The following amendment has been selected: amendment 1 in the name of Darren Millar.

Item 8 on our agenda this afternoon is the Brexit Party debate on the lobbyist register. I call on Caroline Jones to move that motion. Caroline Jones.

Motion NDM7205 Caroline Jones

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

1. Notes that the National Assembly for Wales is the only national legislature in the UK without a lobbyist register.

2. Believes that a lobbyist register would help to promote openness and transparency in Welsh politics.

3. Calls on the Welsh Government to consult immediately on implementing a lobbyist register for Wales.

Motion moved.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I have pleasure in moving this debate today. Our request is simple: we have to introduce a statutory register of lobbyists in Wales, the only part of the UK not to have a register of lobbying activity.

Lobbying is defined as any attempt by individuals or private interest groups to influence the decisions of Government. In its original meaning, it referred to efforts to influence the votes of legislators, generally in the lobby outside the legislative chamber. Lobbying is a legitimate and crucial part of a healthy democracy. Lobbying can be the main avenue for advocacy. It helps inform our efforts to deliver legislative solutions to the problems facing Wales. It helps us develop new policies and enables us to scrutinise existing ones. Every healthy democracy has an element of lobbying activity.

However, lobbying can also be a danger to democracy, allowing the stink of corruption to permeate our democratic institutions. There has been a history of undue influence in our parliamentary democracy. In the 1920s, an oil company paid a large sum of money to Winston Churchill in order to secure sole access to the Persian oil fields. Throughout the twentieth century, the influence of lobbyists continued to grow. But things came to a head in the 1990s.

During the early part of the 1990s, John Major's Government was embroiled in lobbying scandals. Jonathan Aitken, Minister for Defence Procurement in 1992, was jailed in 1999 for his role in the arms to Iraq scandal. Aitken had previously worked for a defence contractor. In 1994, The Guardian reported that parliamentary lobbyist Ian Greer—[Interruption.] No, I haven't missed anything out. In 1994, The Guardian reported that parliamentary lobbyist Ian Greer had also bribed two Conservative Members of Parliament in exchange for their asking parliamentary questions and performing other tasks on behalf of the owner of Harrods, in what became known as the cash for questions affair.

Shortly after the 1997 election, Bernie Ecclestone met with Tony Blair to ask would Formula 1 be exempt from a ban on tobacco advertising. Mr Ecclestone had donated more than £1 million to the Labour Party. So over the next decade the Blair Government were beset with scandals involving lobbying activity. [Interruption.] Sorry? Do you want an—

No, no, you can carry on.

Okay. I thought she wanted an intervention, I'm sorry.

No, no, you carry on.

By 2008, the professional lobbying industry was believed to be worth nearly £2 billion. In January 2009, the House of Commons Public Administration Select Committee published a report, 'Lobbying: Access and influence in Whitehall'. That report highlighted the revolving door that exists between Members of Parliament and lobbying firms, and the committee recommended a statutory register of lobbying activity to bring greater transparency to the dealings between Whitehall decision makers and outside interests. It also concluded that the self-regulation of the professional lobbying industry was fragmented and appeared to involve very little regulation of any substance.

Given the fact that the then Labour Cabinet was essentially available for hire by lobbyists, it is not surprising that the Government of the time rejected the proposals. It would take another five years and a change of Government for the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014 to be introduced.

Point of order. 

Point of order. No, you can't get away with that.

No, there can't be a point of order during a debate. I'll bring your point of order in after.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer.

This Act introduced a requirement for a register of consultant lobbyists in England, and Scotland soon followed suit with the Lobbying (Scotland) Act 2016, which requires anyone who undertakes face-to-face lobbying of MSPs, Scottish Government Ministers, special advisers or Permanent Secretaries to sign the Scottish lobbying register.

In Wales, the Standards of Conduct Committee looked at lobbying in Wales during 2017 and considered the need for a lobby register for Wales. The committee produced its report in January 2018 and it states that the committee were

'uncertain that the information disclosed through a voluntary Register would answer all the questions that exist around how policies are developed and influenced'.

