Hutchesons' Hospital Transfer and Dissolution (Scotland) Bill

Stewart Stevenson

Agenda item 2 is choice of convener. The Parliament has agreed that the convener of the committee should be a member of the Scottish Labour Party. As Kezia Dugdale is the only Labour member of the committee, do we agree to choose her as convener?

Kezia Dugdale was chosen as convener.

Stewart Stevenson

I congratulate Kezia Dugdale on her appointment and hand over the chair to her for the remainder of the proceedings.

The Convener (Kezia Dugdale)

Thank you. I also thank the officials for their preparations for today’s meeting. They have been much appreciated by all members.

The Deputy Presiding Officer (Linda Fabiani)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S5M-15617, in the name of Kezia Dugdale, on the Hutchesons’ Hospital Transfer and Dissolution (Scotland) Bill. I call Kezia Dugdale to speak to and move the motion—you have around seven minutes, please.

Kezia Dugdale (Lothian) (Lab)

I am pleased to open the preliminary stage debate on the Hutchesons’ Hospital Transfer and Dissolution (Scotland) Bill.

I thank my colleagues Stewart Stevenson—the deputy convener—Ruth Maguire and Maurice Corry for their work in getting the bill to this stage. I also thank the clerks and the Scottish Parliament information centre for their guidance and attention to detail throughout the process.

The bill was introduced on 25 June 2018 and is being promoted by the patrons of the Royal Incorporation of Hutchesons’ Hospital in the City of Glasgow. This is the fourth private bill to be introduced in the current session; the previous three all received royal assent. By now, we are all becoming more familiar with this specific, but necessary and important, aspect of the Parliament’s work. That is, in part, thanks to the most recent private bill to be discussed in the chamber—the Pow of Inchaffray Drainage Commission (Scotland) Bill, which gained a fair amount of attention from its observers during its passage.

So far, the work of our private bill committee has been far more straightforward, partly because no objections were lodged to the Hutchesons’ Hospital Transfer and Dissolution (Scotland) Bill. As with all private bills, at the primary stage, the role of the committee has been to consider the purpose of the bill, its general principles and whether it should proceed as a private bill. If Parliament agrees, the bill will move to the consideration stage.

The Royal Incorporation of Hutchesons’ Hospital in the City of Glasgow is a charity and is the legacy of the Hutcheson brothers, George and Thomas. The name Hutcheson remains well known—thanks, in part, to the grammar school of that name in Glasgow.

It all began in December 1639. In his will, George Hutcheson of Lambhill established the Hutchesons’ hospital charity when he left land and funding to build a hospital. In the 1600s, hospitals were places to shelter and support those in need.

Important milestones in the charity’s history appear in 1821, when the charity became the Royal Incorporation of Hutchesons’ Hospital in the City of Glasgow under a royal charter, and in 1872, when it was incorporated in its current form by the Hutchesons’ Hospital Act 1872.

The purposes of the bill that we have in front of us today are to transfer the property, rights, interests and liabilities of the royal incorporation to a successor Scottish charitable incorporated organisation—or SCIO; to dissolve the incorporation; and to repeal the Hutchesons’ Hospital Act 1872.

I feel that, before I move on to the committee’s consideration of the bill, members might benefit from some background to the incorporation. The preamble to the 1872 act provides considerable detail on how the charity developed—15 pages of pre-1872 history in all, most of which members will get from Stewart Stevenson’s speech this afternoon. Several sections cite provisions from George Hutcheson’s will, in the original Scots. We had the benefit of a comprehensive promoter’s memorandum, as one of the accompanying documents to the bill, which set out the history of the charity for us.

As I mentioned, it was George Hutcheson who donated the land in Glasgow and the funds to build a hospital on it. He also provided funds for clothes, food and lodging for, at that time,

“eleven aged and decrepit men”.

