cymdeithasol o'r rywbeth sydd wedi lawer â rhodiellau iaith o ffordd ac yn dod beth rhywbeth y byddai yn gyda fawr i'r hunain. Mae yma ar gyfer ynghylch gan y maes o'r rhan a meddwl yn ymbeithiau yng Nghymurog. Mae gennym i yr echyfliadiau ar gyfer o'r cyfrieddau, ac mae'n fynd i'ch cysylltu a'r cyffredinol i'r cyffredinol yn ddigon cyfanffordd ynghylch i ar ni, ioweith i'r lloghaf, ac i'n I have a few moments for the front benches to get themselves ready for that debate. Can I also invite all members who wish to take part in the debate to press a request to speak button now? Can I also advise that we have a little time in hand so if members wish to take interventions then the Presiding Officer will make sure that they are compensated for that in their speech. Can we start the debate by calling Stuart Stevenson, the committee convener, to open the debate on behalf of the committee? Mr Stevenson, 13 minutes. Thank you very much indeed, Presiding Officer. I am very much obliged to the bureau and the convener's committee for making time available for this committee debate. I may indulge your indication that there is a little bit of slack time in this debate by occasionally stopping to restart my voice and I have the glass of water beside me should that prove to be necessary. My apologies to anybody who feels inconvenienced by the tone of my voice. It is entirely to do with something not under my control. The word lobbying can have negative connotations of deals done behind closed doors, but the starting point for the standards, procedures and public appointments committee's inquiry is that lobbying is a legitimate, valuable and necessary part of informing a healthy democracy. The more voices that feed into the Parliament, the more informed we will be to scrutinise, to legislate, to develop new policy. On that basis, lobbying should be actively encouraged. We are founded on principles, including openness and accessibility, and the committee is clear that nothing the Parliament does in response to proposals for change should inhibit our engagement with Civic Scotland. However, it needs to be clear what and who has influenced decision making. It is the who, what, who knows, who is affected by lobbying that matters. The committee's work was initiated in the context of the introduction of a bill at Westminster and also of Neil Findlay's proposal to establish a statutory register of lobbyists. Helen Eadie was the acting convener at that time of the committee and, as ever, we are grateful for her contribution as a Parliamentarian to our committees and to the subject that is before us today. The committee has taken a great deal of evidence. We are extremely grateful to all witnesses and those who have submitted written views. Many of the people who have been involved in that process are with us in the public gallery this afternoon. I am delighted to see that continuing engagement with the committee's activities is not for the committee and not for Parliament alone. The convener will do so, Mr Findlay. Can I ask the convener why the committee undertook its investigation and who prompted that? As I say, when Helen Eadie was acting convener at the point when Dave Thompson was unwell, the decision was made by the committee. It was requested by a range of people, but the committee itself is master of its work and, under Helen Eadie's leadership, decided that we should do this. I would say personally that it may be a weakness of mine to think the best of people, but I have always thought that, as an MSP, we must defend us against the worst. I hope that today's debate makes a contribution to our all getting to that point. If you wish, yes. Can I ask the convener if the committee, whether he or the previous convener, was asked by the Government to have an inquiry into this? The Government is very keen that we should do this, but there were not the only ones who were taking an interest in the subject. The important thing is to be aware that the committee itself could decide what it would do. The committee on a cross-party basis agreed to do it. I will make some progress, but I will welcome further interventions on the substance of what I am going to say. The important thing is that this is a matter of huge relevance for us. In coming to Parliament today, we thought that it was important before we came to our conclusions and published them to take the temperature of members and beyond Parliament. Our inquiry set out to investigate whether there was an issue with undue influence or access to politicians in Scotland. The good news for MSPs is that we received no evidence of a scandal on the horizon about lobbying in Scotland. The evidence that we did here, from a diverse range of views, painted a broadly positive picture. It is an important but, even if everything is fine, are we providing enough information to others that enables them to decide that that is the case? With additional powers coming to this Parliament, there may be the need for additional safeguards. In any event, we have to revisit our rules and make sure that they are prepared for what may come in the future in the way of challenge. Many witnesses in particular were critical of recent Westminster changes, and I am sure that will feature in the debate. The UK legislation on lobbying was not held in high regard by a good number of our witnesses. It was described as a sham by one and another said that they hoped that it would be repealed. We have an opportunity to think calmly and collectively about whether and how to change the lobbying regime in Scotland and what the pros and cons of tightening the rules on lobbying would be. We found that a good question to get the debate started in committee was who should the onus be on in making details of lobbying activity public? Should the onus be on the lobbyist, the person being lobbyist—and that will include many of us, most of us, all of us—or should it be on both? Plenty of people consider that politicians and senior officials should make their diaries public, which in practice would mean publishing details of contacts with lobbyists. Others suggest that I will indeed. I thank the member for giving way. I have not been involved in this myself, but when I saw the suggestion of publicising our diaries, I personally would be happy to do that, but I think that there are some individuals and groups who come to me confidentially would be quite nervous about their details being in the public domain. The member makes a perfectly proper point. I will develop that a little bit later in my remarks. Others who came to the committee suggested that there was no substitute for a register of lobbyists. It could simply be a complementary measure in the publishing of diaries. However you capture lobbying activity, the first question has to be, what is lobbying? That sounds like a simple question, but the answer is one of the most contested in political science. The temptation is to go for a very simple wording, something like lobbying is contact with a person in public office in an attempt to influence. That sounds very straightforward, but what form of contact should be included? Does that definition make just about everybody that you come across in your working life as a politician or lobbyist? If I, in my train journey home tonight, end up talking about public policy to somebody sitting in an adjacent seat, would I have to register it using that definition? Politicians make contact with people in many ways. To name a few were email briefings for chamber debates, were phone, tweeted, Facebook messaged. We meet people in cross-party groups and at events inside this building and in our constituencies and we meet people by absolute happenstance. Getting even more complicated, we read in the media about research and grassroots campaigns, some of which are begun by third parties, the names of which sometimes deliberately receive no coverage at all. Which elements of those types of contact could be captured in a lobbying register? If we go for a register, who should be required to register? Some approaches in other countries just require consultant lobbyists to register, but the evidence that we received suggested that so much of modern lobbying activity is in-house, meaning that just registering consultant lobbyists would not capture enough, and I think that there would be agreement about that. Other witnesses suggested that in-house lobbying was hard to capture as lobbying is incorporated into communication strategies and into the day jobs of people with multifaceted roles. It should be noted that there was not in our witnesses and those who responded to our consultation a lack of willingness to make activities public. Lots of organisations made clear that they already publicised information, not least to demonstrate to the outside world their customers and stakeholders the value of their work. They are also regulatory requirements for charities and for others to adhere to, which require information to be published. Unions will wish to highlight the fruits of their levers to their members and to others. A number of public affairs organisations public voluntary registers and relevant codes of conduct. It is often the logistics of how our registration system would work that was the focus of concern. Some suggested that systems that exempt groups based on size, purpose, amount of lobbying activity or income that placed thresholds on when to register lobbying activity could be problematic, as exceptions can create unforeseen loophalls and unintended consequences. Another approach would be a sliding scale of information that is required, proportionate to the size of the organisation. For example, it could require some organisations, like full-time consultant lobbyists, to register in full regularly and small charities with more limited resources to register activity less regularly and in less details. The proportionate approach requires a lot of careful consideration on how you would set the rules for such a sliding scale. For example, should a large charity lobbying for big government contracts, as many do, register as much as consultant lobbyists or should register as much as small charities? The idea of charging a fee to register was almost entirely rejected in evidence on the basis that this would create a barrier or at worst a deterrent to people seeking to engage with the Parliament and with government. Any additional cost such as for a register or for software to create a modern register would need to be met from the public purse, as ever when there are financial considerations. Members will need to consider whether the funds that are required are justified and will achieve the objectives of increased transparency, accountability and, as intended by some witnesses, an improvement in trust in the political process and politicians. We also looked at sanctions with some arguing that naming and shaming lobbyists acting inappropriately would in and of itself have a powerful effect, curbing their ability to engage in future. Others suggested that, for the bigger lobbying firms, nothing short of big financial penalties could curb behaviours. That raises the question in what circumstances should sanctions be imposed and by whom. We heard from some that there are issues with existing voluntary registers being too weak. They lack the ability to oblige information or to sanction effectively. Others suggested that a full statutory register in Scotland was a disproportionate effect to crack a nut. In response to the suggestion that a register would never provide the full picture of lobbying activity, those pushing for increased transparency suggested that a fuller, if still incomplete, picture would nonetheless be beneficial. Interesting developments elsewhere also informed us with the National Assembly for Wales inquiry deciding that Wales should stop short of a register but rather look at other measures. Turning to the point that Mr Mason raised, I have tested the water. I have reviewed my own diary and have established a published copy of the entries that I consider to be lobbying. It proved very simple to do and to publish the parts of my diary. You can see the results, if you are interested, at lobbying.stevensson.scot. I tweeted about that this morning and, interestingly enough, we have already had over 200 views of the information that I have provided. I do not know whether there will be interest in anybody else in the chamber, but at least there is interest in me. However, seriously, have a look at what I have done. It is just a personal venture and nothing to do with the Parliament or the committee. Give me feedback and that will inform the committee and also help us as a committee to see what the effort is for the broader generality of members, rather than for perhaps one of your more technically illiterate members that perhaps might be myself. Members who want to do it for themselves in the short term, I am quite happy to sit down and talk about how it is done. I am coming towards the end, a little bit more to say, but be warned at the end of the day when you do that, there is quite a lot of judgment calls to be made about what is or is not your being lobbied. If you meet a group with a small campaign in your constituency, that can presumably be considered to be constituency casework and so needn't feature in a published record of lobbying content. However, if you meet them again and they have a local business represented there or even a professional lobbyist with them, that will almost certainly tip them into. You have to publish it. That is a view that I would