Standards Committee, 11 Sep 2002

Meeting date: Wednesday, September 11, 2002

Official Report 107KB pdf

---

Lobbying (Conference)

Our final item this morning is an invitation to a conference on lobbying to be held in Budapest next month. Tricia Marwick will give the committee the background to the invitation.

Earlier this year, I was contacted by Laurie Naumann, who does a lot of work in Hungary and eastern Europe. He was particularly interested in the Standards Committee's work on lobbying—the regulations and guidelines and so on. It is quite new to the people with whom he has been working.

I gave Laurie Naumann some information that was already in the public domain, such as the Official Report of our meetings and the reports on Standards Committee inquiries, to let him see what we were doing. He took that back to Hungary and following that, much to my surprise, I was asked to speak at the conference in Budapest.

I contacted Sam Jones and suggested that speaking at the conference might be good for the Parliament. As we know, the work that the Standards Committee and the Scottish Parliament have done on lobbying has attracted a great deal of interest, not just from Westminster and the National Assembly for Wales, but from further afield. We are one of the few Parliaments in the world that are considering so closely the issues of lobbying and standards. The conference might be an opportunity for good public relations for the Scottish Parliament. I hope that the committee will agree to make a bid to the Parliamentary Bureau for the air fare. It would be excellent if one of the committee clerks could accompany me. There is an opportunity for links to be made and that would be good for the Scottish Parliament.

I agree that it is important to utilise opportunities to build links and share information and knowledge about the work of the Parliament. In principle, participation in the event would be worth while. However, that said, and having raised a question about overseas trips earlier in the meeting, I feel duty bound to say that although I trust Tricia Marwick's judgment, it is important that the convener and the clerk are sure that the nature of the event is such that we would want to be associated with it. Perhaps the clerk could check out the sponsorship and so on. I do not think that Tricia Marwick has told us who the organisers are and it is important to check those points.

There is also a question about costs. I am not sure how this applies to participants from a bona fide Parliament, but it is normal practice for conference organisers to bear the costs of a guest speaker or contributor. That leads back to the question about who is paying for the event. It is important for the committee to be sure about the appropriateness of all those matters before agreeing to the request. However, it is important to take the opportunity to promote and share the work being done in Scotland, provided that that is done in an appropriate forum.

I hear what Susan Deacon is saying about checking out the conference and the costs. However, rather than leave it for the clerk and me to check out, I put the matter on the agenda because we have to be happy as a committee that we want to send someone to participate in the event. If the committee agrees, I will take the request and argue the case at the conveners liaison group. If the conveners liaison group agrees to the request, it will go to the Parliamentary Bureau. I need a steer from the committee. I do not want the decision to be left to the convener.

I do not believe that we can give that steer if we do not know who the organisers are and what costs are involved. We do not have a piece of paper that gives us that information. I do not mind others looking into that subsequently—that is the point that I made—but it is not fair to ask the committee for a steer in the absence of any detail.

Could you give us any more detail Tricia?

Not really. I have given the clerk most of the information that I got and I am quite happy for her to check it out. That would be better than my providing further information. It is right for the clerk to do that.

I am sorry that I was late, convener.

I do not have any difficulties with the principle. However I am concerned to find out whether the costs will be met. The document that Tricia has provided makes it clear that she is being invited as a speaker at the event. I am sure that there will be significant charges for others attending the event. However, the organisers should meet the costs if they ask one of us to speak at the event, or ask for the Parliament to be represented. I do not know what feedback Tricia has had on that.

The second-last paragraph of the letter that we received from Laurie Naumann says:

"The sponsoring organisations will, of course, meet your accommodation and related costs while in Budapest. It would help us considerably if you are able to obtain assistance in meeting the cost of the airfare."

We are talking about the cost of the air fare.

I apologise. I did not realise that we had a piece of paper about this. I have read it very quickly, but I see that it is still missing some information that we need before we can take the matter any further. That includes the points that Paul Martin made about costs. However, I apologise that I had not seen the letter when I said that we did not have a piece of paper.

I have just been told that bids for the next bidding round have to be submitted to the conveners liaison group by 27 September. We could discuss the matter again at our meeting on 25 September. If Tricia Marwick provides the committee with background details about the event and the organisers and addresses the issues that Susan Deacon, in particular, has raised, we can put the matter on the agenda for our next meeting.

I am slightly confused as to why the letter was not sent to you as convener of the Standards Committee. If the invitation was intended for a senior member of the Standards Committee, such as you or Tricia Marwick, the most appropriate approach would have been to send the letter directly to you. I am sure that that is a matter between you and Tricia. If either of you wanted to go, it would be extremely good for the committee, especially if there is to be a report back to the committee in due course. However, I do not believe that it should automatically be assumed that the convener of the committee is excluded from consideration because the invitation has not come to him.

What can I say? Tricia Marwick is going to bring the matter back to the committee at the next meeting.

Lord James makes a fair point. When the issue comes back to the committee after the clerks have considered it, perhaps the committee will consider who should represent the Standards Committee. I am quite relaxed about that.

I am content that Tricia should go, but it would have been more appropriate if the letter had been sent to the convener.

Your point is taken. Is everybody content?

Members indicated agreement.

Meeting closed at 10:42.