The support was for men who had been merchants, craftsmen or tradesmen who had fallen on hard times. George’s brother, Thomas, also made bequests to the charity. He provided funding for educating orphans who were the sons of burgesses of Glasgow and he established the school that became Hutchesons’ grammar school. A burgess was an inhabitant of the city who owned land, paid tax and was able to trade or practice a craft.

The original Hutchesons’ hospital building was completed in 1650 at the Trongate in Glasgow, and it was demolished in 1795. A new hospital building, which included Hutchesons’ school, was completed in 1805 on Ingram Street in Glasgow, and in 1810 the school moved into its own premises and then into a purpose-built building in 1841. The old hospital building can still be seen on Ingram Street today.

Over the years, other bequests were made to the charity and eligibility was expanded. For example, from 1781 poor women also qualified if they were residents of Glasgow and if their husbands or fathers were burgesses. Since 1885 the incorporation’s distributions for educational purposes have been paid to, and administered separately by, the governors of Hutchesons’ Educational Trust. The 1872 act still regulates the management of the charity and its revenues today, which brings us back to the objectives and purposes of the bill.

The bill’s promoter, the patrons—or trustees—of the charity, have decided that change is needed to allow more modern governance of the incorporation’s assets and to enable the charity to function more efficiently and effectively. They believe that a private bill is the best route to achieving that.

We heard from the promoter at our committee meeting on 7 November 2018, when we asked what the 1872 act prevented the charity from doing today. Mr Donald Reid of Mitchells Roberton, the firm of solicitors that supports the charity in its role as “chamberlains” to Hutchesons’ hospital, explained:

“Our hands are not tied behind our backs at the moment; it is just that moving is like being in a spacesuit rather than in athletic gear. However, what needs to be done gets done.”—[Official Report, Hutchesons’ Hospital Transfer and Dissolution (Scotland) Bill Committee, 7 November 2018; c 5.]

The patrons have already set up the new SCIO, ready for the transfer. The SCIO is a modern, flexible form of organisation for charities that is provided for by the Charities and Trustee Investment (Scotland) Act 2005 and regulated by the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator.

The committee considered the purpose of the bill and the arguments presented in favour of enabling an updated governance structure and more modern financial management of the charity. We also considered the potential impact of the changes on the nature of the charity, its work and its beneficiaries, and whether a private bill was necessary to achieve the charity’s aims.

Our report sets out our considerations, and my committee colleagues will provide some more detail on them later in the debate. The committee supports the general principles of the bill. Overall, we believe that it will help to ensure that the charity can modernise, streamline, improve its governance, remain effective and continue to provide support to its beneficiaries.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Hutchesons’ Hospital Transfer and Dissolution (Scotland) Bill and that the bill should proceed as a private bill.

Maurice Corry (West Scotland) (Con)

I, too, thank the clerks and my colleagues for the progress of the bill to this stage, and I thank the convener, Kezia Dugdale, for moving the motion. As she mentioned, one of the reasons for promoting the bill is to enable the promoter to update the governance of the incorporation. Based on the 1872 act, which still governs it today, the governing body consists of 95 patrons. Many of those are ex officio, meaning that the individuals are there because of the post or office that they hold; they are not there through choice.

An example of that is that all the councillors on Glasgow City Council are still patrons because they were named as such in the 1872 act. The promoter underlined that, although there is a committed and active group of patrons, not surprisingly, there are also many who are not actively involved. The day-to-day running of the incorporation is carried out by an executive committee, but the 95 patrons still constitute the governing body, which means that they must be properly contacted and consulted. In the course of our evidence taking, the promoter explained that there are costs associated with that.

The promoter seeks to streamline and modernise how the charity operates, to make it more agile in how it can take decisions and, as the promoter explained, to respond to expectations of best practice in the charity sector. Such modernisation would include moving towards a model in which bodies would be named, which would then nominate people as trustees. The committee feels that a more direct and transparent link to a group of committed trustees would benefit the charity, because they would be in their roles through choice. Such a move would streamline activities and, ultimately, improve management and oversight. The promoter also believes that modernisation is needed to enable it to use the assets of the charity to their best effect. In evidence to the committee, it explained that, as currently constituted, the charity faces certain restrictions and has less flexibility in what it can do than would be the case for a Scottish charitable incorporated organisation.

