I watched the meeting last week, when there was a fair bit of discussion of that issue. Our approach has been to develop a proportionate framework that commands broad support, as I said. We have had to form a view about what the trigger should be for registration. Like the committee, we want a proportionate system that increases transparency but does not discourage participative engagement.
Our starting point was what the committee stated in paragraph 91 of its February report:
“Lobbying activity still places great value on face-to-face communication over emails, phone calls or teleconferencing of any kind.”
The committee came to that conclusion after taking evidence and we thought that it was an important starting point. It strikes the right balance in improving transparency without placing so great a burden on those seeking to engage with members of the Scottish Parliament or ministers as to become a barrier.
In coming to that position, we reflected further on the committee’s report. In paragraph 103, you recognised the ease of registering details of face-to-face
“meetings or events when compared to the prospect of registering details of all communication.”
You followed up on that point in paragraphs 107 and 109, which led to the conclusion in paragraph 111, which lays out the committee’s vision of a register that specifically refers to
“meetings that have been pre-arranged by the organisation with MSPs”
and
“events, including meals, arranged by the organisation”.
In coming to a conclusion on where to draw the line, we were mindful of the committee’s extensive engagement in coming to the conclusions in your report. We are of course aware that there is a spectrum of views that range from those who concur with the committee’s report in the early years of the Parliament, which concluded that there was no need for any legislation in this area, to those who are lobbying quite effectively for a much more heavy-handed regime. We think that the proposals in the committee’s recent report struck an appropriate balance; that has largely been the basis of the bill that we have brought before you.
On Mr Buchanan’s specific point about shifting activity—whether that is about types of person or types of communication, with communication shifting from face-to-face meetings to emails, for example—we need to remember the context in which the bill has been introduced. I think that we are all agreed that lobbying is deemed to be a positive contribution to our democratic process. Rather than being about probity, this is about transparency, so I hope that those who are lobbying will embrace that increased transparency as a good thing that values their contribution to our democratic processes rather than something that they will try to avoid.
We should remember that the bill is part of a larger transparency framework that would almost certainly flag up a shift of behaviour, as the question implies might happen. In those circumstances, I would have thought that the Parliament would want to look at the framework and consider whether changes needed to be made to strengthen the regime as appropriate.
However, there is no indication that those involved in lobbying in the Scottish Parliament are seen in anything other than a positive light—as contributing to the knowledge that we have and contributing to our work as MSPs and as ministers. I see no reason why those lobbyists would try to hide that activity in any way.