Ossian Smyth (Dún Laoghaire, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputies Maireád Farrell and Ó Murchú for their contributions. I reiterate my thanks to Deputy Nash for bringing the Bill forward.

The purpose of the Bill is to amend section 18 of the Regulation of Lobbying Act 2015 by including a contravention of section 22 within the definition of "relevant contraventions". It is also proposed that this amendment would have retrospective effect. If a contravention of section 22 was deemed to be a relevant contravention under the Act, as proposed, then SIPO would be empowered to authorise an investigation to be carried out. Furthermore, a person who commits a relevant contravention of section 22 would be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a class C fine and, on conviction on indictment, to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or both.

As Deputies will be aware, under section 22 of the 2015 Act, specific categories of relevant designated public officials are subject to a one-year cooling-off period during which they cannot engage in lobbying activities in specific circumstances or be employed by, or provide services to, a person carrying on lobbying activities in specific circumstances. The cooling-off period applies for a full one-year term unless the relevant designated public official applies to SIPO for consent to waive or reduce that term.

This approach was considered to represent a proportionate response to the matter on a case-by-case basis,rather than placing a mandatory blanket prohibition on relevant DPOs taking up particular roles which could be open to legal challenge by a person, for example, when moving from a relevant DPO post in the public sector to a specific post in the private sector. It is the responsibility of the relevant DPO to seek consent from SIPO to waive or reduce their cooling-off period prior to taking up an offer of employment or to provide relevant services in circumstances where such employment or services may be, or be perceived to be, encompassed by section 22. SIPO may decide to give consent unconditionally or give consent with conditions attached. It may also refuse to give consent for all or part of the cooling-off period. A relevant DPO who is unhappy with the decision of SIPO may appeal.

Since the Act commenced on 1 September 2015, SIPO has received 20 such applications. The apparent low level of applications received by SIPO has given rise to a concern on its part that there should be more applications for consent under section 22 than have been received to date. However, work undertaken by the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform in 2020 appears to indicate that this may not be the case. The Department sought to analyse the numbers of relevant DPOs who moved to lobbying positions or apparent lobbying positions between 2015 and 2020. Although this analysis has limitations because it relies on data that are publicly available, almost 250 individuals were identified as having left relevant DPO positions since the introduction of the Act to the present, with less than 20 individuals being subsequently identified as having a connection with specific lobbying posts. The analysis produced by the Department matches broadly with the level of section 22 applications that have been received by SIPO over the same period, although as SIPO's data in relation to section 22 applications are anonymous, as provided for in section 25 of the 2015 Act, the overlap between such applications and the Department's analysis cannot be definitively determined.

As I set out earlier this evening, the Act is generally perceived to have met the intended objective of increasing transparency and accountability around the lobbying of DPOs, which is underpinned by a register that is easily accessible and navigable. The submissions received during the public consultation that was held as part of the second statutory review highlighted some of the aspects of the Act which stakeholders perceived as important, including the additional transparency the Act has brought to the lobbying space. The legislation is seen as comprehensive in its regulation of a wide range of lobbying activities. The increased transparency provided by the Act in relation to lobbying activities was viewed as facilitating greater accountability. The register was considered to be easily accessible, free and updated regularly. The website was described as user-friendly and open to public scrutiny. The work of SIPO was praised and positive reference was made to the support and guidance given by SIPO via its regular communications and the availability of staff to provide advice to organisations on the register. The part the register plays in promoting the role of organisations in shaping public policy was also mentioned. The importance of the Act in recognising lobbying as a legitimate activity which promotes the development of appropriate and effective policy and legislation was highlighted. It was acknowledged that the Act has not led to a chilling effect on lobbying activities.

It is important to recognise that there is a solid foundation in place, but like all foundations, it needs maintenance, renewal and enhancement as required. The recently concluded review process allowed for a detailed assessment of a range of issues raised by SIPO and which we have discussed in the House. In addition to consultations with the Office of the Attorney General, the review included assessment of the current operation of key provisions of the Act; consultation with and consideration of the views of SIPO; and consideration of options to address concerns raised and the policy, legal and practical implications of different responses. The core consideration was to look at how the existing solid foundation could be enhanced most effectively and efficiently, strengthening any weakness which had been identified.

In conclusion, I am proposing an amendment which "recognises that the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform’s review of the Regulation of Lobbying Act 2015 has just concluded" and "resolves that the Regulation of Lobbying (Post-Term Employment as Lobbyist) Bill 2020 be deemed to be read a second time this day six months, to allow for a proposal for draft legislation to take account of the recommendations arising from that review to be brought forward". I will oppose the completion of Second Stage should my amendment not be agreed to.

See this speech in context