Gerald Nash (Louth, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | 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.

Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | 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.

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I was listening to the Minister's introduction upstairs. It struck me that there is a fundamental difference between the Minister's view of lobbying and People Before Profit's view of lobbying. That explains why we have quite a limited reform here. It is a tiny step in the right direction but is quite limited and inadequate. The Minister said that lobbying is an invaluable part of politics which provides an invaluable insight for politicians about the details and workings of things and so on. He really extolled the virtues of lobbying. Fundamentally, I do not agree with that. Part of how that case is made is by throwing it all in together. The football club that contacts a Deputy or a councillor about a pitch that needs to get fixed is put in the same category as the major multinational corporation paying tens or hundreds of thousands of euro to former Deputies or Ministers to lobby for changes in their interests. They are not the same thing. They are fundamentally different. There is something fundamentally different between the kind of campaigning and informing done by ordinary people, community groups, sports groups, trade unionists, etc., and what makes up the vast majority of lobbying as a business. We have to remember that that is what this is.

Lobbying is a multibillion euro industry on an EU-wide basis, and a multimillion euro industry in this country. The purpose of that lobbying, which, again, is the vast majority of the lobbying by value and in terms of the money spent on these things, is to shape laws in the interests of particular, defined and discrete business interests to try to make sure their interests are represented. They spend money on this, billions of euro on a worldwide basis, because they think it works. If they did not think it worked in shaping laws, they would not spend the money.

One must presume that these individuals, who are hard-headed business people, have the evidence to show that it is worth spending multiple millions of euro or dollars to get their way and that it has an impact, in that the legislation that results in the areas of the environment, labour, planning and consumer rights is, at least to some degree, affected and shaped in the interests of those who are paying to try to do so. That is fundamentally undemocratic. It is fundamentally about those who have economic power using that economic power to ensure they also have political power. This is not something that is open to community groups, local residents in an area, trade unionists and ordinary people. The difference is that these people have the money to spend millions on lobbyists. This is why I take a much more dim view of the role of lobbying in this political system.

It was Connolly who wrote that "governments in capitalist society are but committees of the rich to manage the affairs of the capitalist class". The right-wing governments that generally pursue the interests of managing the affairs of the rich, the 1% in our societies, do not necessarily know the exact details of what different sections of the capitalist class want. The role of lobbying is, fundamentally, to inform them of that. It is to transmit the direct interests of big business to government.

I have made this point here before but it bears repeating. There is a reason the lobbying companies to employ former Ministers and former Deputies as lobbyists. I mean no offence to the people individually, but it is not because they have particular aptitudes or intelligence set up for lobbying. That is not the reason. Very clearly, the reason is precisely because they are former Ministers or Deputies, political insiders who have access both physically and metaphorically. It is worth pointing out that if the lobbying companies did not think it was worth their money to employ former politicians, they would not do it. They obviously feel that this access means something.

Let us consider the examples. Brian Hayes went from being a Fine Gael MEP to the head of the banking lobbyists organisation. Even more blatantly, Michael D'Arcy went from being the Minister of State with responsibility for the financial sector to being the CEO of the Irish Association of Investment Managers. There is a reason those people are chosen. It is not a personal criticism of those people to say that it is not about some inherent talent or skill. It is about the job they previously had and, therefore, the access. The point is that when the Government-----

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy may not name people who are not in the House.

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To be clear, I am not making any personal charge. I am just giving a description of the jobs the individuals in question had and now have, and it is 100% accurate. For example, when they sit down across the table from the Government, which has Fine Gael in it, it clearly suits the banks to have on their side a former senior member of Fine Gael. That clearly suits their interests and clearly greases the wheels of communications. The social dialogue, the chats, the informal access, and all of that, are made easier by having a former senior politician on one's side.

The point about physical access was well made by Deputy Shortall. It is a fact that there are lobbyists who are allowed to drive in through the front gates of our national Parliament, park their cars alongside Deputies and Senators, get out of their cars together, have a chat about the weather, politics and what is happening and, while they are it, say "Oh, could I just ask about that and how is that going?" That is entirely inappropriate. It is a distortion of any basic idea of what democracy is supposed to look like.

