Eugene Murphy (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

By agreeing to the motion to recommit, the House allows a Committee Stage-style discussion on amendments Nos. 1 and 2, and amendments Nos. 7 to 9, inclusive. Members may speak more than once on each amendment, about which they are all delighted. In respect of other amendments, Senators may speak only once on Report Stage, except the proposer of an amendment, who may reply to the discussion on the amendment. Amendments Nos. 1 and 2, and amendments Nos. 7 to 9, inclusive, are related, and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Jennifer Carroll MacNeill (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 8 are technical amendments, which amend the Long and Short Titles of the Bill and references in the Bill, and allow the new provision amending section 3 of the Oireachtas (Allowances To Members) and Ministerial and Parliamentary Offices (Amendment) Act 1992, which I referenced on Committee Stage. Amendment No. 1 amends the Long Title of the Bill to reflect the widening scope of the Bill. Amendment No. 2 changes the reference to the Short Title of the Bill to reflect these changes. Amendment No. 8 changes the Short Title of the Bill to reflect the widening of the scope of the Bill.

Michael McDowell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I propose the Minister of State explain to us the effect of amendment No. 7. Who is going to get lump sums and payments, and why, and in what circumstance?

Jennifer Carroll MacNeill (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The purpose is that the Oireachtas one-stop shop made a proposal to allow all Members of the Oireachtas to receive up to 50% of approved security costs, or a maximum of €5,000, whichever is less. This is for a security requirements allowance. We need to make a technical amendment to the legislation because at the moment the Minister's power is limited to making payments which are either in full settlement, recurring in nature or both. This is different. This is in partial settlement and is a once-off expense. That is the need for the technical amendment to the legislation. The security requirement brought forward by the Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform, Deputy Donohoe, is for a new security requirement allowance to Members of the House of the Oireachtas. This follows a number of incidents involving Members of the House of the Oireachtas and increased security risk.

Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome these proposals. There has been much discussion at the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission, which is a cross-party and independent body acting on behalf of both Houses of the Oireachtas. There was some discussion on the role of the Members of this House because we do not have allowances towards constituency offices yet. Many of us have offices and staff, who are at the front line where incidents occur. The security measures are partly for the Member and partly for the staff. I welcome the initiative and the fact this is to be put in legislative format as proposed in this Bill.

Michael McDowell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I want confirmation of the reason the Title of the Bill is being amended, because this set of provisions is not quite germane to lobbying. When I looked at the Order Paper, I was trying to work out how it all fit together. It is a different carriage in the legislative train. It is nothing to do with the registration of lobbyists.

Eugene Murphy (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will hold the Minister of State for a moment as I want to extend a céad míle fáilte to the Wicklow Town active retirement group. Senator Casey is a Wicklow man. We also have Newtown National School. Tá fáilte roimhe go léir. I hope they have a wonderful day and I thank them for coming to Seanad Éireann.

Jennifer Carroll MacNeill (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator McDowell is quite right. I have long-standing views about amending legislation in this way. It makes it difficult to read.

Michael McDowell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I did a bit of it in my own time.

Jennifer Carroll MacNeill (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It happens from time to time as a matter of expediency. This is one of those mechanisms. There is a view that to make the technical change to allow the Minister discharge the allowance both on a partial and full non-recurring basis, a technical change is needed to the governing Act. The statutory instrument has been made and there were previous statutory instruments made in this way going back to 2010 with respect to constituency offices. However, the view has been taken that we will use this legislative opportunity to make the change to the underwriting Act. That is the basis for it.

Michael McDowell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 5, between lines 23 and 24, to insert the following: “Insertion of section 10A into Principal Act

7.The Principal Act is amended by the insertion of the following section after section 10:

“Transparency relating to the finances of lobbying bodies

10A.(1) Where a person, whether a natural person, a body corporate or an unincorporated body of persons, is registered in accordance with the terms of this 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.

(2) In this section, ‘state source’ includes all bodies or departments of State in receipt of Exchequer funding and includes funding by the European Union or any other state or territory.”.”.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I second the amendment.