take. Members will note that committee members' contributions in this debate will largely consist of snippets of the views of stakeholders. They will be reading out 100-word statements from them. Now, those are not necessarily the views of the members themselves. What we are trying to do as a committee is to bring the outside into the debate to the floor of the chamber. This matters to folk out there. It is not just about our own internal naval gazing. I know that there are already live interchanges in debates on Facebook and Twitter, and the committee will look at those after the debate and see if that helps us to understand. That completes the whistle-stop tour of the issues that we have been tussling with. It is a complex issue altogether, a complex area. Passions can run high. We had one very, very spirited debate, which was between panellists. Fortunately, there was a neutral person sitting between the two of them, and you can look at the video if you want to. Now, it is over to our colleagues here in the Parliament and people who are watching to help us to understand what the correct balance between regulation and ensuring that the Parliament remains open and accessible, as it currently is. The committee is not set on its findings. We have not attempted yet to reach consensus on most or many of the issues, so it genuinely is a chance today to influence what we will put in the report and make recommendations to you in due course. I thank you very much indeed for the extra time, Presiding Officer. I found it useful, hopefully, everyone else did as well. I want to start by thanking the convener for his thoughtful opening remarks and for the efforts that he made, the commendable efforts that he made with the challenges of his voice today. I also want to thank the entire Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee as a whole for bringing the issue to the chamber today. I think that it is appropriate at this stage to take the opportunity to put on record the Government's support for the committee inquiry. Their work is central to ensuring that we find a consensual way forward. The inquiry is being conducted in a thorough and inclusive way, hearing from a wide range of stakeholders. Their views will be vital in ensuring that Parliament can take forward reform on a balanced and proportionate basis. For the Government's part, I have also met with several stakeholder organisations, all of whom I think have subsequently given evidence to the committee. Today's chamber debate now allows individual MSPs to contribute to and inform the committee's work. Rather than usual format where the chamber debates a committee's final conclusions, the SPPA committee appears to be very much in listening mode. I think that that is to be welcome, as is the interactive debate that I understand is happening currently on social media. Hopefully, the Government comms will be able to join in, as I speak. Parliament has always led the way on matters relevant to its own affairs, and lobbying is no exception. Members will be keenly anticipating the committee's final report, but it is important that the committee should be given the time and space to get it right. In the Government's view, any reforms to lobbying practice should be proportionate, evidence-based and able to command widespread support from both stakeholders and political parties. From the outset, the Government has been very clear that lobbying is a subject where Parliament should assume a central role. That was the case in session one standards committee when it conducted a review into lobbying in 2002, and it remains the case now. The current committee inquiry feels like a natural and consistent progression from that previous work, and rightly maintains the Parliament's central role in determining best practice. I have no doubt that its findings will be carefully thought through, collaborative and consensual, helped in part by this debate. I am sure that we will all agree that improving public confidence in Parliament is a consensus issue, the responsibility for which is shared by us all. It follows that such matters should not be considered on a party political basis, nor indeed in a vacuum. Issues of probity should command a balanced, reasoned and consensual approach, which is what this Parliament has adopted since 1999. That, of course, is in stark contrast to the UK Government's approach. The transparency of lobbying, non-party campaigning and trade union administration act 2014 shows what can go wrong when party politics are applied to an issue of public confidence. The UK Government adopted a rushed and partisan approach to the obvious detriment of the end product, which was roundly criticised. We need to remember that the urgency of the UK legislation was in response to accusations made against the activities of elected representatives at Westminster. In Scotland, the context has thankfully been rather different. The driver here is not remedial action. The driver here is instead part of an on-going process of ensuring that we take stock and consider whether improvements can be made to the transparency of lobbying. As the convener has already said, analysing appropriate checks and balances in this complex area is a challenging task. Reforms must be necessary, proportionate and achieve the aim of delivering increased transparency in lobbying activity. The aim has quite rightly been to proceed methodically rather than quickly. I would like to be clear that my contribution today does not seek to pre-empt the committee's findings. However, I can offer some thoughts on Government's underlying thinking that I hope that the chamber will find useful. I believe and hope that others agree that lobbying plays an invaluable and necessary part in policy making. It should be viewed as a positive activity, as I think the convener said, consistent with the open and inclusive approach that is taken by Government and by this Parliament. I note with interest a survey in Holyrood magazine in January of this year, which concluded that four-fifths of members in this Parliament find direct contact with external organisations useful in their day-to-day role, and I fully concur with that view. I think that it is very important not just for members but also for Government. With that in mind, the Government's view is that there are three main policy principles that should guide how we approach the issues of lobbying. Firstly, any erosion of the Parliament's principles of openness, ease of access and accountability must be avoided. Reforms should not restrict how stakeholders and members of the public engage in public policy issues. Secondly, any proposed measures must complement the existing frameworks without compromising their effective operation. For example, the interests of members of the Scottish Parliament Act 2006, the MSP code of conduct, the ministerial codes and standing orders. Any proposed measures must therefore be clear and transparent in their purpose and operation. Thirdly, any solution must be proportionate, simple in its operation and able to command broad support within and outwith Parliament. I believe that if we follow those principles, we can reach a balanced, well-rounded conclusion that we can all stand behind. The convener has already mentioned the summary of evidence published by the committee. That input from a wide range of stakeholders has proved invaluable in helping to identify practical ways to enhance public transparency in lobbying activity. Everyone, given evidence, has been clear that there is no problem with probity in this area. Existing systems in Scotland to govern the probity of MSPs have not been criticised. Standing orders, MSP ministerial codes are all seen to be robust. Instead, it is the area of transparency where there is potential room for improvement. Evidence has helped us to tease out what information could be helpful to the public in terms of understanding the connection between lobbyists and MSPs. The question now is how we can further improve on our existing systems and achieve an even greater level of transparency in respect of lobbying and parliamentary activity in general. That involves analysing and identifying where there are gaps around the systems and how they could be addressed. Common theme has been the value and character of statutory measures, for example, who should be covered by a register of lobbyists and what additional information should be contained within it. I was also interested by the frequent reference to non-statutory measures and how they might contribute to an overall package to improve the transparency of our Parliament. The publication of MSPs' meetings, as mentioned by the convener, with outside interests groups, was probably the most repeated example of that. It is helpful that the convener has taken the time to show what that might look like by publishing his agenda on his website. The Government, too, took a decision some time ago to do likewise, and members can see what that looks like by searching for engagements on the Scottish Government's website. As I have alluded to, an important question is how our existing robust systems can be further improved. I am looking forward to hearing what other members have to say on those points. Before I move to conclude, I want to highlight just two of the many interesting perspectives that were raised during the committee's overall evidence session. First of Stuart Allan, who was the commissioner for ethical standards in public life, Mr Allan confirmed that, in his role, he encountered no evidence of lobbying in propriety in Scotland. He therefore did not consider there to be any justification to legislate to establish a Scottish lobbying register. He also suggested that increased transparency could instead be delivered via amendments to surrounding frameworks, which he considered to be robust. Those frameworks, as I have alluded to earlier, include the MSP code, the ministerial code and the civil service code. Mr Allan considered that there was scope to consider the enhancement of voluntary registration schemes. In his view, there was potential for Parliament to engage with the lobbying industry to establish a code of conduct. He said that we would bring… I will finish the quote and then I will go on and then I will finish my other example and then bring in Mr Finlay. He said that we would bring a great deal of credibility while leaving you with flexibility when things were going wrong. That is something that he said to be said for that. Moving on, others of course, Mr Finlay being one of them, provided a different perspective during their evidence sessions. Alexander Rinswick, from Unlocked Democracy, commented that the Parliament should act now in a calm climate before there was a vicious circle of on-going scandal followed by inquiries. Dr William Dillion from Spinwatch made the point that publishing MSPs diaries would be helpful, but it would not achieve overall aim of transparency in itself. Dr Dillion added that, in his view, any mechanism must be statutory, a voluntary system would not work. In addition, Tamsin cave from the Alliance for Lobbying, transparency considered that financial disclosure was a key point. My point about those two points was, in raising those two very diverse perspectives, is to recognise the complexity of the task being undertaken by the committee. Presiding Officer, in conclusion, we are very mindful that, no doubt collectively, we welcome the strong sense of public engagement that currently exists in policymaking in Scotland. The engagement is healthy, constructive and thankfully free from allegations of impropriety. That is the natural environment for this Parliament. We enjoy a positive climate that encourages participation, builds trust and, above all, helps to preserve the integrity of our institutions. The outcomes of the SPPA committee inquiry must be taken forward in a way that protects and encourages that strong connection that we have with the people of Scotland. Once more, I commend the way that the committee is progressing those issues, and I look forward to a consensual outcome. Thank you very much. I now call on Paul Martin. We are rapidly using up time. Mr Finlay, point of order. Given that the minister is just giving his speech in the debate, I am unsure if I caught what he said there and whether he actually stated whether the Government was still intending to legislate my proposal. Maybe you could help me in confirming that, whether he made that comment in his speech. I am afraid that it is not a point of order, but I would hope that the Government and other speakers from the Government benches may confirm or deny or at least shed light on the point that you raise. Your point is nonetheless noted. I now call on Paul Martin. Mr Martin has six minutes, so thereby please. First of all, like others, I commend the good work of the Standards and Procedures Committee and welcome the approach of today's debate, which is to lay a mentor and report before us and allow for the opportunities for members to contribute to the debate. I think also that we should recognise the role that Neil Finlay has played in ensuring that the issues brought before the committee and also welcome, which I hopefully will be the fact that the Government has adopted Mr Finlay's approach and adopted his member's bill. I am sure that that can be elaborated on further. I put in the record that Neil Finlay is yet to lobby me in the role of seeking election as Labour leader, but I am sure that that will come in due time. I also think that it should be noted in the consultation