Official Report 516KB pdf
We come to our main item of business for today, which is stage 2 of the Lobbying (Scotland) Bill. I remind members that if stage 2 is not completed today the committee will be required to meet next Thursday, 11 February 2016.
I welcome Joe FitzPatrick, who is the Minister for Parliamentary Business, and his officials. Officials are not permitted to participate in the formal proceedings. I also welcome Neil Findlay, who has lodged a number of amendments.
Members should have the bill, the marshalled list and the groupings, which set out the amendments in the order in which they will be debated. Our task is to consider all the amendments and also to agree to each section of the bill.
For the debate on each group, I will call the member with the lead amendment to open the debate by speaking to and moving the lead amendment and speaking to all amendments in the group. I will then call any other members who have amendments in the group to speak to all amendments in the group. I will then call any other members who indicate to me that they wish to speak, taking the minister last if he does not have an amendment in the group. Finally, I will invite the member who opened the debate to wind up and indicate whether they wish to press or seek to withdraw the lead amendment.
Any member present may object to the withdrawal of an amendment. If there is an objection, we will proceed straight to the question on the amendment; there is no division on whether an amendment may be withdrawn.
We will follow the normal procedure if a division is required.
When we reach amendments on the marshalled list that have already been debated, I will ask the member to move or not move the amendment. If the member who lodged the amendment does not move it, any other member present may move the amendment.
Before section 1
The first group is entitled “Lobbying: definition”. Amendment 14, in the name of Neil Findlay, is the only amendment in the group.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak to the committee this morning.
As it stands, the bill lacks a clear definition of lobbying. It sets out core concepts but it does not set out a definition. Amendment 14 provides a definition that everyone can understand from the outset.
It strikes me as absurd to introduce a lobbying bill without defining what we mean by the term “lobbying”. When I consulted on my proposed lobbying transparency bill, I looked far and wide for a sound definition. The definition in amendment 14 is the one that the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee uses and it is the best one that I could find. I consulted widely, and that was accepted as a fair definition. It will help the bill and those who will be affected by it.
I move amendment 14.
I thank Neil Findlay for lodging his amendment 14 and for his explanation of its purpose and effect. I recognise Neil Findlay’s particular interest in the area and in transparency in general.
Amendment 14 intends to define what lobbying is before the bill defines the scope of “regulated lobbying”. The amendment would introduce unhelpful ambiguity to the bill. Section 1 already gives a clear and legally certain outline of what type of activity is deemed to be lobbying, the type of lobbyees and lobbyists to be included, and the means by which the communication is made.
Including a further definition is likely to lead to confusion over what is and what is not regulated lobbying. For example, the words “in a professional capacity” do not clearly define what lobbying is intended to be covered, unlike the existing exemption in the schedule to the bill on when payment is relevant. It is also unwise to include a definition that seeks to highlight the intention of the lobbying activity. It is already clear that lobbying is an attempt to influence decision-makers.
The approach taken in amendment 14 was criticised in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s comparative review of legislation for enhancing transparency and accountability. The specific words in amendment 14 were removed from the Canadian regime because they did not allow its legislation to be enforced as introduced.
Finally, the inclusion of parliamentary liaison officers as lobbyees is unnecessary, because lobbying members of the Scottish Parliament is already caught by the scope of the bill. A PLO can be appointed only on the basis that they are an MSP. Although I recognise that the member is trying to be helpful and take account of amendments 15, 16, 18, 32, and 33, amendment 14 risks introducing unnecessary ambiguity and confusion about the definition of regulated lobbying in the bill. Accordingly, I invite Neil Findlay not to press amendment 14, but if he does then I invite the committee to resist it.
I invite Neil Findlay to wind up and indicate whether he will press or withdraw amendment 14.
I will press the amendment. It is somewhat of a stretch to claim that providing a definition makes the bill more ambiguous. As it stands, without that definition, the bill is ambiguous.
The question is, that amendment 14 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (Lab)
Against
McLeod, Fiona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 1, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 14 disagreed to.
Section 1—Regulated lobbying
Amendment 15, in the name of Patricia Ferguson, is grouped with amendments 1, 3 and 18. If amendment 15 is agreed to, I will not be able to call amendment 1, because it will have been pre-empted.
The genesis of amendments 15 and 18 is the evidence that was presented to the committee by a number of witnesses. The idea that the bill should cover only oral communication was described as “clearly insufficient” by ASH Scotland and as “ludicrous” by Dr Dinan of Spinwatch. Professor Chari of Trinity College Dublin advised that he was unaware of any other legislation that contained such a restriction.
We all recognise that, in 2016, much of the communication that takes place with politicians is by letter, telephone and email. Lobbying and lobbyists use all the methods of communication that are open to them and, if we want the bill to have any real effect, it must recognise that. That was the conclusion of the majority of the members of this committee and it was recognised in the stage 1 report. I hope that members will support my amendments and give effect to our recommendations.
On amendment 3, I would like to support the principle that videoconferencing should be captured by the bill, but the wording of the amendment is such that it re-emphasises the belief that the focus of the bill is on face-to-face communication and I cannot therefore do so.
