1st item of business this afternoon is a debate on motion number 15221 in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick on the Scottish election dates bill. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to please press the request-to-speak buttons now or as soon as possible. I call on Minister Joe Fitzpatrick to speak to and move the motion minister nine minutes please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I'm pleased to open the debate this afternoon on the general principles of the Scottish elections dates bill. This is a very short and straightforward bill and I'd like to take the opportunity to set out to the chamber why it is necessary. As things currently stand, there would be a general election to both the Scottish and UK Parliament elections on 7 May 2020. This clash is undesirable for a number of reasons. We know for example from our own experience in Scotland in 2007 that holding different elections with different voting systems on the same date can lead to unusually high levels of spoiled and rejected ballot papers. That issue was rightly something of great concern in 2007 and was why Parliament concluded unanimously in agreement with the Gould report that different Scotland-wide elections should not be held on the same date. Indeed, the Presiding Officer wrote to the Secretary of State for Scotland last May setting out the position that she had agreed with all the main party leaders that it is imperative that an alternative date for the Scottish Parliament election should be set, as it was in 2011 when our election was moved from 2015 to 2016. She wrote to the Secretary of State, of course, because the power to amend a Scottish Parliament election currently sits with Westminster. In 2011 it was Westminster, not this Parliament, which legislated to move our elections from 2015 to 2016. However, Members will no doubt be aware that the Smith commission recommended that the Scottish Parliament will have all powers in relation to elections to the Scottish Parliament and local government elections in Scotland. The Scottish Bill will, when enacted, give effect to that recommendation. The timings of when that happens is those still very much subject of current debate. However, I think that we can be pretty sure that it will not happen in time for this Parliament to assume responsibility over elections in Scotland before May of this year. The Scottish and UK Governments both agreed that it is important that voters know the length of the parliamentary term that they are voting for before they go to the polls in May. That is why the Deputy First Minister and the Secretary of State for Scotland agreed a section 30 order under the Scotland Act 1998 to transfer the powers to the Scottish Parliament that has enabled us to bring forward this bill. The section 30 order was approved by both the Scottish and UK parliaments. I hope that everyone in this chamber agrees that it is absolutely right that this Parliament legislates to change the date, and that is the purpose of this bill. I turn now to the bill's contents. It is, as I said in my original statement, a very short and straightforward bill. It proposes moving the Scottish Parliament elections currently scheduled for 7 May 2020 to 6 May 2021. That would ensure that we avoid coinciding with the Westminster election scheduled for 7 May 2020 and would mean a five-year term for the next Parliament. That would mirror the one-year extension to this current parliamentary term set by the Fixed Term Parliaments Act 2011. Members will no doubt be aware that both the Northern Ireland Assembly and the National Assembly for Wales have already moved to elections in 2021 in order to avoid the 2020 clash of date. Indeed, legislation has been passed that permanently changes the frequency of elections to both assemblies to five-year intervals, and I will return to that issue in relation to Scotland later in my remarks. Moving the Scottish Parliament elections to May 2021 will mean that it would clash with the local government elections scheduled for the same date. All the arguments that I have made set out against a Holyrood and Westminster clash equally apply to a Scottish Parliament local government clash. Indeed, it was a Scottish Parliament local government clash in 2007 that brought about the gold report, which, as I said, was unanimously agreed to. The bill therefore proposes moving the local government elections scheduled for 6 May 2021 to 5 May 2022. That would mean a five-year term for those council-laws elected in May 2017 and would also replicate the one-year extension to the current local government term. I thank the minister for giving way. I take on board the points that are being proposed in this bill, but would it not be simpler for the Government to come forward with proposals to revert to five-year elections for both local government elections and Scottish Parliament elections rather than bringing forward piecemeal bills to the chamber to discuss every four or five years? That is an interesting point, which I will come to in just one second. I will come to it when I come to it in my speech. I now want to move to the discussions that we had at stage 1 and the stage 1 report from the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointment Committee. Firstly, it is important to place on record my thanks to the convener and the committee members for their scrutiny of the bill and to welcome the report's recommendation that the Parliament agreed to the general principles of the bill. The committee took a proportionate approach to its scrutiny of what is a very short bill. I also welcome the fact that it recognised the broad consensus in favour of the bill and expressed its support for the approach taken in proposing what I believe to be a pragmatic solution to the issues of a clash of dates. The broad consensus comes from the range of organisations with a direct interest in the proposed date change. We consulted COSLA, the Electoral Commission, the Electoral Management Board, the Electoral Reform Society, SCVO and Solace. All were supportive of the proposed changes, and none of them raised any issues about the bill's contents. I would ask during my evidence to the committee why we had opted to move the Parliament election to 2021 in order to avoid the 2020 clash of dates, and not instead bring it forward to 2019. That option would have meant a three-year term for the next Parliament. As I said to the committee, I believe that a three-year term would be particularly short in parliamentary terms. We would really have to question whether the Scottish public would wish to return to the polls so quickly. Furthermore, the proposed five-year term mirrors the length of the current term of Parliament. I therefore welcome the fact that the committee states its support for a five-year term rather than three years. The committee also posed the question that John Wilson has asked about why we are not taking the opportunity in this bill to permanently resolve future clashes of election dates. Richard Simpson suggested that it would be sensible to do so in his written submission that he made to the committee. I reflect the comments of John Wilson. However, the section 30 order that enables us to bring this bill forward at all is very specific in giving us the powers to make changes to the 2020 election only. As I said earlier, the permanent powers over elections in Scotland are contained in the Scotland bill, so it will be for the next Parliament to consider a permanent solution when the power to do so has been fully devolved. I was pleased to note that the committee expressed its view that it considers it appropriate that a decision on any permanent changes to the timings of the Scottish Parliament elections should be taken in the next session of Parliament. In his submission to the committee, Richard Simpson went further on this point and suggested that voting for the Scottish Parliament local government and European elections should all take place on the same date. It should be pointed out that the section 30 order that transfers the powers that is allowing us to bring forward this bill specifically prohibits us from setting an election on the same day as the UK Parliament, the European Parliament or any national local government elections. That is in line with the Smith commission's recommendations, and it is how the Scotland bill deals with the issue. Again, I am reiterating the points that I made earlier about the consensus that exists in support of the gold recommendations to avoid having those different elections on the same date. In conclusion, I would like to emphasise that this short bill presents a straightforward and pragmatic solution to the issue of a clash of election dates, and I hope that colleagues agree with that assessment. I formally move that the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Scottish elections dates bill. Stuart Stevenson, on behalf of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, Mr Stevenson. Six minutes are thereby, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am pleased to speak on behalf of the committee. The minister, I hope, has not created a hostage to fortune when he said that this is a short and straightforward bill. He should be absolutely aware that my committee members and Parliament as a whole will subject this bill to exactly the high standards of scrutiny that he would expect. Of course, being a mere 200 words in this bill, it will be rather difficult for any defects to hide in the detail, so we will do the job that we are always required to do. In fact, those 200 words, if one thinks about it, are approximately one-quarter of the number of words that I would expect to speak in the six minutes that you have allowed to me, Presiding Officer, which focuses on precisely how concise this piece of legislation is. The main purpose is to move the election to an appropriate date that does not clash with other elections. Considering the bill, the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee had a pretty tight schedule, but given that there was a high degree of consensus in favour of the bill, our being designated as the lead committee on 25 November and completing our report just 19 days later on 14 December was a proportionate response to what was going on. Our report is, like the bill itself, quite brief, just 24 paragraphs, just over 1,000 words. I am told by my clerks that Salvador Dali once told the press conference that I shall be so brief that I have already finished. I am not quite in that category, but I am not going to say too much about the bill. We did consider carefully whether to take oral evidence on the bill, but given that the Government had widely consulted, including COSLA and the Electoral Commission in particular, and seen that there was unanimity from those quarters, we concluded that there was no need to re-consult. We restricted our oral evidence to a light grilling for the Minister for Parliamentary Business. We thought that that was a proportionate approach. We did explore, as the minister said, why a five-year term, rather than a three-year term, was appropriate. I think that we were broadly satisfied with the answers that we heard. Three years would be short, and for any Government of whatever political complexion, that is a relatively limited period in which to develop and get moving any major policy initiatives. Of course, the other Administrations in these islands have already aligned themselves on a five-year cycle, so I think that there is a pretty universal consensus that it is sensible. We were also content in relation to the policy memorandum and costs. Clearly, if you move the election back one year, it does not in and of itself create any new costs, and it postpones the costs that are associated with an election by a year. In financial terms, there really is little to say on the matter. We did write to all MSPs to give them the opportunity to input. The ministers already referred to Dr Richard Simpson's contribution, which was interesting. We, as politicians, can get very tied up in the process of politics. It is not as if reform and change of parliamentary processes is something new. The 1832 Great Reform Act perhaps started the reforming motion. It was, as people sometimes forget, the act that actually deprived women of the vote, while purporting to be a great reform of parliamentary procedures. It was quite a long time before they got it back. 1872, which was in the life of all my grandparents, was the first time that we had secret ballots. In many ways, every few years, we are going to continue to see reform. That is part of a wide process that probably is not complete with this bill because we are likely, I imagine, to come back to permanently making changes when they have the power to do so. That is a matter for another day, Presiding Officer, not one of which we should dwell today. In conclusion, the Scottish elections date bill is indeed a short bill. It has very, very specific objectives. I am expecting a flood of stage 2 amendments, perhaps not, or even stage 3. I suspect that that is something that can make its way through the parliamentary system with the broad consensus that has emerged thus far ensuring that it does so with proper scrutiny but appropriate rapidity. It is certainly desirable to avoid a clash between the 2020 Scottish Parliament election, the current schedule and the next UK Parliament election schedule for that same year. We support the approach in the bill that the next Scottish Parliament term should last five rather than three years. We also felt that the appropriate decision on permanent changes should be taken in the next session once the powers are given to this Parliament. That will be time for a fuller discussion about the length of future Scottish parliamentary terms at that time, but meantime, the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee are very happy to recommend to Parliament that we agree the general principles of this short but very important bill. In opening for Scottish Labour, I say at the outset that we support the principles behind the Scottish election dates bill that outlines the dates for the Scottish elections in 2021 and the local government elections in 2022. As a member of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, I have been involved in the stage 1 report. I take this opportunity to thank the clerks for their help and support in the work that we do on committee. Although the bill is very short and contains two small provisions, the committee sought evidence and received one piece of written evidence from Dr Richard Simpson, took oral evidence from the Minister for Parliamentary Business and consulted with relevant sectors. The decision for a five-year parliamentary term reflects the election timings for other parliamentary and devolved administration elections in the United Kingdom. With the return of a Tory Government, that is unlikely to change given the establishment of the Fixed Term Parliament Act 2020. To avoid clashing with the scheduled UK general election in 2020, the Scottish Government has opted for a five-year term and rejected the idea of a three-year term. Both options of a three and a five-year term have their merits. As I said earlier, Scottish Labour fully supports the Scottish Government proposal for the next Scottish Parliament election to be held in 2021. That also impacts on local government elections that were due to take place, and we welcome the move to postpone those elections for one year. Following the confusion that unfolded in 2007, when the Scottish elections and the local government elections were held on the same day, we are clearly keen to avoid any repeat. However, we need to bear in mind that situations can change. Who knows, at a future time, we may consider revisiting the possibility of holding council