process that Neil Finlay set in place that more than 90 per cent of those who contributed to the consultation exercise said that they were in favour of the bill being taken forward. Many of our contributions today should be about ensuring that we can take it forward and ensure that we consider the wide range of views that we have contributed to in the Parliament. Going forward, although we are in absolutely no doubt that a statutory register of lobbyists is a must, if we are to improve transparency and maintain public confidence in the decision making of this Scottish Parliament. It should also be noted that the committee heard during its many evidence sessions that, unless action is taken to make the system of lobbying more transparent and accountable, then the standard is inevitably reduced. Whenever any politician is found abusing the position of privilege, privilege affects the reputation of this Parliament. We ought to all of our constituents to ensure that we maintain the integrity of Parliament at every possible opportunity. Introducing transparency into lawmaking process can only be good and would indeed help the role of this Parliament and reducing the distrust that many people feel in respect of their MSPs and ensuring that this Parliament can operate in an effective manner. A statutory register, I believe and we believe in these benches, can be the backbone of a new law that gives people confidence that the laws have been introduced fairly and not just in the interests of those who have the experience behind them and have the professional lobbyists on their side. Of course, there will be critics of the statutory register process, though there will be those who will argue that there will only be certain lobbying activities recorded, such as formal meetings, or the financial threshold will be a particular barrier in that respect. Many of those arguments were made against the Freedom of Information Act, the register of social landlords, the members' interest act that was passed in this Parliament. We need to recognise and go forward in the manner that many members and many of those who have contributed to this process have contributed to. One thing that we would recognise and, as Joe Fitzpatrick has alluded to, lobbying should be a democratic right, it should be protected and any restriction on a person's ability to communicate with their elected representative should be protected. However, let's be clear, this is not the pension of visiting or surgery, raising concerns about the local bus service. This is professional lobbyists, where there is an industry of £2 billion per year that has grown over the last decade. It is very right that there should be some regulation process put in place to deal with this. It is for those very companies who are in danger on occasions of overstepping the mark that we should have put in place and effective measures to deal with in due influencing. The test of the new legislation would be the transparency that we can be offering to the public. Labour's opinion is that we should look at the relationship of those who have been lobbied to ensure that the very principles of transparency are put in place. We also believe that there has to be rules put in place to deal with those who are former ministers. I would have welcomed a contribution from the minister on how that issue could be taken forward. I am not sure what evidence further that the committee can take in that, but we have to deal with the very fact that undue influencing can be a feature on former ministers and it is a challenge that the Westminster Government has faced in particular. It is something that we have to ensure that it will be taken forward. Is there also a position at the most? Just to be aware that the ministerial code provides that, for a period of two years afterwards, you cannot, for example, take up employment and you have to get agreement. Now I accept that it is the same arrangement for Westminster that that does not work as well as it should do. Perhaps it is something that the committee should be looking at. In my particular case, my two years is just up. The job offers have not been flooding in regretfully, but there we are. Paul Martin, in your final minute, please. I welcome the minister's contribution. I am not sure how disappointed it is that the job offers have not come in, but I am sure that it is something that the committee can refer to. In conclusion, I think that it is very important to recognise, in many ways, that transparency in this Parliament is crucial. We should recognise that the independence referendum brought about one result, and that was that people of Scotland want to engage with this Parliament. We have to ensure that people feel that that will be done in a fair and effective manner and that everyone will have access to this Parliament regardless of what their status is and regardless of who they are. I think that that is the very principles that we would wish to move forward with. We welcome the report, and we look forward to the final report that has been laid before the Parliament. Thanks. We are now taking for time, so I now call on Cameron Rıkavan up to six minutes. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I, as they say on this, swung both ways. I could not decide what was going to happen, and we were convinced many times by the arguments on both sides. I am all going to read out at the moment what five or six people have said who have lobbied us with their opinions. I will read them out, and at the end I will come to the conclusion. It is really what does and does not constitute lobbying. That is what worried everybody. It is very difficult to define. The Federation of Small Businesses said that the openness of the Scottish Parliament processes and the integrity of our elected representatives mean that we see no need to introduce new statutory regulations on lobbyists. However, should Parliament disagree, we submit that trying to define adequately which individuals must register and what activity they must record would prove impractical. We believe that a less burdensome, more cost-effective solution lies in the elected representatives maintaining a public register of their meetings with anyone who is seeking to advocate a particular policy to them. Doing this through an enhanced MSP's register of interest would seem to be a neat, cost-neutral solution. Spinwatch said that the committee's acceptance of the case for change is very welcome. It is vital that proposals for lobbying registration are proportionate and will aid transparency and accountability. As a Holyrood is set to gain more powers, it is also likely to attract more lobbying. Now is an ideal time to create a lobbying register which discloses key information on who is lobbying, whom they are lobbying, and on what issues and what resources are devoted to influencing decision-making. The lobbying information already available is piecemeal, disjointed and often unreliable, a central mandatory register that captures all organised lobbying is therefore required. A confederation of British industry said, lobbying is essential to the political process and must be conducted in an open and transparent way. Measures already exist to support transparency, including a register of the Scottish Government Minister's external meetings and the MSP code of conduct. Any new regulatory proposals should adhere to the Scottish Government principles for better regulation and be workable and proportionate response to a clearly defined problem. We believe that further clarification and evidence is needed of a problem with lobbying in Scotland before legislation is taken forward. Concern should also be given to the regulatory convergence with the regime at a UK level in order to minimise the burden on those who are affected. Cancer Research UK said, Cancer Research UK supports the introduction of a universal register accompanied by a code of conduct in order to uphold public confidence in lobbying. We believe that bad practice in campaigning activity should be exposed and eradicated, using this opportunity to regulate reasonably all professional lobbyists. We welcome your committee's inquiry into lobbying. Lobbying is a hugely important tool for charities where they are used to encourage change or maintain a positive status quo, raising awareness or provide expertise to strengthen strategy. We believe the Scottish Government should protect the ability of charities to campaign. The Association of Professional Political Consultants is a very important contribution. The Association of Professional Political Consultants is a self-regulatory and representative body for professional political practitioners, ensuring the highest standards of honesty, integrity and professionalism amongst members who are all required to adhere to a strict code of conduct. We suggest that the simplest way to achieve transparency in lobbying will be to make public the official diaries of ministers, civil servants and MSPs. We could only support the introduction of a statute registered of lobbying, providing that it applies equally to all those who engage in lobbying on a professional basis and does not extend to financial information. Those are the submissions that we had. I have actually failed to, as I say, I swung both ways in a way, because when we had somebody in, it was very good. I was convinced that we should do some lobbying, but it's so difficult to define and it failed in the end to be convinced of the necessity. What does and doesn't constitute lobbying? When I go and see somebody, I speak to them in a bar, is that lobbying? Somebody says to me, it's lobbying. It's very difficult. Publicising diaries is dangerous, because if you want to hide anything, you just don't put it in the diary. On the basis of conflicting evidence, I think we need more safeguards, but I really find it very difficult to come to an opinion. I welcome everybody else's. We now move to the open debate, and I call on Fiona McLeod to be followed by Malcolm Chisholm up to six minutes, please. It was interesting when the convener opened his remarks by talking about how lobbying is often viewed very negatively. I think part of the heart of what we are doing as a committee is sometimes down to what lobbying is. Members know that I am a librarian, that my whole profession is about ensuring that people have access to information and have the evidence to inform any decisions that they are making. I think that evidence-based policy development is one of the most important things that we can do as parliamentarians. So, for me, is lobbying a negative or is lobbying part of the process of ensuring that this parliament is open, accessible and transparent? I was first elected in 1999, and all those maxims that we talked about being our principles of openness were so important to us when we first got elected, and it has continued to be that, I am sure, for every MSP. One of the things that this inquiry has made me think about a lot is being a member of a cross-party group where this Parliament is open to allow people who work in a particular area or people who live a life experience in a particular area are able to come to this Parliament and discuss things openly and easily with parliamentarians. For me, as we go through the process, are we sure that we are still going to be an open and accessible Parliament? However, as the minister said, in his contribution, openness and accessibility, yes, but is that transparent and maybe that is the nub of what we are looking at here. I am eager to hear from other MSPs, but I was fascinated by the evidence that we were given, and I would like to give some examples from the evidence that we have received to our committee. However, I would like to start by giving you examples from two of my constituents. As the convener said, people have been tweeting and answering about this all day, and I have had constituents getting in touch with me without naming them if I could just quote from two of the constituents that got in touch with me. MSPs should know what their constituents feel about such a register. When the Scottish Parliament was founded, it was meant to have been so open and easy to access that it was thought that a register of lobbyists wouldn't be necessary. Whilst people who regularly interact with the Parliament may think that openness has been maintained, I would suggest that the general public have a very different perception of the accessibility of MSPs. They have the impression that the powerful and connected have a better quality of access to politicians than they do as citizens. Lobbyists are seen to be by a large number of people as serving big business in an effort to encourage Parliament to do what they want and not what is in the best action for the general public. The lady then concludes that I would suggest that a register of lobbyists will only increase that perception. If the Parliament really is open and easy to access, then why do we need a register for lobbyists? My next constituent that contacted me says that I am not at all sure how much lobbying goes on in the Scottish Parliament and what effect lobbying might have. I think that when you, as an MSP, are contacted by a constituent about any matter that cannot constitute lobbying. What I would be more concerned about is the possibility that a vested interest of some kind targets MSPs directly to make a case, particularly if the interest is a commercial one. This gentleman comes to the opposite conclusion. For that reason, I think that I would be in a favour of a register of lobbyists