As well as considering the arguments that were given by the promoter in favour of modernising the governance and financial management of the charity, the committee heard about the charity’s intentions for the future. It provided its first pensions, or grants, to two men in 1643. In evidence from the promoter, the committee heard that the charity today provides grants to a group of between 20 and 30 people in Glasgow. It also employs a part-time social worker who visits those who receive such grants. David Dobson, who is on the charity’s executive committee, described that work as

“one main thrust of the purposes of the trust, and it will be maintained absolutely”.

He went on to state:

“The other broad purpose of the trust is the advancement of education in Glasgow. Over the years, that has become established as being that 40 per cent of the trust’s net income goes to another charity, namely the Governors of Hutchesons’ Educational Trust. We have no intention of changing that, and that will be within the authority granted by the new SCIO, should we start operating in that way.”—[Official Report, Hutchesons’ Hospital Transfer and Dissolution (Scotland) Bill Committee, 7 November 2018; c 8.]

The promoter also confirmed that none of the current beneficiaries would lose out as a consequence of the change.

I hope that I have provided members with useful detail on our considerations and some context as to why—as the convener mentioned in her opening speech—the committee has concluded that it is content with the general principles of the bill as they were presented to us.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I call Stewart Stevenson to close the debate.

Stewart Stevenson (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)

The primary task of the committee was to consider whether the bill is a private one. We have thought about that and have looked at the definition that is in the Parliament’s standing orders, and we have concluded that it is. In doing so, the committee is merely following the long history to which Kezia Dugdale referred, from 1639 via the 1872 act, which, although it was not technically based on a private bill, clearly served private purposes. As the bill that is before the Parliament today is a private one, it is part of the continuum of support that has been given to people in Glasgow.

The promoter had considered whether it could use alternative ways of dealing with the issue that confronted it, such as the charity reorganisation provisions that are set out in chapter 5 of the Charities and Trustee Investment (Scotland) Act 2005, which are available to charities in certain defined circumstances. However, there appeared to be a lack of clarity as to whether the Royal Incorporation of Hutchesons’ Hospital in the City of Glasgow would meet the criteria for applying those provisions.

To test that, the committee sought advice from an academic and a Queen’s counsel, which is set out in considerable detail in the committee’s report. The advice is more fascinating than might be imagined, and I encourage all members to read it. However, the bottom line is that it drew the committee towards the conclusion to which the promoter of the bill had come, which is that it could not reliably use the provisions of the 2005 act without the prospect of legal challenge. Therefore, instead, it has pursued the private bill that is before us today.

The consequences of a legal challenge, were one to arise, could be both financially and practically quite challenging, so I think that the safe option that they have adopted, which the committee is happy to endorse, is to bring forward a private bill.

Of course, that leads to an issue for the Scottish Government, which we deal with in our report. It is that the legislation that I mentioned—the 2005 act—should perhaps be revisited to see whether we can provide greater clarity.

Having said that, the Scottish Government has published in the past month a consultation on Scottish charity law with a view to possible update of the 2005 act, and it includes a question that relates to the matter that I have just been referring to. Preparation of the consultation would have been well advanced but, nonetheless, the Hutchesons’ committee was quite right to bring the bill forward in early course.

The other option was that it could have hobbled on with the 1872 legislation and the 95 largely indifferent people who were on the committee. There was some suggestion that many of them were not even aware that they were on the committee, including as it does all of Glasgow’s councillors and many ministers of religion who, simply because of their office, end up legally and formally being on the committee.

