Baird Trust Reorganisation Bill: Preliminary Stage
The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-2876, in the name of Andrew Arbuckle, on behalf of the Baird Trust Reorganisation Bill Committee, that the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Baird Trust Reorganisation Bill and that the bill should proceed as a private bill.
Members who wish to speak might consider pressing their request-to-speak buttons.
I came into the Scottish Parliament in January of this year and other members will know better than I that this is the seventh private bill that the Parliament has considered. The bill was introduced on 27 October 2004 by its promoter—the trustees of the Baird Trust. Despite my late arrival on the scene, I present this preliminary stage report to Parliament today. I do so as convener of the Baird Trust Reorganisation Bill Committee, on behalf of the members of that committee.
Private bills are introduced by a promoter, who can be an individual, a company or a group of people who wish to obtain powers or benefits in excess of the general law. Private bills are not introduced by a member of the Scottish Parliament, as bills normally are; therefore, a private bill cannot have a member in charge.
I will take a few minutes to outline the process of the consideration of this bill to date and the procedure that we will follow if the Parliament agrees to the general principles today. Following the introduction of a private bill, any person who feels that their interests would be adversely affected by the bill can object to it. They have 60 days to do so and that 60-day period is known as the objection period. The objection period for the Baird Trust Reorganisation Bill ran from 27 October 2004 to 7 January 2005. No objections were received. The bill is non-contentious.
The Baird Trust Reorganisation Bill Committee was established in March. It consists of five members, none of whom has any connection with the promoter of the bill. Before I turn to the detail of the preliminary stage report, I would like to record my thanks to the committee. The procedures were new not only to me, but to the other committee members. I thank them for their work and assistance to date. I also thank the clerks for their assistance in guiding us through the process—and possibly turning us into private bill anoraks.
The preliminary stage of the bill began when the committee was established in March. The committee's role at preliminary stage is to report to the Parliament on two issues: first, the general principles of the bill; and secondly, whether the bill should proceed as a private bill. The committee may also give a preliminary view on objections. However, as I say, we had no objections to consider.
The committee took evidence on the general principles of the bill on 3 May and I would like to thank those who came to the meeting to give evidence. We published our preliminary stage report last Tuesday; today's debate provides the Parliament with an opportunity to consider its recommendations.
If the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the bill today, we hope that the bill will move directly to its final stage. Normally at this point, a private bill would move to the consideration stage, which, I believe, is similar to stage 2 of a public bill. At consideration stage, the committee can hear further evidence from the promoter and consider any amendments to the bill. However, as no objections have been received and no member of the committee wishes to lodge an amendment, the committee recommends that the Parliamentary Bureau consider suspending the relevant standing orders in order to omit the consideration stage for this bill.
The final stage of a private bill is broadly similar to stage 3 of a public bill. It takes place at a meeting of the Parliament and begins with consideration of any amendments to the bill. This is followed by a debate on whether to pass the bill.
As members will no doubt be aware, the private bill process has recently attracted some criticism, particularly in relation to how the process is used for large works bills, such as the Edinburgh Tram (Line 1) Bill, the Edinburgh Tram (Line 2) Bill and the Waverley Railway (Scotland) Bill, which are currently going through Parliament. Colleagues on the Procedures Committee recently held an inquiry into the process and have made a number of recommendations for handling future applications for private legislation. The committee concluded that both longer-term overhaul and shorter-term improvements were required. The proposed changes would go a long way towards simplifying the private bills process for all parties. That is especially important when we consider that the Parliament expects at least three major works bills to be introduced this year.
However, my committee would like to put it on record that we feel that the private bills process has worked well for the Baird Trust Reorganisation Bill. In our opinion, the process is appropriate for small non-works bills that are largely non-contentious and straightforward—bills such as the Baird Trust Reorganisation Bill. The process has been used to good effect before—I am told that it was used for the National Galleries of Scotland Bill, which was passed by the Parliament in 2003. Like the Baird Trust Reorganisation Bill, that bill did not authorise the construction of large transport infrastructure.
I turn now to the detail of the Baird Trust Reorganisation Bill. The bill is concise and does exactly what it says on the tin. I will give members a little background information on the Baird Trust and on why the bill was needed. The original Baird Trust was set up by James Baird by deed of trust in 1873 to assist the Church of Scotland in furthering its work in Scotland. The trust was formally incorporated as the Baird Trust by an act of Parliament in 1939 and its constitution was amended by subsequent acts of Parliament in 1957 and 1971. Currently, the only way of amending the constitution of the trust is to promote an act of the Scottish Parliament. I will come to the reason for that in a moment.
