BETA

This is a new website that we're testing. Please give us some feedback on our external survey.

Language: English / Gàidhlig

Skip to main content
Loading…

Edinburgh Bakers' Widows' Fund Bill

Overview

The Bill will transfer the property and assets of the Edinburgh Bakers' Widows’ Fund. It will also dissolve the fund as it is. 

A new charitable foundation will be set up that will provide: 

  • the encouragement and support of training and education in baking trade-related careers
  • the provision of training opportunities in baking
  • encouraging discussions on baking and baking standards 
  • promotion of an appreciation of local baking and the history of baking

The 2 remaining potential beneficiaries will receive a one-off capital payment rather than a monthly payment. 

You can find out more in the Explanatory Notes document that explains the Bill.

Why the Bill was created

There have been no new contributions to the fund since 1981. With no new eligible members there is a risk that the fund’s assets may be frozen.

This would mean the fund could not operate as it was intended to. 

The trustees want to use the assets and monies the fund contains in a responsible manner.  A new charitable trust has been created for the fund’s assets.

You can find out more in the Promoter's Memorandum document that explains the Bill.

Where do laws come from?

The Scottish Parliament can make decisions about many things like:

  • agriculture and fisheries
  • education and training
  • environment
  • health and social services
  • housing
  • justice and policing
  • local government
  • some aspects of tax and social security

These are 'devolved matters'.

Laws that are decided by the Scottish Parliament come from:

Becomes an Act

The Edinburgh Bakers' Widows' Fund Bill passed by a vote of 102 for, 0 against and 0 abstentions. The Bill became an Act on 12 January 2018.

Introduced

The Promoter sends the Bill and related documents to the Parliament.

Edinburgh Bakers' Widows' Fund Bill as introduced

Scottish Parliament research on the Bill 

Preliminary Stage - General principles

Committees examine the Bill. Then MSPs vote on whether it should continue to Consideration Stage.

Committee involved in this Bill

Who examined the Bill

Each Bill is examined by a 'lead committee'. This is the committee that has the subject of the Bill in its remit.

It looks at everything to do with the Bill.

Other committees may look at certain parts of the Bill if it covers subjects they deal with.

Who spoke to the committee about the Bill

Video Thumbnail Preview PNG

First meeting transcript

Mary Fee

Item 2 is the choice of a convener. The Parliament has agreed that only members of the Scottish National Party are eligible for nomination as convener of this committee. I am pleased to announce that Tom Arthur is the Scottish National Party’s nominee for the post.

Tom Arthur was chosen as convener.

Mary Fee

I congratulate Tom on his appointment and I hand over the chair to him for the remainder of the proceedings.

Video Thumbnail Preview PNG

Second meeting transcript

The Convener

Today we will take evidence from the promoters of the bill, the trustees of the widows’ scheme of the Incorporation of Bakers of the City of Edinburgh. I welcome Lady Elizabeth Drummond Young, trustee of the widows’ scheme of the Incorporation of Bakers of the City of Edinburgh, member of the Incorporation of Bakers of the City of Edinburgh and trustee of the Incorporation of Bakers of Edinburgh Charitable Trust. I also welcome Flora Asplin, solicitor and agent for the trust, the incorporation and the charity. I invite Lady Elizabeth Drummond Young to make an opening statement.

Lady Elizabeth Drummond Young (Incorporation of Bakers of the City of Edinburgh)

Thank you and good morning. On behalf of the promoters of the Edinburgh Bakers’ Widows’ Fund Bill, I thank the committee for taking the time and trouble to consider the bill. Flora Asplin and I will introduce ourselves briefly.

I am currently the boxmaster—the treasurer—of the Incorporation of Bakers of the City of Edinburgh. I am also, as the convener mentioned, a trustee of the widows’ fund and the newly formed Incorporation of Bakers of Edinburgh Charitable Trust.

My early professional career was in investment management and pension fund management. More recently, I have been involved in tutoring philosophy at the University of Edinburgh. I joined the incorporation in 2011 at the instigation of a friend who is involved in reinvigorating the trades in Edinburgh. The trades have been around for a very long time but there is a group of people who would like to make the Edinburgh trades rather like the Glasgow trades—a lot more active in the city. It was at my friend’s instigation that I joined the bakers; I am a keen amateur baker so I was delighted to join the incorporation.

Perhaps it is worth saying a little bit about the history of the trades in Edinburgh. They were very active, as I am sure members will know, in medieval times and in early modern times. In more modern times, they have fallen into a gentle state of not doing very much. The idea is that the trades should become more a part of Edinburgh city life again but in a new, invigorated form. That is all part of the background to why the bill is being introduced.

Flora Asplin (Incorporation of Bakers of the City of Edinburgh)

Good morning. I am a solicitor at Shepherd and Wedderburn, which has been involved in the incorporation and the widows’ fund for some years. I have been dealing with them for the past couple of years; I have also been involved in the setting up of the new charitable trust. Separate from that, I am also clerk to the incorporation of bakers, which is an administrative secretarial role that involves setting up meetings, doing the minutes and so on.

The Convener

Thank you very much. The last contribution to the fund was made in 1981, but it was a further 32 years before the fund was closed to new members. Can you give a potted history of what happened in that period?

Lady Elizabeth Drummond Young

Since that time until very recently, the incorporation of bakers was sitting there as an unincorporated association with very few members—so few members, in fact, that the meetings must have been quite sporadic. The members of the incorporation tended to be elderly gentlemen. Nothing was happening, and the widows’ fund was not attractive to new members. In order to join it, you had to be a male under 45 years old; you could not be a woman. None of the members of the incorporation was under 45—everyone was much older than that—and anyone who joined the incorporation was unlikely to want to join the fund.

