Official Report 208KB pdf
Our main item of business today is the first oral evidence-taking session in our inquiry into lobbying. I welcome our first witnesses, who are Professor Philip Schlesinger and William Dinan of the Stirling media research institute. I invite them to make a short opening statement, after which we will move to questions from the committee.
The Stirling media research institute has been engaged in a programme of research into the public relations and lobbying industry in Scotland, the UK and Europe since 1996. Our research on Scottish lobbying was funded by the Economic and Social Research Council and by the Stirling media research institute itself. We have no financial or other interest in lobbying.
Do you think that there is any difference between regulation and registration? The two words are bandied around, but I am not sure whether most folk understand the difference.
Registration and regulation are often used interchangeably. In fact, in practice they are often quite similar. As we understand it, registration requires that information is gathered and put in the public domain in an easy, accessible and user-friendly way, whereas regulation is laying down rules that will govern the behaviour of lobbyists. That is the distinction, but in practice registration will involve a degree of regulation, as you will affect the behaviour of lobbyists by making them submit information twice a year. The principle is that we would like at least some form of registration, which would have an impact on what lobbyists do—they would have to keep records.
Yours is one of the few organisations that made a submission in favour of registering and regulating lobbyists. The view of others has been that to do so will create an elite band and give the impression that only those who are registered or regulated can engage with the Parliament. How do you respond to that?
We really do not understand that objection, which also derives from the evidence that the Neill committee took. We think that, if the Parliament declares that being registered does not confer any special privileges—as the Parliament in Canada does—that would take care of the issue. Registration and regulation ought to be dealt with on a wide basis. If there is a wide sweep, there is no way in which anyone could claim elite or special status. Registration would be regarded as a usual part of lobbying the Parliament. We do not see the force of the objection; it seems to relate to small groups of lobbyists who have set up associations conferring special status on themselves.
Those organisations that have set themselves up in that way have adopted what is known as a voluntary code of conduct. What are your views on the effectiveness of voluntary codes of conduct?
Voluntary codes of conduct are open to suspicion. Voluntary associations are like clubs; they do not necessarily have a public interest in the way that they regulate themselves and there are questions about how they impose sanctions on their members. We are not impressed by the voluntary principle in this area; it has not served the UK well at Westminster. In order to have the right conditions in Scotland, it is essential to move beyond that principle.
In the UK, there are no examples of self-regulation exposing corrupt practice or addressing questions of the probity of lobbyists. That has always been done by investigative journalism and the media. That is because it is not in the interests of the industry to expose bad practice, as that makes them all look bad—we saw that with lobbygate. There are serious problems with the way in which self-regulation works. Derek Draper—who was at the centre of the recent cash-for-access scandal at Westminster—admitted in his evidence to the Neill committee that he did not have a clue about how self-regulation worked. No one had told him about it, even though he was nominally a member of the Association of Professional Political Consultants.
Commercial lobbying, which has set up those voluntary codes, exists to make money out of the lobbying process; it is not, in principle, eager to expose any wrongdoing by its members. It is questionable whether operating on the voluntary principle would work as satisfactorily as having statutory regulation.
You say that you believe that lobbyists in Scotland predominantly lobby not MSPs, but the Executive and civil servants. You will also be aware that the Standards Committee remit does not extend to civil servants or ministers in the Executive. Will you comment on the need, or otherwise, for the Executive to be brought within the remit of the committee?
In a new political system, there is the chance to set up clear-cut rules that apply to everybody. We know that the Executive is seeking evidence about rules that should apply to members of public bodies and councillors. It would seem to be sensible to have a set of rules that applied across the board to MSPs, to those working in the Executive—whether as ministers or civil servants—councillors and members of non-departmental public bodies. At the start of a new system, it should be possible to implement a set of working rules that apply to everybody. Whether that should be within the remit of this committee is another matter; we know that that is a delicate political question.
Thank you for the information that you have given us; it is very interesting. Do you accept that lobbying is an acceptable activity or do you think that there is something inherently wrong with it?
We accept that it is an acceptable activity. Unlike in many countries in Europe, which pretend that it does not exist, in this country we acknowledge that it exists—it is out in the open. Our point is not that it is not an acceptable activity, but that there must be clear rules about how it is conducted. We are arguing the case from a public interest point of view. We are dismayed by the lack of trust in the political system. Almost every week, there are, if not scandals, implications about how ministers and politicians conduct themselves. That lack of trust will increase unless the public are broadly convinced that there are clear-cut rules to which people adhere. There is no objection to the idea that people can freely organise themselves to try to influence public policy—that seems fundamental to democracy. The question is how they do it and what the public's understanding is of those relationships.
