 Yn nhw'n ei ddweud yn cael eu cychwyn leol y ffordd nesaf, wrthy yn creu cyfreuion mewn gwybwysydd. Mae'r gwaith gan y bydd yn ein mwyafol, a'r gweld gwyeb y gallwn i chi fod i'i'n gwybwysedd. Mae'r chi'n maelod eu pwysig, mae'n gair i'ch gael eu mwyddor agor. Mae hynny'n cymryd ar gyfer mwyafol, ond rwy'n meddwl y gwasanaeth gwyddiadau I will have a word with them afterwards. There is only one item on today's agenda. It is stage 2 of the interests of members of the Scottish Parliament amendment bill. I would like to welcome to the meeting Stuart Stevenson, a convener of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee and the member in charge of the bill. Basically, everyone should have the bill and marshaled list of amendments with you. There is also a groupings list. It is quite straightforward. Two amendments to be disposed of today and they have been grouped together as you will know. Firstly, the question basically is sections 1 to 8 of the bill. Are we all agreed that these can be agreed? Thank you very much. Section 9 of the bill is prohibition of paid advocacy. I would like to call amendment 1 in the name of Stuart Stevenson grouped with amendment 2. Mr Stevenson. Thank you very much indeed, convener. I will start by outlining the context for the provisions. The present position is that paid advocacy is where an individual uses their position as an MSP to advocate a particular matter in return for a payment, including a benefitting kind, or to urge any other MSP to do so. It is a criminal offence and a breach of the interest set for an MSP to undertake paid advocacy. It is worth noting that no MSP has ever been found to breach these rules. The Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee is very clear, given the gravity with which paid advocacy should be treated that the criminal offence remains appropriate. The committee's consultation paper proposed that the definition of paid advocacy should be amended for greater consistency with the bribery act 2010. In particular, we noted that the bribery act incorporated the act of agreeing to receive inducements within the offence of being bribed. The paid advocacy offence currently requires actual receipt of an inducement by an MSP or by an MSP's partner, where this is in connection with the member's parliamentary role and results in some benefit to the MSP. It does not currently incorporate payments of benefits in kind that a member agrees to receive. The bill amends the definition of paid advocacy so that agreeing to receive inducements as well as actually receiving them would be an offence and thus a breach of the interest act. During stage 1 of the debate, Tavish Scott asked whether the offence of paid advocacy, as expanded by the provisions in the bill, would cover a scenario where a member requested payment to undertake paid advocacy. There is no doubt that receiving, agreeing to receive and requesting an inducement in exchange for carrying out paid advocacy actually or before or after the event is an offence under section 2 of the bribery act 2010. This is a complex but comprehensive provision covering corruption in a wide range of public and private sector settings. The paid advocacy offence in this bill is a much simpler provision, which is more specifically geared towards abuses of the procedures of this Parliament. Requesting an inducement is also covered by the paid advocacy offence as a member by section 9 of this bill, but only where some form of agreement flows from it and action is taken by the member on the basis of that. In other words, it does not matter who made the initial approach in this context. A purely unilateral request for an inducement would not be covered, however. This is partly because of the absence of any specific reference to requesting, as opposed to receiving or agreeing to receive. It is also because undertaking the advocacy part of the paid advocacy is an essential part of the element. It is not currently an offence to receive an inducement so long as the member does not in fact do anything in response to receipt of the inducement or are some another member to do something. Similarly, even if the bill is enacted, it will still not be an offence to agree to receive an inducement so long as nothing is thereafter actually done on the basis of that. Where a unilateral request for an inducement is concerned, it is unlikely that the requirements of this section will be satisfied because if the member is rebuffed or simply ignored, he or she is not likely to proceed to do anything on the basis of an inducement, he or she could have no expectation of actually receiving. There are possible alternatives to this. One is to do nothing on the basis that all of this is criminal under the Brivary Act and the pay advocacy offence is specifically about abuse of all the new procedures and facilities. However, I have decided to propose amendments to ensure that the offence covers a member requesting an inducement to carry out advocacy, but only where the advocacy actually takes place. I believe that these amendments put these matters beyond doubt. Specifically, the First Amendment amends section 9 of the bill, which in turn amends section 14 of the 2000 act. This amendment restructures subsection 2B of section 14, and essentially there are two things. Firstly, it adds to the reference to requesting a payment or benefiting kind for carrying out paid advocacy. Secondly, it introduces a conditional