We came to the conclusion that doing nothing did not make sense, because the trustees made a pretty cogent argument that we should look at updating and modernising the 1872 arrangements and bringing them into the world that we now have, with the oversight of OSCR and an SCIO. Having considered the alternatives, we are content with the promoter’s conclusion that a private bill is most appropriate and best available method of achieving the aims.

We are left with one question alone, which is how we will adjudge the success of the parliamentary process. I think the key test is that the beneficiaries of the trust see no difference whatsoever and it continues to provide the support that they have enjoyed for some time. The support was described in the 1872 act, which was based on the mortification of George Hutcheson of 1639. It says:

“aiget, decrippet men may be enterit and placet yrin”.

I am “aiget” but hopefully not “decrippet”, but I was particularly excited by the provision that there be

“foure shillingis Scottis money”

every day, and every year

“ane gowne of convenient cullor”.

Before we get too excited, I note that, although four shillings sounds a lot of money, in today’s money, because it was Scots pounds and not English pounds and because of decimalisation, that would be tuppence. I know that the beneficiaries get a little bit more than that today. The parliamentary process should, and I believe will, enable them to continue to receive the benefits in proper legal form.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

That concludes the debate on the Hutchesons’ Hospital Transfer and Dissolution (Scotland) Bill.

The Presiding Officer (Ken Macintosh)

The first question is, that motion S5M-15617, in the name of Kezia Dugdale, on the Hutchesons’ Hospital Transfer and Dissolution (Scotland) Bill, be agreed to.

Motion agreed to,

That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Hutchesons’ Hospital Transfer and Dissolution (Scotland) Bill and that the bill should proceed as a private bill.

The Presiding Officer

The next question is, that motion S5M-15892, in the name of Kevin Stewart, on the Fuel Poverty (Target, Definition and Strategy) (Scotland) Bill, be agreed to.

Motion agreed to,

That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Fuel Poverty (Target, Definition and Strategy) (Scotland) Bill.

The Presiding Officer

The final question is, that motion S5M-15900, in the name of Graeme Dey, on the draft Local Government Finance (Scotland) Order 2019, be agreed to.

Motion agreed to,

That the Parliament agrees that the Local Government Finance (Scotland) Order 2019 [draft] be considered by the Parliament.

The Convener (Kezia Dugdale)

Good morning and welcome to the first meeting in 2019 of the Hutchesons’ Hospital Transfer and Dissolution (Scotland) Bill Committee. I remind all present, including members, that mobile phones should be turned to silent.

Agenda item 1 is consideration stage of the Hutchesons’ Hospital Transfer and Dissolution (Scotland) Bill. Normally, at this stage, there is consideration of objections, followed by formal proceedings on amendments. However, in this instance, no objections or amendments have been lodged, so the only function of this stage is to formally consider and agree the bill’s individual provisions.

Although we have no amendments to deal with, we are obliged under standing orders to consider and formally agree each section and the long title of the bill. We will take the sections in order and the long title last, but standing orders allow us to put a single question where groups of sections are to be considered consecutively. Unless members disagree, that is what I propose to do. Is the committee content with that approach?

Members indicated agreement.

Sections 1 to 5 agreed to.

Long title agreed to.

The Convener

That ends consideration stage. Now that the committee has completed its consideration of the bill, this is likely to be our final meeting, and the bill will now proceed to the final stage, which will take place in the chamber.

I thank the promoters and the members for their assistance with and work on the bill to date, and I close the meeting.

The Deputy Presiding Officer (Christine Grahame)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S5M-16708, in the name of Kezia Dugdale, on the final stage of the Hutchesons’ Hospital Transfer and Dissolution (Scotland) Bill.

Before the debate begins, the Presiding Officer is required under the standing orders to decide whether, in his view, any provision of the bill relates to a protected subject matter—whether any provision will modify the electoral system and franchise for Scottish parliamentary elections. In this case, the Presiding Officer’s view is that no provision of the Hutchesons’ Hospital Transfer and Dissolution (Scotland) Bill relates to a protected subject matter. Therefore, the bill does not require a supermajority for it to be passed at the final stage.