Is there a difference between different kinds of lobbyists, such as commercial interests and the voluntary sector?
In principle, no. Anybody who wants to influence public policy should do so in an open and transparent way. It is for the committee to decide whether it wants to draw distinctions between commercial lobbyists, who operate for multiple clients, and lobbyists who work in-house, either in corporations or in the voluntary sector. Codes are available in north America—the US and Canada—that distinguish between consultant lobbyists and in-house lobbyists. That is a matter for the committee. Our position is that whoever is lobbying decision makers should do so in an open and transparent way. The resources that they devote to that lobbying should be publicly available.
Would that extend to individuals?
Absolutely. One of the problems with voluntary codes is that individuals can opt out of them and can operate outwith any sanction.
Any person or organisation who had a point of view and wished to make it known to their MSP would have to register the fact that they were doing so. Are you saying that the act of giving their opinion to the MSP, or group or MSPs, would have to be registered?
It is up to the Parliament to decide what threshold to set. We do not want to put up a barrier that prevents constituents from bringing complaints and grievances to their MSPs or raising concerns with MSPs. The point is that you may want to draw a distinction between the average citizen, or the average constituent, and someone who is actively engaged in lobbying. In north America, the threshold tends to be set at a few hundred dollars, which would distinguish between a constituent petitioning their MSP and someone who was campaigning on a cause.
We are going to hear from the Scottish Council of Voluntary Organisations, which is a non-profit-making body. It has paid employees who might lobby on its behalf, but they are not doing it for profit. I am just asking for your views on where we should draw the line.
It is not uncommon for someone to hire a person to pursue a case for them or to advise them on how to pursue a case. That is not the issue. Some people have commercial considerations and are there to make money; others belong to organisations that try to affect the course of public policy. The real test is how people are trying to affect the course of public policy, not whether they are commercial.
Where do you draw the line between a commercial organisation, a voluntary organisation and an individual, all of which have a legitimate right to lobby the Parliament?
We have suggested that the sort of commonsense cash-based threshold that applies in the US would indicate whether any lobbying or petitioning of an MSP was purely personal. As for drawing the line between commercial and voluntary organisations, we do not think that there is such a significant difference between them. Although there might be differences in resources, the question is whether people are trying to influence the course of public policy—how they do that and the kinds of resources that they bring to bear on it are matters of public interest.
I want to pin down the issue of the cash-based threshold. If I were to be lobbied by a full-time paid employee of a trade union, would the fact that they were a paid employee mean that they had passed the cash threshold?
Yes.
However, if I were lobbied on the Sutherland report by my local branch of Help the Aged, which is a voluntary organisation with no paid employees, or by a group of pensioners who had travelled through to Edinburgh, should that be registered? After all, no one is being paid.
The sort of information that we want in the public domain is whether an organisation employs parliamentary officers; the issue is the resources that are devoted to lobbying. As the committee's consultation so far has highlighted, one of the key problems is that advocacy—that is, lobbyists who represent clients—has more or less disappeared in Scotland. We now have direct representation from organisations. However, we are interested in having the resources that are used in preparing those representations out in the open. Although a group of pensioners who came to lobby you on Sutherland might not have to be registered, campaigning organisations that are interested in the issue would need to register.
How about a group of pensioners who hired a bus for £250 to travel through to Edinburgh to lobby me? The issue is crucial. Those people are expending effort and money to ensure that we know what their opinions are. I am trying to work out where we draw the line.
Your example is an interesting debating point.
It is more than that. You have suggested a commonsense threshold. Although I think that I have plenty of common sense, I am not entirely convinced that such a threshold would be applicable. Perhaps a cash threshold would be more appropriate, but I would like to hear how it would work. Most of your material is interesting, but it seems to apply more to professional lobbyists and large organisations than to individuals and small voluntary groups.
It can apply to individuals and small voluntary groups. As we have said, if they spend more than the threshold, they must register. It is as simple as that. It is up to the committee to decide where it wants to draw that line. We do not want to put any barriers between the average citizen and their MSPs but, as a simple basic principle of the Parliament's openness and transparency, if someone spends more resources than the average citizen to influence policy, they should have to declare that and put those expenditures in the public domain.
When we started this investigation, we sent a questionnaire about lobbying to MSPs, who seemed to have little enthusiasm for statutory regulations for a variety of reasons. I want to press you on two themes that emerged from the responses that we received. The first centres on according special status to registered groups. Just a few minutes ago, you said that we could state that the register does not accord special status to any one; however, that would not affect an individual commercial organisation that could call itself a registered and approved organisation in its material. That could in turn intimidate many smaller voluntary organisations, which perhaps do not have the resources or do not wish to follow the registration route. Could statutory registration work against your intended aim of open access and accessibility for everyone to the Scottish Parliament?
