Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Thursday, March 10, 2016

Official Report 1058KB pdf

---

Lobbying (Scotland) Bill

The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-15870, in the name of Joe FitzPatrick, on the Lobbying (Scotland) Bill.

15:48  

In opening this debate, I would like to thank all members for their contributions to the development of the Lobbying (Scotland) Bill, which I hope the Parliament will approve in due course.

I opened the stage 1 debate in January by highlighting the distinct character of the bill. It has been brought fofoutrward by the Government, but it is very much parliamentary in nature. I made it clear that I was keen to work closely with the Parliament from the outset to ensure that members’ views were reflected in the bill’s framework.

Contributions to the bill’s journey have come in many forms: from Neil Findlay’s proposal for a member’s bill; from the late Helen Eadie’s suggestion that the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee conduct an inquiry into the most appropriate measures required in the Scottish context; and from the subsequent inquiry and committee report of that inquiry, which was published in February 2015. Of the 17 recommendations in that report, 12 fell within the scope of the bill and were reflected in whole or in part in the bill as introduced.

The Government’s consultation, published in May 2015, maintained the momentum of stakeholder engagement. Following the bill’s introduction, that momentum continued through the committee’s calls for evidence and its stage 1 report, which was published in December 2015, as well as its endorsement of the general principles of the bill. All 13 recommendations in the committee’s report had been or were actioned by the Government. Of course, the momentum also continued through the contributions made by members during the bill’s parliamentary passage.

All those steps evidence the collaborative working between the Government and the Parliament that is indicative of the Scottish democratic process, of which we are rightly proud. That collaborative working has—importantly—involved stakeholders, who have helped to shape the bill to ensure that it will work for lobbyists, for businesses and organisations, for transparency campaign groups and, most importantly, for citizens.

On a scale of one to 10, at which level of transparency does the minister believe the bill sits in comparison with what happens in other jurisdictions?

I think that the bill sits in absolutely the correct place, balancing transparency and proportionality for Scottish circumstances, going back to Helen Eadie’s initial request that the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee look at the issue.

As a result of engagement with stakeholders—including the numerous meetings that I have had with them—the bill responds positively to the range of interests involved. I respect the position of members and stakeholders who have called for greater transparency. I emphasise that the Government has listened, and has strengthened the bill during the parliamentary process.

I welcome the positive contribution from the lobbying industry, which has embraced the principle of greater transparency and accepted the principles of the registration framework. I have listened to the industry’s calls for a level playing field, and I think that we have achieved that.

I have also listened to the concerns of the third and voluntary sectors. As a result, I have tried to ensure a proportionate approach to the regime by ensuring that an undue burden is not placed on smaller organisations in the sector, which do all that they can to better the lives of the people of Scotland.

I have listened to businesses through their representative bodies, which have called for a simple approach that is easy to operate and has the aim of ensuring a free and open relationship between elected members and the businesses that serve our communities. That has always been balanced against our aim of greater transparency.

I have listened to trade unions through their contributions to the Government’s consultation and the parliamentary inquiry, and in respect of the issue of widening the definition of regulated lobbying to include civil servants, which I will say more about later.

Importantly, I have listened to the public through their representations to their elected members and to me. I was clear at the outset that the regime that the bill sets up should not seek to catch individuals who are communicating on their own behalf. That was based on the important principle of retaining engagement between the Government, Parliament, constituents and members of the public.

In June 2013, when the Government announced that it would introduce a lobbying bill, we set out three underpinning principles that have guided the development of the bill. First, the Parliament has a proud reputation for its approach to openness, ease of access and accountability, and for the relationships that it has built with civic Scotland. I was clear that there should be no erosion of any of those elements.

Secondly, I was clear that the register of lobbyists should complement and not duplicate existing transparency measures and should be developed to work alongside existing frameworks that have been established in the Parliament and the Government.

Finally, the new arrangements should be proportionate and simple in their operation, and they should command broad support within and outwith the Parliament. The key words that I have consistently used are proportionality and simplicity.