Kezia Dugdale (Lothian) (Lab)

I am pleased to open the final stage debate on the Hutchesons’ Hospital Transfer and Dissolution (Scotland) Bill.

I again thank my committee colleagues: the redoubtable Stewart Stevenson, as deputy convener, Ruth Maguire and Maurice Corry for their contributions to the work of the committee. I also thank the clerks for their tremendous work in guiding us through the process.

The bill was introduced on 25 June 2018 and is being promoted by the patrons of the Royal Incorporation of Hutchesons’ Hospital in the City of Glasgow.

If the Parliament passes the bill today, it will enable the promoter to transfer the property, rights, interests and liabilities of the royal incorporation to a successor Scottish charitable incorporated organisation—SCIO. It will also dissolve the incorporation and repeal the Hutchesons’ Hospital Act 1872.

As members will recall from the preliminary stage debate, in February, the Royal Incorporation of Hutchesons’ Hospital in the City of Glasgow is a charity and is the legacy of George and Thomas Hutcheson. It started with a bequest that was made in the will of George Hutcheson in 1639, and the establishment of the Hutchesons’ hospital charity. The charity became the Royal Incorporation of Hutchesons’ Hospital in the City of Glasgow under a royal charter in 1821. In 1872, it was incorporated in its current form by the Hutchesons’ Hospital Act 1872, and it continues to be regulated under that act. With this bill, the promoter aims to allow more modern governance of the incorporation’s assets and enable the charity to function more efficiently and effectively.

Elaine Smith (Central Scotland) (Lab)

I understand that, in her role as convener of the committee, Kezia Dugdale cannot comment directly on this, but I am keen to have it noted for the record that, although this is a private bill that focuses on technical issues and will, no doubt, be supported at decision time, it is nonetheless important to recognise that private schools ingrain privilege and should not themselves be classed as charitable institutions.

Kezia Dugdale

I am grateful to the member for that intervention. In this debate, I speak as the committee convener on the specifics of the bill, but she will know that I share her concerns regarding the tax liabilities of private schools. That is an issue on which I have personally campaigned for a long time. The bill regulates the bursaries that the charity has—or certainly had in the past—that allow certain young people to attend private schools, so there is a relevance in that regard.

The committee undertook a thorough examination of the bill at the preliminary stage, including taking evidence from the promoter on 7 November last year. In addition to evidence from the promoter, we received written submissions from two experts in the field—an academic and a Queen’s counsel—and our thanks go to them for their contribution to the committee’s work.

We considered the purpose of the bill and the arguments that were presented in favour of enabling an updated governance structure and more modern financial management of the charity. We also considered the potential impact of the changes on the nature of the charity, its work and its beneficiaries and whether a private bill was necessary to achieve the charity’s aims.

Our preliminary stage report, which was published on 20 December, covers our work in some detail. In our discussions and deliberations, perhaps the most considered point was whether a private bill was necessary at all and whether the promoter had alternative options to achieve the charity’s aims.

In the bill’s accompanying documents and in evidence to the committee, the promoter explained the alternatives to promoting a private bill that it had considered. Its process uncovered an apparent lack of clarity in the Charities and Trustee Investment (Scotland) Act 2005 related to chapter 5 of part 1, which sets out provisions on charity reorganisation. The issue was whether the Royal Incorporation of Hutchesons’ Hospital in the City of Glasgow meets the criteria that would enable it to make use of those provisions. It has been suggested that the reorganisation provisions present difficulties of interpretation. Indeed, the promoter concluded that it did not wish to risk the potentially serious consequences of any legal challenge and chose the private bill route instead. As a result, the committee suggested that it could be a valuable exercise for the Scottish Government to review the provisions, to provide greater clarity on them.