and Scottish Parliament elections on the same day. Should that situation arise, we must work as a unified chamber. Would the member recognise that, in the last session of Parliament, the Gould report recommended a complete separation from local government and Scottish Parliament elections? In the initial stages, we had a two-year gap that was programmed for a two-year gap that the local government elections would be held out with the Scottish Parliamentary timetable, so there would be a clear division between Scottish Parliament elections and local government elections. I absolutely acknowledge what the member is saying. I am merely raising that, in a future time, who knows the situation may arise where we decide to revisit that, and I am merely saying that it is something that we should perhaps be open to at a future time. Dr Richard Simpson called for the Scottish elections to be held on the same day as the European elections, as we have heard previously. Although there is some merit in that suggestion, the committee heard that it is not possible, as a result of a clause in the Scotland Bill following the Smith commission recommendations. The idea of holding more than one election on the same day has, to a degree, the opportunity to increase turnout in one that usually receives lower participation. In that case, I can understand Dr Richard Simpson's thinking that the European elections in 2014 saw only 33.5 per cent of the Scottish electorate take part, despite the increased attention on those elections resulting from the referendum campaign, which then attracted a record 85 per cent turnout. The general election last year saw a turnout of 71 per cent, and in a few months we could perhaps expect a turnout of anything from 65 per cent upwards. As I said earlier, there are merits for both options of a three and a five-year term. The advantages of a five-year term include the most obvious one of avoiding a clash with the UK general election in 2020. A five-year term also provides stability for government and long-term strategic planning and allows for parties to fully develop policy ideas. One academic I spoke with warned that the present system of elections almost every year means that parties are constantly either preparing or running election campaigns, leaving them with little time to spend on policy development or the real work of government or the work of opposition. Some disadvantages of a five-year term include issues around accountability and fewer opportunities for the electorate to engage in holding the government to account. If that same party were in for two consecutive terms, that would result in 10 years instead of eight, as is the norm around most of the world. With the bill containing two small provisions and no issues surrounding the timing of the next Scottish election following those in May, can I repeat that Scottish Labour fully supports the principles behind the bill and will support the bill throughout its parliamentary process? Deputy Presiding Officer, I also offer my thanks to the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee for its work in bringing forward this stage 1 report. Mr Stevenson offered a quotation in Brevity and I used the adage from Hamlet, therefore, since brevity is the sole of wit and tediousness, the limbs and outward flourishes, I will be brief. The bill before us today contains a short and sensible pair of proposals and it will be receiving the support of this side of the chamber at decision time. Before approaching the substance of the bill, I think it's worth reflecting that the powers we are exercising are yet another example of further devolution in practice. Powers have been devolved initially by ordering council and they will be made permanent by the Scotland bill currently before the UK Parliament. The devolution of the electoral administration for this Parliament is yet another example of my party's commitment to the Smith commission process reflected in the Smith agreement and further fulfilment of the pledge to create a United Kingdom where more decisions are made closer to the individuals and communities that they affect. With reference to the bill itself, we have in this Parliament developed a cross-party agreement that elections in this Parliament should not fall on the same day as general elections to the House of Commons or potentially other significant elections. Following the Gould report in 2007, this has almost worked its way into something of a constitutional convention and I think it is a sound one. I know that there have been one or two dissenting voices. Mr Stevenson himself, I believe, expressed some reservations in committee and Dr Richard Simpson's submission has already been referred to. However, the option to which I am referring was expressly rejected by the Smith commission and as a member of that commission I support the findings of its reports, which were approved by representatives of all parties in this Parliament. The agreement confirms that while control over Scottish Parliament elections should be almost entirely devolved, UK legislation should prohibit the holding of a Scottish Parliament election on the same day as a UK general election, local government elections or elections to the European Parliament. That has all incorporated into Clause 5 of the Scotland bill. However, I share a lot of sympathy with the wish to see a more established convention regulating the length of parliamentary sessions for this Parliament. I thought that Mary Fee made some interesting and thoughtful observations. The Fix Term Parliaments Act is now a reasonably well-established part of the British constitution in relation to Westminster. As such, there will have to be a real debate on the timescale for Scottish Parliament elections. The powers for elections beyond 2021, as the minister indicated, is unlikely to be devolved before this session ends. As the minister made clear, that makes the future position the question for the next Parliament. A Parliament where myself and many others will no longer be members. What I am offering are purely personal reflections. My party will of course have to confirm its position during the next session. The minister has said that he agrees with the parliamentary term being set at five years, and this reflects the length of this session and the 2021 election date has been agreed by our colleagues in the devolved assemblies in Wales and Northern Ireland. There is no doubt that there is some advantage in consistency here. A five-year term has been more a default position adopted out of necessity than a positive conclusion that five years is necessarily the best term for a devolved Parliament. I remind the chamber that it is worth remembering that the four-year model has a long history. It dates back to the recommendations of the 1973 report of the Royal Commission on the Constitution. It is a thread running through the prehistory of this Parliament from the 1978 Scotland Act, through the conclusions of the Scottish Constitutional Convention to the Westminster debates in the late 1990s, which led to this Parliament being created. While reserving my judgment on the merits, it would still be possible, from my understanding, to maintain a four-year electoral cycle by moving Holyrood elections to a different time of the year. I do not seek to state whether this would be a political clash in those sessions where devolved UK elections would fall less than a year apart. I am merely observing that I think the option is there. I would further observe that elections falling in May are a relatively recent innovation. There are plenty of examples in recent decades of elections falling in October, November or even December. I simply want to demonstrate, Deputy Presiding Officer, that there is scope for debate. That is where I disagree with Mr Wilson's view, because I think that that debate is important, and I think that it should take place. During settlement on parliamentary terms, it is essential to fulfil the very reasonable decision that this Parliament should have consistent fixed terms. All I would do will not fall to me to play a role in this. This will be the responsibility of the next Parliament, but I would urge Members to keep an open mind about that. In the meantime, I support this bill. I now move to open debate, and I call on Stuart McMillan to be followed by Anne McTaggart for a minute. I welcome the chance to take part in this short debate, and I want to express my thanks to the committee for such a succinct report. Members highlight how often we should be producing shorter reports when we do committee work. We do not always achieve that, but in this particular case that has happened. I am sure that if it was a long report bearing in mind the bills on the four sections, I am sure that questions would have been asked by the convener and the committee members. However, both the bill and the report highlight, in clear terms, the limited scope of the bill and the reason for the proposed change. The report also highlights a lack of a campaign against the bill, which is helpful in this case. I thought that conveners' questioning during their evidence session of a three-year term was certainly worth pursuing to seek clarity on the matter, but I agree with the report that suggested that the five-year term is a more consistent approach to the parliamentary term in the next session. We know that this particular session is a five-year term as well. For the next session, I think that it is a common sense approach that it is going to be taking. I believe that the elections clashing with each other delutes one of those particular elections. Therefore, I disagree with the suggestion that Dr Richard Simpson put forward to hold the Scottish local authority on European elections on the same day. Similarly, Dr Simpson suggested to hold the election on a weekend day would be fraught with difficulties. Evidence received to the former referendum Scotland Bill Committee. We took evidence on that particular issue regarding the referendum. To dash the hold on election, all the referendum on a weekend day would have other implications, particularly those from religious backgrounds. That certainly came across through the evidence at the time. However, the bill will provide clarity for the forthcoming session. It will also aid the electoral cycle now that Westminster has finally moved into the 21st century and introduced a fixed-term Parliament. Elections at the whim of whoever is in charge at the time has never made any sense to me. Ultimately, parliamentarians are elected to serve the population, not to pick and choose election dates that suit party leaders. The committee convener has laid out also in clear terms that the limitations placed upon this Parliament regarding organising Scottish parliamentary elections. I believe that this Parliament obtaining the power to determine the length of the upcoming session is welcome. With powers to determine future Scottish parliamentary elections in the current Scotland Bill, then this particular process needs not be repeated. However, the Scotland Bill needs to secure the support of this chamber. As we know, discussions regarding the financial framework continue in an attempt to find a suitable outcome. I touched upon the class of elections a few moments ago, and I want to progress that point a little bit further. In 1999, 2003 and 2007, Scotland elected parliamentarians and councils in the same day. Prior to 1999, this was considered to be a more cost-effective and efficient way of electing representatives. However, it soon became apparent that council elections and issues surrounding local authorities were not being fully aired during campaigning. The separation of elections, in my opinion, was a positive step, and it certainly has allowed local authority issues to be fully discussed. We saw that during the 2012 council elections. By extending the next local authority elections by one year, guarantees that local authority matters can quite rightly take centre stage in their particular election in 2022. This bill appears to have universal support from across the chamber, and that is something to be welcomed. It is a common-sense approach to deal with the upcoming election and subsequent council elections. However, I look forward to the day when this Parliament does not need to have a sticking plaster approach via the section 30 process to introduce a short-term fix, but until such times I welcome the approach that has been taken thus far. I am delighted to contribute to this debate, as I believe that this is an important issue to everyone in this chamber. The Scottish election dates bill will allow changing the date of the Scottish Parliament election on 7 May 2020 to 6 May 2021, so that it does not clash with the UK general election, meaning a five-year term for the Scottish Parliament again, as is currently the case between 2011 and 2016. However, that also means that the bill has to allow changing the date of the Scottish local government elections due on 6 May 2021 to 5 May 2022, so that it does not clash with the new date of the Scottish Parliament election. The local government elections will then revert to every four years after 2022. That is not a first occurrence where we need to change the dates of the election in order to avoid clashes with other elections since the Scottish Parliament was created. However, with the new powers coming to the Scottish Parliament next year, Holyrood will be able to set a date that avoids holding the poll on the same day as the UK Parliament, European Parliament or local government elections. The Scottish Parliament will also have the power to set permanent term lengths. The move is consistent with the Smith commission's recommendation that power over Scottish elections should be devolved to the Scottish Parliament. Since May 2014, in Scotland, we have had a referendum, the European Parliament election, a general election, and we are going into Scottish Parliament elections in May and then local election next year. We get a year off, in 2018, and we have the European Parliament election again in 2019, the general election in 2020 and so on. Although holding two elections on the same day might eliminate any potential confusion to the electorate, the practice of holding other electoral competitions such as the local elections and the referendums at the same time as the European elections should be considered in the next term of the Scottish Parliament. Many countries in Europe such as England, Ireland and Sweden already often hold joint elections. That is due to different factors such as the low voter participation and often occurrence of elections. I share the view of Dr Richard Simpson MSP, who, in his written submission to the committee, supports that practice, stating that those measures would allow for and encourage more democracy and reduce the overall costs. In conclusion, although that is an extremely short bill with clear objectives, it is a vital one for the people of Scotland, as it will eliminate any potential confusion if elections are to clash. However, I believe that the Scottish election dates should be reassessed again when the new powers come to Holyrood for the greater efficiency. Deputy Presiding Officer, it is clear that the bill will gain broad support today. It is also important that it has the full approval of COSLA. The minister has suggested to committee that it does, and I think that buying is extremely important. Local authorities will have to deal with the electoral administration. They will also have their own election dates changed. We have to take full account of their views and our deliberations, not to mention the further ramifications for electoral registration officers, returning officers and the general electoral administrative process. In my opening speech, I touched on some of our long-term options. I am pleased that other members have clearly given thought to this important question. The Government has indicated that it is its intention to put the choice for future Parliament's out-to-public consultation, and I welcome that commitment. I hope that it is truly a wide-ranging consultation and that the evidence received is useful in informing the next Parliament on its approach. We should avoid thinking of any particular choice as the default position. As I highlighted in my earlier speech, each has its advantages and disadvantages, and those points have already been made by contributions from the chamber. For example, we have the choice of the forthcoming election of a three-year Parliament. I, for one, think that that is too short. As a stop-gap, certainly the bill will receive the chamber's approval, but we must be clear that that should not be perceived as tying in any member or any party to a five-year model in perpetuity. To many, the topic may seem a dry one. It is very important that we have real consideration and discussion about the fundamentals of how the Parliament operates, because that is a choice of constitutional importance. The charter is famously fought for elections every year. I am sure that one aspiration we are all somewhat pleased never became a reality. The Triennial Act in 1694 limited the length of Parliament in England to three years, while in 1716 the Centennial Act set a limit of seven years. The modern five-year limit came in 1911, although that was breached by emergency legislation during the wars. The Parliament is soon to be faced with a choice of equal importance about the period for elections and how long the sessions should last. While the bill is a forerunner of that debate, it is very important that we make sure that the bill does not usurp that debate. Let us also make sure that we lay the groundwork for giving that debate and that choice, the very serious consideration in which it merits. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I am delighted on behalf of the Scottish Labour Party to have the opportunity to close this afternoon's debate on stage 1 of the Scottish elections bill. As my colleague Mary Fee said, in opening, Scottish Labour will be supporting the bill at decision time tonight, as will all the parties in the Parliament. That is very important, because we are changing the fine date of the next parliamentary election after the coming one. It is important that all political parties agree to that, because if there was no consensus on it, it could have caused real difficulties and friction in terms of getting this piece of legislation through. Clearly, that has been driven by practicalities. Obviously, it is a repeat of the decision that we saw ahead of the 2011 election and has been driven by the introduction of the Fixed Terms Parliaments Act 2020 at a UK level in five-year terms. It is absolutely correct that the Government has brought forward the proposal and it is the logical thing to do. It cannot run UK and Scottish Parliament elections on the same day, apart from the fact that those elections are considering different issues in terms of reserved and devolved issues. The elections have a completely different dynamic to them, so it is important that those are separated out. There has been some discussion about possible consideration of a three-year term, but I conclude on balance that it is right that that is too short. Therefore, the practicalities that are correct in terms of moving to a five-year term. Before my intervention, I do so in a personal capacity and not as convener of the committee. Perhaps some others might remember that, in 1979, we had a referendum at the beginning of March, a general election at the beginning of May and the European elections at the beginning of June. While recognising the merit of the proposal that our colleague on my right said that we could have two in one year, as long as they are far enough apart, it is not an encouraging precedent for anything other than having them at least a year apart. I take that point and I think that that is quite an interest in discussion. I think that, going back to 1974, there were two general elections in the one year. We have been here before. Annabelle Goldie made a really interesting contribution. Going forward to the next Parliament, the crux of the issue is that we are going to have to conclude whether we want four or five-year terms. In my experience, I have been more used to four-year terms in local government and in the Scottish Parliament. The advantage of that is that, in a sense, it is more democratic because of the political administrations. Just like we made that point, the political administrations are up for election on a more regular cycle. There is some merit in that and some of the points that Annabelle Goldie made. I will give way to John Wilson. Is Mr Kelly by inference saying that the European Parliament elections and the Westminster elections are less democratic because they are five-year terms? I am certainly not saying that. What I am saying in that contribution is that there is a case for four-year terms and there is a case for five-year terms. What I was going on to say was that in terms of the five-year terms, obviously, you have a longer term and you have more stability. That is better for planning, particularly for budget, financial and policy planning, so there are advantages in a five-year term and I recognise that. I am not stuck to any particular solution at this time, but I say that Annabelle Goldie made some really pertinent points. I think that what is going to be essential in the next Parliament is that we come up with a solution to the electoral cycle for both the Scottish Parliament and local council elections. I think that it is right that the Government takes widespread evidence on it and I will study that evidence closely to see which cycle is best. I do not think that we should be. I think that we have been driven in recent times because of the change at a UK level towards five-year terms. It is absolutely practical what we are doing, but it is not necessarily—a five-year term is not necessarily the right thing, so we need proper consideration of those issues in order to look at the electoral cycles for all administrations. Thank you. I am going to begin my closing remarks by thanking all members for their contributions. That is an incredibly short bill, but it is interesting that there is a clear consensus about what we should do now, but clearly there is a debate to be had about what we do going forward. However, it is important that, in terms of what the bill is doing, across the chamber, in terms of changing the day of the Scottish Parliament election and changing the day of the local council election, there is unanimity across the chamber. However, there has been some discussion today and there was discussion at the committee. I think that all members touched on the need for a permanent solution to the clash of Holyrood and Westminster election dates. Assuming that the bill is passed, the 2020 clash of elections will of course be avoided. However, as things currently stand, the frequency of both current elections would mean that another clash would occur in 2025 and again every 20 years. There is a need for us to look at what that permanent solution is, otherwise we have, as Stuart McMillan said, a sticking plaster approach every time that there is a clash. When the powers come to this Parliament, it will be absolutely appropriate for us to look at all the issues. I have listened very carefully to all the remarks that have been made today. At the committee, I am on record have suggested that there is a strong argument for a five-year cycle, but arguments for other cycles have been made today. I have particularly listened to the comments made by Annabelle Goldie, who is bringing forward a different solution, which would mean that every 20 or so years we would have two elections in the same year, but at different times of the year, so there would not be the direct clash. That is an interesting choice. Those are all things that are decided by the next Parliament. It is very important that those are very carefully considered. As was said, Ms Goldie said that the Government would consult very carefully on those issues and make sure that we take the widest possible view about the implications. Although we obviously feel that the issue of elections is very pertinent to us as politicians, it is obviously also very important to the electorate and to other organisations. The impact on organisations that want to influence policymaking, if there was a Westminster in the Scottish Parliament election in the same year, that is a significant drain on their resources and they want to be able to take part in that. It is important that, when this Parliament comes to discuss a permanent solution to the polling date clashes, there is the widest possible consultation possible. That is correct. It is great that today we managed to kick that off by saying that it is not just a four-year or five-year, but that there is potential for shifting the day of election. Although there is a fair degree of history for every Scottish election that has been in May, it would be a significant change for a Scottish Parliament election to be held at another time. Let us get back to the consensus. In the back of the bill, the bill is about changing and fixing the solution for the 2020 clash and dealing with a subsequent clash for local government elections in 2021. The bill offers that solution. I welcome the tenor of today's debate. I suggest that members across the chamber agree that the Government has got this right. I do not anticipate that the Government will bring forward any amendments to the bill at stage 2, but I take on board the convener's point that there is a parliamentary process going forward. We absolutely expect the committee to give the bill the same regard as all other bills. It is a relatively short bill, but it is a significant and important bill. I thank members for their contribution to today's debate and invite them to support me in agreeing the principles of the Scottish elections dates bill. Many thanks. That concludes the debate on stage 1 of the Scottish elections date bill. It is now time to move on to the next item of business, which is a debate on motion number 15220 in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons now. I call on Joe Fitzpatrick to speak to and move motion. Minister, you have 13 minutes. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. In opening this debate, I would highlight that the Lobbying Scotland Bill is an unusual bill. It is a bill being brought forward by the Government, and yet it is very much parliamentary in nature. For that reason, I have been keen from the outset to work closely with the Parliament in order to ensure that its views are reflected in the proposed legislation. I think that we are all agreed that lobbying is a legitimate activity. We also recognise the valuable contribution that lobbying plays to informing policymaking in Scotland. It is right that we seek to improve transparency in lobbying activity in order to retain the public's trust, particularly in light of continuing constitutional change. We can look at the results of a recent poll commissioned by the Scottish Alliance for Lobbying Transpansion, which indicated that three quarters of the public respondents are in favour of the creation of register. Our shared objective, therefore, is to ensure that the Parliament puts in place a robust, workable and above all proportionate lobbying registration scheme in Scotland. We must do so while listening to the views of a range of stakeholders. The Government's lobbying bill is founded firmly on the basis of a shared endeavour. When the Government announced its intentions to legislate in this area, a rationale for doing so was made clear. The question of whether Parliament should establish a lobbying register was and remains a significant move and one that requires careful consideration. The Government was therefore persuaded that we should put our full weight and resources behind the proposal, but recognise from the outset the need to reflect Parliament's wishes. I remain firmly of the view that the end product must be something that members across the chamber will be able to stand behind. Today's debate allows that process to continue. Against that backdrop, we welcomed the late Helen Eady's suggestion that the Standards, Procedure and Public Appointments Committee should contribute to determining what measures should be appropriate to the Scottish context by holding a committee inquiry. I am very grateful to the Parliament and the committee for its close involvement in the progression of the bill, the detail of which I will outline later. For the Government's part, throughout the development of the lobbying bill, ministers have been guided by three underpinning principles. First, there cannot be any erosion of the Parliament's principles of openness, ease of access and accountability. Civic engagement is something that Parliament does well and is something that people truly welcome. Many have commented on the Parliament's openness and hold that accessibility in high regard. The valuable relationship that the Parliament has fashioned with all Scottish stakeholders has not only contributed to its many successes but has also been integral to its swift development into a significant and trusted feature within Scottish society. The second guiding principle is that the register of lobbyists must complement and not duplicate existing transparency measures. There are many existing frameworks established within this Parliament and, indeed, Government to deliver probity around lobbying. A lobbying register must be developed to fit within that landscape, as opposed to being viewed as a catch-all singular solution. The third principle is that the new arrangements need to be proportionate, simple in their operation and command broad support, both within and outwith Parliament. Proportionality and simplicity are both key considerations. We need to minimise the burden on those who will need to register and there needs to be clear what is expected of them to comply with the new scheme. In terms of Parliament as operators of the registration scheme, the parliamentary authorities also need arrangements that are as clear as possible for the public and to avoid capturing activity that would be reasonably viewed as trivial or immaterial to its purpose. Those three underpinning principles have been generally welcomed by stakeholders and are at the heart of the bill that I have presented to Parliament. They will continue to guide my thinking as the bill proceeds through its parliamentary stages and the respect of the representations for change that are put to me. Our policy objective is to ensure that we maintain the public's trust in the institution by bringing added transparency. Our aim is to shed light on lobbying activity, which is designed to influence actions of ministers and members for a particular purpose. The bill is not intended to interfere with day-to-day relationships that each of us has with our constituents. In that regard, Patricia Ferguson made a very important point during my evidence session to the committee on 19 November when she highlighted the importance of being clear that the register should be designed to capture lobbying and not simply engagement. I agree fully with the point that she made, and we need to ensure that we do not unduly erode legitimate engagement between the public and their elected representatives. I therefore continue to look carefully at the bill in the area of discussions between elected members with their constituents and will consider any necessary changes to protect those relationships in due course. I mentioned the key role of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee in helping to develop the policy contained in the bill. Government welcomed the committee's announcement in September 2013 of an inquiry into lobbying, as I said earlier. That inquiry took evidence from a wide range of stakeholders, including campaign groups, representatives of the consultant lobbying industry, the voluntary and business sectors and academics. The inquiry concluded in February of 2015 with the publication of the committee's report.  