 Now- present. ... Welcome members to the third meeting in 2016 of the Standards, Procedures, and Public Appointments Committee and, as usual, remind everyone present to switch off more phones as they accept the broadcasting system. We have felt apologies from Cameron McKinnon and from Mary Fee. Item 1 is Declaration of Interests and I invite John Scott to declare any relevant interests early. I invite John Scott to declare any relevant interests early. I have nothing to declare. John is, of course, here to substitute for Cameron Buchanan, and I welcome you to our meeting. Item 2 on our agenda is for us to decide whether our consideration of issues for and a draft of it is our legacy report, a draft report on sending order rule change on our legislation and papers on lobbying, legislation and the Scotland Bill should be taken in private at future meetings. Do members agree to take them in private? We are agreed, thank you very much. We now come to the main item of business today, which is the lobbying Scotland Bill. We are undertaking stage 2 proceedings on that bill. Let me remind members that stage 2 is not completed today, then the committee will be required to meet next Thursday, the 11th of February. I welcome Joe Fitzpatrick, the Minister for Parliamentary Business and his accompanying officials. Officials, of course, are not permitted to participate in the formal proceedings. I also welcome Neil Findlay, who has lodged a series of amendments. Members should have the bill, the marshaled list and the groupings, which sets out the amendments in the order in which they will be debated. Our task is to consider all of the amendments and also to agree each provision of the bill. For the debate on each group, I will call the member with the lead amendment in the group to open the debate on that group by moving the lead amendment and speaking to all amendments in the group. I will then call any other members who have lodged amendments in the group to speak to all of the amendments in the group. I will then call any other members who indicate to me that they wish to speak in the group and I shall take the minister last if he does not have an amendment in the group. Finally, I will invite the member who opened the debate to wind up and indicate whether they wish to press or to withdraw the lead amendment. Any member present may object to the withdrawal of an amendment. If there is an objection, we will proceed straight to the question on that amendment. That is, there is no division on whether an amendment may be withdrawn. It will follow the normal procedure if a division is required. When we reach amendments on the martial class that have already been debated, I will ask the amendment to move or not move. If a member who lodged the amendment does not move it, any other member present may move the amendment instead. We come to the first grouping, which is on definition. I call the amendment 14 in the name of Neil Findlay. I invite Neil Findlay to move and to speak to amendment 14. As it stands, I believe that the bill lacks a clear definition of what lobbying is. It sets out core concepts but does not set out a definition. The amendment provides a definition that everyone can clearly understand from the outset. It would strike me as absurd to introduce a bill without defining what we mean by the term lobbying. When consulting on my bill, I looked far and wide for a sound definition. That was used by the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee, and I found that to be the best definition that I could find. I consulted on it widely and it was accepted as a fair definition. I think that that will help the bill, and those who will be affected by it will help them significantly. Thank you, Noma. I was indicated, minister. Thank you, convener. I thank Neil Findlay for lodging his amendment 14 and the explanation of the purpose and effect and recognise Mr Findlay's particular interest in this area and the area of transparency in general. Amendment 14 is, as Mr Findlay said, intended to give a definition of what lobbying is before the bill moves on to define the scope of regulated lobbying. I view that this amendment would introduce an unhelpful ambiguity to the bill. Section 1 of the bill already gives a clear and legally certain outline of what type of activities are deemed to be lobbying, the types of lobbyists and lobbyists to be included and the means by which communication is made, including a further definition is likely to lead to confusion over what is and what is not regulated lobbying. For instance, the words in a professional capacity do not clearly define what lobbying is intended to be covered, unlike the exemption in the schedule to the bill on when payment is relevant. In order, it is wise to include a definition that seeks to highlight the intention of the lobbying activity. It is already clear that lobbying is an attempt to influence decision makers. The approach that was taken in amendment 14 was in particular criticised by the OACD comparative review of legislation for enhancing transparency and accountability, and those specific words were removed from the Canadian regime as they did not allow their legislation to be enforced as introduced. Finally, the inclusion of parliamentary liaison officers as lobbyists is unnecessary as lobbying MSPs is already caught by the scope of the bill. A PLO can only be appointed on the basis that they are an MSP. While I recognise that the member is trying to be helpful and take account of other amendments that have been lodged 15, 16, 18, 32 and 33, it is my view that this amendment risks introducing unnecessary ambiguity and confusion about the definition of regulated lobbying in the bill. Accordingly, I invite Neil Findlay not to press amendment 14, but if he does, I invite the committee to resist it. Thank you, minister. I invite Neil Findlay to wind up an indicative phase pressing his amendment of the drawing. I will be pressing the amendment, convener, and I think that it stretches it somewhat that the minister claims that by providing a definition you make the bill more ambiguous. I think that the bill is as ambiguous as it stands without that definition, and I certainly want to push the amendment. Thank you. The question is that amendment 14 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. Can I have an indication of those who are in favour? No. Can I have an indication of those who are against the amendment? The result of the vote is those in favour? One. Those against? No. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. I now move to the next grouping. I call the amendment 15 in the name of Patricia Ferguson. Grouped with amendments 1, 3 and 18. I must point out that if amendment 15 is agreed to, I will not be able to call amendment 1 because it will be preempted. I invite Patricia Ferguson to move amendment 15 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. The genesis of my amendments 15 and 18 is the evidence presented to the committee by a number of witnesses. The idea that the bill, as it is currently drafted, should only cover oral communication was variously described as, and I quote, clearly insufficient by Ash Scotland, ludicrous by Dr Dinan of Spinwatch, and Professor Charry of Trinity College Dublin advised that he was unaware of any other legislation that contained such a restriction. I think that we would all recognise that in 2016 much of the communication that takes place with politicians is by letter, by telephone and by email. Lobbying and lobbyists use all the methods of communication open to them, and if we want the bill to have any real effect, it must recognise that fact. That was the conclusion of the majority of the members of the committee and was recognised in the stage 1 report on the bill. I hope today that members will support those amendments and give effect to our recommendations. With regard to the minister's amendment 3, I support the principle that video conferencing should be captured by the bill, but I am afraid that the wording of the amendment is such that it re-emphasises the belief that the focus of the bill is on face-to-face communication only, and I cannot therefore do so. Thank you. I invite the minister to speak to amendment 1 and other amendments in the group. I thank Patricia Ferguson for bringing forward her amendment. I think that it is important that the issues that have been raised through the course of the bill are aired at stage 2. I understand the purpose of amendments 15 and 18 that is intended to extend significantly the definition of regulated lobbying to include a wide range of forms of communication beyond face-to-face and in-person communications that are currently set out in the bill. The issue of what types of communications should be included within the scope of regulated lobbying attracted considerable interest during stage 1 and continues to be the content of much lobbying of MSPs on the bill. On both sides, the Government's view continues to be that face-to-face communication is the most significant and influential means of conducting lobbying and that the focus of the bill should remain on such activity. However, I have reflected carefully and I am of the view that the bill should incorporate all face-to-face communications regardless of the means of delivery. That is why I have brought forward amendments 1 and 3 to ensure that video conferencing and equivalent means will be treated as regulated lobbying activity. I believe that that will maintain the proportionality of the bill and will avoid creating a registration scheme that, in practice, might discourage access to an engagement with MSPs and ministers. The Government is not persuaded that a case has been made to justify altering the scope of the bill in the way proposed by Patricia Ferguson to include other forms of communication such as telephone calls or written communications within the concept of regulated lobbying. Doing so would place a potentially very significant burden on organisations seeking to engage with Parliament and Government. It would not be in anyone's interests for us to commence with a regime that is unwieldy and off-putting and leads to criticism of the legitimate public interest that lies at the heart of what the bill is seeking to achieve. In a separate group, the committee will debate the merits of amendments requiring the Parliament to review the operation of the bill after two years. I believe that through that review that Parliament should reflect on whether face-to-face communications should continue to be the principal focus of the regime or whether it should be extended to other forms of communication. That approach would enable the Parliament to build an evidence base to justify imposing those controls, taking into account the day-to-day operation of the register both for lobbyists and the Parliament itself in running the register. For the rose's reasons, I invite the committee not to support Patricia Ferguson's amendments 15 and 18. I invite Patricia Ferguson to wind up and to press her with her amendment. Thank you, convener, and I intend to press the amendment. I'm sorry that the minister feels that the evidence taken by the committee has not resulted in an amendment that he can support. I don't want to take the committee's time too much this morning, convener, because we have a very full agenda, but I would point out that the idea that we should review the bill to see whether or not at a future date we would want to include matters such as the method of communication seems to me to be looking at the bill the wrong way round. I think that we should start by recording all of the categories of communication that would be covered by my amendment and by the bill and review to see whether or not those are appropriate at that stage. We cannot review something that we have not been capturing in information and the only way that we will be able to capture in information and find out the extent of the lobbying that goes on and the purpose and effectiveness of that communication is by, from the beginning, capturing all forms of communication. If a future Parliament decides that that has been onerous and has meant that we are not doing what the bill wants us to do, then at that point it could be changed, but to my way of thinking, doing it the other way round is entirely contrary to the purpose of the bill. Thank you. The question is that amendment 15 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed that we are division. Would those in favour of the amendment please indicate? There was one vote in favour of the amendment and five votes against the amendment. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. I now call amendment 1 in the name of the minister. We are already debated with amendment 15 and I invite the minister to move formally. The question is that amendment 1 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. We now come to the next group and I call amendment 2 in the name of the minister. Group with amendments 16, 8, 32, 33 and 1. I invite the minister to move amendment 2 and speak to all the amendments in the group. The committee's stage 1 report recommended that the Government consider bringing forward amendments to broaden the definition of regulated lobbying to include communications made to other public officials. A number of stakeholders from both sides of the debate have also called for that. As such, the Government's amendment 2 proposes to amend the definition of regulated lobbying at section 1 to include special advisers as lobby-ease. Amendment 11 is consequential on amendment 2, as it defines special advisers. As I have continually said throughout the development of the bill, I am open to considering all possible changes as long as they continue to meet the principle of a proportionate and simple regime. I can see the arguments that have been made in relation to special advisers given their distinctive roles that they play in supporting ministers. It is for that reason that I have decided to bring forward this amendment. I am unable to support Patricia Ferguson's amendment 16 and 32, which would seek to include all senior civil servants and enable the Parliament to add any other civil servants in the Scottish administration at a future point by parliamentary resolution. However, I wish to make clear to Patricia Ferguson and the committee that I am continuing to give careful consideration to possible further amendments, which would bring certain senior civil servants within the regulated scope of the framework. It will be important to ensure that the scope of that amendment is correct, and consultation with trade unions on that is under way. I would be happy to meet the member to discuss amendments for stage 3 in the light of that consultation. Patricia Ferguson's amendment 16 and 32 also seeks to add parliamentary liaison officers as lobby yeas. The amendment is unnecessary, as PLOs are appointed by virtue of being an MSP, and therefore any lobbying of them in that capacity will already be covered by the bill as drafted. The Government has also brought forward amendment 8 to remove section 21G from the bill. Purpose of that provision was to act as a catch-all for any Government on parliamentary functions not already defined within section 21. On reflection, the Government considers that section 21G to be unnecessary on the basis that any regulated lobbying should only be in connection with Government and parliamentary functions specifically defined in section 21A to F. Conversely, communications that could clearly be viewed as not being lobbying might risk being captured unnecessarily and discourage engagement. It might assist members if I give a couple of examples of communications that the Government views as inappropriate to capture. First, a local housing association might wish to take forward housing development in a particular constituency and might seek to meet, for instance, the local MSP to inform the local MSP of its intentions, seeking their views, but the MSP is not being invited to take or to make any specific actions of the sort that is covered by section 21A to F. Another example might be a Scottish business that is in financial trouble and wants to meet with the local MSP to communicate that fact as a courtesy and nothing more. I move amendments 2 and invite Patricia Ferguson not to move amendments 16, 32 and 33. If the member wishes to press her amendments, I invite the committee to oppose them. I invite Patricia Ferguson to speak to amendment 16 and other amendments in the group. This set of amendments recognises that ministers and MSPs are not the only people who may be lobbied. During the course of our deliberations in this committee, we looked at this and took evidence that recognised that, in other jurisdictions, the list of those who may be lobbied goes considerably further than the categories in the bill. The committee recognised that many public officials wield considerable power and make important decisions about policy and financial matters, and that they should also be covered by the legislation. Once again, as that was a recommendation of the committee in its report, I would hope that it would be supported. I very much appreciate the minister bringing forward an amendment that contains special advisers, however, in my view, it does not go far enough. My amendment 32 seeks to add to the list of those who might be considered to be in receipt of communication deemed as lobbying. Amendment 16 and 33 attempt to include parliamentary liaison officers in that category. It can and has been argued that this group of MSPs are already covered by the bill, but I want to reinforce that they have a particular status in relation to their role in assisting ministers. That amendment seeks to protect them specifically from allegations that they may have themselves been lobbied in that role and that, consequently, they may, in turn, have lobbied the minister on behalf of a lobbyist. I very much hope that the committee will support those amendments, but I accept that that is probably unlikely. I think that it is helpful for me to be absolutely clear that PLOs are captured in that capacity. For somebody to suggest that they are having a meeting in the capacities of PLOs, that does not provide any sort of loophole. They are absolutely clearly covered by the bill as MSPs. On the amendments related to other senior civil servants, I hope that Patricia Ferguson will withdraw those amendments. As I said, I would be happy to work with her in the light of the discussions that the Government is having with trade unions in relation to bringing forward an amendment at stage 3 to go further. However, it is appropriate that we make sure that any actions that are taken carefully and fully considered. I hope that the member would agree that consultation with trade unions is part of that process. The question is whether amendment 2 would be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. I call amendment 16, in the name of Patricia Ferguson, already debated with amendment 2. I invite Patricia Ferguson to move or not move. The amendment is moved. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Would those in favour please indicate? On amendment 16, there was one in favour and five against. The amendment is not agreed. I call amendment 3, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 15. I invite the minister to move formally. The question is whether amendment 3 would be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Would those in favour of amendment 3 please indicate? Would those against amendment 3 please indicate? On amendment 3, there were five in favour and one against. The amendment is therefore agreed. I call amendment 4, in the name of the minister, grouped with amendments 9, 10 and 12. I invite the minister to move amendment 4 and speak to all amendments in the group. The group of amendments are all minor tidding up amendments. Amendment 4 will put beyond doubt who should be caught and how, by the definition of regulated lobbying, section 11b of the bill sets out the categories of people that, in the course of business or other activities, make communications which may count as regulated lobbying. The definition is already wide and covers employees, directors, partners or members. This is a clarificatory amendment, which will simply ensure that all types of paid office holders within an organisation will be included in the definition of regulated lobbying. Amendment 9 corrects a drafting error inserting the word meet in section 246d. The amendment has no policy effect. Amendment 10 corrects a drafting error in section 45. It will change an erroneous use of the word or to of, ensuring that the relevant provision makes sense. The amendment has no policy effect. Amendment 12 removes the words in return for payment from section 48 of that bill. That avoids duplication of provisions made in section 1, which defines activity that is regulated lobbying. Again, the amendment has no policy effect. I move amendment 4 in my name and invite the committee to support amendments 9, 10 and 12. Thank you. No one is indicating we wish to speak. Anything further to say, minister? No, thank you. The question is that amendment 4 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 17, in the name of Neil Findlay, grouped with amendments 23, 24 and 26. I invite Neil Findlay to move amendment 17 and speak to all the amendments in the group. Amendment 17 relates to thresholds for lobbying and, I believe, is necessary to capture lobbyists involved in significant amounts of lobbying activity. It ensures that small-scale lobbying is not caught by the act and addresses concerns relating to the alleged burden or danger of restricting activity or engagement with this Parliament by small community organisations, charities, businesses, etc. I am delighted to say that it will reassure Gil Paterson that he can still send his Christmas card. That is a proportionate measure and one that reflects some of the concerns raised during the bill. Thresholds are used in other jurisdictions and should be included in the bill. Amendment 23 is all about scale. There is a real difference between spending £100 in lobbying or spending £50,000 on lobbying. Again, for the purposes of openness and transparency, it is vital for the public to see how much money and how much time is spent on lobbying activity. It can allow the public to access whether there is a correlation between the actual money that is spent and the effort that is spent on lobbying and the tangible benefits from that activity. For example, how much time, effort and cash is spent in order to change the law on X, Y or Z or how much is spent on attempting to win contract 1, 2 or 3. Over a third of lobbying registers around the world apply thresholds. They work and suggest to the contrary. I believe that they are a red