Alan Farrell (Dublin North, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for bringing this Bill before the House. It is timely as regards the overall reform of politics, because lobbying is a central part of politics. As Deputy Costello said, part and parcel of a Deputy or Senator's life is to be lobbied by a variety of groups. Unfortunately, because of past history, the word is synonymous with wrongdoing, although it should not be.

The Bill addresses present shortcomings in the registration requirement and will provide the foundation for a more transparent political system. It will make both politicians and lobbyists more accountable to the public. I hope it will work towards rebuilding the public's trust in the political system, most especially this week, given the goings-on over the last few days.

The final report of the Mahon tribunal, which covered many areas of Dublin and many former public representatives, stated that legislation regulating lobbying would be "likely to decrease the corruption risks associated with that activity by increasing transparency and accountability in the policy making process." The report went on to say:

Such regulation would not however, adversely affect the positive role played by lobbyists in the political system. On the contrary, it could well help promote a more positive perception of that role.

It is also important to note that while it is necessary to regulate lobbying, and while lobbying is often perceived as a dirty word, it can have a positive impact on political decisions, policy formation and legislative drafting. I am a member of the Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality, whose work on e-conveyancing is being televised on the Oireachtas channel. Prior to that, we spent a lot of time debating and hearing from various interest groups. That is a form of lobbying which is happening in the public domain. The Bill before us, however, will deal with lobbying that we do not see. It has gone on for decades behind closed doors and has often led to questionable decisions, particularly on planning matters. As a public representative for ten and a half years, I can attest that in the first few weeks of my career I was met by an individual in my office in Fingal County Council. This person was a one-man company representing a number of development clients or landowners. There were all sorts of commitments made, none of which was financial. That happened in 2004 at the height of public awareness of wrongdoings that had occurred in previous years in the planning process, yet it was rife. I am sure I am not the only public representative to have experienced that. It stopped a couple of years after that, but even in 2004, when there was a sea change in local government representation, it was still occurring. It is a regrettable thing in our history. We are now required to conform with international best practice by bringing forward this legislation.

On a couple of occasions I have travelled to the United States and have been to Washington DC, including Capitol Hill. Lobbying firms are operating all around those government institutions. As a number of contributors to this debate have said, that does not make the lobbyists bad people; it is simply a way of making representations on behalf of clients or shareholders.

Deputy Eoghan Murphy made a point about companies with fewer than ten employees. Sometimes the most effective lobbyist, as he outlined, is the individual who takes advantage of knowing about a politician's or other individual's diary to make a representation. That person might simply be one individual and not even a company. I urge caution concerning the requirement that these companies do not have to register as lobbyists.

Are we talking about a financial burden on companies that register as lobbyists? I do not believe we are. Therefore, what is the issue with ensuring everybody who makes representations, particularly to public representatives and particularly regarding the zoning of land, is required under legislation to register as a lobbyist and with ensuring the public has an opportunity to see who is registered and who they are representing?

Section 8 of the Bill outlines the provision for the registration of lobbyists. A lobbyist must be registered before carrying out lobbying activity. When a person is lobbying for the first time, he or she must have his or her registration completed before the next return date, with three return dates being set in a year. Perhaps I misunderstand it. What we are talking about - forgive me if I am wrong - is a regime where there is no requirement on those lobbied to ask whether a lobbyist is registered or representing a firm or landowner, for example. If I am correct, perhaps we might consider this again and examine it in the next stage of the process that the Minister has mentioned.

Perhaps there should be an onus on individuals who are lobbied, particularly public servants and public representatives, to ask whether a lobbyist is registered. Having been a public representative for just over ten years, I see no harm in asking that question of a person who wants a piece of land zoned by councillors in my local area, for example, or a person who wants legislation changed to benefit him materially or the company he represents. I see no difficulty in that. With regard to transparency in the public domain, I do not imagine one could make a case for regarding the question I describe as onerous.

On appointments to State boards, I welcome the collective decision to take further steps announced by the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Howlin, following yesterday's Cabinet meeting. I accept fully that the Minister has a very busy portfolio. As he is aware, I do a lot of work in the area of public expenditure and reform in Fine Gael, but while I accept the Minister's bona fides on his having received agreement only yesterday, I believe the reform agenda needs to be accelerated, particularly regarding politics.

See this speech in context