 Good morning, and welcome to the eighth meeting of the PwF and Chaffery adrenage commission Scotland Bill Committee in 2018. The only item on our agenda today is to consider the bill at consideration stage. We will consider the 15 amendments, which have all been lodged in my name on behalf of the promoters. In addition, we are formally required to agree each provision of the bill at the appropriate point. Only members of the committee are permitted to participate in proceedings. Members should have with them the bill, the master list of amendments and the groupings. In each debate on a group of amendments, I will speak to and move the lead amendment in the group. I will invite other members of the committee to contribute if they wish before I put the question on the lead amendment. With other amendments, I will move the amendment formally and then put the question. The first question is that section 1 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The question is that schedule 1 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I now call amendment 1, which is grouped with amendments 2, 3 and 14. I will move amendment 1 and speak to all amendments in the group. These amendments concern the number of commissioners and the areas that are represented. They respond to concerns raised during the committee's deliberations that the bill provided for insufficient representation for the Baal Gawain estate. Amendment 1 increases the total number of commissioners from 7 to 9, with amendment 2 increasing the number of Baal Gawain commissioners from 1 to 3. Consequent to this increase, amendment 3 increases the number of new appointments to the commission following commencement of section 2 of the bill from 4 to 6 commissioners. Amendment 14 increases the quorum of a meeting of the commission from 3 commissioners to 5 commissioners. I invite other members to contribute. I would say that those amendments certainly enhance accountability and representation over the whole area. I would certainly support them. The question is that amendment 1 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. We are agreed. I call amendment 2. I have already debated with amendment 1. The question is that amendment 2 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I agree. I agree. The question is that section 2 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? And the question is that sections 3 and 4 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. I now call amendment 11, grouped with amendments 12, 13 and 4. I will move amendment 11 and speak to all amendments in the group. The bill as introduced contains some dubiety as to the status of a commissioner who ceases to be a heritor or a heritor's representative where the individual represented ceases to be a heritor. The committee took the view that it may therefore be possible for an individual to retain the position of commissioner even if they or the individual they represent ceases to own benefited land. Amendment 11 and amendment 13 therefore ensure that the commission must terminate the appointment of a commissioner where the commissioner or the individual represented by the commissioner has ceases to be a heritor. The second issue concerning the termination of a commissioner's appointment, considered by the committee, was a lack of mechanism available for heritors to dismiss a commissioner for their particular section. Amendment 12 and amendment 4 therefore make provision for heritors to call a meeting whereby a commissioner's appointment may be terminated on the board of a simple majority of a heritor's attending from a particular section. Accountability was something that has been raised a number of times during our deliberations of this bill. There has been a strong feeling that there had to be some kind of mechanism that would allow heritors to terminate commissioners. Those are very sensible amendments that strengthen accountability in the bill and will give heritors the right to terminate a commissioner's appointment, so I fully support them. The question is that amendment 11 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Agreed. We are agreed. I now call amendment 12, which is in my name, already debated with amendment 11. I move the amendment. The question is that amendment 12 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Agreed. I call amendment 13, which is in my name, already debated with amendment 11. I move amendment 13. The question is that amendment 13 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Agreed. The question is that schedule 2 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Agreed. I call amendment 3, already debated with amendment 1 and move amendment 3. The question is that amendment 3 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Agreed. The question is that section 5 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Agreed. The question is that section 6 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Agreed. I call amendment 14, which is in my name already debated with amendment 1, and I move amendment 14. The question is that amendment 4 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Amendment 14 be agreed to, to clarify. Are we agreed? Agreed. The question is that schedule 3 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Agreed. I now call amendment 15, grouped with amendments 5 and 10. I will move amendment 15 and speak to all amendments in the group. The bill, as introduced, makes provision for the preparation of annual budgets and the levying of assessments. An area of concern for the committee is a lack of provision for an appeal process or referral to an independent review. Amendment 15 and amendment 5 seek to address those concerns through the introduction of a new schedule 3A and through the modification of section 10 of the bill. The combined effect of those amendments is to place a duty on the commission to give consideration to representations made by editors regarding the budget. Further, those amendments provide a mechanism for the budget to be referred to an independent review process. That can be effected in one of two ways, either through formal notification to the commission by 10 or more editors or where the budget exceeds the budget review threshold. The budget review threshold would be set on the face of the bill at £60,000 for the first year. It would then be adjusted annually by the percentage increase in the retail price index of the previous year. Amendment 10 provides for a definition of RPI to be provided for in section 27 of the bill, which concerns interpretation and right contributions from other members. I agree with those amendments. It is essential that annual