heron. Amendment 24 is a banding system that provides a framework for which registrants are able to disclose the levels of spending and time spent on lobbying. In putting this amendment forward, I have taken account of the concerns raised by the sector about commercial sensitivity of expressing actual amounts spent. There is a banding system to take account of that, and no specific details of contracts for lobbying would be included. That is helpful, and it is merely a way in which we can make the register work better. Amendment 26 is intended to update the current proposals to ensure that thresholds are dealt with appropriately throughout the bill. I thank the member for his amendments. I see two purposes behind Neil Findlay's amendments. First, to offer a threshold to remove low-value lobbying from the registration scheme, and secondly, to include financial data and time spent lobbying on the register. While I have sympathy for the first aim, in particular in light of the concerns expressed by members during the stage 1 debate on the bill's potential impact on constituency-based activities, including Mr Paterson's Christmas card, I consider the amendment in that form to add unnecessary complexity and ambiguity to the registration process and for registrants submitting information returns. I wish to give further consideration to whether it would be possible to exempt lobbying of a de minimis nature and to return to the matter in stage 3. I would be happy to provide committee with an update on my thinking on the matter ahead of lodging deadline for amendments. As to the second aim, the Government's view is that no case has been made to require registrants to provide financial data in connection with regulated lobbying. The power available to the Parliament at section 15 of the bill would allow the detailed operation of such requirements to be developed without undue haste. The Government also proposes that such matters are best dealt with in the context of a formal review process as proposed in amendment 13. I therefore ask Neil Findlay not to press amendment 17, but if he does, I ask the committee to resist the amendment. I invite Neil Findlay to wind up and indicate if he is pressing or withdrawing. I will be pressing the amendments and I would suggest that we just go to the vote. Thank you. The question is that amendment 17 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Would those in favour of the amendment please indicate? Would those against the amendment please indicate? There was one vote in favour and five against. The amendment is not agreed to. I call amendment 18, in the name of Patricia Ferguson, already debated with amendment 15. Patricia Ferguson to move or not move. Amendment 18 is moved. The question is that amendment 18 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Would those in favour of amendment 18 please indicate? Would those against please indicate? There was one vote in favour of amendment 18 and five against. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. I call amendment 5, in the name of the minister, grouped with amendments 6 and 7. I invite the minister to move amendment 5 and to speak to all amendments in the group. The amendments in this group address a number of topics. Firstly, in the stage 1 report, the committee helpfully suggested that the Government give consideration to a potential exemption within the schedule to all trade union communications. The Government agreed with the committee and has brought forward amendment 7 to that effect. The Government has sought to maintain a fair and balanced approach throughout the development of the bill, so the amendment proposes to exempt communications in relation to terms and conditions of employment that are made by trade unions or employers. The Government recognises that, through experience of the operation of the register, the need for further exemptions could be identified. Therefore, the Government proposes amendment 5 to give the Parliament the power by resolution to add to the current list of exclusions contained within the schedule of the bill. That power will also give the Parliament the ability to amend or remove any such additions made. Amendment 6 is lodged in response to the committee's request for the Government to look again at the exception in the schedule to the bill in respect of meetings initiated by members or ministers. I welcome the committee's assistance in helping to correctly frame the exception and avoid it creating a potential loophole for lobbying activity to go unregistered. Amendment 6 would therefore make clear that the exception to a requirement to register extends only to the revision of factual information or views in response to our request. I move amendment 5. Is there anything else that she wishes to say before I move to the vote? The question is that amendment 5 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. The question is that section 1 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 6 in the name of the minister. Ready, debated with amendment 5. Minister, to move formally. Moved. The question is that amendment 6 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 7 in the name of the minister. Are ready, debated with amendment 5. The question is that amendment 7 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The question is that the schedule be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Amendment 8 in the name of the minister. Are ready, debated with amendment 2. I invite them to move formally. Number 8 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The question is that section 2 be agreed to, are we all agreed? The question is that sections 3 and 4 be agreed to, are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 19 in the name of Neil Findlay, grouped with amendments 20, 21 and 22. I invite Neil Findlay to move amendment 19 and speak to all amendments in the group. Those amendments address the issue of the so-called revolving door where former ministers, senior civil servants, special advisers and the like working at senior levels of government build up an extensive contact list of influential people and then leave that post to go on and use and exploit that contact book for commercial or financial gain a situation which is not open to ordinary members of the public. Those amendments would mean that the previous five years employment history of that lobbyist were out there for all to see. This is a transparency measure and it's proportionate. It's important that the public are able to observe whether a lobbyist has worked recently in or for the very government that he or she is now lobbying. This amendment helps with that and I believe it is an essential part of this bill. I thank Neil Findlay for lodging his amendments and his explanation of the purpose and effect. Amendments 19, 20, 21 and 22 all seek to introduce a requirement for those who register to provide retrospective information about the employment history or the employment history of those lobbying on their behalf. The Government does not feel a case has been made to require those who undertake lobbying activity to publicly have their past employment history disclosed. It's important to remember that those amendments would apply to all people who are undertaking regulated lobbying. It's not clear that such information would always be relevant to the lobbying activity that has been undertaken. It would also require organisations to reveal personal details in situations where the individual might not have agreed to that when they took up the employment. Individuals themselves may have legitimate reasons for not wishing to disclose such information publicly or to their current employers. The committee noted in its stage 1 report that it was satisfied that the inclusion of individuals' names on the register will enable those with an interest to probe the employment history of those involved in lobbying. There are also already existing arrangements in place to scrutinise the future employment of senior civil servants and special advisers and a restriction on former ministers and special advisers to ensure that they do not lobby government for two years following the end of their employment appointment. There is also, as identified by the committee, in its report a power in section 15 of the bill that allows the Parliament by resolution to change the details required to be disclosed through the registration process. This power would enable the Parliament to identify further information that it thought appropriate to be included in the register and to do so in a proportionate and focused way. I believe that this is the appropriate way forward for this matter. Accordingly, I'd ask Neil Findlay to withdraw amendment 19, but if pressed, I'd ask the committee to oppose the amendment. I invite Neil Findlay to wind up and indicate to be able to press a withdrawal. I'm very disappointed with the minister's response and I think that this is an essential part of the whole transparency process that this bill is aimed at. I certainly want to press the amendments. Thank you. The question is that amendment 19 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed that we had a vision. Would those in favour of amendment 19 please indicate? Those against amendment 19 please indicate? There was one vote in favour of amendment 19, five against. The amendment is not agreed to. I call amendment 20 in the name of Neil Findlay, already debated with amendment 19, Neil Findlay to move or not move. The question is that amendment 20 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Would those in favour of amendment 20 please indicate? Those against please indicate. There were one vote in favour of amendment 20, five against. Amendment 20 is not agreed. I call amendment 21 in the name of Neil Findlay, already debated with amendment 19. Mr Findlay, to move or not move. The amendment is moved. Are we agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Would those in favour of amendment 21 please indicate? Would those against 21 please indicate? There was one vote in favour of amendment 21 and five against. Amendment 21 is not agreed. I call amendment 22 in the name of Neil Findlay, already debated with amendment 19, move or not move. The question is that amendment 22 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in favour of amendment 22 please indicate and those against please indicate. There was one vote in favour of amendment 22 and five against. We are not agreed. The question is that section 5 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Section 5 is agreed. I call amendment 23 in the name of Neil Findlay, already debated with amendment 17. Mr Findlay, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 23 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in favour of amendment 23 please indicate and those against please indicate. One vote in favour of amendment 23 and five against. The amendment is not agreed. The question is that section 6 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 24 in the name of Neil Findlay, already debated with amendment 17. Move or not move. The question is that amendment 24 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in favour of amendment 24 please show and those against please show. There were one vote in favour of amendment 24 and five votes against. Amendment 24 is not agreed. The question is that section 7 to 14 