William Simpson’s Home (Transfer of Property etc) (Scotland) Bill: Preliminary Stage
The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-6258, in the name of Shirley-Anne Somerville, on the William Simpson’s Home (Transfer of Property etc) (Scotland) Bill. I call on Shirley-Anne Somerville to speak to and move the motion on behalf of the William Simpson’s Home (Transfer of Property etc) (Scotland) Bill Committee.
16:40
I am pleased to open the preliminary stage debate on the William Simpson’s Home (Transfer of Property etc) (Scotland) Bill, and to set out the committee’s consideration of this important area of work. In considering the general principles of the bill, the committee was interested to hear evidence on the operation of the home and its ambitions for the future.
In 1829, Francis Simpson of Plean gifted his estate to trustees to establish the William Simpson’s home. He made the gift in memory of his son, William, who had died at sea. The trustees sought and were granted incorporation under a private act of Parliament—the Simpson’s Asylum Act 1864, which received royal assent on 23 June 1864.
The home currently provides specialist residential accommodation for up to 44 service users with alcohol-related brain damage and mental health problems. In a separate building within the grounds is a facility that provides respite and day-care facilities for up to 10 persons. Local authorities throughout central Scotland use the service, with Falkirk Council and Stirling Council being the home’s principal customers.
The trustees are promoting the bill so that the home can be set up as a charitable company. They consider that that will allow them to improve the home’s governance arrangements and provide its services to a wider and larger group of people. They also consider that the changes that they seek are not possible under the terms of the home’s constitution, which are set out in the 1864 act, and that it is in the best interests of the home to transfer its property, rights, duties, interests, employees and liabilities to a new charitable company and to repeal the 1864 act.
To inform its consideration, the committee took evidence from the home’s trustees, patron and service users, from an advocate who has worked with some of the service users, and from representatives of Stirling and Falkirk councils. The committee also invited written evidence from the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator, the Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care and a user’s family. We are grateful to all those who took the time to contribute either oral or written evidence, all of which greatly assisted the committee’s deliberations.
We were keen to establish the extent of the restrictions that the terms of the 1864 act place on the trustees and the home, and to establish whether the bill is necessary. The first key issue is the appointment of trustees. Under the 1864 act, two of the trustees must be the current sheriff principal of the area and the minister of St Ninian’s church in Stirling. Although there are certainly no complaints regarding those who currently hold those posts, current trustee the Rev Gary McIntyre pointed out that he and the sheriff principal are both limited in the amount of time that they can offer the home, which is now a sizeable operation.
If the new structure is established, the home will have both members and directors. The promoter suggests that that structure will provide a greater opportunity to include the widest possible representation in the running of the home, potentially involving representatives of the local community. The committee raised the point that users’ families could also be included, and we understand that the home will consider that. The home’s patron, Dennis Canavan, emphasised the close links between the home and the local community and said that local people might be interested in becoming members.
Another key issue that witnesses raised is the restriction on who can access the services that are provided. Under the 1864 act, the home can offer its full service only to “men of advanced age”. Evidence to the committee suggests that, sadly, changes in society have led to increased demand and a change in the profile of those who need the home’s services. Witnesses told the committee about the growing number of cases of alcohol-related dementia and said that prevalence rates among younger men and women, some only in their 30s, are increasing. We learned that very few facilities in Scotland provide the kind of specialist care that the home offers and it is clear that those who run the home and those who are responsible for referring its users to its services want those services to be available to men and women of all ages, in the future.
It is also clearly important for modern charities that they have appropriate governance arrangements in place. At the moment, the home is regulated by OSCR, but the trustees feel that their constitution restricts their ability to manage the home in accordance with modern governance requirements. For example, we heard of the home’s difficulty in entering contractual relationships to support its development, and the trustees told members of the committee that they want the same powers and rights that a charity that was being set up today in Scotland would have.
The promoters have concluded that establishing a company limited by guarantee, and with charitable status, is the best way forward, because that structure would protect trustees from unlimited liability. We understand and note that the proposed Scottish charitable incorporated organisation model, which would have provided such protection, is still not available to the trustees as an option.
In summary, the committee recognises the necessity of the bill to the home’s operation and future development and therefore agrees to its general principles.
The committee is also required to consider whether it is appropriate for the bill to proceed as a private bill, in accordance with rule 9A.8.3 of standing orders. That involves the committee satisfying itself first, that the bill conforms to the definition of a private bill as set out in rule 9A.1.1 and, secondly, that the accompanying documents conform to rule 9A.2.3 in order to allow the bill’s proper scrutiny. The committee’s consideration of the issues is set out in its report but, in brief, it agreed that the bill conforms to the definition of a private bill and that the accompanying documents are adequate to allow proper scrutiny. It should also be noted that the committee received no objections to the bill.
Once again, I thank all those who gave evidence to the committee and take this opportunity to thank my fellow committee members and the clerks for their support.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the William Simpson’s Home (Transfer of Property etc.) (Scotland) Bill and that the Bill should proceed as a Private Bill.
16:47
The committee convener has set out the committee’s consideration of the bill so, in my speech, I want to focus on a few details. As has been explained, the bill seeks to change the status of William Simpson’s home to a charitable company to allow its constitution to be updated and to ensure that it can expand its services.