The incorporation itself, never mind the widows’ fund, was quite dormant. Indeed, that is part of the backdrop that I was trying to explain earlier. The trades in Edinburgh were not being activated; it is only fairly recently—perhaps in the last 10 years—that they have been undergoing a renewal, with people joining not just the bakers but the bonnetmakers, the goldsmiths, the candlemakers and so on. There has been a revival of interest, and often those who join the trades are—like me, I suppose—semi-retired people who have time to spend on charitable trustee duties.

The Convener

In the intervening period, were any efforts made to promote the scheme or attract new members?

Lady Elizabeth Drummond Young

The scheme was open only to members of the incorporation, and because there were not very many members of the incorporation and because the incorporation itself was not putting itself forward, there was obviously no promotion of the widows’ fund as such.

The Convener

Can you set out the timeline with regard to the decision to move to a private bill? When was the idea of winding up the fund and moving to a charitable trust first mooted?

Lady Elizabeth Drummond Young

It was some years ago now, but I think that it was since I joined the incorporation. The issue was raised as the most major that we had to deal with. We had this widows’ fund for which the number of trustees was getting smaller—people were dying and nobody was around to look after it. There were just enough members in the incorporation to become trustees of the fund, and we saw that it would not be attractive or viable because of the very baroque entry requirements under the Edinburgh Bakers’ Widows’ Fund Act 1813. As I said, you had to be male and under 45, and the conditions for joining and, indeed, the benefits that might accrue to anyone were so vague and difficult to understand that it would not be an attractive vehicle for people to put their moneys into.

We were left, then, with a fund of considerable value that we felt in its current form was not viable to promote to people as an investment vehicle, benevolent vehicle or whatever you might want to call it. That being the case, it would eventually just fall into the Crown’s hands as something that could not be used. The fact that it was not being used was a major problem.

That was some years ago. We undertook various investigations into changing the fund’s conditions, and we finally came to the resolution that a private bill was the best way forward.

The Convener

How long was the period of investigation?

Lady Elizabeth Drummond Young

It was a number of years. It had been going on since I joined in 2011, so I would say probably five years.

Flora Asplin

That sounds about right.

The Convener

We might pick that issue up again later.

Alison Harris (Central Scotland) (Con)

Good morning. What steps have the trustees taken to ensure that the capital payments offered to the wives of the contributing members are actually fair in terms of adequately compensating the wives and ensuring that the trust funds are protected?

Flora Asplin

The trustees consulted an actuary; they gave him the background and asked for an actuarial report on how to provide for the wives in a fair and equitable manner. The actuary then came back with a report that was agreed by the trustees.

In conjunction with that, the trustees consulted the wives and provided them with the actuarial report and all the information. It was then agreed—it has been agreed for some time now—that the trustees would make a certain payment to the wives when the fund was dissolved. Because that has been agreed, the funds that would be paid out to the potential beneficiaries have been ring fenced from the trust fund itself, and the trustees are absolutely certain about what they are going to pay the wives when the fund is dissolved.

Alison Harris

When was that agreed, and when did you get your actuarial valuation? Was that some time ago, or was it quite recently? Things have obviously moved on and changed. Has the valuation been updated?

Flora Asplin

The position has not changed. There are still just the two wives. It was done towards the end of 2015, which is approximately 18 months ago. The figure was agreed then.

Lady Elizabeth Drummond Young

Given the length of actuarial calculations, it will not change much in a few years.

Alison Harris

I just did not know when—

Lady Elizabeth Drummond Young

In the history of the bill, that is a fairly recent development.

Alison Harris

That is good to hear.

Can you give me any practical examples of how being governed by the 1813 act has constrained what you have been trying to do in relation to the widows’ fund?

Lady Elizabeth Drummond Young

I have already talked about the conditions for entry. You have to be a male; you cannot be a woman. You have to be under 45. You have to be a member of the incorporation. You have to pay very specific sums of money—20 shillings a quarter.

The benefits are not guaranteed. It is merely a matter of paying in, and it is then a question of whether something happens 13 years down the road. You have to pay in for seven years, I think, and then you might get something if you apply to the fund. The benefits are very open ended. Is it fair to say that?

Flora Asplin

Yes. It is not a case of the contributor receiving a personal benefit. It applies if they predecease their wife. They have to be married for a certain number of years to a wife who is younger by a certain number of years, but not too young in comparison. The criteria are very restrictive.

The fund is not like a standard pension fund; it is not something that people see when they retire. There is a benefit that would go to their widow, if she fits the right criteria when she is widowed.

Alison Harris

It sounds quite restrictive.

Lady Elizabeth Drummond Young

I have it in front of me, and it is really quite complicated. It is all to do with the age of the children if she marries again and how much younger she is than her husband. It is incredibly of its time, if I can put it that way.

Alison Harris

What arrangements are in place to ensure that the assets that are transferred to the new charity will be appropriately managed for the public benefit?

Lady Elizabeth Drummond Young

We have constructed a charitable trust that has been registered with the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator. We have satisfied all the conditions for forming a charity. Charitable purposes have been set out for the trust. They are the advancement of education and the advancement of the arts, heritage, culture or science. We have had our purposes agreed.