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 25 in the name of Cameron Buchanan, grouped with amendments 29, 30 and 31. I invite John Scott to move amendment 25 and to speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. Amendment 25 is intended to provide a benefit to registrants which may incentivise registration in advance and also incentivise voluntary registration. The effect of this amendment is to allow registrants should they choose to automatically receive relevant information such as opportunities to participate in consultations and deadlines by which members have to submit amendments. In the EU there is apparently a system where lobbyists who have registered receive automatic mail notification of new consultations or inquiries among other incentives and this seems like a good idea and the amendment here may prove a useful tool to encourage registration. Amendment 29 would make a requirement to publish guidance on the register rather than this just being an option by substituting the word may for must. It is essential that everyone affected is clear on the operation and requirements of the register so that it operates smoothly and misunderstandings are kept to a minimum. Having clear guidance is necessary to achieve this so that amendment would make it absolutely clear that guidance will be published. Amendment 30 would make it a requirement for guidance on the register to include provision about what qualifies as regulated lobbying. That gets to the heart of the matter, we believe, where clarity is essential for compliance to be trouble free and for the register's intentions to be met. I move those three amendments. Thank you. I invite Neil Findlay to speak to amendment 31 and other amendments in the group. Amendment 31, as alludes to the question of resources and making sure that the legislation is successfully implemented, we cannot have an ad hoc system that cannot be done without putting the proper resources into it. If we are going to have a bill then it must be fit for purpose and backed by hard cash. In short, we must invest in our democracy and there must be sufficient resources in place to raise awareness of the changes that this bill will result in. At a seminar recently in Stirling University, the Irish regulator, spoke about the need for this and I agree with her if the register is to be successfully implemented and if we are going to have a well-functioning, open and transparent democracy then that does not come at no cost to invest in with sufficient resources in this system. Patricia Ferguson. Thank you, convener. I am very supportive of the idea of there being information provided that allows lobbyists to understand what the system is and how they should comport themselves in relation to that particular system. I would support the amendments in Neil Findlay's name and also in the name of Cameron Buchanan. However, I would not support amendment 25. It seems to me that lobbyists by the very nature of their job should be aware of such things as parliamentary deadlines, consultations and the like. I do not see why parliamentary resources should be expended in order to make that job easier than it is currently. Parliament's information is open to all, freely available on our website and I think that that should be sufficient. Minister. I listened with interest to the discussions on this group and I will deal with each amendment in turn. On amendment 25 from Cameron Buchanan, I acknowledge the spirit of the amendment that has been brought forward, but I agree with Patricia Ferguson's view on that. It is important that the work of the Parliament is open and accessible and that those who wish to engage with it can understand what business is being conducted. However, while I recognise that ultimately that is a matter for the Parliament itself, the Government does not believe that it is appropriate or necessary to set out in primary legislation prescriptive requirements about what information the clerks should provide to registered lobbyists. There are already administrative processes in place which interested members of the public or organisations can use which enable them to keep abreast of parliamentary developments. For example, people can subscribe to receive electronic notification of materials in relation to bills, committees, Parliament news and various other activities within the Parliament. The Parliament also offers the opportunity to receive a weekly e-bulletin. I believe that using the facilities already provided by the Parliament continues to be the best way to address this matter and perhaps the Parliament's guidance on the operation of the act could set out to lobbyists how they could best make use of them. For those reasons, I recommend that the committee does not support amendment 25. On amendments 29 and 30, the Government's view that the guidance that will be developed under the act will be central to its successful implementation. I think that we would all find difficult to envisage circumstances in which the Parliament would not produce the guidance. On that basis, the Government would be supportive of the committee accepting amendments 29 and 30. Turning to amendment 31, it seems to me that it's an amendment in two parts. Although strictly speaking, I think that the first part, the 2A element, is unnecessary. I can see some benefits in highlighting the Parliament's ability to promote awareness and understanding of the act. I am less sympathetic towards the second part, the 2B element, as it must be left to the Scottish Parliament copper body to make decisions about how the use of overall budgets is available to the Parliament. Consequently, I would invite Neil Findlay not to move amendment 31 with the undertaking that I will look to bring forward a Government amendment at stage 3, which would deliver on the first part, the 2A element of his amendment. For those reasons, I invite the committee to resist amendment 25 and 31 and to support amendments 29 and 30. Let me invite John Scott to wind up and press or withdraw amendment 25. I won't press amendment 25, given the explanation that the minister has provided. Are the committee content that we have draw 25? I see no other view. I call amendment 26. In the name of Neil Findlay, I have already debated with amendment 17. Move or not move? Mr Findlay has moved it. The question is that amendment 26 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Would those in favour of amendment 26 please show? With those against, please show. There was one vote in favour of amendment 26 and 5 against. We are not agreed. The question is that section 15 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The question is that section 16 to 23 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 9 in the name of the minister. I have already debated with amendment 4. The question is that section 9 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 27, in the name of Cameron Buchanan, in a group on its own. I invite John Scott to move and speak to amendment 27. Thank you, convener. As the bill stands, there is some ambiguity as to whether the commissioner's report to Parliament stating a complaint is admissible will be public knowledge. Our concern is that the identity of the subject of the complaint should only be public if an investigation finds they have failed to comply with the register's requirements. We are concerned that without this amendment there may be scope for competition-motivated accusations to be made and the accused could suffer consequences before an investigation has proven an accusation to be either true or false. Exposure to possible reputational damage for the subject of a complaint for failing to comply with requirements should not be possible before any investigation has actually been completed. However, should the minister be able to clarify that a report to Parliament mentioned in section 21 would in fact be private in Parliament only, we would look at that. I thank Cameron Buchanan for bringing forth this amendment and for John Scott's explanation of its purpose and effect. I understand the amendment seeks to ensure that no information relation to an investigation by the commissioner is made public until such time as the commissioner has issued the report on the outcome of investigations to the Parliament for consideration as required in section 22. There is already provision contained in section 224 of the bill that requires an assessment of admissibility and investigation to be conducted in private. The Government is unsure how the amendment is intended to apply alongside the requirement to tell Parliament and the complainant in section 248 that the complaint has been ruled admissible. There are potential issues about the workability of such an arrangement in the context of the need to keep the complaint's procedure private. For example, the need to then enter into confidential agreements with the complainant and the person who is being complained about and the Parliament. For that reason, I invite John Scott to withdraw amendment 27, but if not for the committee to resist him, I would also like to make it clear that if Cameron Buchanan would find it helpful to discuss the matter with my officials and I in advance of stage 3, I would be very happy to do so. I invite John Scott to wind up and indicate if he wishes to press a withdrawal amendment 27. In the light of the minister's kind offer to discuss the intentions behind this amendment prior to stage 3, I won't press this amendment and therefore we'll be happy on Cameron Buchanan's behalf to accept that invitation for him to discuss this with you prior to stage 3. Are members content that amendment 27 be withdrawn? I see that we are. The question is that section 24 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Question is that sections 25 to 41 are agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 28 in the name of Neil Findlay in a group on its own. I invite Neil Findlay to move and speak to amendment 28. This amendment is part of a proportionate system of warning and penalty, a system which alerts organisations to the fact that they may not have as yet registered of or fulfilled their responsibilities under the legislation. If, after being warned, they still fail to oblige in a sliding scale of punishment prior to summary conviction as suggested, ultimately to a point where they may be banned from operating as a lobbyist, I believe that this, among other things, may be a greater incentive to ensure that all lobbyists fulfill their obligations than some of the other punishments suggested. I thank Neil Findlay for lodging his amendment. I understand the intention of the amendment is to introduce a more serious penalty for second or subsequent offences under section 42 of up to the statutory maximum of £10,000 and for that person then to be potentially prevented from lobbying for three years. The amendment also seeks to impose an administrative sanction for an offence committed under section 42 of the bill in circumstances in which a person has been carrying out lobbying activity for six months or less. That would create a criminal offence with no criminal penalty. The clerk would simply give the offending person notice advising them about the duty to register. I fully appreciate the spirit in which the amendment seeks to offer registrants some latitude in respect of initial failures to comply with the registration scheme at least for a time until