In fact, the Scottish Government consulted on Scottish charity law in January this year—a process that would have been under way before publication of our report. However, we hope that our work on the bill provided some timely reflections for the Government.

I imagine that a considerable number of charities that are still operating on the basis of royal charters or enactments might find themselves in a similar situation. In cases in which it could prove possible to avoid the time and expense of promoting a private bill, I suspect that an alternative route must be preferable.

The committee was satisfied that the promoter had considered alternatives and was content with its conclusion that a private bill was the most appropriate and best available method of achieving its aims.

My committee colleagues will touch on other aspects of our work on the bill. I will conclude by stating that the committee recommends that the Scottish Parliament agrees that the bill be passed.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that the Hutchesons’ Hospital Transfer and Dissolution (Scotland) Bill be passed.

Ruth Maguire (Cunninghame South) (SNP)

Being a member of this private bill committee has given me an insight into an important but lesser-known aspect of parliamentary work.

The bill was previously debated at preliminary stage in the chamber on 20 February, and the Parliament agreed with the committee’s recommendation that the general principles be agreed to and that the bill should proceed as a private bill. In the private bill process, the preliminary stage is followed by the consideration stage, when committee members are able to lodge amendments. It is also possible for the promoter of the bill to suggest amendments to committee members.

When there have been objections, the committee takes evidence from the objectors and the promoter at the consideration stage. In our case, there were no objections to the bill and nothing arose during the preliminary stage scrutiny of it that led us to conclude that any amendments were necessary.

The consideration stage was completed at our meeting on 6 March, when we agreed to each section of the bill and the long title. When the consideration stage of a private bill is completed, it is then open to any member of the Scottish Parliament to lodge amendments. The deadline for amendments in this case was 29 March. None were received, so today we are proceeding with the final stage debate, with the committee recommendation that the Parliament agree to the bill as it stands.

Membership of the committee also gave me an opportunity to learn about the history of the Hutchesons’ Hospital charity, how it has developed over the years and the work that it does today. George Hutcheson of Lambhill established the charity when he left land and funding in his will to build a hospital. The charity focused initially on men who had been merchants, craftsmen or tradesmen and who had fallen on hard times. George Hutcheson also provided funds for clothes and food for those lodging in the hospital.

Further bequests were made over the years, and the categories of people who were eligible to receive assistance were expanded. For example, from 1781, poor women who were wives or daughters of burgesses of Glasgow became eligible to receive support from the charity’s funds, regardless of whether they were widowed. Burgesses were inhabitants of the city who owned land, paid taxes and were able to trade or practise a craft.

Thomas Hutcheson, George’s brother, also made bequests to the charity. He provided funding to educate boys who were orphans of burgesses of Glasgow. He also established the school that became Hutchesons’ grammar school.

The original hospital building, which was completed in 1650 at the Trongate in Glasgow, was demolished in 1795 and the land was sold to make way for Hutchesons’ Street. The new hospital building was constructed on Ingram Street and was finished in 1805. Although it now serves a different purpose, it can still be found on Ingram Street. George and Thomas can also be found there. The sculptures of the brothers from the original 17th century hospital were preserved and incorporated into the façade of the new building. I understand that they are believed to be the oldest portrait sculptures in the city. The legacy of the Hutcheson brothers clearly lives on in the city and in the work of the charity today.

The bill, which is promoted by the patrons of the charity, aims to make the charity fit to function effectively into the future.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I call Maurice Corry to speak. You were quick to get to your feet, Mr Corry—that shows enthusiasm.

Maurice Corry (West Scotland) (Con)

I thank the clerks for all their work during the bill process, which has been most interesting. They have put in a tremendous amount of effort.