The trustees of the Baird Trust felt that the objectives of the trust required to be updated to widen the scope of the charity's work and to update the administrative arrangements so that they befit a modern trust. Various alternative legal structures were considered by the trustees. In the end, they felt that the most appropriate and cost-effective method was to change the trust into a charitable company limited by guarantee. Such a structure is the norm for modern charities. Having such a structure would remove the need for, and the associated expense of, promoting further private bills whenever changes to the trust's constitution were needed.
The bill is small and focused. It transfers the property, rights, interests and liabilities of the Baird Trust to those of a charitable company limited by guarantee. In doing so, the bill also updates the objectives and scope of the trust's work. Incidentally, the Baird Trust currently has assets of £7.2 million. In 2004, it spent, distributed or donated some £265,000.
The main changes that are introduced by the bill will widen the membership and powers of investment of the trust. They will allow trust funds to be used to support churches outwith the Church of Scotland and churches outside Scotland. That is an innovative move.
In order properly to scrutinise the general principles of the bill, the committee invited representatives of the promoter and David Campbell, who is a reporter to the inner house of the Court of Session on the reorganisation of public trusts, to give evidence. At our meeting at the start of last month, some interesting issues were raised by those who gave evidence. I would like to take a little time to discuss those issues in more detail.
In his evidence, David Campbell confirmed that, in his opinion, the proposed new legal structure was entirely in keeping with modern charity administration. That is an important point when we bear in mind the current changes in charity law.
If passed, the bill would have the effect of widening the membership and scope of the trust, to enable it to support the work of churches outwith the Church of Scotland and, indeed, churches outside Scotland itself. As they said in "Father Ted", that would be an ecumenical matter.
On a more serious note, the committee views the changes to be brought in by the bill as positive. We note in particular that no objections were raised during the consultation and objection periods.
Also of note are the proposed changes to the long-established Baird lecture; the changes may illustrate why the promoter feels that the bill is necessary. The Baird lecture was established from the beginning of the trust. However, the promoter feels that the conditions imposed on the lecture—who can deliver it, how often it should take place, the method of delivery and the content—are now far too restrictive. They do not take account of modern-day technology such as the internet or even television and video communication. That is one of the areas that the memorandum and articles of association for the proposed new trust addresses. In effect, the lecture will be replaced by a new Baird presentation, the arrangements for which will be much more wide ranging.
The committee is satisfied that the bill will have the effect of increasing public scrutiny of the trust, which is in keeping with the aim of modernisation. That is because, as well as being scrutinised by the Inland Revenue and the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator, the reorganised trust's annual accounts will need to be lodged with Companies House, which will also have to be informed of changes to the trustees or secretary. Those records are open to the public.
The bill's promoter suggests that the trust's investment powers are somewhat restricted by the Trustee Investment Act 1961. The arrangements for the reorganised trust will widen those powers to give the trustees greater discretion on the range of investments that they can make. Members will be aware that the Charities and Trustee Investment (Scotland) Bill is progressing through Parliament. During its evidence, the promoter explained that it had examined whether that bill could have any impact on the Baird Trust Reorganisation Bill and decided that it could not.
The committee is satisfied that the bill's general principles are sound and that the accompanying documents satisfy the technical criteria that are set down in standing orders and allow for proper scrutiny of the bill. If the Parliament is minded to agree to the bill's general principles today, we hope that the bill will move to final stage consideration at a future meeting of the Parliament. On behalf of the committee, I ask the Parliament to agree to the general principles of the bill.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Baird Trust Reorganisation Bill and that the Bill should proceed as a Private Bill.
I am grateful for the Presiding Officer's indulgence of my earlier technical error. On that note, it is appropriate that I should thank the clerks, the committee's convener and the other members of the committee for dealing with the technical aspects of the bill, which, to some extent—along with technology—remain beyond me.
It is appropriate for us to support fully the bill's purpose. We operate in a magnificent Parliament that deals with a variety of tasks; the Parliament is charged with tackling a multitude of issues for the people of Scotland. Yesterday, grand affairs of state were mentioned in the First Minister's report on his trip to Malawi. Later this morning, there will be a debate on dealing with antisocial behaviour—that debate is vital to life in Scotland. This afternoon, we will consider the Protection of Children and Prevention of Sexual Offences (Scotland) Bill, which is crucial legislation. It is clear that the Baird Trust Reorganisation Bill does not fall within the ambit of any of those matters. However, we are the Parliament for the people of Scotland and the committee decided that there was no avenue for making the required changes to the Baird Trust other than through a private bill.