that could be consulted online. The main benefit of some formal system whereby lobbying can be made visible is to act as a deterrent and that those involved in questionable areas of lobbying might be more inhibited if they were to be aware that what they were doing is readily evident. I think that, from just those two examples from constituents, you are saying that they are both coming from the same place but arriving at the opposite conclusions. I realise that we are now short of time, so I have to go to my conclusion. A lot of the other quotes that I was going to give can be found in the official report of the evidence to the committee over the course of this inquiry. In conclusion, I think that we have to ask a number of questions. How do we define lobbying? How do we record lobbying once we have defined it? But how do we ensure the two-way flow of information from this Parliament out but from outside into this Parliament to ensure that we have evidence-based policy making? For me, the utter bottom line is, how do we remain true to our founding principles of openness and accessibility? Maybe some people come to the conclusion that we need regulation because they have a negative view of lobbying, but my own view is that I support regulation based on a very positive view of lobbying. I do not think that those two positions are in any way incompatible. I think that we can agree broadly on a definition of lobbying in terms of an attempt to influence policy by relationship with Government or MSPs, and that is clearly central to the way that this Parliament and I imagine all Parliament operate. As I say, I regard that as a positive issue. I do not think that it is as problematic as Stuart Stevenson suggested in terms of how broad that definition is. I do not think that anyone is suggesting that any individual on the train or anywhere else who is not part of some group or organisation is going to be caught within any definition of lobbying. On the other hand, I would not want it to be too restrictive. I was struck in the oral evidence that I read this week that many people from small organisations were keen to support the idea of regulation, but the key thing for them was not proceeding by exclusion but by proportionality. As long as it is not going to take up a great deal of time and bureaucracy for small organisations, many of them are in fact very keen to be part of such a system. Later on, I will give some specific examples of that. Before I proceed, I have to say that I am slightly mystified by the position of the Government on that and perhaps I will clarify in the wind-up statement. My understanding is that, in this Parliament, when a member introduces a bill, there is clearly provision for the Government to take it over. However, my understanding is that it takes it over with the intention of forwarding at least the broad objectives of the bill, if not every single detail of it. That is obviously unlike the Parliament at UK. However, if we are now finding out that a Government can take up a bill, as it seems in order, I will not say is to put it as strong as to sabotage it, but in order not to advance the details of it, then it does seem to me that perhaps we need to look at the system in this Parliament, and it may be that in that regard the UK Parliament is fairer to private members when they bring forward a bill. I have been on this committee for two years and everybody knows that I take my committee very seriously. When the Government came and said to the committee, as did many other organisations following Mr Finlay's introduction of his bill, that this was something that this Parliament should look at seriously, there is no more relevant committee to this Parliament to look at this issue than the Standards and Procedures Committee of this Parliament. We take our work very seriously. My more general procedural point is that if the Government was not minded to support Neil Finlay's bill, it should not have taken over. Perhaps that is something that the Procedures Committee can look at in a subsequent investigation. I certainly support regulation, but, as others have said, we certainly do not want to copy the legislation of the UK Parliament, which, incidentally, Labour is committed to repealing. I was struck by the description of that legislation as a small net with massive holes in it, and, of course, particularly worrying as the damaging effect it has on the lobbying of the third sector in England. I was, of course, intrigued that SCBO, unlike many of its constituent organisations, was also adamantly opposed to regulation in Scotland. I do not know whether they were confusing it with some of the things that have happened in England, but, obviously, they are proposing MSPs' diaries, and that has come up in the debate so far today. However, it seems to me that that leaves a great many holes, because we all know that so much of the lobbying is done with civil servants, with special advisers and so on. I do not see how publishing MSPs' diaries deals with the problem at all. It seems to me that there are two arguments for regulations that are preventative and positive. I thought that the preventative side was put very well by Daze Mokson at the committee, quoting briefly, as there is a problem, but we do not know. That might be because we might not have the systems in place that would identify whether there was a problem, so we hope that there is not a problem, but we have to take action to make sure that there is not either now or in the future a problem. Of course, some of the words have been used already. I think that transparency is the key word. We want transparency about how decisions are made, transparency about the interactions between Government and MSPs and lobbyists, and I believe that that will make us more trustworthy, which is important in terms of our position with the public, and more accountable. Crucially, it is very much in accord with the founding principles of the Parliament. Again, some people are almost saying that this is contrary to the founding principles of the Parliament. I was struck by the very strong words of my constituent Jenny Kempew, who is the director of Zero Tolerance, thought that she gave really powerful persuasive evidence. I have not got time to quote much, but she says that, in general, anything that aligns with the founding principles of the Parliament and opens it up and makes it more accessible has to be a good thing. She was arguing strongly that it was in accord with the founding principles of the Parliament. I thought that it was really interesting, given the concerns that some people have about the effect of this on small voluntary organisations, that she said that it would be good for small voluntary organisations like Zero Tolerance. She said that organisations like hers would gain a lot from more transparency because there is not a level playing field at present, and anything that opened up the Parliament had to be a good thing in helping to create a more level playing field. I think that today we should, and I hope that the Government, when it is wind up, will quite clearly state that it, in principle, supports regulation and a statutory register of lobbyists. Of course, a lot of the detail has to be worked out, and I am no expert on this to tell you what the detail is at all, but, in principle, we should be saying to say that we accept the need for regulation and for a statutory register of lobbyists. I have found this inquiry fascinating and there is no hyperbole there when I say that, because I believe that we have only currently just scratched the surface of the issue, because it is, as the convener rightly says, a very complex issue. We have to ensure that we do not rush into things and go down knee-jerk reaction that the Westminster Government already has done. I think that we have yet to scratch the surface of the whole issue. One of the other things is that I myself have still not made up my mind as in what is the best way forward, personally as a committee member, because the Scottish Parliament has a reputation for openness, accessibility and accountability, and nothing we should do in this issue should restrict citizens' ability to engage with this Parliament. Our approach has been in stark contrast to that of the UK Government's rushed and partisan approach to lobbying, and I will explain that further as I continue on with my speech. We find ourselves fortunate in Scotland that we have not had the issues that have been seen in Westminster, but that does not necessarily mean that there is no need for legislation as well. There might be something that we have to look at as we things go further on. The committee began its inquiry into lobbying in September 2013 and since received a wide range of evidence from various groups. Many of the things have already been said, and valuable information from across civic Scotland has been good as we have approached them. As the minister has already said, we have to make sure that we get that right. In 2013, the UK Government introduced the Transparency of Lobbying, non-party campaigning and trade union administration bill. It is a mouthful to say, let alone actually achieve anything, because the evidence that we received was that it actually does not do anything to help any groups and acts as a way of stopping groups to come and interact. The UK act puts heavy legal burdens on charities and third sector bodies and those campaigning on political issues. Canada, USA were mentioned during some of the information that we received, and Canada was put down as an excellent open transparent system, but with that, as has already been said by the convener, there was costs involved as well when you looked at the situation. However, some of the evidence that we received and some of the things that were said after Westminster legislation, the TUC general secretary Francis O'Grady said in April, that the act does nothing to curb the power of corporate lobbyists, hinders free speech, shuts campaign and community groups out of the dematerratic process and ties unions up in needless red tape. We need to make sure that the founding principles of this place are remembered that when we take anything forward. There was also a situation with Bill Hayes, general secretary of communication workers union. The lobbying industry is free to continue secretly cajoling politicians, while charities and trade unions will be silenced. That was with the Westminster model that is currently going that they were talking about, and we have to make sure that we do not go down that route. If we have that knee-jerk reaction, if we went down that stage—can I just finish this point, Mr Finlay?—we have a situation where the founding principles of this Parliament would have difficulty to be sustained. We have to ensure that we do not make these made—one of the biggest issues that came up during this whole ideal was the definition of lobbying. What exactly was lobbying? I know that other members have said that. What exactly was lobbying? Yes, I will do, Mr Finlay. It is in relation to the bill that was passed at the House of Commons. I am sure that being a fairly decent man, he will accept that my proposal has nothing at all, does not reflect what happened there, and is a completely different proposal. I am saying to Mr Finlay that the whole ideal is that we have to make sure that we do not go down that route. We have to make sure that, if we do legislate, it has to be robust, it has to be something that still makes sure that people can interact with this Parliament. The Scottish Parliament's reputation for openness and accessibility and accountability was part of what the consults of steering group set up in November 1997 actually made sure that we had that when we founded principles. However, one of the things that I want to say, because I can see that we are having difficulty with time here at this stage, was one of the most passionate discussions that we had with Professor Susan Deacon. She came from a specific aspect of being former MSP, former minister, backbencher, academic and business women. She believed that my personal perspective was that she articulated what the argument should be. She said during the official record that some of the work that took place before the Parliament was established was through the CST, the consults of steering group. Where I am a member of this committee, I would want to dust down an awful lot of the existing codes, regulations and statutes and think about how to ensure that the issues are embedded throughout the thinking, the practice of the institution as a whole and of individual members. I am passionate as I ever have been, albeit I am on the outside looking in rather than the inside looking out, about ensuring that Holyrood seems to be open, accessible and transparent. I think that those are an important part of the debate. I think that she has articulated what many of us believe is the way forward for that. I will add a couple of comments. I want to be totally transparent. Since I left the Parliament, I have spent my life working in the academic community and looking at the public policy process through another lens, while also sitting on a multiplicity of boards in the private sector for a number of charities and having advisory roles in the public sector. I have seen many dimensions of the issue. She saw from various different perspectives that that is, as the convener said, a very complex matter. She also said at one point that this is the Scottish Parliament. We do things in a specific way. We decided at a very early stage that we were going to have the surmanger principles, but I too am passionate about this Parliament and how we go about our business. If we decide to legislate, I think that we must listen to as many voices as possible and ensure that we do not lose the guiding principles of that place. That institution in this Parliament deserves much respect and we need to remember the founding principles. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Of course, I welcome the opportunity to speak in today's debate on this very important issue. Liberal Democrats have long campaigned for more transparency and accountability in our political system. With that in mind, we welcome the committee's inquiry into lobbying in Scotland, and I would add my thanks to those who have provided evidence to the inquiry. This Parliament has always prided itself on its openness. We are not only open for scrutiny but also for people from all walks of life to be genuinely involved in the decisions that are made here. The way that we do business here is different. It is an inclusive approach to the development consideration and scrutiny of policy and legislation. I think that the referendum campaign has reinforced and, for some, reignited that connection, which is, of course, to be wholly welcomed. However, what we must guard against is any move to regulate which would inhibit this free exchange of views, ideas and information. I believe that exchange is vital to the work that we do here. It means that we are better informed. I believe that it also means that we are closer to those that we represent than in many other legislators. The exchange allows us to make legislation, I believe, fit for purpose, to take into account potential problems raised by groups or individuals outside of the Parliament. It means that we can explore issues fully and properly. I would not want to see that change, nor do I believe that that would be the wish of any member of this Parliament. The difficulty, as others have already said, is the balance between making information available so that we are fully transparent and ensuring that the discussions and exchanges of information that are crucial are not curtailed by disproportionate heavy-handed regulation. How would we define lobbying? Who knows? The definitions put forward to date all seem to have some flaws. Perhaps the best starting point is that of the UK Public Affairs Council, that lobbying means, in a quote, in a professional capacity, attempting to influence or advise those who wish to influence the UK Government, Parliament, the devolved legislators or administration's regional or local government or other public bodies on any matter within their competence. However, it is difficult within that to outline the parameters at which lobbying starts and information sharing ends. That is not to say that it is not possible, but it is not quite there yet, I do not think. As Liberal Democrats, of course we believe in localism, community action, and values that we share with many third sector organisations. I believe that we are at our best when we work together for common goals and shared ambitions, working in partnership. To do that effectively means that barriers can be problematic. Having said that, we must ensure that we retain public trust and confidence in the system. We should constantly scrutinise and strive to improve the openness of this Parliament, because to do less than that is to go against its founding principles. A common call is, of course, for MSPs and civil servants to publish their official diaries along similar lines to the duties on ministers at the moment. It would seem a reasonable thing to do, and I did note before I came in here that Stuart Stevenson already does this. The call is something that I am sure will all give careful consideration to. I do not think that there is any clear answer as to whether a register or other regulation would serve to increase openness or, indeed, to hinder it. Other legislators have debated the same questions and most have come up with different results. However, the mature and cooperative manner in which we are discussing this issue in Scotland was reflected in the briefings that were received by a whole range of groups ahead of today's debate. Some argued wholly in favour of reform, others against it. There were merits in all the briefings that I saw. The one thing that I would take exception to was the statement by the Electoral Reform Society, which has read that the fact that it is not currently possible to find out who met who and why and that money and favours are still being exchanged for access to politicians suggests that legal direction is required. The fact that money and favours are being exchanged for access to politicians. I think that I will not be the only one who was angered by a money and favours accusation, particularly as the convener said that there was and highlighted that there was absolutely no evidence of that happening. Anyway, it is important that this debate continues, but it should do so on the assumption that all involved are already acting properly. In Scotland, there is nothing to suggest that this is not the case. The reconnection that we have seen with politics and the political process over the past few months has seen a return of truly grass-root politics and a national conversation open to all. If we are to continue that conversation, then continuing mutual trust and respect between politicians and the public has to be the foundation. I now call on Jamie Hepburn to be followed by Graham Pearson, six minutes or thereby. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I thank the Standards Procedures and Public Opponents Committee for their work in this important area and also for bringing forward today's debate. At the outset, I feel that I should draw members' attention to my entry in the register interests. I am a member of a variety of bodies who could easily come under the ambit of any framework. We agree for lobbying and also should declare that my wife works for Amnesty International and some of the work that she does could easily come under the terms of any lobbying regulations that we put in place, Presiding Officer. We are talking about transparency, so I felt that it was important that I should put that in the record. In considering what to contribute today, I was reminded of President Kennedy's 1961 address to the American Newspaper Publishers Association, Presiding Officer, because he addressed the subject of secrecy and he began his contribution by saying that the very word secrecy is repugnant in a free and open society. I do believe that it is appropriate and that it is necessary that we put in place a system that guards against secrecy or at least perceptions of secrecy, but I do believe that our starting premise must be, as others have mentioned, to recognise the legitimacy of lobbying. The Parliament has a reputation for not only transparency but openness and lobbying is clearly a legitimate part of our process. It is important, then, that whatever we do in this area is proportionate and reasonable. The Electro-Reform Society provided a useful briefing and it highlighted the point—I think that it was a point that Paul Martin very astutely made and it has been one that is made in the context of other debates—that, during the referendum process, we have seen a heightened interest in civic and political life at something. All members, despite our differences and views in terms of the referendum campaign, said that it was one of the things that we have all welcomed out of the referendum process. In that regard, it is vital that members of the public have faith in our transparency of operation and know who is lobbying us and who is contacting us. The Electro-Reform Society has a strong point to make. It concludes from its contact with members of the public that many members of the public have the impression that the powerful and connected have a better quality of access to politicians than they do as citizens. Whether or not we perceive that to be the case, if that is a perception out there, we would do well to act on that perception. The Electro-Reform Society concluded that a register of lobbyists would be an appropriate way to proceed. I note that the SCVO takes the alternative viewpoint, the oppose the creation of a lobbying register, and it talks about the best way to deal with that, as has been discussed in the publication of MSPs. The Diaries Association of Professional Political Consultants also reached that conclusion. I do believe that the burdens in terms of ensuring transparency in the area of lobbying should be a two-way street. I would say that, for the reasons that were raised by my colleague John Mason, I am a little concerned about the idea that our diaries should be published as part of the process. Of course, I know that the committee will look at the matter and see where the evidence goes. I will be very brief, Mr Stewart. I will be very brief. I, too, have some concerns about the diary, but it is also the ad hoc things that happen outwith, which are not normally in diaries. I travel a lot between Aberdeen and Edinburgh, as folk are well aware. In that journey, you get lots and lots of discussions with people. Do we have to add those in if we are going to publish diaries? As a fair part, I should say, Mr Stewart, that my train journey is short. I am actually more likely to meet my constituents on the train journey home than I am any lobbyist, but I think that it is a point that is well made and is worth putting on the record. I did say that there should be a two-way street. I want to posit a suggestion that perhaps the committee can consider it as it goes. Right now, where we have a declarable interest in relation to motion, we put down an amendment to another member's motion. If it is a bill that we are taking forward, we have to register that interest. Indeed, if it is interacting with another member's motion and signing it in support, we have to register our interest. I wonder whether, as elected representatives, we take forward any of those areas of our work. If we have done so because we have been asked to do so by a lobbyist, perhaps we should be registering that. I know, for example, when members bring forward amendments to bills because they have been asked to do so by organisations that members will invariably make that point on the record. I wonder whether we should be doing that on a more formal basis. I conclude and say what we should not do in this area. We should not seek to aid Westminster's transparency of lobbying non-party campaigning and trade union administration acts that came into effect on 19 September. I think that that seems to have been motivated by the desire for transparency of lobbying that it has by a desire to curb third sector criticism of UK Government policy. It has put in place severe financial restrictions on such organisations' ability to work on their area of interest during the regulated election period. Martin Syme, from the SCVO, has described that as a front to democs. I believe that people want lobbying regulated primarily so that there is transparency in organisations' influence on the legislative process, particularly where there is a commercial interest. I do not think that they want to curb the activity of friends of the earth or WWF to raise environmental concerns. We should ensure transparency in our system, but we should not clamp down on the legitimate right of organisations to criticise us, even though we do not like that criticism as part of the life of politics. I hope that the committee can take that point. I am glad to contribute to the debate this afternoon, a debate about an issue that is vitally important to this Parliament in terms of fairness, justice and transparency. I also record my gratitude to Stuart Stevenson and committee members who have played out many of the complex issues that we are trying to grapple with this afternoon. I record my pleasure hearing Helen Edie's name mentioned this afternoon, because she was one who revealed to me the importance of integrity and conviction and principle when one indulges in parliamentary procedure. In that light, I concur with many of the issues that Malcolm Chisholm made in his contribution this afternoon. The issue of lobbying is one that causes public concern. Whether that merely be on the basis of perception matters not, MSPs, civil servants and public officials can be compromised or thought to have been compromised by lobbying. That perception in itself is detrimental to all that we are trying to do here and damages public faith and democracy. I am sure that many colleagues will have been contacted at one time or another by those who have reservations about the level of contact and lobbying that occurs or is thought to occur in the confines of the building. That is not to say that trying to lobby, raise awareness and advance causes is of itself a problem. Nothing in the proposals, for instance, offered by my colleague Neil Finlay sought to prevent legitimate lobbying of members. A process properly utilised is designed to communicate, to inform and to share intelligence with those with a duty to make policy decisions on behalf of the Scottish people. However, the problem reveals when it is believed to be somehow shady and covert in the way in which policy is confirmed. The impression or assumption by some that something untoward has or is occurring damages public life every bit as much as any prospect of reality. Lobbying is part of the political process. Despite some of the more uncharitable