Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

We are discussing the Registration of Lobbying Bill 2014, the timing of which is most relevant and interesting. Before I debate the specifics of this important legislation, we need to examine the background. Essentially, the citizens of Ireland want to know who has the inside track. Many believe a small group of people have the inside track and can get their point of view across and have it accepted by the Government or other public bodies, as the case may be, and that the majority are excluded from this track.

When I read the Bill, I asked myself a simple question: would the Bill, if enacted in its current form, show who had lobbied the Taoiseach on the appointment to the board of the Irish Museum of Modern Art? If the Bill leads to that question being anwered, it is a good one. That will be the acid test. I would like to know where in the Bill these issues are addressed.

The Minister has had to rush and brought a memo to the Cabinet today on appointments to public bodies. That is all well and good and cuts across the area of who lobbies Ministers and Taoisigh on board appointments. However, the issue of board appointments is not discrete; it has a wider impact across other issues. We are here to discuss the issue of lobbying the Government, Ministers and those in decision making capacities. The Minister may be able to explain at the end of the Second Stage debate or on Committee Stage where in the Bill we can find a clear answer to the question as to which section refers to the lobbying of the Taoiseach or a Minister on an appointment to a State board.

I refer to that issue because it is a current example of what is going on and it is not just the Taoiseach but the Minister of the Taoiseach's own party. The Taoiseach was forced to admit today that the Minister had been given CVs by officials of her own party.

This leads to another important distinction which we might have to include in the legislation. I refer to the Jesuitical distinction the Taoiseach made a couple of hours ago in the Chamber when he distinguished between his role as Taoiseach and his role as leader of the Fine Gael Party. It was as if to say, "They are two separate issues." Technically, they are, but he is the one person. It is not good enough to say that when he was looking at the CVs of the various people nominated in Fine Gael for their suitability for the Seanad, he interviewed the particular man in question in his capacity as leader of Fine Gael. Yes, he has that role, but when the role as a leader of a political party impacts on public bodies, the distinction is no longer valid.

I do not mind if the Taoiseach is out canvassing in Tallaght tonight and dealing with issues as leader of Fine Gael from a Fine Gael perspective. He may be asked about issues relating to Government policy, but he cannot take decisions as leader of Fine Gael that affect Government actions. There must be a distinction. The distinction the Taoiseach drew this afternoon is capable of driving a coach and four through this legislation. It will allow him to say, "In my capacity as Taoiseach, I never met that person." The Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht can say, "I never met that person." The Minister for Finance can say, "In my capacity as Minister for Finance, neither I nor my officials met that person. It so happens as a member of Fine Gael, I met him." The same applies to the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform as a member of the Labour Party. There is a lacuna that must be closed in some way because the public will not accept that loophole in the legislation when passed. I accept that the roles are distinct, but where they collide, there must be legislation to cover the registration of lobbying. The legislation will mean nothing to the public if we can have a repeat of what happened in the last fortnight in six or 12 months time. The issue must be addressed and the gap must be closed.

Only a few short hours ago going into the Cabinet meeting, the Minister opposite, Deputy Brendan Howlin, was recorded as saying he would vote for Mr. John McNulty. He said he had a problem in getting legislation through the Seanad and that it was important that he vote as a Government member for Mr. McNulty to assist in getting legislation through in the next 18 months. Does the Minister stand by this? Mr. McNulty who has shown a degree of integrity we did not see from the Taoiseach or the Minister does not have a legal mechanism to take his name off the ballot paper. There could be a case for cancelling the election if people were serious about it. Perhaps, it cannot happen in a democracy once an election is taking place. I remember that during the local elections a Fine Gael councillor, unfortunately, died the day before or on the morning of polling and the election was held over for three weeks. There must be some exceptional provision to allow an election to be held over.

It will make a mockery of integrity and honesty if members of the Government parties go ahead and vote Mr. McNulty into the Seanad on 10 October, the weekend before the budget. He has said, "Do not vote for me," but the Minister has said he is voting for him. The Minister might clarify whether he will comply with Mr. McNulty's request. It will make a joke of every member of the Government if they continue to say they still think Mr. McNulty is the most suitable person on the ballot paper and that they have no option but to vote for him. If he takes his seat in the Seanad, it will make a mockery of the whole process, which brings me back to my first question. Who lobbied the Taoiseach and will the legislation cover that scenario? It is a very important question. I never like to get personal, but there is some family connection to canvassers of the person involved or something like that. The legislation excludes social contacts. There is significant scope to get around the legsislation, which is my difficulty.

Fianna Fáil produced a Bill in January 2012, as the Minister did previously. It has been around a while and there is no getting away from it. Our problem with the timing of the legislation - I have a problem with the content also, but we will talk about how it can be improved - is that it was promised in the programme for Government in 2011. We gave the Government 12 months and in early 2012 published our own Bill.

See this speech in context