Our first agenda item is our inquiry into lobbying. The clerks have prepared an issues paper that provides a brief overview of the general themes that emerged from the 29 responses that have been received. A number of those responses are substantive and it is proposed that the clerks produce a more detailed paper for the committee to consider at its next meeting in January. Members will wish to note that many of the issues identified fall outside the remit of the committee. We must consider carefully the manner in which those issues might be pursued.
I do not have any comments other than to say that we always accepted that lobbying would be difficult to pin down. We understand the complexities that exist, but I am not sure whether it is possible to tweak the definition in a way that would make a difference. It is probably more advantageous for the committee to trawl for information and to receive and sift all the responses, rather than to try to make the consultation more focused at this stage.
Are members happy with that proposal?
Yes. The issue of definition would become more important if we were to go as far as registration, but it appears that the drift of responses did not support registration as a conclusion. I do not think that there is a problem at this stage.
We move on to paragraphs 7 and 8, both of which deal with the respondents' views on the Parliament's commitment to openness and transparency. Do members have comments on paragraphs 7 and 8?
I accept many of the respondents' points, but I wonder whether those points come under the remit of the Standards Committee. At this stage, I am not sure that it is our job to examine the timetabling of meetings of the Parliament or the work of the Parliamentary Bureau, for example. However, in our new role as a standards and procedures committee, the procedures half of the committee might be interested in those issues.
I am not clear what you mean when you refer to our new role.
I am not sure that it is the role of the Standards Committee to consider issues such as the timetabling of plenary meetings and how those meetings might be adjusted at the last minute or how the Parliamentary Bureau works. The Procedures Committee might be more interested in those issues. I understand why they have been raised in the context of the work that we are undertaking, but they are not part of our investigation, nor do we have any control over them.
Indeed.
In my view, that is a problem for the respondent organisations, as it is up to them to be sufficiently in command of their own views to be able to respond within a reasonable period of consultation. The idea that we should sit about for four months while the National Trust for Scotland goes through its extensive processes is not conducive to the conduct of our business.
I agree with Des McNulty. Bills that are coming up for scrutiny are flagged up in the programme for government, which is published well in advance. I do not understand why organisations cannot consider bills, even tentatively, when the programme for government is published. Ultimately, we are under pressure and anxious to get legislation through the Parliament. I would hate for us to delay legislation because we are unable to fit in with someone's time frame. We must work the other way round.
It would be helpful to learn from the clerks the identity of the person who made the point that consultation exercises such as ours are not publicised widely enough, as well as who that person thought had been missed out. Perhaps we could pick that up next time.
We will make a note of that.
The argument in the final sentence of paragraph 10 is correct. There is good practice on disclosure of clients, which we should encourage. If we go for a system that involves lobbying organisations operating under a code of practice, they could spell out how member organisations might operate the process of disclosure. We should confine ourselves to the principle of disclosure and allow lobbying organisations the space to put that principle into effect.
I will move swiftly on.
The Educational Institute of Scotland said that, when a bill is published, it would be helpful to have a "clear idiot's guide" to the stages involved in legislation. A clear guide for everyone would be invaluable, although it does not need to be an idiot's guide. The committees will be enormously influential in the Parliament and it is important for outside bodies to know when to send in representations.
I think that such a guide to the procedures of the Parliament exists. Perhaps the EIS has yet to find it.
I have been advised that there is such a guide. We might suggest to the powers that be that it should be sent out with any draft legislation.
There is a difference between statutory regulation and statutory registration and it would be useful to have the clerks' advice on the benefits of a statutory registration scheme. It only makes sense for any active lobbyists to be subject to statutory registration; however, statutory regulation goes much further and the drift of responses was in favour of a voluntary code of conduct.
I am sure that the clerks can prepare a detailed paper on that issue for our January meeting.
This is probably the key issue. I am doubtful whether we can enforce a complete statutory regulation regime, in which case registration might be an acceptable halfway house. I am anxious to wait until we have received more responses before making a final judgment. Indeed, some of the responses from the members' questionnaire on lobbying might have a bearing on the matter.
You are absolutely right. We must wait until we have a lot more information before making a decision. This note essentially provides a guide to allow the clerks to produce a paper for our January meeting, by which time we should have received all the responses.
Is it not the case that the Standards Committee should have an input into any voluntary code of conduct that might be drawn up?
The difficulty with that suggestion is that the committee's remit centres on the conduct of MSPs.
As the responses to this matter depend on the responses to paragraph 13, it is hard to make a clear decision. If we accept that voluntary or statutory registration should be primarily directed at commercial lobbyists, the committee would be particularly interested in the voluntary code of conduct that applied to such lobbyists. Perhaps the guide on how to lobby in the Parliament would be sufficient to establish the rules of the road for other organisations that lobby. We should not be seen as enforcing anything other than the procedures of the Parliament and the rules that apply to members in connection with the myriad different non-commercial organisations. Perhaps we should just supply guidance instead of enforcing the application of a voluntary code.
As any voluntary code should be consistent with the MSPs' code of conduct, it seems that the committee has jurisdiction and should be entitled to consider the voluntary code before it is issued.
In as much as the code relates to the activities of MSPs, and not outwith that.
That is right.
Paragraphs 15 to 17 relate to lobbying ministers and civil servants, which is an issue that, at first glance, appears to fall outside the committee's remit. I would appreciate other members' views on the matter.
You are right, convener. All we can do is establish a code of conduct for MSPs and hope that its principles are taken into account in any amendments to the ministerial code. The responsibility for that lies with the First Minister.
That is the case. Organisations lobby the Executive as well as MSPs, and I think that the committee agrees that such lobbying lies outwith our remit. Des McNulty's comments were quite apt.
As we have said, there is already a guide on legislation. We could consider a supplementary version that would provide guidance to organisations or individuals seeking to lobby the Parliament—indeed, perhaps the Parliament itself could produce such a guide. The system would not be driven by the Standards Committee, but inputs from various committees would be relevant.
I am sure that the committee clerks could feed that suggestion back through parliamentary officials to the clerk to the Parliament.
These organisations, whether they are charities or commercial lobbying organisations, want guidance as to when it would be most effective to make representations, which is perhaps a slightly different issue from that covered by the available information.
That has been a useful session. The clerks will now be more aware of the committee's thinking when they prepare the detailed paper for the January meeting.