Lobbying
The next item of business is a debate on motion S1M-3428, in the name of Mike Rumbles, on behalf of the Standards Committee, on its first report of 2002, on lobbying. I call on Mike Rumbles, as convener of the Standards Committee, to speak to and move the motion.
I welcome the opportunity to debate the Standards Committee's report on lobbying. Lobbying is at the heart of the democratic process. It impacts not only on our commitment to accessibility but on our commitment to openness and transparency.
The report that we are debating represents the culmination of an inquiry that took us a year and a half. I take the opportunity to thank members of the committee, past and present, for their commitment and enthusiasm during the inquiry and I also thank the clerking team.
The roots of the lobbying inquiry can be traced back to the Parliament's founding principles. The original report by the consultative steering group stated:
"For the Scottish Parliament to deliver a Parliament which will meet the expectations of the Scottish people, a culture of openness and accessibility has to permeate the Parliament".
The Standards Committee wanted to examine how that applies to the relationship between the Parliament and lobbyists.
I say now that we did not—and still do not—see a problem with lobbying in the Scottish Parliament. There is not a problem. Throughout our inquiry, we recognised that lobbying is an integral and legitimate part of the democratic process. However, it is imperative that lobbying is carried out transparently in line with the Parliament's core principles of openness and accessibility.
As MSPs, we represent a wide spectrum of people in differing occupations with differing interests and businesses and diverse needs. We should not be guided only by our own opinions on matters that are brought before us. We should meet and hear from interest groups, lobbyists and constituents—a wide range of people—so that they may inform us of their concerns and needs and we may take the temperature of public opinion. Lobbying can help us to become better informed in forming our political judgments. It also enables us to engage with different sections of society.
All of us must recognise that public concerns remain about the possibility of undue influence being wielded by lobbyists in our legislature. That concern is most marked when organisations carry out lobbying commercially or for profit for third parties. If we are to allay such concerns and reassure the public that lobbying activity is consistent with our core principles of accessibility and openness, transparency must be our watchword.
The need for transparency is paramount when companies lobby on behalf of third parties. That is why the core recommendation of our report is the introduction of a statutory registration scheme for such organisations.
It is a fact of business life that commercial lobbying organisations are paid by their clients to achieve certain results. There is a risk that observers will assume that, because of that, a lobbying or public affairs agency has greater access to or clout with a politician than do individual citizens or a much smaller and less well-funded local voluntary group that is pressing for reforms. We found no evidence to support that proposition, but it is a perception that nevertheless exists in some quarters.
To help address the questions of perception, access and openness, the Standards Committee undertook a wide-ranging inquiry. We have taken evidence from and consulted a broad spectrum of witnesses including commercial lobbyists, interest groups, the voluntary sector, academics and the lobbied themselves—we, the MSPs. We are grateful to all who contributed to that undertaking. The committee has distilled that information down to the four principal recommendations that are outlined in our report.
First, there should be further guidance for MSPs. At the moment, the guidance is contained in section 7 of the code of conduct and relates to statutory obligations. Paragraphs 71 and 72 of the report outline some of the practical steps that members can take that will keep us all on the right side of the code of conduct.
Secondly, annexe E of the report sets out a revised section 7 of the code of conduct on lobbying and access. The revisions are not extensive, but the committee felt that they added clarity and enhanced the existing text. The changes that we are asking Parliament to agree to incorporate into the code today will clarify the role of commercial lobbyists; will place greater emphasis on the need for transparency in the relationships between MSPs and commercial lobbyists; and will provide supplementary and practical advice on dealing with commercial and other lobbyists. Those changes to the code will provide greater clarity to members on their obligations and will ensure that the relationships with all lobbyists are handled with complete propriety.
Thirdly, we recommend that a statutory registration scheme for commercial lobbyists be introduced. As that proposal has attracted a lot of attention, I will spend a little time explaining the background.
The main impetus in our decision to recommend statutory registration is the need to ensure transparency. Only then can we begin to dispel the unease that is felt by the public. The evidence that we received during our inquiry does not suggest that substantial difficulties exist in the relationships between MSPs and lobbyists. Our recommendations are not driven by a few examples of bad practice in the lobbying industry, nor are they intended to constrain or inhibit the legitimate business of commercial lobbying companies.
Some witnesses said that our approach would secure greater transparency but at the expense of accessibility. They were concerned that such a registration scheme would confer elite status on a group of lobbyists and give the impression of privileged access to MSPs. By the same token, other organisations or individuals might be deterred from engaging with the Parliament. However, we were not persuaded by that argument. Any eventual registration scheme will be restricted to commercial lobbyists working on behalf of a third party. Voluntary organisations or interest groups, for example, would not be covered by the scheme.
