Agenda item 1 is lobbying. At our meeting on 14 June, the committee agreed to consult all MSPs on their experiences of lobbying in the Parliament. The Scottish Parliament information centre then developed a questionnaire, which was issued to all MSPs before the summer recess. A total of 47 members responded. I would like to thank the members who have assisted us with this work and Fiona Killen from SPICe for her assistance in preparing the questionnaire. Our clerks have produced an issues paper for the committee, which provides an analysis of the responses. The issues paper refers to the committee's recommendation in its lobbygate report that the Executive should re-examine the Scottish ministerial code to establish whether it provides adequate advice to ministers in relation to lobbying. The Executive has now provided a formal response, which has been circulated to members of the committee.
I offer two thoughts to the committee. It appears that one of the objections to registration of lobbyists is that the countries that have adopted registration have frequently found that the form of registration that they chose was incomplete and had to be updated. Holes had to be plugged because so many different forms of lobbying were appearing. I suggest that it would be helpful if the committee received further advice on the case for a voluntary code of conduct. I understand that that would be acceptable to lobbyists and I think that it would help everybody to understand exactly which actions were legitimate and which were less legitimate. That would help to clear the air. If an attempt is made to ban lobbying, there is a danger that it will be driven underground. If lobbying is to exist, there should be some form of code of conduct so that we have realistic guidance as to what is legitimate and what is less legitimate.
One of the most interesting things to come out of the questionnaire was that most members seemed to be quite comfortable with things as they are. However, it is early days and the full weight of the lobbying world may not yet have descended upon us—there is probably more to come, if Princes Street this morning is anything to go by. This early in the Parliament's life, I would not like us to cut off the possibility of putting in place something more formal to deal with lobbying. However, I am ambivalent about whether we need to do anything at the moment.
Having read the synopsis that the clerks prepared for us, I see a clear split between MSPs who think that we should have no dealings at all with professional lobbying companies and MSPs who feel that they are legitimate organisations. A number of MSPs expressed the concern that professional lobbying companies may be giving the impression that they have preferential access to MSPs or ministers. For me, that has always been the crux of the debate. The fact that some MSPs still feel that that impression is being given is a cause for concern. Also of concern is that the public may feel that way, too. We need to consider how we can deal with that perception. If lobbygate did anything, it gave the public the idea that some people somewhere believed themselves to have preferential access to ministers. Our inquiry proved that they did not; however, I think that the perception still exists.
If I can paraphrase you, Karen, you are suggesting that, to inform our decisions, we write to lobbying organisations and get information directly from them in the same way as we got information from MSPs.
I am especially interested in the way in which professional lobbying companies organise themselves and operate in the Parliament and in the information that they put into their annual reports on who their clients are and how much income is generated. I do not know whether it is possible to get this information, but I would also be interested to know their charging policies. Are their charging policies determined by the influence that they are seeking, for example, or by the information that they are providing? Those are the issues that I would like to tease out from lobbying companies—particularly the professional ones.
One of the things in the report that jumped out at me—I had been aware of it and it is reflected in the returned questionnaires from members—is the fact that it is often not clear who is trying to contact members and on what basis. I would like that to be considered along with Karen Gillon's proposal. As you well know, convener, e-mails arrive in such profusion these days that sometimes it is not clear whom the sender represents or purports to represent. The same is true of other items of correspondence. The way in which people communicate with us must be clear and open. I am not comfortable that it is; I am not sure that people identify themselves as clearly as they might want to, or as we might want them to.
There is general uneasiness among all MSPs about dealing with lobbyists at all, but there is a danger of driving them underground. I am sympathetic to what Karen Gillon said. The Parliament believes in openness and transparency. Further advice, not only on a voluntary code of conduct but on who the lobbyists are and whether they would co-operate with a voluntary code of conduct, would be helpful, so that everything is out in the open and we know exactly what we are dealing with.
We are all agreed that we will proceed by getting written evidence from organisations.
Another point that jumped out of the report on lobbying was members' concern that the organisations with the most money would have the biggest impact and so would be most listened to. How smaller organisations with legitimate democratic rights can be heard is of concern to us all. The fact that those that can pay for adverts and send out lots of materials sometimes gain more access than those who can perhaps only do one mailing or make one telephone call is a legitimate concern. When we seek further advice, it might be helpful to receive guidance on how things stand at the moment. There are issues to do with access and influence.
This has been a useful discussion, which will inform how we proceed. We will move the process forward by inviting written evidence from various lobbying organisations.
Next
Cross-party Groups