Official Report 197KB pdf
Welcome to the third meeting in 2006 of the Standards and Public Appointments Committee. We have apologies from Karen Whitefield, who is convening an extra meeting of the Communities Committee.
I thank the committee for extending an invitation to members of the Interests of Members of the Scottish Parliament Bill Committee to attend today's meeting. We appreciate the courtesy.
I would be much more comfortable if the Standards and Public Appointments Committee decided to lodge an amendment to restore schedule 2. I will tell members why. If at any stage a member finds themselves in the position that Stewart Stevenson outlined—if they have not registered membership of a club—then they should simply register that membership.
The bill committee took a brave decision in agreeing amendment 35. I would dearly love that decision to be upheld, but the decision is for the whole Parliament and it is important that it is seen to be the whole Parliament's decision, so—slightly reluctantly—I support our ensuring that that is the outcome.
At the risk of being repetitive, I agree with Bill Butler. It would be good to have parity in the requirements to disclose or register among the range of elected representatives. I recognise that members of the same political groups have differing views on the subject. As far as I am aware, there is no party line, so the question is down to what individuals believe. A member's opinion—mine at least—is coloured by how they would act in some circumstances. I am not sure whether we can have a rule that covers all eventualities and ensures that everything is caught, but the Parliament should debate that in plenary session and should reach a majority view on it. For that reason alone, it is worth lodging an amendment to reinstate schedule 2.
I would like some guidance from the convener or other people who have been in the trenches as to where the shells are falling. I understand that four options are available. The first is to forget about non-financial interests altogether. The second is to mention them under a voluntary code—if a member thinks that an interest is relevant, he or she registers it. The third is a list, which the bill committee discussed. The fourth is compulsory registration, but without a list—I am not sure how that would operate, but I presume that whether membership or whatever was relevant would be up to a member to decide. If we accept the convener's proposition that the Parliament should be able to vote on the matter, perhaps all those options should be up for grabs in the vote, if that would not make life too difficult.
I suspect that that might make life difficult, but it is open to any member to lodge stage 3 amendments. As the committee that proposed the bill, we are having today's meeting to advise and instruct me on what stage 3 amendments I should lodge on the committee's behalf. I am of a mind to do what Bill Butler and Christine May suggested, but with a minor change that I hope will help.
The idea of a prescriptive list was pretty well exposed during the debate in the chamber as unworkable, because of the question of where to draw the line. With all due respect to Donald Gorrie, I think that we should resist any temptation to discuss that again.
There were three options before the bill committee: the bill as published; the bill as it is now, without schedule 2; and a prescriptive list. Mr Fergusson is right that a prescriptive list proved to be significantly problematic and the bill committee decided that it did not want to go down that route. The double option at that point did not attract the bill committee's support.
Just to be absolutely clear about the nature of my dilemma, I simply do not believe that it will be possible for any individual member to register everything that might arise in the course of parliamentary business that could meet the prejudice test. In part, my point is that members will be left with a bit of a dilemma if parliamentary business touches on a subject in which the member has quite legally and properly not registered an interest, but which meets the prejudice test at the time. It is not absolutely clear to me, or to other members to whom I have talked, how they should deal with that and what the legal framework for dealing with it will be.
It is fair to say that the points raised by Mr Rumbles and Jamie McGrigor during the stage 2 debate support the argument that you have just made; the situation was not clear to at least some members.
I am possibly being stupid, but I do not think that you have addressed Stewart Stevenson's point. As I understand it, there would be no point in my standing up at the beginning of a debate and saying, "I am keen on the RSPB," if I had not put the entry in the register. Is that correct?
No. It would be quite possible for you to stand up in the chamber and say that, as a consequence of the debate, you want to inform the chamber that you are a member of the RSPB.
With due respect, that is a totally different matter.
Well, if you have already decided in advance that you cannot foresee any circumstances in which you would be prejudiced or give the perception of being prejudiced as a result of your membership of the RSPB or whatever organisation, the interest is not registrable. If, as a result of a debate on issues that affect that interest, you wish to inform folk that you have received certain information through your membership of the RSPB, that is your choice. As I understand it, you would not be liable under the code of conduct.