In response to the suggestion that statutory registration would create a so-called favoured elite, I refer the chamber to the code of conduct, which specifically prohibits members from giving preferential access to commercial lobbyists. The Standards Committee would view any breach of that provision with the utmost seriousness.
Is the point not that members would give anybody who was registered elite status, but that the public would perceive that people who were registered had special status?
That is a valid point, but the point that I am trying to make is that it is up to us to ensure that that impression is not created and, if it is, to ensure that it is dispelled immediately and forcefully.
Our proposed registration scheme for commercial lobbyists would include the name of the lobbying firm, the names of the staff engaged in the lobbying and the identity of the clients that the firm represents. The sanctions of naming and shaming for failing to register or for deliberately providing inaccurate information should be sufficient deterrents for commercial lobbyists in the relatively small world of public affairs consultancy. The Standards Committee did not propose that in-house lobbyists, trade associations or voluntary groups should register. If they contact an MSP, whom they represent is clear to the MSP, which is not always the case with a commercial lobbyist.
Our fourth recommendation is that the Scottish Parliament draw up a voluntary code of conduct for all lobbyists. The Standards Committee is aware that various umbrella groups and professional associations that are involved in lobbying have their own codes of conduct to which their members are required to sign up. We welcome those codes, as they show a desire to commit to and maintain high standards within those industries. The Parliament code that we recommend would serve as a common standard or level playing field that we would be able to recognise. It could be published on the internet or issued as a handout and would be readily available to help lobbyists and MSPs.
The Standards Committee recognises that a significant proportion of lobbying activity is directed at the Executive, be it ministers or civil servants. We have reiterated our view, which the committee first voiced in late 1999, that the Scottish ministerial code should be re-examined to ensure that it contains appropriate guidance and safeguards on dealing with lobbyists. We have also asked the Executive to consider whether any subsequent statutory registration scheme that might emerge from our report should cover the relationship between ministers and commercial lobbyists.
I am pleased to say that, last week, the Minister for Parliamentary Business wrote to me to say that the Scottish ministerial code will be revised to bring it into line with the changes that we have proposed today to the Parliament's code of conduct. The minister also indicated that she sees no difficulty in the relationships between commercial lobbyists and ministers coming within the scope of the statutory registration scheme. I particularly welcome the minister's statement that the Executive would not stand in the way of a committee bill if the Parliament's view is that having a statutory register is the right way to proceed.
The motion calls on the Scottish Parliament to note the recommendations of the Standards Committee's first report of 2002, on lobbying, and agree to amend section 7 of the code of conduct along the lines that are set out in annexe E of the report. The Standards Committee believes that the recommendations in the report will ensure that lobbying continues to be carried out in a transparent and appropriate manner.
I move,
That the Parliament notes the recommendations of the Standards Committee's 1st Report 2002, Lobbying, (SP Paper 507) and agrees to amend section 7 of the Code of Conduct for Members of the Scottish Parliament as set out in Annex E of the report.
As the convener of the Standards Committee has just said, the Minister for Parliamentary Business has responded on behalf of the Executive to the Standards Committee's report on lobbying and I am grateful to be able to say a few words on the subject.
Our response welcomes the report, which we consider to be an important and valuable contribution to the debate on lobbying. We welcome the committee's conclusion that there are no substantial difficulties in the relationships between members and lobbyists. We note the committee's recommendation that a statutory register of commercial lobbyists should be established. Our response queried what value a statutory scheme would add to the existing codes governing the conduct of MSPs and lobbyists, especially when the committee also recommends that those voluntary codes should be strengthened. However that is, of course, a matter for the Parliament to decide and we will listen with interest to the views that are expressed today. I listened carefully to the details of Mike Rumbles's speech on that point.
The report recommends the extension of the proposed statutory scheme to cover the relationship between ministers and commercial lobbyists and, as Mike Rumbles said, our response made it clear that we see no difficulty in a statutory scheme applying to dealings between ministers and commercial lobbyists in exactly the same way as it does to MSPs.
The recommendations for the Parliament to draw up a voluntary code of conduct for lobbyists and to strengthen the relevant section of the code of conduct for members seem entirely sensible and practical.
The report sought the Executive's re-examination of the code of conduct for ministers with regard to the relationship between ministers and lobbyists. The Scottish ministerial code was comprehensively revised earlier this year—in February, I think—and now includes a new section on contact with commercial companies. However, as the convener of the Standards Committee also said, in the event that the Parliament approves the revised code of conduct, the Executive will amend the Scottish ministerial code when it is next revised to include a specific cross-reference to the new guidance on dealings with lobbyists in the code of conduct for MSPs.
