 The next item of business is a debate on motion 8600, in the name of Alison Harris, on the writers for the Signate, Dependence and Unity Fund, amendment Scotland Bill. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press the request to speak buttons. I call on Alison Harris to speak to and move the motion. Ms Harris, six minutes, or they're about, please. Deputy Presiding Officer, I'm pleased to open the parliamentary stage 1 debate on the Writers to the Signate, Dependence and Unity Fund, amendment Scotland Bill. I would like to thank my colleagues Tom Arthur and Mary Fee for their work in getting the bill to this stage. The bill was introduced on 18 May 2017 and is being promoted by the trustees to the Writers to the Signate, Dependence and Unity Fund. This is the third private bill to be introduced to this session and the second to be discussed in the chamber. I thought it might be helpful if I gave members a little bit of background to the fund before I outlined the purpose of the bill. The Writers to the Signate have a long history. The Signate was a private seal of the Kings of Scotland and its first recorded use was in 1369. Writers to the Signate began as clerks to the keeper of the Signate and were those officers of the court entitled to work on behalf of the Crown. The Society of Writers to Her Majesty's Signate in Scotland, the WS Society, was established in 1594 as the professional body of Writers to the Signate. I mentioned earlier that the Writers to the Signate have a long history. The Society believes that it is the oldest professional body in the world. Today, the WS Society is an independent professional body of solicitors. The Society is a not-for-profit corporation for public benefit and provides legal training, support in the form of library services, research and drafting services and charitable trust administration. It owns and operates the Signate library in Edinburgh. 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 by providing for the payment of annuities to WS Society members' widows. The legislative rules governing the fund were updated by private acts of Parliament in 1955 and 1965. In 1982, the Writers to the Signate Dependence Annuity Fund Order Confirmation Act was passed. The 1982 act provided for the change of name of the fund from widows fund to dependence annuity fund, recognising that women were by then admitted as members of the WS Society and to reflect the opening up of the fund to orphans as well as widows and widowers. Most recently, the fund regulations were updated to cover civil partners of contributors to the fund. The fund is administered by a collector who must be a contributor to the fund and is elected annually by other contributors at the fund's annual general meeting. The committee heard that the number of contributors to the fund is 538. The youngest are in their early 50s and the oldest is over 100. There are currently 141 beneficiaries of the fund, known as a newtons, with possibly over 500 potential annuitants. Predictions suggest that the fund will continue to pay annuities into the 2040s. The promoter's memorandum states that the value of the fund was £55.5 million in April 2016 and the value of the current annuity is £8,400 per annum. The decision to close the fund to new members in 1989 was based on changes to the tax regime as a result of the Income Incorporation Taxes Act 1988. That made it more difficult for the fund to compete as a tax-efficient way of saving. Clearly, the closure of the fund meant that the pool of eligible contributors, from which a new collector can be elected, has diminished and will continue to do so. One of the objectives of the bill is, therefore, to remove the requirement that the collector be a contributor to the fund. That change opens up the eligibility for the post of collector beyond the contributors to the fund. The second objective of the bill is to amend the definition of actuary, as defined in the 1982 act. That would reflect the merger in 2011 of the Faculty of Actuaries in Scotland and the Institute of Actuaries. The promoter's legal advice is that it is not strictly necessary to change the definition as any court would interpret the term to reflect the merger of the two organisations. However, the promoters have included that provision for the avoidance of doubt. On the basis of evidence received, the committee is satisfied with the promoter's view that there are no alternative solutions that would address the problem presented by the existing requirement for the collector to be a contributor. It is also content to update the definition of actuary, as set out in the 1982 act. I move that the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the writers to the Signate Dependence and Urity Fund amendment Scotland bill, and that the bill should proceed as a private bill. Thank you, Ms Harris. I call on Tom Arthur for minutes, please, Mr Arthur. Has there been a change of plan for which I have not been informed? Well, I cannae guess. I now call on Mary Phee for minutes, Ms Phee. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and apologies for the mix-up. Can I start by thanking the convener, Alison Harris, for moving the motion today? As this is only the second private bill that is debated in the Parliament in this session, I thought that members might be interested to have some brief information about private bills more generally and why they are necessary. A private bill is introduced by an outside promoter and is about making specific changes to the law, affecting the promoter rather than about changing the public and general law. Traditionally, many private bills are about updating bits of private legislation that were passed some time ago, which have been increasingly outdated. In this context, there is always a right for people or organisations who consider that a private bill would adversely affect their interests to formally object to the bill. However, in some cases, including this one, no such objections have been received. Nevertheless, the Parliament has an obligation to scrutinise the bill and to satisfy itself that the changes to the law that the promoter is seeking are both reasonable and appropriate. As with public bills, most of the detailed scrutiny of a private bill is undertaken by a committee. However, there are a number of important differences between the two types of committees, including the fact that private bill committees are always ad hoc committees set up to scrutinise a particular bill, and any MSP who has a close connection to the area affected by the bill is prevented from serving on the committee. The first stage of the private bill committee process is almost equivalent to stage 1 of a public bill, and it is known as the preliminary stage. There are three aspects to the committee's task at the preliminary stage. To take evidence and reach a view on whether the general principles of the bill should be approved, to reach a view on whether the bill should proceed as a private bill, and to give preliminary consideration to any objections. If the Parliament approves the general principles of the bill and agrees that it should proceed as a private bill, the bill goes on to consideration stage, roughly equivalent to stage 2 of a public bill, and then on to final stage, where the Parliament debates whether or not the bill should be passed. The committee is pleased to support the promoters of the bill in their quest to remove the stipulation that the collector is a contributor to the fund and to substitute a new requirement that the collector shall be an individual. That would open up a wider field of potential experienced candidates for the post of collector and would ensure that the fund can be administered effectively in the longer term. The committee unanimously supports the change in the definition of actuary as laid out in the 1982 act to reflect the merger in 2011 of the faculty of actuaries in Scotland and the Institute of Actuaries. Thank you very much, Ms Wee, and please forgive the confusion. I do not know where it came from, but we will find out. I now call on Tom Arthur to close the debate, please. Four minutes, Mr Arthur. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer, and I apologise for any part that I had in the confusion. I would like to begin by thanking our convener, Alison Harris, and the committee colleague, Mary Fee, for their contribution. I also placed on the record my thanks to the committee clerks and SPICE for their support. I wish to use my contribution to expand on the issues that the committee considered when it heard evidence from the promoters, specifically in relation to the provision about the identity of collectors. I will cover this by highlighting three particular areas. First, the committee asked if the writers to the Signature Society had considered any alternative approaches that would enable the fund to continue to meet the existing requirement for the collector to be a contributor. Solution such as reopening the fund or changing other eligibility criteria for the collector were suggested. The deputy keeper said that there were no alternative approaches and referred to an actuary report that advised against reopening the fund to new members. Essentially, the reasons that prompted the scheme closure in 1989 still apply. We, as a committee, are content with the explanation and agree that there is no alternative to widening the eligibility for the post-off collector. Secondly, the committee asked why the collector had to be an individual and whether employing a firm to undertake the role would provide greater flexibility and expertise when an individual. The promoters stated that the provision was based on consultation with the contributors who wanted to have a named individual in the role. The promoters stressed that however the contributors recognised the role can only be undertaken with the support of a professional firm behind the collector. Indeed, we were told that all collectors in living memory at least have had the support of their solicitor's firm. We did inquire further as we wanted to satisfy ourselves about the legal responsibility for any work undertaken by the firm, but the promoters have assured us that this relationship, which is akin to the solicitor-client relationship, is one that all contributors are familiar and content with. The promoters confirmed that legal responsibility for all the functions carried out by the collector, whether carried out directly by them or on their behalf by colleagues rests with the collector. We are content with the explanation and note that all the contributors, as former solicitors, will be more than familiar with the solicitor-client relationship. Finally, we were interested in what longer-term plans the promoters have in place for the management of the fund when the pool of contributors is significantly diminished. The promoters spoke about the likelihood that, at some stage in the future, the fund would be converted to cash and annuities bought. At that point, the fund would be spent and so wound up. We agree that that would seem the most appropriate way forward. With those assurances, the committee recommends that the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Riters to the Signate Dependence and Unity Fund amendment Scotland bill, and that the bill should proceed as a private bill. That concludes the preliminary stage debate on the Riters to the Signate Dependence and Unity Fund amendment Scotland bill. It is now time to move on to the next side of our business. I have a short pause before we move on.