Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

In broad terms, I welcome this legislation, but as other speakers have said, I hope the Minister will be open to amending the legislation to strengthen it, because I feel that it does not go anywhere near far enough. There is an onus on us to clean up our own house. As a body, we have been remiss in doing that. There has not been the required sense of urgency following various scandals that have broken in this country. If we are going to do it, we should be doing it right.

The Irish political system is undoubtedly in need of reform. The standards written in law and ethical conduct are falling far short of what is needed to protect Government decision-making from being unduly influenced by the interests of well-connected individuals and organisations. Despite the introduction of the Regulation of Lobbying Act 2015, a cloak of secrecy persists in public life here. Sure, our regime looks pretty robust on paper. In fact, Ireland tends to be placed high among jurisdictions internationally, but when you take a deeper look the cracks in the Irish system become all too apparent. As the Oireachtas Library and Research Service notes, care should always be taken with interpreting international rankings on lobbying. These overall scores do not always reflect the possibility that one weakness can render the strengths of other regime futile.

In the Irish context, there are a number of weaknesses which undermine our regime, including inadequate enforcement, the question of access to Leinster House and its environs and financial disclosures, to name but a few. While some of these shortcomings would be addressed by this legislation, I firmly believe that to place a clear demarcation between the political arena and lobbying, we must go further than what is currently proposed here. I believe the approach outlined in this Bill is too narrow to deal effectively with the major issues in politics and in Government.

It is worth casting our minds back to the events that prompted the introduction of the lobbying register in 2015, namely, the infamous Mahon Tribunal on planning corruption. Among the many recommendations in that final report was the regulation of lobbying activities. I mention the origins of the primary legislation because it highlights how little things have changed. We debate this legislation in the midst of yet another planning scandal.

The chaos engulfing An Bord Pleanála as we speak is seriously damaging trust in the planning system all over again. This shambles will also have major cost implications for the State. You would think that, after the longest running and most expensive public inquiry in Irish history, which I repeat was about planning matters, the Government would have learned some further lessons. However, it appears that some Government parties are determined to go down the well-trodden path of their predecessors, despite the well-known pitfalls and gaps that undoubtedly exist.

Even before the current crisis in An Bord Pleanála, the Social Democrats were blue in the face from pointing out issues in the planning system. We know that successive housing Ministers have been vigorously lobbied by the likes of the Construction Industry Federation and Irish Institutional Property. We know from lobbying records the number of occasions on which those bodies and other lobbying organisations were in and out of this House and the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage, which is an indication of the level of influence they brought to bear on decisions being taken by that Department. To a large extent, it is these types of powerful groups that shape housing and planning policy in this country. How else could damaging interventions in the planning system such as mandatory section 28 planning guidelines, build-to-rent regulations and strategic housing development, SHD, policy be explained? Some of these are now being reversed by the Government but, in most cases, it is too late.

It seems the Government has finally realised that allowing developers, landlords and vulture funds to determine planning policy will not fix the housing crisis. However, as I said, it is very late in the day for that penny to drop. These moves have been portrayed as a complete reversal of those past mistakes and a lot has been pledged under the general banner of removing provision for SHDs but, of course, that is only part of the story. In many respects, the mandatory guidelines are hamstringing planning decisions from the professional planners in our local authorities and from the democratic decision-making process that should determine what is regarded as appropriate planning in local areas. Mandatory guidelines, which arguably represent the most egregious change to our planning laws, remain a feature of the Government's planning policy. One has to ask why that is the case. In my view, it is because this Government continues to parrot the line industry lobbyists have fed it for years, which is that apartments were not commercially viable under previous standards. It is safe to say that the champions of the current housing market have all but captured the planning policy space. Why has this happened? It is because of the insidious nature of the relationship between these lobbyists and political decision makers which, unfortunately, will not be changed or stymied by the Bill.

I will return to the legislation before us and speak to some of its principal provisions. The amendments to section 5 of the principal Act seek to widen the scope of the definition of a person engaged in lobbying activity. I welcome the provisions that would deal with loopholes in the current definition, specifically the inclusion of representative bodies irrespective of the number or status of employees. In 2019, SIPO identified a number of representative bodies "that exist primarily to advocate on behalf of their members, but which do not have full-time employees and are therefore not captured by the Act". This loophole seriously undercuts transparency and accountability in the current regime and, therefore, I am pleased to see it addressed in the Bill. I also welcome the considered wording that avoids unintentionally capturing smaller local interest groups.

I am underwhelmed by the amendments that relate to cooling-off periods. Transparency International Ireland, along with the joint committee's pre-legislative scrutiny report, recommended extending the cooling-off period for designated public officials to two years. I agree wholeheartedly with this recommendation as the current system is simply not rigorous enough. I accept that restrictions on the rights of individuals to employment and a livelihood are not, in themselves, desirable but the public interest and the need for a clear dividing line between the political arena and lobbying must trump concerns about individual rights. The one-year cooling-off period has not prevented the almost seamless movement of high-ranking individuals between the public and private sectors. Not only is this bad governance, but it fuels distrust in the political system and gives many individuals unfair and undue access and influence. I, therefore, strongly urge the Minister to consider extending the cooling-off period to two years. I am sure many of us will propose amendments to that effect. I ask him to consider all that has gone before, the general public attitude to lobbying and the sense that, in this country, a lot depends on who you know and your connections. The strongly prevailing view about how things work in this country is that it is about who you know and the access you have. I ask the Minister to reconsider this aspect and to consider proposing an amendment to extend this period to two years.