As we have heard, it is the 1872 act, which the bill will repeal, that still governs the functioning of the charity today. The 1872 act is a fascinating document the preamble to which requires a fair grasp of old Scots to fully comprehend. Preambles used to be commonplace in acts of Parliament. They typically provide a preliminary piece of narrative explaining the background to an act and usually take the form of one single extended sentence, with each clause beginning with “Whereas”. They remain normal practice for Westminster private acts but are no longer used in public and general acts. Preambles are not permitted in Scottish Parliament bills or acts, private or public. The preamble to the 1872 act is remarkable for its length: running to 15 pages, it is nearly double the length of the act itself.

The bill that we are considering today, which is promoted by the patrons of the charity, will transfer the property, rights, interests and liabilities of the royal incorporation to a new Scottish charitable incorporated organisation. It will also repeal the 1872 act and dissolve the incorporation.

One example of the modernisation that the patrons hope to achieve with the new structure relates to the governance of the charity. The 1872 act sets out in full who the patrons of the hospital are—including the Lord Provost, all the magistrates of the City of Glasgow and all the councillors of the City of Glasgow. Currently, there are 95 patrons in total, many of whom hold ex officio positions, meaning that they are patrons due to the post or office that they hold. Some of those posts are held for only one year at a time. As a result, many of the patrons are not there through choice, and some remain in the role for only one year.

In evidence, we heard that the charity has a group of committed patrons. However, perhaps unsurprisingly, many of the 95 that I have mentioned are not actively involved. Nevertheless, each must be properly contacted and consulted. Mr Donald Reid of Mitchells Roberton—the solicitors firm that is supporting the charity as “chamberlains” to Hutchesons’ Hospital—explained:

“The time and effort required simply to manage the extensive paperwork generated by the sheer number of people mean that the cost—which is a management cost rather than a direct cost that you can put your finger on—has in recent years become something that we need to look at.”—[Official Report, Hutchesons’ Hospital Transfer and Dissolution (Scotland) Bill Committee, 7 November 2018; c 7.]

The work that is involved was further illustrated when the committee heard evidence about how the promoter had consulted before introducing the bill. The 1872 act stipulates a list of ministers of parishes in Glasgow as patrons. Mr Reid explained that he had been in contact with the Glasgow presbytery

“in order to ensure that I was up to date with all the various amalgamations of churches that have taken place over the past 150 years within the Glasgow presbytery area, and that I was addressing as a patron the correct minister—who, in most cases, is now the minister of several amalgamated parishes, as distinct from the way that it was before.”—[Official Report, Hutchesons’ Hospital Transfer and Dissolution (Scotland) Bill Committee, 7 November 2018; c 14.]

Mr Reid valiantly admitted that the planned changes would also mean lower fees to him in his role, as a result of the more streamlined structure and governance.

The committee’s view was that the charity will benefit from a more direct and transparent link to a group of committed trustees who are in the role through choice. That will help to streamline activities and, ultimately, improve management and oversight. The bill that is being promoted by the patrons of the Royal Incorporation of Hutchesons’ Hospital in the City of Glasgow, which the Parliament is being asked to pass today, should facilitate that change.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I call Stewart Stevenson to close for the committee.

Stewart Stevenson (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)

As we have heard, George Hutcheson’s deed of mortification of 1639 is the genesis of what we are engaging with today. The charity’s history is long and interesting. In her intervention, Elaine Smith was right to point out the educational aspect, but it is worth saying that nothing that we will do today appears to change the status of anything in that regard.

The charity provides grants, which it describes as pensions, to 20 to 30 people, so its size is comparatively modest. That means that having a complex and long parliamentary act for its oversight is no longer consistent with how we wish to do things. The promoter explained to the committee that the charity employs a part-time social worker, who visits the grantees.

The committee looked carefully at what was proposed. In particular, we looked at any impacts on those who receive support, and we accepted the promoter’s assurance that no one who currently receives benefits will lose out as a result of the proposed changes.

The promoter’s memorandum says:

“The charitable purposes of the SCIO”—

the new form that the charity will take—

“seek to respect the spirit and underlying intention of the Incorporation’s purposes, but in a manner that more satisfactorily and effectively allows the charitable funds held by the Incorporation to be applied in the 21st century.”

