Hansard

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.