Those three underpinning principles have been welcomed by members and stakeholders and are clearly reflected in the bill.

Every member who contributed to the stage 1 debate agreed that lobbying is a legitimate activity and recognised the valuable contribution that it makes to informing policy in Scotland. However, we agreed that we should seek to increase the transparency of lobbying activity, particularly in light of the further devolution of powers to the Scottish Parliament. The bill will aid existing transparency measures in a robust and coherent manner.

I have said throughout the bill’s development that I would continue to consider any potential changes to the bill, as long as the principle of proportionality was retained.

I thank members for their amendments, although I recognise there might be some disappointment at the fact that some changes were not endorsed by the committee and the Parliament. The amendments that the Government has lodged, which were agreed to, were considered carefully on the basis of the views of Parliament and stakeholders.

On a number of fronts, and particularly on the subject of written communications, I have not been assured that proposed changes would respect the principle of proportionality. Robert Cumming of PA Advocacy recently undertook his third annual advocacy survey of MSPs. His analysis of the evidence shows that most MSPs rely on direct communication with organisations by way of meetings in the first instance. That evidence supports the Government’s position that face-to-face communication is the most effective means of lobbying.

At stage 2, the committee agreed to a Government amendment to the bill that requires the Parliament to report on the operation of the legislation. It is appropriate for the Parliament to review, in the light of experience, the types of communication that are covered and other aspects of the scope of the regime. That approach will enable the Parliament to suggest changes on the basis of evidence that is founded on the practical experience of operating a lobbying register.

There are provisions in the bill that allow for the Parliament to make changes, by resolution, to operational aspects of the regime. Both provisions focus on experience and evidence gathering to inform proposals for change.

Members have consistently called for engagement with elected representatives, in particular by small organisations and businesses, to be protected, and for a regime that does not interfere with our daily engagement with our constituents. The bill will not undermine the Parliament’s strong reputation for accessibility, nor will it undermine the open Government that the First Minister committed to leading when she came to office.

That is why I lodged the amendments that related to exceptions for constituency-based activity and communications by small organisations and businesses. Amendment 21 exempted communications from organisations on their own behalf to the constituency MSP or the list MSPs for the place where the organisation carries out its business or where the individual who makes the communication on behalf of the organisation is a resident, regardless of where the meeting takes place. That amendment clearly reflected the Parliament’s wish not to interfere with the communication that we have with our constituents.

I understand what the minister is saying, and none of us would disagree with where he is trying to get to. However, the amendment that was agreed to today means that, under the bill, a person will be exempt if they speak to someone who represents the area in which they work, they will be exempt if they speak to the raft of MSPs who represent the area in which they live, and they will be exempt if they speak to people who represent the area where they carry on their “activity”—I do not know what is meant by “activity”; maybe the minister will clarify that. It seems to me that that excludes far too many people.

We have tried to strike a balance that reflects the work of a constituency member. Certainly, if I am approached by a business that operates in my constituency or by someone who is a constituent of mine, I take that as something that I can deal with as a constituency member. The member should remember that the exemption will not apply to ministers.

Amendment 22 established an exemption in respect of any organisation that has fewer than 10 full-time-equivalent employees. A communication made on such an organisation’s own behalf will not require the organisation to register under the bill.

I hope that members will agree that the bill, as amended, achieves the aim that we set at the start of the process. I hope that everyone in the Parliament can get behind the bill.

The collaborative relationship between the Government, the Parliament and our stakeholders throughout the bill’s development is yet another example that supports the proud reputation of this Parliament and the Government for open engagement with civic Scotland. I commend the bill to the Parliament. I hope that members will support it at decision time.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that the Lobbying (Scotland) Bill be passed.

15:58  

I do not think that the minister believed a word of that. This is not one of the Parliament’s finest days.

It is a day of mixed feelings for me. In one sense, I am pleased that, three years after I proposed a lobbying transparency bill, the Parliament will at least legislate for some form of regulation of lobbying. However, this is not the robust bill that I envisaged three years ago. My proposed member’s bill sought to open up our democracy and greatly increase transparency and accountability.