Let me give the committee an example from my own experience. When I first became an MSP and drew up my register of interests, I did not include—because I was not required to include—the membership of every organisation that I belonged to. After all, because of the varying degrees of formality in the membership of organisations, such a list might well be quite long for many of us.
There is still an option for members to register interests in the miscellaneous section.
After the event.
It can be done at any point. However, members are not liable for breaches in respect of the miscellaneous section.
Choosing to include an interest in the miscellaneous section does not in any sense convert it into a declarable interest.
No—it is definitely not a declarable interest. Unless we go down the road of having a prescriptive list, we will struggle anyway.
With due respect, I do not think that you have dealt with the point, convener. It is not about giving the Parliament information and showing that that is well founded. It is about whether I am being corrupted by something to vote in a way in which I would not normally vote. Let us say that I am an enthusiast for puffins and vote against people pouring oil into the Forth because it might kill them off, although I am not a member of the RSPB. Must another person who feels the same way but is a member of the RSPB register that membership? Does it corrupt them in some way? Both of us vote in accordance with our views. In my view, we are barking up a bad tree.
You are right to say that the issue is whether someone is influenced or gives the appearance of being influenced—whether their decisions are prejudiced. It is not about what they think, but about their membership of organisations. Everything must be done in conjunction with the prejudice test. It is fair to say that people cannot anticipate everything that comes up.
They would be, in fact.
They would. Oh, well. I have been guided on that. In that case, we might well have to debate the matter a little further.
That is the area on which I would appreciate some clarification, please. I hope that my colleagues will forgive me, but I do not understand what is meant by a power of determination. Is that the same as a statutory instrument, or is it something different?
It is similar to that and to the powers that we currently have to direct the Scottish parliamentary standards commissioner. It is a form of secondary legislation, which means that we will not have to go through the whole process in which we are currently engaged of producing new primary legislation. That is perhaps something that we should have thought about during the earlier stages of the process.
Thank you. Perhaps the clerks could provide me with a short note of clarification on that.
I take it that the power to amend schedule 2 is really the same as the power to amend schedule 1, which we will come on to later. I do not have a problem with our approach, which I think is sensible. We do not want to go through this whole process again. I think that everybody would at least agree on that. I think that we should restore schedule 2. There are no easy answers here, as Stewart Stevenson said. In the end, the member must be the sole arbiter of whether or not the public might perceive that he or she has an interest that might prejudice their judgment.
Never.
That might be difficult for some members to do, but it would be the safest course of action for members who found themselves in that position. That shows why a prescriptive list would not work. Only the member can decide for himself or herself in such situations.
That is correct.
I am grateful for the opportunity to add a few comments to the discussion. I sat on the Standards Committee for a couple of years several years ago at the early stages of this discussion. More recently, I acted as deputy convener of the Interests of Members of the Scottish Parliament Bill Committee. Therefore, I am very much aware of the extent to which colleagues from across the Parliament have grappled with these issues over a long period.
The committee has already decided that we will refine the code of conduct and separate out its three distinct areas. If I have not got the words quite right, perhaps my colleagues will correct me. First, we will draw out the aspirations in the code—that is, what we hope to achieve. Secondly, we will produce the set of rules by which members will be held accountable. Thirdly, we will give informative examples, which I hope will clarify what members are accountable for. In the recent past, members have been accused of being in breach of some of the more aspirational parts of the code.
I am quite happy for that to go on the agenda, as long as it is not assumed that I, as a committee member, support that approach.
Likewise.
Those points are perfectly reasonably made. Certainly, I was anxious throughout stage 2 that we should facilitate debate on the big issues. I am aware that committee members have changed their views since stage 2, in the light of experience and the debate that has taken place. I think that it is perfectly reasonable for members to take the personal position that they have. It is up to the political parties how they will handle the issue, but I would have thought that it was a matter for the 129 members and was not necessarily party political. I hope that we have our debate on those grounds.
I second that.
Are there any contrary views?
No.
In that case, it is agreed to propose an amendment to restore schedule 2.
