Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 1 has been ruled out of order.

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

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 6, between lines 11 and 12, to insert the following: “(b) in subsection (4), the insertion of the following paragraph after paragraph (a):

“(aa) where any of the communications concerned were made on behalf of a client, details of payments received or fees charged,”,”.

First, there are issues about Members who want to contribute to a debate and contribute to legislation and who may not be a member of the relevant committee. This is especially the case for those of us who represent small parties, when it is not possible to attend a committee meeting. I will pursue this further. I raised a number of issues of concern on Second Stage but I did not have the opportunity to attend Committee Stage. I want to pursue those issues by way of Report Stage amendments. There is a problem when we are precluded from doing that. I tabled five amendments, although three of them were ruled out of order, two on the basis that they did not arise on Committee Stage. I understand that at least one of them arose on Committee Stage, but it was raised by another Member. That is a problem. The other amendment related to the usual issue of a charge on the Exchequer.

On amendment No. 2, I am concerned about how lobbying operates so much in the shadows and how there is such a lack of transparency about how it operates, particularly in a small country. I have spoken previously on this and tabled an amendment today about the issue of former Members of the House, in particular former Ministers, who have good connections in the House, having free reign within the Oireachtas complex and, therefore, having free access to Ministers and members of the Government. Indeed, that access can be around the corridors, in the restaurant or in the bar. That whole area is not adequately regulated. It exposes us to a huge potential for charges that business is not being done properly. There is no doubt that is the case.

I referenced an experience I had where a Bill was going through the House late one night. People were going in and out of the bar and were waiting for amendments to be taken. A former Member of the House, who was a lobbyist in relation to that particular Bill, was getting drinks, having pints with people and that kind of thing. Really, that should not be acceptable. It is regrettable that the Minister for Finance did not take that issue on. I will have to pursue it through other means, and potentially through the Ceann Comhairle. It is a huge gap in the regulation.

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

Is that amendment out of order?

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

That particular one was ruled out of order. However, I am speaking especially to amendment No. 2. I am proposing in amendment No. 2 that there would be a further amendment to section 12 of the principal Act. A requirement should be contained in the legislation, especially where a lobbyist is operating in the political arena, to declare fees that are earned or payments that are made. I raise the issue of former members of this House because of the whole grey area that surrounds that. If lobbyists were required to provide the details of fees or payments they receive at least, it would create a greater awareness of the potential for conflict of interest or inappropriate access by former Members. That is why I am bringing that issue in. Anybody who is involved in lobbying should be required to provide full disclosure of fees that are paid or payments that are made.

If we are serious about transparency in this area, the Minister will support the amendment. Of course, this matter was also raised during pre-legislative scrutiny by Transparency International Ireland but, regrettably, it was not taken on board by the Minister. Will he give serious consideration to amending the Bill in the name of full clarity and openness in order that we will know who is receiving fees or payments for the work they are doing?

Mairead Farrell (Galway West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Shortall's amendment is a positive one, and I take on board what she said about smaller parties having the ability to engage. That is a valid point. If she pursues it, I will follow that with interest. The amendment, which will require the gathering of more information with regard to details of payments received or fees charged, could be very helpful and it would be interesting to be able to look at it from a departmental point of view and see whether, within certain Departments or in regard to particular legislation, there was a specific interest in the fees charged. That can only assist with democracy and with looking at the types of lobbying that are conducted. Of course, that is something to which we are looking to keep a closer eye through the passage of the Bill. It is welcome that we are again dealing with this issue, given we looked at it in great detail on Committee Stage with the Minister. It is also a topic to which a Bill I brought forward relates.

Deputy Shortall’s other point on the lobbying that can be done by former Members is valid. It is a matter we discussed in committee. It was covered in my Bill, and the pre-legislative scrutiny report produced by our committee indicated it should be considered. It was agreed that where former Members are engaging in lobbying activity, we should look at that access issue. We have been debating it since the beginning of our discussions with a view to strengthening the Bill, and it is very important. I have written to the Ceann Comhairle about the matter and will follow up on it with him. It is unfortunate that amendment No. 1 could not be moved, but when it comes to lobbying and access, we need to examine carefully the fact former Members have a different type of access from that of other people and whether that constitutes fair situation. I would argue that is not the case and that, in the context of lobbying, we need to be as transparent and clear as possible and ensure it will be in line with the provisions of the Bill.

There is a great deal of merit to the amendment. Having more information on the details of payments and fees charged can only be of benefit for lobbying and democracy itself. I will support the amendment.