perceptions, it does not necessarily mean undue influence, but it is undeniably about influence and awareness and ultimately about having an impact on policy and decision making. Those who would lobby will, on occasions, have their own personal interests in a desired outcome. That interest might be based and reflect common good, but on other occasions it may be founded on commercial or financial advantage. Any perception that MSPs or any official are being swayed by lobbyists exerting special influence is damaging, especially when meetings and engagements take place or are thought to have taken place in secret. That is why I supported my colleague Neil Finlay's bill on lobbying transparency in 2012. I am glad that the Scottish Government agrees that there is a need for greater transparency. I look forward to studying the proposals that it will publish in due course and, of course, the conclusions that eventually come from the inquiry from standards and procedures committee. The sheer existence of a registrar, along with a code of administration, I think of itself will go a long way to ensuring that the good health of this Parliament in terms of its integrity is recognised. The recording of interactions between lobbyists and parliamentarians should be acknowledged and recorded to ensure that they are upfront and above board. That does not inhibit discussions. It does, however, protect all of us engaged in such transactions from any perception that those discussions are of themselves suspect. Much has been said by members from all sides of the chamber about Westminster's approach to this issue and the fact that it just does not hit the mark. I agree that it was suggested that such legislation would bring clarity to the whole area of relationships, but indeed it has only muddied the water and made things more difficult in that Westminster environment. A number of charities, including Oxfam, have complained that the bill threatens to stifle public debate. The political and constitutional reform committee at Westminster criticised its own bill for being too narrow and focused on third-party lobbyists. Whatever proposals that I have brought forward to the Parliament, and unfortunately, it is the pressure on committee members to try and decide which way they will swing at the end of the day, but whatever proposals come forward for us to consider further, genuine transparency should be at the heart and an ability to deliver confidence in the part of the public that any problem that could come in the future should be headed off at the pass by an upfront solution. We must deliver a clear legislation and let us learn the lessons from our Westminster colleagues' experience and deliver with the public need, clarity and purpose and a delivery on behalf of the members of this Parliament in due honesty and integrity. I am delighted to take part in this debate today in the lobbying, particularly as a member of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee in this Parliament. I say the comments that I make in this speech this afternoon and highlight comments made by various organisations who have presented their evidence to the committee. The committee has spent a great deal of time considering the issues surrounding the issue of lobbying, and I hope that my remarks today cover some of the evidence that the committee has considered over the past number of months. I would like to share with the chamber the view of Epilepsy Scotland on lobbying. They say that although Epilepsy Scotland does not perceive that there is a tangible problem with lobbying in Scotland, we recognise that accountability around lobbying is integral to fair and open government. We believe, however, that responsibility for this rest, ultimately with MSPs and that any proposed legislation must be a proportionate response to an evidence issue. We believe that any regulation of lobbyists in Scotland should be specifically formed to reflect the culture of political participation in Scotland and the working practices of the Scottish Parliament and must not create a barrier to parliamentary engagement for organisations representing the most vulnerable and disadvantaged members of society. Epilepsy Scotland makes interesting points in lobbying here in Scotland, Presiding Officer, and its approach of the importance of taking into account the culture of political participation here in Scotland is most welcome. Particularly given the incredible passionate participation that has already been mentioned, we have seen in the recent referendum on Scotland's future. That particular point, on the increased political awareness, was also raised by the Electoral Reform Society of Scotland in its submission to the committee, in which it said that Scotland has witnessed a democratic awakening. Its citizens are engaged in a political discussion and are keen to participate in our democracy. Additionally, the Scottish Parliament is set to be charged with greater responsibility for decisions that will impact on the lives of the Scottish people. Now is the time to ensure that those decisions are made with the utmost transparency. We must ensure that our citizens have faith in the system, and that the system works for Scotland's citizens. A register of lobbyists detailing who is meeting with whom to discuss what and how much they are spending would greatly enhance the reputation of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government. It would also serve to provide the public with the means to access information about the decision making in our democracy. Another view on the way that we here in Scotland can address lobbying is that of the Association for Scottish Public Affairs. The ASAP said that MSPs legislate best when they are well informed. I agree with that. As the former ethical standards commissioner Stuart Allen said, lobbying is a legitimate and recognised part of the democratic process. There must be a level playing field. Lobbyists should not get better or worse access to MSPs than anyone else. Bad practice should be addressed, but we are not convinced by a register. Regulation should be proportionate. In the six years that the former ethical standards commissioner Stuart Allen recorded no breach of lobbying rules. Lobbyists must behave ethically, but MSPs must have responsibilities, too. MSPs should review their code of conduct. The Association for Scottish Public Affairs suggests that MSPs publish their diaries and record details of meetings with lobbyists. The only problem that I have with publishing diaries is that, when I worked with a finance firm, I had to detail my diary for the week, but I also had to record my retro diary, because during the week things would happen and I would be able to fulfil my commitments sometimes, so the next week I had to retro my diary and say what changed the previous week. That is the only point that I would make about diaries, keeping diaries. Another organisation that has addressed the issue of lobbying with the committee is Ash Scotland. Ash supports the development of a lobbying register and believes that any lobbying regulation should reflect Scotland's existing obligations under the WHO's framework convention on tobacco control, the FCTC. A legally binding international health city to which the UK is a signatory, the SCTC guidelines advise parties to protect public health policies from commercial interests of the tobacco industry. Ash suggests that, because of the tobacco industry's previous history of lobbying, that this demonstrates both overt and covert lobbying tactics aimed at undermining public health policy that is critical to track all tobacco industry lobbying practices and relationships with third parties. The Chartered Institute of Public Relations, or the CIPR, has said that Scotland's Parliament has an opportunity to demonstrate how politics can allow and encourage the free exchange of information to make better policy in law. It can do that by working with the entire lobbying profession to offer a process through which the public can access more information about their work. I see that I am running out of time, Presiding Officer. Will that be fine, Mr O'Rick Lyle? Thank you very much. I will put back in the paragraphs so that there is plenty of myths out there. I would like to share with the chamber the view of basically the situation. The debate about transparency as lobbying has given way to one that focuses on professional standards. Any proposal should support the voluntary structures that regulate lobbyists and promote lobbying as a professional community. To conclude, Presiding Officer, I would like to thank each of the organisations that I have cited in my speech today. I have expressed their thoughts and their evidence on lobbying, but also the many organisations and individuals who have contributed to the committee inquiry. I look forward to deliberations by the committee. I, as yet, apart from the point that I have made about retro diaries, put in your diary. Remember, when you have changed that diary, the next week you will have to go back and change that diary again. We are going to give ourselves a lot of work. That is the one point that I would put. I have not made up my mind yet in regards to that. I do hope that the Government will take it forward. I support the point that Mr Finlay makes, but I do not have the concerns that he has. I know that, as far as we are concerned, we are going to make the right decisions. I look forward to their contributions at colleagues and I welcome the colleagues' contributions. I thank you, Presiding Officer. I welcome the Saturday's debate, which has, on the whole, reflected what I believe is the desire on behalf of the committee, as well as the Scottish Government, to identify a set of proposals that all parties can stand behind. Although I remain to be convinced that a change in the law is necessary and desirable, I acknowledge the wish to achieve cross-party consensus for improving the transparency of lobbying. The main point that I would like to make this afternoon is that, although we all must be careful not to label lobbying as a dirty business, it is a legitimate and worthwhile activity and one that is sometimes specifically required by statute. We have passed legislation in the chamber that requires consultation and review, and we must be mindful that any restrictions on lobbying may harm the Parliament's ability to reform and improve on existing legislation. Lobbying helps to generate effective informed public policy and new laws. As an Opposition politician, I understand the value that expert opinion on legislation can have. In the absence of civil servants at our disposal, Opposition parties find it helpful to suggest from those on the know about the impact and likely outcome of new laws. Any changes to lobbying practice that makes it more difficult for this advice to be given therefore puts at risk the ability of Opposition parties to hold the Government to account. I understand that the desire for transparency on this issue voters rightly deserve to know how legislation is made and who is talking to their politicians. While leader of the Opposition at Westminster David Cameron predicted that commercial lobbying was the next big scandal waiting to happen, which is why the UK Government legislated to create a register for third-party lobbyists. My concern is that there is very little evidence that we have a particular problem with lobbying here in Scotland. Those calling for reform have not yet produced the evidence to show that Scottish lobbyists are acting with anything other than integrity. David Cameron's concern is centred around commercial lobbyists, but Scotland has not developed a commercial lobbying culture to the same extent as exists in England and Wales. The Scottish Parliament is different to Westminster and in some ways is more transparent, particularly in the way in which our committees work. In a smaller jurisdiction, it is perhaps easier for the public and for the press to keep track of what is going on. I was intrigued by the member. Maybe I picked him up wrong. He said that David Cameron's primary concern was corporate interest in the lobbying sector. Why is it at the end that his Government's legislation has massively covered the activities of the third sector rather than the corporate sector? The primary concern of the Prime Minister was commercial lobbying, but there are other aspects of the legislation south of the border that does cover the voluntary sector. I believe that the Government has worked well with some of the voluntary groups to bring them on board organisations such as the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, which initially opposed the new laws at Westminster. Working with the UK Government, eventually they were persuaded that they were worthy of support. It is worth reflecting that there are already checks and balances in place and that an element of regulation already exists in Scotland. Umbrella bodies and individual companies have voluntary codes of conduct or registration schemes for their members and staff, which are generally described as a form of self-regulation. The Association of Professional Political Consultants, the Public Relations Consultants Association and the Chartered Institution of Public Relations, the three main membership organisations for public affairs practitioners, each require their relevant members to abide by their respective codes of conduct. The APPC and the UKPAC have similar registers. Freedom of Information legislation has been used to determine information about meetings