The committee's report and recommendations are a substantial and important piece of work for which thanks are due from us all. I am pleased to record the Executive's thanks. I look forward to hearing the views of the Parliament on the committee's recommendations.
I was not on the Standards Committee when it started its deliberations into lobbying; I joined the committee more than a year later. Like all members, I was aware that a national newspaper had bounced the committee into conducting an inquiry into the so-called lobbygate affair before a proper discussion of lobbying could take place. Talk about being thrown in at the deep end. I commend all our colleagues who had to endure the full glare of media speculation while trying to conduct a serious inquiry. However, after all the hoo-hah, the committee settled down to its original intention of conducting a wide-ranging inquiry into lobbying.
As I said in the previous debate, our new Parliament tends to find itself hoist by Westminster's petard. The Standards Committee has been aware of the need to learn from Westminster—and, indeed, from throughout the world. The fact that we are a new Parliament means that we can learn from others' mistakes, as well as from their successes.
The committee presents its recommendations today, but we realise that some members may wish to dispute aspects of those recommendations. I, for one, sincerely hope that they will take the opportunity to do so, because we must all be involved in areas that affect our credibility in the eyes of the public, who, after all, elected us to represent them. I tell members from the horse's mouth that, for that reason, the Scottish National Party does not apply a whip on issues that involve standards.
Not least among the contentious issues will be the fact that the proposed statutory registration scheme is only for commercial lobbyists who work for a third party. Members should note that the committee does not ask for statutory regulation, although they may dispute the committee's view on that. On the evidence that the committee received, no difficulties seem to have been encountered between members and commercial lobbyists. We therefore opted not to recommend statutory regulation. However, ever mindful of public opinion—highlighted, I am afraid, by the lobbygate affair—we took the view that the Parliament's relationship with commercial lobbyists must be transparent and accountable. Hence our recommendation for a statutory registration scheme.
That argument apart, the most important of the committee's recommendations are the proposed changes to the code of conduct for MSPs and the voluntary code of conduct for all lobbyists. Colleagues should make no mistake: the committee is not taking an anti-lobbying stance. The Parliament should welcome lobbying. Members should think of the information that we have received over the past three and a half years from lobbyists. They should also think how much that information has done to inform our debates and our decision making. I used to serve on the Health and Community Care Committee. Without doubt, organisations that are defined as lobbyists made a valuable contribution towards the delivery of free personal care for the elderly in Scotland during that committee's inquiry into care in the community.
I ask that, whatever views are expressed in the debate, members acknowledge at all times the need for transparency and accountability in our dealings with lobbyists. I also ask that we do not throw the baby out with the bath water and that we acknowledge that, although there must be codes of conduct on both sides, the Parliament is better informed, more in touch with society and, in general, a more democratic organisation if it acknowledges the role that lobbying plays in the democratic process. I urge members to support the Standards Committee's motion.
As many members know, especially if they have looked at my register of interests, I come from a commercial world. I recall my first experience of being involved in a lobbying process, which was on an interesting trip to the European Parliament in Strasbourg. We were trying to demonstrate to Europe the worth of the distribution system for prescription drugs. The purpose of the trip was as simple as that. We were not lobbying for one company alone, which I believe complied with the European Parliament's rules.
When we got to Strasbourg, we found that we were in a long corridor—there were six large halls, in each of which were food, drink, slide shows and presentations from different organisations. Instead of taking up Kay Ullrich's idea that the process is a great way of getting information, the wonderful members of the European Parliament seemed to have decided that they would have the first course with us, the second course with someone else and finish off with the wine at the presentation at the far end because that was the best menu selection that they could get.
I thought at the time that that was a cynical approach, but I realise that the members were making an excuse to drift through all four presentations. They were taking the opportunity to visit interest groups and pressure groups while they were giving up their time. With hindsight, I look at that situation and smile, because a benefit to everyone came out of it.
When I consider the quality of the lobbying that happens around the Scottish Parliament, I realise that we have a lot to be grateful for. Some of the companies merely facilitate. They do not come in and sell a line; they facilitate opportunities for speaking to people. I can think of occasions on which many members have shared a working dinner that was facilitated by one of the public affairs companies, sponsored perhaps by a drugs company, and at which key people who deliver an aspect of health care were present. Such dinners provide an opportunity and a safe working environment to get different points of view. That is an essential point, which has been picked up in annexe E of the committee's report.
