Sometimes it feels like we are using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
The Lobbying Register in Scotland came into force last week, requiring individuals to disclose any face-to-face conversation which fall under the terms of regulated lobbying as defined by the Act.
In Scotland, we don't have undue influence or corrupt politicians, so it certainly seems to me that we have brought in legislation to deal with what is only a perceived problem.
The Lobby (Scotland) Act 2016 puts the onus on organisations to record face-to-face conversations with MSPs or members of the Scottish Government on an online register. There are exemptions of course, you must essentially be using the conversation to inform or influence decisions on behalf of your organisation or client.
Whether this conversation takes place during a formal meeting, chat at a networking event or after bumping into one another at the supermarket, if you discuss parliamentary business, then it must be recorded in the register.
In Scotland, we have a lot of politicians who are close to the people. Why shouldn't they talk to them freely? Is that not the key to the Scottish Parliament, devolution of power and linked easy access?
This new legislation may make parliamentarians become wary of who they meet and what they discuss, knowing that it will be recorded in the register.
I understand that Scottish Government prides itself on openness, honesty and transparency, and this is an attempt to be proactive. We will have nothing to hide, so why not publish all conversations on a register accessible by anyone?
Well, there are several good reasons, one of which is business and commercial sensitivity. It becomes an open opportunity for journalists (who are exempt from having to record their discussions) to investigate the strategies of businesses and gain information that is not yet ready to be in the public domain.
Another may be that organisations become less willing to have conversations and share material with politicians, as there will be a genuine concern that sensitive information can, and likely will, be mined and used to inform competitors’ business decisions.
This legislation seems to undermine our democratic process, putting up barriers to free engagement. Most politicians in Scotland lack real business experience and exposure, and so anything that reduces that knowledge any further should surely be avoided, especially at a time when building a strong economy is more important than ever before.
It will also introduce another layer of time consuming admin for businesses, which will need to allocate the resources to input all information and record all conversations.
As ever, the Trade Unions and other big players are likely to be ready, they will have geared up with systems in place and staff appointed to handle the information recording. However, the smaller businesses are likely to walk away, as it is yet more administration they can do without.
The easy course of action would be to insist that MSP's keep and publish their diaries. There is a set number of them and it would encourage transparency, so why was that not the chosen solution? Why is the onus on the organisations to undertake the recording of conversations?
In all honesty, I cannot see the Lobbying (Scotland) Act as anything other than bad legislation designed to solve a non-existent problem. It is the worst example of political folly.
The Act is subject to review after two years, so perhaps by then we will have reassessed whether this really is the best way to encourage transparency – and we can only hope that it won’t be used as an opportunity to grow the barrier that has this week been erected between business and politics.
David Watt is executive director of the Institute of Directors in Scotland.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here