It has invited the Government to adopt the recommendation set out in the report on the basis of its proposed legislation to establish a lobbying register. It confirmed the committee's view that a register based on its recommendation would constitute a substantial new body of information that would make a notable contribution to increase transparency. It invited the Government to work closely with the Scottish Parliament's corporate body on any proposals that would impact on parliamentary resources. The committee's report in February 2015 was pivotal in helping to shape the bill that is now in front of the Parliament. Indeed, of the 17 recommendations in the committee's February 2015 report, 12 fell within the scope of the bill, and all of those are being reflected in whole or in part. Government also consulted on its proposals for legislation, as informed by the committee's conclusions and the feedback received has also influenced the drafting of the legislation. We can now turn to the committee's stage 1 report. Clearly, we welcome the committee's support for the bill's general principles. Given that the proposals in the bill will impact on every single member, it is very important that we take the views of the chamber as a whole prior to finalising and publishing the Government's formal responses. That is consistent with the inclusive approach that has been typified in the on-going development of the bill. However, I wish to offer colleagues some initial thoughts on the content of the report. The committee's agreement to the bill's core principle of focusing on lobbying-involving payment is welcome. That underpins the nature of lobbying activity that we understand to be relevant for capture and, indeed, helps to distinguish such activity from that of engagement between a constituent and their elected representatives. Members will note that unpaid lobbying does not require registration, although the bill allows for voluntary registration of unpaid lobbying activity. I note the committee's thinking has, however, moved in respect of two key areas on the model that it endorsed in February 2015. First, the committee has asked the Government to review whether the scope of the bill should be widened to include communications of any kind. The Government is willing to keep an open mind on the issue and to listen to whatever evidence is made available to support such a position. However, it will not surprise members to hear that the Government is extremely cautious as to the merits of that approach. If the minister has a problem with, say, a product that he has bought or a bill that he gets and he has to contact, say, a company based in India or America, does he book a flight and turn up at the door because he has to speak to the person in face-to-face in order to resolve that problem? Or does he lift a phone and deal with it there and then? As I said, the Government is keeping an open mind to the point. I think that our starting point and the point in terms of attempting to get a proportionate response is what is the most significant form of lobbying. We have written the bill on the basis that the most—let me finish the point—significant lobbying is face-to-face lobbying. However, I am not saying that other forms of interaction are not also lobbying. Is most of our time taken up by meeting people face-to-face or is most of our time taken up by dealing with communications of another type? I suppose that we all have to have a look at a diaries on how much time we spend specifically meeting people. I am clear that I think that it is the most significant form of lobbying that is face-to-face. However, I am not saying for a second that other forms of communication are not significant. That is why we continue to have an open view on that. In the consultation, there are some respondents to our consultation that made calls for written communication to be a trigger for registration and the highlighted points that Mr Finlay makes there that, as a matter of fact, some communications could constitute lobbying. As I said, the Government is absolutely clear and we acknowledge that point, but in response we have to highlight that we are trying to introduce a proportionate approach to the lobbying registration. A starting point is to question whether it is proportionate to extend the registration to written correspondence that is directed to MSPs and ministers. I hope that across the chamber we would appreciate the volume of such correspondence, and not just received by members but also received by ministers. As an example, is the number of representations received in advance of today's debate from stakeholders. I am sure that other members received pretty heavy volumes of written evidence in advance of today's debate. I am sure that people appreciated that information helped to prepare for today's deliberations from across the perspective. I thank the minister for taking another intervention. It is a very brief point that I wanted to raise with the minister. Perhaps the minister could clarify for the chamber in what forum did he receive communication about this lobbying bill? What was the bulk of the communication that he got received in? I will give you extra time, minister. I have received more volume in emails than everyone else. However, in terms of time that I have spent engaging on this issue this week, I have spent more time and I have read every single email in relation to the bill that has come in myself. However, if I can continue, I have had meetings with stakeholders on all sides of this debate, and I think that those were very significant. I appreciate those meetings that I had with Salt and others this week. Minister, would you make a distinction between lobbying and organised lobbying? The majority of emails that I have had this week in relation to this issue and other issues that we have been bombarded with in the past couple of days from individuals who have taken up that issue on behalf of the concerns that they may have? I think that there is a distinction between organised lobbying from paid lobbyists and individuals who feel so strongly about an issue that they feel they want to write to their elected members to make some progress, but absolutely, and the bill, as it is drafted, absolutely makes that distinction. That is very important. The Government's consultation demonstrates strong support for registration of oral face-to-face communication, saying that as striking an appropriate balance, given the context of no evidence of wrongdoing in the eyes of some and no case for registration at all in the eyes of others. Although it would be possible, in principle, to extend registration to all forms of communication, the question that we have to answer is whether that would be proportionate response and to ensure that it would not deter engagement with the Parliament. Any negative effects of that sort would be precisely what we are thinking we have to avoid. The Government believes that there is a risk that it would have such an effect and to the detriment of both organisations engaging with the Parliament and elected representatives. Something will have to be considered very carefully and I would be interested in hearing members' views on that. As I said, our ears are not closed to the arguments. One of the other areas that the committee referred to was in terms of special advisers and civil servants. Stage 1 records my response to the proposal to extension. My point was that MSPs and ministers are decision makers and legislators and advisers are just that. It would, of course, be perfectly possible to extend the bill in that way, but, again, we need to consider the evidence and any potential implications for such an extension. Again, our mind is not closed to the point, but equally we need to test any extension against the principle of proportionality. Again, I invite colleagues' views on whether senior civil servants and senior advisers to ministers and MSPs should be covered by the bill. The committee's report also included some recommendations on the practical aspects of the registration framework, collective bargaining and the appropriateness of the current exception for meetings initiated by elected members. I will deal with those in due course in our response. I thank you for your indulgence. I think that there are obviously some important points that we had to make. I think that the bill, as introduced, seeks to balance interests of a wide range of stakeholders and to avoid any unwelcome imbalances that could work against the Parliament's interests. I want to hold up the fact that the bill, as it stands, has a considerable flexibility available to Parliament in the light of experience to alter the operational aspects of the registration scheme. I hope that members will agree that that legislation represents a firm foundation for the establishment of an initial scheme to underpin a register of lobbying activity. I look forward to hearing the views expressed during the debate, and I move that the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Lobbying Scotland bill. I now call on Stuart Stevenson to speak on behalf of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee. Mr Stevenson, you have nine minutes, so thereby please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The term lobbying can, for some people at least, conjure up images of dubious characters loitering in the corridors of power, attempting to gain unfair advantage over the ordinary citizen. Indeed, the origins of the term are from the Willard hotel in Washington, where Ulysses S Grant, president of the United States, used the retire for his brandy and cigars in the evening, would be accosted in the lobby of the hotel by people seeking to influence public policy. It was face-to-face in the original times. No telephones in 1820, it would be fair to say. The committee has, however, had a long-term view that modern lobbying is a positive and necessary part of any democracy that equips decision makers with valuable information and, more importantly, allows individuals, firms and organisations to engage with and influence policy makers as they have every right to do. What the bill aims to do is to bring a perfectly legitimate activity out into the open. If everyone can see who has contributed to the decision making process, then those decisions should have greater legitimacy and be more representative, and it ought to be made easier to hold account decision makers. Outcomes, which I think are broadly supported across the Parliament, but, equally, we are aware of the danger of creating barriers or the appearance of barriers for smaller organisations and individuals whom we wish to see engaging with Parliament, and, vitally, we must leave MSPs and our constituents able to interact with each other on matters of local interest. The committee's work goes back in this area some time as the minister outlined. Following Neil Findlay MSP's proposal for a member's bill in 2013, the committee held the inquiry looking into the question of whether there needed to be more information available to the public about who lobbies the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government. Our report was produced in February 2013 and set out a series of proposals that, to a very large extent, have informed the Government's bill that is before us today. Nevertheless, in the light of evidence that we had during our stage 1 inquiry, we think that there are issues to consider further. The bill that is currently drafted will only require lobbyists to register if they have face-to-face meetings with MSPs and ministers. Warren Buffet once said that contribution, particularly those in public service, requires integrity, intellect and energy. Without the first one, the other two are useless. I think that you would agree that we should seek to retain all of those. My evidence to date is that those characteristics are endemic in this Parliament. I am therefore concerned, even sure, that the consequence of the bill may, in the long run, be the very opposite of that intended and that those characteristics may well be damaged. Would the member accept that, should the bill go ahead, the committee will ensure that there will be no exceptions proposed for different types of lobbyists? The committee's view is that, in seeking to differentiate between lobbyists who are paid, who lobby as part of their paid activity, and those individuals and organisations that are voluntary and where there is no financial or other similar reward to people, we think that that distinction is a good one. The member referred to integrity, intellect and energy. I suspect, and I cannot speak for the committee because we did not discuss it in quite those terms, but I suspect that the committee would see a register of lobbyists and showing light into what goes on in lobbying as an excellent example for us all to demonstrate those three attributes of integrity, intellect and energy. We understand that the definition to which I have been referring is designed to catch the most meaningful interactions and the line was drawn in an effort to produce a light touch regime. Nevertheless, thinking about this since our original report, we felt that this approach may be too narrow and create the impression of there being options open to organisations wishing to avoid scrutiny. We therefore have recommended that consideration be given to widening the definition of registerable lobbying to include all forms of communication. We have not looked directly at the potential effects of this and hence asked the Government to do that. In practice, my personal experience and I stress it is my personal experience does not suggest that an extension of the definition of the way that we suggest would significantly increase the number of registrants. My personal reflection is that we must test to see whether it would inhibit communication between MSPs and constituents. That is one of the essential tests. We must not overburden organisations, most particularly small organisations, pursuing legitimate campaigns and create an administrative headache for them or for Parliament. The former are the more important. During the bill's progress, we will not, of course, be deciding what the contents of the proposed register would be. That is something that Parliament will come to after the passage of the bill. However, at this stage, it is worth saying that the committee does not suggest that the details of every phone call or email should appear in the register, merely that the fact that there have been such communications and what their purpose has been. That would otherwise, if we had all that detail, generate a great deal of repetitive information and possibly render the register less useful and less accessible to citizens by burying the relevant information. Having read the committee report, I understand that the committee rejected thresholds, which I personally think is an error, because that would have meant that incidental lobbying and small scale lobbying would not be captured. I wonder if I could elaborate on why the committee rejected those thresholds. I think that there is an element of judgment in this, Presiding Officer. There isn't an absolute certainty. However, the test of only including people who receive reward for their lobbying is a very simple and objective one. The test of having a threshold, which the committee