Hansard

I am delighted that the William Simpson’s Home (Transfer of Property etc) (Scotland) Bill has reached the final stage in the legislative process. As convener of the bill committee, I am pleased to open the final stage debate on the bill.

Perhaps it will be helpful if I set out briefly some of the background to the bill. In 1829, Francis Simpson of Plean gifted his estate to trustees to establish an asylum for indigent men of advanced age—to be called the William Simpson’s asylum—in memory of his son William, who was lost 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 was established at Plean and it continues to be located there.

The home provides specialist residential accommodation for up to 44 service users with alcohol-related brain damage and mental health problems, and placements are arranged by local authorities. The home also provides respite and day care services for a further 16 people. Local authorities throughout central Scotland use the service, with Falkirk Council and Stirling Council being the home’s principal customers.

The trustees wished to change the home’s constitution to provide better governance arrangements and to develop its work to provide services to a wider and larger group of people, but they considered that such developments were not possible given the restrictions that were placed on the home and the trustees by the 1864 act. After investigating a number of alternatives including the use of charity law, the trustees concluded that, given the statutory nature of the charity, the only way in which to achieve their objectives was to introduce legislation through the private bill procedure to transfer the existing property, rights, duties, interests, employees and liabilities to a new charitable company and to dissolve the existing home. A bill was therefore introduced to the Parliament on 28 January 2010.

The role of the bill committee was to examine the bill at the preliminary and consideration stages. Our objective was to scrutinise the bill, consider its general principles and whether it should proceed as a private bill, and to consider any admissible amendments. In considering the general principles of the bill, the committee considered, among other things, whether a bill was necessary to achieve the trustees’ objectives, whether the trustees had adequately explained why they had chosen to create a new charitable company rather than use an alternative model, how the trustees had consulted users, their families and employees, and what effect the proposed changes would have on users, their families and employees.

A key issue for the committee throughout its consideration of the bill was the extent to which the new home would further reflect the original intentions and ethos of its founder, Francis Simpson. Francis Simpson was a ship’s captain with the Honourable East India Company. He had only one son, William, who had served in the Royal Navy in the early 1800s and had become acutely aware of the needs of ex-servicemen who had come from serving in various wars and conflicts and had no fixed abode. Unfortunately, William died in 1809 while he was on a voyage to Malta.

Francis Simpson left everything in trust in memory of his son, including the William Simpson’s asylum, which he specified should have a preference for former soldiers and sailors. Jean Lyon, the home’s chief executive, explained in her evidence to the committee:

“Care was at the heart of Francis Simpson’s setting up of the trust. He 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.”—[Official Report, William Simpson’s Home (Transfer of Property etc) (Scotland) Bill Committee, 27 April 2010; c 17.]

Although the trustees are keen to preserve Francis Simpson’s intentions in establishing the asylum, they seek changes to its constitution to enable the home to provide its services to a wider and larger number of individuals. The trustees pointed out that changes in society have led to a change in the profile of potential clients. Witnesses said that, sadly, there is a growing number of cases of alcohol-related dementia, which notably includes younger men and women. Such individuals are currently precluded from using the full service that the home provides under the 1864 act.

In her evidence to the committee, Shiona Strachan from Stirling Council, which is one of the main local authorities that refer service users to the home, advised that there are very few facilities for women or younger men in such circumstances. She said that the council found that, if there was no specialist unit,

“younger people with a certain level of cognitive impairment and physical disability will be placed inappropriately in older people’s care provision. That means that they do not get the level of stimulus that they require, and they certainly do not get the level of rehabilitation services that William Simpson’s home can offer. It is a unique provider in the current market.”

That was confirmed by Marion Robinson from Forth Advocacy, who has direct contact with users of the home. She pointed out:

“The home is a unique setting, which is greatly in demand. The tragedy is that there are not enough beds.”

Witnesses explained that although they wished the home to be expanded, they were keen for it to retain its original ethos. As Jean Lyon highlighted,

“The central focus of any change in the organisation must remain the vision of our founder, who had care in his heart. We have continued and will continue with that ethos.”—[Official Report, William Simpson’s Home (Transfer of Property etc) (Scotland) Bill Committee, 27 April 2010; c 31, 22, 17.]

The main charitable purposes of the new charity, as set out in the company’s memorandum of association, are

“the relief of those in need by reason of age, ill-health, financial hardship or other disadvantage by providing accommodation and care.”

The committee learned that in furtherance of those objectives, the company will provide accommodation and care, respite care and related facilities, and any other facilities that support the charitable purposes of the company, but we were pleased to note that the home maintains an extremely strong service link. In general, ex-servicemen make up around 50 per cent of the residency. The trustees advised that that emphasis on supporting service personnel will be maintained in the new constitution.

Having considered all the evidence, the committee accepted that the restrictions that are placed on the trustees and the home are considerable. We learned that apart from the restriction on people who can benefit from the home’s services, the 1864 act places restrictions on those who can become trustees of the home and on the ability of the trustees to enter into contractual relationships that are necessary for its development. As a result, the committee concluded that the bill is necessary to allow the home to introduce modern governance arrangements and to expand the service that the home provides to a wider range of users.

A few weeks ago, the Parliament debated the committee’s preliminary stage report and agreed to the bill’s general principles. The committee then dealt with amendments at the consideration stage. In this case, just two amendments were lodged, which simply sought to amend the bill to reflect the fact that the new charitable company had been incorporated. The committee agreed to them unanimously.

Today will complete the committee’s involvement with this short but important bill. I consider it a privilege for the Parliament to have the opportunity to help to ensure the continued existence of the home and the valuable services that it provides to its service users, and to make possible its expansion.

I express my thanks to all those who have been involved with the bill. In particular, I thank my fellow committee members for their helpful and thoughtful comments, and the promoters for their assistance throughout the process. I also thank the clerks for supporting us in our work and all the witnesses for taking the time to contribute to our consideration of the bill.

I urge members to support the bill at decision time to ensure that a larger and wider group of individuals can benefit from the unique services that the home provides, and to enable it to continue the wishes of its founder.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that the William Simpson’s Home (Transfer of Property etc.) (Scotland) Bill be passed.