We have had a review of investment managers to consider to whom we would give the bulk of the fund if it became available to us. We would give it to an investment manager—a specialist charity fund manager—and the trustees are minded to give grants only in accordance with the income from the fund. We would not be digging into the fund’s capital; we would have a small income from the fund, which we would use to give grants, having applied the purposes of the trust. The fund would then be managed conservatively, as a charitable trust, by a specialist charity fund manager.

We hope that the fund will grow over time. Another point that we should make about the 1813 act is that it is very constrained as to how the fund is invested, whereas, if we are able to transfer the assets to a charitable trust, we can invest them more flexibly.

We have done all the normal things that you would expect a charitable trust to do on being handed a pot of money to ensure that it goes to a responsible charity fund manager.

Mary Fee (West Scotland) (Lab)

The fund provides financial support for widows of contributing members and the change that you are proposing is quite fundamental to the fund’s core purpose. We have heard that, normally, when changes are made to funds such as this, the funds are changed to something similar. Was consideration given to changing the fund to provide almost the same core purpose, but in a different way?

10:15  



Lady Elizabeth Drummond Young

Yes, but the way in which people expect to receive annuities, pensions or any kind of hardship benefits has changed so radically since 1813 that, in essence, we would be trying to set up something in competition with, say, Standard Life or an annuity provider. It would be completely pointless to offer people the opportunity to invest in a very small fund when there is a marketplace of pensions, annuity providers and specialist investment managers. That would not be a competent use of the funds.

The way in which people receive benefits, annuities or pensions has changed radically even since the most recent payment was made in 1980, because 1988 was the start of the personal pension drive. The onus on, for example, employers to ensure that people have a pension available to them and the onus on each individual in Britain to think about investing for their future is much greater now than in 1813.

The act was passed in 1813, which was before the Burgh Trading Act 1846 under which the trades were rather clamped down on. In other words, in 1813, things were going reasonably well for the trades, but the trading act came along in 1846 and the trades could no longer be the closed shop that they had been and they had to change their business. The relationship of the trades and of how people choose to get annuities has changed dramatically in the intervening period and for us to try to set up a fund now that mimics an annuity provider would not be a good thing to do.

Mary Fee

Did the trustees take that decision themselves, or did they get advice from someone else?

Lady Elizabeth Drummond Young

We took the decision ourselves. We felt that we were able to take it confidently, because, among the trustees, there are people such as myself who have experience of pension fund management, there are lawyers and there are people who have been involved with the probation service. We have a set of people with professional experience and we felt able and competent to take the decision.

The moneys in the widows’ fund are not just contributions from members of the incorporation; the incorporation itself put some money into the fund in the early stages, although we do not know how or how much as that information is lost in the annals of 19th century accounting. The incorporation put money in, so for us to promote the trust with purposes that are akin to the purposes of the incorporation today seems to be relevant and a good thing to do. The trust is very much in line with the purposes of the incorporation of bakers, which has some validity to it.

Flora Asplin

The purposes are charitable and they tie in with OSCR’s charity requirements, so it seemed fitting that we were not only reflecting what the original incorporation’s purposes were, but moving toward a public benefit and tying in with modern-day charitable purposes.

Mary Fee

Were other options than a private bill considered for making the change? How did you reach the decision that a private bill would be the best way to take it forward?

Lady Elizabeth Drummond Young

One of the reasons that it has taken us so long is that we have taken time to consider whether a private bill was the right way to go. Perhaps, as a lawyer, Flora Asplin would like to say more about the other options.

Flora Asplin

Some time was spent considering how it could be done. The trustees felt that it was no longer appropriate to be governed by the 1813 act and, because they were looking to set up a charitable trust, they wished to be governed by OSCR rather than by a statutory regulation. They felt that it was appropriate to look at repealing the 1813 act and, in order to vary the powers that they were given under the act and to meet their objectives, they felt that a private bill was the way forward.

We considered other options for varying the purposes of a trust: an application to the Court of Session through a cy-près scheme and an application under section 9 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990. The problem with both of those options was that what the trustees wanted to do was quite at odds with the purposes of the widows’ fund and moved away from the purposes that were set out in the 1813 act. Those were not the best options because the trustees wanted to vary their powers under the act.

Mary Fee

Do you think that, if you had taken it to the court, you would not have been allowed to make the changes?

Flora Asplin

I think so.

Lady Elizabeth Drummond Young

The point about that is that, if we had gone through the cy-près system and to the Court of Session, we could only have stuck to the purposes of the trust. We might have been able to make some changes, but we would have ended up with a rather watered-down fund. Think about all the big annuity providers and pension providers; we would have had a tiny fund that was tweaked just enough to be just about tenable in today’s society for a very small group of people—the members of the incorporation. As the new trust stands, we are able to offer benefits to the wider community—for example, to offer a grant to enable a baking course in a primary school or a prison. We are able to offer wider benefits through that trust than we would be under a twiddled-about scheme that would have arisen from any adjustment that the court might have let us make to the 1813 act, which is incredibly of its time.

Mary Fee

So your only option to make the fundamental changes that you want to make was a private bill.

Lady Elizabeth Drummond Young

We felt that that was the best way to go to make a genuinely good use of the assets in line with the spirit of the Incorporation of Bakers of the City of Edinburgh, so that we could get practical modern usage out of the money that had been invested by members of the incorporation and the incorporation itself, who were interested in promoting baking in the city of Edinburgh. That was one way to use the money, and creating a charitable vehicle was the way to encase it in a fully responsible mechanism that fits today’s purposes.

