Standards Committee, 26 Sep 2000

Meeting date: Tuesday, September 26, 2000

Official Report 108KB pdf

---

Lobbying

At our most recent meeting, the committee agreed to progress its inquiry on lobbying by inviting written evidence from various lobbying organisations. The clerks have circulated to members an issues paper that considers how to take that consultation exercise forward. It is clear from the clerks' preliminary work—done in conjunction with the Scottish Parliament information centre—that taking the matter forward will be an immediate undertaking.

We need to address two issues. First, we need to establish the parameters of the consultation exercise. Our discussion last week concluded that we wanted to consider lobbying by interest groups and professional lobbying companies.

Secondly, we need to agree on the methodology of the consultation. The clerks and SPICe have indicated that there are two possible approaches. First, the committee may consider that it is necessary to contact as many lobbyists as possible. However, given the lack of comprehensive data on lobbying organisations in Scotland, that would be a major undertaking. The clerk's paper notes that that would have significant resource implications for the committee's clerks and for SPICe. If we took that road, we might need to consider the appointment of a committee adviser for the consultation.

In contrast, the committee might feel that it is sufficient to collect a representative sample of the views of lobbyists who operate in Parliament. That approach would entail collection of the views of a representative sample of lobbyists via the various umbrella organisations and through advertisement of the consultation exercise. That option would not preclude the participation of any organisation or group that wanted to participate.

With that introduction, I throw the discussion open to members. Do members have comments on the paper before them?

While colleagues are thinking about what to say, I suggest that the appointment of a committee adviser on the matter would be of great assistance. We need to produce a short and highly effective report. We do not want to produce something that purports to be the last word—one can never produce the last word on a subject that changes all the time. We do not need a 100 per cent success rate on consulting every lobbyist in creation—we need to go for those who are reasonably well known to get a good, effective, rough and ready picture.

Which of the two options do you suggest we go for? Should we contact as many lobbyists as we can or should we contact umbrella organisations?

We should contact as many lobbyists as we can, but we do not need to go to the last ditch. Many small lobbying organisations are unknown outwith their locality.

I agree that a representative sample approach is best. There is a history of consideration of lobbying in various legislatures in the world. The committee would get bogged down easily if we tried to take the comprehensive approach. We want as short a process as possible before we come to a reasonable conclusion on lobbying.

In the past, public concern about lobbying has related to paid lobbying organisations. When we considered that problem, we widened our scope because we thought that it would be difficult to establish clear boundaries between paid lobbying organisations and other lobbying organisations.

We could consider a broad range of organisations—including small advocacy organisations—but a review of Parliament's accessibility and the way in which it interrelates with different civic organisations might be more interesting to Parliament. That would not concern solely the Standards Committee.

We may need to deal with the particular issue of paid lobbying, which we could do in a fairly boundaried way. We could then, in conjunction with other committees—such as the Procedures Committee—consider the broader issues of accessibility and lobbying, as part of a more sustained process of investigation. An adviser would undoubtedly be helpful for that.

I am concerned that, if we follow the suggestions in the paper, we could fall between two stools: defining lobbying widely; and consideration of lobbying without a broader debate about how Parliament responds to different kinds of organisations. We probably need to conduct two different exercises. One would be a relatively narrow exercise that dealt with paid lobbying companies. The other would be a broader exercise, which would consider lobbying accessibility. It would be helpful for the committee to conduct that broader exercise in conjunction with, for example, the Procedures Committee.

I welcome the paper, which has helped to sort out one or two of the issues that were in my mind. However, I am concerned that we are taking such a long time to deal with the matter. It is almost a year since the committee was involved in the so-called lobbygate inquiry—a great deal of concern was expressed then. Committee members expressed the view that there should be a comprehensive review, but now—a year down the line—we have not come up with anything on the issue to put before Parliament. Frankly, I do not think that it is acceptable that we delay any longer. I would like the committee to set an end date for the matter, by which we will have presented a report to Parliament. We should set such a date and work towards it.

We are in serious danger of making our investigation or consultation so wide that we would not gain anything extra from the exercise—we might, instead, delay the process even further. There could be dangers for the committee and for Parliament if we allow ourselves to be caught up in the minutiae of the matter. We should consider inviting representative organisations to speak to the committee. We would welcome submissions from any organisations that felt particularly strongly about the matter. However, there is a difference between welcoming submissions and trawling the length and breadth of Scotland trying to get them.

We need to carry out our functions and we need to conduct that investigation, but we must bear in mind that we have a wider responsibility to the Parliament to develop a view on lobbying. We cannot delay much more than we have. I suggest a four-month deadline for submission of a report to Parliament. That is the maximum time that the committee should take to form a view.

I agree broadly with Tricia Marwick, although I also have some sympathy with what Des McNulty said. We already have a marker, in that we have a code of conduct for members. We therefore know how we expect members to behave with respect to lobbying. It is the other side of that relationship that is not so settled—or, at least, we do not have a settled process for dealing with it.

We need to hear from representative organisations, but we need an end date for the inquiry. I would go so far as to say that we should notify the conveners liaison group that we are looking for a date in the parliamentary calendar when we can discuss the matter in the chamber. It might be necessary to tie ourselves down in that way. We might want to examine the broader issue of access later, but in the meantime we must get something on lobbying tied down fairly quickly.

The mood of all members is very much in favour of hearing a representative sample of the views of lobbyists who operate in Parliament. Such views could be obtained relatively quickly and without too much difficulty, regardless of whether the inquiry might involve greater focus on umbrella organisations.

To sum up, we should proceed by collecting a representative sample of the views of lobbyists who operate in Parliament. We should collect those views from representatives of those lobbyists in the various umbrella organisations and we should get on with that relatively quickly. We shall invite people to make submissions to our inquiry if they wish.

Members are keen to set a time limit for the inquiry. The Christmas and new year break is three months from now—if we keep to a four-month limit and focus on an end date, we will be more likely to make progress. Would an end date at the end of January give the clerks sufficient time?

If the committee can agree soon on the consultation paper and questionnaire that we will send out, such a date would be feasible. It will be a month until the next committee meeting, but if members will agree to an end date, we can push on.

If members are content for the clerks and SPICe to draw up a consultation document, we could discuss it at the next meeting.

That is four weeks away.

We shall therefore draw up the document and send it to members before the next committee meeting. Once we have reached agreement on that document, we can proceed along the lines that I suggested. We shall set an end date of the end of January and I shall pursue with the conveners liaison group the matter of presenting our report to Parliament.

I am content with that. One of the dangers of conducting an entirely comprehensive inquiry is that we could end up—as the Neill committee did—discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. We need to form quickly a mechanism for regulating the work of major lobbying organisations. Beyond that, I maintain that there is a broader issue of accessibility, which this and other committees might want to address as part of a different and more extensive exercise. For the purpose of the lobbying inquiry, however, I am content to pursue a narrow and focused, but quick, process for establishing the parameters within which lobbyists will be expected to work.

I remind members that the inquiry will be a fact-finding exercise. Its objective—as stated in paragraph 13 of the paper—is to find out from lobbyists how they organise and what they do. The first part of the exercise was to consider the role and conduct of MSPs; consulting lobbyists is the second part of that exercise. We shall try to complete the work before the end of January.