An important consideration for the committee in considering the bill’s general principles was how the proposed changes would fit in with the home’s original ethos. Jean Lyon, the home’s chief executive, said that Francis Simpson
“realised the dream of his son, William, who had, like his father, served in the navy and had seen men coming home and living rough after serving their country. His vision was that there should be a place of all-encompassing holistic care for their physical, mental, emotional and spiritual health. That is still the positive focus of our organisation.”—[Official Report, William Simpson’s Home (Transfer of Property etc) (Scotland) Bill Committee, 27 April 2010; c 17.]
The Rev Gary McIntyre, a trustee of the home, and Dennis Canavan, the home’s patron, both emphasised their commitment to keeping the home’s original purpose. Although the planned expansion is considerable, Mr Canavan told us that it “will not be massive”, with the number of residents increasing from 40 to approximately 60, and said that
“With additional staff, it would be possible to expand the provision while keeping the original ethos.” —[Official Report, William Simpson’s Home (Transfer of Property etc) (Scotland) Bill Committee, 27 April 2010; c 26.]
Moreover, in its evidence, OSCR said that although the new company will benefit a broader section of people, the proposed change remains
“within the spirit of the original constitution”.
Although the committee was reassured by evidence from the promoter of the commitment to keeping the home’s original purpose, we were keen to examine how the move to new governance arrangements would fit with that. In that respect, we heard how a new structure will allow broader representation on the board of directors and broad membership of the company. The proposed constitution will allow members to decide who will become directors of the charitable company; it is envisaged that that will facilitate the involvement of residents, their relatives and the community.
Another important issue for the committee to examine was how the promoter had consulted people who would be affected by the bill. We heard about how the promoter had talked about the home’s development at residents’ meetings, had used the key-worker system and in-house staff meetings to talk about proposals, and had met staff, trustees, board members, families and service users to discuss changes. Marion Robinson, who is an advocacy worker, advised us that she had met service users to discuss their views on the proposed changes.
The convener of the committee touched on the unique nature of the home and on how we heard about the increasing demand for its services. The committee recognised the promoter’s wish that the home be able to able to offer its services to a wider and larger group of people. We also noted the lack of any geographical restriction on who might access the home’s services. Users come from various parts of Scotland, albeit that they are mainly from the central belt. The committee recognised why the bill is necessary and supports the promoter’s commitment to retain the home’s original ethos.
I, too, thank all the witnesses who appeared before the committee and those who provided written evidence to it. The committee recognises the important work that is carried out at William Simpson’s home, and supports the promoter’s commitment to its future operation under a modern structure.
16:51
I thank both members for their contributions to this short but important debate.
The debate has highlighted the important issues that the committee considered. The invaluable work that is conducted by the facility and how the bill will support its future development have also been described.
As we have heard, the promoter has informed the committee of the need for the service that is provided at William Simpson’s home to be extended to younger people and women. Witnesses who appeared before the committee supported that development. Falkirk Council and Stirling Council explained the increasing demand for the specialised support that the home provides. We also heard from Falkirk Council that, without the kind of service that the home provides, younger people would be placed inappropriately in older people’s care provision.
We have heard that, throughout its consideration of the bill, the committee has been mindful that it was Francis Simpson’s original gift of his estate that ensured that the home could be established. Nanette Milne touched on our examination of how the promoter would ensure that Francis Simpson’s original vision would be remembered and how the original ethos of the home would continue. The committee was assured by the promoter’s commitment to staying true to the intention of the 1864 act. However, there was a particular issue that we wished to examine: we wanted to establish how ex-servicemen and women would be included in future developments, given that a preference for ex-services personnel was built into the 1864 act. The committee was pleased to note that strong links with ex-services personnel remain and that the promoter intends to continue that emphasis in the new constitution.
We heard in the evidence that was given how the home will be able to update its facilities and move into phases 2 and 3 of its development. Marion Robinson of Forth Valley Advocacy said that she thought that there is, among the home’s residents,
“a positive feeling about the future.”
Dennis Canavan, the home’s patron, explained how he and other members of his family could personally vouch that
”the standard of care that is provided at the home is excellent.“—[Official Report, William Simpson’s Home (Transfer of Property etc) (Scotland) Bill Committee, 27 April 2010; c 22.]
That the bill will allow governance arrangements to be updated to allow for broader community input into its operation is a positive development for the home. The committee recognised the commitment and expertise that that fresh impetus might bring. As the convener of the committee mentioned, we support any opportunity that that might bring to involve users and their families in the home’s operation.
The committee welcomed the opportunity to consider this private bill. However, during the debate on the Ure Elder Fund Transfer and Dissolution Bill—I had the honour of convening the Ure Elder Fund Transfer and Dissolution Bill Committee—we touched on the requirement to ensure that we respond appropriately to the needs of small charities that wish to make similar changes to parent acts. We need to monitor the number of charities that face a similar situation in which an alternative to a parliamentary route is not available. Earlier, we heard about other vehicles that are available, such as the Scottish charitable incorporated organisation. Subsequent to our evidence session, I lodged a written question to which the Minister for Community Safety, Fergus Ewing, replied. He said:
”The Scottish Government recently consulted on policy proposals developed by the Scottish Charitable Incorporated Organisation (SCIO) Working Group for the implementation of the SCIO. In light of the responses received and views expressed at consultation events, we will develop draft SCIO regulations, built on the policy foundations of the SCIO’s Working Group’s preferred model.“
He also said that
”Under current plans, we do not anticipate that the SCIO will be introduced before the end of 2010.“—[Official Report, Written Answers, 11 May 2010; S3W-33447.]
Finally, I thank everyone who gave evidence to the committee, my fellow members of the committee and the clerks for their support. I ask that Parliament agree the general principles of the bill, and that the bill should proceed as a private bill.