There was an example a couple of years ago. I will not name the person but a former press secretary took up a role with public relations company. This person was reported to be repeatedly asking the Fine Gael Chairman of the climate committee for details of private deliberations on what was described as a controversial Bill to ban oil and gas exploration. This is according to Hugh O'Connell in the Irish Independentin 2019. The Bill in question was the Planning and Development (Climate Emergency Measures) (Amendment) Bill 2021, which was introduced by People Before Profit to ban oil and gas exploration licences. Again, the revolving door was being used to get access to get information to pursue, in this case, the interests of the fossil fuel industry, which is certainly among one of the most destructive, damaging and evil industries in our society.

No one else can have these types of access, which are bought and paid for and are not accessible to ordinary people. I gave the example at the time of the so-called "Leo the leak" scandal when there was ready access to the Tánaiste by the head of the National Association of General Practitioners, NAGP, while, at the same time, paramedics organised in the National Ambulance Service Representative Association, NASRA, who were on a picket line seeking to be recognised and dealt with, were not able to get the sort of access that the NAGP was able to get. All of that is without even dealing with all of the other old boys' network that exist - the clubs, debating societies and social circles within which Ireland's elite circulate, meet and decide what is in the best interests of the "nation". The reality is that some lobbyists will always have preferential access to and influence on the political elite and the senior civil servants they meet.

Let us take the role of the Construction Industry Federation, CIF, which is on the public record. The CIF lobbied for the first-time buyer's scheme. That is in their documents. It appeared at the time as a mechanism for getting homes for first-time buyers. In the Government's presentation, who could possibly object to that? Of course, the role of the CIF is not to lobby in the interests of first-time buyers but to lobby in the interests of the construction industry in order to maximise its profits. That was the purpose of the scheme. It was called the help-to-buy scheme but in reality it is a help-to-profit scheme. The CIF has even been given quasi-statutory functions with the recent register relating to building standards. Clearly, what it says has significantly more impact on the Government and senior civil servants than, for example, what trade union officials might say.

There are continuous revolving doors from Government to private lobbying and representative organisations, which are effectively lobbying organisations. The same thing applies with civil servants. There was a recent article on this recently in the Irish Independent. I will not name the people but 11 key officials who left NAMA went with their contacts and phone numbers into private real estate work or related firms. None of that is deemed to be corrupt. None of it would breach the Lobbying Act, either as it is now or as it will be. It is, however, a small example of how Ireland works. People ask how we could have the kind of society we have, how one of the richest countries in the world has health and education crises and a complete absence of action on climate change, how we got here and how we can have this tax haven system. Part of the answer is the massive influence that the top 1% have on politics in this country. This is part of how that is expressed.

I will conclude on what should be done. At the very least, the requests from Transparency International should be acted on. These include extending the standard cooling-off period to two years. The argument being made against this, which is that we have to pay a lot of attention to the rights of former politicians to get a job in lobbying, is a bit ludicrous. Nobody else in the world has the right to a job in lobbying. The only reason these people are getting access to those jobs is that they are former politicians.

They would not get it otherwise. There is the idea that these people have some innate right and we need to give significant weight to that. There are plenty of other jobs in the world. Most people do not get access to these lobbying jobs and would not have a chance. We should make it clear there is at least a two-year cooling-off period during which people cannot walk out of politics and into a lobbying job, for obvious reasons. Clearly the interest of society as a whole in not having this inappropriate influence takes significant precedence over the individual right of former Teachtaí Dála or Ministers to get jobs in lobbying firms.

Second is the categorisation of breaches of cooling-off periods and other post-term employment regulations as offences. It is bizarre to say these are not offences. There is the outright ban on all Members of the Oireachtas and members of local authorities from acting as lobbyists or receiving income for the purpose of influencing public policy. Other points I thought were strong include the fact that there should be a requirement to disclose not just the source but also the amount of funding received or fees charged by lobbyists to the lobbying regulator, as well as details of gifts, hospitality or travel provided to the targets of lobbying.

I echo the point Deputy Shortall made on access. It is ridiculous enough that former Teachtaí Dála get access to the car park. Car parking for life should be gone. We do not need this massive car park in the middle of town, encouraging people to drive into town forever. People should lose access. If, let us say, there is a cooling-off period of two years and afterwards people become lobbyists, they should then be lobbyists like everybody else. They should not have special privileges relating to the fact they were previously elected. They give that up for the period when they are lobbyists so people are not able to waltz in here and get easy access. We cannot take their phone books away, stop them calling people or stop them having the social relations they have, but at least it sends a signal that such access is inappropriate and that we are opposed to the revolving door continuing to revolve.

