Meeting of the Parliament 17 December 2015
I associate myself with the comments made by Mary Fee. I also thank Stewart Stevenson and the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee for bringing forward the Interests of Members of the Scottish Parliament (Amendment) Bill. Can I say, Presiding Officer, that it is very nice to have the last debate of the year on a consensual note?
Anything that brings greater transparency to this issue has to be welcomed. In the interests of clarity, transparency and consistency, I take the opportunity to raise the same question that I raised at stage 2, which relates to benefits in kind. Given that we have the opportunity for the full chamber to hear, it would be appropriate to get some clarity on the issue.
Stewart Stevenson said at stage 2:
“It is not currently an offence to receive an inducement, as long as the member does not do anything in response to receipt of the inducement”.
That is fine. He also said:
“It is the conditionality—the link between the benefit that is delivered and the action that the member has taken—that is important.”—[Official Report, Interests of Members of the Scottish Parliament (Amendment) Bill Committee, 10 November 2015; c 2, 4.]
Each and every one of us across the chamber will have been invited out to dinner quite regularly by hosts who tend to take full advantage of their time with us to let us know exactly what their concerns are. The example that I would like to use today relates to the University of the Highlands and Islands college lecturers. If I were still a lecturer, I might be telling Mr Matheson to keep quiet as I speak—it was never easy as a teacher when someone chattered in the background, cabinet secretary or no cabinet secretary.