From the day when I proposed my bill, I got the impression that the minister would rather stick pins in his eyes than legislate properly to regulate lobbying. We know why. It is in the interests of any Government party that people do not know what is really going on. Who are ministers meeting? What are they meeting about? Who is influencing policy? Who is schmoozing ministers, MSPs, civil servants and special advisers? Who has friends and contacts in the right places, the right businesses and civic society? The public wants to know, and has the right to know, what is done in their name.

Prior to the bill’s introduction, ministers have recorded their meetings, which was always a means of having transparency.

We are moving towards an election. One group of people who will be lobbied to have an impact on manifestos is advisers to Opposition leaders. Will Opposition leaders publish details of the meetings that their advisers have?

The minister is going way off at a tangent. I am up for openness and transparency—the more of it that we have, the better.

Will the member answer my question?

We will come to some of those issues in a moment.

The public want to know and have a right to know what is being done in their name. They should know whether dealings with Donald Trump, Jim Ratcliffe, Brian Souter or whoever have resulted in contracts being won, policies being changed or decisions being taken—or not taken. However, lobbying transparency is something that the Government does not want. The Government currently uses freedom of information exemptions—often ludicrously—to hide its dealings on fracking and to cover up its developing links with Qatar.

I realise that the member did not attend all the committee’s evidence sessions. If he had, he would have heard representatives of the major lobbying organisations say that they entirely welcome the opportunity that registering their actions will give them to publicise the value of the work that they do. I do not necessarily endorse that view, but we heard many organisations that are involved in lobbying welcome what is happening.

Excellent, but I bet that none of them put forward the nonsensical amendments that we have seen today.

We are hearing about FOI exemptions being used to prevent people from finding out information on things such as the future of hospital services, and we are seeing the use and abuse of the parliamentary questions system to dish out pathetic non-answers in response to the concerns that we raise on behalf of our constituents. That is a real failure in our democracy that has gone completely unchecked in this Parliament.

All of that is designed to prevent the release of information, and the bill is just another inconvenience. The reality is that the bill’s tortuous journey does not show the Parliament in a good light. From the minute that the Government grudgingly took it over, I have never been convinced that it was serious about transparency. Initially, the Government did nothing for almost two years, with the minister hoping that it would all somehow just go away. Despite denials, the Government asked the committee to hold an inquiry. There was then a committee debate, a consultation and more delay. Then we had a further debate on the committee report. By the time that that had all happened, the bill was watered down to the bowl of rather meagre gruel that the minister brings to the table today.

For the record, I clarify that it was the late Helen Eadie who requested that the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee pursue an inquiry.

The Government also asked the current convener to host that inquiry, as the minister confirmed in the letter that he sent to me.

The bill was watered down to such an extent that, when we attended an expert seminar on the bill at the University of Stirling, a US professor of public policy who is an authority on lobbying said that, if the US system gets six out of 10 for transparency, the bill gets two at best. Of course, since then, the bill has got a whole lot worse because of the ridiculous amendments that were moved by the minister today—a minister who has shown zero interest in, enthusiasm for or knowledge of the issue since day 1.

In its present form, the bill is as clear a statement as anyone could wish for that the Government has no interest in enhancing the principles of openness, transparency and accountability that the Parliament was supposedly founded upon. I am afraid that these are now tokenistic words that fail to match the reality for the public and their representatives, who are searching for answers to serious questions. After nine years in government, the SNP is Scotland’s new establishment, and it is more interested in protecting its associations, its networks and the web of helpful connections that it has built up in that time and in looking as though it is up for scrutiny while closing it down at every turn.

If the minister’s remit from the First Minister was to make the bill tokenistic, weak and full of loopholes, he has passed with flying colours, but it is not something that he should be proud of. When the bill is passed, he will have done his party proud but the Parliament will have missed a major opportunity to reform our democracy for the better.

