I would never suggest that Mr. Erskine-Smith would ever even receive such a thing, but let's go further.
If somebody having dealings with the government were then to offer travel and it had some monetary value, expensive travel as was the case with the Aga Khan, I'm not understanding why.... There is no return of the gift because you can't. It's an experience, a trip, but certainly there's the value of the gift if the office holder had gone out and simply purchased that gift, purchased that travel, which would have been more appropriate, rather than receiving a gift.
Why do we not have within the act the notion that, as in the case of the painting that was received illegally, for a gift in the form of a sponsored trip that was also deemed to be inappropriate or illegal, the value of that trip would also have to be compensated for?
Am I making myself clear? I know it may be a too commonsensical kind of approach, but what's the difference?