between Government staff, ministers, MSPs and lobbyists. On that, I disagree with the organisation Spinwatch, who told the Staminaus Committee that a relative death of investigative journalism meant that it was not clear whether there was a problem with inappropriate lobbying in Scotland. Journalists in Scotland, I would suggest, are a persistent bunch and have no doubt in their abilities to find a story or a scandal if one were to exist. Addied to that, the interests of members of the Scottish Parliament Act 2006 rightly prohibits MSPs from receiving payment from lobbyists, and the code of conduct for MSPs and the ministerial code of conduct reminds members of their responsibilities when dealing with lobbyists. There is little evidence that lobbyists are acting in an underhand way in Scotland, and some mechanisms already exist to promote transparency. It is therefore in that context that I remain somewhat sceptical about a change in the law, as proposed by Neil Findlay, as being necessary or desirable. Although I am open to persuasion and accept the point that, although there might not be a widespread problem, that does not mean that additional transparency would not help to prevent a problem from emerging in the future. The reason that I am cautious about this is because of what we risk losing by the creation of a lobbying register. Any change in the law must therefore be proportionate so as not to act as a deterrent from those seeking to engage in a legitimate way. If we were to introduce charges or overly onerous regulation, I have no doubt that many third sector organisations and smaller businesses would be unable to carry on with their lobbying activity. I am also sure that some larger organisations might come to the conclusion that it is no longer in their interests to make representations to politicians in an effort to improve legislation. As Professor Susan Deacon from Edinburgh University told the Standards Committee, if the Parliament's aim and aspiration is to encourage openness and access and a free flow of information and to build understanding, the last thing that we need is people worrying about how they are labelled and whether they are complying with the rules before they speak to politicians. I would like to point out that, although the Scottish lobbying environment may be different to Westminster's, we must not ignore the legislation that has been passed south of the border. Many lobbyists work across the United Kingdom, and the introduction of two wildly different schemes could introduce unnecessary complexity. I thank the committee and the convener for their report. I am not sure why it was needed and why the committee had its inquiry, however we are where we are. The Scottish Government intimated to me that it was going to take over my bill almost 17 months ago, on the very last day before recess, just before the egg timer was running down, and I would have been able to pursue the bill myself. However, it said that it would take it forward and that it was minded to legislate my proposal, but so far nothing—no legislation and a legislative programme. I fully expect the proposal to be in the new First Minister's legislative programme, and I say absolutely clearly just now that if it is not in the legislative programme, then I will return with my bill immediately. I genuinely think that there is a game that has been played with this bill, and this inquiry has been an attempt to kick the bill into the long grass for as long as possible. I hope that I am wrong, but I fear that that might be the case. I wonder whether Mr Finlay accepted that his bill generated a huge amount of interest, and that, if the bill goes forward and becomes an act, it will fundamentally affect the standards and procedures of this Parliament. Therefore, the standards and procedures committee is the correct committee to scrutinise the ideas that have been put forward. Does Mr Finlay not want the evidence-gathering that we are going through at this moment, or is he arrogantly saying that Mr Finlay's ideas for the bill are all that we need to look at? I think that the committee could have looked at this if it wanted to some time ago, but it has been a long delay and it has taken a long time to get to this position. We are where we are, and we have to move on, and I expect it to be in the legislative programme. I apologise for not following Mr Stevenson's every utterance on Twitter. I am sure for us legions of followers that it is a riveting daily intake of news and excitement, but I might try and dip into it on the odd occasion, but I will try and hold myself back from that. Can I make it clear that lobbying is a legitimate part of the democratic process? I have never said anything other than that. The briefings that are provided, the advice that we get from a whole range of organisations, the comment on legislation is all very good. I particularly commend Mr Hepburn's wife, as he has mentioned today, and the briefings that she provides for Amnesty, because they are excellent and you can pass on my regards to her for that, but I think that a number of organisations provide us with excellent briefings and that I would never seek to stop continuing, so I wouldn't seek to stop that. My proposal, as I put forward, is simply an attempt to throw light on the lobbying process and make it more open and transparent. As many people have said, in line with the principles of this Parliament of accountability, openness, equal opportunities and power sharing, this is not about stopping any of that, it is about enhancing all of it. Could we do more to enhance those principles? I think that we can. Why shouldn't the public know who we meet, what we are meeting about and if contracts are being won, Government policy change or questions being asked or whatever, people are able to see that as a result. We are supposed to act in the name of the people who elect us to come here, therefore I think that they have and should have the right to know what is going on. The register that I propose, I want to be a very simple register, I want it to be unburdensome. It would be a simple online form that could be completed. What, in effect, people are being asked to complete is an A4 form online. If you think of how that would work, you could have a template on your computer where all the information populated already, company name, if it is a company, name and address, where they are registered, who the person making the contact is and what would need filled in on a quarterly or whatever basis we agree would be a very limited amount of information. The burden on those individuals would be very limited. I accept that there is an issue, and I have always accepted that there is an issue about proportionality. The analogy that I would give is something like the Scout Association. I am sure that groups like that come to all MSPs and might say, can you help us to get the higher of a hall for free from the council or something like that from a church or whatever. Of course, that is not lobbying, that is a constituency contact that is just normal. However, if the Scout Association were involved in a bidding round for youth work that was several million pounds or whatever and they hired a lobbying firm or an in-house lobbyist in order to try and ensure that they won that contract, that is a different relationship that we would have with them and that would, I believe, be registrable. There would be thresholds in place. I think that the threshold idea is a good one because it differentiates between small-scale lobbying and something that happens on a bigger level. There is a huge difference between lobbying that costs £500 and lobbying that maybe costs £50,000. There is a clear difference here. Malcolm Chishol mentioned some of the smaller organisations. I think that we could also have a situation where smaller organisations should they choose to do so voluntarily register even if they are underneath the threshold. That would be their right to do so. On the issue of diaries, I have no problem with publicising my diary but I think that there are sensitive issues like John Mason referred to and equally the whole issue about civil servants and special advisers comes into that as well. I think that the industry in the sector have nothing to fear. Indeed, I think that it will protect the reputation of the players in the industry who take pride in their work and pride in what they do and they will have nothing to fear from that. The onus would be on the lobbyist to register but there will be no creeping around the corner with magnifying glasses wondering what people are doing. There would be a system like the register of members' interests where if a complaint was made then there would be an investigation. That is how I see it working. We have seen scandals elsewhere. We have seen cash for questions, Lobbygate, the Adam Verity, Bellpottinger cases, all those things. All those scandals that have happened elsewhere damaged our democracy. It would only take one big scandal to set Scottish politics back decades. I think that we should work together to create a system that ensures that that never happens. I have a lot more to say about the final point. With increased powers to this Parliament comes increased lobbying. Prior to this Parliament being created, the lobbying industry was almost non-existent in Scotland. However, with the Parliament came the lobbying industry. With further powers that will come with the Scotland act, we will see lobbying increasing again. If we have further constitutional change, we will have even more lobbying again. That is about protecting our democracy and we need to invest in that even if it costs us money to set up the register. I would ask everyone to seriously consider whether, if we reject this proposal, if we do not set up the register, what will the view of the people out there be? Will it be that we are interested in more openness or will it be that they are trying to hide something? I know that that is not what members co-operate and operate properly in this place. Let us keep it that way and let us not have that accusation leveled against us. Joe FitzPatrick, minister, eight minutes. I want to thank everyone in the chamber. I thought that it was a really good debate. There is much more common ground than there is division across the chamber. That was certainly the approach that the Government was hoping that we would be able to take. I have certainly found the contributions from members very interesting and helpful. I am sure that the committee will be able to draw much from the comments of members going forward. Today's contributions demonstrate that many issues arise when we are considering topics of lobbying and transparency that are very complex. Before I go and talk about some of them and some of the other contributions, I want to start with responding to Mr Finlay's earlier remarks. I had hoped to bring him in and realised that, at that time, we were becoming tight on time. However, let me be clear. It remains our intention to take this forward. It remains absolutely. However, it is a very complex issue. The Government feels that it is absolutely appropriate that the committee takes the time to fully understand all those complex issues and that the Government then takes time to consider the committee's deliberations carefully before coming to a conclusion about how best to legislate. However, let me be absolutely clear. I am just to be absolutely clear. Is he telling us today that this will be in the legislative programme coming up? The Parliament does not have much longer to run. Can he tell us whether it will be in the legislative programme? Of course, Mr Finlay will be aware that I am not going to stand here and discuss the Government's legislative programme. However, Mr Finlay will be aware of standing orders and the aware of our intentions as I had previously remained to him. That remains. However, I think that we are in a better place than I could ever have imagined that we could get to in terms of managing to take this forward in a way that not only brings on board everybody in this chamber but potentially we can find a way to put on side people out with the Parliament, both lobbyists and other groups, on both sides of the argument. The work that the committee has done has been hugely helpful in helping us to move that forward. I certainly think that I would be failing in my duty to this Parliament if we were not prepared to consider the deliberations of that committee before we move further forward. As a debate started, Paul Martin kicked off with some very important points. The first point about access to this place is absolutely crucial. One of the things that I think we are all very proud of is that we see and the public see this Parliament as open and accessible. It is absolutely clear that we have to find a way to protect that as we move forward in taking the issue forward. Mr Martin also talked about how that has intensified because of the referendum. As more people are now having an interest in policy making and interest in politics, we have a duty to make sure that we make that easier of everything, but at the same time I do not see why we cannot find ways to make it more transparent. One of the areas that Mr Martin mentioned was about the regulation of former ministers. One of the things that we sometimes forget to do is that we maybe do not talk about the robustness of the framework that we already have. It was very helpful that the convener was able to give us some outline in terms of the regulations that are in place, but we do have