As members will know, I supported the principle of what Margaret Jamieson was trying to do but was concerned about the drafting of her amendment. I suspect that the difficulties could be met in two ways. The first would be to set a de minimis, which the £200 of indebtedness that each of us might have to a utility company, for example, would fall well below—that would clear that problem out of the way. I suspect that we might also be able to make specific provision to take out of the equation more substantial borrowing, such as a mortgage under the Edinburgh accommodation allowance—which we would take out in our capacity as MSPs—or borrowing in relation to our normal domestic dwelling.
What Stewart Stevenson has just outlined is perfectly sensible. The convener's suggestion to lodge an appropriate amendment—perhaps jointly with Margaret Jamieson—that captures that is perfectly feasible. That is how we should proceed.
I have nothing to add to that.
I have read amendment 22 and the Official Report of the meeting of the Interests of Members of the Scottish Parliament Bill Committee and, to be blunt, I do not really understand what folk are getting at. I would appreciate clarification, perhaps through use of an example.
Amendment 22 gives the example of a member who might have an unremunerated financial interest in their family business, for example as a sleeping partner, which could result in a payment to them if the business was wound up, which might be a significant sum. Under the present rules—and indeed the proposed rules—their interest in that type of business would not need to be registered. Margaret Jamieson wanted a bit more on that in the bill.
I see that, and I understand the example. I am failing to grasp the implications of the example and how rules could be wrongly applied in the way that Stewart Stevenson suggested. Perhaps I am being naive, but I would appreciate it if someone could tell me how the system could be abused in that way and how it would prejudice members' parliamentary dealings.
I am sure that Stewart Stevenson is capable of speaking for himself, but I think that he was suggesting that members might be disguising their true financial worth and interests through mechanisms that would remove the immediate remuneration and so the need to register and declare an interest. They might be a sleeping partner in a business, which, when it was wound up, would lead to significant remuneration that would not be registrable or declarable under the present rules. Most members would not be caught by it, but it is a detail that we had not considered.
I still do not get this.
It is about members being open and transparent about all their financial interests, even those for which there is no obvious, immediate remuneration. We are just adding a little more transparency. Christine May and Stewart Stevenson want to come in at this point.
I will allow Christine May to give her example first.
It is all right. You go ahead, Stewart.
Let me construct an example. An announcement was made recently that changed the proposed route of the Aberdeen western peripheral road. If, as a result of their parliamentary involvement, an MSP became aware that such a change was about to take place and a friend wished to borrow from them £50,000—for the sake of argument—to buy a property that would cease to be blighted as a result of the route change, would we think that it was appropriate for the member to declare the lending of that money and the interest that they would gain from it? Of course we would. The interest that the member would earn on that loan would be similar to the return that they would get from investing the sum in a stock market company. Indeed, legally speaking, when one buys shares in a company, one is lending money to the company. The two situations are essentially the same and give rise to the same risks of prejudice and being thought to be prejudiced.
The provision has been designed to cover practices that the public might not approve of rather than existing practices. Christine May has another example.
My example was similar, although it involved the possible building of a railway line in the Borders.
Linda, are you happy with that?
Yes, thank you.
As there were problems with the original amendment, I suggest that I discuss with Margaret Jamieson how we might best deal with the issue. Stewart Stevenson's suggestion that we have a de minimis level is attractive on the ground that we have a threshold for a number of other matters, which is currently set at £250 and which may be set at £258—0.5 per cent of a member's salary—or at a slightly higher level, as proposed by amendments that were lodged at stage 2. However, quite a number of folk would be caught by that because of their utility bills, especially if, for example, their house used electricity for heating as well as cooking and lighting. I do not know that setting such a low threshold would be the answer.
I suggest that a substantially higher threshold should be set—it would probably have to be as high as 10 per cent of an MSP's salary. I will illustrate why I say that. If one's spouse wishes to install a new kitchen that costs several thousand pounds, one signs a contract that creates a debt until the kitchen has been paid off. I do not think that it would be appropriate to catch such things. Although certain journalists might find it interesting that someone's spouse or partner was putting in a new kitchen, the general public should not need to know about such matters. The threshold might even need to be as much as a whole year's salary. I do not have a particular view on that, although I think that it should be high rather than low.
