 I will be working on the design of the statutory scheme. I thank you very much and that concludes questions. I am moving right on, because the next item of business is a debate on motion 1678 in the name of Kezia Dugdale on final stage proceedings of the Hutchinson hospital transfer of the solution Scotland bill. Before the debate begins, the Presiding Officer has acquired understanding orders to decide whether, in his view, any provision of the bill relates to protected subject matter, that is whether it modifies the electoral system and franchise for Scottish Parliament elections. In the case of this bill, the Presiding Officer has decided that no provision of the Hutchinson hospital transfer and dissolution Scotland bill relates to protected subject matter. Therefore, the bill does not require a supermajority to be passed at the final stage. Can I now invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press the request to speak buttons? After that long preamble, I will now invite Kezia Dugdale on behalf of the Hutchinson hospital transfer and dissolution Scotland bill committee to open the debate. I am pleased to open the final stage debate on the Hutchinson hospital transfer and dissolution Scotland bill. I thank again my colleagues on the committee, the redoubtable Stuart Stevenson, the deputy convener, Ruth Maguire and Maurice Corry for the contributions to the work of the committee throughout the passage of the bill. Thanks indeed, you would go to the clerks for their tremendous work 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 Hutchinson hospital in the city of Glasgow. If Parliament agrees 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 or SCIO. It will also dissolve the incorporation and repeal the Hutchinson hospital act of 1872. As members will recall from the preliminary stage debate in February, the Royal Incorporation of Hutchinson hospital in the city of Glasgow is a charity and is the legacy of George and Thomas Hutchinson. It started with a bequest made in the will of George Hutchinson in 1639 and the establishment of the Hutchinson hospital charity. The charity became the Royal Incorporation of Hutchinson hospital in the city of Glasgow under a royal charter in 1821 and then in 1872 it was incorporated in its current form by the Hutchinson hospital act and it continues to be regulated under the 1872 act. With this bill, the promoter aims to allow a more modern governance of the incorporations assets and enable the charity to function more efficiently and indeed effectively. I thank the convener for taking intervention. I understand that, in her role as convener, she cannot comment directly on this, but I am keen to have this 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 due to that, it is nonetheless important to recognise that private schools in grain privilege should not themselves be classed as charitable institutions. I am grateful to the member for that intervention. I speak as convener on the very specifics of the bill, but she will know that I share her concerns regarding the tax liabilities of private schools. It is an issue that I have personally campaigned for a long time. The bill regulates the batteries that the charity has to allow certain young people to attend private schools, or it certainly has done in the past, but 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 also received written submissions from two experts in the field, an academic and a QC, and our thanks go to them for the contribution to the committee's work. We 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 those changes on the nature of the charity, its work and its beneficiaries, and whether a private bill was necessary indeed to achieve the charity's aims. Our preliminary stage report, which was published on 20 December, covers our work in some detail. In terms of our discussions and our deliberations, perhaps the most considered point was on whether a private bill was necessary at all in terms of whether the promoter had other alternative options to achieving the charity's aims. In the accompanying documents to the bill and in evidence to the committee, the promoter explained the alternatives that they had considered to promoting a private bill. Their process uncovered an apparent lack of clarity in the Charities and Trusty 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 Hutchison's 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 those provisions to give greater clarity on them. In fact, the Scottish Government consulted on Scottish charity law in January of 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 there is still a considerable number of charities operating on the basis of royal charters or indeed enactments that may find themselves in a similar situation. In those cases where it could prove possible to avoid the time and expense of promoting a private bill, I suspect that an alternative route must be preferable. However, the committee was satisfied that the promoter had considered other 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. Therefore, I will simply conclude by stating that the committee recommends that the Scottish Parliament agree that the Hutchison hospital transfer and dissolution in Scotland bill be passed. I move the motion in my name. Thank you very much. I call Ruth