some very robust regulations in place and maybe we should talk about them more often, so maybe this is a good opportunity for us to have done that. We can summarise the powerful arguments from both sides of the debate, as has been heard through the evidence session, neatly demonstrating the task facing the committee. None of us should underestimate that task to try to pull together what sometimes appears to be some very divergent views and opinions, and that is very good. Obviously, the committee will have a job to do in weighing up those sometimes competing arguments, but I think that you are all up to the task and you have certainly shown your ability to do that going forward. Fiona McLeod raised the recurring question of what is lobbying, and a register might underline the openness and accessibility of the Parliament. That exactly echoes the first of the Government's key principles, because while we want to absolutely find a way to increase transparency and we must maintain the openness that this Parliament is so proud of and that Paul Martin mentioned, too. John Adam, in his comments that I alluded to in my opening remarks, said that we cannot go down the road of the UK's legislation, and Mr Adams made a very good point. Mr Finlay made it very clear that his proposals were nothing like the UK Government's legislation, and I put on the record that, if they were, we would absolutely not have made any intention to go forward, because what the UK Government did was to turn the clock back in exactly the wrong way and do exactly the wrong things for openness, transparency and the ability to participate. The legislation was taken forward in a very partisan way, and I think that there are already calls for it to be repealed from across Benches, down south and, obviously, from external organisations. I also thought that George Adam mentioned Susan Deacon's perspective on this very complex topic, and I agree with George that I thought that Susan Deacon's contributions were very useful for us in taking this forward and very well thought out. Jamie Hepburn, I think that I will also put on record my thanks to his wife for all the work that she does. I think that a number of members have pointed out that we in this Parliament do not see lobbying as some sort of dirty word the way it is maybe seen elsewhere. Lobbying is hugely useful to us as the Holyrood article of January this year indicated that we just could not do our job without the assistance of the many organisations that help us to come to a conclusion, but I think that Jamie Hepburn's point about how perhaps we can make that more transparent might be helpful. I think that it might also be helpful to those organisations if a member has worked with the RSPB for instance, then surely it is in the interests of the RSPB that if that ends up as an amendment coming forward that is somehow recorded properly because it is something positive, we should never see these things as positive. At the start I mentioned three very important principles and I just want to close with those principles because I think that if we can stick to those principles which are guiding the Government's thinking, then I think that we will find a way of taking legislation forward in the best possible way for this Parliament. That is firstly that we must not erode the Parliament's principles of openness, ease of access and accountability. Secondly, any proposed measures must complement our existing frameworks without compromising their effective operation and thirdly, any solution must be proportionate, simple in operation and able to command broad support within and out with our Parliament. I thank the chamber for this debate, I think that it has been really useful. I am sure that the committee will carefully deliberate on the points that have been made today and the convener's decision to proactively publish such engagements. His engagements on his website will be helpful to all of us. Thank you very much. I now call on Mark McDougall to wind up the debate for the committee. Ms McDougall, nine minutes. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I close this debate as vice convener of Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee. I would like to start by saying how much I have enjoyed this debate. Members right across the chamber have covered so many perspectives on the issue. I will reflect on a few. I think that I have got everyone's name. Joe Fitzsimons said that the committee needs to do the work properly and get it right, so we do not need to go back to whatever decision we decide on. Paul Martin mentioned how engaged the Scottish public are after the referendum, and we should maintain that interest. Cameron Buchanan found it very difficult to form an opinion, despite hearing all the evidence, because the subject is so complex. Fiona McLeod gave her examples of differing views of constituents. Malcolm Chisholm reminded us that proportionality was required. George Adam spoke about the reputation of the Parliament, and that is the first speech that I have heard where he has not mentioned Paisley once. Jim Hume spoke of public trust and confidence in Parliament. Jamie Hepburn referred to lobbyist influencing bills. Graham Pearson reminded us that lobbying is part of the political process. Richard Lyle raised that MSPs work best when well informed. John Lamont spoke about the differences between this Parliament and Westminster Parliament. Neil Findlay spoke about his wish to bring the principles of openness and accountability through a register of lobbying. There was also a lively discussion on Facebook and Twitter in advance of the debate, and I am sure that it continued throughout the debate itself. I hope that during my time that I can go back and refer to some of those. Beyond collecting helpful insight into members' perspectives, we have also achieved another aim of the debate, to create an example of how positive and valuable being lobbied can be. The more voices we hear from, the more sources of information we tap into, the more informed we are and the richer the basis for our scrutiny and our policy development can be. I thank Neil Findlay MSP. The committee's inquiry was instigated in large part of the basis of Neil Findlay's proposal for a member's bill. The committee would like to thank him for his central role in bringing this important issue to Parliament. I would also like to thank everyone who has played a part in informing this debate, whether they are in the chamber, were quoted by those speaking in this chamber or made comments in advance on social media. In addition, I thank those who have contributed to the inquiry, some of whom have come to watch the debate in person today, and I hope that they have enjoyed the debate. I would also like to thank the committee clerks for making arrangements for the debate and for their support throughout the inquiry. As I am speaking in my capacity as deputy convener, I would like to talk a little now about what happens next. I am sure that all those who are contributing want to know how long their views will be taken into account or even how their views will be taken into account. The committee plans to discuss all the evidence received, including the full official report of this debate and contributions on Twitter and Facebook, at its next meeting. It will then start to move towards a report featuring recommendations for change. I am sure that none of you will envy us that task given the many and varied views on the issue. Needless to say, the committee cannot bring about change alone. Given the potential impact of this work on all MSPs, any recommendations will need to be endorsed by Parliament as a whole. For example, if the committee recommends we change the rules on lobbying in the code of conduct for MSPs, or if there is legislation for a statutory register, we cannot move forward with those changes without the support of Parliament as a whole. One moment, Ms McDougall. There is far too much chattering as people who have not been part of the debate are now coming into the chamber. Please show the member courtesy who has at least sat through the debate and is now making her contribution. The committee is clear that there is a case for change and that its recommendations to Parliament must seek to ensure sufficient transparency for citizens seeking information and how lobbyists seek to influence policy formulation and scrutiny processes, and sufficient controls to prevent or expose any lobbyists seeking inappropriate access to or to exert undue influence over politicians or officials. In considering options for the future, it is helpful to look at what we already do. In terms of checks and balances, MSPs have rules to adhere to on contact with lobbyists in the code of conduct, including registering anything received that could be perceived to influence their behaviour as a politician. There are also criminal sanctions for failure to register or to declare any registration during relevant parliamentary proceedings. Should anyone engage in paid advocacy, and there have been no cases of that yet, then a prison sentence can be imposed. There are additional requirements placed on ministers, including being required to report on any inappropriate attempts to engage with them to the head of the civil service. On the side of the lobbyists, witnesses listed ways in which lobbyists currently regulate themselves or are subject to legislation, for example, charities must disclose information to the charities regulator. Consultant lobbyists highlighted the new registration system to be imposed at UK level and the need for any additional regulation in Scotland to be co-ordinated with this. In terms of making information on lobbying activity public, there is information in the public domain on the Parliament's website. The register of interests is published, as is information on activities of cross-party groups and the funding that they receive. Details of all those contributing to the formulation of Government policy and committee scrutiny of it is in the public domain, as are details of those organising events in the Parliament and participating in our futures forum and the business exchange. We also publish details of advisers and research consultants used by the Parliament. Similarly, the Government publishes details of special advisers. The Scottish Government also seeks to publish details of meetings between ministers and outside bodies on a rolling basis. I will just read out to you some quotes that we have had on the tweets. Some of the tweets that we have received from Alan Mackenzie wrote, The public must have access to all information necessary to form an opinion as to the influence and extent of any form of lobbying. The public must understand who has influenced decisions and why they have attempted to do so. Nick Godfrey wrote, We must keep it open and above board to try to restore some trust. If lobbyists are sincere, why would they need to hide anything? And if politicians have no conflict of interest between their elected post and any private interests, then they should have no objections to clarity and transparency either. But above all, whatever the Scottish Parliament decides, it must be seen to be more open and democratic than Westminster to avoid losing the newly awakened political enthusiasm in the Scottish electorate. As we have heard today, there are strong voices saying that this is not enough. While the question of whether we need a statutory or a voluntary register is central to the debate, there are other areas where the committee has already agreed that more could be done. For example, we want to work with digital Parliament programme to make information already in the public domain more accessible. We also want to look at what more information we could or should publish. Our starting point in considering all of this should of course be what would the citizen want to know. Many thanks, Ms McDougall. That concludes the debate on the standards procedures and public appointments committee. In one moment, Mr Simpson will finish this on his inquiry into lobbying. Mr Simpson, you have a point of order. Thank you, Presiding Officer. During yesterday's living wage debate, I accepted an intervention from the Minister Angela Constance at the point when I specifically mentioned and referred to the McRobertarch Centre as an organisation grant funded through Creative Scotland. I did not refer to directly funded organisation yet. During her intervention, the minister said, and I quote, all cultural bodies are subject to and must comply fully with the Scottish Government's public sector pay policy, which includes the payment of the Scottish living wage as a minimum for all staff. Creative Scotland informs me that, whilst they encourage those in receipt of grants to pay a living wage, they cannot make it mandatory, and that is despite the minister giving a clear impression to the chamber that that was the case. I have spoken to a number of organisations and they confirm that they do not pay all their staff a living wage. Would the Presiding Officer invite the minister to correct the official report as our claim has proved to be inaccurate? Thank you for the advance notice of the point of order, as the member knows and as all members know the Presiding Officer is not responsible for the content or the veracity of a member's speech, but the cabinet secretary has heard what you have to say and I am sure that she will reflect on it. We now move to decision time. There are no questions to be put as a result of this visit, so I am closing me down.