Hansard

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.