Michael Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Before coming to the Bill, it has to be said that all people want in life is that things are proper and above board and that people behave in a way that is right and lawful. There is a place in the world for lobbying. Of course there is. There is a place for lobbyists.

Different organisations are named here on the record of the Dáil. I will take as an example the CIF. I will say the polar opposite of what Deputies have just been listening to. The reason is that I believe in work and in people working. When I hear a person elected to the Dáil talking about the political elite, it strikes me that perhaps the person talking is a member of the political elite. Is he not elected, rightfully and gainfully? He came here with a democratic right to be here. Is he not a member of the political elite? Here he is condemning the political elite and talking about the other elite in society. Who are we talking about? We are talking about people that got educated, worked hard and studied. Whether they became a judge, barrister, solicitor, lawyer or county manager, are they the elite of Irish society? To me they are ordinary people who got up off their backsides. Their parents might have worked hard. They worked hard and studied hard. They were not dragging themselves around the place. They drove themselves on, worked, got jobs and progressed in Irish life, and more luck to them. Is there anything wrong in the world with that?

I want to come back to the CIF for fear that people in Ireland would think everyone in the Dáil is the same and that we pick on organisations that do good work. Some people come in here and seem to want to pick on groups like that but to me a group like that comprises respectable people representing a respectable industry, namely, the construction industry. There are developers in Ireland who are highly respectable and highly regarded people. There are people building houses and making homes for people with 50 years. I know of people who started with nothing, went to work on a building site on a bicycle and are now building houses with 50 years. People who are in their 70s, and thankfully they are still building homes.

One of them recently said this to me, and it hurt me badly when he said it because of how right he was. "Michael", he said, "isn't it awful? Long ago when I was building a scheme of houses, the one group of people that you were guaranteed would be able to get a mortgage and buy one of my homes were the Garda and the nurse and the person like that." He is always building affordable houses. He was not a fly-by-night who came along and went. He stood the test of time. He still employs people. I remind Deputies there is nothing wrong with employing people. There is nothing wrong with people who get up at 4 a.m. or 5 a.m. and create work. It is not all about being in here talking about how we should all be on a four-day week and go home, lie down and watch "Coronation Street" type of a thing. This man, who has been building houses with 50 years, said it was awful that, despite his best efforts, the Garda and nurse who want to buy a house find it is priced outside of their range. It is awful to think we are in that situation.

There is continuous talk in here about the developers, the elite and the this and that. For God's sake, what do we want? Is it to have nothing, no developers and nobody creating work? Who will build the houses? One of the most important things we had in Ireland in the past was the small builder. Every parish had a small builder who might build one or two houses per year and create a bit of local employment. Between themselves and subcontractors, they might have one or two permanent members of staff. If we take what some people are saying in here, it is as though there was something wrong with those people as well. Maybe some Teachtaí Dála would rather if everybody was drawing the dole or jobseeker's payments. Is that what people want?

There is talk of the awfulness of maximising profits. What about the shops and different businesses that are trying to keep their doors open? They are trying to keep the jobs they have created going and then they turn on the television or radio and hear Teachtaí Dála talking about maximising profits. These people are running a business. They are paying rates and insurance and trying to pay the electricity bill. They are trying to ensure their workers get holiday pay, to keep the doors open and to provide a service. What do they get for it? There are people standing up here talking about these awful people trying to make a profit. If they listened to some of the tripe that comes out of some people's mouths in here, they would ask what those people are doing in here. These people who are talking are the political elite they are talking about. I am sorry for going on about somebody who is raving but I have to answer it back because when you hear rubbish in the Dáil, sometimes you have to call it out for what it is. When it looks like rubbish, it is rubbish.

Lobbying is generally defined as any direct or indirect communication with public officials, decision makers or representatives for the purpose of influencing public decision-making and carried out on behalf of any organised group. This to me is an important job of work because sometimes we need people to talk up for smaller groups. That is why, for instance, across in Buswells Hotel and over in the audiovisual room today we had people - do Deputies want to call them lobbyists? - from the stuttering awareness group of Ireland. I listened intently to them for the last hour concerning how they have done so well in life and telling personal stories about themselves. They are here lobbying and want us to be aware of their plight. Is there anything wrong with that? Would we have some people on the left thinking that is some type of undue influence on us? This is what we are here for - to listen to people who are making their case.

