshland. As early as 1218, the monks had reclaimed parts of the marsh and, of course, following the battle of Bannockburn with the Abbot of enchafred having reportedly led mass with the Scottish army, further work was undertaken as a mark of appreciation and thanks by Robert Bruce. At one level, the story of the Pau is a fascinating story of how private enterprise has, over 2,000 acres, secured the drainage of valuable land under a governance scheme that makes clear where the benefits and where the liabilities fall. A function that is being updated in the bill before us and, as Mary Fee correctly points out, a balancing act that is not always going to be agreeable to all parties, but which illustrates the importance of Parliament in balancing the competing interests that will always arise, whether in a private bill or a public bill in this place. I want to thank once again the committee for their work. I hope that the Pau of enchafred is well governed in the future and that there is no need for the promoters to come to Parliament again for at least another 150 years. Finally, the Scottish Greens will be supporting this bill at decision time. Thank you. I thank the convener, Tom Arthur and Mary Fee, for their contributions and add my name to the thanks that they have given to the many people who assisted the committee with our deliberations. It is very much felt, like a community endeavour, with the committee learning about the Pau and those it affects, listening to the varied views of the commissioners, heritors and other interested parties and proposing possible solutions to areas of disagreement. From the start of our work, we were keenly aware that the Pau and the commission are historic and unique aspects of Scottish life. Something that not many of us would have been aware of before this bill was introduced. I, for one, was certainly one of those people who knew nothing of the Pau of enchafred until that date, when we joined on. The Pau itself dates back many centuries and the commission has been subject to legislation since the act of the Parliament of Scotland in 1696. There is even a document relating to the management and obligations of the upkeep of the Pau, which dates from 1641, entitled a ratification of the mutual bond amongst the heritors adjacent to the Pau of enchafred. That can be viewed online via the University of St Andrew's online archive of Record of the Parliament of Scotland to 1707. It seems that parliaments have been considering and debating the Pau for well over 300 years. The fact that the most recent legislation was passed in 1846 highlights that history, but it also explains why the bill was deemed necessary by the promoters, because the Pau and the commission are being governed by legislation that is now 172 years old. As we know, much has changed in that time. The maps that were drawn up in the 19th century to confirm the land that benefited from the Pau show fields, woodlands and farm holdings, but not many houses. The successive centuries of drainage via the Pau has improved some of that land to such an extent that many residential properties have more recently been built on the benefited land. The promoters felt that the act of 1846 was no longer fit for purpose as it predates the building of the majority of the residential properties. They wanted powers to revalue the land and to spread the costs of maintaining the Pau more fairly. Because of outdated plans and methodology, some people who benefited from the Pau are not contributing to its upkeep. They benefit from the Pau because their properties drain into the Pau directly and indirectly in terms of both foul and surface water drainage. The bill allows the commission to ensure that people in this position, some of whom are not being charged by the local authority for drainage, are appropriately charged for a proportionate contribution to the commission's annual budget. As well as the process directly leading to the errors in the original land plans being uncovered, as detailed by my committee colleagues, it also helped to draw attention to other historical anomalies that might otherwise have remained hidden. For example, there is a piece of land that has always benefited from the Pau, but whose owners have never been charged as a result of an agreement between the then owner and the then commission. One of the benefits of the scrutiny process is that it allows a light to be shone on such historic agreements and for people to then consider whether such arrangements are still appropriate. In this instance, the promoters agreed that applying the methodology for identifying benefited land consistently meant that the arrangement in question should not continue and that the owner of the land should now be charged. We agreed at the preliminary stage that a private bill was appropriate to modernise the arrangement of the Pau commission and the focus of our work at the consideration stage, as set out by Tom Arthur and Mary Fee was to consider objections made to the bill as introduced and to respond to other concerns raised. We did that by facilitating discussions and suggesting possible solutions. It was good to see the process working as it should when objectors and the promoters attended public sessions managed by the committee to put their views and to cross-examine each other. The committee learned a great deal from these sessions and better understood both points of views and possible solutions, which may offer an appropriate compromise. While most objections were eventually rejected, two were upheld in part and led to the bill being amended to include an appeals process and to the promoters making adjustments to the categorisation of some land. Even with those objections, when we rejected them in full, some of the issues raised led to debates that helped our understanding of the dynamics between the commission and the heritors and to how best to try to resolve some of the concerns. I would like to commend those objectors who attended committee sessions, recognising that it can be daunting as a member of the public to attend a public committee meeting to argue your case. I am also pleased, as Mary Fee said, that the commission was receptive to the concerns raised and that the bill, as amended at the consideration stage, addresses many of the concerns raised with us throughout our scrutiny. I support the motion in Tom Arthur's name. Thank you very much. I think that we have finished slightly earlier than we planned, but we will move on to the next item, which is consideration of two parliamentary bureau motions. I ask Graeme Dey, on behalf of the parliamentary bureau, to move motions 15149 on committee membership and 15150 on committee substitutions. Graeme Dey, on behalf of the bureau, to move both motions. On behalf of the bureau, Presiding Officer, I move both motions. Thank you very much. We will pause until we reach decision time. I want to give all members a chance to get here for five o'clock in decision time. Thank you, colleagues. We come to decision time. There are potentially seven questions this evening. The first question is that amendment 15126.1, in the name of Annie Wells, which seeks to amend motion 15126 in the name of Christina McKelvie on demonstrating leadership and human rights be agreed. Are we agreed? We are agreed. The next question is that amendment 15126.3, in the name of Mary Fee, which seeks to amend the motion in the name of Christina McKelvie, be agreed. Are we agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to division. Members may cast their votes now. And the result of the vote on amendment 15126.3, in the name of Mary Fee, is yes, 30, no, 83. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. The next question is that amendment 15126.2, in the name of Alex Cole-Hamilton, which seeks to amend the motion in the name of Christina McKelvie, be agreed. Are we agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 15126.2, in the name of Alex Cole-Hamilton, is yes, 88, no, 0. There were 24 abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. The next question is that motion 15126, in the name of Christina McKelvie, as amended, on demonstrating leadership in human rights, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to the vote. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion number 15126, as amended, in the name of Christina McKelvie, is yes, 89, no-one voted against, there were 24 abstentions and the motion is therefore agreed. The fifth question, the next question, is that motion 1447, in the name of Tom Arthur, on the Powhof and Chaffrey Drainage Commission Scotland Bill, be agreed. And because this is a bill, members need to cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion number 1447, in the name of Tom Arthur, is yes, 112. There were no votes against, there were no abstentions, the amendment is agreed, and the Powhof and Chaffrey Drainage Commission Bill is passed. The next question is that motion 15149, in the name of Graham Day, on committee membership, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are. The next question is that motion 15150, in the name of Graham Day, on committee substitutions, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed, and that concludes decision time. I close this meeting.