Mary Fee

In promoting education and training, how will you promote the charitable fund to the wider community? Will you promote it within the existing baking community?

Lady Elizabeth Drummond Young

Yes.

Flora Asplin

Yes. There was quite a lot of dialogue on that with OSCR when we set up the charitable trust. The trustees have considered how they will promote it through the baking community and the usual forms of social media, for instance. In essence, they will establish a network that they will use to promote what they want to do.

Lady Elizabeth Drummond Young

Two of our trustees are active members of the baking community. One is the chief executive officer of Breadshare Community Interest Company—Debra Riddle, who would have been here but, unfortunately, could not join us this week. The other is Wendy Barrie, who is the slow food guru for Scotland. We have people who are involved in the baking industry as trustees and members of the incorporation. If we are able to get the bill passed and create the trust, we will be in a position to get more members of the incorporation, who would be bakers or might be suitable trustees at a future date. That way, we will be in a position to have grant applications coming into us. We are confident that we would be in a position to review a number of grants annually and apply the funds appropriately according to the charity’s purposes.

Mary Fee

Will schools be able to apply for grants as well?

Lady Elizabeth Drummond Young

Yes, anyone will be able to apply for a grant as long as it fits the purposes of the trust.

Mary Fee

How will you assess the success of the trust? Will the trustees do that? Will they review it annually?

Lady Elizabeth Drummond Young

Part of our job as charitable trustees is to review how successfully we fulfil the trust’s purposes. We will have to do that under the business plan, which we will have to review regularly, and say how we meet our objectives.

Mary Fee

The OSCR guidance will also be very important.

Lady Elizabeth Drummond Young

Exactly. That is all part of it. That is why we are going under the OSCR banner, because that forces us to do the appropriate things to ensure that we are using the money properly.

Mary Fee

We have spoken about the two potential beneficiaries that have been identified. How confident are you that there are no other potential beneficiaries?

Flora Asplin

We are very confident. It is a fact.

Lady Elizabeth Drummond Young

Yes, we are very confident.

Mary Fee

How did you come to the position of being so very confident?

Flora Asplin

We know who the members of the incorporation are—it is a very small membership. We also know who the qualifying members are and there are only two of them who have made contributions who have wives, who are therefore potential beneficiaries. It is as simple as that.

Lady Elizabeth Drummond Young

Two of the members of the incorporation—I hesitate to say that they are quite elderly, but as they are not here I probably can—have been members for a very long time. They know the history of the incorporation. The minutes of the incorporation going back quite a few years are held and recorded. We are extremely confident that there are no other potential beneficiaries. Of course, as part of the bill process, we have put out public notices.

Mary Fee

Have the members of the trust been quite active and involved? When you say that the members of the incorporation and the members who have been paying in know what is going on, does that mean that they are quite active in the fund?

Flora Asplin

Yes. There is some overlap between the members and the trustees of the widows’ fund and the trustees of the new charitable trust. I would say that they have been actively involved.

Mary Fee

Okay. Thank you.

The Convener

I have a final question about drafting. Regarding payments to the two identified potential future beneficiaries, section 1 states that the trustees “may”—not must—make them an offer. The word “may” confers a power, whereas the word “must” confers an obligation. Can you comment on that?

Flora Asplin

We discussed that point with the parliamentary clerks when we drafted the bill. The point is that the bill gives authority to the trustees—it empowers them to make the payment. On the basis that they make the payment, the fund is dissolved and the assets are transferred to the charity. If you look at the sequence in the statute, phase 2—as it were—will not happen until phase 1 has happened. In other words, the payments have to be made to the beneficiaries and the act would give the power to do that and then once that is done the remaining assets would be transferred to the charitable trust.

The Convener

Thank you for coming along this morning. As agreed earlier, we will now continue in private.

10:28 Meeting continued in private until 10:33.  



Video Thumbnail Preview PNG

10 May 2017

Video Thumbnail Preview PNG

14 June 2017

Edinburgh Bakers' Widows' Fund Bill Committee Preliminary Stage report 

Debate on the Bill

A debate for MSPs to discuss what the Bill aims to do and how it'll do it.

Video Thumbnail Preview PNG

Preliminary Stage debate on the Bill transcript

The Deputy Presiding Officer (Christine Grahame)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S5M-07584, in the name of Tom Arthur, on the Edinburgh Bakers’ Widows’ Fund Bill.

15:29  



Tom Arthur (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)

I am pleased to open the preliminary stage debate on the Edinburgh Bakers’ Widows’ Fund Bill. I thank the other members of the Edinburgh Bakers’ Widows’ Fund Bill Committee—Alison Harris and Mary Fee—for their work in getting the bill to this stage.

The Edinburgh Bakers’ Widows’ Fund Bill was introduced on 20 March 2017 and has been promoted by the trustees of the widows’ scheme of the Incorporation of Bakers of the City of Edinburgh. The overall objective of the bill is, in essence, to transfer the property and assets of the widows’ scheme of the Incorporation of Bakers of the City of Edinburgh to a new charitable trust. The bill is the first private bill to be debated in the chamber this session. It is not a controversial bill and no objections to it were received.