As all speakers have said, it is an essential part of the democratic system that any individual should be able to lobby the Parliament or any of its members. That right should also apply to voluntary and charitable bodies, because many of them have general interests to pursue.
Lobbying is not only about seeking change or benefit. It is also about ensuring that MSPs and ministers are up to date with information. We live in a fast-moving world—knowledge moves extremely quickly. The Parliament is supposed to be about choices and we have a duty to ensure that we come to debates informed. We must do more than rely on the half-page summary sheet that some researcher has drawn up and that makes us world authorities. We must go out and speak to those who are delivering or trying to bring about change in our society.
Being in the Parliament is like living in a goldfish bowl. One of the Parliament's strengths is the easy and ready access. We can all moan about the piles of people who want to come and see us when it is a bad day, but everyone else has that problem, too. We should be proud and feel privileged that we are given the opportunity to be accessed by so many.
In some instances, statutory or compulsory registration schemes for lobbyists in other countries have failed. If that is the route that the Parliament decides it will follow, we must, whatever we do, make our scheme workable.
A commercial company's choice of lobbyist is based on the lobbying firm's track record. The perceived transparency in the actions of the firm generate respect. No minister will go anywhere near anyone who he thinks is not open, professional and transparent. I welcome Euan Robson's comments on that.
We have no evidence yet to prove that a commercial lobbyist has managed to pull the wool over a politician's eyes. Is that still to come? I do not think that any member has complained about someone trying to do that. It is my firm view that the Scottish people expect their politicians to be capable of not being conned by any lobbyist, be they an individual, an organisation or a commercial interest. Earlier this morning, Lord James Douglas-Hamilton talked about conscience. If personal conscience is applied to annexe E of the committee's report—in other words, if there is a rewrite of section 7 of the code of conduct—people will have a good set of guidelines. We have to take responsibility to ensure that we properly consider, and do not just buy or snatch at, the material that we receive from people who approach us.
Let me throw a point of discussion into the debate. Let us suppose that we institute a voluntary registration scheme and ask commercial lobbyists to join it. If, at the end of a year, there is evidence of transgression and a statutory scheme is introduced, with everyone aware of the rules, will the industry miss out on the opportunity to demonstrate its professionalism and integrity? I think not. We have to work with people who are involved in lobbying, many of whom facilitate rather than bring a single message.
I have seen the industry change since the establishment of the Parliament. In the early days, no one knew what to do or how to do it; now, there is a good understanding of the amount of time that MSPs have to spare and of the kind of information that is helpful to us and useful to the Parliament.
I am pleased that the Standards Committee has decided not to go down the route of statutory regulation, which tends to spring to politicians' minds too quickly. We sometimes think that we must get everything on to the statute book, although that often means that later we have to go back to unscramble it and sort out where different pieces of legislation overlap.
In annexe D of the committee's report, various bodies, including the Association of Professional Political Consultants and the Association for Scottish Public Affairs, propose codes of practice. I wonder whether some work could be done by the Parliament and those organisations to come up with a simple, jointly agreed code, rather than our each having our own code—although there may be professional reasons for that.
If we are to enact any legislation, we must do so only when it is complete. We must not rush it. We have seen rushed legislation in the chamber before. It is important that we get the ground rules of the operation of the Parliament in place at an early stage. We have come a long way from being at the mother's breast. Suddenly, we are crawling into the world. Now, we are expected to run. Rushing does not help anything.
I hope that we get the time to consider such a bill, although that puts the onus on the Executive. If we are to have a properly thought out code in place before the second Parliament is elected, with many new members, we must ask the Executive whether it is prepared to consider that such a bill is more important than some of the political legislation in its programme. It is far more important that the Parliament is in good order, as that will, in time, lead to good legislation and will help us win the respect of the people of Scotland. Not all of them put us here—not all of them voted. We need the people to have confidence in the Parliament. Is it not more important to pass a bill to that end and give it fair time than to pursue some of the political matters that could wait until after the election?
I look forward to Mr Davidson and the Conservatives giving up some of their Opposition debates in the chamber, which I think we all recognise are mostly a waste of our time. We could use that time to reassure the public that we are doing the right thing on standards.
Neither the committee's report nor its inquiry into lobbying was motivated by a perception of bad practice. In fact, our inquiry was reassuring and revealed high standards of behaviour from lobbyists and the lobbied alike. Lobbying is not only a legitimate activity; it is a desirable one. We do not want to put barriers in the way of any member of our society who wishes to make their views known to us. We are keen to establish a more open, transparent way of working. The rich and powerful already have no difficulty in making their views known. It should be clear to MSPs and the public who is talking to whom.