budgets and assessments are prepared. That allows for accounting to be done correctly. It is correct that there should be an independent process involved and that it should be here. It is all on the duty of the commissioners to do so. I think that those amendments are essential to the bill. The question is that amendment 15 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 4, which is in my name already debated with amendment 11, and I move amendment 4. The question is that amendment 4 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The question is that section 7 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The question is that sections 8 and 9 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 5, which is in my name already debated with amendment 15, and I move amendment 5. The question is that amendment 5 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The question is that section 10 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. The question is that schedule 4 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. The question is that sections 11 to 14 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. I call amendment 6, which is in my name already debated with amendment 7. I will move amendment 6 and speak to both amendments in the group. A central theme of the committee's consideration of the bill has been on the areas of transparency and accessibility. Amendment 6 and amendment 7 seek to simplify access to the land plans and the register of heritors respectively. As introduced, the bill obliges the commission to share the aforementioned documents only to current heritors. The amendments proposed would ensure that both the land plans and the register of heritors would be made available to non-heritors. That measure would be of benefit to prospective heritors, estate agents and a legal profession, for example. Amendments 6 and 7 would also ensure that both sets of documents would be made available electronically. I want to comment briefly on the points that you have raised. As you said, one of our main concerns throughout our deliberations in the bill has been to improve openness and transparency. Although those amendments may be quite small in detail, they nevertheless are extremely important in increasing that openness and transparency. By making the land plans freely available, everyone will be able to see who the heritors are and will be able to check in a number of different ways those land plans. They are crucially important to improving the transparency of the bill. I agree. I think that it definitely does increase transparency, accessibility and openness. Thank you very much. The question therefore is that amendment 6 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Agreed. We are agreed. The question is that section 15 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Agreed. We are agreed. I call amendment 7, which has already been debated with amendment 6. I move amendment 7. The question is that amendment 7 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Agreed. Thank you. The question is that section 16 be agreed to. The question is that sections 17 to 19 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Agreed. I agree. The question is that schedule 5 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Agriad. The question is that sections 20 to 24 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Agriad. The question is that schedule 6 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Agriad. The question is that sections 25 and 26 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Agriad. Thank you. I now call amendment 8, which is in a group of its own, and I will move to amendment 8. The short amendment changes a reference to the first year of assessment from 2018 to 2019, updating the bill to reflect a first full assessment year under the bill's provisions. Should the bill be agreed to by Parliament? Are there any further comments? No, no further comments. Thank you very much. The question is that amendment 8 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Agriad. We are agreed. I now call amendment 9 in a group of its own, and I will move and speak to amendment 9. This short but important amendment updates the definition of land plans in section 27 of the bill. This reflects the revised set of land plans which were lodged with Parliament during consideration stage. While it is disappointing that inaccurate land plans were initially lodged with the bill, leading to a protracted legislative process, it is to be welcomed that the promoters of the bill have reflected on concerns raised at the very beginning of their deliberations about discrepancies and validity of the land plans. Although we understand that this is a very historic piece of legislation that dates back, I think that the land plans that were used were in 1846. The promoters undertook an extensive piece of work to make sure that the land plans were accurate, and that I fully support this amendment. I absolutely agree. Thank you very much. The question is that amendment 9 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Agriad. I call amendment 10, which is in my name already debated with amendment 15. I move amendment 10 The question is that amendment 10 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Agriad. Thank you. The question is that section 27 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Agriad. Thank you. The question is that sections 28 and 29 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Agriad. Finally, the question is that the long title be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Agriad. Thank you very much. That ends consideration stage of the bill. The bill will now progress to final stage, which will be considered by the Parliament in the chamber. Is the committee content for me to lodge a motion on behalf of the committee that the Parliament agrees that the bill be passed? Agriad. Agriad. Thank you very much. We are agreed. It is with a heavy heart that I say that this is expected to be the final meeting of the committee. I would like to take this opportunity to thank everyone who has assisted the committee and its deliberations over the past 18 months and who has contributed, in particular the promoters and agents, the objectors, to all who have submitted evidence and to all the members of the committee. I would also like to thank the Scottish Government, in particular Minister Paul Wheelhouse. Finally, and in many respects, most importantly, I would like for me personally to share my huge debt of gratitude to the clerks of this committee who have done a tremendous job and to thank them. With that, I close the meeting.