I move amendment 15.
I thank Patricia Ferguson for lodging her amendments. It is important that issues that have been raised during the passage of the bill are aired at stage 2.
I understand that amendments 15 and 18 intend to extend significantly the definition of “regulated lobbying” to include a wide range of forms of communication beyond the face-to-face and in-person communications that are set out in the bill.
The issue of what types of communication should be included within the scope of “regulated lobbying” attracted considerable interest during stage 1, and it continues to be the content of much lobbying of MSPs, on both sides, about the bill. The Government’s continuing view is that face-to-face communication is the most significant and influential means of conducting lobbying and that the focus of the bill should remain on that activity. However, I have reflected carefully and I am of the view that the bill should incorporate all face-to-face communication regardless of the means of delivery, which is why I lodged amendments 1 and 3 to ensure that videoconferencing and equivalent means will be treated as regulated lobbying activity. That will maintain the proportionality of the bill and will avoid creating a registration regime that might, in practice, discourage access to and engagement with MSPs and ministers.
The Government is not persuaded that a case has been made that justifies altering the scope of the bill to include other forms of communication such as telephone calls or written communications—as Patricia Ferguson proposed—within the concept of regulated lobbying. Doing so would place a potentially very significant burden on organisations seeking to engage with the Parliament and the Government. It would not be in anyone’s interest for us to commence with a regime that is unwieldy and off-putting and would lead to criticism of the legitimate public interest that lies at the heart of what the bill seeks to achieve.
In a separate group of amendments, the committee will debate the merits of an amendment that requires that Parliament reviews the operation of the bill after two years. It is through that review that Parliament should reflect on whether face-to-face communications should continue to be the principal focus of the regime or whether it should be extended to other forms of communication. That approach would enable the Parliament to build an evidence base to justify imposing those controls, taking into account the day-to-day operation of the register for both lobbyists and the Parliament.
For those reasons, I invite the committee not to support Patricia Ferguson’s amendments 15 and 18.
I invite Patricia Ferguson to wind up and to press or withdraw her amendment.
I intend to press the amendment.
I am sorry that the minister feels that the evidence that the committee took did not result in an amendment that he can support. I do not want to take too much of the committee’s time, because we have a very full agenda. However, I will point out that the idea that we should review the bill to see whether, at a future date, we want to include matters such as the method of communication seems to be the wrong way to look at the bill. We should start by recording all the categories of communication that would be covered by my amendment and by the bill, and review the bill at that future date to see whether or not they are appropriate.
We cannot review something for which we have not captured information. The only way that we will be able to capture information and find out the extent of lobbying, and the purpose and effectiveness of that communication, is by capturing all forms of communication from the outset. If a future Parliament decides that that has been onerous and resulted in us not doing what was intended by the bill, it could be changed at that point. Doing it the other way around is entirely contrary to the purpose of the bill.
The question is, that amendment 15 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (Lab)
Against
McLeod, Fiona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 1, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 15 disagreed to.
Amendment 1 has already been debated with amendment 15.
Amendment 1 moved—[Joe FitzPatrick]—and agreed to.
We come to the next group. Amendment 2, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 16, 8, 32, 33 and 11.
09:15
The committee’s stage 1 report recommended that
“the Government consider bringing forward amendments to broaden the definition of regulated lobbying to include communications made to other public officials.”
A number of stakeholders from both sides of the debate have called for the same. As such, amendment 2 proposes to amend the definition of “regulated lobbying” in section 1 to include special advisers as lobbyees. Amendment 11 is consequential on amendment 2, as it defines the term “special adviser”.
As I have said throughout the bill’s development, I am open to considering all possible changes as long as they continue to meet the principle of a proportionate and simple regime. I can see the arguments that have been made in relation to special advisers, especially given the distinctive role that they play in supporting ministers, and it is for that reason that I have decided to lodge amendment 2.
I am unable to support Patricia Ferguson’s amendments 16 and 32, which seek to include all senior civil servants and would enable the Parliament at a future point to add, by parliamentary resolution, any other civil servant in the Scottish Administration. However, I make it clear to Patricia Ferguson and the committee that I continue to give careful consideration to possible further amendments that would bring certain senior civil servants within the scope of the framework. It is important to ensure that the scope of amendment 2 is correct, and consultation with the trade unions is under way on that. I am happy to meet Patricia Ferguson to discuss stage 3 amendments in the light of that consultation.
Patricia Ferguson’s amendments 16 and 33 seek to add parliamentary liaison officers as lobbyees. The amendments are unnecessary as a PLO is appointed by virtue of the individual’s being an MSP and therefore any lobbying of them in that capacity is already covered by the bill as drafted.
The Government has also lodged amendment 8 to remove from the bill section 2(1)(g), the purpose of which was to act as a catch-all for any Government and parliamentary functions that were not already defined within section 2(1). On reflection, the Government considers section 2(1)(g) to be unnecessary on the basis that any regulated lobbying should happen only in connection with the Government and parliamentary functions that are specifically defined in sections 2(1)(a) to (f). Conversely, communications that could clearly be viewed as not being lobbying might risk being captured unnecessarily and discourage engagement.
