Lobbying
Our next agenda item is an initial debate on lobbying. This item was deferred from our meeting on 29 September and our experiences since then can only contribute to our consideration of the matter. Although the debate should present a useful opportunity to exchange views in a free-ranging way, committee members should bear in mind some points.
As our remit under standing orders means that we have to consider and report on matters concerning the conduct of MSPs, we should focus our discussion on the relationship between MSPs and lobbyists. With the reaffirmation of the code of conduct as our top priority, the discussion will provide an opportunity to identify members' requirements concerning lobbyists. We could include those requirements in the draft code at our next meeting. Committee members may wish to range more widely than that, but the needs of the code have to be our priority.
We will consider issues such as the acceptability of lobbying to MSPs, bearing in mind our general principles of openness and accessibility. Does existing legislation such as the Scotland Act 1998 (Transitory and Transitional Provisions) (Members' Interests) Order 1999 and the proposed arrangements for cross-party groups make sufficient provision for encouraging appropriate relationships between lobbyists and MSPs? If not, what other requirements should be imposed? Should such requirements be included in the code of conduct or are they for longer-term consideration?
Having primed committee members with some initial thoughts for this debate, I open the discussion.
There is a very strong case for the Parliament to have a parliamentary commissioner for standards. Any queries or assertions could be sifted and he or she could submit a report to the committee. If the committee chose to have such a commissioner, obviously the position would have to be advertised so that any well-qualified applicants—for example, retired judges—could put themselves forward.
The second issue—
Lord James, may I stop you there? You have made a valid point about the Parliament's policing mechanism—which we will discuss—but this debate is about lobbyists.
My next point is about whether lobbyists, as well as MSPs, should have a code of conduct. There is a strong case for making absolutely certain that lobbyists have such a code. The form of that code could easily be determined by resolving the question of whether lobbyists should be registered. The argument for registration is that lobbying will happen and that, without registration, there is a greater danger that the activity will go underground. The counter-argument is that registration might confer greater legitimacy on lobbyists, which is not desirable. Although I doubt whether registration will affect my view of lobbyists one way or the other, it will mean that the activity will be out in the open and more easily controlled.
Although the committee will decide and vote on the matter in due course, lobbyists need at the very least to be controlled by a code of conduct. Any registration scheme would impose its own code of conduct. If the committee decides against a registration scheme, there should be a voluntary code of conduct to let lobbyists know what is and what is not acceptable.
I am glad that we have finally reached the lobbying debate that was aborted about a month ago. The issue concerns the Parliament and I am grateful for the opportunity to have this initial discussion.
I am not going to say that my views have changed over the past month. I have always believed that, as a Parliament, we need to register companies that lobby. There is a distinction between companies that lobby—companies that take money from a third party to act on their behalf in connection with this Parliament—and bodies such as voluntary organisations, charities and individual companies that employ their own staff to interface with this Parliament and its MSPs.
The lobby companies often say that a distinction cannot be made between lobbying and the work of voluntary groups. However, the distinction is clear to me: it concerns whether someone is employed by a company or organisation to interact with the Parliament and communicate with MSPs, or whether a company is employed to do that work on someone else's behalf. My view is that companies that are employed to do that work on behalf of another organisation should be registered.
I am conscious that the code of conduct that we are scrutinising should deal primarily with the relationship between MSPs and the companies, but that should be approached from the perspective of MSPs' conduct, not the lobbyists' conduct. We need to include some form of registration regulation for companies that lobby. Just as we had a discussion this morning about the regulation of cross-party groups, it is entirely appropriate that, at some point, this committee should return to discussion about the regulation of companies that are employed in lobbying this Parliament. I would like to hear the views of other members of the committee on that. I am grateful that we have this opportunity—albeit a wee bit later than we had hoped for—to discuss the matter.
Do other members want to add to that?
The prime difficulty is that MSPs may not know whether someone is employed by a lobbying firm. One of the things that we must consider is whether MSPs should declare contact with lobbying groups. If there is no requirement to register, it will not be known which organisations are lobbying groups.
I also foresee intermediate problems. If a lobbying company seconds somebody to another company to undertake work on its behalf, where would that fall in relation to direct or indirect employment? The only way in which we can deal with such issues is by having a registration process that defines absolutely clearly what constitutes a lobbying firm and what does not. I do not think that there is any way out other than through registration. Frankly, I would prefer not to impose registration, as I think that we should have the fewest possible regulations. Nevertheless, there is no alternative if we are to make the matter absolutely clear.