they fully understand the operation and requirements of the act. However, I do think that there is a fundamental issue with the amendment in that the outcomes would lack clarity. For example, in relation to the sanction preventing a person from lobbying for three years, it is not clear what lobbying someone would be prevented from undertaking. I think that Neil Findlay intends to relate that to regulated lobbying as defined in the bill, but that is not necessarily the effect of the amendment. It is also unclear how the sanction would be enforced. More generally, I have concerns about whether the proposed interference with someone's ability to work is a proportionate response. In addition, it is not clear when the six-month period for determining whether a person is given notice from the clerk or is liable to a fine would apply. It is presumably at the time of committing the offence, but again, that is not necessarily the effect of the amendment. Issues arise in terms of the clerks having to give notice to a person when they commit an offence. The clerk can already require information under section 17 of the bill from an active or voluntary registrant or where the clerk has reason to believe that a person has failed to provide it. More importantly, it must be left to the court to determine whether an offence has or has not been committed and where an offence has been committed, impose an appropriate criminal sanction. My concerns are not only about the mechanisms of the amendment but more fundamentally the Government considers that the existing statutory framework set out in the bill provides a proportionate approach in respect of offences. The awareness raising which will be conducted by the Parliament in the run-up to the registration register becoming operational alongside the guidance to be published by the Parliament will ensure that registrants are aware of what is required of them. Section 16 outlines the clerk's duties to monitor compliance and section 17 describes the powers that the clerk has to issue information notices requiring a person to supply information. In addition, section 22 of the bill provides for the duty of the commissioner for ethical standards in public life to investigate and report on complaints received where a person has failed to comply with requirements of the act. Both the provisions of guidance and the role of the clerk and commissioner backed by the possibility of criminal sanctions provide an approach which is both fair to the registrants and sufficient to ensure the robustness of the registration regime. I'd asked Neil Findlay to withdraw amendment 28 but I've not asked the committee to resist it. Mr Findlay, to wind up and indicate if you are pressing or withdrawing amendment 28. At the beginning it appeared that the minister supported the principle of what was being said but through some verbal gymnastics he got himself into a position where he is opposing it. If the principle is a proof, it does support, then is it possible that the Government would work with me to bring that back at stage 3 in a form that was acceptable to the Government but if that's not the case then I wish to push the amendment? My view is that I understand the spirit of what Mr Findlay is saying but I am very clear that the bill as drafted meets the spirit. Mr Findlay, press amendment 28. The question is that amendment 28 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in favour of amendment 28 please indicate and those against please indicate. We have one in favour of 28 and five against. It is not agreed. The question is that section 42 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call on amendment 29 in the name of Cameron Buchanan already debated with amendment 25. I have to ask John Scott to move it again at this stage. Will he move amendment 29? Moved. Thank you. The question is that amendment 29 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. I call on amendment 30 in the name of Cameron Buchanan already debated with amendment 25. John Scott to move or not move? Moved. Thank you. The question is that amendment 30 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call on amendment 31 in the name of Neil Findlay already debated with amendment 25. Mr Findlay to move or not move? Move. Amendment 31 is moved. The question is that amendment 31 is agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. In favour of amendment 31, please indicate. Those in favour of amendment 31, please indicate. There were two votes in favour of amendment 31 and four against. We are not agreed. It is not agreed. The question is that section 43 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. The question is that section 44 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I call on amendment 10 in the name of the minister already debated with amendment 4. Minister to move. The question is that amendment 10 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The question is that section 45 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call on amendment 32 in the name of Patricia Ferguson already debated with amendment 2. Patricia Ferguson to move or not move. Amendment 32 is moved. The question is that amendment 32 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in favour of amendment 32, please indicate. Those against, please indicate. There was one vote in favour and five against. Amendment 32 is disagreed. I call on amendment 33 in the name of Patricia Ferguson already debated with amendment 2. Patricia Ferguson to move or not move. It is moved. The question is that amendment 33 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not. There will be a division. Those in favour of amendment 33 and those against. There was one vote in favour and five against. It is not agreed. I call on amendment 11 in the name of the minister already debated with amendment 2. The question is that amendment 11 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The question is section 46 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The question is section 47 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are. I call on amendment 12 in the name of the minister already debated with amendment 4. I invite the minister to move fo me. The question is that amendment 12 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Dawn ni i'n gyfodol i gyd. Ruwg i'n gwedion yr yflusinydd, mae'n gwedion i'r gwaith. Pryddoedd am 15 angen i'r clywed ar gyfer llwyth~! Mae angen i'r a"? Mae angen i'r angen i'r angen i'r angen i'r angen i'r angen i'r ors? period so that Parliament could revisit and revise the legislation. The Government agrees that there would be merit in conducting a review to consider how successful the regime has operated and whether any changes should be made in light of the review. That is a process that would allow proper consideration of whether potentially significant changes should be made to the regulated lobbying regime rather than amending the bill now in ways that might put at risk the key principles of openness and accessibility that have underpinned the Government and the committee's approach to this legislation. Putting in place a review mechanism enables the Parliament to gather information and to establish an evidence base to support and justify any case for change. That is why amendment 13 in my name would require the Parliament to conduct a review of the lobbying register after its first two years of formal operation. While it will be for the Parliament to determine the form and content of its final report, the Government believes that it is important to recognise that certain issues have attracted particular attention during the bill's development and parliamentary passage. Therefore, the provision specifies that the report may in particular contain recommendations about whether to add or modify the types of person who would be treated as lobby-ease under the regulated lobbying system, whether to add or modify the types of communication that would be treated as regulated lobbying activity and whether lobby-ease undertaking a regulated lobbying activity should be required to provide information about expenditure, incurred in carrying out that regulated lobbying activity. I expect the Parliament's review to be thorough and wide-ranging. Once it has been completed, it would then be a matter for the Parliament to determine whether it wishes to use any of the existing powers in the act to make changes to the administration of the register or to bring forward further primary legislation if it considered that a more fundamental policy changes were required. Turning now to Cameron McCannan's amendment 13A and 13B, I take the opportunity to explain to the committee that, although I appreciate the basis at which they have been brought forward, I cannot recommend that they are supported. Amendment 13A would reduce from two years to one year the period on which the Parliament's review would be conducted. I do not believe that one year of operation of the register would be sufficient time to base an informed analysis. Information returns will be provided by lobbyists on a six-monthly basis, and I believe that the Parliament would wish to enable that cycle to be completed more than once before conducting its review. Similarly, Cameron McCannan's amendment 13B would reduce from two years to one year the period in which the Parliament would have to conduct and complete its review. In light of the expectation that the Parliament will consult both in developing its evidence base and in its draft recommendations, I do not believe that it would be appropriate to require it to be completed in one year. However, it is important to remember that the Government's proposal of a two-year limit is the maximum time the Parliament will have to complete its review. It would therefore be open to the Parliament to complete its review more quickly than that should it wish to. In conclusion, I invite the committee to support amendment 13 in my name. I am for John Scott not to press amendments 13A and 13B, but if he does so, for the committee to resist them. I invite John Scott at this stage to move amendment 13A and to speak to all the amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. Speaking to amendments 13A and 13B, we agree that it would be wise to review the operation of the register after we, and indeed all concerned, have gained practical experience of its operation. However, the Government's amendment only requires that a report is published within the period of four years after enactment, which is a sum of the two-year review period and a subsequent two-year period to report. That process makes sense, but the timing appears to be too long, we think. If there are issues or gaps in the register that are serious enough to warrant revision, it is likely that it will be apparent within a year of the register's operation. Furthermore, it should be possible to report on the register's operation within a year when the aim is to review rather than create from scratch. Given that, we suggest that the Government's amendment is changed to reduce the time by which a report is to be published to two years. Those amendments will achieve that by reducing the review period to one year and reducing the report period to one year. I will press amendment 13A. I am very sympathetic to the Government's amendments that seek to have the review period introduced. That is absolutely necessary. I do not