It might assist members if I offer a couple of examples of communications that the Government views as inappropriate for capture. First, if a local housing association that wishes to take forward housing developments in a particular constituency seeks to meet the local MSP to inform them of its intentions and seek their view, that MSP is not being invited to take or not take any specific action of the sort covered in sections 2(1)(a) to (f). Another example might be representatives of a Scottish business in financial trouble wanting to meet the local MSP to communicate that fact as a courtesy and nothing more.
I invite Patricia Ferguson not to move amendments 16, 32 and 33. If the member wishes to move them, I invite the committee to oppose them.
I move amendment 2.
These amendments recognise that ministers and MSPs are not the only people who might be lobbied. During the committee’s deliberations, we looked at that issue and took evidence that showed that, in other jurisdictions, the list of those who might be lobbied goes further than the categories in the bill.
The committee recognised that as many public officials wield considerable power and make important decisions about policy and financial matters, they, too, should be covered by the bill. Once again, the committee recommended as much in its report, so I hope that the amendments will be supported. I appreciate the minister has lodged an amendment to cover special advisers, but it does not go far enough.
Amendment 32 seeks to add to the list of those who might be considered to be in receipt of communications deemed as lobbying, and amendments 16 and 33 attempt to include parliamentary liaison officers in that category. It can and has been argued that that group of MSPs is already covered in the bill, but I want to reinforce the point that they have a particular status in relation to their role in assisting ministers. The amendments seek to protect them specifically from allegations that they themselves might have been lobbied in that role and that they, in turn, have lobbied the minister on behalf of a lobbyist.
I hope that the committee supports my amendments, although I accept that that is unlikely to happen.
It might be helpful if, for the record, I make it absolutely clear that PLOs are already captured in their capacity as MSPs. The suggestion that they are having a meeting in their capacity as a PLO does not provide a loophole; they are clearly covered by the bill as MSPs.
I hope that Patricia Ferguson will not move her amendments covering other senior civil servants. As I have said, I am happy to work with her in light of the discussions that the Government is having with the trade unions on a stage 3 amendment. It is appropriate to ensure that we are careful about the action that we take and that it is fully considered, and I hope that the member will agree that consultation with trade unions is part of the process.
Amendment 2 agreed to.
Amendment 16 moved—[Patricia Ferguson].
The question is, that amendment 16 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (Lab)
Against
McLeod, Fiona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 1, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 16 disagreed to.
Amendment 3 moved—[Joe FitzPatrick].
The question is, that amendment 3 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
McLeod, Fiona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Against
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 1, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 3 agreed to.
Amendment 4, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 9, 10 and 12.
This group contains a number of minor tidying-up amendments. Amendment 4 seeks to put beyond doubt who should be caught—and how—by the definition of “regulated lobbying”. Section 1(1)(b) sets out the categories of people who, in the course of a business or other activity, make communications that might count as regulated lobbying. The definition is already wide and covers employees, directors, partners or members, and the amendment is a clarificatory one that simply ensures that all types of paid office-holder in an organisation are included in the definition of “regulated lobbying”.
Amendment 9 corrects a drafting error by inserting the word “meet” into section 24(6)(d). The amendment has no policy effect.
Amendment 10 corrects a drafting error in section 45 by changing the erroneous use of the word “or” to “of”, thus ensuring that the relevant provision makes sense. Again, the amendment has no policy effect.
Amendment 12 removes the words “in return for payment” from section 48 to avoid duplication of the provisions in section 1 that define the activity that is regulated lobbying. Once again, the amendment has no policy effect.
I move amendment 4 and invite the committee to support amendments 9, 10 and 12.
Amendment 4 agreed to.
Amendment 17, in the name of Neil Findlay, is grouped with amendments 23, 24 and 26.
With regard to amendment 17, which relates to thresholds for lobbying, it is necessary that we capture lobbyists who are involved in significant amounts of lobbying activity. The amendments will ensure that small-scale lobbying is not caught by the legislation, and they address concerns about the alleged burden or danger of restricting activity or engagement with the Parliament by small community organisations, charities, businesses and so on; I am also delighted to be able to reassure Gil Paterson that he can still send his Christmas cards. This is a proportionate measure that reflects some of the concerns that have been raised during consideration of the bill. After all, thresholds are used in other jurisdictions and should be included in the bill.
Amendment 23 is all about scale. There is a real difference between spending £100 and £50,000 on lobbying. For the purposes of openness and transparency, it is vital that the public see how much money and time is being spent on lobbying activity, and this amendment will allow the public to access that information and see whether there is any correlation between the money and effort spent on lobbying and the tangible benefits of that activity. They could see, for example, how much time, effort and cash was spent on changing the law on X, Y or Z or how much was spent in an attempt to win contract 1, 2 or 3. More than a third of lobbying registers around the world apply thresholds. Those registers work, and I believe that suggestions to the contrary are red herrings.
Amendment 24 seeks to put in place a banding system to provide a framework for registrants in disclosing the levels of money and time spent on lobbying. In lodging amendment 24, I have taken into account in the banding system the sector’s concerns about the commercial sensitivity of expressing the actual amounts spent by, for example, ensuring that no specific examples of contracts for lobbying are included. I think that the banding system is helpful and merely represents a way of making the register work better.