If we were to follow that course, it would probably be better for the details to be dealt with by way of a parliamentary determination so that the level could be varied from time to time.
Yes.
Another alternative would be merely to strike out the relevant subparagraph and to accept that we will not be able to close every potential loophole.
Surely it should be possible for the provisions in the bill on members' interest in shares to deal with the matter. As other people have said, the situation is the same, except that there are no shares in the company that we are discussing. We should be able to get away from the gas bill business and to deal with the situation of an MSP who is a sleeping partner in, owns or stands to inherit part of a company or who has made a big loan to someone. The issue is not intractable.
Utilities bills are simply part of the general debt requirements. The issue is not necessarily easy to deal with, but if the committee is minded to have confidence in me and those who advise me, we will try to construct a robust amendment that will provide what Margaret Jamieson intended without putting members in the ridiculous position of having to monitor every debt against thresholds. One way to do that is, as Stewart Stevenson suggests, to have a de minimis, but the question is how high that should be for mortgages or house alterations. It might get rather complicated.
Debts that a member owes are not an issue at all. The issue is the member's role as a creditor; if people owe him money, he has an interest. Surely that is the point.
It can be an issue in both directions because, if a member is indebted to someone, they might be influenced by that person and their interests. A debtor is always more likely to be influenced than someone who is not indebted. It is possible to argue a case around that, but there are some complexities. It is true to say that, if a member has lent money, their decisions are also likely to be open to being influenced by whether they will ever get their loan back, but it is equally true in the other direction.
No.
There will be an opportunity to discuss any amendment at stage 3 and, if members are concerned about it, they can strike it down. To be frank, we have survived well without such a provision for the first seven years of the Parliament's life and the proposal is simply part of increasing the transparency of members' financial affairs, although members might not wish to do that.
Yes, on that point.
No; sorry. It would be simple to have a rule that every MSP, once elected, should declare any donations that had helped him to become elected over the past year rather than during the short period of the election. Many members spend time working up their constituencies and such a rule would not be a great problem. It would cover independents and party members.
The current situation does that.
Not for a year.
I seek guidance on that. Perhaps it does not cover the whole year. You suggest a tightening of the existing arrangements; Margaret Jamieson was suggesting a loosening of them. In our previous debates, we decided that we were content to leave things as they are. The bill committee was also content to leave things as they are and Margaret Jamieson did not press amendment 29, although she might lodge it again at stage 3. If you are suggesting a different amendment, there is an opportunity for you or the committee to lodge such an amendment. Does anybody else on the committee support a tightening of the existing rules to backdate the requirement to declare donations to cover the whole year?
No.
In that case, we will just leave the rule as it is, but Donald Gorrie should feel free to lodge an amendment on the matter at stage 3.
We should keep the threshold at 0.5 per cent of members' salary—there should be no change.
I do not detect any groundswell of opinion for change. I think that Mr Morgan was correct, but if amendments along those lines are lodged at stage 3, we will deal with that and I will be happy to put my views on the record. I suspect that I am very much in the minority on the issue, but I will not press the issue, nor will I lodge such amendments.
I wonder whether we should ask the Scottish Parliament information centre to include that in its list of firsts in the Parliament—it is the first time that a single vote has defeated an amendment in the Parliament.
Yes—it was 1-1.
It was decided on the convener's casting vote.
Which was for the status quo.
On heritable property and shares, amendments by Margaret Jamieson aimed to increase transparency under the bill.
Convener, you have missed out the issue of civil partners.
In spite of my well-known personal views on the matter, that was not deliberate—I just turned over two pages in the document.
I have a general point to make. The measure is intrusive on family life and the business of spouses, partners and cohabitants, but that is part of our job, and we are not alone in that respect. Not all members will conclude automatically that, because the rule is intrusive in the affairs of people other than members, it should be excluded from consideration, as I have made clear previously.
I take an opposing view. Although it is the case that our political activities intrude on family life, it is also reasonable that our spouses, cohabitants or partners should be permitted privacy in that part of family life that pertains to them only, if that is what they wish. The other measures that we have already discussed this morning about non-registrable interests and influences, for example, can just as easily pick up domestic issues that might be relevant. For that reason, I disagree with Stewart Stevenson.