The first thing that struck me about the bill was its title. I must admit to having been unfamiliar with the fund. The committee gained some insight into the history of the rules governing trading corporations in Edinburgh and how they now affect trade some 200 years later. The Incorporation of Bakers of the City of Edinburgh was originally one of the trade corporations set up in medieval times to regulate trade. In 1803, a scheme was formed to provide a fund for bakers’ widows and an act was passed in 1813—the Edinburgh Bakers’ Widows’ Fund Act 1813—authorising the scheme. The fund was established to provide financial support to the widows of contributing members. The last contribution to the fund was made back in 1981 and the last annuity paid under the scheme was in 1997. Since then, there have been no qualifying beneficiaries.

During the promoter’s evidence to the committee, Lady Elizabeth Drummond explained that the question of introducing a private bill was raised a number of years ago. She said:

“We had this widows’ fund for which the number of trustees was getting smaller—people were dying and nobody was around to look after it ... we saw that it would not be attractive or viable because of the very baroque entry requirements under the Edinburgh Bakers’ Widows’ Fund Act 1813 ... you had to be male and under 45 ... and ... the benefits that might accrue to anyone were so vague and difficult to understand that it would not be an attractive vehicle for people to put their moneys into.”—[Official Report, Edinburgh Bakers’ Widows’ Fund Bill Committee, 14 June 2017; c 3,4.]

Consequently, the trustees were left with a fund of considerable value. However, it was simply not viable to promote the fund as, for example, an investment vehicle or annuity provider in competition with large pension providers as, according to Lady Elizabeth Drummond, the trustees

“would be trying to set up something in competition with, say, Standard Life”.—[Official Report, Edinburgh Bakers’ Widows’ Fund Bill Committee, 14 June 2017; c 6.]

In 2013, the trustees decided that the scheme should not continue to operate in its current form and formally closed it to new members. Currently, there are two wives of contributing members who could qualify in the future for annuities if they were widowed. The promoter has advised that the wives have agreed to accept a payment in lieu of potential future annuities to which they might have been entitled as widows in terms of the 1813 act.

In place of the fund, the trustees propose to set up a new charitable trust that would make use of the money that has been invested by supporting education and training and being promoted through the baking community. In response to the committee’s queries about the purpose of the original fund being in line with that of the new charity, the promoter explained:

“We felt that that was the best way to go to make a genuinely good use of the assets in line with the spirit of the Incorporation of Bakers of the City of Edinburgh, so that we could get practical modern usage out of the money ... by ... promoting baking in the city of Edinburgh. That was one way to use the money, and creating a charitable vehicle was the way to encase it in a fully responsible mechanism that fits today’s purposes.”—[Official Report, Edinburgh Bakers’ Widows’ Fund Bill Committee, 14 June 2017; c 8,9.]

The purposes of the new trust are the advancement of education by supporting education and training opportunities in baking; and the advancement of the arts, heritage, culture or science by providing public information and promoting an appreciation of local baking and the history of the baking trade, particularly in Edinburgh. The new trust—the Incorporation of Bakers of Edinburgh Charitable Trust—has been approved by the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator.

On the basis of the evidence received, the committee is satisfied that the 1813 act has clearly become outdated and restrictive and that the trustees are correct in seeking a practical way of allowing the money in the fund to be redirected to a new set of objectives.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Edinburgh Bakers’ Widows’ Fund Bill and that the bill should proceed as a private bill.

15:34  



Alison Harris (Central Scotland) (Con)

First, I thank the committee convener, Tom Arthur, for moving the motion. As he said, this is the first private bill to be debated in the Parliament this session and, as such, I thought that members might be interested to have some brief information about private bills more generally and why they are necessary.

A private bill, which is introduced by an outside promoter, is about making specific changes to the law affecting the promoter rather than changing the public and general law. In practice, many private bills are about updating bits of private legislation that were passed a long time ago and which have, therefore, become increasingly outdated. In today’s case, the act dates back to 1813.

With private bills, there is always a right for the people or organisations who consider that a bill would adversely affect their interests to formally object to the bill. However, in the case of the Edinburgh Bakers’ Widows’ Fund Bill, no such objections were received. Nevertheless, the Parliament has an obligation to scrutinise the bill and satisfy itself that the changes to the law that the promoter is seeking are reasonable and appropriate.

I had no real awareness of private bills before being nominated for membership of the committee, and I have had an interesting insight into this little-known aspect of the Parliament’s work. As with public bills, most of the detailed scrutiny of a private bill is undertaken by a committee. However, there are some important differences between the two types of committee, including the fact that a private bill committee is always an ad hoc committee that is set up to scrutinise a particular bill. Any MSPs who have a close connection to the area affected by the bill are prevented from serving on the committee.

The first stage of the private bill process, which is roughly equivalent to stage 1 of a public bill, is known as the preliminary stage. There are three aspects to the committee’s task at the preliminary stage. First, it takes evidence and reaches a view on whether the general principles of the bill should be approved. Secondly, it reaches a view on whether the bill should proceed as a private bill. Thirdly, it gives preliminary consideration to any objections. If the Parliament approves the general principles of the bill and agrees that it should proceed as a private bill, the bill goes on to the consideration stage, which is roughly equivalent to stage 2 of a public bill, before going on to the final stage, at which the Parliament debates whether the bill should be passed.

The Edinburgh Bakers’ Widows’ Fund Bill has now reached the conclusion of the preliminary stage and the committee is pleased to support the promoter in its quest to set up a charitable scheme that will not only make good use of the moneys contained in the fund but should offer other benefits to the wider community in the future, as we heard in Tom Arthur’s speech.

15:37  



Mary Fee (West Scotland) (Lab)

Before I move to the main focus of my speech, I thank the clerks to the committee for the help and support that they have given not only to me but to my colleagues on the committee, Tom Arthur and Alison Harris.