There is no evidence that that has happened in the Canadian example. In many respects, this is a matter of broad public education. The Parliament is interested in maintaining that it is open and accessible. If journalists are properly briefed and the Parliament makes its views widely known on a regular basis, why should people have any other apprehension? The question is a bit of a red herring. If many organisations are registered, it is hard to see why people would be so dim as to think that registration gives special status. Scotland is a small country; people know people and there are all sorts of networks. As a result, it is difficult to see why the principle of registration should be perceived as exclusionary.
In that case, why have most organisations that have approached us taken the opposite view? The SCVO and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities—both of which are giving evidence this morning—would prefer us not to go down that route.
That is up to them.
In the UK, we have a particular view about lobbying and how it should be regulated, with the entire focus on those who are lobbied. Elsewhere, particularly in Canada and the US, the focus is on the lobbyists. As we have said in our evidence, neither system is perfect; the optimum position would be a combination of both. When Canada introduced its register of lobbyists, commercial lobbyists objected on the ground that it would be used by organisations to spy on one another. That happened to begin with; commercial lobbying organisations were the heaviest users of the register. However, since 1997, the heaviest users have been public office holders wanting to know who has been lobbying and on which issues. That makes the whole system much more transparent. In Scotland, the excellent code of conduct for MSPs could be enhanced if there was the same focus on outside interests.
The code of conduct specifies that MSPs should satisfy themselves about the identity and motives of those who are lobbying them. We are simply suggesting a way to make that easier for you.
You mentioned the American and Canadian examples. First, have those registers changed public perception of how politicians operate? Secondly, have they improved the effectiveness of policy development? Finally, if the CSG and the Neill committee did not want to recommend what you are recommending, were they lobbied before they reached their conclusions?
If we look at who gave evidence to the Neill committee, it is quite obvious that they were more or less vested interests. Although some witnesses made a public interest case, the weight—not the quality—of evidence was against them.
Although your north American examples have some validity, I am not convinced that the public will have a better perception of politicians. That may be the noble objective, but it might not turn out to be the conclusion.
Are you arguing that it does not really matter whether public perception can be affected by registration? We would argue that public perception could be affected. Whether that is true in the United States is perhaps another matter, but, in the Scottish context—that of a small country—where Parliament has had a bit of a pasting in the press and where the smallest connections between people are a matter of suspicion, surely having a set of transparent rules would substantially assist the perception of politics.
I am arguing that it is important for the public to know about how information and policy are developed and about the roles that folk play in that. That is an important principle and you are right in what you say in that context.
In some systems in the United States, it is incumbent upon the legislature to help citizens. That is why we mentioned the New York example in our written evidence. A guide to citizens' lobbying was made available there and attempts were made to make quite transparent to citizens information about how, when and whom to lobby. I do not want to get into the details of the situation in the United States, because it is a different political culture for a start, and I do not know enough of the precise detail to speculate and draw comparisons.
Throughout your submission, you cast doubt on the effectiveness of voluntary codes and self-regulation. I refer you to paragraph 3.7, in which you cite an example:
As part of our research, which spanned about two years, we talked to a lot of lobbyists, including commercial lobbyists and people in the voluntary sector—anyone involved in the policy process in Scotland. The example illustrates the problems of self-regulation. It was mentioned to us in terms of, "Oh, by the way, this has happened. I don't want to mention the name of the client who told me such-and-such and I don't have the concrete proof." It was all innuendo.
Did you explore the matter further?
I pressed the person on it, but he would not tell me.
You say that you were told of a case.
Yes. The case was outlined to me in general terms. The client's name was not mentioned, nor were the names of the lobbyists concerned. The person was telling me that that stuff goes on. We were talking about the problems of self-regulation and the person agreed with me in private about it.
I was intrigued by the registration scheme in the state of New York. How long has that been in operation?
It is relatively recent. I think that the provision for it was enacted in 1999.
Can you briefly explain how the system works?
Yes, briefly, although it is quite complicated because of the various different levels of government in New York and because of the volume of legislation that passes before the legislature.
Is there any differential between voluntary groups, individuals and professional groups?
I am not 100 per cent sure about that, but I do not think so.
I want to ask for further detail of how regulation would work in practice. I will refer to COSLA's submission—you will probably not have seen it.
No.
We got it only at the weekend ourselves. COSLA describes the process as follows:
It could do that—it could itemise its contacts.
What would you suggest?
