 That concludes the debate on a fairer Scotland delivering race equality. It's now time to move on to the next item of business, which is a debate on motion 9128, in the name of Alison Harris, on the final stage of the Writers to the Signate, Dependence and Duty Fund amendment Scotland bill. However, before the debate begins, the Presiding Officer is required understanding orders to decide whether or not, in his view, any provision of the bill relates to a protected subject matter. Put briefly, that is, whether it modifies the electoral system and franchise for Scottish parliamentary elections. If it does, the motion to pass the bill requires support from a supermajority of members, that is, a two-thirds majority of all members, which is 86. In the case of this bill, the Presiding Officer has decided that, in his view, no provision of the writer to the Signate, Dependence and Duty Fund amendment Scotland bill relates to a protected subject matter. Therefore, the bill does not require a supermajority to be passed at stage 3. I therefore call on Alison Harris to speak to and move the motion on behalf of the bill committee for up to four minutes, please. I am delighted to be opening this final stage debate for the Writers to the Signate, Dependence and Duty Fund amendment Scotland bill. At this point, I would like to thank my colleagues Mary Fee and Tom Arthur for all their input during the various stages of the bill and also the committee clerks. Historically, the WS society looked after writers to the Signate and their widows by making ad hoc charitable donations. The fund was formalised by private legislation in 1803, which provided for the payment of annuities to WS society members' widows. This legislation was subsequently updated, most recently by the Writers to the Signate, Dependence and Duty Fund Order Confirmation Act 1982, which sets out the current legislative framework. The 1982 act provided for the change of name from the widows' funds to Dependence and Duty Fund, in recognition of the fact that women were then admitted to the WS society, and the fund was opened up to orphans. More recently, the fund regulations were updated to cover the civil partners of contributors to the fund. The bill was introduced as a private bill to the Scottish Parliament on 18 May 2017, and the Writers to the Signate, Dependence and Duty Fund amendment Scotland bill committee was established to consider the bill during its passage through Parliament. Private bills are bills that impact primarily on private interests, that is specific groups or individuals. Those differ from public bills that have a broader and wider effect on society. For this reason, the private bill process is very much focused on giving those whose interests might be engaged by a private bill the opportunity to make representations to the Parliament or object to the bill. The objection period for the bill ran until 18 July 2017, and no objections were received. The committee did not receive any written evidence either. The current value of the fund is approximately 55 million, and the value of each annuity is 8,400. The fund was closed to new members in 1989, and there are currently 141 beneficiaries to the fund, known as a newtons. With possibly up to 500 potential annuitants, with an expectation, the fund will continue paying annuities into the 2040s. The bill has two objectives relating to updating the 1982 act. First, section 11 seeks to update the definition of an actuary. This is a minor technical change that follows the merger of the two professional actuarial bodies. Second, section 12 seeks to remove the requirement for the collector to be a contributor to the fund and places a new requirement for the collector to be an individual. The bill does not otherwise affect the role or functions of the collector. The second objective will widen the pool of people eligible to be elected as collector and ensure that contributors have the opportunity to elect someone with relevant experience and expertise. The committee considered the bill's objectives during the first or preliminary stage of the bill's scrutiny and agreed with the general principles of the bill. The committee remains content that the bill is necessary and worthwhile. As a result, I am pleased to move the motion in my name, that the Parliament agrees that the writers to the signate, dependence on unity fund, amendment Scotland, bill be passed. I now call Mary Fee. Two minutes would be appreciated, Ms Fee. I'll do my very best. Like all committees considering legislation, it's the role of a private bill committee to consider the general principles of the bill at first or the preliminary stage and any amendments to the bill. Excuse me, Ms Fee. Can I ask everyone to please be quiet? This is a very important piece of legislation. Thank you, Presiding Officer, or consideration stage. At preliminary stage, the committee took evidence from the promoters of the bill. In relation to section 11 of the bill, definition of an actuary, the committee discussed the updated definition and the promoters confirmed that the definition was being updated in light of the 2011 merger of the Faculty of Actuaries in Scotland and the Institute of Actuaries. The promoters considered that the update was not strictly necessary, as a court would take a pragmatic and sensible approach should statutory interpretation be required, but that the update was proposed for the avoidance of doubt and the committee was content with that explanation. At consideration stage, the promoters sought to further future-proof the definition of an actuary by way of an amendment in response to further changes that might be made by the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries. We were satisfied with the promoters' explanation and agreed to this amendment. In relation to section 12 of the bill, defining who is eligible to be a collector, the committee agreed that the future administration