have a problem with the review taking place two years after an effect bill comes into force. However, I have some sympathy with Cameron Buchanan's amendment 13B simply in relation to parliamentary cycles. If the bill is to be reviewed after two years and the Parliament has up to two years to do that, that in effect means that any resulting work on the bill would take place at the very end of a session. The likelihood would be that it would either be rushed at the end of a session or that it may not even happen until the next parliamentary session. It seems to me that, if there are issues, flaws, faults or improvements that can be made to the bill, we should do it within a reasonable timeframe and certainly within the lifetime of the next parliamentary session. For that reason, I would not support 13A, but I would support 13B. Patricia Ferguson makes some particularly good points. As the bill is drafted, it would allow the Parliament to do that process faster if it chose to. I think that 13B would put a particular rigid framework in which it might not work within the next parliamentary session table. Obviously, it will not be for the Government to be doing that review. It will be for the Parliament to frame that review, so I think that it is better to give the Parliament that flexibility going forward. I think that I would continue to, while I hear that there are some arguments there, I think that it is appropriate to resist 13A and 13B. I invite John Scott, if he wishes, to wind up on amendment 13A and indicate to be expressing or withdrawing. I hear very much what the minister is saying, and I welcome what he said in his opening remarks that a review could take less than two years, and I think that that is to be welcomed very much. As Patricia Ferguson has said, in the normal cycle of parliamentary events, which we seem to have got out of a full time being, nonetheless, it would be at the end of a Parliament, and therefore it would be less likely to be acted upon expeditiously. I will continue to press both those amendments. The question is that amendment 13A be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Would those in favour of 13A please indicate? Those against. There is one person in favour of 13A and five against. It is not agreed. I call amendment 13B in the name of Cameron Buchanan. Already debated with amendment 13, I invite John Scott to move or not move 13B. 13B has been moved. The question is that amendment 13B be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not. There will be a division. Would those in favour of 13B please indicate? Those against, please indicate. There were two votes in favour of 13B and four against. It is not agreed. I ask the minister if he now wishes to press a withdraw amendment 13. The question is that amendment 13A be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. The question is that section 49A be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 34 in the name of Cameron Buchanan, grouped with amendment 35. I invite John Scott to move amendment 34 and speak to both amendments in the group. Thank you very much, convener. Amendment 34 would require the register to be operational at least three months before the registration requirements come into force. The intention of this is to allow potential registrants to become accustomed to using the register so that any technical difficulties or misunderstandings can be addressed before sanctions come into force. It is important that registrants are able to experience practical use of the register if they are to be ready when requirements come into force. Amendment 35 would require the guidance to be published at least three months before the registration requirements come into force. The intention of this is to allow potential registrants to understand their requirements in advance so that any action needed to comply can be taken before enforcement. That would give registrants a better chance to come to grips and get to grips with the register without fear of falling foul of the requirements. If I can thank Cameron Buchanan for lodging his amendments and John Scott's explanation of the purpose and effect, the Government's position is that implementation of the act is properly a matter for Parliament and that the Government will be steered by it in determining when relevant provisions of the bill should be commenced. While I accept the underlying spirit of Cameron Buchanan's amendments, ensuring that the mechanics of the register and guidance are in place before the duty to register bites on lobbyists, I do not believe that it is necessary to set that out on the face of the bill. The Government's preference would be to leave it to the Parliament's discretion to determine when the provision of the bill should be commenced and the order in which that takes place. In doing so, it is the Government's expectation that the Parliament will wish to ensure that guidance on the operation of the act has been produced and that support will be available to those lobbyists who may be required to register their lobbying activity. For those reasons, I invite John Scott not to press amendment 34. I invite John Scott to wind up and indicate of his pressing or withdrawing. I will press the amendments. I have nothing further to add. Thank you. The question is that amendment 34 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Are we not agreed? There will be a division. Would those in favour of amendment 34 please indicate? And those against? There is one in favour and five against amendment 34 is not agreed. Call amendment 35, in the name of Cameron Buchanan, already debated with amendment 34. John Scott to move or not move. The question is that amendment 35 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Would those in favour of amendment 35 please indicate? And those against amendment 35 please indicate? There was one in favour of amendment 35 and five against amendment 35 is not agreed. The question is that section 50 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The question is that section 51 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The question is that the long title be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Coup, that ends stage 2 consideration of the bill. Oh, sorry. One moment please. Convener, if I could just crave your indulgence while the minister is still with us. I just wondered if a date had been established yet for the stage 3 consideration, just to give colleagues around the table the opportunity to think about the framing of amendments for that stage. I'll come back to members on that. Early indication would certainly be helpful, minister. Thank you very much. We now come to agenda item 4, which is about chapter 7B of the Standing Orders. We have a note from the clerks regarding this and I invite general comments from members on the note before us. We have at section 17 of the note before us three suggestions as to matters that we might care to agree. First of all, we could make no changes to standing orders, having considered the issues that Mary Fee has raised. We can give further consideration to standing order rule changes, or we can highlight that this is a legacy issue for next sessions committee. Indeed, there may be other options that members wish to draw to our attention. Yes, Fiona. Convener, it's a very useful paper again to try and get our heads around this. I'd like to suggest that there is another option. If I can go through the three that we've been given and give my reasons for why, I think that we need a fourth option. To say that we should make no changes to standing orders—I said it last week—I'm very reluctant to change standing orders without careful consideration. However, the issue over the trade union bill has highlighted that this is an issue worth pursuing. It came to thinking about the Westminster change to English votes for English laws, so there may well be times when the Westminster Government says that it's about England only, but we will see that there may be impacts on Scotland. For that reason, I don't think that we can say an absolute no to changing standing orders. However, I would say for point 2, yes, to give further consideration to standing orders, but I go back to what I have always said previously. We shouldn't be doing a change to standing orders as almost a knee-jerk reaction to what the trade union bill threw up, but given what I've already said, I do think that we have to consider if this needs to be done in a wider view. To say that we should highlight it as a legacy issue is very important, but given the discussion that has been around that trade union bill and now the thinking of different laws that could be happening the way things are changing in Westminster, I think that for us to leave it as a legacy issue is perhaps leaving it in the hands of another committee that hasn't done that original thinking. I would like to suggest a fourth option, which is that we start thinking about it now, but I don't want us to rush into anything, so I want us to give it a considered thought over the next few weeks at which point we can then say have we had enough time to make a change or have we had enough time to consider whether it is something to suggest to the next committee. I can have one question to the clerks. Last week when we talked about this, we talked about that the Welsh Parliament Assembly had decided that they would vote against an LCM in their situation. I was just wondering what happened in Wales with that vote and whether Westminster took any consideration of it at all. My understanding is that the Welsh Assembly did agree that there should be an LCM, but I don't know how the Westminster Government is responding to that. It might be worth us having a look, but we are in touch with the Welsh clerks about developments there. Okay, that's fine. That's something that hopefully we'll get further information on at a later point. Fiona has made some interesting comments there. Has anyone else wished to make any comment? If not, then that's the basis that we'd move forward on. Michael. I have, as I said last week, come resistant to changing standing orders because there's a disputed ruling by the Presiding Officer, but I do accept that the evil situation may change things and it may produce circumstances in which obnoxious legislation such as this, and I repeat the word that I used last week, obnoxious legislation, will, in some interpretations, be difficult to deal with. Legislative consent motions have no force. I'd be very interested to see what has happened with Wales, but I suspect I could predict what the reaction of the Westminster Government will be, which will be nothing at all. It will not be moved by it. Perhaps we do need to create a different category, another category, that deals with legislation that appears to be, and the Government of the Day at Westminster says is only to do with England or Wales, but which we believe has much wider consequences. I think that that's worth doing, and I think that Fiona is also right to say that that's not doing nothing, that's saying what we can do, and we should try and consider that before the end of the session. I think that it's time to do so. If we were to look at this over the next two or three weeks, we might be in a position to make a recommendation to the next Parliament because there will be other recommendations to the next Parliament. I wasn't a member of this committee