Lobbying Transparency Bill - SCVO consultation response

Our response

Question 1 – Do you agree that the Government’s three core principles are appropriate to inform the delivery of an effective and proportionate lobbying registration regime in Scotland?

The core principles described are largely successful in defining what the introduction of a register should not do. For example, it shouldn’t restrict access to the Parliament.

However, the principles don’t successfully define what the register is seeking to achieve and what its impact will be. For example, statements that the register should increase public confidence in politics and increase transparency should be incorporated into the core principles. They should be explicit in stating that any register is free to those who complete it.

It is also important that the principles acknowledge the value and legitimacy of lobbying to public policy. By developing strong links with parliamentarians and government officials the third sector has formed productive relationships which ensure policy makers are better informed, more knowledgeable and account for a wider variety of views.

Question 2 – Do you agree that a publicly available register of lobbyists should be introduced in Scotland?

SCVO supports the principle of an open and transparent political process. However, whenever a new regulatory proposal is put forward that affects the third sector, it is important to consider whether any new administrative burden which arises from the increased regulation is justified by the benefit to be gained. In this case, while we accept there may be some benefits arising from the creation of a register of lobbyists, the potential increases in administration are also a significant concern for many in the sector.

It is clear from previous enquiries and the discussions SCVO have hosted on the topic that there are differing views on the best approach to achieve transparency in lobbying within the third sector. Some organisations favour a statutory register and others oppose it. Those that oppose it would prefer to see the burden for transparency on MSPs, Ministers and senior civil servants.

While we recognise the concerns of those that would like to see a register of lobbyists, SCVO supports the latter position and opposed the introduction of a lobbying register when responding to the Standards Procedures and Public Appointments Committee’s enquiry ^[i].

It is our view that the burden of responsibility for ensuring transparency of lobbying should be on those that hold public office – MSPs, Ministers and Civil Servants. They have the responsibility to protect the integrity of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government by meeting all parties, gathering all opinions and ensuring their decision-making is transparent. This approach would also have the benefit of placing the administrative burden on 129 MSPs and their staff rather than on the potentially thousands of people and organisations who legitimately engage with them.

However, we also recognise that there are those in the sector that would find the introduction of a register helpful for their work and that genuine concerns do exist about how well MSPs would adhere to the requirement to publish details of their meeting and external engagements. This is illustrated by the register of Ministerial engagements, which is now so out of date (July 2014 at time of writing) as to be of little use other than historical interest.

Therefore, we would not oppose the introduction of a register of lobbyists provided that it is light touch, does not cause an undue bureaucratic burden for the third sector organisations that complete it and is balanced by an increased responsibility on MSPs to be transparent.

Question 3 – Do you agree that no fee should be payable by lobbyists for registering or updating the register?

Yes – the register must be free for those that complete it.

Question 4 – What are your views on whether the onus to register should lie with individuals who lobby as part of their work, or organisations who lobby?

It is our view that the onus should be on organisations rather than individuals. For third sector organisations having the focus on organisations would provide the simplest approach to registration. There could be many people within an organisation who have lobbying as part of their role. Compiling and recording the data on their activity would be much less time consuming if completed on an organisational basis. This would remove the need for multiple registrations where a number of people within an organisation met with an MSP for a single meeting.

This approach would also make registering events easier. If SCVO organised an event at the Parliament involving MSPs and our members, it would be helpful if SCVO could register that event in our report, avoiding the need for the 20 or 30 organisations attending to all complete separate entries.

The definition of those that 'lobby as part of their work' must be made clearer when the Bill is drafted - as it stands this broad definition could potentially cover many people working for a third sector organisation. For those in Public Affairs roles it will be clear that they carry out lobbying but for others it will be less obvious. Examples provided to us include charity shop managers who are visited by an MSP or service managers who meet an MSP to discuss issues experienced by their service users. These staff members would not have lobbying or influencing as part of their job description, but occasionally their activity could be considered lobbying. Capturing all these interactions would be difficult for an organisation, would be a significant administrative task and could lead to a bloated register.

Question 5 –Should both consultant lobbyists and in-house lobbyists be required to register?

Yes.

Question 6 – Should any types of in-house lobbyist be exempt from registration?

No.

There are some organisations in the third sector that would like to see charities exempted from these proposals - on the basis that they are already regulated by the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator (OSCR). Charity law ensures that they can’t support political parties and are open about their aims, objectives, activities and finances. Generally they publish campaigning material, annual reports and other material online and are accountable to their funders, members and supporters.

It is also true that third sector lobbying is different from private sector lobbying in that the purpose is public benefit rather than private gain. The third sector in Scotland struggles with the term ‘lobbyists’ as it often sees itself as championing, advocating or campaigning on issues - not lobbying. Lobbying is also often associated with money and protection of interests which is very different from the campaigning for social change undertaken by the sector.