We will support the bill despite its being woefully inadequate, because at least it gets lobbying on the statute book. However, we will seek to amend almost every element of it at the review in the next session of Parliament to make it fit for purpose. A bill that fails to recognise that we live in an electronic age, a bill that means that the Confederation of British Industry, the Institute of Directors and others are not covered and a bill that allows the political elite to use their contact books for commercial advancement without any scrutiny is a bill that is not fit for purpose.

16:05  

I will begin by addressing Mr Findlay’s last point—the IOD and other groups are covered by the bill because they are big organisations. It was definitely the committee’s intention that those big organisations be covered.

From the research that I have seen, my understanding is that the IOD is not a big enough organisation to be covered, because it does not have enough employees.

It might not have enough employees, but it has members, and that is the same sort of thing.

I think that we can agree that it is important to have a democratic system that is open, transparent and trusted by the public. There is nothing too contentious about that. However, there has been vigorous debate on some of the details in the bill, and there have been important points to consider on a range of issues, including the scope of the communications that will be covered and the information returns that will be required.

For our part, we have kept a clear focus on ensuring that the system of registration delivers transparency while remaining light touch in its approach. “Light touch” is the key phrase that I have used throughout the bill’s consideration. Furthermore, it must be clear to any potential registrants what will be required of them so that we have a collaborative environment rather than a pay day for lawyers. With that in mind, I would like to touch on some of the changes that were proposed and how they fit in with the overarching principle of proportionality.

The question of which types of communication should be covered as regulated lobbying is hugely influential on the overall scope of the bill, so it is entirely right that we have had extensive debate on what qualifies as such lobbying. We recognise the motivation behind the arguments for emails and phone calls to be covered by the definition of regulated lobbying, but we must always consider the wider need for proportionality and targeted provisions. It is apparent that including all forms of communication would place a large and on-going burden on registrants and on the clerks who operate the system. We all know that the volume of emails that are sent and received in just one day—let alone over a period of months—can be huge. It would be difficult and costly for registrants to register all those, and such a requirement would make the information that was received by the clerks less targeted.

I mention the issue of provisions being targeted for two reasons. First, the duties that the bill imposes must be proportionate to the benefits that will be gained. I keep making that point. As we have acknowledged before, thankfully our political system has not been troubled by lobbying scandals. Therefore, to some extent the bill is targeted at a potential rather than an existing problem of undue influence, and we should bear that in mind when we assess the costs that we can justify imposing on organisations, businesses and members of the public.

Secondly, we have heard that face-to-face meetings can be more influential or important than emails or phone calls. That makes it apparent that capturing information on such meetings would provide a useful insight into lobbying practices without imposing the large burdens on registrants that would make a register counterproductive. To my mind, the question is again one of proportionality.

As for the disclosure of financial information as part of the returns, it remains apparent that requiring that would be a counterproductive and disproportionate measure. The first point to make is that assigning expenditure to specific activities could be a very difficult and resource-intensive burden for organisations—particularly small ones—to comply with, and could lead to confusion and unwelcome obstacles. In addition, there remain significant issues with commercial sensitivity and confidentiality. The effect of those concerns is that enforcing financial disclosure would impose negatives that outweighed the positives.

For the register to be effective, it must increase the transparency of our policy making without compromising its strength. That means that we must ensure that the openness of our politics is not weakened through confusion or bureaucracy. I think that forcing registrants to disclose financial information fails that test.

The point about maintaining the strength of our policy making is key. Here in the Parliament, we rightly pride ourselves on having an open and accessible political system that not only supports public engagement but allows more informed decisions to be made. I do not believe that anyone would want elected politicians to make policy decisions without information from the experts, and we must guard against such unwanted outcomes. The principles of openness and transparency go hand in hand and must underlie each aspect of the bill, including the matter of implementation, on which I will elaborate in my closing speech.

We move to the open debate.

16:09  

Several references to Helen Eadie have already been made in this debate, and I think that it is a mark of the affection in which she is held that only today a number of us were reminiscing over lunch about her contributions to the Parliament and wider political debate. Perhaps those of us on the yes side in the European Union campaign, in particular, will miss her enthusiastic Europeanism.