We in the Scottish Parliament are establishing a new way of working and a new and, I hope, more accessible approach to politics. I am particularly pleased that we are now setting an example for others on how to deal with lobbyists. The desire not to create barriers between the Parliament and those whom we represent, to encourage an open, understandable way of working and to set the highest standards of behaviour in public life underpins the committee's recommendations on lobbying. The committee is not only suggesting that we have a new code of conduct for all lobbyists; we want to establish the first ever statutory registration scheme for commercial lobbyists—those who provide professional lobbying services on behalf of third parties.
There will now be no doubt about who is lobbying the Parliament, but that does not mean putting in place disproportionate or onerous obligations and regulations, which might put small voluntary organisations or neighbourhood groups at a greater disadvantage than they already are.
I remind members that, ultimately, the greatest guarantor of appropriate behaviour on the part of lobbyists rests with us, the lobbied. The new, enhanced guidance for members is arguably the most important of the committee's recommendations. I urge members to read that guidance and to support the motion.
Before we move to the open part of the debate, I point out that Mr Davidson, Mr Macintosh and Mr Robson are all entitled to give closing speeches. If they wish to do so, they will need to press their request-to-speak buttons. I have received no requests to speak in the open part of the debate, so we now proceed to the closing round. I call Tricia Marwick.
I am neither closing for the Scottish National Party, nor closing for the committee; I am speaking as an individual Standards Committee member, which is how I think it should be.
I have listened with interest to the brief, but beautifully formed, debate. It is important that we go back to 1999, when the Standards Committee hoped to set up an inquiry into all aspects of lobbying. The reason why lobbying was important to the committee and filled some of our early discussions was that we were aware that the Parliament was set up at a time when the institution of Westminster had been discredited over such issues as cash for questions. There was a great desire among the people of Scotland that the Parliament should be different. I am sure that I am not alone in recalling that one of the aspirations that was often cited during the referendum campaign and the 1999 election campaign was that the Scottish Parliament should be different from that lot down at Westminster.
That was the background to the initial discussions about standards and lobbying. At that point, as Kay Ullrich said, we found ourselves parachuted into an inquiry subsequently known as lobbygate. In the context of commercial lobbying organisations, it is important to remember what that inquiry was essentially about—a lobby company, Beattie Media, boasting to a potential client that it could deliver privileged access to ministers. The subsequent inquiry found that, on the evidence available, none of the ministers in question had transgressed. Why did that commercial lobbying organisation boast that it could offer privileged access? It made that boast because, if it had not, the client might have wondered what the point of employing the firm was.
I believe that lobbying is an essential part of the democratic process. Whether we are talking about the man who came to my office last week to lobby me about his concerns over fluoridation of the water supply or Help the Aged, Shelter Scotland and other voluntary organisations, they are all engaged in lobbying. As Kay Ullrich and others have said, the information that such bodies and individuals have provided has helped to inform debates in the Parliament. It has allowed us to make better legislation than we would otherwise have made.
Commercial lobbying organisations fall into a different category. They lobby for profit and engage with the Parliament and parliamentarians on behalf of third parties. During our inquiry, it became clear that the commercial lobbying companies were lobbying heavily to influence the thinking of the Standards Committee. The inquiry took a long time. We listened to commercial lobbying organisations, trade unions, representative organisations and individuals. We also consulted MSPs. The report is not a rush job. We have worked on the issue since 1999.
I did not intend to indicate that the committee had rushed the job. However, I want to ensure that any bill that is introduced to the Parliament is properly prepared and that there is adequate time for all concerned to consider it before it becomes law.
Committee bills are unique, because they originate with committees. We have proposed the establishment of an ad hoc committee to scrutinise the bill, as happened with the Scottish Parliamentary Standards Commissioner Bill. I anticipate that ad hoc committees will be set up to consider any future committee bills. That is the right and proper thing to do.
I agree with many aspects of the Standards Committee's report, but I would like to distance myself from some of it. That is why I am speaking as an individual in this debate.
I do not agree that a statutory registration scheme is enough or that the commercial lobbying organisations are being asked to give enough information. They are not being asked to detail the fees that they receive to lobby the Parliament on behalf of their clients. That is wrong—fees should be banded. I will lobby members of the Standards Committee and of future committees heavily on that issue.
My main difficulty is with the desire of the majority of committee members for a statutory registration scheme. Mike Rumbles, who knows a great deal about these matters, referred to such a scheme as the third way—somewhere between doing nothing and regulation. However, it is for us to propose regulations for the engagement of lobbying organisations with the Parliament. It is for us to regulate the activities of lobbying organisations, in the same way as we regulate the activities of MSPs through the code of conduct. I agree that the primary responsibility lies with MSPs. That is why I support the proposed changes to the code of conduct.