We would prefer members to discuss the practicalities themselves. One issue in the lobbygate case was maintaining evidence on contacts. The Neill committee took that up when discussing the case. It is, in a sense, self-protection for members, ministers and civil servants to keep a list of contacts. There are more recent cases in which that has been an issue.
I am trying to grasp how the statutory regulation would work. I agree in principle that it is important that people know that an organisation such as COSLA is in touch with parliamentarians. It is a two-way process: we may ask it for information. I do not know whether that would be classified as lobbying.
That would be a useful start.
Just a start? Would not that be sufficient?
That would be the minimal position, which does not exist now. It is difficult to see what objection there could be to that. Such a position would satisfy Parliament's own test, within its code, for the sort of people who contact members and what they contact them about. In our view, it is the logical outcome of Parliament's own code.
If every single person who contacted Parliament were to be listed, it would be a huge list.
It is easy to turn that into an absurdity. It becomes an issue when there are concerns about undue influence. We do not wish to prescribe to the committee how it should deal with the practicalities. We would be perfectly happy to discuss them in due course, if that is what members want. We want to establish that the Parliament's own code implies an extension of its knowledge of the people who lobby Parliament, with a view to having a register of who is contacting it, for what purposes and when. That is implicit in what you have stipulated yourselves.
I am conscious of the time—we have only two or three minutes left for this part of the meeting.
I am interested in the question of contact. The witnesses correctly said that part of the lobbygate inquiry centred on contacts that were made. I have always made a distinction between organisations that lobby on behalf of clients and organisations such as COSLA, which clearly lobbies on behalf of local authorities and of itself. We know where COSLA is coming from, but we might not know where a commercial organisation was coming from, nor the clients for which it was working.
Yes, and I think that that kind of information should be made public. Our key point is that information on resources that are devoted to shaping public policy should be publicly available. People should know how the policy process is influenced. We believe that lobbyists' fees and billings to clients should be in the public domain.
Do you agree that that is the kind of information that would be recorded in any case?
I am sure that it is.
Do you have an opinion on whether the registering of interests or, in the case of lobbying, capacity could inhibit policy development? When we are genuinely exploring options or policy ideas and need intellectual capital or to hear different viewpoints to assist us, we meet a number of people who have so-called direct interests in the potential outcomes. If we had to write a detailed note of everyone we met, could that inhibit the process?
I can see the problem which is, I suppose, about the difference between people suspecting and people knowing that connections exist. There is no way round that problem. Either there will be revelations in the press about certain connections having taken place and—rightly or wrongly—certain implications will be drawn, or matters will be on public record. People might suspect that connections exist without necessarily knowing that they do.
Let me give an example of what I am trying to get at.
Why would a register stultify developments? Surely people will act on their commercial interests, irrespective of whether or not there is a register. If someone has nothing to hide, why would a register inhibit them from pursuing their commercial interests?
I am not talking about people who wish to pursue their commercial interests—I am talking about the people who are being lobbied. It might be perceived that a register minimises the extent to which those who are being lobbied can properly pursue a development—they would be conscious of the fact that people outside might think, "Why is A Bloggs going to see that councillor when two other people have done the same thing in the past fortnight?"
I presume that there would be a good reason.
There should be.
You would hope so.
I am conscious of the time. As there are no other burning issues that members want to raise, I thank the witnesses for helping us with our deliberations. They are more than welcome to stay to hear the evidence from the next witnesses.
Meeting adjourned.
On resuming—
I welcome Councillor Corrie McChord, the social inclusion spokesman for COSLA, and Adrian Colwell, the head of policy. Councillor McChord is not a stranger to the Standards Committee, as he gave evidence to us during our inquiry into models of investigation. I invite our COSLA representatives to make a brief opening statement.
Thank you for inviting us here this morning. We have a limited view of the world of lobbying, in terms of commercial aspects, individual interests and non-governmental organisations. However, if there is a legitimate lobbying organisation in Scotland, it is probably COSLA. COSLA deals with interests relating to governance and government, so it has an integrity that other organisations in Scottish society do not have.
Thank you. Frank McAveety will lead the questioning.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton was supposed to ask these questions, so in "Stars in their Eyes" fashion, this morning I will be Lord James Douglas-Hamilton. That is an achievement.
Individual MSPs often lobby us and ask for information, which is why I said that there is a two-way flow of information. I will let Adrian Colwell deal with that question.
The answer stems from our opening comments that COSLA's purpose is to present a unified national voice for local government in Scotland. We work on key issues that affect local government, and which cut across party-political divisions. Defending the position of local government as the tier of governance that is closest to the people of Scotland requires that we engage closely with, and seek to influence, the Scottish Executive and Scottish Parliament.