I hear what Richard Simpson and Tricia Marwick are saying. Tricia is asking for a clear definition of a professional lobbying operation that is established solely for the purposes of attracting business from people outwith the parliamentary system, of making contacts with MSPs and ministers, of affecting the decision-making process or of giving its clients an advantage in acquiring the relevant information. I am not entirely sure that voluntary groups do anything other than what the professionals will do. That must be teased out in our debate.
Are we saying that professional lobbyists are somehow to be discouraged, if not exactly deplored? In this Parliament, we are trying to be as open and transparent as possible. The need for lobbying companies will be less, in our system, than in the USA, for example. The Scottish Parliament has been set up closer to the people. People should have much better access to their politicians than they have in other countries. When it comes to the practice of the Scottish Parliament, the problem has been more about perception than reality. I agree that we should have a registration system; every organisation—including voluntary organisations—that wants to lobby should be registered.
Lobbying is a legitimate part of this democracy and of this Parliament. It is imperative that individuals, charities, voluntary organisations and companies of all shapes and sizes can lobby any member of the Parliament on any issue that is important to them. When I first campaigned for a Scottish Parliament a number of years ago, I did so in the earnest hope and belief that it would be different from Parliaments elsewhere. I wanted this to be a Parliament in which the views and interests of individuals, voluntary organisations and companies would be taken on board when we—as politicians—made decisions.
My concern about lobbying companies is that they can act for a number of different interests—you do not always know what you are getting. If a charity comes to lobby you, you know what its sphere of influence is and the issues that it is bothered about. If a constituent comes to lobby you, you know what they want because they tell you straight away; they are not one day wearing one hat saying that they are lobbying you about the environment and the next day wearing another hat saying that they want you to reduce the price of fuel. They are lobbying on issues that bother them; they are not speaking with forked tongues. [Interruption.] Richard, I am entitled to my opinions.
Absolutely.
I am on record as saying—in this committee—that I do not believe that lobbying companies are necessary in the Parliament. If the Parliament works in the way in which I hope that it was set up to work and the way in which everybody round this table wants it to work, lobbying companies that represent organisations for a fee will be unnecessary. Companies, organisations and individuals should feel able to meet members of the Parliament; they should not need a third party to speak on their behalf.
My concern is that we will not be able to achieve that if we introduce registration and establish a system that gives credence and credit to lobbying organisations. Lobbying organisations will become part of the fabric of the Parliament; they will become necessary to gain access to it. I am extremely concerned about going down that road. My hope for the Parliament is that commercial lobbying companies will be unnecessary. Maybe I live in an unreal world—and maybe I will be criticised for that—but I believe that, as individuals in the Parliament, we are responsible to the people out there for the decisions that we make. They should be able to tell us face to face—individually or collectively—what they think. That is the way in which I would like the Parliament to work.
It is part and parcel of the work of politicians to be lobbied from time to time. I hope that in the first instance they are lobbied by their constituents, but then by all kinds of interested parties, whether from the voluntary sector or any other area of public life.
Everybody has a view to put forward. The issue is not whether they should be allowed to do that, but whether some groups may be doing it in a way that is less than transparent. Transparency is the key issue to which we must pay attention.
I share Karen Gillon's view that, in an ideal world, lobbying companies would not be necessary. However, the reality is that if people think that these companies can do something for them, they will employ them. Lobbying companies exist not just in the UK political system, but in political systems around the world. Given that some lobbying companies will probably operate in Scotland, we might have to move towards either some kind of regulation process or a tight system of codes of conduct. I am not yet persuaded which of those two options we should choose. I lean towards registration, but I think that there is a debate to be had on that. The mechanics of any process of registration are very complex. Countries that have introduced registration, such as Canada and some states of the United States of America, have had huge difficulties establishing a registration code.
I tend to think that a code should apply not just to lobbying companies, but to professional lobbyists who work for them. Individual lobbyists should be required to disclose to MSPs on whose behalf they are working and the basis of that contractual relationship.
Also crucial—this arises from the civil service code—is guidance for MSPs on handling approaches from lobbying organisations. That would help people to keep themselves right and provide us with a template for dealing with any instances of wrongdoing by members. Unless we set out the best way of handling approaches from lobbying companies, we will be on weak ground when dealing with members who, it is felt, have not acted correctly. For that reason, we need to pay attention to this issue in the context of the code of conduct.
I think that everybody has had a first opportunity to make known their views. Do members have any further comments in response to what we have heard so far?
Nobody will dispute the points that Karen Gillon makes about being completely open to all groups. My concern is that MSPs are aware of who is approaching them. A member may be approached by a lobbyist who happens to live in their constituency—there is no requirement on that person to declare their profession. Is it necessary for members to know that they are dealing with a professional lobbyist? Relatively wealthy companies will employ parliamentary officers, as many companies in Scotland have already done. They will be professional lobbyists who happen to be employed by one company.