of the fund required a change to the 1982 act, given the diminishing pool of contributors that Alison Harris referred to. The committee explored a number of issues in order to satisfy itself that the proposed amendment to the 1982 act was the best solution to that problem. The promoters confirmed that reopening the fund to new contributors was not an option. They argued that the reasons for closing the fund in 1989, namely that changes to the tax regime had made the fund a tax inefficient way of saving, were still valid. The committee explored the reasons for the requirement that the contributor must be an individual rather than a company, a limited liability partnership or an unincorporated association. The promoters explained that the provision had been prompted by feedback from the contributors themselves, who were quite clear that they wanted an individual in the role, although they recognised that a number of the functions required the support of their professional firm or professional organisation. The promoters highlighted that all the fund's contributors in living memory had been supported by their own solicitors' firm. The committee noted that that would be a matter for the trustees of the fund when advertising the role of contributor. That process is not covered by the 1982 act and does not therefore need to be set out in this bill. The committee was content with those explanations and agreed that the new provision relating to the collector was the most sensible solution. The committee also asked the promoters about the future administration of the fund and particularly the trustees' expectations for how it will be managed as the pool of contributors further diminishes. As the contributors elect the trustees and collector each year, their diminishing number will ultimately impact on the administration of the fund. The promoters envisaged that, at some point, the fund will be converted to cash and the cash used to produce annuities for the remaining annuitants. At this point, the fund would effectively be wound up. The committee agrees that this strategy seems the most appropriate way forward. On the basis of the promoters' evidence, the committee agreed with the general principles of the bill and that remains our view. Accordingly, I am happy to support the motion for the bill to be passed. I want to put in the record my thanks to the clerks and the researchers for all their support and to my colleagues Alice, Alison, Harris and Mary Fee. As my colleagues and the writers to the Signate Society Dependence Fund Bill, the committee has spoken about and our consideration of and full support for this fund, I would like to use this opportunity to provide some of the broader context of the private bills that the Parliament has considered so far this session very briefly. Alice and Harris, Mary Fee and myself have sat as members of the three private bill committees constituted by the Parliamentary Bureau to consider the three private bills that have been introduced so far this session. The others are the Edinburgh Bakers Widows Fund Bill and the Pouf and Shaffery Drainage Commission Scotland Bill committees. I have acted as convener on both of those two committees. The Edinburgh Bakers Widows Fund was introduced on 20 March this year and sought to transfer the property and assets of the Edinburgh Bakers Widows Fund to a modern non-status to the Charitable Trust, which would support education and training opportunities in baking. The committee supported the bill, received no objections and was amended at consideration stage. The bill was passed by Parliament on 21 November. The Pouf and Shaffery Drainage Commission Scotland Bill was introduced slightly earlier on 17 March this year and was seeking to make various changes to the Pouf and Shaffery Drainage Commission. That is a more complex bill and is taking longer as three objections have been lodged and so final stage will not be reached until the spring of next year. You have not seen the last of it yet, Presiding Officer. The third private bill introduced this session. The writers to the Signate Dependence and Unity Fund amendment Scotland Bill was introduced on 18 July. As Mary Fee explained, no amendments were lodged in respect to the bill and no objections have ever been lodged in respect to the bill. One amendment of a very minor in technical nature was agreed at consideration stage. In conclusion, I agree with my bill, committee colleagues. I am content that effective scrutiny has been done in the present case and that the bill therefore deserves the Parliament support. On that basis, I am happy to support the motion for the bill to be passed. All in one breath. That concludes the final stage of the writers to the Signate Dependence and Unity Fund amendment. We turn now to decision time. There are four questions. The first question is that amendment 9529.1 in the name of Annie Wells, which seeks to amend motion 9529 in the name of Angela Constance on a fairer Scotland delivering race equality be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The next question is amendment 9529.3 in the name of Pauline McNeill, who seeks to amend the motion in the name of Angela Constance be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The next question is that motion 9529 in the name of Angela Constance as amended be agreed. Are we all agreed? Thank you. Now the final question is that motion 9128 in the name of Alison Harris on the final stage of the writers to the Signate Dependence and Unity Fund amendment Scotland bill be agreed. And because this is a final stage, we have to have a division. So members may cast their votes now. And the result of the vote on motion 9128 in the name of Alison Harris is yes, 105 against 0, abstain 0. The motion is therefore agreed and the writers to the Signate Dependence and Unity Fund amendment Scotland bill is passed. That concludes decision time and I'll close this meeting.