Hansard

As convener of the committee, I am pleased to open the final stage debate on the Pow of Inchaffray Drainage Commission (Scotland) Bill. Before I comment on what has been an eventful and involving 18 months of work, I thank all those who have contributed to the process, including the promoters of the bill, some of whom join us in the public gallery today; those who objected to the bill and submitted written views; and my fellow committee members, Mary Fee and Alison Harris, whose hard work and commitment made my job as convener that bit easier. Last, but certainly by no means least, I thank the clerks and researchers for their hard work and support throughout the bill’s rather longer than expected journey through Parliament. It has been, and remains, an honour and a privilege to work alongside all our brilliant Scottish parliamentary staff.

Anyone who read Philip Sim’s recent article on the BBC website, which was titled “Dull as ditchwater? Inside Holyrood’s forgotten committee”, will know that what might have been expected to be something of a dry and technical subject has proved to be anything but. Ditch water it certainly is, but it has never been dull—I am sure that my committee colleagues will testify to that in their speeches.

I will give a brief reminder of the background, as we have been called the forgotten committee by some—of course, I made sure that no one in my group forgot that I am on the committee. The private bill was introduced on 17 March 2017, and it is promoted by the Pow of Inchaffray Drainage Commission, which has responsibility for the management, maintenance and improvement of the pow. I am sure that everyone knows what a pow is by now, but, for anyone who is still in the dark, “pow” is a Scots word meaning a ditch or slow-running stream or channel of water.

The Pow of Inchaffray provides drainage to approximately 2,047 acres of surrounding land near Crieff, in Perth and Kinross. The pow and its tributaries have a total length of 13.7 miles. The land that it drains is defined as “benefited land” in the bill, and those who own that land or property are called “heritors”, who 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 to heritors, and 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 about who actually benefits from the drainage that the pow provides. There was obviously a great deal of interest from local people about who should pay and how much they should pay. It was clear to us that there was a division between some agricultural and residential heritors. We had a great deal to wrestle with to try to resolve those issues.

The previous time that the bill was debated in the chamber—at preliminary stage, more than a year ago—we knew that there were three objections to it. We knew that there were some complex issues to be grappled with, but the committee was confident in saying that the bill was generally to be supported as an improvement on the Pow of Inchaffray Drainage Act 1846.

The consideration stage was lengthier and more complicated than we expected, because, thanks to the endeavours of an interested member of the public, it came to light that the land plans, which are fundamental to the bill, were not accurate. Acknowledging that to be case, the promoters commissioned surveyors to draw up new plans, using more robust methodology.

The new plans had some significant differences from those that were submitted originally. The acreage of the benefited 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 three objections to the bill. All objectors were invited to attend a quasi-judicial hearing, and one objector took up that opportunity. During the meeting, the objector and the promoters made their respective cases, and they cross-examined each other. The committee rejected two of the objections in full, because we were not convinced of the arguments that were put forward on why the objectors should not be heritors. We upheld part of the third objection, which 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 that were 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 was raised with us was that there was to be only one commissioner for the Balgowan section, where many new houses have been built in recent years, and where more than 70 per cent of all heritors live. The promoter responded by proposing an amendment to increase the number of Balgowan 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 cease to be heritors and, crucially, if a majority of heritors from a particular section agree that a commissioner for that section should be dismissed.

In response to part of an objection that was upheld, and to concerns that were expressed by many throughout the process, there were amendments that introduced new appeals processes. Those important amendments improved accountability and the balance of power between the commission and the heritors. The bill 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 a threshold, which is set initially at £60,000; and ten or more heritors can appeal the annual budget, whatever the level at which it is set. In both cases, appeals will be considered by an independent body.

There were 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 pow may date back 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. That amendment led to a parliamentary first: using new procedures introduced in 2016, we became the first private bill committee to determine that an amendment adversely affected private interests. As a result, the consideration stage was put on hold to allow objections to be made to the amendment.

We received two objections to the amendment and heard from the objectors and the promoters, again in a quasi-judicial setting. We partially upheld one objection and rejected the other before going on to agree all 15 amendments.

The bill before us today, as amended at consideration stage, is improved in terms of transparency, accessibility and accountability. It is fairer and it more appropriately balances the rights and needs of the commission and heritors, while ensuring that the valuable work undertaken by the commission can continue effectively.

I conclude by returning to Philip Sim’s article for the BBC. He observed that although the pow may not attract wide interest, it involves the complex administration of a communal resource, and that

“This is precisely what elected representatives are for. It’s textbook stuff.”

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that the Pow of Inchaffray Drainage Commission (Scotland) Bill be passed.