However, we recognise that third sector organisations do on occasion lobby for financial support for their own organisation in a similar way to organisations from other sectors – even if the final result is always public benefit rather than private gain. In addition, the purpose of one third sector organisation may be opposed to that of another, so achieving transparency of that lobbying activity could be beneficial to the sector as well the wider public. Maintaining public trust in the sector is also an important factor to consider and if charities were excluded from the register this could be perceived as anti-transparency.

It is also evident that a significant proportion of the lobbying that occurs at the Scottish Parliament is by charities and they are very successful in in pursuing their objectives. Therefore, it is our view that lobbying should be a level playing field and charities should be subject to the same regulations as other types of organisations.

Question 7 – Do you agree that the register should cover the lobbying of MSPs and Ministers?

Yes.

The register should cover MSPs and Ministers. Although we would not want third sector organisations to have to record all their meetings with the Scottish Government, it is difficult to justify the exclusion of senior civil servants and Special Advisors from measures to increase transparency. It would be helpful if those officials also completed an engagement report similar to that of Ministers – and this was kept up to date.

Question 8 – What types of communication do you think should be covered by a statutory register?

A sensible approach is needed to balance the need for transparency against the time burden on lobbyists and the possibility of creating an enormous amount of data which is of no public interest. It is arguable that a written communication or telephone call or video conference with an MSP could be as effective as a face-to face meeting. However, capturing all that information would be a disproportionate response and would require an enormous amount of time and effort from third sector organisations that are already stretched for time.

The approach outlined in the consultation of recording face-to-face meetings and events would be a reasonable response.

Question 9 – Do you agree with the Government’s view that paid lobbyists should be required to register?

We agree with the intention behind this proposal and the desire to ensure volunteers of third sector organisations don't have to register. Volunteers are giving up their spare time to campaign for causes they believe in and may be discouraged from this if there is an additional bureaucratic burden. They may also be discouraged if they have to provide their personal details for an on-line register which is visible to the public.

The consultation document uses the definition: 'individual volunteers lobbying elected representatives on behalf of others on issues that matter to them'. It is vital that when the Bill is drafted the definition of volunteers is defined tightly enough to ensure that only genuine volunteering is exempted from the register and loopholes aren't created.

While we would not wish to see an additional burden placed on volunteers, we are conscious that they do on occasion lobby politicians and officials on a similar basis to paid members of staff. This is likely to be by trustees or board members of the organisation. For example, the chairperson of an organisation may meet an MSP to discuss a change in legislation which advances that organisation’s charitable purposes.

If the focus were on organisations rather than individuals, it is our view that capturing these more formal interactions by volunteers would be more straightforward. SCVO staff when completing the register on behalf of the organisation, could simply include any face-to-face meetings trustees have had with MSPs where they represented SCVO.

If the responsibility was on MSPs to publish their meetings then interactions with all types of lobbyist could be equally covered with no additional burden on those organisations or individuals.

Question 10 – Do you agree that the register should also allow for voluntary registration by lobbyists not required to register?

It is difficult to determine which lobbyists would not be required to register other than volunteers - if the broad interpretation of 'part of their work' is used. As stated above we would like to see greater clarity on this to determine how far that definition would reach.

Voluntary registration by volunteers would be a sensible approach if the Bill persists with the focus on individuals rather than organisations. We would support the idea that organisations can submit additional information if they would like to do so.

The 'Kite Mark' suggested in the consultation implies that by completing the register an organisation or individual is completely transparent in its lobbying activity, which suggests a level of legitimacy which is beyond the scope of a register. While the register will increase transparency, simply recording activity will not make lobbying completely transparent and we would be wary about rubber stamping those that sign-up with a ‘Kite Mark’ of approval.

Question 11 – What are your views on what kind of information each lobbyist should be required to provide on registration?

If there is to be register of lobbyists it must be sufficiently light touch as to not cause undue burden on those that complete it. This means keeping the amount of information recorded to the minimum required to achieve transparency of interactions with MSPs. As stated above, it is our view that a focus on organisations would allow for a much simpler system for the third sector to complete. If organisations were the focus then we would support the recommendations of the Standards Procedures and Public Appointments Committee:

a) the name of the organisation

b) names of individual lobbyists working for the organisation (if the organisation includes commercial lobbyists)

c) names of clients of organisations including commercial lobbyists on whose behalf lobbying of MSPs or other support work aimed at influencing MSPs is taking place

d) meetings that have been pre-arranged by the organisation with MSPs including detailing the issues discussed

e) events, including meals, arranged by the organisation that involve MSPs, including details of the purpose of the event

f) secretary or other support to Cross-Party Groups valued above the threshold for disclosure in CPG annual returns (currently £500)

g) hospitality, visits or material support for an MSP (in line with the financial thresholds in the Register of Interests for MSPs)

h) details of the aims of the lobbying.

Question 12 – How often should lobbyists be required to provide a return detailing their lobbying activity?

