 The next item of business is a debate on motion 8, 5, 9, 6 in the name of Tom Arthur on the final stage of the Edinburgh Bakers Widows Fund Bill. 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 will require 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 Edinburgh Bakers Widows Fund Bill relates to a protected subject matter. Therefore, the bill does not require a supermajority to be passed at stage 3. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press the request to speak buttons. I call on Tom Arthur to speak to and move the motion up to five minutes, please, Mr Arthur. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am pleased to open the final stage proceedings on the Edinburgh Bakers Widows Fund Bill. I would again like to thank my fellow committee members, Mary Fee and Alison Harris, for their contributions in progressing the bill to this stage. I would also like to put on record the committee's gratitude to the clerks for all of their support. As there are currently three private bill committees on the go, all with the same membership, we are being seen quite a bit of each other. The chamber will be delighted to learn that it can also expect to see more of us in this capacity as the other two private bills progress. The preliminary stage debate on the power of enchafric emission drainage bill took place last week. A latest to the Signance, Dependence and Newity Fund amendment bill the previous week, members will no doubt recall the preliminary stage debate on the Edinburgh Bakers Widows Fund Bill 2, which took place back in September. To recap briefly, the Edinburgh Bakers Widows Fund Bill is a private bill introduced on 20 March 2017 and is being promoted by the trustees of the widow scheme. The overall objective of the bill is to transfer the property and assets of the widow's fund to a new charitable trust. The incorporation of bakers of the city of Edinburgh was set up in medieval times to regulate the trade. The fund was established in the 19th century to provide financial support to the widows of the contributing members. However, an act of the 1813 limited membership of the scheme to men only under the age of 45. As I explained in my speech at the preliminary stage, in recent time members of incorporation have tended to be women or older men, nearer category of which, under the terms of the 1813 act, it is eligible to contribute to the scheme. The last contribution to the fund was made in 1981 and the last annuity that was paid under the scheme was in 1997. Since then, there have been no qualifying beneficiaries. In 2013, the trustees decided that the scheme should not continue to operate in its current form and formally close the scheme to new members. It felt that there was a need for change given the restrictions on the ability of the trustees to apply the assets of the fund as imposed by the provisions of the 1813 act. The fund is not a modern financial vehicle and with a finite number of potential beneficiaries, the trustees found themselves unable to apply the fund assets in accordance with the spirit of the fund. In place of the fund, the trustees intend to set up a new charitable trust that will have the purposes of the advancement of education by supporting education and training opportunities in baking and the advancement of the arts, heritage, culture or science by providing public information and promoting an appreciation of local baking and the history of the baking trade, particularly in Edinburgh. The new trust, the incorporation of bakers of Edinburgh charitable trust, has been approved by the Office of the Scottish Charities Regulator. At preliminary stage, the committee was pleased to recommend to the Parliament that the general principles of the bill be agreed to and that the bill should proceed as a private bill. At consideration stage, private bill committees are required to consider any objections to the bill and also to consider any amendments. In that case, there are no objections, as was expected, and no amendments were lodged. Consideration stage consisted of a very short meeting of the committee. At the final stage of the bill's parliamentary passage, I reiterate that the committee supports the aim of the promoter to establish the new charitable trust, to enable the trustees to make capital payments to the potential beneficiaries, to dissolve the fund and repeal the 1813 act. I am therefore pleased to move motion S5M-08596, that the Parliament agrees that the Edinburgh Bakers Widows Fund bill be passed. I now call Alison Harris up to three minutes, please, Ms Harris. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. As Tom Arthur has outlined, the money raised by the Edinburgh Bakers Widows scheme was used to pay annuities to widows of contributors to the fund. In certain circumstances, provision could also be made for elderly members or orphans of members who were considered to be in need. As we have heard, the promoters considered that there was a need for change, given the restrictions of the 1813 act. With a finite number of potential beneficiaries, the trustees found themselves unable to apply the fund's assets in accordance with the spirit of the fund. If nothing was done, the fund assets could potentially become frozen and the trustees would be powerless to make any changes. The last annuity that was paid under the scheme was in 1997. Since then, there have been no qualifying members to the fund who could apply in the future for annuities if they were widowed. However, there were two wives of contributing members who could qualify in the future for annuities if they were widowed and, as such, they had a contingent interest in the fund. As well as the best means of creating the charitable trust, the trustees of the fund also considered how the interests of those individuals were dealt with and the committee was keen to ensure that they were treated fairly. In the promoters' memorandum, it was explained that, prior to transferring the fund assets into the charitable trust, the trustees would make a single capital payment to each of the two wives of the contributing members. The agreed capital payments had been ring-fenced from the fund's assets. The bill gives authority to the