Before I get to the substance of my speech, I want to report the result of the extensive research—approximately 75 seconds of it—that I have undertaken since Mr Findlay spoke. I can tell him that, far from employing fewer than 10 people, the CBI employs 14 directors alone—and that is before we get to any other employees. If Mr Findlay is asserting, as he did in his speech, that the CBI will be excluded because it employs fewer than 10 people, he is factually wrong; the web address, which he can check to get the list of names, is news.cbi.org.uk. I think that that example characterises many of the untested assertions that have been made this afternoon.

On a number of occasions during the debate on the amendments, Mr Findlay suggested that we reject certain Government amendments on the basis that, in the bill’s development through the parliamentary process—and I note that, at each stage, we learn more and should respond as such—the committee did not take any evidence on the issue in question. However, that did not inhibit Mr Findlay from lodging a whole series of amendments on issues such as offences and sanctions that fell well outside the information that the committee engaged with during its research. However, let us not get into that in too much detail.

I very much welcome the bill. Of course, Mr Findlay was correct in saying that, at a seminar at the University of Stirling, an American professor said that the bill scored two out of 10. However, Mr Findlay failed to inform colleagues in the Parliament that, when I interacted with the professor in question, I discovered that his understanding of the bill was substantially incomplete, and he accepted that the two out of 10 mark was based entirely on a misunderstanding of where the bill was coming from.

I think that a couple of things in the bill are worth looking at and putting on the record. First, we have not made the mistake in the bill of looking at registering lobbyists; instead, we have looked at lobbying and the people who undertake it. Perhaps in looking at the registration of consultant lobbyists Westminster has missed the proper target. This bill focuses on the activity of lobbying, which I think is all well and good.

One of the very useful gems in the bill is voluntary registration, which allows bodies that are uncertain about engaging or which expect to engage in substantial lobbying activity in future to choose to register, even though there is no objective evidence at the time of registration that they are required to do so. That is a very strong part of the bill.

Another very good aspect of the bill is that people can lobby first and register afterwards. In many instances, the interaction between someone who is lobbying and the person being lobbied will not initially have the character of lobbying, which develops during the discussion. In that respect, the 30-day period is a very welcome provision.

Although I welcome the bill, the issue is, for me, not that huge, although I appreciate that it is not insubstantial. I estimate that, between now and the dissolution of Parliament, I will have four interactions that I might categorise as my being lobbied by someone. The bill sets out a very substantial way forward. The Parliament will look forward to exercising the powers under section 15 to draw up the details of the register, which is what our successors in office will be doing in the next session of Parliament.

16:14  

I rise to speak in the debate with a feeling of dismay about the bill that we are passing today. I say that as someone who was not initially a supporter of the idea of a lobbying bill—in fact, as some colleagues know, because I have told them so, I was one of those who sat on the Standards Committee in the first session of this Parliament and decided that we would not have any kind of regulation of lobbying. However, I am now in favour of legislation on lobbying, and I would like to explain why.

As a member of the Standards and Public Appointments Committee, I decided that I would keep an open mind and listen to the arguments and the evidence before coming to a decision about whether I would vote for the bill. The committee took evidence from a number of eminent people with great experience in the area—people who had helped shape legislation in other countries, people who were advocates for greater transparency in politics and people who lobbied for a living. We also heard from charities and the voluntary sector, and we discussed with them their concerns and the points that they made. Then, the committee debated what we had heard and drew up our stage 1 report. We made a number of recommendations to the Government about ways in which the bill could and should be improved. Many of those ideas have been debated today, so I will not rehash them now.