They might be making their case on behalf of the farmers, the pharmacists, the doctors or the nurses. They might be making their case on behalf of a wide variety of different groups, such as the Society of the Irish Motor Industry. Our job is to listen to those people. This Bill comes at a time when public trust in government is at an all-time low. The practice of lobbying is widely associated with secrecy and unfair advantage. Why do people think that? They think it because they hear things like the speech we heard earlier highlighting it, trying to pour petrol on it and making it out to be something it is not. In the years I have been here, the lobbying I have seen has been what I would call highly respectable, sound and well thought-out. It has involved people coming here and making their points and their voices heard.

There have been cases where there must be a cooling-off period. If a person was a Minister or a politician, then of course there should be a cooling-off period. Unlike other speakers, I would turn it around. If a person has experience in a Department, maybe they would be a very good person to speak up for an organisation because they would know how to do it. I will mention as an example the way lobbying goes on in America. I would not be a fan of much of what happens there because it seems that big bucks are involved, but lobbying can be the only way that people can be heard and noticed by government there. Things have gone wrong in the past because people used their advantage unfairly but the majority of people are not like that. Retired politicians, county managers or senior engineers who worked with local authorities might have a great insight into what an organisation needs and might understand how they can best put forward their case. There is nothing wrong with that.

Lobbying is an integral part of a healthy democracy and is closely related to universal values such as freedom of speech and the right to petition government. It allows for various interest groups to present their views on public decisions that may come to affect them. It has the potential to enhance the quality of decision-making by providing channels for the input of expertise on increasingly technical issues to legislators and decision-makers. However, lobbying must be ethical and transparent. At its core, its objective must be to help policy development. That is very important. Over recent years, we have witnessed multiple scandals in Ireland and throughout Europe demonstrating that without clear and enforceable rules a select number of voices with better resources and contacts can come to dominate political decision-making. At the very least, this can skew individual decisions; and at worst, it can lead to a wide-scale institutional and state capture.

Unfair and opaque lobbying practices constitute one of the key corruption risks facing Ireland and Europe, according to Transparency International. Six out of ten European citizens consider their government to be seriously influenced or entirely co-opted by a few vested interests. Any serious effort to combat undue influence in politics must recognise that transparency measures must be accompanied by a broader measure to strengthen public integrity and to promote opportunities for access by a wide range of citizens to the political system. The overall results of various research on Irish legislation and protections around lobbying have given serious cause for concern and suggest that attempts to date to promote open and ethical lobbying standards by governments, political parties and lobbyists have been piecemeal and ineffective. In Ireland, much of the influence of lobbyists remains hidden and informal. That is why we have to ensure we do not allow the type of behaviour we saw in the banking sector to happen again. There was the whole scandal with the mortgages in the banks and what happened with Bank of Ireland and the way they mistreated their customers. We must ensure that type of situation is not allowed to happen again.

The measures in the new Bill have been accused of being technical rather than substantive by some commentators. The general feeling in the public seems to be that much further action is needed to restore public confidence in policy-making. That brings me back to the speeches that have been made here. If you listened to the speech that was made before mine, you would ask how in the name of God we could have any confidence whatsoever in policy-making. Again, we are not all full of negativity like others. The Bill provides for a cooling-off period of at least a year, and maybe longer, during which former Ministers, special advisers and senior officials will not be allowed to become lobbyists.

I welcome anything that will ensure two things: first, that wrong-doing will not happen; and second, that the lobbying I am used to, which involves people coming before us in the audiovisual room or in Buswells Hotel, will continue. The Irish Farmers Association, IFA, for example, comes up here once a year in advance of the budget to make its case, and rightfully so. Would some people like that to stop? Would some people like if such organisations could not highlight inadequacies in Government policy, thereby facilitating us to come in here and fight on their behalf? That would undermine democracy. We must be very careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. We want to make sure we will be voices for the people in an honest and straight way. When I do a clinic in Kerry on a Monday night, a young person or someone who is middle-aged or old might tell me that something is wrong. Then, on Tuesday, I can stand up here and bring a Minister, the Taoiseach or the Tánaiste to task by mentioning what was highlighted to me the previous night. Is that not democracy and what it is all about? If a sick child whose illness is not recognised by the HSE for funding is in trouble, is it not a great thing to be able to come before the Dáil to highlight that? That to me is real politics and real work. That is what it is all about.