They added that they were

'currently minded that a statutory route might be necessary to achieve the desired transparency required.'

Unfortunately, despite this, the committee opted to kick the issue into the long grass, and stated that they would wait to see whether the voluntary approach suggested by Public Affairs Cymru increased transparency sufficiently to negate the need for a statutory register.

I wonder if you'd give way.

I wonder if you would care to repeat what you said earlier on, because I thought I may have misheard that you said something like, 'A Labour Government was available for hire by lobbyists.' You may be referring to the Government of which I was a member at the time. Please put on record precisely what you are saying so that I can clarify.

It is on record, because everything is recorded.

Would you say it again?

It is on record, because everything is recorded. Were you in the Cabinet?

Would you like to repeat that outside the Chamber?

Were you in the Cabinet?

Would you like to repeat that outside the Chamber?

It's all recorded.

No, I'm sorry, we can't have a debate, and I will—. You carry on, and then I'll deal with the point that the Member's making.

That they would see whether the voluntary approach suggested by Public Affairs Cymru increased transparency sufficiently to negate the need for a statutory register. Yet here we are, nearly two years later, and we are no closer to fully open and transparent lobbying in Wales.

Here, the sector is a prime example of the revolving door, with staff either working for or running their own lobbying firms. So, this is somewhat an unhealthy relationship between lobbyists and politicians. It does cast a shadow over our open democracy. And in order for us to avoid the corruption that has dogged Westminster politics and safeguard the vital role that lobbying plays in our democracy, my party firmly believes that we have to regulate lobbying activity. We have nothing to hide, so let's be open about the lobbying activity that takes place in our institution. It won't cost a great deal, the scheme operating in the UK Parliament costs just over £120,000 a year, and we're about to spend more than double that amount changing our name. And as they say, you can't put a price on democracy.

So, I want to reiterate that lobbying is good for a healthy democracy. I am a participant in the medicines knowledge base where the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry inform Assembly Members and their staff about issues surrounding the pharmaceutical industry. That's lobbying, and it has helped inform me about how medicines are developed and licensed, which in turn has helped me scrutinise Welsh Government policy, and there is nothing wrong with this. It's when lobbying happens in secret, behind closed doors, that things become dangerous and not transparent. Therefore, I urge colleagues to support the motion and reject the Tory amendment. We have nothing to hide, so let's be open and honest with the people we work for, and those people are our constituents.

Thank you.

I heard a sweeping statement aimed at a Government in power. I didn't hear any names. However, if the Member—.

I thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I genuinely seek your help and assistance here, because that's what I heard as well. It was a sweeping statement of a Cabinet of the Labour Government that was available for hire.

Now, I can understand if there had been satisfactory prosecutions, either by a standards commissioner or in a court of law, of individuals who are guilty of corruption or dishonesty in public office, but that statement applies to a number of people who, to my knowledge, have never faced any accusations or a scintilla of accusation of anything such as being in the pocket of lobbyists and so on. And the worry with this, Deputy Presiding Officer, is that this tars every individual.

The debate is fine, as far as it goes, but I genuinely seek your advice here under Standing Orders, because the worry here is that Members of this Chamber, in this Senedd, feel it appropriate to use some form of privilege to make carte blanche statements that, if they were repeated outside, would be slanderous and would be probably pursued by individuals in a court of law. That cannot be right when there is not only no evidence of wrongdoing, but not even any allegations of wrongdoing. So, I ask for your help, Deputy Presiding Officer, to seek whether the Member in this Chamber, which has conduct to uphold, should withdraw that sweeping general statement and apologise.

Will you give way?

No, just a moment, I'll make a—. Thank you. I take the points you've made. I will issue the fact that I heard a statement to which obviously some Members have taken a dissent and a dissatisfaction to. The issue of privilege is one that we should all be aware of, and we should use privilege as an ultimate example but not as a general statement. So, therefore, I think I appreciate the position that you're in. However, to move progress—I will check the record, and if I think there is anything in the record that makes it that we have not responded to dignity and respect, then I will return to the Chamber. At the moment, I'm quite happy for the debate to carry on, and the points you've made have been put on the record, for which I'm grateful. Thank you.