The convener outlined the bill’s objectives—in effect, the general principles—and, in closing the debate, I will focus on the second part of the committee’s role at the preliminary stage: satisfying itself that the bill should proceed as a private bill. One of the aspects of that role is for the committee to satisfy itself of the adequacy of the accompanying documents to allow proper scrutiny of the bill. The promoter’s statement sets out how the promoter has notified and made information available to those who are likely to be affected. As with any public bill, the explanatory notes aim to summarise objectively what each provision does. Finally, the promoter’s memorandum must set out the bill’s objectives, whether alternative ways of meeting those objectives were considered and, if so, why the approach that is being taken in the private bill was adopted and what consultation was undertaken.

I will not go into the detail of the committee’s consideration of the explanatory notes and the promoter’s statement; suffice it to say that the committee was satisfied that the documents met the necessary requirements. However, I will say a bit more about the promoter’s memorandum. The convener, Tom Arthur, has outlined the bill’s objectives, and the committee was content that the memorandum sets those out in adequate detail. As for alternative ways of meeting the bill’s objectives, the trustees considered a number of options for transferring the assets and liabilities of the fund to a non-statutory charitable body and settled on a deed of trust that would be regulated by the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator.

Having agreed a structure, the trustees then considered various mechanisms to effect the transfer to the new trust, including application to the Court of Session to have the terms of the trust varied. In that context, the committee noted that the new charity would have a significant change of purpose—from providing financial support for widows to supporting education on and training in baking.

The committee was aware that the law recognises that arrangements for administration trusts such as the widows’ fund can become outdated over time and that it is possible for the courts to approve additional administrative powers, for example. However, in general, the courts will agree only to change the purposes of a trust to something closely aligned to its original purpose. The promoter considered that none of the alternative remedies would enable the trust’s purpose to be changed and concluded that the most appropriate method of amending the fund’s objectives was to promote a private bill.

The committee was content that the promoter had carried out adequate consultation with members of the incorporation, with the two wives of contributing members of the fund and with OSCR.

In conclusion, the committee was satisfied that the accompanying documents were fit for purpose and that, overall, the bill should proceed as a private bill.

Vote at Preliminary Stage

Video Thumbnail Preview PNG

Vote at Preliminary Stage transcript

The Presiding Officer (Ken Macintosh)

There are two questions today. The first question is, that motion S5M-07584, in the name of Tom Arthur, on the Edinburgh Bakers’ Widows’ Fund Bill, be agreed to.

Motion agreed to,

That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Edinburgh Bakers’ Widows’ Fund Bill and that the bill should proceed as a private bill.

The Presiding Officer

The next question is on a bill at stage 3, so we will hold a division even if the decision is unanimous.

The question is, that motion S5M-07774, in the name of Annabelle Ewing, on the Contract (Third Party Rights) (Scotland) Bill at stage 3, be agreed to.

For

Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 109, Against 0, Abstentions 0.

Motion agreed to,

That the Parliament agrees that the Contract (Third Party Rights) (Scotland) Bill be passed.

Meeting closed at 16:32.  



MSPs agreed that this Bill could continue

Consideration Stage - Changes to detail 

Members of the Private Bill Committee can propose changes to the Bill. Objections and changes are considered and then decided on by the committee.

Changes to the Bill

MSPs can propose changes to a Bill  these are called 'amendments'. The changes are considered then voted on by the  committee.

The lists of proposed changes are known as a 'marshalled list'. There's a separate list for each week that the committee is looking at proposed changes.

The 'groupings' document groups amendments together based on their subject matter. It shows the order in which the amendments will be debated by the committee and in the Chamber. This is to avoid repetition in the debates.

How is it decided whether the changes go into the Bill?

When MSPs want to make a change to a Bill, they propose an 'amendment'. This sets out the changes they want to make to a specific part of the Bill.

The group of MSPs that is examining the Bill (lead committee) votes on whether it thinks each amendment should be accepted or not.

Depending on the number of amendments, this can be done during one or more meetings.

First meeting at Consideration Stage

Video Thumbnail Preview PNG

First meeting at Consideration Stage transcript

The Convener (Tom Arthur)

Good morning and welcome to the fifth meeting of the Edinburgh Bakers’ Widows’ Fund Bill Committee. I remind everyone present, including members, that mobile phones should be turned off.

Today is consideration stage of the bill. We have no amendments to deal with, but under the standing orders we are obliged to consider each section of the bill and the long title and agree to each formally.

We will take the sections in order and the long title last. Standing orders allow us to put a single question where groups of sections are to be considered consecutively, so unless members disagree, that is what I propose to do.

Sections 1 to 6 agreed to.

Long title agreed to.

The Convener

That ends consideration stage of the bill.

I ask members to agree that I lodge a motion, on the committee’s behalf, that the Parliament agrees that the Edinburgh Bakers’ Widows’ Fund Bill be passed.

Members indicated agreement.

Meeting closed at 09:35.  



Edinburgh Bakers' Widows' Fund Bill as amended at Consideration Stage  

There is no Bill "as amended at Consideration Stage" for the Bill as no amendments were made at Consideration Stage.

Final Stage - Final amendments and vote

MSPs can propose amendments to the Bill and then vote on each of these. Finally, they vote on whether the Bill should become law.

Final debate on the Bill

Once they've debated the amendments, the MSPs discuss the final version of the Bill.