discussed at some length, is a more difficult one to come up with a watertight definition of. That is something that, as the bill goes forward, I am sure that we can return to at stage 2 and stage 3 and debate further. I think that I am correct in reporting the committee's considerations in those terms, and that is why we came to the conclusion that we did. However, it is a judgment call. It is not an absolute issue. The bottom line is that we ask the Government, as the bill moves forward, to find a way to demonstrate that any alteration of the definitional lobbying leaves acceptably modest administrative burdens for those lobbying, while also delivering a useful and accessible register. I take it that I have a little flexibility in time, Presiding Officer. Nine minutes, Mr Stevenson, but there is a little flexibility in that. Right. Thank you, Presiding Officer. That is helpful. During our inquiry, we looked at the distinction that the bill made between paid and unpaid, and we basically endorsed the Government's approach. It is right that any citizen can lend their voice to a cause or support an organisation in an unpaid capacity without having to register. We also agreed that the distinction that is being made elsewhere between professional lobbyists, whatever they are, and in-house lobbyists is not one that we would wish to see echoed here. Under the bill that is currently drafted, you would not, for example, be required to register following a meeting with a minister or MSP provided they initiated the meeting. We understand and accept the rationale behind the exception, which was designed to ensure that there are no restraints on MSPs and ministers entering into discoth with stakeholders, experts and representative books. It groups who may have particular set of skills or knowledge that allows them to make a valuable contribution to policy and otherwise challenge what is proposed. We share the view that MSPs and ministers should be able to have this kind of interaction with specialists without having to register, but in practice we have some concerns. If matters are discussed during a chance meeting or at a dinner or an event, who initiated the meeting and how can that be demonstrated? We think that this could be difficult, and we have to invite the Government to look at the approach and see whether there are ways that can offer greater clarity and certainty. When it comes to the subjects of lobbying, we were persuaded by those who gave evidence that the bill's restrictions to MSPs and ministers were too narrow. While we accept the argument that ministers are ultimately responsible for decisions, other office holders are clearly involved in their inception. Importantly, lobbying organisations that spoke to us considered such interactions to be of equal value to meetings with ministers. Accordingly, we have asked the Government to consider bringing forward amendments to broaden the definition to include communications made to other public officials such as civil servants, special advisers and senior staff. Finally, we did hear arguments suggesting that expenditure should be provided. I come back to the point that this is a matter that Parliament can consider further when we look at the orders that we would bring forward after the passage of the bill. The Parliament is founded on the principles of openness, accessibility and participation. Get this right, the bill promotes those values and allows everybody to participate in equal footing. We look forward to continuing to work with the Government in any changes. It brings forward and I am happy to say that the committee endorses the view that Parliament should adopt the General Principles of the Bill. I am pleased to be open on this debate on behalf of the Labour Party. I am pleased that the Government has gone round to introducing the bill, because the debate has been a long time coming. I submitted my draft proposal for the Lobby and Transparency Scotland Bill in July 2012. It is only now coming before the Parliament, but we have got there, and that is a good thing. We will support the principles of the bill at decision time tonight. Like others, I believe that lobbying is a good thing. It informs debate and assists the democratic process. For example, the briefings that we all received for this debate and others are often invaluable when they provide information and expertise and knowledge and give different perspectives from a range of opinions. They enhance our democracy and that is a good thing. However, the workings of this Parliament in the way in which legislation is made and in which public contracts are awarded should all be open to scrutiny and they should be transparent, including any lobbying that has occurred in the process. We know that the general standing of politics and those who work in and around it following the expenses, scandals, cash for questions, and taxes for hire, and the current financial controversies of some MPs are not high. Thankfully, this Parliament has been largely free of those types of scandals. Long may that continue, the reason for bringing my bill forward is to put in place systems to ensure that we prevent such things from happening and protect our democracy in this Parliament and those who engage with it. It would only take one or two scandals to really damage the standing of this Parliament, and that would be a major setback for all of us and for this institution. So a good, robust, workable lobbying bill fits with the preventative agenda that the Government promotes and I think that all of us support. It is hard to deny the view of many that powerful interests enjoy disproportionate access to Government and politicians over ordinary people and that those interests have a disproportionate level of access to decision makers and influence over policy and the legislative process that the average man or woman in the street do not have. If we look at organisations engaged in promoting renewable energy, or fracking, or air passenger duty cuts, or air port expansion, or a whole range of other issues and other matters, they are spending, regularly spending, very significant amounts of time and money and effort to get what they want. Now, there is nothing wrong with that, nothing wrong at all. They are perfectly entitled to do so, but the public should have a right to know who they are speaking to, what the reason was for those communications and what, if any, was the outcome. This is not revolutionary stuff, it fits in with the founding principles of this Parliament. I think that the bill is absolutely timely and appropriate. New powers are coming to this place and we know that with new powers lobbying follows. There was almost no Scottish lobbying industry to off-note before this Parliament existed. As powers have come, lobbying activity has increased, and now lobbying goes on in this place every minute of every day. Again, I stress that that is not a bad thing, but it is right that we legislate now and that we legislate in an atmosphere of relative calm, not in the wake of any scandal when, clearly at that point, party political advantage would inevitably influence our discussions and our decisions. However, if we are to legislate, it is my view that it must be done properly. Currently, as the bill stands, it is in need of radical amendment, in my opinion, to make it fit for purpose. I am pleased that colleagues from all parties on the Standards Committee recognise some of the major flaws in the Government's proposal on the need for improvement. One of those flaws is the issue of face-to-face meetings between the lobbyist and the lobby done. First reading the Government's proposal, I immediately thought, well, whether the Government thinks that we still live in the 19th century, where telecommunications and computers do not exist. I assume—I see the minister with a biro pen there or a fancy pen—I am assuming that he does not write with a quill in parchment paper. I am sure that he does not send smoke signals. I am sure that he does not speak to people via two bean cans tied together with string. The Government says that it wants to deliver an economy that is future-proofed and with world-class connectivity. With that comes the newfangled gimmicks with such strange names as the telephone, the computer, email, conference call and video conference for having sake, Skype and FaceTime. I mean, I can hear the minister muttering, oh, it does not matter, these will never catch on. The Government does not in any way not recognise these other forms of lobbying. Indeed, the bill allows for the Parliament to put in place guidance for those other forms of lobbying, but what we are saying is that a line needs to be drawn in terms of what is regulated lobbying, in terms of where there is a criminal offence and other lobbying for which there is guidance. Nobody is suggesting that there are other forms of lobbying that do not exist. Nobody is suggesting that we do not have email or telephones, but it is just about where you draw the line in terms of that regulation. I am sure that he will want to ensure that the bill is a modern bill for the modern age and that the Government will come back at stage 2 with a new definition of what is regulated lobbying. As Professor Raj Chary said during the committee evidence session, he had never seen that sort of wording before. It pains me to say that even the UK Government recognises that lobbying takes place by way of written communication. I am sure that the minister does not want to be compared unfavourably with the dog's breakfast that is the UK lobbying act. We want a better proposal than what is there, so I think that we must recognise the absurdity of that and fix that as soon as possible. We also need to address the weaknesses about who should be included in the register as having been lobbied. We all know here how lobbyist target special advisers and civil servants must be included in the proposals, not to do so, so I think that we would leave a glaring loophole easily exploited. The minister referred to the SAW briefing that we had. If you look at the polling that they did on this, 91 per cent of the public believe spads and civil servants must be included in the register. I hope that the minister will take account of that. There is no mention of either financial disclosure. Surely if we want people to have faith in the system, it is vital that we know the scale of the lobbying. Are people spending £5,000 or £5,000? That tells you the scale of the lobbying that goes on, and 92 per cent of people support that as well. I think that we need thresholds to ensure that normal MSP contact is unaffected, that one-off or infrequent lobbying is not included, and that only significant lobbying by those investing significant amounts of money and time to influence policies or win contracts are included in any register. Failure to make this clear has led to the fears that all activities for anyone approaching parliamentary range would have to be registered. That was never the intention, and I hope that it is not the Government's intention, and I am sure that it is not. My original proposal was also suggested that the working career of lobbyists should also be included in the register, because too often we see the revolving door in operation, where ex-politicians, special advisers and civil servants move into a new role, and with a short period of time, open up their contact book to gain access to decision makers using all the knowledge and the relationships that are built up in their previous employment to influence policy or win contracts for their new clients or bosses. That again can lead to negative perceptions amongst the public, yet there is no mention of a revolving door clause in the Government's proposals. We only need to see what happened with recent governments of all persuasion at Westminster. We look at the current Government, and we look at the new recruits at Aberdeen Asset Management, Weber Shandwick and Charlotte Street Partners. We see all of that in action here. As I said, this happened at Westminster under governments of all persuasion. The reality is that there is a bill that has many flaws in it, and some of it is a bit of a mess. I attended a seminar recently to discuss this, as did the committee convener. An independent expert on lobbying said that, at best, he would give it a two out of ten, and he said that the US system was a six out of ten. That does not bode well for the bill's transparency claims. If the bill is to work and enhance our democracy, I think that it needs serious amendment, and at stage two, we would intend to put forward many of those amendments. I, too, am glad that we have the chance to debate the lobbying bill and all its possible routes to take today. If we are to achieve cross-party consensus that the Scottish Government seeks on this issue, we can and should examine each of the main points that are considered during our committee's inquiry and raised in our report. It is, however, essential that we maintain a firm focus on the three principles that must underline this bill if it is to be fair, effective and worthwhile. The first, of course, is transparency. Indeed, it could be right to say that the whole point of a lobbying register would be to increase transparency. It is vital that both the lobbying process and the breadth of the bill itself are clear. As well as this, we must ensure that any lobbying register upholds a principle of accessibility, and this is essential so that those who wish to participate in the public decision-making are not deterred from doing so, and I think that this is a fundamental point. Finally, any registration requirements must be proportionate if they are to be fair and worthwhile—a point that has already been covered. This question of proportionality touches on a number of subjects that the committee has raised, including the types of communications that officials should be counted. I do not think that we should be specifying the type, because there are all sorts of modern methods coming in. The first thing to be said is that whatever form the bill takes in its final version, all of the implications and requirements must be clearly understood by all. This means that any provisions must be examined in depth and publicly so that indirect consequences are considered at length. Transparency also requires a transparent approach to deciding on the bill itself so that the public can understand the direction and be prepared for any new system. To help achieve this, we must ensure, I think, that the key provisions of the bill are set in Parliament and are not left to be decided by secondary legislation. I realise that we are now just at stage one at the moment, but the point that I am making is that ease of understanding the bill must not be an afterthought or end up with a stifling bill and also a lawyer's paradise. An example of an area that we need to clarify is the exemption where meetings are not initiated by the lobbyist. Part of this public understanding concerns just how much preparation or adjustment would be needed, which touches on two other principles that I want to mention—that of accessibility and proportionality. I think that we can all agree that the involvement of expert organisations, members of the public and affected parties in the public policy process is a welcome and, indeed, necessary feature of our political system. To make informed decisions, obviously, they have to be informed in the first place. We must therefore keep a focus on ensuring that accessibility to the public is neither made more difficult nor discouraged in the first place, and this has been highlighted many times in committee and by evidence. I say the public on purpose because the issue of lobbying is not one of background deals between special interests and brokers of power, as it is sometimes portrayed as a rather dirty name