That answer is important in establishing the kind of contact that COSLA has with the Parliament and its bodies, but why would you have anything to fear from regulation and registration, given that the process is transparent?
It would confuse our partnership with central Government in delivering services to the people of Scotland; COSLA at a focused, local level, and the Parliament at a strategic level.
We see the relationship primarily as being between tiers of governance. You may be aware that we have worked with the Local Government Committee on a draft covenant to set a framework for the sort of relationship that we would like with all aspects of the Parliament and to build on the work that has been done in the first years of the Parliament's life.
At the heart of your paper and your oral evidence, there seems to be confusion, which was perhaps caused by the consultation paper. The third last paragraph in your paper says, under "Regulation of Lobbyists and Code of Conduct":
Yes, indeed. I believe that we are part of the fabric of governance and democracy in Scotland and that that is the distinction between COSLA and other organisations. As individual local authorities, we forward the interests of people in our communities and, when we get together as COSLA, we forward the interests of our communities across Scotland.
The nature of the relationship and the activities in which COSLA and local government are involved are at the heart of our response to the questions that you pose.
Tricia Marwick quoted a sentence from your letter, which I had also flagged up for my own interest. A further sentence says:
We are asking for a definition of a professional lobbyist. Adrian Colwell has already said that we do not consider ourselves to be professional lobbyists as such.
The language in the original submission from my colleague is perhaps a little harsh in its tone. However, as Councillor McChord has suggested, we were concerned about the interpretation of the word professional. COSLA would, of course, abide by the spirit and the letter of whatever rules of engagement are ultimately decided. We were concerned about the potential implications, rather than what the actual outcome might be. Does that clarify matters?
I think that I understand what you are saying, but let me paraphrase it to see whether I have got it right. COSLA is against statutory regulation but, if it comes in, would prefer it to apply to so-called professional lobbyists rather than to anyone else. Is that what you are saying?
Yes.
We are probably saying that, but we are reluctant to get into areas that we are not really involved in. The same is true of codes of conduct for public bodies; that is for other organisations to decide.
Our previous witnesses, from the Stirling media research institute, suggested that we adopt the Canadian system, which defines consultant lobbyists, in-house lobbyists and non-profit organisations. There are a number of exemptions. For example, you do not need to register if you are lobbying in direct response to questions from a public official. A lot of the activities that COSLA is currently engaged in suggest that it has a unique relationship with central Government and should therefore not be treated in the same way as a professional organisation that is lobbying on behalf of a number of commercial interests and a number of clients. Do you agree that, in those circumstances, your objection to registration as a whole could be modified or withdrawn?
We are saying the same thing in different ways. Your description sounded like an opting-out process, in which registration would be for everyone but exemptions, opting out, derogations or whatever would be allowed.
On that point, the witnesses from Stirling media research institute gave us a strong idea of their perception of the potential scale of the problem. What is your experience—not of your relationship with the Executive, which is fairly straightforward, but of your relationship with MSPs, which is what the committee is dealing with? Your submission talks about access to the Parliament and makes interesting points about stage 2 of the bill process, but do you find it difficult to gain access to MSPs? Do commercial organisations such as professional lobbyists have more favourable terms? Are they better at gaining access to MSPs? Is the present system insufficiently regulated and therefore in need of scrutiny, or are the rules sufficient to guard against current or potential problems?
I suppose that that is a political question.
Like Councillor McChord, I want to record that the secretariat at Rosebery House has had no problems with being able to gain access to any MSP from any of the political parties when we have sought such access, either for face-to-face dialogue or in order to submit materials. Likewise, we have had no problem with gaining access to the Parliament's support structure—for example, the committee clerks.
That brings me perfectly to my next point. Mr McAveety told us about his experience of how local government works. If an organisation wants to lobby local government or councillors, what rules and regulations do you have in place to govern those circumstances?
It comes down to the organisation's relationship with the individual councillor rather than with the authority. That issue was covered in the debate about standards in public life and the code of conduct. Our dilemma was whether we should produce a short document that everyone could understand or a long, complex document that only a lawyer could understand. We hope that we have struck a balance and that we can get our views across to members of authorities. I believe that, ultimately, individual councillors, like MSPs, have a gut feeling when they cross the line, and that gut feeling should be their guide on most occasions.
We have a code of conduct for MSPs but we are considering whether to produce a code of conduct for lobbyists. Do you have a code of conduct that covers the lobbyists' side of the relationship?
No—there is no such code at either the local government or the COSLA level.
We do not have a code of conduct on lobbying and local government at either the local or national level, nor are we developing one. Having said that, it depends on the outcome of the committee's inquiry. We would revisit the issue at that time, because the draft code of conduct for councillors that is provided for in the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc (Scotland) Act 2000 mirrors the principles that are adopted by MSPs.