McGuire, who will be followed by Maurice Corry. Presiding Officer, being a member of this private bill committee has given me an insight into an important but lesser known aspect of parliamentary work. The Hutchison hospital transfer and dissolution in Scotland bill was last debated at preliminary stage in the chamber on 20 February when the Parliament agreed with the committee's recommendations that the general principles be agreed and that the bill should proceed as a private bill. In terms of the private bill process, preliminary stage is followed by consideration stage. At consideration stage, committee members are able to lodge amendments. It is also possible for the promoter of the bill to suggest amendments to committee members. In cases where there have been objections, the committee takes evidence from both objectors and the promoter at consideration stage. In our case, there were no objections to the bill and nothing arose during preliminary stage scrutiny of the bill that led us to conclude that any amendments were necessary. Consideration stage of the bill was completed at our meeting on 6 March when we agreed to each section of the bill and the long title. When consideration stage is completed, the process 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. Today, we are proceeding with the final stage debate of the bill and the committee recommendation that the Parliament agreed to the bill as it stands. Membership of the committee also gave me an opportunity to learn about the history of Hutchison's hospital charity, how it was developed over the years and the work it does today. George Hutchison of Lambhill established the Hutchison's hospital 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 who had fallen on hard times. He 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 eligible to receive assistance were expanded. For example, poor women, wives or daughters of Burgesses of Glasgow became eligible to receive support from charity funds from 1781, regardless of whether they were widowed or not. Burgesses were inhabitants of the city who owned land, paid taxes and were able to trade or practice a craft. Thomas Hutchison, George's brother, also made bequests to the Hutchison's hospital charity. He provided funding to educate boys who were orphans of Burgesses of Glasgow. He also established the school that became Hutchison's grammar school. The original Hutchison's hospital building, which was completed in 1650 at the Trondgate in Glasgow, was demolished in 1795 and the land sold to make way for Hutchison Street. The new hospital building was constructed on Ingram Street and finished in 1805. Although now serving 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 facade of the new building. I understand their belief to be the oldest portrait sculptures in the city. The legacy of the Hutchison brothers clearly lives on in the city and the work of the charity today. The bill, promoted by the patrons of the charity, aims to make the charity fit to function effectively into the future. Thank you very much. I call Maurice Corry, and then we will move to the closing speech. Mr Corry, you were quick to hear me, Mr Corry. Never mind, that's enthusiasm. I would like to thank the clerks for all the work that they've done during the course of this bill, which has been the most interesting and tremendous amount that they have ever put into it. As we have already heard, it is the 1872 act that this bill will repeal, which still governs the functioning of the charity today. The 1872 act is a fascinating document, the preamble to which it will require a fair grasp of old Scots to fully comprehend it. Preambles used to be the common place in acts of Parliament and 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 the word whereas. They remain the normal practice for Westminster private acts but are no longer used in public in general acts. Preambles are not permitted in Scottish Parliament bills or acts private or public. The preamble to Hutchison hospital act is remarkable for its length, running to 15 pages, nearly double the length of the act itself. Today, we are considering a bill being promoted by the patrons of the charity to transfer the property rights, interests and liabilities of the Royal Incorporation to a new SCEO or Scottish Charitable Incorporated Organization to repeal the 1872 act and dissolve the incorporation. One example of the modernisation that they hope to achieve with the new structure relates to the governance of the charity. The 1872 act itself sets out in full who the patrons of the hospital are, including the Lord Provost, all of the magistrates of the city of Glasgow and all of the councils of the city of Glasgow. Currently, there are 95 patrons in total. Many are in post ex officio positions and meaning that they are due into the post or office they hold and some of those posts are only held for one year at a time. As a result, many of the patrons are not there through choice and some only remain in the role for one year. In evidence, we heard that the charity does have a group of very committed patrons. However, perhaps unsurprisingly, many of the 95 mentioned above are not actively involved and, nevertheless, each must be properly contacted and consulted. Mr Donald Reed of Mitchells-Roberton, the slitter's