lobbying sometimes, but rather so much as a more fundamental matter of the chance for everyone to participate in policy making and the exchange of ideas. All manner of organisations and members of the public can and should feel welcome to discuss that of interest with their representatives. As for proportionality, I am quite clear that any potential system of lobbying registration has to be light touch. This ties in with the importance of accessibility and is worth raising a couple more specific points. Firstly, the committee has pointed out that it is worth looking into the inclusion of all forms of communication in the Bill, as well as contact with senior civil servants and special advisers. I personally do see where these demands are coming from, but I don't think we should lose sight of the need to strike a balance—a balance between increasing transparency where there is needed and ensuring that the individuals and organisations are not deterred or put off from participating in the political process due to undue regulation and over complicating. We must also have concerns about the inclusion of contact with MSPs in the register. I think we would probably be dealing with that in stage two, as we would need to make sure that their ability to undertake their duties as public representatives is not restricted. Politics conducted on behalf of the public should, after all, be open to easy access for the public. Suggestions to use a targeted approach based on the intensity of lobbying activity rather than at its source are also a welcome idea worth exploring. Secondly, proportionality should be measured relative to the benefit to be gained or the problem to be solved. That suggests the need to understand how undue influence may arise and, therefore, where requirements should be targeted. Thankfully, we have not been troubled by lobbying scandals in our political system, but that does not mean that we might not be. It begs the question also how much needs to be done. I am not saying that we should not do anything, on the contrary. I think that the measure of what we should do should be proportionate and should be understanding and understanding that the bill would consider what is potential rather than the pressing problem. If those principles are upheld, I believe that a fair, effective and worthwhile system of regulation of lobbying can be found. To do this, we have to continue to scrutinise each proposition in depth and ensure that the principles are acted upon rather than lip service paid to them. I will touch on this more detail later, and I look forward to discussing all aspects of this with colleagues across the chamber. I was a member of the Standards Committee during the original inquiry into lobbying, and, for most of the work that was completed up until this point, I recently left the committee, but for some reason I keep getting drawn back, or is that dragged back into this debate? What I am going to discuss is my personal views, since I had time to sit back from my work in the committee and look at some of the information. I believe that all democracy should be transparent and open, but let me make it clear at this point that I support the bill. At the same time, I have a number of issues with it. There are a number of practicalities to do with our day-to-day constituency in parliamentary life, which our colleague already mentioned. I feel that the proposals could make this more difficult. At this point, I would like to take you back to 1997, when many of us were all working together to ensure that this institution came into being. I remember trying to download the Scotland Bill White paper from the web with my 14.4K modem. After 24 hours of waiting and a worried visit from my mother-in-law as to why my phone was engaged for 24 hours, I went down to the local bookshop and bought a hard copy. From then until now, and during the lifetime of this Parliament, Scotland and the world has changed dramatically. Now we have superfast broadband, but in Paisley that bookstore is no longer there. How could a third or fourth generation family business compete with the web when you can purchase a hard copy or an e-copy from home and instantly get it delivered or to your door? Although it appears that advancement for the consumer is good, something has been lost. Progress has lost something important in life. That is the point that I am trying to make with regard to the lobbying bill. We need to be very careful that we do not lose the many strengths that the Scottish Parliament has with the feeling that something has to be done about lobbying. I appreciate that many look to Westminster and see their legislation as not helped in any way and was a knee-jup reaction to some of the strange workings of the Parliament. However, should we not look at that reaction and take note, during all the evidence that the committee heard, the legislation was slated for being useless. We were told that Westminster and Washington were among the worst for transparency and both have already legislated for lobbying. I know that I get a hard time from colleagues regarding my great pride in being Paisley's member of the Scottish Parliament, and I take that in good humour. However, the theory's point for me is how I deliver from my constituents and how I interact with their employers, the public sector and the third sector on their behalf. As the bill currently stands, it will be difficult for local employers and small businesses to contact me. Some SMEs might not even bother because they will wonder if it would be worth the hassle to register and come and have a meaningful dialogue with their elected member. It is stated that the register should be targeted at organisations who have significant contact with their MSPs. Once a small engineering business literally came to me to discuss an expansion that would create jobs in the area as well, how they would take the next big step and could I help them to appoint them in the right direction. That same business might have looked at a different way of dealing with things and might not have approached an elected member if they thought that there was an administrative barrier for them to do that. Larger businesses and major employers mean that every single major employer in Remshaw has to register and record every single meeting that they have with an elected member as we discuss the future of my constituents and their job. As it stands, there would be an added burden put upon the third sector to register. One of the best things about the Scottish Parliament would be lost. The institution of Scotland's Parliament and we take all the great pride and the openness and accessibility of our members, ministers and Government and that is something worth preserving. I am aware that many of the MSPs intake from 1999 originally looked at the workings of the Parliament and looked at lobbying and how to deal with it and I am aware that they knew that this could call harm to their vision for the future. Neil Findlay. Mr Adam is making an argument, a very good argument for us to actually help thresholds that we mean that all of those people that he talks about or the vast majority of them do not need to register at all. That is the argument that he is making. I am making the argument that I can represent the people of Paisley and make sure that I can still have the interaction and the flexibility to be doing that. Do not get me wrong, openness and transparency and policies and us delivering for our constituency is the most important thing. However, one of the issues that constantly came up—and it has happened in this debate—was the fact that how to define lobbyists. The spice paper that we received was quite interesting as well because it confuses the issue even more. Lobbing activity can be conducted through a number of direct or indirect communication methods, including personal letters to help or email forms of social media such as Twitter, Facebook and providing briefing materials to members, organisation meetings and rallies. Lobbyists come from various sectors, including individual members of the public, groups of constituents, local business, organised pressure groups, campaigners or commercial organisations. That is just about everyone. When we look at that, we need to find out who we are calling a lobbyist at this stage. How do we take that to the next stage? The funny thing is that when we looked at UK lobbying act, they got accused that their definition was too narrow. They did not include enough people in many of the lobbyist firms. We are still getting the opportunity to go without being brought up with the net. Since the bill is our direction of travel, I want two things from it. I want to be able to represent my constituents and work with other organisations to try to make my constituency a better place to live in. I do not want an administrative straight jacket. Finally, and most importantly, I do not want to lose sight of the founding principles of this Parliament. If we lose them, then, like that family-run bookstore, we will not get it back. Deputy Presiding Officer, I am pleased to have the chance to speak in today's debate. I begin by commending my Scottish Labour colleague Neil Finlay for proposing this bill back in 2012. For his patience over the past few years, as the bill has been considered by the Standards and Procedures Committee and then finally taken on board by the Scottish Government, it is a member of the Standards Committee during the original inquiry. I have taken a keen interest in the bill and it is good to see that we are finally seeing some progress in this important area. The Electoral Reform Society has said that today's debate could either place Scotland as a world leader in transparent politics or create legislation that leaves Parliament vulnerable to lobbying scandals. In this context, I have serious concerns that the bill, as it stands, is just too weak. Stuart Stevenson highlighted some of the concerns expressed by the current Standards and Procedures Committee. I hope that, when the next time we discuss the bill in the chamber, it will have been strengthened considerably. I am pleased to hear the minister say that he has an open mind on this. At Holyrood, we quite rightly pride ourselves on being different from Westminster—more open, more accountable and more accessible to all. While today, Holyrood has been pretty much free of any lobbying scandals, this is not a reason not to act. The bill is not about preventing lobbying. As Neil Finlay has said, lobbying is a good thing. It is an important part of our democratic process. Indeed, it often improves public policy outcomes, informs our debates, provides valuable information and expertise, and it improves public engagement with the Parliament. However, lobbying has got to be open, transparent and has got to be conducted to the highest possible standards, not behind closed doors and in secret. I suspect that this could be the first and last time that I will ever quote David Cameron, but he hit the nail on the heads when he described lobbying as the next big scandal waiting to happen, an issue that exposes the far too cosy relationship between politics, government, business and money. With the new powers on the way to Holyrood, the ability to raise and spend more finance, we are inevitably going to see more frequent and more intense lobbying. At a time when the decisions being made by both the Scottish Parliament and the Government are coming under an increase in public scrutiny, when our communities are paying the price of austerity and cuts to public services, job losses and pay freezes, as a result of the decisions that politicians are taking at all levels, we should be leading the way and ensuring that the decisions that we take here and in the workings of our Parliament and our Government are as open and transparent as possible. We should be using this opportunity to pass world-leading legislation, not as a response to scandal as has been the case elsewhere, but because we want to show the citizens of Scotland that the Scottish Parliament will always put people first, not the interests of commercial or other vested interests. I think that it is disappointing that, rather than grasping this opportunity, the bill falls short of the change that we need to see. In its final report on the bill, the Standards Committee concluded that its narrow scope could leave a great deal of important information unrecorded and create a loophole for those wishing to conceal their activity. I am sure that I am not alone in receiving many emails from constituents over the past week, urgent action to close this loophole and strengthen the bill. As Neil Findlay has said, we will be amending the bill at stage 2 to make it more robust and more fit for purpose. A recent poll by YouGov on behalf of the Scottish Alliance for Lobbian Transparency found that 88 per cent of voters thought that a lack of transparency about lobbying was either a big or significant risk to Scottish democracy. Calls for the current proposals to be strengthened could not be clearer, with 86 per cent wanting emails to be covered, 91 per cent wanting senior civil servants to be covered and 92 per cent wanting to know how much lobbyists are spending on their campaigns. That poll provides concrete evidence of the public desire to ensure a robust and transparent lobbying register in Scotland, not the halfway house that has been proposed today. I hope that the Government will take into account the real strength of public feeling on the issue, listening to the demand for transparency about how money and lobbying influence politics in Scotland and agree to the changes that both Scottish Labour, the committee and the majority of the public want to see. Deputy Presiding Officer, today's debate is about strengthening our democracy, and to coin a phrase from the SNP is about making our democracy stronger for Scotland. We have the honour to serve our constituents here in Parliament, and in return we have a duty to ensure that the Parliament, the Government and its decisions are as open and transparent as possible. It is in all our interest to ensure that we get this legislation right, so let's ensure that when the bill comes back to the chamber, the bill we debate is stronger and more effective. Strengthen to include all lobbying, not just face-to-face contact. Strengthen to include not just MSPs and ministers, but civil servants and special advisers too. Strengthen to require financial disclosure of lobbying, but with thresholds so that normal MSP contact is unaffected. Strengthen to recognise the revolving door in politics, to give the public the right to know the work history of lobbyists. We are rightly proud of our Parliament, but we cannot pretend that it is immune from corporate power or influence. In the Scottish public, I have the right to know and the right to see the full extent of the lobbying on the issues that affect everybody's lives. Scotland has got to lead the way on transparency, and I will conclude once again by commending Neil Findlay for his tremendous work on this issue to help to ensure that our democracy is truly fit for the 21st century. Thank you. I now call Fiona McLeod to be followed by Eileen Murray. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Can I say that my starting point when I come to look at the lobbying bill is this Parliament's founding principles, not just the founding principles back in 1999, but the reputation that we have garnered over the last 17 years of our existence. Those founding principles were about us being open and about being transparent, because what we wanted was that this would be Scotland's Parliament, not the MSP's Parliament, that we would work in partnership with the people of Scotland and with Civic Scotland. When I look round the chamber today at those taking part in the debate, I know that it is myself, Eileen Murray and Gil Paterson, who I think will feel that most strongly from those heady days when we were so enthusiastic about what we were setting out to do in 1999. However, as I say, I think that this Parliament, 17 years on, has a well credited reputation in being that open and transparent Parliament that works in partnership. That is reflected in the two reports of the SPPA Committee. In 2014, when I was a member of the committee, we took extensive evidence on lobbying after the introduction of Mr Finlay's member's bill. More recently, when I was not a member, I have just come back, there was evidence taken for the stage 1 process of the bill. Both those reports of the SPPA Committee found no evidence of malpractice, and I think that that is an important point that we make in this debate, and I am glad that everybody has made that debate at that point. However, we are not complacent. I do not want anybody to think that, if people are suggesting that the bill goes far enough or does not go far enough that it is through complacency, but it is about how we ensure that this Parliament maintains its high reputation. There is no complacency, the reports found no complacency, and therefore we came along the process from a member's bill to a Government bill, very much influenced by the evidence of that first report of the standards committee, it would appear to me. When you look at the clear principles that the minister talked about in framing the bill, about being proportionate, about being complementary and about ensuring that it does not interfere with the engagement of which this Parliament is so proud. I then looked at the bill and said, does the bill match those principles? For the first principle on proportionate and the third one on ensuring that we continue with engagement, if you look at some of the evidence that we have received, it gives me some concerns that we do not go too far. For example, the Epilepsy Consortium in Scotland, if I can quote from their evidence, any regulation of lobbyists in Scotland should be specifically formed to reflect the culture of political participation in Scotland and the particular working practices of the Scottish Parliament. We believe that the Epilepsy Consortium Scotland must not create a barrier to parliamentary engagement for organisations representing the most vulnerable and disadvantaged members of our society. I then looked at the evidence from the SCVO and again if I may quote, transparency of lobbying in Scotland is a relevant and laudable goal, but protecting participation is absolutely vital and must take precedence, especially as it has been conceded on numerous occasions that there is no problem with undue influence of lobbying in Scotland. Sabotaging the high levels of participation in Scotland to achieve hypothetical increases in transparency would be a tragedy for democracy and must be avoided. I think that that is an interesting point that she raises about SCVO because during the consultation when I introduced my bill, SCVO were the most vocal opponents of that bill for some bizarre reason, I have no idea why, but when I scratched a little bit further, many members of SCVO were actually in favour of the bill and that the submission that they put into my bill was only for 11 members of SCVO who represent thousands of organisations, only 11 opposed the bill. Fiona McLeod and you can have the time back. I well remember that day in taking evidence in the committee, Mr Finlay, and I remember you being rebuked by the convener at the time for your manner, but what I would say is that from the day of, from that evidence that SCVO submitted, we have of course, and it's been referred to in the chamber, over the last couple of weeks, a lot of other organisations, including SCVO with updated evidence, have been back in touch with them again all maintaining. I go back to what I said when I started, it's not that we shouldn't have the bill, it's my concern, my huge concern when looking at it is, is that we protect and ensure that the founding principles of openness and transparency, that reputation we've built up of partnership working, that we don't bring in a bill that in any way prevents that reputation from continuing as it is. One of the other areas that the committee looked at in greater detail this time when taking evidence for the stage 1 of the bill was extending the regulation to all communications, and it's already been discussed by a number of members. You will notice in the committee's report on the stage 1 that it was not a unanimous report on this area, and I think that it was me that was not unanimous in extending it beyond face-to-face oral communications. Again, it's because of my concerns about could this become a barrier to that great partnership working that we've got with civic society with our constituents and with just groups of ordinary citizens that come together and get passionate about something. I noticed in some of the submissions that have been made to us most recently in the last few days by the Federation of Small Businesses, Cancer Research UK and ASPA, which is a professional association for lobbyists. There's the panoply of everybody involved in this saying that they have concerns about it being extended to all communications. In the first report of the committee when I was there to take all the evidence, at paragraph 107 in that report, the committee said that the proposed register does not seek to capture all contacts from organisations that are required to register. The committee wants to increase transparency but considers that a system that requires a sensible amount of useful information from organisations can be established. I keep coming back to that, a sensible amount of useful information. I think that's what we're looking at. It was interesting when we started to discuss extending beyond oral face-to-face communications. We all think about it and we've had jokes about it. Are we in the 21st century with telephones and emails? I started thinking about what about Twitter and Facebook? If we extend to all communications, are we into having to register tweets, posts, direct messaging? I want us to think it all through. On the complementary strand of the principles, I draw the members' attention to the fact that we have a code of conduct. We have the members' interest act. Our Standards Committee itself works really hard in producing rules and guidance, for example, on cross-party groups to ensure that we maintain that openness and transparency. Back to the beginning. Founding principles of this Parliament, 17 years of positive engagement, so it's stage 1. Yes, we agree the principles of the bill, but it's stage 2. Let's make sure that any amendments are about improvements and adjustments in response to the evidence but maintaining the openness of this Parliament. I'm not on the committee that considered the arguments around it. I've read both the SPICE report and the committee's stage 1 report with considerable interest. Lobbying is, as others have said, an acceptable activity. Indeed, it's a necessary activity that contributes to parliamentary discussion and knowledge. It is carried out logistically by a wide range of organisations and individuals. Unfortunately, the term lobbying now carries some negative connotations due to disreputable activity by some organisations and some parliamentarians, although I hasten to add not by members of this Parliament. It is transparency over lobbying activity, which is required not the prevention of lobbying itself. Third sector organisations, trade unions, private businesses and public organisations must remain able to participate in discussion around the matter switch that the Parliament is considering. Credit should be given to my colleague Neil Finlay for initiating the legislation by lodging proposals for his member's bill back in July 2012. His proposals would have required individuals and organisations, who lobby MSPs, Scottish ministers and public officials, to record and publish information on their activities. It has taken some time for his proposals to be progressed by. I am pleased to see that they are being progressed now. The Scottish Government undertook to take over Neil's member's bill. That was welcomed, but I think that there are significant questions regarding whether the bill, as it stands at stage 1, is sufficiently robust to ensure public confidence in who is influencing our decisions. For example, registration of lobbying activity is not extended to senior civil servants and officials or special advisers. Those individuals have significant influence over policymaking. They might be involved in drafting legislation or in advising ministers on how to present proposed action. It could well be more effective for a lobbyist to influence senior civil servants or advisers than to contact ministers or MSPs themselves. That, I believe, is a glaring omission from the bill, and I was pleased to note that the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee have recommended that the definition should be broadened to include public officials. The bill is also deficient in that it only covers face-to-face oral communications, others have already mentioned. We all know that that is not the only way in which we are lobbied. We receive emails on a daily basis from organisations wishing to influence our views on legislation and other matters. I often receive letters sent by professional lobbyists on behalf, for example, of companies wishing to build wind farms in my constituency, and it has not been unknown for professional lobbyists to phone me up on behalf of their clients. Those alternative forms of communications can be just as effective as face-to-face meetings. Indeed, written communications may indeed be preferable in presenting the arguments for a proposal, so it does seem peculiar that those forms of lobbying are not included in the scope of the bill. Another key part of Neil Findlay's proposed member's bill was transparency over the amount of money being spent on lobbying. As the financial aspects of lobbying are of particular public interest, that information should be publicly available. I appreciate that there are sensitivities in cases that information reveals details of paid lobbyist salaries. Neil Findlay suggested to the committee that those sensitivities might be addressed, or at least in part, by using a system of banding. However, our sentence salaries as MSPs and any additional income that we receive have to be declared publicly known. That is quite correct. The salaries and salary bands of public officials are published. I find it difficult to be oversympathetic to the view that the funding of lobbying activity should not be treated similarly. There are other potential loopholes with the proposals to large, well-funded NGOs that could get around the requirement for registration by using volunteers, rather than paid staff, to undertake while having the materials and events that support the activities of those volunteers prepared and organised by those paid staff. Also, pro-bono lobbying by professional lobbyists would not be required to be registered. I also want to support Neil Findlay's suggestion that the public ought to know whether former politicians, advisers and civil servants are using the contacts that they established when in office in order to make subsequent money for themselves or for other employers by lobbying. While advising people in office, those people are paid by the public purse. It is taxpayers' money that is being used on those salaries. If they are using the contacts that they made while being paid by the public purse in order to make money for themselves or for others, surely—to try to influence their successive politicians and advisers—the public should know that that is happening and that they should know how much that is happening. That is also a matter of public confidence. The issue of thresholds should also be examined at stage 2, because small businesses that contact their local MSP, for example, should not necessarily fall within the scope of the bill. I can give very current examples. During the recent floods in Dumfries where a lot of small businesses along the White Sands and Friars Vennel were adversely affected by flooding, I met a significant number of small businesses who spoke to me about flood defences, about insurance and whether or not they might be assistance with them getting back on their feet and so on. I do not think that they should have to register the fact that they bumped into me in the street and had a conversation about something that was pertinent to their business but was a one-off. I would not want those businesses to be involved in the registration process for that type of activity. In conclusion, there is still a lot of work to be done to improve this bill and I hope and I believe that ministers are listening carefully to the committee's suggestions and indeed to the suggestions that are being made in today's debate. I am sure that the committee will have very interesting and full discussions at stage 2 and at stage 3 when this bill goes further. I will remember the first Parliament in 1999. The expectation and drive was to create an open and accessible institution different to what was being experienced at Westminster. Ordinary people, whether individuals or part of an organisation, were invited and encouraged to engage with the Parliament. For me, one of the best aspects of the action now is the fact that the Government has made a commitment to the Government's commitment and encouraged to engage with the Parliament. For me, one of the best aspects of the action for engagement, which was pretty much universally driven by members of all parties, the parties themselves, the Scottish Executive and even the parliamentary authorities, was how the third sector positively reacted to the invitation. I can see no less encouragement from the present Parliament complement, including the Scottish Government, for the public, along with the third sector, to positively engage with us. For my part, I had a member's debate on men's violence against women and children early on in the first Parliament. In fact, it was the first year, which attracted substantial numbers of women, individuals and many from the third sector, who were engaged in one way or another with the issue debated. We all met directly after the debate for a chat. It was quite agreed to set up a cross-party group on men's violence against women and children, and we met six or so weeks later, and I am pleased to say that the cross-party group is still going strong and thriving now. I would say that any person from then until now who is engaged in this area of concern that they are all lobbyists in some form or another. Under the definition suggested by the SPPA committee, all the groups such as Women's Aid, rape crisis, open secret and many more will be required to register simply because they have people who are paid. As far as I am aware, none of the third sector organisations that I have mentioned have somebody who is a paid lobbyist. Nevertheless, I could not, in all honesty, say that they do not lobby. While I am at it, what is the difference between lobbying and campaigning? If it was not for the persistent and dedicated campaigning or is it lobbying over decades by which I should point out where and is predominantly by women, we would still be in the dark ages with regard to the matters that significantly affect women and children. I raised the question of officials. Would someone, for instance, who was a paid worker saying rape crisis, be regarded as a lobbyist? The answer was yes. I also asked the officials that, since the new recommendation from the SPPA committee was to ask the Scottish Government to consider that all communications of any kind would constitute a requirement to register when should an individual