I have selected the amendment to the motion, and I call on Andrew R.T. Davies to move amendment 1, tabled in the name of Darren Millar—Andrew R.T. Davies.

Amendment 1—Darren Millar

Delete points 2 and 3 and replace with:

Calls upon the Assembly Commission to provide an update on the action it has taken since the publication of the Standards of Conduct Committee report on lobbying published in January 2018.

Welcomes the intention of the Standards of Conduct Committee to give further consideration to lobbying prior to the end of the fifth Assembly.

Amendment 1 moved.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I move the amendment in the name of our business manager, who kindly tabled this amendment, in the name of the Welsh Conservative group today, to the motion, and therefore I have the pleasure of speaking to it.

As a member of the standards committee, I do think that it is very important—on the points of standards, and obviously upholding public faith and confidence in this institution and the Assembly Members—that the public do have faith and confidence that all actions are undertaken with the best interests of the people of Wales and democracy at heart. That goes without saying. But the previous standards committee, before I joined it, did look at this particular issue and made a series of recommendations back in I think it was January 2018. The Llywydd has responded to some of those recommendations. But I do think, as our amendment points out, it would be important now for an update on how the Commission is taking these actions forward. Because, ultimately, as a Conservative, I'm most probably someone who always errs on the side of caution when it comes to legislation and actually much prefers a voluntary approach to many of these matters. But if we do find that legislation is required, and the standards committee will be looking at this in its legacy work, I understand, then, obviously, the Assembly will be in a position to bring forward that legislation.

In the 12 years that I have been an Assembly Member, I can genuinely say that I have not come across any malpractice when it comes to lobbying. I appreciate other Members will come across it in different forms. But I have to say, generally, in 12 years of work in this Assembly, both in committee work and standing as an AM, and as former leader of the Welsh Conservative group, I can genuinely believe and stand here with integrity in saying that all the interactions that I've had with lobbyists, with constituents, have always been in the best interests of what those individuals and organisations are seeking to promote.

Indeed, as AMs, we promote the people we're meeting via our social media and via our activities, because it's in our own interest to promote what we're doing. And as the opener of the debate highlighted today, in the series of events that she pointed to that did indicate that there was a need for a register, all that information is out there anyway. I have to say, I don't think I've received one single e-mail demanding a register for lobbyists. I haven't receive one single e-mail on that front in the last 12 months. I appreciate there was a campaign some time ago that did point to other moves in other legislatures to create this statutory register, and it might be the case that the evidence that the standards committee does take does point us in that direction. But I think, at the moment, with the work that the standards committee has done to date—and that's a cross-party committee that recommended that, obviously, we leave it in the hands of the Commission to look at this and report back and provide the evidence—the work that's been undertaken to date is robust, does have public confidence, and that's a sensible approach to approach this particular aspect on, when you think of the work that we've got to do between now and the dissolution of the Assembly.

But it is vital that we do uphold the best principles possible, and, actually, I have no problem at all in publishing all the meetings that I undertake. In fact, I think it's a positive sign for Members to be doing that, and it promotes the work that we're doing as such, then, it does. I find it bizarre that Members would want to keep certain meetings secret or not disclose those contacts.

So, I would urge Members to vote for the amendment to the motion today, which seeks, obviously, to work with the Commission, build on the work of the standards committee back in January 2018, and actually move this important agenda item forward, in the evidence that is presented to us, rather than just put something in place that, whilst the mover of the debate today said it could be at minimal cost, and I appreciate the Westminster model would be a larger type of model, that's still £120,000 that you're looking to put on the table to fund this type of work, and as I said, at the moment I don't get any groundswell of public demand for this particular initiative. So, I'd hope that the Senedd this afternoon will promote—and see, Rhun, I did use the word 'Senedd' rather than 'Parliament' that time round, so hopefully I'll earn some platitudes from Plaid Cymru. It's not very often I get them. He looks in disgust at me, he does. [Interruption.] That's what I like to see. [Laughter.] But I do hope that the Assembly this afternoon does find confidence in our amendment and actually supports the amendment, so that we can move forward, via the standards committee, in promoting the integrity of this institution and the actions of our Assembly Members.