I thank the Minister for listening. I will finish the way I started. Sometimes when you listen to what is said in this Chamber, it would make you think. That is all I can say.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am delighted to be able to comment on this Bill. I do not know if I have ever addressed the Minister, Deputy Michael McGrath, in this format discussing legislation. I wish him well as an Aire Rialtais and thank him for his co-operation and courtesy. Any time I contact him, or whenever anyone in my group does so, we get a reasonable response. That is very much appreciated by us and by all Members of the House. I wish him, agus a clann go léir, well.

This legislation is very important. I have been very critical. I have been in the Chair for the last while. I listened to the last two contributions and there was a diverse range of views. That is very important and that is why we are here. We are duly elected, thankfully, for the time being, to make our feelings known, but we need some reform. Like my colleague, I am a man who likes to get up in the morning and do a day's work. If it goes into the evening or the night, so be it. You get up the morning after, field out again and work hard. I must declare that I am self-employed, like the previous Deputy. Those types of people are very important to our country, especially now above all times when such huge pressures are coming on.

Like Deputy Michael Healy-Rae, I welcomed representatives of the stuttering association of Ireland here this morning.

It is a wonderful group that came to meet us today. So many groups make presentations in the audiovisual room. Yesterday, for instance, we met groups talking about maternity care, breastfeeding and forestry. A vast range of people come in to meet us. I do not call them lobbyists. They are just trying to improve people's lives hourly, daily, weekly, monthly and yearly. They are great people. Many of them are volunteers.

A member of the group we met today is a former town councillor from Templemore, Mr. Michael Ryan. The group's members are all volunteers and do not get a shilling from anyone. The work they have done in their year and a half must be noted. The group has gone Europe-wide, and it is going international on Saturday at 2 p.m. on Zoom. This is because stuttering is an impediment and has not been understood. I have a far better understanding of it from listening to the gentleman today in the audiovisual room. One member of the group was a teacher from the Minister's county who has been teaching for 25 or 30 years. It is a question of the quiet boy in the class. We now have so many special needs assistants because daoine óga are now diagnosed with different learning impediments. It is important that the representatives come here to meet us and that they have a forum for doing so. I thank the ushers, the secretariat and the other staff here for always facilitating them.

The groups that come here are diverse. Before this year's budget, they were all cut off the hook. It is natural for groups, whether they represent the motor industry, pharmacists or GPs, to approach us. As there are so many of them, we were running around nearly meeting them all together when the budget came early. I include the IFA and many others. Their job is to represent their members. We should remember that the salaries of their paid employees, if there are such employees, are paid for by their members, who pay their taxes, VAT and everything else. They provide valuable employment up and down the country, especially in rural areas. Therefore, we must not brand them all as vagabonds and people who try to twist people's arms. It is a democratic process that they are involved in, and they have a democratic right to meet elected members of all parties and none and explain their difficulties and issues, including with the tax code and the current restrictions. They have had a very tough time with Brexit and now with imports, exports and everything else.

Those of us with clinics meet people every day of the week. Deputy Michael Healy-Rae holds clinics in Kerry that go on until nearly midnight. It suits certain people to visit at certain times. That must never be taken away.

I would not like this Bill to have unintended consequences. I have been very strong recently on the unintended consequences of legislation. We have been passing Bills, especially in the past two years but also before that, that have a very punitive impact on the self-employed, on job creators and on those who run businesses, be they one-man or one-woman shows, enterprises with five, ten, 15 or 20 staff, the likes of Liebherr outside Killarney or the many industries in my area.

The Minister will know that due to the savage increases in the costs of electricity and gas, supermarkets, butchers' shops, hairdressers and others are lobbying us. I refer to every business that uses electricity. They just cannot cope with the prices. The Government has brought in the new temporary business energy support scheme, TBESS, which will help but will not cover all the costs. Unfortunately, many businesses will fall through the cracks. Have they no right, according to Teachtaí eile, to meet us to make their case and lobby? They have, of course. Therefore, we must make sure this legislation is robust.

Transparency International is obviously not happy with the proposed legislation, saying it is mainly technical. I missed the debate on the previous Bill we discussed because it ran so fast and I was at meetings. When I came into the House, I had intended to speak on it. I am very disappointed I did not get to do so. Will the Chair allow me-----

Cormac Devlin (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will give some latitude; it is Thursday.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is Thursday. Go raibh maith agat.