I am quite happy to speak to such a lobbyist about an issue, as I am prepared to talk to anyone. However, I want to know where they are coming from, what their role is and whether they are speaking on behalf of a specific group or area. It is important that I have that information, so that I know how to conduct myself.
That is absolutely true, but if someone comes to my surgery, I do not need to know what their job is—if they are one of my constituents, I do not care what they do for a living. I have a responsibility to them—he or she is my constituent. I may find other people's jobs less wholesome than others—than lobbying, even—but that person is entitled, as my constituent, to ask me for my opinion and to lobby me. That is perfectly within their rights.
I would have concerns, however, if we were to ask people from only one section of the community what their jobs were. If those people came to my constituency, I would know what they did, but I would not know exactly what other people did—that is a dangerous game at the constituency level. I see what Richard Simpson is saying, in terms of the bigger picture, but at a constituency level, as an MSP, I should deal with everyone equally, regardless of what they do for a living or of any other criteria.
My other concern, which emerged from the inquiry into Beattie Media, is that we do not know what happens behind closed doors. We know what happened in that situation, because it was videoed—there was a very strong sales pitch. From the evidence, we do not know that it was any different from any other sales pitch that that lobbying organisation used with any other client. I am concerned that other lobbying companies may use exactly the same sales pitch with other organisations. Whatever we do, we will never know what is said or claimed in private meetings between two individuals. For that reason, I am, in some ways, grateful to The Observer for its action, as it clearly brought into the open what happens in such meetings.
Yes, I agree with that.
I speak as someone who was, before the election, employed by Shelter Scotland as a parliamentary lobbyist—I was the organisation's public affairs officer. As a representative of a charitable housing organisation, I had no difficulty in making contact with ministers and Opposition members. In fact, I had a good relationship with my colleague, Lord James, when he was the Scottish housing minister. I could pick up the phone or write to John McAllion, Malcolm Chisholm, Jim Wallace or Alex Salmond. Most voluntary organisations, charities and so on have similar experiences.
Lord James and the other politicians that I contacted then knew exactly what Shelter was and why I was phoning them, whether it was about the code of guidance on homelessness legislation or to try to prevent the introduction in Scotland of legislation that was similar to the English legislation. Shelter was up front and that was my job. It is not only wealthy organisations that employ parliamentary officers—many organisations throughout Scotland do so. The Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations has set up a unit specifically to help the hundreds and thousands of people who are employed in and work with the voluntary sector in Scotland to do just the kind of job that I did for Shelter.
I share Karen Gillon's view—it is my hope that commercial lobby companies will wither on the vine, because, in my opinion, we simply do not need them. If we are to be the open, accountable, transparent Parliament that we say we are going to be, everyone should have equal access. Regardless of whether people are acting as an individual, for a voluntary organisation or for a commercial firm, everyone should be treated in exactly the same way by this Parliament and everyone should have the same access to information, which is often important.
We have advantages over the Westminster system. I take on board some of Karen's points about the need not to allow companies to bed into the institution that is the Scottish Parliament. I will reflect carefully on what she said. We must not allow them to get a grip. We must not allow companies to tarnish the name of the Scottish Parliament. We cannot allow the Westminster system even to get a toehold in this Parliament. That is why so many of us are concerned about the activities of lobby companies. We promised the people of Scotland that we would be different. It is incumbent on us to ensure that we are different and that everything that we do is open. However, we need to engage with individuals because lobbying is a legitimate part of the democratic process and it is right and proper that that should continue.
We need the expertise that is available in the voluntary sector, for example. Voluntary organisations are not just lobbying to get something out of us. The expertise and professionalism that voluntary organisations and others can give to the Scottish Parliament cannot be underestimated.
I still incline to the view that we should register companies that are paid to lobby on behalf of others. I do not think that there is any need to register individual voluntary organisations—I have to tell Adam Ingram that that would be an impossible task, as there are simply too many of them. Moreover, it could send completely the wrong message to the voluntary sector in Scotland and to individual companies that come to us. However, we need to consider carefully those companies whose reason for existence is to make money out of the parliamentary system—I feel extremely uncomfortable about such companies.
I am conscious of the time, but I will take two or three more comments.
We have to regulate our own affairs within the Parliament. Rather than focusing on lobbying companies as a bad thing, we should concentrate on advancing the process that Tricia Marwick described as lobbying companies withering on the vine because they cannot provide a service to the client that the client cannot get directly from the Parliament. This Parliament should concentrate on creating the conditions under which lobbying companies do not thrive.
