Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 30:

In page 7, to delete lines 28 to 30 and substitute the following:“(k) communications by a designated public official in his or her capacity as such;
(l) communications which—

(i) are made by a person who is employed by, or holds any office or other position in, a public service body in his or her capacity as such, or
(ii) are made by a person engaged for the purposes of a public service body in his or her capacity as such,

and which relate to the functions of the public service body;
(m) communications which—

(i) are made by a person who is employed by, or holds any office or other position in, a body which is not a public service body, but is a body by which a designated public official is employed or in which a designated public official holds any office or other position, in his or her capacity as such, or
(ii) are made by a person engaged for the purposes of such a body in his or her capacity as such,

and which relate to the functions of the body;”.

Currently, section 5(3)(k) exempts communications between public officials acting in an official capacity from registration requirements. The purpose of this exemption is to ensure the large volumes of normal daily communications between public servants are not subject to registration requirements. It will be possible under section 6(1)(g) for the Minister to prescribe a person as a designated public official, that is, a person who is lobbied or "the lobbied" in bodies other than public service bodies. The purpose of amendment No. 30 is to ensure the exemption equally applies to staff in other bodies in which the newly prescribed designated public official works or holds office. The effect of the amendment is that if, for example, the chief executive officer of a commercial semi-State body is prescribed as a designated public official, communications between the staff of that body and between a public service body such as, for example, the parent Department, do not require registration. In other words, the commercial semi-State body would be regarded as “the lobbied” and enjoy the same protection from this exemption as that of other public service bodies.
I note the following amendment, No. 31, tabled by both Deputies Sean Fleming and Mary Lou McDonald relates to section 5(3)(k) and, as the Chairman has indicated, will fall if my amendment is accepted. The Office of the Parliamentary Counsel also has suggested some changes to the wording of the exemption to ensure it is consistent with the wording of section 7 relating to “public servant”. These changes are reflected in the proposed amendment. In essence, my point is I have already included in the Bill that normal communication between officials in a Department or between Departments - for example, if my Department talks to the Department of Finance - does not constitute lobbying and cannot be captured by that provision. Equally, normal communications between Departments and agencies that are designated outside the Civil Service such as, for example, a commercial semi-State body if it was communicating with its parent Department will also enjoy that exemption.