We have seen some quite successful court cases recently related to gang terrorism and everything else, and we have seen the latest developments concerning the witness protection programme associated with Dublin's gangland. Is there any chance that the Minister will pass on the idea of exploring similar arrangements regarding the murder in 1996 of Sophie Toscan du Plantier? The matter has been going on for so long that it is embarrassing to our country. It is important that it be explored. I wanted to say that today because it is important. I thank the Chair for his latitude.

We will deal with this Bill through amendments if a majority in my group agrees. We have different opinions about the revolving door. Before I ever became a Member of this House, I saw senior public officials who retired very young getting good jobs somewhere else two days later. They have the inside track. The Minister proposes a cooling-off period of one year but I believe it should be three to five years. One year is too short and gives an unfair edge in respect of information. That is why the individuals are headhunted.

A big business, unlike an ordinary, small business, a gnó beag, will have the resources to take on individuals – we call them lobbyists but they are not lobbyists as such – who know their way around. We have to be very careful when we talk about former Members not being allowed access to the car park. Some of us cannot cycle from Tipperary to Dublin. There is no train within 30 miles of me. I often got a spin from the Minister and others, which I appreciate because I have difficulty at the moment with mo shúile. I was delighted to bump into former Senator Donie Cassidy here two weeks ago and to have some good banter with him. He gave long service here, as did many others. I just mention Mr. Cassidy because he is the former Member I met most recently. If some current Members had their way, they would lock the gates against such people and tell them to keep out, go home or go away and hide. We must respect the people who went before us. Respect and compassion are very important across society, especially in this day and age. Mr. Cassidy gave sterling service not only to his party but also to his people and the House. He was a great man and very entertaining. He and his family have provided much employment, and they still do. I was delighted to meet him and to learn something from him. It is great to meet a former or retired colleague – I nearly said a fallen hero – who comes in to meet us. It is very important and there should be no hang-ups about it. Mr. Cassidy drove here in the car. He drives a good car. He always has a bit of style and panache. He is welcome. Cuirim fíor-fáilte roimh daoine mar sin i gcónaí.

This is difficult legislation but it is somewhat feeble. Transparency International and such groups are not happy with it. That is the aspect I would be worried about. The Minister will have heard me refer in other contributions to big conglomerates. They do not need lobbyists because they are so powerful. We cannot rein them in. We see this now with the price gouging in the electricity and gas markets. We in the Rural Independent Group are adamant and we are striving very hard to have us use our natural resources. We have met people who want to get Barryroe oil in. The individuals cannot be called lobbyists because they are investors in our country. They want to see what resources we have. They know that there is a certain amount and that there could be a lot more. They would bring the oil ashore and it would not cost the Irish taxpayer aon phingin amháin, not a single penny, or, in today's money, not a single cent. Despite, this, they are branded as aliens. Parts of my county were out of power last night, admittedly due to the storm. When people face power outages, they invest in generators. They are worried about keeping their businesses going. The same applies to gas.

When I, as an elected representative, have asked the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications, Deputy Eamon Ryan, to clarify whether he intends, as per a memo on his desk, to put ready-mixed concrete into the gas line off Kinsale, which, although folamh or empty, has served the country well, he has refused to answer. I have asked his Minister of State also. This should not be allowed to happen because we have people who could bring gas to Ireland and store it in floating terminals.

That will not happen until we get into the real world. We saw that one of our renewables got hit with lightning last night and there was smoke billowing off it. They are vulnerable too. We are all vulnerable, as are systems and services. I am just saying that we must talk to the people who are willing to invest and keep the lights on for us here. I accept we are in a transition period, but we are very slow about it. We are doing it, and we all want to go there, but we do not want to cut our nose to spite our face. It is the same with this legislation. We are not walking on eggshells, but we want to ensure it is sufficiently robust to deal with serious lobbying that is not welcome and for ordinary people to be heard because a lot of the time they are not being heard, and they feel they are not being heard or represented. It is a very thin line to tread in order to get it right. We will be assessing and studying the legislation and trying to bring forward amendments, but we usually get caught with amendments that are considered to be a cost to the State. There should not be any cost in this regard because there is not a significant cost involved; it is more the case of introducing and observing good practices.

Who is going to regulate the legislation when it is passed? How is it going to be regulated? SIPO is totally overburdened at present, so it does not have the resources. We have seen recently that it does not have the powers either to deal with issues at present. I do not know if the Minister is going to give it more powers and resources. Tá an clog imithe. Níl a fhios agam-----

Cormac Devlin (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There are six minutes left.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I was not sure, as the clock went off. I hope the lights are not going.