I will give way to the member in a minute. We have had these arguments before and will no doubt have them again.
I do not accept that commercial lobbying companies should be able to play fast and loose with the reputation of the Parliament, as Beattie Media did in 1999. The act by a commercial lobbying company of promising something that it did not and could not deliver harmed the Parliament's reputation, which is of paramount importance—it is far more important than the reputations of individual members and the commercial considerations of lobbying companies.
I do not want anyone who is not a member of the Standards Committee to get the wrong impression. Tricia Marwick makes a valid point and has argued her case consistently. However, the report reflects the unanimous view that the committee took when it signed off its report. For legitimate reasons, Tricia Marwick was unable to attend the meeting in question, but all the other members of the Standards Committee are 100 per cent behind the report.
I accept that. The first Standards Committee meeting that I missed was the meeting at which the committee signed off a report about which I feel strongly. That was no one's fault—it was simply one of those things that happen. I accept that the unanimous view of the committee members who were present at the meeting was that we should opt for registration rather than regulation. I disagree with that view and will continue to argue my case in the future.
Having said that, I invite all members to support the motion. I look forward to contributing to the debate that will take place in future. Whatever happens, the system that has been proposed is robust. Whether we opt for registration or regulation, standards in this Parliament will be far higher than standards elsewhere. No other Parliament has proposed even a registration scheme. Such a scheme would be okay, but it would not go far enough. I will argue for regulation.
I am grateful to Tricia Marwick for clarifying that that was not a closing speech. The SNP is entitled to have one of its members make a closing speech, if it wishes. We are still in open debate.
I had not intended to speak in the debate, but I have again experienced the attraction and excitement of the Standards Committee. I am a former member of the committee and remember the lobbygate inquiry. I returned from a party conference in Bournemouth to attend the meeting of the Standards Committee at which we considered how we would respond to claims that had been made in a newspaper the previous Sunday.
My view, which I have expressed to the committee, is that to regulate or register commercial lobbyists is to confer undue status on them. I have listened to today's debate with interest. My remarks refer only to commercial lobbying organisations. Lobbying is a legitimate part of the parliamentary process. I prefer to think of it as advocacy on behalf of constituency organisations, trade unions or voluntary organisations. In a previous life I acted in that role, and I make no apology for saying that it is legitimate for trade unions and voluntary organisations to approach MSPs, MPs and councillors and to seek to make their views heard. The private sector, businesses and those who employ commercial lobbying organisations have the same right.
I was surprised when, shortly after my election to the Parliament, four lobbyists from a lobbying organisation that was acting on behalf of sportscotland approached the Education, Culture and Sport Committee—of which I was a member—to ask whether they could arrange a meeting between sportscotland and members of the committee. I did not understand why sportscotland was paying money to a commercial lobbying organisation to gain access to MSPs who are involved in regulating it. That does not happen any more. Now representatives of sportscotland approach us directly and we meet them directly. That is the kind of culture that I would like us to develop in Scotland.
I am not convinced that the Standards Committee has done the right thing by recommending the registration of commercial lobbying organisations. Registration is a halfway house—it is neither one thing nor the other. It would not involve regulating lobbyists, so we would have little control over them. There would be few sanctions that we could use against them. We could deregister organisations, but what would that mean? If we are serious about controlling the activities of commercial lobbying organisations, we must opt for regulation.
In my view, registration or regulation would confer a status on commercial lobbying organisations that they do not deserve. The public would perceive such organisations as having something that they do not have. If lobbygate taught us anything, it is that people believe that commercial lobbying organisations have undue access to politicians. I do not believe that that is the case. The lobbygate inquiry found clearly that that was not the case in the Parliament. The person who had made, in a tape-recorded conversation, the claims that we were investigating could offer no evidence to substantiate them. He was unable to say why he had made them, except to secure financial gain for his company.
A halfway house may lead us to more problems in the future. Over the past three years, I have come round full circle to Tricia Marwick's view that, if it is the will of Parliament, we need to monitor and regulate commercial lobbying firms. Tricia and I have previously had vicious and difficult debates in the Standards Committee, but if the Parliament is going to do something, rather than getting caught in the middle we should go the full hog. We need to make the system right and ensure that it is enforceable. It must be worth something to the people of Scotland.
I shall therefore watch the debate with interest and I will certainly contribute in the future.
We come to the closing speeches. I think that Mr Davidson has taken me up on my offer.
I shall be brief, Presiding Officer.
