Chamber
Plenary, 03 Oct 2002
03 Oct 2002 · S1 · Plenary
Item of business
Lobbying
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 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.
In the same item of business
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Mr George Reid):
SNP
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 ...
Mr Mike Rumbles (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD):
LD
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 ...
Karen Gillon (Clydesdale) (Lab):
Lab
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 spec...
Mr Rumbles:
LD
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 t...
The Deputy Minister for Parliamentary Business (Euan Robson):
LD
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 C...
Kay Ullrich (West of Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
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 ...
Mr David Davidson (North-East Scotland) (Con):
Con
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 invol...
Mr Kenneth Macintosh (Eastwood) (Lab):
Lab
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 wa...
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Mr Murray Tosh):
Con
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 wi...
Tricia Marwick (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP):
SNP
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 ...
Mr Davidson:
Con
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 ...
Tricia Marwick:
SNP
Committee bills are unique, because they originate with committees. We have proposed the establishment of an ad hoc committee to scrutinise the bill, as happ...
Mr Rumbles rose—
LD
Tricia Marwick:
SNP
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 comp...
Mr Rumbles:
LD
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 c...
Tricia Marwick:
SNP
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. Th...
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
Con
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 i...
Karen Gillon (Clydesdale) (Lab):
Lab
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...
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
Con
We come to the closing speeches. I think that Mr Davidson has taken me up on my offer.
Mr Davidson:
Con
I shall be brief, Presiding Officer.Some interesting points have been made in the debate, in particular in the latter stages, when some personal contribution...
Karen Gillon:
Lab
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 s...
Mr Davidson:
Con
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 lobbyin...
Mr Rumbles:
LD
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 r...
Mr Davidson:
Con
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...
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
Con
Earlier, I offered Mr Robson the opportunity of making a closing speech. I think that he now wishes to do so.
Euan Robson:
LD
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 m...
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton (Lothians) (Con):
Con
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 excel...