Michael Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The power is gone.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I hope the power is not going.

Cormac Devlin (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is a Thursday as well.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Perhaps it is being spared.

Cormac Devlin (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is the leak.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It used to be WikiLeaks. SIPO needs to be given more power. It has power to regulate. As Members of the House, we make returns to it, as do councillors and public representatives. In fairness to SIPO, I have met it with my group and it has given us advice and a better understanding. I do not know how many years it is in place, but it did not exist when I was first elected. It is important to meet with SIPO, which it is willing to do. I thank the officials from SIPO for coming in, meeting with us and explaining its role and remit and legislation it is implementing which we were not sure about. We had to make sure of that. It is necessary to have the resources to police the system.

I wish the Minister and the Department well with the Bill. I hope that groups such as Transparency International are listening. I know they are not elected to any parliament, but we must listen to them as well. We should consult widely and try to put the legislation in place. I will not mention any names, but others did. Reference was made to former Members of the House going from Departments to lobbying roles pretty much immediately. That is anathema to me. As far as I am concerned it should be a minimum of at least three year as a bottom line but five years would be preferable. I wish the Minister well with the Bill. Go n-éirí go geal leis.

Michael McGrath (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank all the Deputies for their contributions during the Second Stage debate. Many interesting points were made by colleagues from across the House. Broadly speaking, there is good support for the Bill, but some colleagues want to go further and will table amendments, which is what the legislative process is all about. As is always the case, I will give very careful consideration to any constructive amendments that are tabled by colleagues.

I thank everyone for their contributions. There was broad agreement that interaction between the political system and the public provides us as political representatives with valuable insights, information and policy perspectives which are critical to good governance given the complexity of the challenges facing public policy makers and the wider impact of Government decisions and decisions of this House on all aspects of the economic and social system in the country. The reasons for regulating lobbying in Ireland are all grounded in the principal necessity of enhancing transparency around this interaction. There was agreement among colleagues across the House of the need for that transparency to be enhanced. Furthermore, this transparency is a critical driver of trust in the Government, and of trust in the political system as well. The main goal, therefore, in establishing a register of lobbying back in 2015 was to make information easily available to the public on the identity of those seeking to influence public policy decisions, as well as to provide a framework for holding those engaged in lobbying accountable for the manner in which they conduct the activity. As has been said a number of times in this debate, there is nothing inherently wrong with lobbying, but it is important that we know who is lobbying, who is being lobbied and what the intention of it is. All of that must be available in the public domain so that it can be weighed up and considered in light of all of those facts.

Currently, there are more than 2,400 organisations and individuals registered on the lobbying register in Ireland and almost 71,000 returns are available for viewing online. By any yardstick, that is a well-developed system that has served us well, notwithstanding the limitations and the need to improve further on it. The specific purposes of the proposed amendments being brought forward in the Bill to the 2015 Act are to improve the operation and functionality of the register and to strengthen the existing legislation and its enforcement. My objective is to build on the existing effective online system, which is open to all to see who is lobbying who about what and to make it easy to comply with the obligations under the legislation and to promote compliance by ensuring proportionate sanctions are in place where obligations are not met.

I will briefly touch on a few of the points that have been made by colleagues. The cooling-off period has been raised on a number of occasions. I have no doubt it will be the subject of extensive discussion and debate on Committee Stage and Report Stage. In the existing legislation, the cooling off period is 12 months and I do not propose to change that. My view and that of the Government is that the current one-year cooling-off period is a proportionate policy response, balancing the constitutional right to earn a livelihood with managing conflicts of interest, or perceived conflicts of interest, of those leaving public sector roles and taking knowledge and expertise from those roles into the private sector. We must also be conscious that the terms of a cooling-off period may well have the impact of influencing whether people can take up roles in public life or in the wider public service. That is an issue to which we must give consideration. I did not hear any colleague suggest that if we increase it to three years or five years that we would pay people who leave a public service role or political life for the duration because I do not think that would be acceptable to the general public, nor should it be.

I also wish to draw the House's attention to the fact that while I do not propose to increase the cooling-off period, the introduction in the Bill of the new regime for the imposition of administrative sanctions on former relevant designated public officials who breach the provisions relating to restrictions on post-term employment as a lobbyist will allow for a major sanction to be imposed of a prohibition from lobbying for up to two years where the commission determines it is required. That is a major departure from the existing practice. At the moment, there is no sanction for anybody who breaches section 22. We are introducing a significant sanction now that I think will have an impact.

