Scottish Government proposals to regulate lobbying at Holyrood are in need of a radical overhaul, according to the Labour MSP who spearheaded calls for a lobbying register.

Neil Findlay, whose Member's Bill on regulated lobbying was adopted by the government, said the SNP administration has emerged with look like they were designed for the 19th Century.

The Lobbying Bill will create a register of contacts who are paid to lobby Holyrood members in face-to-face meetings, events and hospitality occasions.

Lobbyists will be required to register if they have met, or intend to meet, MSPs and will be required to submit six-monthly returns of lobbying activity.

However, it will not regulate lobbying by mail or telecommunications - raising concerns from an SNP-dominated Holyrood committee that lobbyists will exploit these backchannels to avoid scrutiny.

Parliamentary Business Minister Joe FitzPatrick said the regulation of all forms of communication could deter engagement with the parliament.

But Mr Findlay said the government's limited proposal would leave the vast majority of contacts with MSPs unregulated.

He said: "The Bill as it stands is need of radical amendment to make it fit for purpose.

"I am pleased that colleagues from all parties on the Standards Committee recognised some of the major flaws in the government's proposal and the need for improvement.

"One of those flaws is that issue of face-to-face meetings between the lobbyist and the lobbied.

"On reading the government's proposal, I wondered whether they think we still live in the 19th Century where telecommunications and computers don't exist."

Mr FitzPatrick said: "The register should be designed to capture lobbying and not simply engagement.

"While it would be possible, in principle, to extend the registration to all forms of communication, the question is: would that be a proportionate response and would it ensure that it would not deter engagement with the parliament?

"Any negative effects of this sort is precisely what we have to avoid.

"The government believes that there is a risk that it would have just that effect, to the detriment of both those engaging with the parliament and elected members."

The government has accepted 12 of 17 recommendations of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, but remains "extremely cautious" about the recommendation to widen the scope of communications.

Mr FitzPatrick said: "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 this issue and listen to whatever evidence is made available to support such a position.

"However, the government is extremely cautious as to the merits of that approach.

"The most significant lobbying is face-to-face lobbying, but I'm not saying that other forms of interaction are not also lobbying which is why we will have an open mind on this."

Mr FitzPatrick confirmed that the biggest volume of correspondence he has received on the Bill has come by email, but said he has spent more time consulting on it in face-to-face meetings with stakeholders.

The Standards Committee fears the decision to exclude other communications "may be too narrow and create the impression of there being options open to organisations wishing to avoid scrutiny", convener Stewart Stevenson told MSPs.

The SNP MSP added: "We have therefore recommended that the decision be take to widen the definition of registrable lobbying to include all forms of communication," he said.

"We've not looked directly at the potential effects of this, and hence asked the government to do this.

"My personal experience doesn't suggest that a definition in the way we suggest would significantly increase the number of registrants."

Conservative MSP Cameron Buchanan called for a "light touch" system of registration, and said the Bill must strike a balance between regulation and openness.

"Thankfully we have not been troubled by lobbying scandals in our political system but this does not mean that we might not be," he said.

"It begs the question also: how much needs to be done?

"I'm not saying that we shouldn't do anything. On the contrary I think what we should do should be proportionate."