The convener was correct to point out that the Baird Trust was legislated for back in the last century. As the inheritors of Westminster's powers, our only way forward is to tackle the issue through a bill. We should do so not begrudgingly, but in a manner that takes on board what is necessary. The bill does not deal with grand affairs of state, but it is important for the Baird Trust, its members and the many people who benefit from it. Consideration of the bill will take up 30 minutes of our day, which is not a great deal. Members who have served on the committee have been required to attend two meetings. We should just accept that.
As the committee's convener said, it is clear that there is no opposition to the proposed changes, which are perfectly sensible—even if we do not know in what position they will put the Baird Trust or what they will allow it to do. I happened to see "Newsnight" last night, on which there was a debate involving a Liberal Democrat MP and a Labour MSP and minister. It may be that the Baird Trust will wish to deal with matters furth of Scotland. The Lib Dem MP—with whom I have to say I disagreed—suggested that the links between Scotland and Malawi were not especially strong. If he studied the history of the Church of the Scotland and of the Reformed Presbyterian Church in Malawi, he would realise that there were significant links between those bodies. We might not like to crow too much about some of those links—such as the attendance of Dr Hastings Banda at university and divinity college here—but the links between the church in Scotland and the church in Malawi are important. If the reorganisation of the Baird Trust provides an opportunity to expand the links between Scotland and Malawi, it is important.
The reason why the Parliament is dealing with the trust's reorganisation is that no other body in Scotland is capable of doing so. We are Scotland's legislature. The issue requires legislation; we cannot pass it on to a charity commissioner or regulator, the churches or the local authorities. The buck stops with us—that is why it has been appropriate and correct for us to go about our task under the guidance of the convener and the clerking team.
It is clear that we can deal with the trust's reorganisation through an accelerated procedure. The Procedures Committee is reviewing how private bills are dealt with by the Parliament. Every now and again, we will have to deal with historical anachronisms. Although that adds to our work, we should accept that it is part of the responsibility that goes with being elected to the office of member of the Scottish Parliament. The proposed change is limited and we have satisfied ourselves that it will not cause any problems, but will allow the Baird Trust to do more effectively what James Baird originally charged it with doing. I commend the motion to the Parliament.
I apologise for being two minutes late for the debate. Notwithstanding what was said during yesterday's transport debate, the delay was caused by a public transport problem.
The Scottish Conservatives most certainly support the modernisation of a trust that does important work. Quite simply, the bill seeks to make three major changes. First, the scope of the trust's work will be extended from supporting the Church of Scotland to supporting any church. Secondly, the current restriction whereby trustees must be members of the Church of Scotland will be lifted. Thirdly, the restriction that only trustees can be members of the trust will be lifted, which will open up tremendously the opportunities that are afforded to the trust.
I was concerned to note that market comparisons show that, to date, the rate of return on investments that the trust has achieved has not been great. As the convener of the Baird Trust Reorganisation Bill Committee stated, by allowing greater discretion to be exercised on investments, the trust will be brought into the modern age.
I and other members of the committee believe that the proposed changes are compatible with those that are contained in the Charities and Trustee Investment (Scotland) Bill. We should allow the trust to reform. In its new form, it will be able to achieve its objectives in a clearer and more focused manner. In a much more complicated financial world, it will have far more flexibility to do its job.
I will not take up too much more of the Parliament's time because I am conscious that the next debate is important.
As we have heard, the Baird Trust Reorganisation Bill is technical, short and focused. However, that does not make it any less important. Indeed, the Baird Trust has assets of more than £7 million—a not inconsiderable sum. I reiterate the committee's recommendations to Parliament. The bill provides for the necessary reorganisation of the trust. It seeks to simplify the trust's structure and to improve and broaden the trust's ability to support churches and church activities. It provides for an administrative structure that is more suitable for a modern charity, aids public scrutiny of the trust and widens the trust's membership. It will comply with the Charities and Trustee Investment (Scotland) Bill that is going through Parliament, which will receive stage 3 consideration next week, and will remove the need for future private bills to address the trust's needs. That is important. As we have heard, the trust was set up by an act of Parliament and has been modified by acts of Parliament on two subsequent occasions. If we progress with the reorganisation as the committee suggests, there will no longer be a need to return to Parliament to address the trust's needs. That is as it should be.
The committee's members have scrutinised the promoter's proposals and are satisfied that the promoter is acting in good faith and that the new trust will be administered and regulated in a way that is appropriate for a modern charity. I hope that later this afternoon Parliament will concur with the committee's recommendations.