Amendment 26 seeks to update the current proposals to ensure that thresholds are dealt with appropriately throughout the bill.
I move amendment 17.
I see two purposes behind Neil Findlay’s amendments: first, to offer a threshold to remove low-value lobbying from the registration scheme; and, secondly, to include in the register financial data and time spent lobbying.
I have sympathy with the first aim, in particular, in light of the concerns expressed by members during the stage 1 debate about the bill’s potential impact on constituency-based activities—and I include in that Gil Paterson’s Christmas cards. I consider that, in their current form, the amendments would add unnecessary complexity and ambiguity to the registration process and for registrants submitting information returns. That said, I wish to give further consideration to the question whether it would be possible to exempt lobbying of a de minimis nature and to return to the matter at stage 3. I am happy to provide the committee with an update on my thinking on the matter ahead of the lodging deadline for amendments.
As for the second aim of Neil Findlay’s amendments, the Government’s view is that no case has been made with regard to requiring registrants to provide financial data in connection with regulated lobbying. The power available to the Parliament in section 15 would allow the detailed operation of such requirements to be developed without undue haste; the Government also suggests that such matters are best dealt with in the context of the formal review process proposed in amendment 13.
As a result, I ask Neil Findlay not to press amendment 17. If he does so, I ask the committee to resist it.
I invite Neil Findlay to wind up and indicate whether he is pressing or withdrawing amendment 17.
I will be pressing my amendments, so I suggest that we just go to the vote.
The question is, that amendment 17 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (Lab)
Against
McLeod, Fiona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 1, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 17 disagreed to.
Amendment 18 moved—[Patricia Ferguson].
The question is, that amendment 18 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (Lab)
Against
McLeod, Fiona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 1, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 18 disagreed to.
Amendment 5, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 6 and 7.
The amendments in this group address a number of topics. First, in its stage 1 report, the committee helpfully suggested that the Government give consideration to a potential exception in the schedule that would cover all trade union communications. The Government agreed with the committee and has therefore lodged amendment 7 to that effect. The Government has sought to maintain a fair and balanced approach throughout the bill’s development and as a result the amendment proposes to exempt communications made by trade unions or employers in relation to terms and conditions of employment.
In recognition of the fact that further exceptions might be needed in light of the experience of operating the register, the Government has lodged amendment 5 to give the Parliament the power by resolution to add to the current list of exclusions contained in the schedule to the bill. That power will also give the Parliament the ability to amend or remove any such additions that are made.
09:30Amendment 6 has been lodged in response to the committee’s request for the Government to look again at the exception in the schedule to the bill on meetings initiated by members or ministers. I welcome the committee’s assistance in helping to correctly frame the exception and to avoid the creation of a potential loophole that might have allowed lobbying activity to go unregistered. As a result, amendment 6 makes it clear that the exception to a requirement to register extends only to the provision of factual information or views in response to a request.
I move amendment 5.
Amendment 5 agreed to.
Section 1, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule—Communications which are not lobbying
Amendments 6 and 7 moved—[Joe FitzPatrick]—and agreed to.
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Section 2—Government or parliamentary functions
Amendment 8 moved—[Joe FitzPatrick]—and agreed to.
Section 2, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 3 and 4 agreed to.
Section 5—Information about identity
Amendment 19, in the name of Neil Findlay, is grouped with amendments 20, 21 and 22. I invite Neil Findlay to move amendment 19 and to speak to all the amendments in the group.
The amendments in the group address the issue of the so-called revolving door, whereby former ministers, senior civil servants, special advisers and others who work at senior levels of Government build up an extensive contact list of influential people, and then leave that post to go on and exploit that contact book for commercial or financial gain. That situation is not open to ordinary members of the public.
The amendments would mean that the previous five years’ employment histories of lobbyists are available for all to see. It is a transparency measure, and it is proportionate. It is important that the public are able to observe whether a lobbyist has recently worked in or for the very Government that he or she is now lobbying. The amendments help with that transparency, which I believe is an essential part of the bill.
I move amendment 19.
Again, I thank Neil Findlay for lodging his amendments, and for his explanation of their purpose and effect.
Amendments 19, 20, 21 and 22 all seek to introduce a requirement for people who register to provide retrospective information about their employment history, or the employment history of those who lobby on their behalf.
The Government does not feel that a case has been made to require people who undertake lobbying activity to have their employment history publicly disclosed. It is important to remember that the amendments would apply to all people who undertake regulated lobbying, but it is not clear that such information would always be relevant to the lobbying activity that was being undertaken.
The amendments would also require organisations to reveal personal details in situations in which the individuals did not agree to their being revealed when they took up employment. Individuals may have legitimate reasons for not wishing to disclose such information publicly, or to their current employers.
In its stage 1 report the committee noted that it is satisfied that the inclusion of individuals’ names on the register would enable those with an interest to probe the employment history of people who are involved in lobbying.
Also, arrangements are already in place to scrutinise the future employment of senior civil servants and special advisers, as well as there being a restriction on former ministers and special advisers to ensure they do not lobby the Government for two years following the end of their appointment.