Some interesting points have been made in the debate, in particular in the latter stages, when some personal contributions have shown that there is a little unease in some areas of the Parliament. Unlike Karen Gillon, who has seen the hard work that goes on in the Standards Committee, I have not had the privilege of being a member of the committee. Karen Gillon was there in the early days, when the committee had to move in and decide how to deal with what was becoming a problem.
It was interesting that sportscotland, which as Karen Gillon pointed out is accountable to the Parliament, took advice on how to lobby. I see nothing wrong with that, because many people do not have the necessary skills for presenting their case. Perhaps what is required is the hiring and firing of a chief executive or a marketing director, but that is for the organisation itself.
Surely to goodness, if the people who work for sportscotland do not have the ability to talk one-to-one with MSPs to tell us what they are doing to promote sport and to improve people's involvement with sport in Scotland, they should not be there in the first place.
As I said, whether the chief executive or whoever is up to the job is for somebody else to decide. I am simply saying that many people need help with lobbying.
Karen Gillon also said that she did not want an uneven playing field with the professional commercial bodies on one side and the active charitable and voluntary sector bodies on the other. Many people who work for charities and so on need to know how to present their case. That does not mean to say that the lobbyist needs to hold their hand and front everything, but many people take advice because that is a cost-effective way for them to work.
All that I am saying is that anybody can come to the Parliament, but some may need advice on how to do that. I have no objections about whether they get that advice on a good-will basis from a friend or from a former teacher who was in the field or whatever, but I am concerned about this rush to regulation, which would continually need to be amended to take account of new situations.
I am getting a little concerned at some members' contributions. Despite Tricia Marwick's genuine comments, the report has nothing to do with regulation. It recommends registration because that would provide transparency and would not confer any special status on those who lobby through a third party.
I thoroughly agree with Mike Rumbles on that. I have no difficulty with that, but I wanted to respond to an issue that was brought into the debate.
I found it amazing that there should be any difference between the ministerial code of conduct and the code of conduct for MSPs. Although I understand that people will not necessarily come through MSPs to get to ministers, we are basically all in this together. I am delighted at Euan Robson's earlier comments that ministers will seek to standardise the way that we work across the Parliament so that we have the same standards of transparency for all activities.
Earlier, I offered Mr Robson the opportunity of making a closing speech. I think that he now wishes to do so.
I will be brief.
Ministers are of course MSPs to start with. There was no omission from the ministerial code, but we will simply need to cross-reference the ministerial code with any new developments. We have given full assurances to the Standards Committee about that.
I do not want the impression to be given that there is somehow a yawning gap in the ministerial code. The code will be cross-referenced with and brought into line with the suggested code of conduct for MSPs. I re-emphasise that ministers cannot be anything other than MSPs to start with. Ministers are already covered because they are MSPs.
I thank colleagues for their comments during this morning's lively debate. In particular, I wish to thank the clerks of the Standards Committee for the excellence and dedicated professionalism that has been the hallmark of their work throughout.
Kay Ullrich mentioned lobbygate, which arose before detailed machinery for investigating complaints had been put in place. Happily, that is not the position today. At that time, there were concerns that, in the absence of clear rules, commercial lobbying should not take place with MSPs for an interested purpose or purposes.
Both Tricia Marwick and Karen Gillon have said clearly this morning that they would like to go further than the committee suggests. We need to strike a balance. Although those members would like us to go further, we are obviously going much further than a great many of the commercial lobbyists would like. In due course, we will need to review how our policies are working in the light of experience.
If I may respond to the point that was made about regulation, countries that have regulation are required to review and update the regulations every few years because of changing circumstances. That would be a complex, detailed and cumbersome process. I mention that in passing.
During lobbygate, there was a fear that, in the absence of clear rules, MSPs could be approached by commercial lobbyists in such a way as to give rise to possible charges of impropriety against MSPs. That gave rise to unease. When one commercial lobbyist approached me, I replied somewhat bluntly, "I prefer to deal with constituents directly". I never saw that commercial lobbyist again and that was the end of the matter.
However, we must recognise that much lobbying is legitimate and healthy and central to the democratic process. It is a sign that Parliament is engaging with civic Scotland. In the Parliament's first few years, much of its energy has rightly been directed at securing increased participation in the political process.
Our inquiry showed much about the lobbying landscape in the Parliament. For example, our MSP survey found that 98 per cent of respondents had been lobbied by voluntary organisations and charities. We also found that 49 per cent had been approached by commercial lobbyists. Of those, some 87 per cent stated that it had always been made abundantly clear from the outset on whose behalf the firm was acting.
