Lobbying
Agenda item 3 is our inquiry into lobbying. As requested at our previous meeting, the clerks have prepared detailed analysis of the responses to our consultation paper. They have also provided a brief summary of the results of our consultation exercise with MSPs. I suggest that we decide this morning how we want to take forward the inquiry.
I will highlight briefly some of the main themes from both consultations. The MSP consultation found that members had little enthusiasm for regulating lobbying. Overall, members were mainly content with the nature of the lobbying process that the interest groups use, as long as the process is always transparent. MSPs were more divided on the subject of professional lobbying companies. Some were completely opposed to dealing with such companies; others felt that such companies were a legitimate component of the democratic process.
The wider consultation exercise, which sought the views of interest groups and lobbying companies, found that a majority of respondents were opposed to statutory regulation. By contrast, the respondents were generally more amenable to a voluntary code of practice for lobbyists.
Before we consider the various policy options that are open to us, which are set out in the paper before us today, I would like members to consider whether they have sufficient information to form a view on the options, or whether further inquiries would be of benefit. For example, do we need to take oral evidence or have we enough information now?
The floor is open for members to give their views.
The questionnaire that was sent out for the consultation was fairly complicated, and I think that taking oral evidence would be helpful to the committee. That evidence could come from three separate groupings: commercial lobbying organisations, umbrella groups for the voluntary sector—perhaps the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations—and organisations such as the one from Stirling—
Stirling media research institute?
Yes. Some of the information that the institute provided is really important. If we concentrate on those three separate groupings, rather than work from the brief sheet of questionnaire responses that we have been given, we will have an opportunity to pick out some of the more important factors. That would be a helpful way forward and could be done in one evidence session. We must examine lobbying in Scotland as fully as we can.
I do not disagree with anything that Tricia Marwick said. Lobbying presents us with complex issues. I have not come to a clear decision and would like some more information. To hear oral evidence and to be able to probe for further information would be helpful.
In addition to the people whom Tricia Marwick suggested that we might see, I suggest that we ask the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to give evidence. COSLA has already responded and obviously has a major interest in the work that is done in the Parliament. I also suggest that, as at least one trade union has responded, we should ask the umbrella organisation for trade unions, the Scottish Trades Union Congress, to give evidence on behalf of its members. In that way, we would get a rounded picture, on which we could come to a considered judgment, from the various voluntary and professional interest groups.
There is a case for having not just a brief summary of respondents, but a précis of the responses to the lobbying consultation paper. That would include the key points made by SCVO, Disability Agenda Scotland, the Educational Institute of Scotland, the Association of Professional Political Consultants or COSLA, for example. A range of bodies has responded and we need to know the key points that each has made. The clerks could help by informing us how many people each body represents and how significant each body is, and by advising us which bodies should be called to give evidence. We should take evidence from the bodies that responded, because the subject is important.
One aspect of the paper that interested me was the comments that were made about the Parliament's accessibility. Some organisations raised issues that are of concern to us. Could we probe those issues further? I do not know whether that would be a separate exercise. Some of those issues might not be in our remit, but there would be nothing to stop us liaising with the Procedures Committee or others in the Parliament. That would ensure that we could find out exactly what the issues are and that we have done our bit to make the Parliament more accessible.
That is a good point.
I agree with Patricia Ferguson's suggestions of organisations to invite and with Lord James that we need a précis of the views of each of the organisations that has contacted us. However, I am worried that we seem to be planning not to consult the public, but to take evidence from only interested bodies. That probably touches on Patricia Ferguson's point about accessibility.
I do not know how we would consult the public—perhaps through a focus group, or by some other means—but I am worried that we have not had responses from members of the general public. Is that because they are not interested, or because we have not reached out to them enough? Do they know that the consultation is happening? Perhaps, over the next couple of weeks, we could turn our minds to how we can engage with the public a wee bit better in the consultation and, as Patricia Ferguson said, in the Parliament more generally.
One option would be to ensure that the clerks put the consultation paper on the Parliament's website and invite individuals throughout Scotland to contribute.
One of the problems that was highlighted by some of the respondents was that not everyone has access to the website. I suspect that members of the public are least likely to have access to the website.
In addition to putting a paper on the website, we could place a questionnaire or information sheet in the public gallery or in the visitor centre. It might also be useful to ask the civic forum for its co-operation. I realise that the civic forum represents civic organisations in Scotland, but its membership is made up of individuals too.
There seems to be a powerful case for registration of lobbyists so that such shadowy figures are out in the open and known about. Registration would enable us to be certain that the Parliament is sleaze free.
It would be useful to know how many respondents were in favour of registration, and how many expressed reservations and on what grounds.
We agree that further evidence needs to be taken. I was not sure how much we would go into the issue today. The material that we have in front of us has raised a lot of questions.
As well as the crucial questions of whether lobbyists should be registered, and whether there should be a statutory or voluntary code, the definition of lobbying needs to be examined. If we decide to invite people to give evidence, perhaps we should frame a series of questions for them to answer before they come to give their evidence. Such questions could include: how do you define yourself as a lobbyist? How do you see your role as a lobbyist? Would you agree to a voluntary or a statutory code? What should be in the code? We could put such questions to all potential witnesses and possibly to people in the public gallery, although some of the people whom we are talking about do not, by their very nature, have access to Parliament.
I should draw the committee's attention to the legal advice, which is that our remit focuses clearly on MSPs. There is absolutely no doubt that we have jurisdiction—if I can put it that way—over the activities of MSPs.
We can take a view on lobbying, which may lead us towards recommending statutory regulation. At the end of our deliberations, under our current remit as set out in standing orders, we cannot take that recommendation further. We could recommend that the Minister for Parliament, or perhaps another committee, take up the matter, or that the remit of the Standards Committee be changed.
We can discuss those issues at the end of our investigation. I do not want to start forming opinions now, as we have just decided to take further oral evidence, but it is important to bear in mind the legal advice.
The convener has made some good points about the committee's remit. We have discussed that before and it is important that we explore ways of expanding the committee's remit to allow us to do all that is necessary.
I want to return to what Patricia Ferguson said in her useful contribution about how we can engage with the public. It occurs to me that the Parliament has partner libraries throughout Scotland. We should be paying a bit more than lip service to our partnerships and I cannot think of anywhere better than the partner libraries to have, perhaps, an issues paper—along with the questionnaire—and to ask the public for responses. We need to engage with the public on what they expect from their Parliament, and using the partner libraries would be a possible way of doing that. We can sit here and say that people expect the Parliament to be open, transparent and sleaze free, but we need to get those opinions directly from members of the public.
That is a good point.
I want to return to the convener's point about our remit not allowing us to do what we might want to do, once we have made up our minds. That is why accessibility is so important—if we were as accessible as we all want and aim to be, lobbying would not be necessary. The two things are inextricably linked. That is why I am keen to explore the accessibility issues further.
I had thought that it would be good to take evidence in one session, as Tricia Marwick suggested. However, the clerk has advised me that, given the number of suggested witnesses, it might be more appropriate to take evidence over two sessions.
As of today, we revert to a regular fortnightly meeting schedule, so I propose that we invite witnesses to our meeting in a month's time—that is, not to our next meeting, but to the next two meetings after that. At our next meeting, in a fortnight's time, we can consider the issues paper for the public and the proposed questions for witnesses. Are members content with that proposal?
Members indicated agreement.
Will we not be in recess in a month's time?
No. The meeting will be a week after the recess.