I will touch on the question of why the sanction is civil and administrative rather than criminal. This is something to which we gave careful consideration. Again, I know it will be the subject of discussion on Committee Stage. Based on the Department's analysis, the legal advice received and the consideration of international good practice, the policy recommendation that I accepted was that criminal sanctions represented a disproportionate policy response. In line with the advice of the Office of the Attorney General, administrative and civil sanctions were explored and developed. The civil and administrative sanction regime is considered to be an effective and proportionate policy response to what appears to be a relatively low risk of breaching the post-term employment restrictions set out in section 22. Notwithstanding, where breaches occur, however infrequent, they can have a disproportionate impact in undermining public trust. My officials will engage with SIPO on the appropriate resourcing to support this new requirement. It is important to make the point that where civil and administrative sanctions are imposed on an individual for breach of the cooling-off provisions, that will be a matter that will be put into the public domain because, as has been stated, SIPO will go to the Circuit Court, in line with the Zalewski judgment to ensure that it is underpinned with legal certainty.

Therefore, that is an issue that will come into the public domain. I think that, by any measure, that is a significant penalty for any individual in the real world that would directly impact on his or her employability by any other potential employer, if we are to be honest about it.

A few other points regarding the strength of the sanctions and the regime we are putting in place are relevant to this debate. Apart from Ireland, only three EU member states, France, Lithuania and Slovenia, have introduced a cooling-off period in their domestic legislation to restrict the activities that can be performed for a specific period by certain public officials on foot of leaving office. Four other EU member states have introduced cooling-off rules, although not in national law. While Ireland is the only common law jurisdiction in the EU, other member states have nevertheless introduced legal frameworks governing lobbying that include the possibility of administrative fines and lobbying prohibitions being imposed. Such fines and prohibitions, however, do not apply to breaches of cooling-off periods - Ireland is the only member state of the European Union that is placing this obligation on a statutory footing - but instead relate to non-compliance with laws on mandatory registration or the requirement to make lobbying returns. Where other countries are imposing sanctions, it is in the case of non-compliance with the requirement to register and to make lobbying returns. In Ireland, we are going further and putting into law that a breach of the section 22 provisions on the cooling-off period will be the subject of civil and administrative sanctions up to €25,000 and a prohibition on lobbying for a period of up to two years.

Regarding section 22 applications that have been received by SIPO in recent years, it is relevant that we have all the facts and can understand the context of the changes we are imposing. Since the Act commenced in 2015, up to last year, SIPO had received 22 applications for consent under the Act, that is, to have the cooling-off period set aside or waived. There were two applications in 2016, one by a special adviser and the other by an official in a local authority; five in 2017, comprising three by special advisers, one by a senior civil servant and the other by an official in a Department; two in 2018, both from special advisers; two in 2019, both from special advisers; eight in 2020, all from special advisers; and five last year, all from special advisers. There have been three appeals of decisions of the commission under section 22 and all three decisions by the commission to refuse consent were upheld by the appeals officer. There were no instances where the appeals officer's decision regarding section 22 applications was subsequently appealed to the High Court. That information will be of interest and is relevant to the debate we will have over the coming weeks.

A number of colleagues raised issues with access to this House by former Members. It is not for this legislation to determine who can or cannot access this House; those rights to access this House have been clearly established. Nevertheless, where an act of lobbying occurs, that act is the subject of a return irrespective of where it occurred. I agree with the view that has been expressed that lobbying by former Members should not take place here - there are plenty of other places where it can take place - but it is a matter for the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission to determine rules of access to this House and of the activity conducted while those persons are in attendance here. It is not a matter for this legislation but I have put my view on record that lobbying by former Members should not take place within Leinster House. That is my view as Minister and I am happy to put it on the record of the House.

I very much look forward to Committee Stage, to be taken by the Select Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform, and Taoiseach, and I have no doubt a series of amendments will be tabled, all of which I will consider carefully. I have put a good deal of information in the public domain and on the record of the House. As I said earlier, my officials are available to provide expert advice and analysis to colleagues throughout the House in respect of the provisions of the Bill. We would like to see it enacted over the coming weeks and I will play my part to make sure there are good Committee and Report Stages on which we will consider all the issues carefully.