Standards Committee, 21 Nov 2001

Meeting date: Wednesday, November 21, 2001

Official Report 142KB pdf

---

Lobbying

Good morning and welcome to the 15th meeting in 2001 of the Standards Committee.

Our first item of business is consideration of a further issues paper on our lobbying inquiry. Members will recall that, at our meeting on 12 September, we decided that the clerks should produce what I call a not-quite-final paper on lobbying. Members should have that paper in front of them.

Three principal policy issues remain to be resolved in relation to our recommendation to introduce a statutory registration scheme for commercial lobbyists. They are: our definition of commercial lobbyists, the extent of the registration framework and the level of sanctions for failing to register. I propose to address each in turn.

The clerks have proposed a new definition of "commercial lobbyists" at paragraph 8 of the issues paper. I ask members to turn to paragraph 8, which seeks to amalgamate the two previous working definitions into a single definition of the commercial lobbyists that are to be covered by the register. I throw the floor open to comments from members on that new definition.

I have a particular concern about the exclusion of in-house lobbyists. I asked for further information about that because I was not sure what we agreed last time and whether we should make a distinction between commercial in-house lobbyists and other commercial lobbyists.

We came to the conclusion that the fundamental issues are openness and transparency and, because we know where in-house lobbyists are coming from, we accepted that we would focus on commercial lobbyists.

I accept that the clerks' paper indicates that the committee has come to that conclusion, but I must tell you that, intellectually, I had not come to the same conclusion. I am trying to work out where I missed the argument. However, I do not want the committee to go back over old ground unnecessarily.

When companies spend large amounts of money lobbying the Parliament, that should be transparent. I am therefore slightly concerned that our definitions do not include in-house lobbyists that spend large amounts of money lobbying the Parliament.

You made that point before, Kenneth, and you were in a minority of one. I do not want to go back to a decision that we have already made. We should focus on the new definition of commercial lobbyists in paragraph 8.

Well, I have been consistent at least.

Are we confident that our definition is robust enough to address the concern raised in paragraph 7—that we should not damage the voluntary sector? Some of those lobbying on behalf of commercial lobbyists have been quite robust in the past month or two and some of the language used has been colourful. Does our definition make the separation between different kinds of lobbyists clear?

Did any of the commercial lobbyists provide a meaningful definition? It seems that lobbyists have made no attempt to say, "We understand where you are coming from—here's a definition that we think will cover us and that we are comfortable with." It is interesting that they have made no submission—a fact that we should keep in mind if there is any subsequent assault on our policy development.

I will ask the clerk to comment because I have not seen every submission that has come in. Most of them come directly to the clerks.

I recollect that the original definitions that we proposed in the consultation paper aroused considerable criticism. The new definition has been developed by the clerks and the legal office to try to address some of the issues raised by the commercial lobbyists that responded to the consultation.

Paragraph 26 mentions Bircham Dyson Bell, which was the only respondent to provide a basis for a definition of lobbying, although it is not reprinted in the paragraph. However, as I say, there was considerable criticism of the earlier definitions. We have not consulted on the new definition.

We decided during a previous discussion to make it absolutely clear in our report that the definition of commercial lobbyists will not apply to organisations in the voluntary sector.

We could go on refining our definition for ever—there have been 18 definitions of sustainable development, and effective arguments could be made for each of them. In this case, we are giving the Parliament's perspective. Although I suspect that many commercial lobbyists will say that they do not want to go anywhere near MSPs and just want to give advice and guidance to their clients, the definition that we have is correct and appropriate from the parliamentary point of view.

Does the new definition replace the two previous attempts?

Yes.

I have made my reservations clear.

It would also be useful if the information that I asked about were available. There are two debates. Some people oppose the principle of registering commercial lobbyists. Some commercial lobbyists recognise the need for a framework but are unclear about the language to be used. It is interesting that no one has submitted wording that accommodates our position and that of the lobbyists. If the basis of our work is attacked, that will be a good, defensible line to take, given the ferocity of some of the language that has been used.

Point noted.

Are we content with the definition?

Members indicated agreement.

We will move on to the extent of the registration framework. I draw members' attention to paragraphs 22 and 23 of the issues paper. I do not think that there is any doubt about the items in paragraph 22—that is why all the items have been separated into two paragraphs. Paragraph 22 refers to

"? names of lobbying firms

? names of staff engaged in lobbying

? names of companies represented by the commercial lobbying firms".

I think from previous committee discussions that everyone is content with including those items in the framework.

The more controversial or difficult items are the bullet points in paragraph 23. I would like members' views on what should be included in the registration framework. We need to firm up the framework using the bullet points in paragraphs 22 and 23.

We need not be too prescriptive. If we require the items that are listed in paragraph 22 and a case comes up, we will always have the power to obtain the extra information, should it be necessary. The items that are listed in paragraph 22 may be sufficient.

You would be content to use the three bullet points in paragraph 22 and not to move on to paragraph 23.

We can always obtain further information if we need it.