As far as we are concerned, responsibility for integrity rests with the local member, not with the lobbying organisation.
You are not considering changing that position unless we do something that spurs you into action.
No, not at the moment.
You say that you would support the introduction of a voluntary code. Who should be responsible for developing such a code? What sanctions, if any, should be available for breaches of the code? Who should be responsible for policing it?
Professional lobbying organisations in Scotland would have to be consulted and be part of that process. COSLA enjoyed co-operating with the Parliament and the committees on our end of the business of standards in public life, as far as developing our code was concerned. It would be only fair and practicable to involve all relevant organisations, from NGOs and professional lobbyists to big business.
What about the lobbyists who refuse to sign up to a voluntary code? Some might argue that that might be advantageous to them.
It strikes me that voluntary codes are strengthened by the views of the public. It does no harm to expose organisations by naming and shaming them, if they cannot keep to a voluntary code. If a voluntary code were unsustainable, we would have to think of something else.
Are you saying that a voluntary code should apply to all organisations and individuals involved in lobbying?
Yes, but that depends on your definition of a professional lobbying organisation. The situation may need something further.
When you say that it "may need something further", are you talking about what you call the professional lobbyist?
Yes.
Something further than a code of conduct?
Yes—you might take the view that something further was required.
Is that your view?
No—we are not engaged in the issue to that extent.
As there are no further questions, I thank the witnesses for their helpful contribution. They might find it useful to sit at the back of the chamber to listen to our next witnesses.
Meeting adjourned.
On resuming—
Our final group of witnesses comes from the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations and the third sector policy officers network. I welcome Philippa Bonella and Jillian Flye from the SCVO and Graham Blount from the third sector policy officers network. I invite you to make a short opening statement.
Thank you for inviting us to speak today. I have to pass on apologies from Michele Savage from the Scottish Society for Autism—she is snowbound somewhere in Clackmannanshire. I am policy officer with the SCVO and Jill Flye is our information officer. Graham Blount comes from the Scottish Churches Parliamentary Office and is part of the third sector policy officers network.
Thank you for that presentation. Ken Macintosh will lead off the questions.
Thank you for your paper. I noted your comments on your experience of access to the Parliament, the workings of the Parliamentary Bureau and the increasing number of private committee meetings. I am sure that my colleagues have also noted those remarks. However, rather than go into those issues, I will ask about your experience of lobbying the Scottish Parliament. How does it compare with your perception of the experience of commercial organisations? Do you think that commercial organisations have more access than you do? Could you comment on the rules that govern your access to MSPs? Are they sufficient?
We have had extremely positive experiences of lobbying the Scottish Parliament. Nearly all voluntary organisations have very small budgets when it comes to lobbying so we are unable to get involved in hospitality, for example. We have found that the CSG principles of openness and accessibility have helped us to get to talk to MSPs and explain our concerns. MSPs are open to the voluntary sector and are willing to speak to voluntary organisations. That access is to our benefit, because MSPs are quite willing to talk to us, perhaps more than they might be to private sector lobbyists.
All along, MSPs have been willing to be involved and to draw on voluntary sector expertise. The feedback that we have received from smaller voluntary organisations also shows that MSPs are easy to contact and willing to become involved.
I do not wish to be unfair to you, and my next question is one about perception. Your organisations have much experience of contacting MSPs and working in the parliamentary environs. How does the system work? Do you perceive undue influence being given to commercial organisations? Are individuals given insufficient influence? Do groups have too much influence? Does the process need to be governed with a heavier hand?
We do not perceive a problem of commercial organisations having undue access. It is probably true that organisations find it easier than individuals do—particularly those from more deprived communities—to work their way into the Parliament. As part of a project, we go out and about to speak to small local groups and individuals and we invite the MSPs for the constituencies that we visit to participate. That initiative has worked well in encouraging individuals and small groups to access the Parliament. Much of the problem could be attributed to cynicism and a lack of awareness about how open the Parliament can be.
MSPs and ministers must make judgment calls about whom they do and do not give time to. That is inevitable and appropriate. I do not think that we have any experience that suggests a built-in prejudice against voluntary sector groups. The opposite may sometimes be true.
As we heard, the Stirling media research institute favours statutory regulation. Currently, the onus is on MSPs to respect the rules and to ensure that the code of conduct is followed. In the interest of transparency, should more emphasis be placed on groups such as your network, on professional lobbyists and on individuals to declare what they are doing and to make their work more public? I do not suppose that you think that your organisation is private or shy. Should a mechanism be put in place to make the activities that you conduct on behalf of your group more transparent?