I am torn between the positions that Stewart Stevenson and Christine May have outlined. The technical amendments are fine. We should proceed so that Parliament can decide on this big-ticket issue in a plenary meeting. I really do not know which way I will go, but I will be listening to the debate.
The bill is as it left the committee, which is as it was introduced. To facilitate such a debate, someone has to lodge the appropriate amendments. The amendments are available; all the work has been done to produce technically competent amendments, but someone will have to lodge them. They were all in Susan Deacon's name at stage 2.
I will not reopen the wider debate about substance; I am happy for my comments to stand as they are in the Official Report.
I have not observed in the bill any mechanism whereby the member can induce his or her spouse or whatever to give the required information. If the spouse says, "I am not telling you about gifts or my shareholdings," what do we do? Would they go to jail or would we?
Neither—there are no provisions for incarceration in the bill. If a member has not been given the information by their spouse, cohabitant or civil partner, they could not be influenced so, in conjunction with the prejudice text, they cannot be found guilty of an offence.
I referred at stage 2 to the somewhat analogous financial services legislation, which makes it a criminal offence for either partner to withhold information. In other words, the duty in law falls upon the spouse. This bill does not make that provision, although I suspect that it could do so. I emphasise the words "I suspect", because the Scotland Act 1998 may touch upon that and might prevent the bill from making such provision. Donald Gorrie has made the good point that if we cannot legally oblige a partner, cohabitant or spouse to provide the information, the provision will be a toothless tiger. That is against my favoured position, but it is probably an important point to make.
I am struck by two things. First, a short time ago we discussed the fact that if a member was a creditor or a debtor to somebody else, their business would, in effect, be on the table if we had to register that credit or debt. That person might be a member's spouse or cohabitant. On the other hand, we are saying that there should be privacy for spouses or cohabitants.
I do not think that there is a right or a wrong position in this. I will let Susan Deacon come in again in a moment, but if we go down the line of deleting all references to spouses, civil partners and cohabitants, it will be even easier for corrupt politicians to disguise their true financial interests by transferring assets to their spouses, cohabitants or civil partners. It is not an easy choice, especially when the original legislation reflected society at the time and current legislation in other areas reflects society as it is today. We have not quite got to the point of saying that relationships are ephemeral and of so little substance that we should regard everyone as an individual, that we therefore ought to respect individuals' rights and that, where an MSP has a spouse or a cohabitant or a civil partner, we ought to ignore the potential for financial influence by deliberate transfers. However, I accept that there is an argument on both sides. Whether the information is shared these days is a moot point.
I said that I did not want to reopen the debate today, but I feel duty-bound to make one or two points of substance. In the rather short debate this morning there has been a danger of misrepresenting or placing inappropriate emphasis on the arguments that some of us have deployed on the issue. Perhaps the Official Report of the bill committee is a better reference point for that.
I did not intend to give any offence when I used the word "ephemeral"; I was trying to draw a distinction between the issue of relationships that are recognised in law, significant changes to which have been made in recent legislation, and the issue of individual rights. If I did so in a cack-handed way, I apologise.
Absolutely.
The technical amendments, which—
The technical amendments are in the bill now; that is accepted. The point is that we did not have a debate on the amendments relating to the taking out of the bill references to spouses, cohabitants and civil partners.
I am obliged for that clarification.
The bill committee had extensive discussions on overseas visits and the bill was left as it was. As part of that debate, I made a commitment to the bill committee to come to this committee with a view to lodging an amendment that would include the prejudice test. That might be helpful. Furthermore, I made it absolutely clear that the current rules, and the rules that we intend to apply, will ensure that if a member has paid for his or her own travel to go on an overseas visit but has been given accommodation by someone—friend or otherwise—the accommodation costs are not registerable or declarable. How do members feel about that and the introduction of an amendment at stage 3 that would include the prejudice test?
I would have thought that all visits could be included in the category of gifts. Why do we have to go to town on the subject of visits? A gift is a gift.