The SCIO that will take over has been established and is waiting to take responsibility. That is a modern form of organisation for charities that was provided for by the Charities and Trustee Investment (Scotland) Act 2005 and is regulated by the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator. The structure will be more effective and will remove the need for parliamentary scrutiny of the charity’s activities.

In our evidence session, the committee heard that the charity will have greater flexibility in how it carries out its purposes—for example, in how it invests. As a SCIO, the charity will be able to invest in anything that furthers its purposes, provided that the trustees believe that that is right for the charity.

The committee thought that the proposed approach would make the whole operation much more future proof. Other members have referred to the complexity of multiple deeds of mortification and similar deeds, almost all of which are in old Scots—perhaps we should relearn the old Scots. The documents include a deed of ratification by Janet, Bessie and Helen Hutcheson; deeds of mortification by James Blair in 1713 and Daniel Baxter in 1776; and settlements by William Scott in 1818 and Mary Hood in 1817. There is a complex picture and history behind the charity.

Mr Donald Reid, whose firm has acted as chamberlains to the charity for some 200 years, explained that he had gone through all the tin boxes that they have and found nothing further that is relevant. It is worth saying that this opportunity that a lawyer has presented to the Parliament is unusual—at his request, we are going to reduce that lawyer’s income. I therefore commend the bill as something that the Parliament should absolutely support. In the event that something arises that is not in the tin boxes, the SCIO will be the body that will deal with it.

Like others, I thank my colleagues on the committee and, in particular, the non-Government bills unit, which has, as promised, smoothed the path and made it straightforward for the committee to deal with the bill. I hope that the vote at 5 o’clock reflects the Parliament’s belief that that is the case.

The Presiding Officer (Ken Macintosh)

The first question is, that motion SM5-16708, in the name of Kezia Dugdale, on the Hutchesons’ Hospital Transfer and Dissolution (Scotland) Bill, be agreed to. The motion is to pass the bill, so we will hold a division. Members should cast their votes now.

For

Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 100, Against 0, Abstentions 0.

Motion agreed to,

That the Parliament agrees that the Hutchesons’ Hospital Transfer and Dissolution (Scotland) Bill be passed.

The Presiding Officer

The next question is, that amendment S5M-17034.2, in the name of Brian Whittle, which seeks to amend motion S5M-17034, in the name of Joe FitzPatrick, on changing lives through sport and physical activity, be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

The Presiding Officer

The next question is, that amendment S5M-17034.1, in the name of David Stewart, which seeks to amend motion S5M-17034, in the name of Joe FitzPatrick, be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

The Presiding Officer

The final question is, that motion S5M-17034, in the name of Joe FitzPatrick, on changing lives through sport and physical activity, as amended, be agreed to.

Motion, as amended, agreed to.

That the Parliament recognises that sport and physical activity can bring about positive change beyond participation that benefits the health and wellbeing of individuals and improve their skills and learning; acknowledges that it makes communities better connected and more socially cohesive, ensuring a more inclusive and healthier nation; recognises that this can be achieved by sporting and non-sporting organisations working together to use sport and physical activity to intentionally bring about both increased participation and wider social outcomes; recognises that sport should be available to all, irrespective of background or personal circumstances; considers that sport in school and in extracurricular activities is the best way to ensure access for all; believes that physical education should reflect the sporting opportunities in local communities and local clubs; considers that investment in sport should reflect the positive impact that it can have in the health of the nation and attainment in Scotland’s schools; notes with concern the deprivation gap in levels of physical activity and considers that, regardless of background or ability to pay, physical activities should be accessible for all; appreciates the importance of appropriate physical activity for recovery following illness or injury, and believes that the Scottish Government should work to address the gap in provision of community-based exercise initiatives such as pulmonary rehabilitation.