As the committee identified in its report, there is also a power at section 15 of the bill that will allow Parliament to change by resolution the details that are to be disclosed through the registration process. That power would enable Parliament to identify further information that it thinks would be appropriate for inclusion in the register, and to do so in a proportionate and focused way. I believe that that is the appropriate way forward on this matter. Accordingly, I ask Neil Findlay to seek to withdraw amendment 19 and, if it is pressed, I ask the committee to oppose the amendment.
I invite Neil Findlay to wind up and indicate whether he will press or seek to withdraw amendment 19.
I am very disappointed with the minister’s response. The proposal is an essential part of the whole transparency process that the bill is aimed at, so I certainly want to press the amendments.
The question is, that amendment 19 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (Lab)
Against
McLeod, Fiona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 1, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 19 disagreed to.
Amendment 20 moved—[Neil Findlay].
The question is, that amendment 20 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (Lab)
Against
McLeod, Fiona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 1, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 20 disagreed to.
Amendment 21 moved—[Neil Findlay].
The question is, that amendment 21 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (Lab)
Against
McLeod, Fiona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 1, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 21 disagreed to.
Amendment 22 moved—[Neil Findlay].
The question is, that amendment 22 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (Lab)
Against
McLeod, Fiona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 1, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 22 disagreed to.
Section 5 agreed to.
Section 6—Information about regulated lobbying activity
Amendment 23 moved—[Neil Findlay].
The question is, that amendment 23 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (Lab)
Against
McLeod, Fiona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 1, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 23 disagreed to.
Section 6 agreed to.
After section 6
Amendment 24 moved—[Neil Findlay].
The question is, that amendment 24 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (Lab)
Against
McLeod, Fiona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 1, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 24 disagreed to.
Sections 7 to 14 agreed to.
After section 14
Amendment 25, in the name of Cameron Buchanan, is grouped with amendments 29 to 31. I invite John Scott to speak to all the amendments in the group and to move amendment 25.
Amendment 25 is intended to provide a benefit to registrants that may incentivise registration in advance and incentivise voluntary registration. The effect of the amendment would be to allow registrants, should they choose, to automatically receive relevant information, such as on opportunities to participate in consultations and on deadlines by which members have to lodge amendments. Apparently, there is a system in the European Union in which lobbyists who have registered receive automatic mail notification of new consultations or inquiries, among other incentives. That seems to be a good idea, and the amendment may prove to be a useful tool to encourage registration.
Amendment 29 would make it a requirement to publish guidance on the register rather than that just being an option, by substituting the word “must” for “may”. It is essential that everyone who is affected is clear on the operation and requirements of the register so that it operates smoothly, and so that misunderstandings are kept to a minimum. Clear guidance is necessary to achieve that; the amendment would make it absolutely clear that guidance will be published.
Amendment 30 would make it a requirement for guidance on the register to include provision about what qualifies as regulated lobbying. That gets to the heart of the matter. Clarity is essential to make compliance trouble free and to enable the register’s intentions to be fulfilled.
I move amendment 25.
Amendment 31 alludes to resources and ensuring that the bill is successfully implemented. We cannot have an ad hoc system; we cannot legislate without putting in proper resources. Legislation must be fit for purpose and backed by hard cash. In short, we must invest in our democracy and there must be sufficient resource in place to raise awareness of the changes that will result from the bill. At a recent seminar in the University of Stirling, the Irish lobbying regulator spoke about the need for that. I agree with her. Successful implementation of the register and a well-functioning, open and transparent democracy will not come at no cost. We need to invest sufficient resources in the system.
I am very supportive of the idea of information being provided that allows lobbyists to understand the system and how they should comport themselves in relation to it. Therefore, I support amendment 31, in Neil Findlay’s name, and amendments 29 and 30, in Cameron Buchanan’s name.
However, I do not support amendment 25. By the nature of their jobs, lobbyists should be aware of such things as parliamentary deadlines and consultations. I really do not see why parliamentary resources should be expended on making that job easier than it is. Parliament’s information is open to all and is freely available on our website. That should be sufficient.
I listened with interest to the debate on this group of amendments. I will deal with each amendment in turn.
I acknowledge the spirit in which Cameron Buchanan’s amendment 25 has been lodged, but I agree with Patricia Ferguson about it. It is important that the work of Parliament is open and accessible and that people who wish to engage with it can understand what business is being conducted. However, the Government does not believe that it is appropriate or necessary to set out in primary legislation prescriptive requirements about what information the clerk should provide to registered lobbyists—although I recognise that, ultimately, that is a matter for Parliament.
There are already administrative processes that interested members of the public or organisations can use to enable them to keep abreast of parliamentary developments. For example, they can subscribe to electronic notifications and material in relation to bills, committees, Parliament news and various activities in Parliament. Parliament also offers people the opportunity to receive a weekly e-bulletin. Using the facilities that Parliament already provides continues to be the best way to address the matter. Perhaps Parliament’s guidance on the operation of the bill could set out how lobbyists could make best use of those facilities. For those reasons, I recommend that the committee not support amendment 25.
