Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome that on foot of the recommendations from the Mahon report that the lobbying of public officials, Ministers and their Departments is to be regulated in this Bill. The public will be able to see which individuals and interests are lobbying which Departments and the specific individuals in each Department, as well as being able to examine the motivation for the lobbying and the extent to which it is carried out. However, the legislation does not guarantee that particular lobby groups will not be able to unduly influence Departments contrary to the wider public interest.

The legislation falls far short of what the Government promised in the programme for Government which stated that there would be a cooling-off period of two years before any former Minister or Government official could lobby former colleagues still employed as public officials.

Instead, the legislation provides for a one year cooling off period during which an ex-Government official can still work for an interest group which lobbies the Government. However, he or she will be obliged to apply to the Standards in Public Office Commission, SIPO, for an exception to be made in order to allow him or her to lobby ex-colleagues still working within government during the cooling off period. If the ex-Government official is dissatisfied with the decision of the SIPO, he or she will have the right to appeal. Surely the integrity of the legislation would be strengthened if there was a complete ban, in all circumstances, on former Government officials carrying out any lobbying work for the two year period promised by the Government when it entered office.

The non-governmental organisation Transparency International has expressed concern to the effect that, despite the new regulatory regime, there will be no actual disclosure of information shared between the Government and individuals from lobby groups. This calls into question how effective the SIPO will be in delivering the highest standards of transparency in the relationship between special interest groups and the State if the records of such meetings are not open to public scrutiny.

The independence of the SIPO is to be questioned. Last year I lodged a complaint with it in respect of the "Prime Time" programme on which the former Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Alan Shatter, might have breached the code of behaviour for public office. It proved extremely difficult to obtain satisfaction from the SIPO. Essentially, the commission found that it did not believe the matter was one of significant public importance and, thus, what had occurred was not a specified act which came within its remit for investigation. Sadly, it interpreted the legislation in a very timid way and this allowed it to defend the then Government Minister in the process. No reasons were given as to why the commission did not see the matter as one of significant public importance. Surely this is unsatisfactory, particularly as it is a fundamental principle of law that one is entitled to a clear, reasoned decision. If this was not the case and reasons were not provided, no one would ever be able to challenge a decision as being unreasonable or irrational. When I telephoned Mr. Brian McKevitt of the SIPO, he informed me that I was not entitled to a copy of the report on the inquiry into the matter.

See this speech in context