On the face of it, there is much merit in that argument. Why should overseas visits be any different? The downside to including visits is that they would become subject to the de minimis threshold. It would also mean our visits being less transparent, because currently all overseas visits should be registered, unless they qualify under the list of exemptions. There is a certain weight of argument in favour of the point that Donald Gorrie makes, but it is difficult to construct a technical amendment that would give us what he wants without placing an additional burden on members. Already one member has been tripped up by the requirement, because of the need to get information from those who made the gift. We have chosen not to change that provision. The present provision is rather clearer than what is suggested, but I am in members' hands.
We should keep the requirement to register overseas visits. I accept Donald Gorrie's point about gifts, up to a point. I hope that all members make worthwhile expeditions as members of committees to places as far flung as Brussels. It would be stretching it to say that such visits are gifts, but they are registrable. We should keep the requirement, but I would be happy for us to agree to an amendment that would include the prejudice test. The two provisions are not mutually exclusive.
I do not know whether Mike Rumbles or Margaret Jamieson will lodge amendments again at stage 3. Margaret Jamieson's amendment was in line with what Donald Gorrie has suggested and one of Mike Rumbles's amendments was the same. If members wish to have the debate again, an amendment must be lodged. Do members agree that, on behalf of the committee, I should lodge an amendment that includes the prejudice test?
Do members think that the committee should go down the road that Donald Gorrie suggests?
No.
The next issue for consideration is heritable property and shares. Again, amendments on that were lodged by Margaret Jamieson. I took the view that they were in line with the spirit of what we are trying to achieve and am content with the changes that have been made to the bill. Are other members content with the amendments?
We debated the meaning of remuneration. The current situation is that if a member goes to a conference and receives reimbursement of expenses and so on, that is regarded as remuneration. We may need to clarify the rules for our allowances scheme, in order to ensure that members are clear about what could or should be claimed under the members' support allowance, and what the consequences of accepting support from external organisations are.
I was merely going to observe that, when we fill out our income tax return, any expenses that we are paid are counted as remuneration. However, on the other side of the balance sheet, the expenses that are necessarily incurred as part of our parliamentary duties also count as an allowable expense. Although the expenses net out at zero, they still have to be declared as remuneration. Perhaps the committee might wish to consider that test when it is thinking about what should be classed as remuneration in the bill.
There is also a debate about who should pay. For example, if a member is invited to speak at a conference, it is quite legitimate to ask whether those costs should fall on the public purse or whether they should be settled by the conference organisers. Given that Susan Deacon lodged an amendment to clear up such matters, it might be helpful to seek clarification and guidance on that in a letter to the allowances office and the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body.
It would also be helpful if we did not conflate two separate issues: although there is a need for guidance to clear up confusion about how Parliament's various allowances to members operate, I do not think that that touches directly on the bill or falls within its ambit. However, if a member receives £50 subsistence for attending a conference without having to provide any account of whether the money had been spent, that is unambiguously remuneration and an entirely different matter.
The bill is perhaps not the place to address what is a genuine issue, but we need to find an avenue that will allow us to make progress. Given that the SPCB is ultimately responsible for such matters, it would be more a matter for it than for the allowances office. I am more than happy to hear alternative suggestions. As I have said, the bill is perhaps not the best place to deal with the matter, but it is useful that it has been raised.
I would be grateful for guidance, if only because I have avoided the issue completely by not claiming anything. Although I am a member of two boards, both of which could reimburse my travel expenses, I do not claim that money, because I am never sure what the rules are, which is wrong. I would be grateful if the SPCB or the allowances office could provide us with guidance on that situation, which is slightly different from receiving remuneration or even being reimbursed for travel expenses if I am invited as a member of the Enterprise and Culture Committee to speak at a conference, for which I receive overnight accommodation or whatever. After we receive that guidance, we might consider whether the committee wants to lodge amendments to test the water.
It is open to members to pursue the matter at stage 3. I am not sure whether we will have a sufficiently speedy response from the corporate body to allow it to be dealt with under the bill.