That brings me round to Karen Gillon's view. I understand her argument that registering lobbying companies will give them a clout that they do not deserve. On Tricia Marwick's point about the registration of lobbyists from individual voluntary organisations, some voluntary organisations can be equated with commercial companies in the way in which they go about their business. I do think that it would be as easy as Tricia suggests to differentiate between some third sector organisations and commercial operations.
We have to be careful to distinguish between the role of the Standards Committee and the role of the Parliament generally. I am in favour of the ethos, which has been outlined by Karen Gillon and Tricia Marwick, among others, that Parliament should be open and accessible. I agree that that ethos should inform the procedures of the Parliament and the committees.
We can pass that spirit on to other people and committees but, in a sense, the job of the Standards Committee is to deal with areas in which Parliament might not be open and accessible. There are particular issues relating to lobbying companies, lobbyists and the role of MSPs in relation to them. Those are the three things on which we must concentrate our attention.
There are some clear advantages and disadvantages associated with the process of registering lobbying companies. Registration makes the matter clear and explicit, but the difficulty lies in defining the terms of the regulation and in enforcing it. We have the task of policing the behaviour of MSPs and we should consider carefully whether we want to extend our role into policing other organisations. It may well be that we have to do that, but we should be aware of the difficulties surrounding the terms of the regulation and systems of enforcement.
A voluntary code of conduct might be a way of offloading part of the responsibility on to the companies. Depending on the role we took in framing the code and the sanctions that we could impose on those who breach it, we might be satisfied that that approach would be tight enough. I cannot see how we can escape the process of registration and a tight code of conduct. The Scottish public will not tolerate a situation where lobbying companies are unregulated. The companies will not wither on the vine, and we have to deal with the situation.
It is important that we deal not just with the companies, but with the individuals who engage in lobbying activities. That should be part of the registration process or the code of conduct. Individuals as well as companies should be monitored. Our prime responsibility is to guide MSPs on how to deal with such contacts and organisations, even lobbying in general. Many people in the Parliament are new to politics and there are do's and don'ts that were available to me when I became a councillor which are not available to MSPs. The pressure in the Scottish Parliament is much greater than in a council. We should consider that approach alongside the more formal aspects, such as registration.
I would like to take two more contributions before we conclude, unless someone is desperate to say something else.
Lobbying has always happened. It cannot be abolished—not effectively—and any attempts to do so would probably drive it underground. The whole thrust of the Parliament is towards transparency and therefore registration seems a lesser evil.
I have one qualification about registration. Countries that have decided to use registration and a compulsory code of conduct have to review the registration process because there are so many different forms of lobbying. It is easy to slip through the net and there have had to be regular reviews.
I have a quick point. We have had a worthy discussion, but there are many things that we cannot do much about. There is a limit to what we, as parliamentarians, can do.
The public are probably worried about the role of lobbyists but, in my experience of the past few weeks, they are more worried about whether there is evidence of impropriety on the part of the people whom they elected to serve their interests. The committee's priority should be to put in place the code of conduct, including a section on lobbying, offering advice to members about what is expected of them. At some point we should revisit the issue of lobbying organisations. However, at the moment, we need to get the code of conduct together. That is the priority for the public because they are more worried about the people they elect than people who work in private companies.
I would like to close this part of the meeting at that point. I think that we have had a valuable initial debate on lobbying. The committee has noted that lobbying takes many forms and that, except where impropriety is involved, it is an acceptable form of parliamentary democracy. I would like to make the point that provisions, registration, declaration of interests and the rule against paid advocacy are already in place in the members' interests order.
I take on board the points that have been made about more advice being made available to MSPs. The role of this committee is to ensure that that happens by drawing up a code of conduct.
The regulation of the cross-party groups that we considered before the lobbying debate is designed to prevent any improper influence arising from the activities of such groups. There is a difference of opinion on the distinction drawn by some members between the role of the professional lobbyist and that of lobbying companies. I think that the clerks have made a note of that point. It will form options for discussion when we consider that section.
On guidance about handling relations with lobbying organisations, Adam Ingram made the point that MSPs might not know that they are dealing with lobbyists. Tricia Marwick made good points about the differences between voluntary organisations who employ people to deal with public relations, as Shelter employed Tricia in her previous existence, and private companies who lobby for one organisation or another.
We have addressed many issues. Our discussion has helped us focus on issues in relation to the code of conduct.
Before we move on to the next item on the agenda, I suggest a suspension for a few minutes while we take legal advice on the issue. Are we agreed that we will suspend the meeting?
I would like us to stop suspending the meeting all the time. I have other things to do today. However, five minutes to take legal advice sounds reasonable.
It is not my intention to suspend the meeting for long. Are we happy with that?
Members indicated agreement.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—