Video Thumbnail Preview PNG

Final debate transcript

The Deputy Presiding Officer (Linda Fabiani)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S5M-08596, in the name of Tom Arthur, on the final stage of the Edinburgh Bakers’ Widows’ Fund 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—briefly, whether any provision will modify the electoral system and franchise for Scottish parliamentary elections. If so, the motion to pass the bill requires support from a supermajority of members: that is, a two-thirds majority, or 86 members. In this case, the Presiding Officer’s view is that no provision of the Edinburgh Bakers’ Widows’ Fund Bill relates to a protected subject matter. Therefore, the bill does not require a supermajority to be passed at the final stage.

16:48  



Tom Arthur (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)

I am pleased to open the final stage proceedings on the Edinburgh Bakers’ Widows’ Fund Bill, and I again thank my fellow committee members—Mary Fee and Alison Harris—for their contributions in progressing the bill to this stage. I also record the committee’s gratitude to the clerks for all their support.

As there are currently three private bill committees on the go, all of which have the same membership, Mary Fee, Alison Harris and I have seen quite a bit of each other. Members will be delighted to learn that they can expect to see more of us in that capacity as the other two private bills progress. In fact, the preliminary stage debate on the Pow of Inchaffray Drainage Commission (Scotland) Bill took place last week and the debate on the Writers to the Signet Dependants’ Annuity Fund Amendment (Scotland) Bill took place the week before that.

Members will no doubt recall the preliminary stage debate on the Edinburgh Bakers’ Widows’ Fund Bill, which took place in September. To recap briefly, this private bill was introduced on 20 March 2017 and is being promoted by the trustees of the widows’ scheme. The bill’s overall objective is to transfer the property and the assets of the widows’ fund to a new charitable trust.

The Incorporation of Bakers of the City of Edinburgh was set up in medieval times to regulate trade. The fund was established in the 19th century to provide financial support to the widows of contributing members. However, the Edinburgh Bakers’ Widows’ Fund Act 1813 limited membership of the scheme to men under the age of 45.

As I explained in my speech at preliminary stage, in recent times, members of the incorporation have tended to be women or older men, but neither category is eligible to contribute to the scheme under the terms of the 1813 act. The last contribution to the fund was made in 1981 and the last annuity paid under the scheme was in 1997. Since then, there have been no qualifying beneficiaries.

In 2013, the trustees decided that the scheme should not continue to operate in its current form and formally closed the scheme to new members. It was considered that there was a need for change, given the restrictions on the ability of the trustees to apply the assets of the fund as imposed by the provisions of the 1813 act.

The fund is not a modern financial vehicle, and with a finite number of potential beneficiaries the trustees found themselves unable to apply the fund assets in accordance with the spirit of the fund. In place of the fund, the trustees intend to set up a new charitable trust, which will have the purposes of the advancement of education, by supporting education and training opportunities in baking; and the advancement of the arts, heritage, culture or science, by providing public information and promoting an appreciation of local baking and the history of the baking trade, particularly in Edinburgh.

The new trust—the Incorporation of Bakers of Edinburgh Charitable Trust—has been approved by the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator.

At preliminary stage, the committee was pleased to recommend to the Parliament that the general principles of the bill be agreed to and that the bill should proceed as a private bill.

At consideration stage, private bill committees are required to consider any objections and amendments to the bill. In this case, there were no objections, as was expected, and no amendments were lodged. Consideration stage consisted of a very short meeting of the committee.

At this, the final stage of the bill’s parliamentary passage, I reiterate that the committee supports the aim of the promoters to establish the new charitable trust, to enable the trustees to make capital payments to the potential beneficiaries, to dissolve the fund and to repeal the 1813 act.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that the Edinburgh Bakers’ Widows’ Fund Bill be passed.

16:53  



Alison Harris (Central Scotland) (Con)

As Tom Arthur has outlined, the money that was raised by the Edinburgh bakers’ widows’ scheme was used to pay annuities to widows of contributors to the fund. In certain circumstances, provision could also be made for elderly members or orphans of members who were considered to be in need.

As we have heard, the promoters considered that there was a need for change, given the restrictions of the 1813 act. With a finite number of potential beneficiaries, the trustees found themselves unable to apply the fund assets in accordance with the spirit of the fund. If nothing were done, the fund assets could become frozen and the trustees would be powerless to make any changes.

The last annuity that was paid under the scheme was in 1997. Since then there have been no qualifying beneficiaries under the fund. However, there are two wives of contributing members who could qualify in future for annuities if they were widowed and, as such, they had a contingent interest in the fund.

As well as the best means of creating the charitable trust, the trustees of the fund also considered how the interests of those individuals were dealt with, and the committee was keen to ensure that they were treated fairly. It was explained, in the promoters’ memorandum:

“Prior to transferring the Fund assets into the Charitable Trust, the Trustees will make a single capital payment to each of the two wives of contributing members. The agreed capital payments have been ring-fenced from the Fund assets. The Bill will give authority to the Trustees to make a single payment to each of the wives who are not—”

and might never become—

“widows ... It is intended that the payments will be made to the wives prior to the dissolution of the Fund.”

The committee was satisfied with the promoters’ account of the steps that had been taken to ensure that the wives in question received equitable payments. We were told that an actuary had calculated capital payments. The wives had been consulted on the capital payments and had agreed to accept them in lieu of potential future annuities to which they might have been entitled as widows, under the terms of the 1813 act.