If the aim of the Bill is to provide a clearer picture of general lobbying activity then the six month return seems like a reasonable approach. We accept that this will not provide up-to-date information on current interactions around a policy development or a piece of legislation until after the key period has passed. However, it will achieve the aim of developing a more accurate picture of lobbying activity and bringing interactions with MSPs into the open. A balance must be struck between providing useful information in the public interest and the practicalities for organisations completing the register. In this case, only an impractical period for completion of weeks rather than months would provide up-to-date information. Therefore, the six month return seems reasonable, though a shorter period of three months would also be acceptable if there is a strong desire for more frequent returns.

Question 13 – Do you agree that the Parliament should introduce a Code of Practice for lobbyists setting out guidance on the registration regime and expected standards of behaviour?

Yes.

Question 14 – Do you agree that a register should include the facility for lobbyists to indicate if they already subscribe to any industry Codes of Conduct?

Yes.

Question 15 – Do you have any views on the Committee’s proposals for who should be responsible for upkeep and oversight of the Register?

The upkeep and oversight of the register is likely to be a significant undertaking regardless of the approach adopted. In some senses the suggestion that the Standards Procedures and Public Appointments Committee Clerks are responsible for upkeep and oversight of the register is sensible. However, the Clerks already work closely with MSPs and there may be an issue of conflict of interest. The Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life would offer a more independent approach.

Question 16 – Do you have any views on what enforcement mechanisms and sanctions should be available in connection with the registration regime?

A sanctions regime is required to make the register worthwhile and ensure compliance but it must be proportionate. We support the approach laid out by the Standards Committee on page 34 of their report^[ii] with escalations from confidential prompting to reports to the Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life to parliamentary exclusions through the Standards Committee.

Question 17 – Do you have any views on whether Parliament, by resolution, should be able to adjust the scope and operation of the registration regime once established?

It is vital that there is a review of the registration regime a few years after its enactment, to assess whether it is achieving its purpose and not causing a disproportionate burden. If there is to be substantial changes following a review this might be better achieved through an amendment rather than an SSI. Regardless of the approach adopted, any change should allow consultation with stakeholders and the resolution should be subject to affirmative procedure to allow the Committee to fully consider any proposals.

Question 18 – Do you have any views on whether there could be impacts on equalities groups as a result of the proposals outlined?

Even if the register is light touch as described, there will be an additional barrier between organisations and individuals from equalities groups and MSPs. Every care must be taken to ensure the parliament continues to be open and participative with as wide a range of views captured as possible.

Question 19 – Do you have any views on whether there could be any additional costs or other implications for businesses as a result of the proposals outlined?

It is difficult to accurately assess the costs associated with completing the register until greater clarity is provided on how much information will be required. If the focus is on individuals rather than organisations then the time burden will be considerably greater. Using SCVO as an example we have four Policy Officers, a Policy Manager and a Director of Public Affairs who all meet MSPs on a regular basis. In addition our Chief Executive, Deputy Chief Executive and four other department Directors will all meet MSPs in the course of their work. If all those individuals were required to complete the register then the impact would be considerably higher than if SCVO had to complete an organisational return.

Conclusion

Any proposals for new regulation of the third sector must be proportionate and weighed up in terms of benefits delivered against the burdens imposed. It is our view that the simplest and fairest system would place the burden of accountability on those who hold public office. This could be accomplished by requiring MSPs and senior officials to publish details of their meetings and events online in a searchable database as Ministers already do. This would achieve accountability without additional burden on those legitimately engaging with the democratic process. However, we recognise that there are genuine concerns in the third sector about whether this would achieve the desired transparency. Therefore, we would support a register if it is light touch, does not cause an undue bureaucratic burden for third sector organisations and focusses on organisations rather than individuals.

Contact

Felix Spittal
Policy Officer

Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations,
Mansfield Traquair Centre,
15 Mansfield Place, Edinburgh EH3 6BB

Email: felix.spittal@scvo.scot
Tel: 01463 251 724
Web: www.scvo.scot

About us

The Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations (SCVO) is the national body representing the third sector.There are over 45,000 voluntary organisations in Scotland involving around 138,000 paid staff and approximately 1.3 million volunteers. The sector manages an income of £4.9 billion.

SCVO works in partnership with the third sector in Scotland to advance our shared values and interests. We have over 1,600 members who range from individuals and grassroots groups, to Scotland-wide organisations and intermediary bodies.

As the only inclusive representative umbrella organisation for the sector SCVO:

• has the largest Scotland-wide membership from the sector – our 1,600 members include charities, community groups, social enterprises and voluntary organisations of all shapes and sizes
• our governance and membership structures are democratic and accountable - with an elected board and policy committee from the sector, we are managed by the sector, for the sector
• brings together organisations and networks connecting across the whole of Scotland

SCVO works to support people to take voluntary action to help themselves and others, and to bring about social change.

Further details about SCVO can be found at www.scvo.scot.

[i] http://www.scvo.scot/long-form-posts/standards-procedures-and-public-appointments-committee-inquiry-into-lobbying/

[ii] http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/parliamentarybusiness/CurrentCommittees/86491.aspx