Gerald Nash (Louth, Labour) | Oireachtas source

The business of the House is going to be concluded earlier than we thought. A glance at the monitor told me we are probably two hours ahead of where we expected to be. On that basis, I am unlikely to use the full 20 minutes apportioned to me, but we will see how I get on.

These are welcome proposals. They have been evolving now for some time and many of them are based on recommendations that were made by SIPO over several years. The Labour Party is proud of our function in improving the ethical framework within which politics takes place and democratic engagement occurs in this country. We introduced reforms between 2011 and 2016 and one of those reforms, of course, was the development and introduction of the Regulation of Lobbying Act 2015. That legislation is objectively considered, in international terms, reasonably robust. It has served this country and its democracy well. It is important that lobbying is done in a transparent way. We all, as practising politicians, understand, I hope, the difference between lobbying and advocacy. Some people believe they are one and the same thing. One person's lobbyist is another person's advocate. We have all benefited over the years from insights that have been provided to us by those who are advocating for change and perhaps showing us an alternative proposition or a different way of doing things. That is as it should be in a democracy. The legislation should not necessarily be about restricting lobbyists but rather it ought to address what they lobby about, how they do it, and the public understanding of how they do it and how transparent that is. We have a regime that works reasonably well. That said, it is, of course, high time that elements of the provisions of the legislation that could be improved are improved and that is what the legislation before us seeks to do.

We know from the experience of the past seven years that there are gaps that the practical application of the legislation has identified. We, as practising politicians and public representatives, know that. High-profile issues have emerged in recent years, especially around, for example, the cooling-off period and the revolving door that appears to exist between some former Ministers and private industry and those who lobby on its behalf. It is important that we update our laws to reflect public concerns about that, and the Minister is doing just that. I am pleased with the amendments to section 22 in respect of the cooling-off period, the making of a breach of that cooling-off period a contravention and the introduction of sanctions for those who contravene it. It would be fair to say that is modelled on some proposals in the regulation of lobbying (post-term employment as lobbyists) Bill that the Labour Party published and brought forward, and that was discussed on Second Stage some time ago. That is very welcome indeed. That is a key point on which we must focus. We will table amendments to further tighten that section on Committee and Report Stages.

It is also important that the law is tightened in respect of communication and lobbying around development land and zoned land. That is an obvious issue. Of course, many of the proposals that were adopted by successive Governments relating to the ethical framework within which we all operate emerged from proposals and recommendations made by the Mahon tribunal. The language used in the context of that particular provision is interesting and welcome. That is an obvious part of the legislation that required to be tightened.

One of the flaws, if I can describe it as such, in the 2015 legislation was the inability of the SIPO to initiate investigations.

The requirement has been that an individual citizen could make a complaint and then an examination of the issues and an investigation could occur. Some of those issues, gaps or lacunaeare being addressed and that is very important indeed. This legislation will also enable the Standards in Public Office Commission, SIPO, to regulate and introduce regulations and frameworks themselves to be able to modernise the way in which they work.

When we are talking about sanctions regimes it is important that any administrative sanctions' process is robust, transparent, properly resourced and constitutional. The legislation clearly sets out a step-by-step approach that would be taken by the Standards in Public Office Commission in investigating breaches and contraventions of the legislation around, for example, the cooling off period. There is a right for those who are accused of a contravention to be heard. The idea of an oral hearing is important and that complies with the Law Reform Commission of Ireland proposals around the proper administration of justice, if we can call it that. We should be mindful of the Zalewski case, which is reflected in the way in which this legislation will ask SIPO to go about its business in terms of examination of issues, investigations and, ultimately, sanctions.

I am interested and note that section 17 refers to the fact that the commission must apply to the Circuit Court for confirmation of a decision to impose major sanctions. That to some degree aligns with the principles that are established in the individual accountability Bill from the Minister of Finance that we debated in the Chamber yesterday. I note, however, that there is no requirement under this legislation to seek confirmation from the High Court, but from the Circuit Court. I am interested to establish from the Minister why that is the case. Why the Circuit Court and not the High Court? In fact, is there any necessity at all to do this? Does it make it any more bulletproof from constitutional challenge if it would otherwise be the case? It is a well-established principle, legal precedent and convention that administrative tribunals can introduce sanctions once things are done correctly in procedure. All these procedures are now set out in law in terms of how the Standards in Public Office Commission would go about an investigation and impose sanctions. Why is it the case, given that we have confidence in the Standards in Public Office Commission to do the job it has been asked to do? It is legally and constitutionally robust in terms of what it is we are asking it to do. Why then is it the case that sanctions of certain kinds would have to be confirmed by the Circuit Court? Why is it the case that the Circuit Court is the court of choice here and not the High Court, as is the case for the operation of the senior executive accountability regime, SEAR, legislation?

I am also interested and note that it was the view of the committee in its pre-legislative scrutiny on the question of waivers from the 12-month cooling off period that a decision has been made in annual reports to aggregate the number of requests that were made and the number of requests that might have been processed by the Standards in Public Office Commission. It may well be in the public interest that the Standards in Public Office Commission should instead publish the details of the individual requests, while anonymising insofar as we can the individuals involved because they are entitled to go about their business as they are private citizens at that point in time. We should acknowledge that the reason they are seeking an exemption from the cooling-off period and a waiver is that they held a different position until relatively recently before they had to make that request.

That being said, at the same time, the legislation needs to be balanced and proportionate. We have had lengthy debates in this Chamber and the committee has had lengthy debates which are in fact reflected in the committee's pre-legislative scrutiny report that the cooling-off period should be extended to 24 months. There are differences of opinion on that. Frankly, from my own point of view, from the perspective of natural justice and the perspective of somebody's ability to make a living, which they are entitled to do, the 12-month period is probably about right. I have no difficulty with the 12-month period, especially based on the fact that the legislation is being tightened up. There always would have been a concern that legislation like this may be vulnerable to challenge, but the approach that is being taken in this Bill is balanced and proportionate. It balances all the interests that need to be balanced on a constitutional basis. It is positive in that regard and it ought not to be vulnerable to any challenge.

I will conclude on this point. Legislation like this is very important to ensure that we maintain trust in democracy, in politics and in our institutions. Trust in democracy and democracy itself are delicate flowers. The way in which lobbying now occurs has changed even fundamentally to when this legislation was first introduced in 2015. It is evolving all the time. I ask the Minister to reflect on the provision for statutory reviews on a five-year frequency. There will be a requirement to review the legislation, insofar as I can recall, after a year. Yet, the five-year frequency in my view is far too long, given the nature of lobbying, the way in which it is changing and the different ways in which people can access public representatives and data protection officers more generally these days. I ask the Minister to reflect on that.

Broadly speaking, the Labour Party supports this legislation. It is a timely set of propositions to enhance the legislation that was brought in in 2015. There is considerable learning from the experience of the operation of the legislation since 2015. They are largely reflected in this and I am happy to work with the Minister to strengthen the legislation on Committee Stage and on Report Stage.

See this speech in context