I'll keep my contribution short as I believe my colleague Caroline Jones has covered a great deal when opening this debate. I rise today to show my support for introducing a register in Wales. With the additional powers this place is set to gain post Brexit, surely it's time to bring in lobbying reform to ensure that our democracy is as open and transparent as possible.

I'm a bit disappointed with the Conservatives' amendment. It does create a bit of dither and delay and feels like an attempt to kick it into the long grass, but today's debate is not an attempt to accuse, to blame or to assert that anything wrong has been done. Lobbying is a legitimate and valuable activity. It's a crucial part of a healthy democracy and a register would simply put in checks and balances to ensure that our democracy here in Wales is not for sale to any vested interest. I think trust in democracy at this moment in time is at an all-time low, and I truly hope that this motion is supported today, unamended, so that this Assembly can start to put in the work to protect and defend a transparent and healthy democracy, and start in a small way to restore that trust.

I welcome this debate today. An inquiry into lobbying was the first piece of substantial work for the Standards of Conduct Committee in the fifth Assembly. As a committee, we believe that discussions on lobbying need to be part of an ongoing dialogue in any engaged and open democracy. Furthermore, our predecessor committee had agreed in an earlier report that it was a subject that should be regularly reviewed.

As a committee, we concluded from the evidence gathered that there's no easy answer to the questions of how to define or share information about lobbying. There was no clear or consistent definition regarding who was a lobbyist or what information needs to be gathered. We heard a lot of concern about the lobbying regime in Westminster, which only focuses on Ministers and senior civil servants, and we also heard concerns about the register that was being introduced in Scotland, and the need to consider the value to the information this would capture. So, as a committee, we concluded that more work needs to be done in this area.

The findings of our report are an interim position. The committee felt it was crucial to learn from experience and gather further evidence of best practice. At the time of our report, the Scottish legislation was in its infancy and we are going to be interested in the review of its legislation in 2020.

During the course of our inquiry, the Welsh Government confirmed that Ministers' diaries would be published on a quarterly basis, from March 2017. This was widely welcomed by those we spoke to as part of our inquiry, and as a committee we agreed to return to this as part of our subsequent work to allow time for the publication of ministerial diaries to be assessed in terms of meaningfulness and value to improving transparency.

The committee was keen to take steps in this interim period to increase transparency and the written statement from the Llywydd today provides an update on progress against our recommendations. In particular, we proposed that a select trial of publishing Assembly Members' diaries was undertaken, which the Commission accepted, and officials have undertaken preparatory work for the form a pilot could take.

The impact of these recommendations are matters that we will no doubt reflect on as a committee when we return to this subject. Furthermore, we're considering commissioning research into how influence is sought and gained over politicians. In our inquiry, it was clear from our work that there was very little work on this area. This will help inform our further work, and we believe that this will enhance our understanding of how lobbyists operate in Wales.

Alongside these interim steps, the committee encouraged the lobbying industry to take the lead during this interim period and demonstrate how a voluntary register could operate and how it could provide the necessary information about influence over elected Members. The committee is looking forward to returning to this subject towards the end of the Assembly and maintaining this discussion and dialogue.

I'm very pleased to follow Jayne Bryant, and may I congratulate her on her contribution and her leadership on these issues? So, thank you for those wise words, Jayne.

Now, the motion before us notes that the National Assembly for Wales—or the Senedd, from around an hour ago—is the only national legislature in the UK without a lobbyist register. Now, in Plaid Cymru, we agree with the need for a lobbyist register. I take the point on how we define that and what needs to be included, and we do need to test things to see how it would work and so on, but, essentially, as a Plaid Cymru group, we confirmed around two and a half years ago that we did need a register of lobbyists. So, we will today be voting in favour of a lobbyist register. Thank you.

I'm glad I took on the issue of lobbying, because if I hadn't done, I'd still probably be a Plaid Cymru AM.