who, because they are paid as a lobbyist say from rape crisis and who sent me a Christmas card, that would require them to register since the definition is all communications of all kind. The answer was yes. You may well laugh, but that is the advice that I was given, so we need to be really, really careful how we describe those things and how it is going to affect them. I have seen many and shawls of red herrings being released in this debate, but that is the biggest, that is a blue whale of a red herring, that is sent in a Christmas card as a lobbying. However, even if the scenario that he paints about the rape crisis and I would certainly hope that that type of incidental lobbying would not be included in the final bill, even if it were, it would mean someone taking two minutes to fill in a piece of paper. That is the burden that we are talking about. However, what he does do is he makes a very strong case for putting thresholds in and I agree with him on that. I know that you were laughing, Mr Finlay, but I will tell you this. Your colleague that is sitting next to you did not laugh when I raised the question at the committee and that was the answer that I was given. What am I actually saying here? I am not against a lobbyist in taking on the big guys. It is a small woman. I am looking after her in the small institutions and we need to be really, really careful how we actually use the definitions. I will go on to explain that further. I know that many, many of these women's organisations puts enormous amounts of time relatively speaking to find funds to simply keep going and they are not in a position to afford any slack, so adding a further burden on them would, in my opinion, be detrimental to them. However, now more importantly, why would we want to place them in a category of lobbyists in the first place? Surely, those are the very organisations that we want to make it easy for us to engage with. In my consultation, Women's Aid supported the lobbying bill that I put forward. Gil Paterson? I am not speaking for Women's Aid or anybody else. I am talking about the impact that it is going to have on all those organisations. I have also sponsored a member's debate twice for the Scottish Cot Death Trust. That is a tiny small organisation that does, in my opinion, some of the most difficult work one could ever want to imagine. Do they lobby? Of course they do, but what do they lobby for? It is not about money, it is not about resources. Do you know what they really lobby for? It is for awareness, to inform the public to assist families through some of the most harrowing times of their lives and also to inform and educate on preventative action. That is what they lobby for. Why would we want to cause them not to engage with this Parliament? I would ask the Government and indeed the whole Parliament to consider the definitions extremely carefully indeed. The bill must be for lobbyists. Those who make a living by lobbying, that is those who are paid to lobby. Not those who get paid in the third sector, which could be an organisation with as little as one paid member of staff who happens to seek our assistance to help others. Nor should it be all communications of any kind. I just happen to like getting Christmas cards. Whatever we do in this regard, it should be done taking account of the slowest ship in the convoy. The part of this convoy that needs our protection most is the voluntary sector, like women's groups that I have described. We need engagement and I agree with the principles of the bill. We now turn to the closing speeches. I call on Cameron Buchanan. Seven minutes, please, Mr Buchanan. There have been many interesting points raised in this afternoon's debate. I will first of all say that I hope that open, respectful discussion continues so that we can settle the issues surrounding this lobbying bill. Most of us just disagree in the detail rather than the actual substance of it. There are a few more points, however, which I wish to raise that we will be looking at as we continue to scrutinise the bill, which includes some of the finer details about ensuring the burden of regulation is kept proportionate and the requirements are realistic in practice. Some arguments have been made to force lobbyists to disclose financial expenditure on lobbying, which are worth airing, but I think would fail the proportionality test. On the other hand, there is a scope to embed a more proportionate approach to the system by continually reviewing the proposed frequency of submissions to the register so that paperwork is kept to a strict minimum. It is also worth highlighting that there are many international comparators when it comes to lobbying requests, and I think we have been well to study their lessons. We conservators will certainly do that as we scrutinise the bill, including examination of the possibility of working with the UK register so that overall burden on organisations is minimised. Members will be aware that some arguments have been made that lobbyists should be forced to disclose their expenditure on lobbying activity. However, I believe that such a move would not be productive and would, in fact, cause some problems without any proportional benefit. Assigning all expenditure to certain activity could be difficult for some organisations, and efforts to comply may result in unintentionally misleading figures that are simply counterproductive, not to mention implications for commercial sensitivity and confidentiality. Those risks, I think, are associated with the high costs of compliance, point to negatives that outweigh suggested gains of enforced financial disclosure. Since there have thankfully been no cash for lobbying scandals so far in our politics, I fear that such a move would be pandering to perceptions rather than reality. Indeed, where such complex requirements exist, it may be the case that small businesses simply just disengage from the political process rather than risk falling foul of complicated guidance. Another detail I think that will be debated as the scrutiny of this Bill continues is the requirement for information returns to the lobbying register, specifically their frequency. As the Bill stands, such returns would be required every six months, which I think strikes an appropriate balance between information and proportionality. I certainly wouldn't want to see organisations and individuals forced to make returns on a very frequent basis. Having said that, I do think that there could be scope to have a flexible system of information returns that varies according to factors such as lobbying, intensity, size and form. I don't wish to advocate such a multi-tiered system today, but I'd merely suggest that it is worth looking at as our consideration of the Bill continues. It may be the case that such a system would be impractical, but I don't think there's any harm in discussing the ideas. On a different note, for a Bill with many points of contention and wide range of options, it is so important that we study international comparatives such as Ireland's register of lobbying and the EU's transparency register. In Ireland, for example, there was a trial run of the new register before it came to legal effect to help organisations adapt to the requirement, which I think may be worth considering here to reduce regulatory pressure. In the EU, there are a series of incentives for lobbyists who register compared to those who do not, such as increased access to premises and automatic mail notification of new consultations. Again, this is just an idea worth exploring. I think we would do well to learn as much as we can from these examples if we choose to go our own way and we're doing it so that we do it from an informed position. Finally, I would like to leave colleagues with a thought on what the ultimate aim of any lobbying regulation is. It is not to create the most watertight lobbying register in the world. That's just the method. The ultimate and real aim is to ensure that our politics and government is transparent, open and accountable, free from undue influence or corruption. There are many routes to take when it comes to lobbying regulation, but the ultimate responsibility lies with the politicians and officials themselves. It complies with codes of conduct, adherence to the standards that are expected in public office and outright refusal to indulge attempts at illegitimate influence of the strongest defence of a free political system. We would do well to remember that. In closing this debate for Scottish Labour, I would like to take this opportunity to summarise the two arguments that my colleagues made and clearly state our position on the Lobbying Scotland Bill. Scottish Labour supports the general principles of the bill in trying to promote greater transparency, accountability and openness among our parliamentarians.  We support the proposal of establishing a lobbying register, and we also support the proposal to include only paid lobbyists on the register. However, as Neil Findlay in his opening remarks highlighted, the bill as drafted falls far short of his original proposal. Indeed, the bill as currently drafted is in danger of making the situation worse, not better. We need to ensure that this bill is fit for purpose and does what it is intended to do, and is currently drafted it will not. Cara Hylton in her contribution raised issues around the weakness of the bill and the potential risk of vulnerability for those involved. Elaine Murray highlighted the fact that lobbying is a necessary and legitimate activity, but it does need robust regulation. Other colleagues across the chamber spoke of the principle of openness and transparency and the need for robust legislation, which is proportionate. Cameron Buchanan, in his opening and closing contributions, I think, made very thoughtful and thorough speeches adequately and fully reflecting the evidence that we heard in committee. First, the bill only covers face-to-face lobbying, which means that a great deal of lobbying is not covered by the bill. As the majority of lobbying is conducted through email or telephone, a large part of the bill would not collect the right amount of information. It is correct that face-to-face lobbying should be covered by the bill, however, for the bill to have any impact in improving the transparency of Parliament, all forms of communication with MSPs, such as email and telephone, should also be covered by the bill. The second key area where my colleagues have highlighted where the bill could be improved is through broadening the definition of lobbying. The bill at present does not include communications made to public officials, such as civil servants and special advisers, as was highlighted in my colleague Neil Findlay's opening contribution. We in Scottish Labour believe that the definition of lobbying in the bill should also be broadened to include civil servants and special advisers. Special advisers hold a highly influential position over the decision-making of Government ministers. To make the Scottish Parliament as transparent, accountable and open as possible, the remit of this bill should extend to those individuals who have influence over our Government. To broaden the remit of the bill to include civil servants and special advisers is rational, fair and does strengthen our democracy. In looking to broaden the scope of lobbying covered by the bill, the Government may wish to pay close attention to the definition that has been used by the Sunlight Foundation. The definition of lobbying used by the Sunlight Foundation is as follows. Oral and written communication, including electronic communication with an elected official, their staff or high-ranking and mid-ranking Government employee who exercises public power or public authority for the purposes of influencing the formulation, modification, adoption or administration of legislation, rules, spending decisions or any other Government programme, policy or position. The evidence collected by the Standards Committee from witnesses was conclusive. There was a clear consensus that the bill simply does not go far enough. The Law Society of Scotland stated that the policy aim of transparency may only be partially met if other forms of communication were not included in the definition of lobbying in the bill. In closing, I urge the Government to look into amending the bill, to ensure that the bill covers all forms of communication between lobbyists and MSPs, and not just through face-to-face communication, and to ensure that the bill includes communications between civil servants or special advisers and MSPs. Only upon implementing those changes to the bill can we start to rebuild public confidence in elected politicians, which we all know is at probably an all-time low. Only upon implementing those changes to the bill can we then make the Scottish Parliament an institution renowned the world over for its transparency, accountability and openness. Can I close by confirming our in-principle support for the Lobbying Scotland bill? Mr Paterson said that it was women's aid who supported the proposal. The comments were from Zero Tolerance Scotland and I just wanted to correct the record on that, who raised many positive comments about the bill, but, incidentally, raised many of the concerns that members are making as well. Thank you, Mr Finlay. It is not a point of order. However, your comments will be on the record for clarification. I now call on Jo FitzPatrick to wind up the debate. Minister, we have quite a bit of time in hand until 5 o'clock. If you wish to take that time, otherwise, the Parliament would have to be briefly suspended. Many thanks. I really do welcome the contributions from across the chamber to this debate. As I said at the start, as Government, we recognise that this bill is very much parliamentary in nature, which is why we are trying to engage the way we want. I understand Mr Finlay's initial frustration that it appeared that we were taking longer than he might have liked to come forward with an actual bill, but it was absolutely appropriate that, before we formulated our framework, we listened to the deliberations of the Standards and Public Procedures Appointments Committee after its inquiry, which was instigated by the late Helen Eadie. As one of the founding members of the Parliament, Helen felt that it was very important that the Parliament had a large say in how the bill comes forward, which is why, as I said in my opening remarks, the committee's report very much influenced the thinking of the Government in taking that forward. Some of the decisions that people are questioning are very much influenced by the evidence that the committee got, and the recommendations that the committee took forward. However, as I said at the start, that is not to say that this is a process that we are in here in terms of the parliamentary process. This will be the end of stage 1, but we are going through stage 2 and stage 3, and we continue to listen to members. Today was helpful in hearing some of the views across the chamber. I will try to address some of the points that were brought up, if I can remember who they were made by. convener raised the issue that I do not think that I managed to get to in any great depth in my opening remarks in relation to the exemption for meetings initiated by MSPs and ministers. We all know that, as members and in Government, we regularly invite people to provide us with factual information or background information or policy. I hope that we all agree that it is important that that continues. There is a question that whether it would appear to be fair that if we are inviting people to come in and give us information that, in order for them to give us information as members of Parliament or as ministers, they should then have to register. There is a real danger that we might request people to give u