when it was drawing up its report on procedures, but I did give evidence to it, and there will be the need for the next Parliament to consider some urgent changes at a very early stage. That might be one of them at the very start of the next session. Patricia? I think that we have to remember why we are looking at this paper today. The reason for that is because Mary Fee sent a letter to the committee asking that a rule change should be considered. That was also part of an amendment that was agreed by the majority of Parliamentarians in debate. Clearly, the amendment had to be worded in such a way that it would be competent, but the clear intent of that was that we should focus on what was happening with the trade union bill, which is a clear and present danger, and that we should do so with a view to this Parliament being able to suggest to the UK Government by means of an LCM the very clear opinion of the Parliament that the trade union bill is a bad thing and that Scotland should be treated differently for all the reasons that were rehearsed in the debate, which are not rehearsed here. Clearly, there is a timetable for that bill, and I think that it is very important that anything we do is—I am sorry, I may have lost my microphone, or maybe I have the microphone, sorry—so we have to consider anything that we are doing in relation to the timetable for that bill. Otherwise, the discussion is frankly moot, so I think that we do press ahead with the work on a change to standing orders in the knowledge that that is in effect what Parliament was asking us to do. I think that what this whole matter has thrown up very starkly in fact is the absolute lack of status of the LCMs and in the paper before us in paragraph 11 it says very clearly that the procedure itself has no status or special effect and any clear expression of the will of the Parliament will be effective. It shows us very clearly that LCMs are not worth the paper that they are written on. I think that the response to the Welsh Assembly's vote on an LCM will be very understanding, and I agree with Mike Russell, I think that Westminster will just say tough, because it highlights very clearly where the power lies and the power lies in London. However, having said that, we do need to move this forward, we do need to discuss this, and I think that we should do it as quickly as we can and see where we get to with that by the time the Parliament goes into disillusion. I am not sure whether I should be declaring an interest as a Deputy Presiding Officer or not, but I speak as a member of the Scottish Parliament, although I am fully supportive of the Presiding Officer's position. I am reluctant to see a change to standing orders. It is the will of the Parliament. Nonetheless, it might be perceived as a knee-jerk reaction, and, therefore, the old Maximus act in haste, repent at leisure, I do not see knee-jerk reactions. They have never been regarded as the basis for creating good law. Further, I would say that we still have to await the arrival of Smith and see how that interacts with all of this. I have to confess that I am not absolutely up to speed on whether or not there will be an interaction with the proposals. However, I think that it would not be unreasonable for Parliament to look into this without prejudice. It should be an issue that the next session of Parliament will be in due course and over time. After proper consideration, it will come to a view on it, and I think that that would be a reasonable way forward. I will come to Patricia. I will make a brief observation. Clearly, there is a sense in the committee that we are not closing this off today. That is quite clear to me. We need to address the issues of what process we now adopt, what content we are looking to develop and what timing we are going to use to do all that. In our deliberations, considering the matter, we have to address that. Perhaps it would be helpful if you addressed that in addition to anything else that you wanted to say, Patricia. It strikes me, convener, that we are in danger of being sidelined into a completely separate and different debate, because talk of evil and the Smith commission, while they are very important—I do not say that they should not be the subject of work by this committee. It would be interesting to look at those. However, as Dave Thompson did, refer members to paragraph 11 of our paper where it says that the convention does not specify how consent of the Parliament, or indeed absence of that consent, is to be obtained or expressed. Chapter 9B sends out the procedure that the Parliament has chosen to help it to deal with legislative consent in an appropriate and consistent way. It is the 9B provision that has prevented us from having an LCM, whether it is effective or otherwise, is not part of my argument. However, my argument is that the Parliament clearly thought that it should have an LCM. That was ruled out by the Presiding Officer, quoting Chapter 9B as her rationale for doing so, and therefore our attention should be focused on whether or not we wish to amend section 9B. I go back to the point that I regard the trade union bill as obnoxious. Parliament has said that it is obnoxious. It can say it again and again in whatever format it wishes. Regrettably, the reality of the situation in which it is Westminster holds the cards is that what we need is a circumstance in which, if we do need any change, we can express that about bills that might be defined by the Government or by other rulings that are not bills that are subject to LCMs. I do not think that the UNIS proposal will get us into that next stage, and that is good. It may be if Patricia believes that that should be done before the end of the session. It is possible, although I tend to sympathise with what John says, to rush this in a way that might get it wrong would not necessarily be sensible. However, I do not think that we should go back to where I was last week. We should not be making changes to the existing standing orders because we object to a single ruling by the Presiding Officer whether or not we believe that it is right or wrong. Certainly not speaking as a convener, but as an individual, I think that at the end of the day there is a difficulty if we seek to take from the Presiding Officer the custody of standing orders and the interpretation or be seen. I am not sure that we are necessarily there, but I think that there is a risk in that. Fiona, let me come back to you because I have made the suggestion that whatever we end up with we need to understand the process from here, the content that we might address in the timing. Do you have anything to add to what you previously said that might help us in that regard? I am not sure if I get anything that would help. I will come back to the paragraph in Mary Fee's letter to us where she says that she is asking her committee to provide the opportunity to vote on an immediate change of standing orders. An immediate change is the right way to approach changing standing orders. When you read through the paper that we have got this week and we have had last week, I am very struck about how this is a standing order of the Scottish Parliament. We have to look at it, but it is about how it fits into what does DGN stand for? The devolution guidance note, the memorandum of understanding, is about aligning them. I think that to make an immediate change without us understanding that if we change a standing order that interrupts that alignment, will it have the effect that we wish it to have, or will it again be an empty gesture of us shouting into the wind because there is an MOU and a DGN? For me, I would like to start working on that and get that idea behind what it is and that could perhaps help us to formulate more exactly what it is that we need to be doing. That is fine in a sense. Could you perhaps illuminate a little more of the process and merely throw in things that we might, as a committee, do? Are you envisaging that we should invite evidence from people? What is the process from here? Can we, because I appreciate Patricia's point that there is a demand in some quarters for immediate change, we should probably look at, if we could, two draft standing orders, one of which would achieve what Patricia wants to achieve, one of which would achieve what Fiona wants to achieve, but we could make a choice. I will come to you in a second, Patricia. I want to be just quite clear where we are heading today. At the moment, as a matter of process, we have a very specific set of words that Mary Fee has proposed that be put as a change standing order. On one side of the discussion, I have a clear set of words and there is no ambiguity. On the other side, I do not yet have a clear set of words, and that leaves me as convener with a bit of a difficulty, I have to say. I cannot put two propositions. It is clear, but I think that the clerks would be able to capture that concept in a draft standing order. The concept is that there would be an additional category, eight wherever it is, which would be for legislation for which a legislative consent motion was either not sought, not permitted, whatever the language is, and that category would allow the Parliament to give an opinion of that, even if there was not a legislative consent motion. We are looking at, and I merely plucked this out of there, a 9C paragraph, which has something appropriate in it. Patricia, you have been dying to come in. We got this paper on the basis of the letter that we had from Mary Fee and the people being anxious about not rushing into making a change without considering what is before us, but we are now proposing that we should rush into something else without having a paper to consider before us. Well, I think that we are. The paper that we have in front of us is talking very specifically about the situation that applies in relation to chapter 9B and the trade union bill. Either we want to do something about the trade union bill, as far as we possibly can, or we do not, and that is quite a straightforward matter. However, any other change that brought in anything new to deal with any perceived circumstances would, in and of itself, have no more status than an LCA. I really do not see why we would at this stage want to open up that debate when we do not actually have Smith finalised, when we have got a devolution further powers committee who is looking at all of that, whereas, with 9B, we have a recommendation from the devolution further powers committee, or we have a view—it is not necessarily a recommendation—and we have the view of Parliament. We really need to focus on that, because, if not, we are abrogating the responsibility that our colleagues have given to us in this regard. I utterly reject that. There is no abrogation of responsibility. The committee is performing the function for which it exists, not only to consider standing orders, but to be part of the stewardship of standing orders. It is absolutely right that that function is fulfilled, so I absolutely reject that. I am not saying that the member is pushing us this way, but I think that we are in danger of an interpretation being given that, if you are not in favour of the change that Mary Fee has suggested, you are in some sense in favour of the trade union bill. Can I repeat, for the third time, as strongly as I can, for the record, I regard the trade union bill as uniquely obnoxious, but, equally, if we were