element to the provision, namely the payment or benefiting kind results, or if, when made or given, would result in some benefit to the member. This puts beyond doubt that the payment or benefit does not actually have to have been received for the offence to be committed. This ensures that where a member agrees to receive or requests a payment or benefit, the offence is committed even when the inducement has not been received. That ties up the provision in the bill so that it sits better with the addition of agrees to receive and requests. The second amendment simply adds a reference to requesting to subsection 3 of section 14 of the 2006 act, which sets out the exceptions to these provisions. Assistance in the provision of member's bill or assistance with amendments to any bill or a debate on subordinate legislation or a legislative consent motion will not be considered as paid advocacy. I have a pleasure in moving amendment 1. Thank you very much, Mr Stevenson. I am now going to allow other members to make a comment. Mary Scanlon. Thank you, I appreciate that. I would like to thank Mr Stevenson for his comprehensive explanation of his amendments, as I would expect nothing less. I think that we are all absolutely clear about advocacy in return for payment. I think that that is absolutely crystal clear. I think that what I would like a bit more information on, I think that it is perhaps a more grey area, is including a benefit in kind. If I can just give you an example. Somewhere in my diary we have got a dinner with the BMA and they are likely to be asking or suggesting things for the NHS. If I accept a dinner from the BMA in next week, I mentioned something in Parliament that resulted from that conversation. Then I have had a benefit in kind and I would be asking a question on the basis of that. So I think just to be helpful to all MSPs, can you tell us exactly, can you perhaps be helpful, convener, if the member could give us some examples of benefits in kind? What is a communication flow? What is a briefing? If you sit down and have a coffee or a dinner over that briefing, you have received a benefit in kind and you may go forward and ask something, advocate on that organisation's behalf. I just wonder, convener, if I could seek some clarity around the issue of benefit in kind. Can I just hold on a second, please, Mr Stevenson? Thank you very much, Mary. Can I just ask if there is anyone else has any questions for Mr Stevenson? Okay, that seems to be the only question. Mr Stevenson, could you enlighten us, please? Thank you and that is a good question to ask. I will just make the very general point that a member should always have any doubt about whether provisions of the member's interest or the standards generally that apply to members should always seek the advice of the clerks who will be very happy to advise in advance, but turning to the very specific circumstances that Mrs Scanlon has described, I think the important point to bear in mind is that the benefit is conditional upon an act. There has to be an offer or a solicitation of a benefit, is the first test that has to be applied before the paid advocacy rules kick in. Secondly, the paid advocacy needs to be consequential upon that agreement and it needs to be undertaken. However, the benefit does not need to be delivered. Now, the benefit in the case that is given being at a dinner is incidental to the action that was taken. That benefit, that dinner was taking place in any event and what happened at that dinner as a result of a conversation was not linking the provision of the dinner to that benefit that the member received. I think that is the test, but at the end of the day I do come back to that it is always a good idea for members to drop by room TG1 for the clerks are happy to answer questions. I think that answers the question and I am getting nodding heads on both sides of me so I have captured the essence of it. Is that link, that conditionality between the benefit that is delivered and the action that the member has taken, which I think in the circumstances which the member describes probably quite common circumstances, that link is absent and therefore it would not be caught by the provisions that we are seeking to introduce here. That is very helpful. Thank you very much. To Mary Scanlon, thank you to Stuart Stevenson. There being no other members wishing to ask a question of Mr Stevenson. Stuart Stevenson, would you like to press or withdraw amendment 1? I would like to press amendment 1. Amendment 1, thank you very much. The question is that amendment 1 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes, we are. Thank you very much. I call amendment 2 in the name of Stuart Stevenson. I am ready to debate with amendment 1. Stuart Stevenson to move formally. Thank you very much. Okay, that is section 9. The question is that amendment 2 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Agreed. Thank you. The right question is that section 9 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Agreed. Okay, section 10 to 19. The question is that section 10 to 19 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Agreed. Thank you. Finally, I believe that the question is that the long title be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Agreed. Thank you. At end stage 2 consideration of the bill. Thank you to everyone who has put in the onerous task of being here today. Thank you very much.