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

I thank Senators for their input into this debate. Senator Maria Byrne spoke first and I thank her for welcoming the Bill. She underlined the importance of having different perspectives, but also the importance of having clarity around definitions, what constitutes lobbying and what one can and cannot do. As she said, it is important we appreciate we are not making laws in isolation from the real world. People are coming in to us from groups, whether public or private, and lobbying us. It is also important people can see who is doing that, when they are doing it and how they are doing it.

Senator Boyhan requested a technical briefing, as I offered it, and we are happy to provide that. He is looking for more details on what the rationale was for not accepting the pre-legislative scrutiny recommendations.

Senator McGreehan noted the need for updating and the increase in transparency and accountability that will be brought about as a result of this Bill.

Senator Martin noted the role of lobbying in a democratic system does not have to be entirely negative. On Committee Stage, he wants to discuss the review period changing from three years to five, which Senator Gavan also mentioned. Senator Martin said he believed any sanctions that come out of this Bill should be in accordance with the principles of natural justice, and I absolutely agree. He asked that, on Committee Stage, we also discuss administrative sanctions versus criminal offences, penalties for anti-avoidance provisions, and whether both of those should be imposed at the same time. He referred to case law of cases in which he was involved. All major sanctions imposed by SIPO at present must be confirmed by the Circuit Court.

Senator Gavan offered a partial welcome to the Bill and outlined problems that occurred in the past in lobbying in Ireland. He also asked that we move to a shorter review period rather than going from three years to five years. We found in practice that it can take a year to carry out the review, so we were in effect down to the Bill operating for two years before we move back into review.Senator Martin says it should be something that we can revise whenever we want, and it is. For example, we had a review in 2019 and we then had another review in 2020, so that is possible too.

Senator Gavan is concerned that the Bill does not go as far as implementing all of SIPO's recommendations to make breaches of section 22 a criminal offence with criminal sanctions, rather than civil and administrative sanctions. I will give some rationale for that. Based on the Department's analysis, legal advice received and in 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 sanctions 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, which are set out in section 22. However, where breaches do occur, however infrequent, they can have a disproportionate impact in undermining public trust. My understanding is that SIPO's preference for criminal sanctions was not a policy choice but an administrative one. It is SIPO's view that it would be administratively simpler to have a criminal sanction regime for all offences. However, as I have set out, in the case of sanctions for contraventions of section 22, this is not an appropriate policy response. My officials will engage with SIPO on the appropriate resourcing to support SIPO in implementing this new requirement.

There was also a question about what type of penalties exist in other jurisdictions for those who breach lobbying laws. We did look at that. In comparison with other jurisdictions, Ireland is a leader in the regulation of lobbying activities, in particular in the realm of providing for a cooling-off period. Canada, for example, is one of the other few common law jurisdictions that has introduced a statutory regime for lobbying, including provisions relating to the imposition of administrative fines and prohibitions on lobbying. The UK has introduced lobbying legislation, but this has a narrow application, as it only encompasses consultant lobbyists engaging with Ministers and permanent secretaries. Australia's lobbying regime operates on a non-statutory basis.

Some of us will remember the introduction of the Regulation of Lobbying Act 2015, which we are amending. It was very positive legislation, which meant that if, for example, somebody who wanted to see land rezoned came to me as a councillor, as I was a designated public official, that request would have to be published. There is a good reason to rezone land if housing is needed, and it is a bad reason if somebody is trying to make money. The added transparency helped to ensure confidence in the system. Those rules were probably introduced as a result of the planning tribunal.

Interaction between the political system and the public provides political representatives with valuable insights, information and policy perspectives, which are vital to good governance. This is especially important given the complexity of the challenges facing public policymakers and the wider impact decisions of the Government have on all aspects of the economic and social system. The reasons for regulating lobbying in Ireland are all grounded in the need to enhance transparency around this interaction. This transparency, furthermore, is an important determinant of trust in government. 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 providing a framework for holding those engaged in lobbying accountable for the manner in which they conduct the activity. I believe this goal has been achieved. There are approximately 2,500 organisations and individuals who are now registered on the lobbying register, and nearly 75,000 returns are freely available for viewing and scrutiny by the public.

This Bill brings in eight major changes. It extends the time period between statutory reviews from three to five years. This is to allow for the impact of any policy or legislative changes to become clear. Second, it brings certain business groupings with no employees within the scope of the Act, and it requires that members of such groups be named on lobbying returns to ensure that the groups do not avoid the requirement to register. Third, it extends the Act's scope to include non-remunerated officeholders, so as to capture all relevant lobbying activity. It then provides for an exemption from registration requirements for communications made by political parties to their members, who are designated public officials, DPOs, only in their capacity as members of a party. It is important that a political party can speak to its own members, that is, to its own Deputies, Senators and councillors without that being considered to be lobbying, which would not make any sense.

Fifth, it introduces legislative provisions to improve the operation of the online lobbying register. Then it introduces a new relevant contravention in the Act, covering the taking of any action by a person that has the intended purpose of avoiding the obligations to either register or submit lobbying returns to the commission. This is to avoid loopholes or people trying to work around the Act. It amends the Act to make failure to comply with the cooling-off provisions of section 22 a relevant contravention under the Act and a system of administrative sanctions operated by the commission will be introduced in this regard. This system will involve minor or major sanctions and the sanctions proposed include a caution or reprimand, a monetary penalty of €25,000, and a prohibition from lobbying for up to two years. We will also set out clear timelines in the Act for the processing of section 22 applications made to the commission by former relevant DPOs.

I thank all Senators for their insightful contributions. There is more discussion to come on Committee Stage. I welcome amendments. I look forward to hearing from Senators.