I really admire Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in the United States, because she is people-funded and not lobbyist-funded. I remember Carwyn Jones saying that lobbyists had no access to Ministers. Now, Carwyn does have a strange relationship with the truth, but in this case, there was no relationship at all—[Interruption.]—no relationship at all, because we all know that lobbyists have access to—

No. I've turned your mike off. Can I just say to you, you can't make accusations like that about a Member of this Assembly? So, if you just keep to the issue about a lobbyist register, then we won't have any problems. You can carry on.

[Inaudible.]—treated in a very discriminatory manner in this Chamber. I must state that on the record.

We need strong regulation and we need a register. Now, the lobbying firm Deryn were so concerned about the questions that I was asking about them that they got in contact with Plaid Cymru, even, and told the leadership to pull me into line. And that was confirmed in writing with the complaints that I saw submitted to the party. I remember being summoned by Leanne Wood to her office one time and asked why was I asking questions about Deryn. [Interruption.] I give way to Leanne. Please.

No, carry on. No, you carry on.

Deputy Presiding Officer, I've just been accused of lying. What are you going to do about that?

Can I just say—[Interruption.] Can I just say, it's for me—[Interruption.] Now, anybody else. Can I just say, it's for me to decide who takes an intervention or not, so I haven't indicated that you're to take an intervention, and I suggest you carry on? But you must be careful about the content of your speech.

I will reiterate, I was summoned to the leader's office, in those days, and told in no uncertain terms that it was not welcome that I was following the agenda that I was following. The chief whip just called me a liar, actually, and nothing was said about that, Deputy Presiding Officer, and that was the chief whip who called me when I was on holiday. She phoned me to ask me about what I was doing asking questions about Deryn and their relationship with Associated Community Training at the time. You followed it up again with a call to me while I was in Belfast, campaigning for the election with Sinn Féin out there, telling me to stop it. Do you remember that? I'm lying; I'm lying, am I? Is that acceptable language, Deputy Presiding Officer? She called me a liar.

I'm listening to your speech. I am listening to your speech.

She's called me a liar. 

I am listening to your speech. I am allowing you to speak in this debate. I suggest you speak, and I have warned you once about the content of your speech. I don't want to have to keep telling you, so just carry on with your speech and I'll make the decision about whether it's right or wrong.

On another occasion, my senior adviser told me that Adam Price had said that if we continued to go after Deryn, there would be consequences. Now, I raised this with Adam and he denied saying that. What is interesting, though, is—[Interruption.] I know who I believe, to be frank, but what is interesting is that 11 days after I made public the Ofcom scandal with that lobbying firm—just 11 days later—I was suspended from the Plaid Cymru group for the first time.

The Welsh Government has a budget of £17 billion, and I'm very willing to give way if any Member wishes to intervene here, because I'm going to ask a question because there was a deal done between the Labour Government and Plaid Cymru in 2012 and 2013, and it was £20 million for apprenticeships. Now, the deputy chair of Plaid Cymru at that time was a director of a lobbying firm. I've just a question, really: did their clients benefit at all from the deal that you did, Leanne Wood? [Interruption.] This industry—. It's a question; answer it if you like. [Interruption.] I'm a bully, I'm a liar, I'm lying.

Look, I expect you to finish your speech within the timescale, and I expect you to have some dignity and respect, as everybody in this Chamber should. And please don't keep naming people, but stick to the actual facts of a lobby register. 

I'm explaining the power of lobbyists, how they influence the political process, how Assembly Members like me have been leaned on—leaned on—in an attempt to be bullied I would say by z-class bullies. [Interruption.] Alun Davies, you know very well where the gutter is, as you just mentioned the gutter.  

No, no. 

I'll reiterate—yes, z-class bullies. You try to be big and tough, but you're not, really. 

Anyway, Deputy Presiding Officer, I think I've made my point. I've been interrupted. The people of Wales can see I've been called a liar, I've been told I've been lying, I've been called a bully, and none of this—. You've not intervened in any way, shape or form to do anything about that disgraceful language. I would say 'thank you', but I don't think at this moment this Chamber deserves a thank you. 

Can I call on the Deputy Minister and Chief Whip, Jane Hutt? 