On amendments 29 and 30, it is the Government’s view that the guidance that will be developed under the bill will be central to its successful implementation. We would all find it difficult to envisage circumstances in which Parliament would not produce that guidance. On that basis, the Government supports the committee’s accepting amendments 29 and 30.
Amendment 31 is in two parts. Although the first part—proposed new section 43(2A)—is, strictly speaking, unnecessary, I can see some benefits in highlighting Parliament’s ability to promote awareness and understanding of the bill. I am less sympathetic towards the second part—proposed new section 43(2B)—because it must be left to the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body to make decisions about use of the overall budget that is available to Parliament. Consequently, I invite Neil Findlay not to move amendment 31, with the undertaking that I will seek to lodge a Government amendment at stage 3 that will deliver on the first part of it. For those reasons, I invite the committee to resist amendments 25 and 31 and to support amendments 29 and 30.
I will not press amendment 25, given the explanation that the minister has provided.
Amendment 25, by agreement, withdrawn.
09:45Section 15—Power to specify requirements about the register
Amendment 26 moved—[Neil Findlay].
The question is, that amendment 26 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (Lab)
Against
McLeod, Fiona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 1, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 26 disagreed to.
Section 15 agreed to.
Sections 16 to 23 agreed to.
Section 24—Procedure for assessing admissibility of complaint
Amendment 9 moved—[Joe FitzPatrick]—and agreed to.
Amendment 27, in the name of Cameron Buchanan, is in a group on its own.
As the bill stands, there is some ambiguity about whether the commissioner’s report to Parliament stating that a complaint is admissible will be public knowledge. Our concern is that the identity of the subject of the complaint should be public only if an investigation finds that they have failed to comply with the register’s requirements.
We are concerned that without amendment 27 there may be scope for competition-motivated accusations to be made, and the accused could suffer consequences before an investigation had proved an accusation to be either true or false. Exposure to possible reputational damage for the subject of a complaint for failing to comply with requirements should not be possible before an investigation has actually been completed. However, should the minister be able to clarify that the report to Parliament that is mentioned in section 24 would be private and would be for Parliament only, we would consider that.
I move amendment 27.
I thank Cameron Buchanan for lodging amendment 27, and I thank John Scott for his explanation of its purpose and effect. I understand that the amendment seeks to ensure that no information in relation to an investigation by the commissioner is made public until such time as the commissioner has issued their report on the outcome of their investigations to Parliament for its consideration, as required in section 22. There is already provision in section 22(4) that requires an assessment of admissibility and an investigation to be conducted in private. The Government is unsure how the amendment is intended to apply alongside the requirement in section 24(8) to tell Parliament and the complainant that the complaint has been ruled admissible.
There are potential issues about the workability of such an arrangement in the context of the need to keep the complaints procedure private—for example, the need then to enter into confidential agreements with the complainant, the person being complained about and Parliament.
For those reasons, I invite John Scott to seek to withdraw amendment 27. If he will not, I invite the committee to resist the amendment. I make it clear that if Cameron Buchanan would find it helpful to discuss the matter with me and my officials in advance of stage 3, I would be very happy to do so.
In the light of the minister’s kind offer to discuss the intentions behind the amendment with him prior to stage 3, I am happy to accept that invitation on Cameron Buchanan’s behalf and to seek to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 27, by agreement, withdrawn.
Section 24, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 25 to 41 agreed to.
Section 42—Offences relating to registration and information returns
Amendment 28, in the name of Neil Findlay, is in a group on its own.
Amendment 28 is part of a proportionate system of warning and penalty that alerts organisations to the fact that they may not as yet have registered or fulfilled their responsibilities under the legislation. If they still fail to oblige after being warned, a sliding scale of punishment prior to summary conviction is suggested, to a point at which they may be banned from operating as lobbyists.
Among other things, that might be a greater incentive to ensure that all lobbyists fulfil their obligations than some of the other punishments that have been suggested.
I move amendment 28.
I thank Neil Findlay for lodging amendment 28, the intention of which is to introduce a more serious penalty for second or subsequent offences under section 42 of up to the statutory maximum of £10,000, and for that person then to be potentially prevented from lobbying for three years. The amendment also seeks to impose an administrative sanction for an offence committed under section 42 in circumstances in which a person has been carrying out lobbying activity for six months or less. That would create a criminal offence with no criminal penalty. The clerk would simply give the offending person notice advising them about the duty to register.
I fully appreciate the spirit in which amendment 28 seeks to offer registrants some latitude in respect of initial failures to comply with the registration scheme, at least for a time, until they fully understand the operation and requirements of the act. However, there is a fundamental issue with the amendment in that the outcomes would lack clarity. For example, in relation to the sanction preventing a person from lobbying for three years, it is not clear what lobbying someone would be prevented from undertaking. I think that Neil Findlay intends to relate it to regulated lobbying, as it is defined in the bill, but that would not necessarily be the effect of the amendment. It is also unclear how the sanction would be enforced.
More generally, I have concerns about whether the proposed interference with someone’s ability to work is a proportionate response. In addition, it is not clear when the six-month period for determining whether a person is given notice from the clerk or is liable to a fine would apply. I presume that it would from the time of committing the offence, but again that would not necessarily be the effect of amendment 28.
