I thank the convener of the committee for his thoughtful opening remarks and for the commendable efforts that he made, given the challenges with his voice today. I also thank the entire Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee for bringing the issue to the chamber today.
It is appropriate at this stage to put on record the Government’s support for the committee’s inquiry. The committee’s work is central to ensuring that we find a consensual way forward.
The inquiry is being conducted in a thorough and inclusive way, hearing from a wide range of stakeholders, whose views will be vital in ensuring that Parliament can take forward reform on a balanced and proportionate basis.
For the Government’s part, I have also met several stakeholder organisations, all of which I think subsequently gave evidence to the committee.
Today’s chamber debate now allows individual MSPs to contribute to and inform the committee’s work. Rather than following the usual format, where the chamber debates a committee’s final conclusions, the SPPA Committee appears to be very much in listening mode today. That is to be welcomed, as is the interactive debate happening concurrently on social media. I hope that the Government comms will be able to join in as I speak.
Parliament has always led the way on matters relevant to its own affairs, and lobbying is no exception. Members will be keenly anticipating the committee’s final report, but it is important that the committee should be given the time and space to get it right.
In the Government’s view, any reforms to lobbying practice should be proportionate, evidence based and able to command widespread support from both stakeholders and political parties.
From the outset, the Government has been very clear that lobbying is a subject on which Parliament should assume a central role. That was the case when the session 1 Standards Committee conducted a review into lobbying in 2002, and it remains the case now.
The current committee inquiry feels like a natural and consistent progression from that previous work, and it rightly maintains the Parliament’s central role in determining best practice. I have no doubt that its findings will be carefully thought through, collaborative and consensual, which will be helped in part by this debate.
I am sure that we all agree that improving public confidence in Parliament is a consensus issue, the responsibility for which is shared by us all. It follows that such matters should not be considered on a party-political basis or indeed in a vacuum. Issues of probity should command a balanced, reasoned and consensual approach, which is what this Parliament has adopted since 1999.
That is of course in stark contrast to the United Kingdom Government’s approach. The Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014 shows what can go wrong when party politics are applied to an issue of public confidence. The UK Government adopted a rushed and partisan approach, to the obvious detriment of the end product, which was roundly criticised.
We need to remember that the urgency of the UK legislation was caused by its coming in response to accusations made about the activities of elected representatives at Westminster. In Scotland, the context has thankfully been rather different. The driver here is not remedial action; the inquiry is part of an on-going process of ensuring that we take stock and consider whether improvements could be made to the transparency of lobbying.
As the convener said, analysing appropriate checks and balances in this complex area is a challenging task. Reforms must be necessary, be proportionate and achieve the aim of delivering increased transparency in lobbying activity. The committee’s aim has rightly been to proceed methodically, rather than quickly.
I make it clear that my speech does not seek to pre-empt the committee’s findings. However, I offer some thoughts on the Government’s underlying thinking that I hope the chamber will find useful.
I believe—and I hope that others agree—that lobbying plays an invaluable and necessary part in policy making. It should be viewed as a positive activity, consistent with the open and inclusive approach taken by the Government and the Parliament.
I noted with interest a survey in Holyrood magazine in January of this year, which concluded that four fifths of members find direct contact with external organisations useful in their day-to-day role. I fully concur with that view. It is important not only for members but for the Government.
With that in mind, the Government’s view is that three main policy principles should guide how we approach lobbying.
First, any erosion of the Parliament’s principles of openness, ease of access and accountability must be avoided. Reforms should not restrict how stakeholders and members of the public engage in public policy issues.
Secondly, any proposed measures must complement the existing frameworks—for example, the Interests of Members of the Scottish Parliament Act 2006, the “Code of Conduct for Members of the Scottish Parliament”, the Scottish ministerial code and standing orders—without compromising their effective operation. Any proposed measures must be clear and transparent in their purpose and operation.
Thirdly, any solution must be proportionate, simple in its operation and able to command broad support within and outwith the Parliament.
If we follow those principles, we can reach a balanced, well-rounded conclusion that we can all stand behind.
The convener has already mentioned the summary of evidence that the committee has published. That input from a wide range of stakeholders has proved valuable in helping to identify practical ways to enhance public transparency in lobbying activity.
Everyone giving evidence was clear that there was no problem with probity. Existing systems in Scotland to govern the probity of MSPs have not been criticised. Standing orders, the MSP code of conduct and the ministerial code are all seen to be robust. Instead, transparency is the area where there might be room for improvement. Evidence has also helped to tease out what information could help the public to understand the connections between lobbyists and MSPs.
The question now is how we can further improve on our existing systems and achieve an even greater level of transparency in respect of lobbying and parliamentary activity in general. That involves analysing and identifying where there are gaps in the systems and how those could be addressed.
A common theme was the value and character of statutory measures—for example, who should be covered by a register of lobbyists and what additional information it should contain.
I was also interested by the frequent references to non-statutory measures and how they might contribute to an overall package to improve the transparency of our Parliament. The publication of MSPs’ meetings with outside interest groups was probably the most repeated example of that.
It is helpful that the convener has taken the time to show what that might look like by publishing his agenda on his website. Some time ago, the Government decided to do likewise, and members can see what that looks like by searching for “engagements” on the Scottish Government’s website.
An important question is how our existing robust systems can be further improved. I look forward to hearing what others have to say on those points.
I will highlight just two of the many interesting perspectives that were raised during the committee’s oral evidence sessions.
The first is that of Stuart Allan, who was the Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life. Mr Allan confirmed that, in his role, he had encountered no evidence of lobbying impropriety in Scotland. Therefore, he did not consider there to be any justification for legislating to establish a Scottish lobbying register. He also suggested that increased transparency could instead be delivered through amendments to surrounding frameworks, which he considered to be robust. As I indicated earlier, those frameworks include the code of conduct for MSPs, the ministerial code and the civil service code.
Mr Allan believed that there was scope to give consideration to the enhancement of voluntary registration schemes. In his view, the potential existed for the Parliament to engage with the lobbying industry to establish a code of conduct.