Michael McDowell (Independent) | Oireachtas source

The purpose of this amendment is to deal with a situation I have found perplexing on occasion. We are lobbied by groups, which are largely funded by the Exchequer, to make changes in Acts or do various things.I will provide an example. When it came to the Public Health (Alcohol) Act 2018, an alcohol awareness group largely funded by the Exchequer lobbied us extensively in respect of that legislation but there was a sort of counter-movement among some Members of the House that it was somehow wrong that the drinks industry was lobbying intensively. It occurred to me that there are State-sponsored lobbyists that ask us to do things relating to Government or other legislation that comes before the House and nobody criticises them, and there are also interest groups. Both of those sets have equal rights to make submissions on legislation. It was when I was considering recently that legislation, some of the provisions of which are very strange indeed, such as the labelling of drinks and bottles and all the rest of it with cancer warnings in English and Irish and the associated difficulties that will cause for cross-Border and inter-community trade, that there was intense traffic coming from alcohol awareness groups suggesting this was a worthwhile thing to do, while, on the other hand, anybody who pointed out the difficulties with the legislation was accused of being a lobbyist for the drinks industry, as if that was a bad thing.

The purpose of the amendment is to insert a new section 10A into the principal Act to provide:

Where a person, whether a natural person, a body corporate or an unincorporated body of persons, is registered in accordance with the terms of [the Regulation of Lobbying Act] and is in receipt of funding from a state source or sources to the extent of at least 50 per cent of its income in any year or from a non-state source which is a person to the extent of at least 50 per cent of its income in any year, the amount of such funding shall be stated on the register together with the identity of any such sources

What the amendment is driving at is that if a registered lobbyist makes contact with Members of this House, the Member will usually ask the lobbyist for whom it is acting.If it is a group which is effectively funded by the taxpayer, however - I am not only concerned with taxpayer-funded institutions – or an individual with a front organisation that is a registered lobbyist and is paying more than half of its income every year, that should be known. The amount of money an individual is giving to a lobbying body that is registered should be clear to anybody who looks at the register of lobbyists. If it is Exchequer funding, that should be stated, as should the amount of money that comes from any State source.

I will give an example. I am not trying to be argumentative or controversial. The Transgender Equality Network Ireland, TENI, is a group that is concerned with transgender matters. I do not know who funds it but I have a funny feeling it is largely funded by the Exchequer. When a group such as that writes to Members and all the rest of it, we are entitled to ask who is paying for this campaign or whatever to get us to change the law or to adopt one section or definition in a Bill or whatever. The amendment is designed to bring about a level of transparency in respect of lobbyists that are, in effect, receiving large amounts of money from the taxpayer or whoever else. I do not care who it is; it could be George Soros or any of the usual gallery of people who excite criticism. Any body that registers as a lobbyist should be transparent in respect of who is paying for it. That is the purpose of the amendment.

I doubt the Government will accept the amendment but, in a sense, this is a protest against non-transparent lobbying of Members of the Oireachtas by groups that are financed by Departments and Government agencies in circumstances where the agenda and the cost of the lobbying is being borne by the taxpayer. That is the purpose of the amendment. I will not delay the House much longer, but this is something in which I strongly believe. We need transparency regarding who lobbyists actually are. We cannot have a situation where a body that appears or claims to be the national this or that just says it is a lobbyist on the issue and fails to answer questions on who is paying for all this. If we are going to control lobbying, which should be done because it is necessary to have transparency in respect of how the political process and the activities of the Executive and the Legislature are influenced by lobbying, there should be this extra layer of transparency that requires those who are lobbying and paid for by others significantly to say so.

To go back to the example of the drinks industry, the amendment would not apply because it is what it appears to be and you know what it is when it comes at you. No individual drinks company would be paying half of the lobbying costs in those cases. There are, however, bodies that lobby on social, commercial and political issues but are opaque regarding who is footing the bill for the lobbying. The people who are lobbied are entitled not just to inquire if they are curious, but to know from the very get-go who is behind a lobbying organisation which, on its face, is non-transparent as to its title or from where its money is coming.