Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, Socialist Party) | Oireachtas source

A number of the amendments – Nos. 2 to 15 and Nos. 17 and 18 - depend on whether we are to have a broad or narrow approach to the registration and regulation of lobbyists. At the moment, unfortunately, the Government’s approach is to take quite a narrow view of who can be lobbied and also who can do the lobbying. It will not capture in any way the real lobbying that goes on and the myriad different tactics and types of lobbying that take place.

Lobbying is central to how our capitalist democracy works. It is how the rich and the powerful communicate their interests, primarily to the established political parties, and get their interests eventually transferred into legislation or whatever they want. Lobbying is a huge business involving billions of euro across Europe. I will give one instance at EU level. When I was an MEP, traffic light coding of food labels was an issue. The intention was to make it simple for consumers by having the fat and salt contents of food, for example, denoted in a simple green, orange or red colour scheme. The food industry across Europe, including from Ireland, spent €1 billion lobbying to stop the proposal from going through the European Parliament. At least 30,000 people were employed on the issue at Brussels level in lobbying on behalf of various interests.

Those who know how lobbying happens know that some of it is done by lobbying companies acting on behalf of industries or individuals, which arrange meetings in order to make representations on behalf of a company or industry. There is a simple meeting that is clearly for the purpose of lobbying. I presume such organisations would be captured by the narrow definition put forward by the Government, as they should be. There should be a register of lobbying interests and the lobbying that takes place. However, lobbying is a much broader phenomenon that is based on informal contact - a revolving door. The relationships between a small political caste in this country and a small big-business elite are the basis for much of the effective lobbying that takes place. The danger in terms of what is proposed is that it will not capture such activity. In particular, I echo the point made by Deputy McDonald about astroturfing, with reference to amendment No. 18. It is not just an American phenomenon. My experience indicates that astroturfing - false grassroots campaigns driven by big business interests and involving, in some cases, duped volunteers - is a tactic used at European level. One sets up a false campaign and covers one’s interest with a veil of public interest, and one mobilises people on that basis. Such people would not be captured by the amendment, even though this is a form of lobbying. Any loophole that exists will be exploited by big business and other interests in order to have their interests reflected in the corridors of power. For that reason, I oppose amendment No. 18 and support Deputy McDonald’s amendment, No. 17.

It is obvious that amendments Nos. 2 to 15 should be supported. The various semi-state bodies that operate with taxpayers’ money should be brought within the remit of the Bill, and lobbying representations to those organisations should be covered. The most current example is Irish Water. It is obvious that significant money could potentially be made by various contractors that have an eye to full privatisation at a later stage but that for now want to get contracts to design, build and operate various elements of the water services infrastructure. Much money is to be made from those valuable contracts. The same is true of the outsourcing of work by the HSE and various other bodies mentioned. There is a lot of money to be made, and that requires much representation, which should be covered by the legislation.

See this speech in context