Official Report 122KB pdf
The next item of business concerns a report from the deputy convener, Tricia Marwick, on the conference on lobbying that she attended in Budapest. Tricia, is there anything that you would like to highlight in the paper that you have presented to the committee?
I thought that we were going to the conference to talk to the central European nations about the Scottish Parliament's experience of lobbying and that we would hear what they are doing with regard to the regulation of lobbying. To a certain extent, that is what happened. I did not expect us to get terribly much out of the conference but, as you will see from the paper, the representatives from Canada, in particular, gave us some interesting information, which I wish we had been aware of during our lobbying inquiry. I was most impressed by the fact that there is electronic registration of lobbyists in Canada and that distinctions are made between different types of lobbyists. I was also interested in the kind of information that lobbyists are required to supply.
Is the registration scheme in Canada mandatory?
It is. It is also electronic. Much of the evidence that we were given during our lobbying inquiry suggested that, if one attempted to register every lobbying group, from in-house teams to the voluntary sector to the commercial lobbying organisations, the process would be unwieldy, would be impossible to manage and would cost an absolute fortune. Throughout our discussions, that argument occupied my thoughts a lot. However, at the conference, it became clear that, in Canada, there is mandatory registration and that much more detailed information than we were thinking of is being asked for. The interesting point is that the registration system is electronic and the lobbying companies are obliged to register themselves. If they do not register electronically and a manual registration is required, a charge is levied. That process cuts down the cost considerably.
Do the Canadians draw a distinction between commercial lobbyists and in-house lobbyists, as we have done?
Yes. There are three categories of lobbyists: consultant lobbyists, such as public relations companies and Government relations consultants; corporate in-house lobbyists; and lobbyists who work in house for non-profit organisations.
You list the information that the lobbyists are required to register. Are all the categories of lobbyists asked to provide the same information? If not, why are the categories differentiated?
There are different requirements for each category. The most stringent requirements, such as the amount of time that the group has in which to make a submission, apply to the consultant lobbyist category and possibly to the corporate in-house lobbyist category. The requirements for lobbyists who work for non-profit organisations are slightly lighter in relation to how often they have to make a submission, for example.
Has any work been done to monitor the effectiveness of the Canadian scheme?
The scheme has been reviewed by the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology in the Canadian House of Commons. That committee found that the scheme was working well, had a high level of transparency and was not difficult or costly to administer. Changes to the system have been recommended. While we were at the conference, a bill on lobbying was going through the Parliament, although I am not terribly sure what the conclusion of that was.
If you are still around after the election, you could still be on the Standards Committee, of course.
I would not mind having more information on the impact of the Canadian scheme. For example, what difference has it made to public perceptions or to the behaviour of lobbyists, whether commercial or non-commercial?
The word "evaluation" is looming. Perhaps the clerk could further examine that matter. Thank you for producing the paper, Tricia. I am sure that the conference was worth while.
Meeting continued in private until 12:32.
Previous
Cross-party Groups