Dirprwy Lywydd, I'm pleased to respond on behalf of the Welsh Government. Can I say at the outset that the amendment tabled by the Welsh Conservatives is one that we support, given that it concurs with our view that this is principally a matter for the Assembly Commission and Standards of Conduct Committee to take forward at this stage, and I do thank Andrew R.T. Davies for his constructive contribution in this important debate.

If we look at part 1 of the motion, it is important that we take into account the findings of the cross-party Standards of Conduct Committee report on lobbying, which did find, as Jayne Bryant has said, a lack of clarity across the systems established in England and Scotland. The fact, as Jayne has said, that the Standards of Conduct Committee has committed to reviewing its recommendations next year, and this is, as I said—and, indeed, reflected in the Conservative amendment—a matter for the Assembly Commission to consider in the first instance—. But can I just back what Dai Lloyd said, that we must thank Jayne Bryant, who you elected across this Chamber as Chair of the standards committee, for the exemplary way she chairs that committee, and recognise that she is taking this seriously and taking this forward, taking on board the points that have been raised?

If we look at point 2, Ministers are already committed to providing transparency about their engagements and events. They are published on a quarterly basis on gov.wales. Again, I note the standards committee report that suggests, as we've heard, that Assembly Members should also consider the publication of their meetings. A pilot is currently being run by the committee, and that is for all of us to consider the implications of that. So, I think the pilot results will inform next steps for Members of this Chamber, and we welcome the work and look forward to the outcome.

In terms of point 3 of the motion and the proposal to consult, of course, as a matter of principle we don't believe that the Government should initiate legislation in this area, but it doesn't preclude us legislating at the request of the legislature, following a period of cross-party consideration, and the Government would welcome such collaboration. So, it's obviously not ruling it out in terms of our role to take this forward. It is important and clear that the Assembly Commission should play that major role in the operation of any system of registration, as is the case in Scotland. It's vital that the role of the legislature is fully engaged in such a discussion.

So, I'm glad to note that the final recommendation by the standards committee was for a committee of the Assembly to consider the relevant sections that apply to Wales of the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014. And now that the Wales Act 2017 has been enacted, it would seem an opportune moment for an Assembly committee to consider taking this work forward, consulting, of course, with the public as necessary.

Now, we do recognise that the public affairs sector in Wales can and does play a legitimate role in raising understanding of devolved politics and government, and many public affairs companies represent charities, third sector organisations, and organise events on their behalf—events that we're all happy, I know, to attend, along with Members across this Chamber, to learn more about and highlight the excellent work that's being carried out across Wales.

I'm grateful, Deputy Presiding Officer, that you did hear the point of order earlier on from Huw Irranca-Davies, and I would remind the Brexit Party that David Rowlands, a former UKIP Member, as many of you are, was a member of the standards committee during its deliberations about lobbying and agreed its report at the time. So, it is important. I know that you see your role in taking this forward. But I am sad to finish on the point that has been raised by Huw Irranca-Davies—as a Member of Welsh Labour and of this Welsh Labour-led Government for the past 19 of our 20 years of devolution—and that we had that comment made by the Member in her opening remarks. I'm proud to have been part of that Government and proud to be part of this National Assembly for Wales, and I look forward to your consideration of this point. Diolch yn fawr.

Thank you. Can I now call Mark Reckless to reply to the debate?

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd, and can I thank all Members for their contribution to the debate? May I thank Plaid for their support for our motion today, and share my disappointment that the Conservatives and Labour are coming together tonight to resist transparency of a lobbying register?

Caroline introduced—

Will you give way?

Yes, I'd be delighted to, Andrew.

We're not coming together against and resisting the register. What we're saying is to allow the work, which your Member—which was cited in the Minister's summing up—David Rowlands, was a part of in that committee, so that we get the best possible result and we don't put something in that isn't fit for purpose. Surely, you can subscribe to that, and that's the way we should move this point forward.