It became clear that the Scottish Government was going to take on board only a few of our recommendations, so I lodged amendments to give effect to some of the committee’s stage 1 report. I should say that, at that point, I still was not entirely sure that we needed a lobbying bill. However, I was absolutely sure that, if we were going to have one, it needed to be the best bill that it could possibly be. In that regard, although I know that it is rehashing what I said earlier—I make no apologies for that—it is ludicrous, in the 21st century, to exclude communications other than face-to-face communications. However, perhaps unsurprisingly, all my amendments were voted down at stage 2, in spite of the fact that they simply reflected the views of the committee. How that can happen in a Parliament such as this, I leave others to consider. Today, once again, similar amendments were voted down.

While the committee was scrutinising the bill, my colleague Neil Findlay tried to obtain information through the FOI system about ministers’ engagement with lobbying companies. Most of the information that was requested could not be supplied because to do so would take the cost over the £600 threshold. On that point, I wonder whether the Scottish Government needs to examine the system that it uses for recording such information to see whether it might be equipped with a proper search facility that would allow such information to be abstracted more easily and—crucially—cheaply.

Gradually, over time, I came to the conclusion that a lobbying bill was required because, in principle, people should know what their elected members do and who has influence over them. It also seemed to me that the Government was going out of its way to ensure that the bill would be as ineffectual as possible, although I genuinely do not understand why it would want to do that.

Earlier, when we were dealing with amendments, Patrick Harvie made the point that we should, at this stage, include other categories of civil servants and that, if that were found to be too onerous, or if it did not work, we could reduce the numbers but that, until we had the information, we could not make that judgment.

That amendment was defeated, but it is not beyond the Scottish Government to record that information internally and feed it into the review when the review takes place. It is only by having that kind of information that Parliament will be able to make a properly informed judgment. Will the minister consider that today?

Mr FitzPatrick has made great play of the idea of the bill having to be proportionate. I agree with that. We all want to be transparent and open, and we want our constituents to have as much and as easy access to us as possible. What we disagree about is the way in which that should be handled in legislation. We have ended up with a complicated, labyrinthine bill that might do more harm than good—I genuinely hope that that is not the case, but I fear that it might be.

It is the passage of this bill that has made me think that a lobbying bill is needed. The problem is that what is needed is not the bill that is before us, which is a pale imitation of the robust bill that a Parliament such as this one should have.

I sincerely hope that, when the legislation is reviewed in the next session of Parliament, there is a Government and a Parliament that is not afraid of transparency and openness and which will create a new bill that is proportionate and does what it says on the tin, because this one does not.

16:19  

The level of transparency in our Government and its openness to the public are both crucial aspects of a healthy democracy, which makes it so important that we get the Lobbying (Scotland) Bill right. I have always maintained that, if the bill is to be effective, it must—as I have said earlier—take a proportionate approach that increases transparency in our decision-making process without deterring participation in the first place. It appears that, after much deliberation, we have reached a point where the correct balance has been struck in our opinion, and I am pleased to say that we Scottish Conservatives will therefore be supporting the bill at decision time.

It has been right to seek a collaborative approach to the proposed legislation, which is worth bearing in mind as we consider how to ensure that the potential registrants and the wider public are ready for its provisions coming into force. It is essential that the provisions that are imposed by the bill are clearly understood so that they do not create any disincentive to participation in public decision making. A long-term principle of our democratic process is that the wider the range of views that are heard in policy making, the better the policy will be.

As I have said before, lobbying is not about closed-door deals between vested interests and powerful decision makers; it is about the fundamental matter of having an open political process in which all manner of ideas, views and contributions are welcome. Wide-ranging participation is crucial to a healthy democracy. It should therefore be clear that organisations and members of the public should be free to discuss matters of interest with their elected representatives, and they should feel that it is hassle free to do so.

I have already underlined how important it has been to keep that in mind throughout our deliberations on the scope of the register, and I emphasise the need to continue promoting openness in any requirements that come into force. A crucial aspect of maintaining openness and accessibility is the availability of help or guidance to assist potential registrants. The aim, after all, is to increase transparency, not to catch anyone out. I was therefore very pleased that my amendment requiring the publication of guidance on the operation of the register was passed at stage 2. Such guidance is simply too important to be discretionary, and we must ensure that it is clear, thorough and targeted in its explanations of what does and does not count as regulated lobbying, and of what any on-going requirements are. Ideally, the guidance would remove the need for complex compliance operations or expensive lawyers, so that we can all get on with the business of conducting politics in an open way, which all parties support.