Many respondents emphasised the knowledge and experience that the many and varied interest groups that engage with MSPs bring to the democratic process. However, some respondents sounded a cautionary note. They pointed out that there is a danger that some of the more powerful pressure and interest groups could dominate the democratic process. In that context, it is important that nobody should be discouraged from participating in the democratic process.
Respondents emphasised the need for transparency in the way in which commercial lobbyists deal with MSPs, as was highlighted by Kay Ullrich. That imperative has driven our recommendations.
The written and oral evidence that we received generally painted a positive picture of an open and accessible Parliament, but we cannot be complacent. Although the Parliament's website is seen as a powerful resource, some concern exists about how we can engage with groups and individuals that are without access to the internet. Those and other issues are being examined in the Procedures Committee's CSG inquiry. Presiding Officer, we very much look forward to your committee's eventual report.
The Standards Committee's inquiry into lobbying has been underpinned by the principles of transparency and openness. Our recommendations would in no way restrict the commercial lobbyist from going about his or her business.
We have always stated—and indeed the Standards Committee convener has restated this morning—that lobbying is part and parcel of the legislative process and a legitimate activity in which to be engaged. Similarly, from an outside perspective, what we propose in our report would not hide lobbying activity behind closed doors, but would bring it out into the light of day to be scrutinised by a wider public.
I make it clear that the recommendation in paragraph 83 of the committee's report, which recommends a statutory registration scheme, would require legislation, but that the recommendation in paragraph 84, which seeks a voluntary code for lobbyists, could, I understand, proceed more quickly, as it is a voluntary code and there is no reason why it should be unnecessarily delayed.
As we have already heard, two key recommendations flow from the report. First are the changes to the members' code of conduct, which are set out in annexe E of the report. We are asking the Parliament to agree to incorporate those changes to the code with immediate effect. The changes are intended to buttress the existing provisions in section 7 of the code. They clarify the current rules and emphasise the need for transparency in our dealings with lobbyists. The additions also provide practical advice for members, which will make certain that we continue to engage with lobbyists in an appropriate manner.
Secondly, the report also recommends the introduction of a statutory registration scheme for commercial lobbyists. I acknowledge that David Davidson queried that policy. It is, of course, a radical proposal. If the scheme were to be enacted, it would be the first of its kind in the United Kingdom. Some observers have suggested that such a scheme would create a perception of preferential access for commercial lobbyists, or that other organisations or individuals might be deterred from engaging with MSPs. That is neither the intention nor a plausible outcome The code is explicit in that regard. All lobbyists, be they individuals, interest groups or commercial lobbyists acting on behalf of a third party, must have equal access to members. Any allegations of preferential treatment for commercial lobbyists will be treated seriously by the Standards Committee. The scheme will not deter individuals or groups from engaging with the Parliament. The scheme is restricted to commercial lobbyists acting for third parties.
Our decision to exclude in-house lobbyists from the proposed scheme has attracted considerable comment. While a number of written submissions criticised their exclusion, we believe that the transparency issue does not arise for members when dealing with in-house lobbyists. There is a clear distinction between organisations that lobby on their own behalf and those that lobby on behalf of third parties in return for payment. If a parliamentary officer from a company contacts an MSP concerning an issue, it is quite clear whose interest he or she is representing.
Finally, I wish to touch on our recommendations on the Scottish ministerial code. During our inquiry, we heard evidence that a significant proportion of lobbying activity is directed towards the Executive. That is hardly surprising, given the policy-making role of ministers and civil servants. We therefore made two recommendations in relation to the Executive. First, we suggested that the Executive consider extending any subsequent statutory registration scheme to cover the relationships between ministers, civil servants and commercial lobbyists. Secondly, we reiterated our recommendation—first voiced in November 1999—that the Scottish ministerial code should be re-examined by the First Minister to make certain that it has adequate guidance for ministers dealing with lobbyists. After all, it has to be appreciated that ministers are also MSPs. I am pleased that the Executive has responded positively to both those suggestions.
The report that we have debated this morning represents the considered findings of a wide-ranging inquiry. The fine tuning of section 7 of the code of conduct that we are asking the Parliament to endorse will not only give greater clarity to members about their obligations when dealing with lobbyists; it will give practical advice that will assist members. The purpose of a statutory registration scheme is to enable all concerned to know who is and is not a commercial lobbyist, so that MSPs should know exactly who and what they are dealing with. Our recommendation for the introduction of a statutory registration scheme for commercial lobbyists does not represent a knee-jerk reaction, but should be seen as a positive step towards fulfilling this Parliament's commitment to transparency, openness and probity. I commend the motion to colleagues.