I agree with Lord James and remind the committee of what I said about in-house lobbying. I hoped that we would establish a scheme that encourages greater transparency about the amount of money that is spent on lobbying. It is difficult to insist that some commercial lobbyists declare the amount they spend on lobbying activities when we do not impose the same restrictions on others. For consistency alone, we should stick with the recommendations in paragraph 22. It is difficult to justify the other levels of information when the requirements are not applied even-handedly.

I would like to hear other members' comments. It is a pity that Tricia Marwick is not present, because she was a main proponent of many of the items that paragraph 23 lists.

For the items that paragraph 22 lists, how live would the register be? How up to date would it be? When would it be renewed? It is in the nature of that business for some folk to move on. It is a bit like other sectors in which folk move among companies. Do we have a time scale? Will the register be updated annually?

A few months ago, the committee had some discussion on whether the register should be published annually or should be a live register that might require companies to update their entries within 30 days, for example. A live version of the register would be available on the internet. I recollect that that was the committee's feeling.

It would be useful to have clarification on that, because lobbying is a fluid world. Many young folk enter lobbying then move into other jobs quickly.

I support Frank McAveety's view. A live register would make sense.

Kenneth Macintosh and Lord James Douglas-Hamilton propose that we do not include in the register the items in the six bullet points in paragraph 23 and that we stick with the three bullet points in paragraph 22, which list

"? names of lobbying firms

? names of staff engaged in lobbying

? names of companies represented by the commercial lobbying firms".

I think back to our discussions about the points that are listed in paragraph 23 and to why we had those discussions. I do not want to be too pejorative, but if the information that that paragraph lists is not registered, the register will become less meaningful than we intended it to be. However, I recognise that including all that information would create huge difficulties. There is no point in having an unworkable register.

I wonder whether, in the third bullet point in paragraph 22, it is enough just to say:

"? names of companies represented by the commercial lobbying firms",

as they are not always registered companies. I wonder whether that definition should be extended to "companies and organisations".

Or "other entities or individuals". I take your point.

Having said that, I accept that paragraph 22 is what we will end up with.

Do members have any other comments?

The third bullet point in paragraph 23 mentions

"? details of expenditure in relation to individual lobbying projects".

I regret the fact that we cannot get a firmer definition. To require such details of commercial companies and not of in-house companies is to make an arbitrary distinction, which is not fair. Getting a fair system for declaring expenditure is the most tricky thing to do. At a previous meeting I suggested that we could use something like the threshold that we have for the declaration of interests—and set it at £5,000 or whatever. I am disappointed that we have not followed that suggestion.

You position is plain: you feel that some of those details could have been included if they were required across the board but, as the committee has decided to focus on commercial lobbyists, you do not think that requiring such details is appropriate.

That is exactly right.

I presume that all these requirements will be reviewed in the light of experience, in a year or so. This is not the last word on any of them.

That is an important point. We are having a first attempt at this, and we are trying to get it right. However, as in anything else, it is right that we should reconsider the register approximately a year after it comes into effect and assess our experiences of it in practice.

To clarify, we will take the three bullet points in paragraph 22:

"? names of lobbying firms

? names of staff engaged in lobbying

? names of companies"—

or organisations, however we phrase that—

"represented by the commercial lobbying firms",

and will not proceed with any of the other bullet points that have been identified. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

We will now focus on the level of sanctions for failing to register. I direct members to paragraph 28, which reads:

"The Committee is, therefore, invited to consider which, if any, of the following sanctions it considers appropriate for failing to register:

? Naming and Shaming;

? A fixed fine;

? A rising scale of fines".

I throw the matter open for comment.

Given what we have just agreed about paragraph 22, it would be disproportionate to take the matter further than naming and shaming. If there were more stringent and rigorous disclosure of information, there should perhaps be more rigorous penalties, but we are not reacting to a perceived problem of corruption or unscrupulous practice; we are trying to introduce more transparency. The penalties that we agree today should reflect the fact that we are trying to encourage transparency, not clamping down on improper activity. At this stage, naming and shaming would be enough of a sanction.

I would like to hear all members' views on this issue, as it is very important.

I agree with Ken Macintosh. Naming and shaming is the sanction that we should choose; we should not consider fines. Naming and shaming is the best way forward.

I do not think that there is a problem. As far as I can recall, only one lobbyist has written to me, on behalf of medical interests, and I replied to him that he should ask the constituent to raise the matter with me directly. I never saw him or heard from him again. I do not think that there is a general problem. Organisations such as Scottish Enterprise may lay on lunches for MSPs, but there has been no problem with that. It has all been out in the open. We should proceed with naming and shaming in the first instance, but we can review that in the light of experience.

I agree.

In some ways, it would be more difficult to police the scheme if we included all the other categories of information. We are coming down to a much simpler method of registration. Naming and shaming is proportionate to that kind of scheme.

We should add the qualifier, as Lord James suggested, that we will keep the situation under review and monitor how the scheme operates. That would be helpful.

Are we content for the clerks to draft the final report on our lobbying inquiry, which we will consider at a meeting in the near future?

Members indicated agreement.