to overrule the Presiding Officer essentially by changing the rules because we disliked a single ruling of hers, that would be the wrong thing to do for the future of this Parliament. So the question is how we move forward. I think that Fiona has made a positive suggestion. It would seem to me that that is something that we could consider, but just simply to assent to Mary Fee on the grounds that if we do not, we are in some sense wimpesh about the trade union bill and in some sense defying the will of Parliament, I reject both of those absolutely. Can I just say that I have just taken some advice on one aspect of this to be clear what difference there is when it is in LCM to a motion identically worded that is not described in LCM, and there is one difference. I will hold in if I get this wrong. The one difference is that, when it is in LCM, the clerk of the Parliament writes to the clerk of Westminster to draw Westminster's formal attention to the opinion of the Parliament. When it is not in LCM, that process does not, of necessity, take place. It is not prevented from taking place, and I think that that is possibly the immediate today missing link that we might get to discuss. Mr Russell, if I will forgive me, Mr Thompson has been catching my quite agitatorily for some time, and I will give him his due and come back to you. As a lifelong trade unionist who organised his first strike when he was 14 years old, I, like Mike Russell and many folk in this Parliament, abhor what is happening with the trade union bill being imposed on us by Westminster. My father was also a trade union activist in Murrayshire, a very strong Tory area back in the 30s and so on, which was a very difficult thing to do because it was very easy to be a trade unionist on the red Clyde side, where everybody else was a trade unionist, but in Murrayshire you were very much on your own. If we move too quickly on this and if any suggestion is made that Parliament takes over responsibility for those decisions, as opposed to the PO, I think that we would be in real danger of getting ourselves into very dangerous ground. That has got to be dealt with properly, with proper thought, and it has nothing to do with anybody's position on the trade union bill, where Mike Russell and I and others have made our positions very clear. It is about proper governance and proper procedure within this Parliament. We, in the procedures committee, have a duty to make sure that we get those things right. I think that I will come to Mike, Patricia and John. If the issue is the letter from the clerk to the clerk at Westminster, it would be possible, by special resolution, I am sure, to request that. Indeed, I would be happy to support that, if any member were to put down her motion saying, drawing attention to the debate that took place on the trade union bill, and to say that there is information and that is it, fine. However, to change our entire standing orders, you know how to do that, I think is highly dangerous. I would just say that I support what Mike Russell has said, and I also support what Dave Thomson has said to give me, Patricia, for jumping in before you. We are also the custodians of the law here in Parliament, as well as the creators of it. I think that, as I said earlier, we are pity to act in haste and repent at leisure and that there is a real danger of doing something precipitate here that is not reasonable. I think that we should avoid that at all costs. Thank you, convener. For the avoidance of doubt, I am not accusing anyone of being in favour of the trade union bill. I do not see how any right thinking person could be, quite frankly. I do not feel the need to rehearse my trade union credentials in order to back up what I am saying. Most of us in this room are trade unionists and probably active trade unionists to a greater letter extent, and I suspect that we are all very proud of that fact. That is not about whether or not you are in favour of this particular bill. When we had the debate, I was conscious of the fact that I let her go from the clerk of the Parliament to his opposite number at Westminster, if an LCM had been passed. For that reason, I suggested in my speech at the time that perhaps our business managers might collectively like to go with a copy of the official report and present it in Downing Street, and I still think that that might be something they would like to do. I would certainly be happy to join them to do it if they wished me to be there. I am sure that many of us would. The point that I am trying to make is that I jealously guard Parliament's rules and regulations, too. I have a lot of sympathy with the idea that we should not move precipitively to change standing orders, but the fact of the matter is that that is the discussion that we had last week. As a result of that discussion, we have this paper in front of us today, which is supposed to facilitate us having a discussion about whether we wish to move to change the standing orders. I am of the opinion that we do. Others may have a different view, and that is not about whether you are in favour of the trade union bill or not. That is just about a procedural issue. We probably have rehearsed all the arguments quite frankly, and I think that we should just move to a decision on it. Just one moment please, John. Let me just put to you what the sense I am getting from you and test whether I am reading what is going on. We agree that we are not intending in this meeting to revisit the substantive issue of the trade union bill as such. I think that that is beyond doubt. The second thing is that I am getting a pretty strong but not unanimous sense that we do not wish to recommend the change that Mary Fee has put to us at this stage and in this form. I equally get the sense that we would wish to encourage Parliament by means, as yet perhaps not fully understood, to ensure that Parliament formally notifies the Westminster of Parliament's views on this piece of Westminster legislation, as would have been the case if an LCM had been passed. As I say, I think that we have to explore how that might be done. Just one moment, John. I think that, too, we haven't rejected and therefore still have on the table the proposal from Fiona that we look further, having dealt with the immediate issue in the way that I think we are getting to at whether there are standing order changes that are appropriate to make. Let me put it to colleagues. Have I sensibly summarised where we are just now? Patricia, in particular, I addressed my question at. Yes, but my fear is that we are losing our focus. No, I understand and respect the point that Patricia Ferguson makes, but in the summary I have come up with what I am proposing to enable us to complete what we are going to do today, but not the issue, is that we are not at this stage agreeing to bring forward the change that Mary Fee has suggested. Neither are we yet dismissing it, I hasten to say. We are inviting Fiona perhaps to work with the clerks in the reform and alternative formulation. I think that that has to happen, but we will invite the clerks to consider that, but I would invite Fiona to, just one second, if I may. We are also going to invite the clerks to explore how, in a proper formal sense, we can get the Parliament to notify Westminster of the view that we have expressed through a non-LCM motion. John. I would like to say that, if it is the intention or the will of this committee to notify Westminster of the view of the Scottish Parliament and of what you are, which I am certainly aware of in any way, we must be done within the remit that we have in terms of the Scotland Act and therefore must not be able to read this. It is difficult, but I would not wish it to be seen to be challenging the authority of the Presiding Officer either. I think that that is vitally important to the principles of our Parliament, and I have already suggested to reiterate it again with the additionality in as much as this committee will doubtless have a legacy document, which all other committees have as we run up to dissolution. Either this should be number one, if that is the view of this committee, and I am very aware that I am a guest on this committee today, that it should be higher the legacy document of things to be addressed, or, as I have said, to begin an inquiry into this whole process while we await the outcome of the Smith commission and its effect on our Parliament in due course. As I say, I am repeating myself, but I think that it might be precipitous to do this before the full impact and implications of Smith are in front of us. John, you are a full member of this committee while you are here as a substitute member, so I am delighted to see you as a substantially more than mere guest. In your summary prior to John Scott's contribution, you mentioned that Fiona's suggestion was an alternative to this. I do not see it as an alternative, I see it as a different workstream, and I think that the two things have to be kept separate because we have to dispose of this one one way or another. Anything else is a different matter. I think that Patricia makes a fair point. What I was seeking to do was not necessarily to put the two in opposition because we do not know the other proposition if one emerges, so we cannot yet say if we could do that. All I am saying is that we do not dispose of Mary Fee's proposal at this stage until we see what other proposals might be additional to Mary or in distinction to Mary. I simply do not know where we are going to get on that at this stage. In your summary, it was entirely fair. I think that if we proceeded on that basis, then we would want to dispose of this at our next meeting, but we need to get it a little bit more. Right. Just for clarity as well, I do not envisage that this committee has the power to take the action on notifying Westminster, but we have the power to ask that we go away and find out how that may be done and what the process is on. I think that it is that, I am suggesting, just for clarity in case there is any other... No, the climate is quite clear on that matter. Right. Okay. I think that that draws this to a conclusion unless anyone is... I am not sending you with the letter. Not unless Parliament takes a quite extraordinary decision. But Parliament would have the power to send me if it chose to do so, and I would, of course, do it. However, colleagues, I think that we have now reached the end of our meeting unless anyone has any... Patricia? That is my one very brief question. That is, convener, that last week we agreed that we were not going to dispose of the item concerning Mary Fee's letter and the consequences thereof that we would get a paper and we would do that this week. Now we seem to be saying we are going to do it next week. Can I respectfully ask that next week we absolutely come to a decision because the timetable is tight? I think that at this stage I can only note your observation, but I absolutely understand timetable, which is why, of course, when the subject first came up, I did spell out our understanding of the parliamentary timetable Westminster. Right. On that basis, I think that concludes today's meeting. Thank you for your support and assistance, and I will see you... That sounds like we're going to be here next week again briefly, not for the stage 2, but to address this issue. 9.30. Probably will be good enough, I think. Thank you. All right. Thank you very much.