Hansard

I am not sure whether I need to speak in the debate, because it is clear that an animated debate is taking place among Scottish National Party members. I am sorry that Mr Morgan did not have more faith in his party's two very capable members of the Standards and Public Appointments Committee—I am sure that he does really.

I remember with slight horror the first time that determinations were mentioned when the committee met in committee room 2. The mention of determinations triggered a wave of indignation, which I partly egged on. All sorts of accusations were made—we heard that Parliament was to be bypassed and all sorts of other suggestions that turned out to be scare stories.

If nothing else, what has emerged from the process is clarification of the procedures that are encompassed in determinations and—I hope—the acceptance that they are a perfectly normal and respectable way forward.

Alasdair Morgan made several good points. I am deeply impressed that he has read the reports. I suspect that he is not unique in the Parliament in that regard, but it sets him apart from all ordinary mortals.

The convener answered well the question why four reports were issued—that is because it is easier to make changes later without following undue processes. If nothing else, that has doubled the number of reports that the committee has issued this session. Why each report replicates some information is a good question. That is hard to defend. Sometimes we just have to accept that laid-down procedures are hard to follow.

I will say a few words about the eighth report of 2006, which covers the determination on income from property. I argued strongly that banding rather than giving the exact figure that was received was imperative—I argued strongly about that to protect people such as farm tenants, house tenants and others from having exact financial details of their businesses and perhaps of their personal income and expenditure made public knowledge.

I have no doubt that some people will argue strongly that we have introduced the banding in order to protect members. I simply do not accept that that is the case, if for no other reason than the fact that, if a member declares income from property of between £15,000 and £20,000, every one of our friends in the press will determine that income to be £19,999 and not a penny less. There is no doubt about that.

Alasdair Morgan was correct to say that we have perhaps gone against the way in which the debate in the Parliament went in introducing a banding from zero to £5,000. I think that that is absolutely justified for simplicity and ease of understanding, as the same is required for the registration of remuneration and I would defend it on those grounds. We have tried hard, all the way through the tortuous debate on the issue, to bring simplicity and ease of understanding across the board. Those were our biggest priorities.

I accept the points that Alasdair Morgan made, and other members may feel the same. However, I hope that the Parliament will accept the reports. A lot of work has gone into them and they are a good outcome of a fairly tedious but nonetheless important process.