It is interesting to listen to different perspectives.
At the moment, SCVO is considering this issue in the context of the war on charities that is being driven by the UK Government. The Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014 is part of that, as were the attacks on Oxfam and other large charities last year and the fundraising review by the UK Government in the summer.
Frankly, large UK charities are running scared of campaigning at all. If I were a conspiracy theorist, I would say that it was all about £12 billion-worth of welfare cuts coming down the line and the UK Government wanting to mute the sector and stop it speaking up and campaigning about the cuts. I say that not because we are opposed to the register but because it is important to see it in context.
We have done some research that we are about to publish, and which we will no doubt submit to the committee, about the impact of the 2014 act on our members. It might be a question of perception, but they are concerned about that legislation and how it affects them. It is important to bear that in mind.
Our view has always been that the burden of transparency in relation to lobbying should be on those who are being lobbied. We have talked about MSPs and, in our submission, we say that spads and senior civil servants to a certain level—certainly those at a deputy director level, but you could consider how far down you would want to go—should be covered by the provisions.
For us, it is a question of proportionality. An organisation such as SCVO can cope with the approach—as Andy Myles said in relation to LINK, we are not worried about ourselves. Last night I had a conversation with the director of quite a large Scottish charity, which is part of a UK organisation, and I said to him that he could live with what is proposed, even if email communication was included. His response was, “Well, why should we?”
We have to find a balance, because some of our members want a stronger bill and a lot are totally opposed to that. We believe that the third sector should be included, because we are one of the strongest lobbies in Scotland—that should not be forgotten; we might not be quite as good as higher education sometimes, but we are certainly up there.
For us, the issue has always been about the core principles of what we are trying to achieve. What is the solution? What are we trying to do? How do we make the approach proportionate? I do not agree with Willie Sullivan about there being a democratic malaise, but trust is important, especially for the third sector and its engagement with Government.
Andy Myles was right to say that a lot of lobbying is directed at not just MSPs and committees but officials. I will give the committee a good example. I think that it was on 2 July that we ran a whole day on potential new employability and social security powers, which was attended by 35 grass-roots members, about 10 medium-sized organisations and probably 15 or 16 officials. It was a working day to help people to understand the complexities of the new powers. The “Creating A Fairer Scotland: Social Security—The story so far ... and the next steps” document on welfare powers, which the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Communities and Pensioners’ Rights published the other week, included a table from that meeting, which set out the principles for a social security system for Scotland.
We could probably say that that was a lobbying success, but the point that relates to the bill is that I would not want the 35 grass-roots organisations who attended the meeting to have to register if they do not generally engage with MSPs. We should be able to do that on their behalf, because it was an SCVO-convened meeting—a bit like the meetings at which Andy Myles brings together a group of LINK members.
At that meeting, we worked with officials on how to do things better in Scotland, as Andy Myles does in his meetings. A lot of that type of engagement involves intermediaries and membership organisations bringing members together to talk to cabinet secretaries, the First Minister or officials. We convene and facilitate such meetings to ensure that there is engagement.
In the case that I am talking about, we wrote to all those grass-roots organisations to tell them that the day that they had spent with officials had not been wasted. I do not want the burden of any lobbying register to fall on such organisations; I would be happier if it fell on us. We need to think about how we manage that type of situation under the bill.
In general, what is proposed in the bill strikes a balance, although we will have to get to grips with some points about communication and who comes under the bill’s scope.
As we and many of our members have always said, the issue of MSPs’ diaries—or public engagements—must be addressed, because transparency must work both ways and we want more transparency from the people who are being lobbied. I know that I am repeating myself, but the committee needs to think seriously about strengthening that aspect of the bill.