Our practice is transparent. The problem with access relates not to who gets access but to who does not get it. If you try to regulate the lobbyists, you cannot regulate those who do not have access. If the problem relates to those who do not have access, MSPs must be regulated. We do not think that the case for regulation is strong enough to counteract the sense of creating an elite of registered lobbyists, which would diminish, rather than improve, access.
If we constructed a method of registering that we felt was not a barrier to access, would the SCVO object to its activities being made more widely known?
Not at all. However, I am unsure how we could make our activities more widely known. The SCVO's role is to act as a conduit for its members' concerns. They lead us. We are regulated by charity law and a variety of other regulatory frameworks in the voluntary sector, so our funding is open for anyone to find out about. We produce reports about our work. We are open to telling people what we do. I think that the voluntary sector is as open as it can be.
I am not clear what your position is on a voluntary code. Your response states that
Our main concern about statutory regulation is that it creates an elite group of recognised lobbyists. A voluntary code would be a step towards that. If an organisation can say that it signs up to such-and-such a code, it might sound more professional and so seem to be one that should be used. Smaller organisations that have not signed up to a voluntary code because they do not know that one exists or because they do not lobby often enough might feel that they are outside the direct channels to access that the voluntary code members are in. We would be happy to sign up to a code if one were produced.
I was going to ask about that. Are you saying that you would support the introduction of a voluntary code for all organisations?
Yes, if you could find one that would suit the smallest voluntary organisation, which might lobby once in a parliamentary session, as well as the private companies that lobby on behalf of other organisations.
It should be a simple statement of guidance rather than a detailed code. It should advise organisations to make it clear who they are and whose interests they represent—it is always in the interests of a voluntary sector organisation to do that in lobbying. To lobby effectively, even a voluntary organisation needs to be clear about who it is and whom it represents.
What is the difference between guidance and a voluntary code?
The difference lies in the simplicity of a short statement that is accessible to everybody.
I will describe the way in which we envisaged guidance working. As Graham Blount said, we feel that the onus should be on MSPs to decide whether the organisation that approaches them has explained itself properly and to be sure that they understand what is happening. That is all covered in the code of conduct for members, on which any guidance that is available to lobbyists should be based. As Jillian Flye said, guidance for lobbyists should just advise them that they should ensure that the MSP knows who they are, what they want and, if necessary, how they are funded.
We would welcome guidance to help us to develop good practice. We would be worried if it was a matter of signing up to a code, as that would lead to a two-tier system of those who are signed up to it and those who are not.
You seem to be coming down on the side of the argument that says that any guidance should be to MSPs and their staff, for example on how to recognise improper lobbying.
We would not be hostile to the idea of guidance to voluntary organisations. If MSPs are told that it is inappropriate for them to receive gifts above a certain value, it would be helpful for that to be publicised among those in the voluntary sector who approach MSPs.
Obviously, we provide such information already, so we would be quite happy to produce guidance for the voluntary sector.
You are in favour of guidance. What is your position on a voluntary code?
We think that a voluntary code is unnecessary for the voluntary sector. However, if one is produced, we would be happy to publicise it.
I declare an interest: given your concerns about the workings of the Parliamentary Bureau, I am, as SNP business manager, more than happy to talk to you about the workings of that body.
In a way, the same argument applies in each case. If you create a register, you create a channel through which organisations must go in order to make their views known. We would like to avoid that in order to have an open and accessible Parliament. A tiny organisation, which has never had any contact with Parliament, must be able to contact it by e-mail or letter as easily as an organisation such as ours can, which contacts Parliament frequently.
You have said that your experience of the Parliament is that it is open and accessible; you said some nice things about MSPs. We are all committed to ensuring that individuals and organisations can find a way to lobby us, because that strips away some of the mystique of private companies. How can we do that better?
You can do so by not requiring organisations to register. As soon as there is a perceived elite—whether a small group of commercial lobbyists or one that included voluntary sector organisations—people will feel that they cannot access an MSP directly as and when they wish, so they will be more likely to use a commercial lobbyist or not to bother contacting the Parliament. We should keep the current system; Parliament is already open and accessible.
I see a distinction between organisations that lobby for profit, which might have a number of clients who are buying their services, and the voluntary sector or individual organisations, whether they employ a parliamentary officer or are grass-roots bodies. Do you recognise that distinction between organisations such as the SCVO, Age Concern Scotland, Shelter or any of the other organisations that come to us and put their viewpoint across, and a commercial organisation, which might be lobbying for six, seven or 20 clients?