In conclusion, the committee was content, first, that the interests of the only two individuals who might in future have been affected by the dissolution of the fund have been addressed, and secondly, that the establishment of the charitable trust will provide an appropriate means by which the proceeds that are currently contained in the fund can be used to further the purposes of the incorporation, to the benefit of the public.

16:56  



Mary Fee (West Scotland) (Lab)

I thank the convener, Tom Arthur, for moving the motion, and I thank Alison Harris for her speech. I also thank the clerks to the committee for their help and support during the preliminary and consideration stages.

Thanks must also go to the witnesses who presented evidence. Their helpful and co-operative approach made committee members’ jobs much easier. [Interruption.]

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Excuse me. I ask for a bit of quiet in the chamber, please. I am finding it difficult to hear Ms Fee, which is unusual.

Members: Oh!

Mary Fee

Thank you, Presiding Officer—I think.

Given the current interest in the art of baking—I cite the very popular “The Great British Bake Off”, which I have to say I have never watched, as evidence of the trend—it seems of particular relevance that the purposes of the new trust are to encourage and support training and education in baking-trade-related careers, to provide training opportunities in baking, and to promote the appreciation of local baking and the history of baking.

In that context, I was interested to explore in a bit more detail the history of the fund. The Incorporation of Bakers—or Baxters—of the City of Edinburgh is one of the ancient trade incorporations or guilds that were set up in medieval times to regulate trade in many of the cities of northern Europe. The incorporation was granted a seal of cause in March 1522, under the terms of which members controlled admission to the craft of baking and the supply of bread in Edinburgh, subject to penalties for poor quality.

The incorporation prospered over subsequent years and acquired flour mills by the Water of Leith. However, with the advent of steam power the water-powered mills became obsolete and had to be sold off at a loss.

The Burgh Trading Act of 1846 abolished the exclusive trading privileges of the incorporations, which generally declined thereafter. As the promoters said in evidence to the committee:

“the trading act came along in 1846 and the trades could no longer be the closed shop that they had been and they had to change their business.”—[Official Report, Edinburgh Bakers’ Widows’ Fund Bill Committee, 14 June 2017; c7.]

The committee was interested to learn that there is now a renewal of the trades and a revival of interest in Edinburgh, with people joining not only the bakers but

“the bonnetmakers, the goldsmiths, the candlemakers and so on.”—[Official Report, Edinburgh Bakers’ Widows’ Fund Bill Committee, 14 June 2017; c3.]

We were also encouraged to learn that, if the bill is passed and the new trust is created, the incorporation will be in a position to increase its membership and increase grant applications. That should benefit the wider community. For example, the trust might be able to offer a baking course in a primary school or prison. Under the new scheme, the benefits to the community will be much wider than they are under the scheme as set out in the 1813 act.

I am pleased to endorse the motion that the bill be passed, and I hope that all members can support it at 5 o’clock.

Final vote on the Bill

After the final discussion of the Bill, MSPs vote on whether they think it should become law.

Video Thumbnail Preview PNG

Final vote transcript

The Presiding Officer (Ken Macintosh)

We move to decision time. The first question is, that amendment S5M-09000.2, in the name of Annie Wells, which seeks to amend motion S5M-09000, in the name of Maureen Watt, on suicide prevention in Scotland, be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

The Presiding Officer

The next question is, that amendment S5M-09000.3, in the name of Monica Lennon, which seeks to amend motion S5M-09000, in the name of Maureen Watt, on suicide prevention in Scotland, be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)

Against

Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 77, Against 27, Abstentions 0.

Amendment agreed to.

The Presiding Officer

The next question is, that motion S5M-09000, in the name of Maureen Watt, on suicide prevention in Scotland, as amended, be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)

Abstentions

Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 77, Against 0, Abstentions 27.

Motion, as amended, agreed to,

That the Parliament believes that every suicide is a tragedy, and extends its sympathy to all those bereaved in this devastating manner; supports the partnership and co-operation across the NHS, health and social care sector, Police Scotland, Scottish Ambulance Service, Scottish Fire and Rescue Service and the third sector, which have contributed to a 17% reduction in the suicide rate in the last decade; considers that Scotland can go further and learn more about this complex area; notes with concern that Scotland’s previous suicide prevention strategy ended in 2016 and that the new action plan will not be published until 2018; notes the link between suicide and socioeconomic disadvantage, with the suicide rate being three times higher in the most deprived communities; believes that suicide prevention should be rooted in efforts to reduce overall poverty and inequality; recognises that adequate funding of frontline services is vital to the success of local suicide prevention and that continuing austerity is harmful to this work; acknowledges calls for the new suicide prevention strategy to have robust evaluation and reporting mechanisms; calls for individuals and local communities to be heard in the Scottish Government’s public engagement process to develop a new suicide prevention action plan, based on evidence, to continue the downward trend in suicides, and commends and reiterates key messages learned from practice and research that suicide is preventable, that it is everyone’s business and that collaborative working is key to successful suicide prevention.

The Presiding Officer

The final question is, that motion S5M-08596, in the name of Tom Arthur, on the final stage of the Edinburgh Bakers’ Widows’ Fund Bill, be agreed to. We need to hold a division on this motion. Members should cast their votes now.

For

Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 102, Against 0, Abstentions 0.

Motion agreed to,

That the Parliament agrees that the Edinburgh Bakers’ Widows’ Fund Bill be passed.

[Applause.]

The Presiding Officer

That concludes decision time.

This Bill was passed on 21 November 2017 and became an Act on 12 January 2018. 
Find the Act on legislation.gov.uk

Share this page