Patricia Stephenson (Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

Last week, The Ditch reported that an Irish academic had a connection to a lobbyist group for the defence industry. The lobbying group in question, The Irish Defence and Security Association, represents international arms manufacturers, including Lockheed Martin, Saab and KNDS. It regularly appears in the lobbying register meeting with the Department of Defence, including most recently last December. While the academic is involved in this lobbying group, that individual also appears regularly in the media advocating for ending our neutrality. However, this connection to the lobbying group is rarely mentioned as part of the person's media contributions.

As many people in this room will know, I disagree with the stance on neutrality, but it is legitimate to put forward the argument that we should end our neutrality. It is not one that I favour, but there is room for debate. What is concerning is that, when the public hear this advocacy, they may not be aware that the viewpoint coming from this individual is not entirely academic. Given the person's connections to a lobbying group that represents defence companies, the end of neutrality or any significant increase in defence spending entails a conflict of interest and I believe that needs to be declared. Transparency in the public sphere is essential for our democracy, democratic principles and ensuring that citizens are well informed about the influences shaping national politics and discourse. I firmly believe that the failure to disclose these links publicly significantly undermines, within public discourse, the idea of transparency and open discourse. How can we trust what commentators are contributing to the public debate if we do not know what their links are to various companies and lobbying groups? We live in a time of mistrust in the public and political spheres with how we see misinformation and disinformation in the online space. People do not know what is and is not true. That is why this element of transparency and openness are so important for us to maintain. This is not just an issue for individuals but for media organisations more generally. If commentators have loyalties and links, whether to lobbying groups, industries or political parties, those should be declared. The public should not be in the dark about that.

These revelations in The Ditch have sparked a debate about transparency and governmental interactions with the arms manufacturers. The convergence of academic, governmental and industrial interests necessitates greater transparency in policy discussions affecting national neutrality. While private engagements can facilitate informed policymaking, it is the public's right to be informed about those influences and how they are shaping defence and foreign policy interests. I would welcome a debate on the issue of transparency and lobbying in public commentary. I do not believe we can build public trust in public discourse without this transparency.