We do not have any wish to defend the interests of private lobbying companies. We see a clear distinction between what they do and what we do. We are generally not lobbying for profit or private gain; we are lobbying on behalf of the interests of a large number of people. If you choose to create a register and a definition can be found that makes that distinction clear, we would be happy to support it.
Do you think that organisations that can afford to use commercial lobbyists have an unfair advantage in gaining access to the Parliament, or is that irrelevant, as there is open access?
The main reason why the SCVO set up its service was so that voluntary organisations would not have to spend large amounts of money to use private companies, which perhaps do not understand the needs of voluntary organisations very well. We have a lot of users who get some advantage from using us, as they would from using a private company, through being given digests of information and advice about how things work. I am sure that it is slightly advantageous either to be a frequent lobbyist or to use a service in order to get that advice and be kept up to date without having to spend your entire life on the Scottish Parliament website, but I hope that any organisation would be able to find a way to do that by using new technology or links through their constituencies.
The Scottish Churches Parliamentary Office was created so that larger groups, such as the Church of Scotland, did not have the advantage of being able to pay somebody full time to work on these matters while smaller churches were disadvantaged because they did not have the resources to do that. We are all committed to working in ways that ensure that smaller groups are not put at a disadvantage because they cannot afford to pay a lobbying company or a parliamentary officer.
The policy officers network meets to share practice among its members. We have around 80 members, most of which are larger organisations that can afford to have someone working, at least part time, on policy. The major role for the SCVO is to match smaller groups with more experienced policy workers in the same field. We hope that we can cascade down experience and knowledge to the smaller organisations.
Earlier, we heard from the Stirling media research institute on the principle of reassuring the public that parliamentarians and public bodies are working in a transparent and open fashion. Its evidence was strong; it believed that everyone should be registered, largely to deal with larger institutions, in the interests of transparency and openness. If your activities are above board—which I know they are, given my experience of the SCVO and the voluntary sector—why should you be worried about registration or regulation, which should be light anyway?
We would not be worried at all. As I said, most voluntary organisations are regulated by one regime or another and are already open and accessible. We have been out and about all over Scotland and have talked to lots of small groups. We are concerned that they are already nervous about getting involved with Parliament. They are not sure how the system works. If they do not have a full-time member of staff or their committee members change every year, they find it extremely difficult to go through the processes—filling in forms, for example—to ensure that they are registered properly. That creates another barrier for small organisations.
In parallel with that dilemma, which I do not underestimate, is the wider public concern about those who lobby. The public perceive them as private concerns that engage in lobbying for profit. The SCVO has a good network and could share the responsibility of registration, so people could assume that registration was a simple case of recording that person A made an inquiry to a parliamentarian, a minister or a civil servant. Why would that be burdensome?
We would do our best to do that. To be honest, if we are looking for an open and accessible Parliament, it is MSPs who need to be open and accessible. Regulating the interests that try to talk to MSPs is difficult. The public and the voluntary sector want MSPs to be seen as above reproach rather than private sector lobbying firms to be seen as above reproach.
I understand that. However, I have always thought that it was important to have two gatekeepers. Although individual elected members should make a judgment call based on a broad code of conduct, which is being developed nationally and locally, it is helpful in the interests of consistency for other folk to be asked for their opinion. It is a bit much for the public to assume that individuals can always be acting rightly or wrongly; we are an easy target if we act wrongly, and we are not praised if we act rightly. As a result, it would be helpful to have regulation and registration across the board.
We should remember that not all the small groups that might want to lobby the Parliament are part of the SCVO or are in touch with any other network. The worry is that registration might be a deterrent to them. Where do we draw the line? If a mother and toddler group that meets in what used to be my church in Falkirk needs to promote a cause with Dennis Canavan, does it have to be registered in order to talk to him or the relevant Government minister?
That is what we are trying to explore.
Do you see the argument that commercial lobbying companies should not be treated exactly the same as a mother and toddler group? Perhaps there is a need for regulation in one sector and not in another.
Although I see the logic of that, we are still setting up a group of people that could use their registration to sell their services to organisations that are not registered.
The Scottish Parliament is a new organisation. When we were standing for the elections to the Parliament, the public said that they wanted it to be different from Westminster, because they had gone through an election in 1997 that was based on sleaze campaigns. It could be argued that not much has changed at Westminster. We have an opportunity to do things differently in Scotland, but you seem to be suggesting that we keep things exactly the same as they are at Westminster.
We want to broaden access, not restrict it. We find it hard to envisage any system of registration or regulation of lobbying that would not restrict access.
Thank you very much. I found your evidence particularly helpful, as I am sure the rest of the committee did.
Next
Cross-party Groups