Furthermore, putting in an effort to have a clear, collaborative process in place would minimise the chance of stakeholders simply pulling out of the public decision-making process, as well as decreasing the likelihood of unintentional mistakes in compliance. If we achieve such a collaborative culture around lobbying, I believe that we will have struck the optimal situation in which all our processes are transparent and maintain their strength through accessibility.

I am pleased to say that the bill as it now stands appears to reach that balance, and we Scottish Conservatives therefore put our support behind it.

16:22  

Scottish Labour supports the principle of a lobbying bill and the need for the introduction of legislation in this area. Despite voting for it at decision time tonight, we believe that the bill should have been amended further to ensure that it is a strong and effective piece of legislation.

The Lobbying (Scotland) Bill in front of us is a dilution of my colleague Neil Findlay’s original proposal for a lobbying bill. As we have heard, there are two key areas where we believe that the bill falls short: by excluding emails and by excluding all civil servants except permanent secretaries. That is a mistake, and it renders the bill almost meaningless. The passing of the bill will lead to a situation where only one civil servant for each Scottish Government department, the permanent secretary, will be captured by the bill. That is an obvious failing.

At stage 2, when the bill was in committee, Scottish Labour lodged 16 amendments, but each and every one of them was rejected—the SNP used its majority on the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee to reject all the alternatives that were proposed by Scottish Labour.

The Scottish Labour amendments in the names of my colleagues Neil Findlay and Patricia Ferguson aimed to strengthen the bill in the key areas of accountability, transparency and openness. The result of every Scottish Labour amendment being rejected at stage 2 is a bill that is not as strong or effective as we would have liked it to be. Scottish Labour would have liked to strengthen the bill significantly to ensure that the legislation was as strong and effective as possible.

As well as not addressing the concerns raised by members of the Parliament, the Scottish Government has not considered the views of civic Scotland on the bill either. Organisation after organisation and expert after expert have criticised the bill for not being as strong as it could be, yet the SNP has taken little action to strengthen it to make it a truly effective and workable piece of legislation. For example, Unlock Democracy described the bill’s definition of lobbying as

“a gift to those who might wish to keep their activity out of the public gaze”.

Presiding Officer,

“Research has shown that the public overwhelmingly want greater transparency in Holyrood, but they're still waiting for MSPs to deliver, rather than give in to the lobbying industry. It would be farcical and ironic if the bill to regulate lobbying were to be neutered because MSPs have been lobbied by the lobbying industry.”

Those are not my words but those of Robert Barrington, executive director of Transparency International UK. Members across this chamber should reflect on that statement.

In 1999 when the Scottish Parliament was established, it had the explicit founding values of accountability, transparency and openness. At a time when public confidence in politicians is failing, we should be aiming more than ever to inspire faith among the people of Scotland in their elected representatives. We in Scottish Labour passionately believe in strengthening the Lobbying (Scotland) Bill to make it a strong and effective piece of legislation.

We understand the need for a lobbying bill; we supported the proposal for the introduction of a lobbying bill. We want the bill to be strong on lobbying, transparency and accountability.

The Government talks frequently about being a listening Government and being consensual. Speakers in this afternoon’s debate have raised concerns about the legislation and the need to strengthen it. This was a perfect opportunity for the SNP Government to do exactly that; it is just a pity that it decided not to listen.

At points today, I have wondered whether we have been discussing two different bills. The bill that I am looking at is not the bill that the SNP is talking about. A lobbying bill is needed, so we will support the passing of the Lobbying (Scotland) Bill, but the Scottish Government must listen to the concerns of parliamentarians, independent organisations and experts alike, and take action to ensure that the bill meets the aspirations of this Parliament in providing accountability, openness and transparency through strong and effective lobbying legislation.