Issues also arise with the clerk having to give notice to a person when that person “commits an offence”. Under section 17, the clerk will already be able to require information from an active or voluntary registrant when the clerk has reason to believe that a person has failed to provide it. However, and more importantly, it must be left to the courts to determine whether an offence has been committed and, when an offence has been committed, to impose an appropriate criminal sanction.
My concerns are not just about the mechanisms of amendment 28. More fundamentally, the Government considers that the existing statutory framework that is set out in the bill provides a proportionate approach to offences. The awareness-raising that will be conducted by the Parliament in the run-up to the register becoming operational, alongside the guidance that is to be published by the Parliament, will ensure that registrants are aware of what is required of them.
Section 16 outlines the clerk’s duty to monitor compliance and section 17 describes the power that the clerk has to issue information notices requiring a person to supply information. In addition, section 22 provides for the duty of the Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life in Scotland to investigate and report on complaints that are received when a person has failed to comply with the requirements of the act. The provision of guidance and the role of the clerk and commissioner, backed by the possibility of criminal sanctions, is fair to registrants and sufficient to ensure the robustness of the registration regime.
I ask Neil Findlay to seek to withdraw amendment 28 but, if he does not do so, I ask the committee to resist it.
At the beginning, it appeared that the minister supported the principle of amendment 28 but, through some verbal gymnastics, he got himself into a position of opposing it. If he supports the principle, will the Government work with me to bring back the amendment at stage 3 in a more acceptable form? If not, I will press the amendment.
I understand the spirit of what Mr Findlay is saying, but I am clear that the bill as drafted meets the spirit.
The question is, that amendment 28 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (Lab)
Against
McLeod, Fiona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 1, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 28 disagreed to.
Section 42 agreed to.
Section 43—Parliamentary guidance
Amendments 29 and 30 moved—[John Scott]—and agreed to.
Amendment 31 moved—[Neil Findlay].
The question is, that amendment 31 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (Lab)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Against
McLeod, Fiona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 4, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 31 disagreed to.
Section 43, as amended, agreed to.
Section 44 agreed to.
Section 45—Offences by bodies corporate etc
Amendment 10 moved—[Joe FitzPatrick]—and agreed to.
Section 45, as amended, agreed to.
Section 46—Interpretation
Amendment 32 moved—[Patricia Ferguson].
The question is, that amendment 32 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (Lab)
Against
McLeod, Fiona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 1, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 32 disagreed to.
Amendment 33 moved—[Patricia Ferguson].
The question is, that amendment 33 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (Lab)
Against
McLeod, Fiona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 1, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 33 disagreed to.
Amendment 11 moved—[Joe FitzPatrick]—and agreed to.
Section 46, as amended, agreed to.
Section 47 agreed to.
Section 48—Application of Act to trusts
Amendment 12 moved—[Joe FitzPatrick]—and agreed to.
Section 48, as amended, agreed to.
After section 48
Amendment 13, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 13A and 13B.
Paragraph 100 of the committee’s stage 1 report highlighted that
“a number of those responding to the Committee called for a review after an agreed period so that Parliament could revisit and revise the legislation.”
The Government agrees that there would be merit in conducting a review to consider how successfully the regime has operated and whether any changes should be made in light of the review.
That process would allow proper consideration of whether potentially significant changes should be made to the regulated lobbying regime rather than amending the bill now in ways that might put at risk the key principles of openness and accessibility that have underpinned the Government’s and committee’s approach to the bill. Putting in place a review mechanism enables the Parliament to gather information and establish an evidence base to support and justify any case for change.
That is why amendment 13 in my name would require the Parliament to conduct a review of the lobbying register after its first two years of formal operation. Although it will be for Parliament to determine the form and content of its final report, the Government believes that it is important to recognise that certain issues have attracted particular attention during the bill’s development and parliamentary passage. Therefore, the provision specifies that the report may in particular contain recommendations about whether to add to or modify the type of persons who would be treated as lobbyees under the regulated lobbying system, whether to add to or modify the types of communication that would be treated as regulated lobbying activity, and whether lobbyists who undertake regulated lobbying activity should be required to provide information about expenditure that is incurred in carrying out that regulated lobbying activity.
I expect the Parliament’s review to be thorough and wide ranging. Once it has been completed, it will be for Parliament to determine whether it wishes to use any of the powers in the act to make changes to the administration of the register or to introduce further primary legislation if it considers that a more fundamental policy change is required.
10:00Although I appreciate the basis on which Cameron Buchanan’s amendments 13A and 13B have been lodged, I cannot recommend that members support them. Amendment 13A would reduce from two years to one year the period in which the Parliament’s review would be conducted. I do not believe that one year of operation of the register would be a sufficient period of time on which to base an informed analysis. Information returns will be provided by lobbyists every six months, and I believe that the Parliament will wish to enable that cycle to be completed more than once before it conducts its review.