The amendment to section 22, which makes breaches of the cooling-off provision and the anti-avoidance clause relevant contraventions, will certainly enhance the effectiveness of the regime. However, rather than treating these relevant contraventions in the same way as those in place, the Bill would create a new regime of administrative sanctions. This decision has raised some eyebrows. I am particularly concerned about the designation of breaches of the cooling-off provisions as civil offences. During pre-legislative scrutiny, both SIPO and Transparency International Ireland expressed doubts about SIPO's ability to impose these sanctions. As the Bill digest outlines, a regulator needs both legal power and capacity to enforce provisions. SIPO currently does not have the resources to carry out this function, especially when the Bill precludes any member of staff other than commissioners from imposing financial sanctions.

The Social Democrats have long called for an independent anti-corruption agency and we are once again repeating that call. Along with strengthening ethics and transparency in public life, such an independent agency would assume the anti-corruption remit of SIPO and the Register of Lobbying. The Social Democrats tabled a motion proposing the establishment of this kind of agency almost seven years ago but the then Fine Gael-Labour Government rejected it. Had our proposal been supported, we could have had an agency up and running by now with the appropriate resources and powers to make a real difference. We researched this issue quite extensively and, subsequent to our motion, the Minister, Deputy Coveney, proposed that we needed such an agency. Indeed, the Tánaiste did at one stage as well. We have to face up to the fact that we do not have a mechanism to ensure accountability where there is wrongdoing, in which I include white-collar crime but wrongdoing relating to public bodies in particular. Inevitably, when wrongdoing is uncovered, we end up having expensive investigations, inquiries and tribunals that go on for a long time but that end up making findings that cannot then be used to prosecute the individuals against whom they are made. This is sometimes even worse than doing nothing because the public expect that, at the end of the process, people will be brought to book and that there will be consequences.

Frequently, there are no consequences. That undermines our governance systems. Having a single agency with the powers of the Garda and powers of investigation, enforcement and prosecution is the key thing that is needed. The model is there in the Criminal Assets Bureau, for example. For years there was a disconnect between what Revenue knew, what the Garda knew and what the Department responsible for social welfare knew. It is about bringing the different agencies together and ensuring an agency like that has the power to examine the wrongdoing from the very beginning to the final imposition of sanctions. That is a big lack in this country.

Reading the Minister's proposal I can only conclude that this new regime of sanctions is being set up to fail. Why has the Minister not responded to SIPO's concerns? I would again argue that the common good has to trump any concerns regarding an individual's right to employment. Furthermore, this distinction between criminal and civil offences implies that breaches of the cooling-off period are somehow less serious. That does not sound like a healthy democracy to me.

While we are on the topic of public representatives moving into lobbying, I stress the need to end the revolving door between politics and private business. In recent years, there have been several high-profile examples of ministerial advisers and, indeed, Ministers, moving into the private sector and then often back into the public sector again. There have also been examples of Ministers of State, including some very recent ones, moving into jobs in sectors of the economy for which they previously had responsibility. The Social Democrats recommend taking the separation of politics and lobbying further than is currently the case. At present, the rules of the Oireachtas allow all former Members - Deputies and Senators - perpetual access to the Leinster House complex. This is a huge privilege and should not be taken away lightly. However, it has allowed an insidious situation to develop whereby several former Deputies and Senators use that privilege to gain undue access to sitting Ministers and other influential Members of these Houses. This is particularly the case with ex-Ministers, who we frequently see swanning around the corridors of this complex, giving them easy access to existing Ministers, Deputies and Senators.

I had an experience a few months ago when we were talking about legislation relating to an environmental matter, although I will not say what it was. We were debating that legislation and it went on over a long period. People were going in and out to the bar, not necessarily to drink but because there was a series of votes taking place and they were waiting for that. There was one ex-Member of this House, who is now a senior lobbyist in the relevant area, sitting at the bar counter chatting and buying drinks for Members. That just should not be allowed. Once an ex-Member of this House becomes a lobbyist, he or she should forfeit the right of access to this House. I urge the Minister to take that point on board. We cannot have this happening. I see it on a regular basis on budget day with various ex-Members getting the ear of the Minister. That needs to stop and I will certainly be putting down an amendment to that effect. Where someone takes up a role as a lobbyist, there is no doubt that person must forfeit access to this House. He or she must be treated like any other member of society.

I would make a few points about other aspects of this Bill. There is a real case for requiring those engaged in lobbying activities to disclose expenditure on lobbying. As John Devitt, chief executive of Transparency International Ireland, outlined in his evidence to the Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform, and Taoiseach, "the Act does little to meet its first objective of preventing corruption unless there is a corresponding requirement to disclose not just the source but the amounts of funding received". If this Government is serious about transparency and open government, then we must recognise the huge advantages larger lobbying budgets bestow and ensure that the lobbying register takes account of that.

I also draw the Minister's attention to another planning matter that should be addressed in this legislation but is currently not. As I outlined earlier, repeat planning scandals have emphasised the need for robust lobbying and anti-corruption legislation. However, the then Minister over-corrected somewhat in the 2015 Act. I am referring to the provision relating to the development and zoning of land, which will be further broadened by this Bill. I would be the first to come into this Chamber and call for stricter measures to protect the integrity of the planning process but the provisions of the primary legislation and what is proposed in this Bill are too restrictive. SIPO and the joint committee share this view and I fully support their recommendation to limit the Act's scope to persons who have a material interest in relation to the development of land or zoning. When local residents contact me or any other representative about proposed developments or a potential rezoning, it is primarily about local amenities and infrastructure, not because they have a material interest in the land. These are ordinary citizens who contact their public representatives, not cosy insiders who enjoy influence over the Government. As SIPO pointed out in its 2019 review submission, under the current Act a person complaining about proposed zoning to a designated public official during a canvass could be regarded as carrying out a lobbying activity. That does not make any sense.

Cronyism and old-style politics are very much still alive and well. We need to go further than the provisions in this Bill if we are serious about dealing with them.

See this speech in context