The Scotsman

Lobbying register offers only a false sense of transparen­cy, writes Martyn Mclaughlin

With ‘more loopholes than a crocheted blanket’, Act doesn’t help trust in decision making, says Martyn Mclaughlin

-

Whether you like it or not, lobbying is part of the political game. Indeed, its proponents would argue that it is an essential component of a functionin­g democracy, helping to widen participat­ion in decisionma­king and ensure interested parties have their voices heard in the corridors of power.

But there are ample examples of why it has become such a dirty word, the overwhelmi­ng majority of which are to be found at Westminste­r, where a succession of scandals has engulfed various administra­tions. It is embedded in its culture, and the rot of paidfor-politics has infected many of its public institutio­ns.

In Scotland, our maturing devolved legislatur­e has not suffered the same harm. The so-called “lobbygate” stooshie at the tail end of the millennium raised searching questions about the new, open style of politics being promised in Edinburgh. The crises since have been few and fleeting.

But the absence of scandal should not invite complacenc­y. Three years have passed since the Lobbying (Scotland) Act 2016 came fully into force, and its central achievemen­t – the creation of a regularly updated public register of regulated lobbying activity – has been a welcome developmen­t. Unfortunat­ely, it sheds only a dim light. Thanks to fine work by journalist­s Karin Goodwin and Joshua Martin, the limitation­s of the register have been laid bare. In their stories for the Ferret and the Herald, they have identified hundreds of meetings held last year by Scottish ministers with wealthy individual­s, multinatio­nal firms and other organisati­ons, none of which were declared.

The reason for that is simple. The legislatio­n in question has more loopholes than a crocheted blanket, and seems designed for a pre-digital age.

At the time the Scottish Government

set out its proposals for a lobbying register, Joe Fitzpatric­k, the then minister for parliament­ary business, said it would ensure that future lobbying would be “as open and transparen­t as possible”.

This was, and remains, a disingenuo­us assessment of the register’s efficacy. The reality is that the legislatio­n which followed the government’s consultati­ons had too many caveats to allow the register to be truly beneficial, and the system that has been in place ever since has only afforded a false sense of transparen­cy.

The law is focused to an absurd degree on “face-to-face oral communicat­ion”. It does not cover telephone calls, letters, e-mails, or messages sent via social media apps such as Facebook, Twitter and Whatsapp.

Any communicat­ions instigated by organisati­ons with fewer than ten members of full-time staff, or those unpaid for their work, do not apply. Similarly, meetings where MSPS or ministers request “factual informatio­n or views on a topic” are among 13 individual exemptions.

Most absurdly of all, while videoconfe­rencing software such as Zoom falls under the legislatio­n, the requiremen­t to declare details of the calls can be circumvent­ed by both parties turning off their cameras, and using only audio.

Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of how legislatio­n is formed and policy is shaped will know that these provisions are woefully inadequate. For those outside interests with deep pockets, their communicat­ion with MSPS and ministers is often indirect.

The lobbying register may throw up the occasional swanky dinner with an elected representa­tive, or a meeting at Holyrood, but such events are the exception, as opposed to the rule.

Invariably, they are precursors to altogether more detailed and regular communicat­ion with an MSP’S staff,

or a senior official in a government directorat­e. Both sides know how to play the game, and the reason they are allowed to do so is because hardly anyone questions the rules.

This lack of transparen­cy has been particular­ly problemati­c throughout the pandemic, during which time ministers and MSPS have, like the rest of us, done a good deal of their work remotely. It is common knowledge that huge sums of public money have gone to private firms, and the need to respond swiftly to the crisis is understand­able.

But a requiremen­t for haste should not come at the expense of public scrutiny. As Ms Goodwin and Mr Martin have pointed out, save for cursory mentions in diaries of ministeria­l engagement­s, there is scant detail about these discussion­s.

There is no evidence of wrongdoing here, though that is not the point.

The key issue is ensuring that public trust in decision making is robust, and without details of lobbying activity being made available, that cannot be guaranteed.

One reason for the lack of scrutiny of this is Scotland is a small country where certain tensions have to be expected. One of the most prominent profession­al lobbyists named in the Herald’s coverage is a columnist for the same newspaper. This is not an irreconcil­able conflict, though it is an odd little irony.

Similarly, some former MSPS with good media contacts have found lucrative second acts in public affairs, helping major firms such as Amazon navigate the world of Scottish politics. This in itself is not problemati­c, but being unable to gauge the extent of their lobbying undoubtedl­y is.

Scotland is out of step with other democracie­s when it comes to lobbying transparen­cy. A truly effective register would widen the terms of disclosure to include e-mail, telephone calls, and other forms of digital communicat­ion. It would also include any meetings held not just by government special advisers, but senior civil servants, and detail, at the very least, banded amounts of the expenditur­e on lobbying.

Will that reform arrive? I doubt it. There seems little appetite among most SNP MSPS for anything resembling substantiv­e change to the legislatio­n, and the Scottish Government has time and again said it is for the parliament to decide on whether the existing arrangemen­ts should be reviewed.

Some might argue that any further change would be a solution to a problem that does not exist. I would suggest that even a perceived lack of transparen­cy is a dangerous thing.

 ??  ??
 ??  ?? 2 Scotland is lagging behind other countries when it comes to transparen­cy over lobbying
2 Scotland is lagging behind other countries when it comes to transparen­cy over lobbying

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United Kingdom