trustees to make a single payment to each of the wives who were not and potentially may never become widows. The intention was that the payments could be made to the wives prior to the dissolution of the fund. The committee was satisfied with the promoters' accounts of the steps that had been taken to ensure that the wives in question received equitable payments. We were told that an actuary had calculated capital payments on which the wives had been consulted. The wives had agreed to accept the capital payments in lieu of potential future annuities to which they might have been entitled as widows in terms of the 1813 act. The committee was content that, firstly, the interests of the only two individuals who might in the future have been affected by the dissolution of the fund have been addressed. Secondly, the establishment of the charitable trust will provide an appropriate means by which the proceeds that are contained in the fund can be used to further the purposes of the incorporation to the benefit of the public. I thank the convener, Tom Arthur, for moving the motion and Alison Harris for her contribution to the debate today. I also take this opportunity to thank the committee for their help and support during our preliminary stages. Thanks must also go to the witnesses who presented evidence. The helpful and cooperative approach that they took in presenting their evidence made our job as committee members much easier. Excuse me, Ms Fee, could we have a bit of quiet, please? I'm finding it difficult to hear, Ms Fee, which is unusual. Given the current interest in the art of baking, and I cite the very popular, the Great British Bake Off, which I have to say I've never watched, as evidence of the trend, it seems of particular relevance that the purposes of the new trust are to encourage and support training and education in baking. To provide training opportunities in baking and to promote the appreciation of local baking and the history of baking. In that context, I was interested to explore in a bit more detail the history of the fund. The incorporation of the bakers or backsters of the city of Edinburgh is one of the ancient trade incorporations or guilds set up in medieval times to regulate trade in many of the cities of northern Europe. It was granted a seal of cause in March 1522. Under the terms of the seal, members of the incorporation controlled admission to the craft of baking and to the supply of bread in Edinburgh. It was subject to penalties for poor quality. The incorporation prospered over the following years and acquired flour mills by the Water of Leith. However, with the advent of steam power, the water power mills became obsolete and had to be sold off at a loss. The Barra Trading Act of 1846 abolished the exclusive trading privileges of the incorporations, which generally declined thereafter. As explained by the promoters in evidence to the committee, the trading act came along in 1846 and the trades could no longer be the closed shop that they had been and they had to change their business. The committee was interested to learn that there is now a renewal of the trades and a revival of interest in Edinburgh, with people not only joining the bakers but the bonnet makers, the goldsmiths, the candle makers, and so on. We were also very encouraged to learn that if the bill was passed and the new trust created, the incorporation would be in a position to increase its membership and increase grant applications. That should also benefit the wider community. For example, the trust might be able to offer a baking course in a primary school or a prison perhaps. Under the new scheme, the benefits to the community would be much wider than it would be under the scheme, as set out under the 1813 act. Presiding Officer, I am pleased to endorse the motion that the bill be passed and I hope that all of the chamber can support that tonight at 5 o'clock. Thank you very much. That concludes the final stage debate on the Edinburgh Bakers Widows Fund Bill. We now move to the next item of business, which is consideration of business motion 9046, in the name of Josephus Patrick, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a revised business programme for tomorrow. I would ask any member who wishes to speak against the motion to press their request-to-speak button now, and I call on Josephus Patrick to move motion 9046. Formally moved. Thank you very much. No member has asked to speak against the motion. The question, therefore, is that motion 9046 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you very much. We move now to decision time. The first question is that amendment 9000.2, in the name of Annie Wells, who seeks to amend motion 9000, in the name of Maureen Watt, on suicide prevention in Scotland, be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. The next question is that 9000.3, in the name of Monica Lennon, who seeks to amend motion 9000, in the name of Maureen Watt be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. No, we are not agreed. We will move to a division and members may cast their votes now. As a result of the vote in amendment 9000.3, in the name of Monica Lennon is yes, 77, no, 27, there were no abstentions, the amendment is therefore agreed. The next question is that motion 9000, in the name of Maureen Watt, as amended, on suicide prevention in Scotland, be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are not agreed. We will move to a division and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion 9000, in the name of Maureen Watt, as amended, is yes, 77, no, 0, there were 27 abstentions, the motion as amended, is therefore agreed. The final question is that motion 8596, in the name of Tom Arthur, on the final stage of the Edinburgh Bakers-Widdows fund bill be agreed. We need to hold a division on this vote, so members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion 8596, in the name of Tom Arthur, is yes, 102, no, 0, no abstentions, the motion is therefore agreed and the Edinburgh Bakers-Widdows fund bill is passed. That concludes decision time. We will now move on to members' business, in the name of Claire Adamson. We will just take a few moments for members to change seats.