At various stages, I have wished that I had not raised it. To be serious, as some—including Christine May—have said, I firmly believe that some issues require clarification, but what might be the correct vehicle to use to do that is for another debate. I thank those who have worked with me in recent weeks to try to find a means, through the bill, to deal with the reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses. My view is that any payment that is received, be it £5 or £500, should fall to be registered. However, from a commonsense point of view, it is strange that being reimbursed for £20 of train tickets to travel to speak at a conference in Glasgow should require to go on the register.
That could be useful; I suggested that avenue. I take it that members are content with that approach. As I said, it can be argued that when a member speaks at a conference, the conference organiser should pick up the expenses. However, it can also be argued that the member is speaking at the conference only because they are a member of the Parliament. They might then become part of the conference circuit, and might come under the influence of conference organisers. It might be better and in the public interest if they were not under that influence and if the Parliament picked up the costs. On the Parliament's behalf, the corporate body might wish to consider that. I will write to the corporate body on the committee's behalf about the issue, which has arisen in the debate on the bill but might be better resolved by the corporate body considering allowances and giving members guidance on how best to proceed. Are members content with that?
If a conference organiser gives us a lunch, how is that declared? If the Parliament must pay for the lunch, do I have to give a fiver to, say, the heating the home association, and then claim it back here? That would not be too sensible.
I seek the committee's guidance. In my view, the provision of a lunch is different from the reimbursement of accommodation and travel costs, on the basis that the lunch could quite genuinely be covered under the existing hospitality arrangements, whereby if someone receives something valued in excess of £250, they must register it. Did I get that right?
If an MSP was travelling to a conference and, in the process of that journey, paid for their lunch and was then reimbursed for it, that would be an expense, and it would require to be registered as such.
If the organisers provided the lunch at the conference, that is not the same. Unless the lunch costs more than £250, it is not liable to be registered.
We can dream.
Is that reasonably clear? The point is perfectly reasonable, and it is good that that explanation is on the record. I am glad that I got that point right, unlike a previous one.
I wonder whether we ought to mention two other issues for the record: the use of the Edinburgh accommodation allowance and the recognition of legislative consent motions. I agree entirely with what is in the paper before us.
I was not going to mention those subjects today because the discussion on them is already a matter of public record, and the bill committee was quite clear on what it wanted to do with them. I am only raising issues on which there was a division at that committee. The amendment on legislative consent motions was agreed to unanimously; the amendment on the Edinburgh accommodation allowance was disagreed to unanimously. I felt that those matters had been disposed of.
I am grateful for that clarification and for your putting it on the record again.
We move on to gifts and further issues raised at stage 2.
I have been thinking further on this subject. I suspect that my views have changed. It seems somewhat perverse that something that is in the ownership of a member and which does not fall to be a registrable interest should become registrable simply by dint of its ownership being transferred to someone else, be that a partner, civil partner, cohabitee or another person. If ownership is transferred to someone else of something in which the member already had a registrable interest, the item's transfer perhaps should be registrable. That would entirely remove the need to register as currently framed. I do not often receive a Christmas present worth £250 from my wife.
Aw.
I know—it is a shame. She does not often receive a present worth £250 from me, for that matter. Nonetheless, that threshold is dramatically below the level at which something would be a registrable interest in itself. I wonder whether we should step back slightly and look at the whole thing anew. That was the preliminary conclusion that I came to, having thought about the matter.
Much as some members might like to stand back, start from scratch and consider the matter anew, we do not have adequate time—unless Stewart Stevenson is suggesting a specific amendment.
Certainly not. I always try to support what my convener says. I think that we should stick with the status quo. If Alasdair Morgan wants to lodge an amendment at stage 3, we will have the debate then.
Are members content with that?
The final item for discussion is the proposed power to amend schedule 1. Again, the matter arose in the debates that we had at stage 2. I think that the Parliament should have the power to modify schedule 1 as it considers necessary or expedient. If members agree, I will lodge an amendment to that effect. It will be similar to the amendment to schedule 2. Such tidying-up exercises will prevent us from having to revisit the primary legislation. I would not wish to inflict that task on any successor committee for some considerable time.
I think that one visit is enough of a pleasure to be going on with. We cannot expect another bout of pleasure like this. It is sensible for you to lodge the amendment that you suggest.
Is that agreed?