firm supporting the charity, has chamberlings to Hutchison's hospitals explained that the time and effort required simply to manage the extensive paperwork generated by the sheer number of people means 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 all need to look at. The work involved was further illustrated during evidence when the committee heard how the promoter had carried out the consultation prior to introducing the bill. The 1872 act stipulates a list of ministers of the parishes in Glasgow as patrons. Mr Reed explained how he had been in contact with the Glasgow Presbytary and I quote, in order to ensure that I was up to date with all the various amalgamations of the churches that have taken place over the last 150 years within the Glasgow Presbytary area and that I was also addressing as a patron the correct minister who, in most cases, is now the minister of several amalgamated parishes as distinct from the way it was before. Mr Reed valiantly admitted that the outcome of the plan changes would also mean less fees to him in his role and as a result of more streamlined structure and governance. The committee was of the view that the charity would benefit from a more direct and transparent link to a group of committed trustees in the role through choice and that this would help to streamline the activities and ultimately improve the management and oversight. Deputy Presiding Officer, in conclusion, the bill being promoted by the patrons of the Royal Incorporation of Hutchison's hospital in the city of Glasgow, in which the Parliament is being asked to pass today, should facilitate this change. Thank you. Thank you and I call on Stuart Stevenson to close for the committee then when we want the next item of business. Mr Stevenson. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. As we've already heard, George Hutchison's deed of mortification in 1639 is the genesis of what we are engaging with today. The history of the charity is long, and it's interesting. Elaine Smith, in her intervention, rightly pointed out that there was an educational aspect to it, but it's worth saying that nothing that we are doing today in any sense appears to change the status of anything in that regard. The charity provides grants, which it describes pensions to 20 or 30 people. It's comparatively modest size where having a complex and long parliamentary act as its oversight is perhaps no longer consistent with the way things we would wish to do. The promoter explained to the committee that the employer is social worker on a part-time basis who visits the grantees. The committee looked at what was proposed carefully. We looked at the impacts, in particular, that there might be on those who are receiving support. We've had the assurances that we accept that the promoter gave us that no-one currently in receipt of benefits would lose out as a result of the changes that are now being proposed. The promoter's memorandum states that the charitable purposes of the SCIO, the new form that will take this forward, 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 is already established and is waiting to take responsibility. It's a modern form of organisation for charities provided for by the charities and trustee investments, the Scotland Act of 2005, and regulated by the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator. As such, it will provide a more effective structure and remove the need for parliamentary scrutiny of the activities of this charity. In our evidence session, we also heard that the charity will have greater flexibility in how it carries out its purposes, for example in how it can invest, and, as an SCIO, the charity would be able to invest in anything that, further as its purposes, provided the trustees believed that it was right for charity. The committee also thought that the approach that was taken will make the whole operation much more future proof. Others have referred to the complexity of multiple deeds of mortification and similar deeds, almost all of which are in old Scots. Maybe we should really learn the old Scots, of course. For example, a deed of ratification by Janet Jesse and Helen Hutchison, deeds of mortification by James Blair in 1713, Daniel Baxter in 1776, settlements by William Scott in 1818 and Maryhood in 1817—a complex picture, a complex history behind it. Mr Donald Reid, whose firm has acted as chimbalans to the charity for some 200 years, explained that he had gone through all the tin boxes that they have and found nothing further relevant. It is worth saying that this is an unusual opportunity that a lawyer has presented to the Parliament. At his request, we are going to reduce that lawyer's income. Therefore, I commend this absolutely as something that Parliament should be supporting. 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 all those colleagues on the committee and, in particular, the non-government bills unit, who have, as promised, smoothed the path and made this a straightforward matter for the committee to deal with. I hope that the vote at 5 o'clock reflects Parliament's belief that that is also the case. That concludes the debate on final stage proceedings of the Hutchison's Hospital Transfer and Dissolution Scotland Bill. It is time to move on to the next item of business in a few moments.