In principle, I think that's a fair point, Andrew. There was, though, reference, I think in Dai's contribution, to this having first been looked at two and a half years ago, and I welcome what you said in your speech, but I did find it contradictory in one bit in that you said that you wanted to leave this in the hands of the Commission and then, at the end of your speech, you said that it should be for the standards committee to take things forward. And it does actually give me some confidence that you are a member of the standards committee, and I have confidence in David's work on that, and I associate myself with what Jane Hutt said about Jayne Bryant and how well she chairs that committee. So, I do hope you will take this forward, and I do hope you will take it forward quickly and actually drive a result and that we're not going to sit, falling between two stools of whether it's the standards committee or the Commission doing it.

In terms of Caroline's history of some of the lobbying and the scandals that we have seen, at least at a UK level, and some of the changes those have led to, I was myself a little surprised by the point of order because I heard a very clear reference to a particular example from Caroline, and that was the Bernie Ecclestone example. And I think that the history of this is accepted—that shortly after the Labour Government was elected in 1997, the Cabinet took a decision to exempt Formula 1 from a ban on tobacco advertising and, shortly after that, it came out that the Labour Party, had, shortly prior to that, accepted £1 million from Bernie Ecclestone. So, to say that there's no allegation of wrongdoing or no evidence of anything, I don't think is right. I think the Labour Party were right to give that £1 million back, and, to be charitable, perhaps it was a certain naivety in terms of a new Prime Minister from a party that had been out of power for a long time. And I'm glad that we have seen some of the changes at the UK level that we have seen since that point.

Can I thank Mandy for her succinct speech when she said democracy should not be for sale? Jayne, I think, sort of welcomed this debate, and I thank you for that, and I acknowledge that you and your committee have been working on this. I hope you will continue to work on it and drive it forward to a result. I commented before on Dai, and I thank Plaid for their support.

Neil McEvoy then enlightened us with some of his particular history around the lobbying issues and his dealings with Plaid, albeit they were disputed. Perhaps they should take Andrew's approach of minuting all meetings that may be relevant lobbying and publishing the results. And not only does it show Andrew R.T. doing his work, but it shows those organisations coming in to lobby politicians, which is their job. So, to bring transparency to those dealings is, I think, a very good thing. I thank Jane Hutt for her response to the debate and associate myself with the remarks she made about Jayne Bryant and her committee.

There are a few substantive points I would just like to make before closing. Some concern around the cost of a lobbyist register was expressed, not this evening, but I remember previously Mike Hedges mentioning this cost issue and, I think, saying that it could be paid for by the lobbyists who would be signing up to that register. And as my colleague Caroline Jones said, we should not put a price on democracy. Some have argued there have been relatively few cases of lobbying breaches in Wales in the past. I think it's important to make the point that, without a lobbyist register, how can we actually gauge the extent and nature of lobbying in Wales?

It's misguided, in my view, to say that if we haven't had many public lobbying scandals in Wales that means we shouldn't have a register. This building hasn't been attacked, as far as I'm aware, but should we do away with security? Of course we shouldn't. If we did not have security officers checking bags, how would an airport discover contraband items? In order to find breaches, you need to look for them. You certainly need to be aware of from where they may come, who is regulated, and for what.

Jayne raised appropriate definitional issues, but I would say people in this Chamber argue for more powers for the Assembly and, as we get those powers, we can expect there to be more lobbying. We need to be ahead of the curve and not behind, and to make sure that rules are clear for bodies seeking dialogue with Ministers and senior officials. It's those Ministers and senior officials of Welsh Government that my party think are key for consideration and for registration of those activities.

This isn't about demonising lobbyists or presuming guilt. We accept lobbying is a crucial part of a healthy democracy, but it must be regulated. We do not want to live under a shadow where undue influence is presumed. We must make sure that undue influence is curtailed. I welcome that Public Affairs Cymru have their code of conduct and that lobbying bodies want to establish good practice. A statutory register would reinforce that, and I therefore encourage all Members to support our motion tonight.

Thank you. The proposal is to agree the motion without amendment. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Therefore, we defer voting under this item until voting time. 

Voting deferred until voting time.

We are now moving to voting time. Unless three Members wish for the bell to be rung, I will proceed directly to the first vote. No, okay. Thank you.