Similarly, amendment 13B would reduce from two years to one year the period in which the Parliament must conduct and complete its review. In light of the expectation that Parliament will consult in developing its evidence base and on its draft recommendations, I do not believe that it would be appropriate to require the review to be completed in one year. However, it is important to remember that the Government’s proposed two-year limit is the maximum time that the Parliament will have in which to complete its review. It would therefore be open to Parliament to complete its review more quickly if it wished to do so.
I invite the committee to support amendment 13 in my name. I ask John Scott not to move amendments 13A and 13B in the name of Cameron Buchanan, but if he does so, I ask the committee to resist them.
I move amendment 13.
We agree that it would be wise to review the operation of the register after we, and all concerned, have gained practical experience of its operation. However, the Government’s amendment requires only that a report is published within a period of four years after enactment, which is the sum of the two-year review period plus a subsequent two-year period to report. The process makes sense, but the timings appear to be too long.
If there are issues or gaps in the register that are serious enough to warrant revision, it is likely that they will be apparent within a year of the register’s operation. Furthermore, it should be possible to report on the register’s operation within a year when the aim is to review rather than to create from scratch.
We therefore suggest that the Government’s amendment is amended to reduce the time by which a report is to be published to two years. The amendments will achieve that by reducing the review period and the report period to one year each.
I move amendment 13A.
I am sympathetic to the Government’s amendment that seeks to reduce the review period, as that is absolutely necessary. I do not have a problem with a review taking place two years after the bill comes into force. However, I sympathise to some extent with Cameron Buchanan’s amendment 13B simply with regard to parliamentary cycles. If the bill is to be reviewed after two years and Parliament has up to two years to do that review, that would in effect mean that any resulting work on the bill would take place at the very end of a session. In all likelihood the work would be rushed or may not happen until the next parliamentary session.
If there are issues, flaws and faults in the bill, and if improvements can be made, we should do that within a reasonable timeframe, and certainly within the next session of Parliament. For that reason I will not support amendment 13A, but I will support amendment 13B.
Patricia Ferguson makes some good points. The bill as drafted would allow Parliament to undertake the process faster if it chooses to. Amendment 13B would put in a rigid framework that might not work with the timetable for the next session of Parliament. It would be for Parliament rather than the Government to frame the review, so it would be better to give Parliament that flexibility going forward. Although I note that there are some arguments in that regard, I think that it is appropriate to resist amendments 13A and 13B.
I hear what the minister says, and I welcome his comment that a review could take less than two years. As Patricia Ferguson said, in the normal cycle of parliamentary sessions—which we seem to have got out of at the moment—a review would take place at the end of a session and it would therefore be less likely that it would be acted on expeditiously.
I press amendment 13A.
The question is, that amendment 13A be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Against
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (Lab)
McLeod, Fiona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 1, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 13A disagreed to.
Amendment 13B moved—[John Scott].
The question is, that amendment 13B be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (Lab)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Against
McLeod, Fiona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 4, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 13B disagreed to.
Amendment 13 agreed to.
Section 49, as amended, agreed to.
Section 50—Commencement
Amendment 34, in the name of Cameron Buchanan, is grouped with amendment 35.
Amendment 34 would require the register to be operational at least three months before the registration requirements come into force. The intention is to allow potential registrants to become accustomed to using the register so that any technical difficulties or misunderstandings can be addressed before sanctions come into force. It is important that registrants are able to experience practical use of the register if they are to be ready when the requirements come into force.
Amendment 35 would require the guidance to be published at least three months before the registration requirements come into force. The intention is to allow potential registrants to understand their requirements in advance so that any action that is needed to comply can be taken before enforcement. That would give registrants a better chance to get to grips with the register without fear of falling foul of the requirements.
I move amendment 34.
I thank Cameron Buchanan for lodging the amendments and I thank John Scott for his explanation of their purpose and effect.
The Government’s position is that implementation of the bill as enacted is properly a matter for Parliament, and that the Government will be steered by Parliament in determining when relevant provisions of the bill should commence. While I accept the spirit underlying Cameron Buchanan’s amendments, which would ensure that the mechanics of the register and the guidance are in place before the duty to register bites on lobbyists, I do not believe that it is necessary to set that out in the bill.
The Government would prefer to leave to the Parliament’s discretion determining when the provisions in the bill should commence and the order in which commencement should take place. In doing so, the Government expects that the Parliament will wish to ensure that guidance on the operation of the bill as enacted has been produced and that support will be available to those lobbyists who may be required to register their lobbying activity.
For those reasons, I invite John Scott not to press amendment 34.
I press amendment 34.
The question is, that amendment 34 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Against
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (Lab)
McLeod, Fiona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 1, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 34 disagreed to.
Amendment 35 moved—[John Scott].
The question is, that amendment 35 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Against
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (Lab)
McLeod, Fiona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 1, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 35 disagreed to.
Section 50 agreed to.
Section 51 agreed to.
Long title agreed to.
That ends stage 2 consideration of the bill.
Convener, I crave your indulgence while the minister is still with us.
Minister, has a date been established for stage 3? Colleagues around the table should have the opportunity to think about the framing of amendments for that stage.
I will come back to members on that.
An early indication would certainly be helpful, minister. Thank you very much.
Next
Standing Orders