16:27  

I welcome the fact that members have subjected the Lobbying (Scotland) Bill to close scrutiny throughout its parliamentary passage, and today has been no different.

I am not thin-skinned, but I thought that some of Mr Findlay’s comments went a bit deep and verged on being nasty and offensive. In defence of my position, I will read some of the comments that SALT has published today in response to the amendments that we have passed this afternoon. Willie Sullivan, director of the Electoral Reform Society, said:

“We are delighted that the minister has responded in this way.”

I know that SALT and its members want to go further than we have done. Indeed, Willie Sullivan confirmed that, but he said:

“While we do still have some concerns about the Bill—particularly the fact that only face-to-face meeting are recorded and not emails or phone calls—we are sure that this Bill when enacted will increase public visibility of lobbying.

With a built-in two year review the new lobby register should provide a firm basis and good evidence for parliament to include emails etc following that review.”

That is a positive comment.

Robin McAlpine from the Common Weal, which is also a SALT member, said:

“This legislation is still not as strong as we’d like but the Scottish Government has been listening and we’ve definitely made progress. Above all, there is a commitment that this is a foundation which can be built on in the next parliament. Hopefully Scotland is moving towards a system of lobbying transparency it can be proud of.”

Those are positive comments from some of the people who have been pushing for maximum transparency. I certainly welcome those comments.

Neil Findlay suggested that the CBI would somehow be exempt from the bill because he reckoned that it had fewer than 10 full-time equivalents who worked in Scotland. Let me be absolutely clear about the amendments that we have passed today. First of all, the exemption is not based on the number of staff working in Scotland but on the number of staff working for the organisation irrespective of where they are located. Secondly, we put it beyond doubt that representative bodies are excluded.

Patricia Ferguson asked whether we would consider monitoring the amount of contact with senior civil servants to inform a future review of the bill. We can consider that but, as I said at stage 2, we would have to discuss any changes that we wished to make in relation to senior civil servants with the trade unions and we would have to evidence why those changes would be an appropriate step forward. We did not manage to achieve that at this stage.

In my opening speech, I mentioned the Government’s desire to achieve as much consensus as possible for the establishment of a register of lobbying activity in Scotland. We have achieved that. Some of the positive comments from SALT show that we have made progress in pulling together people from all sides of the argument. Initially, some organisations, such as the Federation of Small Businesses, were very critical of what we had done, but I hope that they now see that we have a bill—and, in future, will have an act—that, as Cameron Buchanan said, is proportionate and gives us increased transparency without being overly burdensome.

Although some of the comments that were made today might suggest differently, the bill has generally been developed in a positive climate of Scottish democracy. The engagement that I have had with stakeholders on all sides has been positive. That is a sign that public engagement remains as strong as ever and that there is a dynamic in support of the Parliament’s openness.

The Government does not want the bill to discourage public engagement in Scotland’s politics. We have kept that principle firmly in mind when promoting measures that are aimed at increasing transparency. The phrase “striking a balance” might seem to be a cliché, but the extensive coverage of the bill highlights the importance of getting the balance right and giving close consideration to the wider implications of any policy proposals.

I put on record my thanks to the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee. Stewart Stevenson and his committee have devoted a significant proportion of their time this session to helping to develop thinking on our approach. The successor committee will be heavily involved in implementing processes for the lobbying register. Therefore, the debate is only part of a careful and methodical process.

I also thank the wide range of stakeholders who took the time to engage with me and my office over the past three years. That engagement has ensured that the Government has been well informed of contrasting views and ideas and helped us to reach a proportionate balance.

I thank my bill team, who have been working on the bill for some three years and have helped me to introduce and present a bill that I am proud of and which will do the Parliament proud. The bill as amended is now coherent and, above all, provides a proportionate initial framework for the registration of lobbying activity in Scotland.

I ask members to join me in supporting the passage of the Lobbying (Scotland) Bill at decision time.

That concludes the debate on the Lobbying (Scotland) Bill.