Michael McDowell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | 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.

Lynn Boylan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will speak briefly in favour of the amendment. I agree that we need greater transparency. The amendment is relevant in the context of my amendments relating to fossil fuel lobbyists. The Irish Academy of Engineering lists itself as a non-profit organisation harnessing the expertise of engineers and providing independent advice to policymakers and industry, yet it has repeatedly appeared on the airwaves, including on RTÉ, and has specialist committees. It comments frequently on energy security on this island and often takes a position that is pro-fossil fuel and the continuation of fossil fuel, particularly in the context of the liquified natural gas, LNG, terminal, yet one cannot get an answer when one asks who is funding it, from where is its money coming and whether it is coming from industry. Although I only have an interest in energy policy, the specialist committees with sectoral interests in other areas similarly will not give that information when asked. This is important because these organisations regularly appear on the lobby register and the airwaves but they very much seem to have a fossil fuel agenda.

Jennifer Carroll MacNeill (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Before dealing with the amendment, I will speak to the broad principle behind what the Senator is suggesting. I take the view that everybody needs to be transparent in respect of their funding. Whether it is a lobbying group, a political party or any other body engaged in a political process or policy-making process, there should be utter transparency in respect of all its sources of income, domestic or international. That applies to everybody in the policy-making space, including political parties. The strength of the policy-making process in Ireland comes from freedom of expression for all. It works best when there is respect for the fact that every person or body corporate has the right to freedom of expression, as well as respect for civil liberties and access to democracy and policy making. All of the organisations should be clear about their funding sources in every context. This goes beyond lobbying and to the question of those entities engaged in lobbying processes that also provide services on behalf of the State. A number of organisations deliver services in a range of different contexts, whether disability matters or housing. They are partners with the State. They deliver services funded by the State and at the same time lobby the Government for changes in policy, as they are entitled to do. There should, however, always be a measure of clarity in their accounts as to the proportion of funds they spend that have come from State sources because people are entitled to know that the State is delivering services, albeit occasionally through partners, and a number of different organisations could come to mind in that context. There is a major question around transparency in political activity of various kinds. It is, however, broader than this Bill because, as I said, it has a service delivery piece and a political piece. In anticipation of this debate, I asked my officials in the Department of Finance to liaise with colleagues in the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform to look at that in a more comprehensive way. I might come back to Senator McDowell on that.

Where I have a concern with this specific amendment is that, while I appreciate what the Senator says about 50% being from one source, I think that is drawn too narrowly from a technical perspective because that would be too easy to circumvent if one were trying to create a body and distribute the funds from a broader group of people. Particularly on some of the State side, there are so many different sources of funding that in order to be clear and to set that out in audited accounts, not just expenditure but also sources of funding, the funding may be directly from Departments, it may be from Pobal or it may be from a whole range of different entities. Similarly, on the private or commercial side or on the advocacy side, where there is no funding by the State, there is the proportion of funders domestically and internationally and the sources thereof. The 50% piece therefore does not help deliver the scale of transparency the Senator might like, but I am very much supportive of the principle of it.

More broadly, as regards Ireland's position, we have a very good lobbying register relative to our European counterparts. We are one of the seven member states that has this on a statutory basis. We are continually looking at trying to improve and clarify that. While I cannot accept the Senator's amendment directly, I am very interested in the subject more broadly and how we might come back to it in the context of transparency, not just on lobbying but also on political funding and the delivery of services in partnership with the State.

Michael McDowell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State for her positive remarks about the background motivation to the amendment.

A number of things occur to me. Senator Boylan referred to the Irish Academy of Engineering and she thinks it is pro-fossil fuel. I have a slightly different view. I think it sometimes tries to persuade people to be realistic, that we could have a crisis on our hands if we do not have some reserve of fossil fuel to keep us going. I take the academy as saying that. If, however, the Irish Academy of Engineering were being funded by, for instance, a multinational oil exploration company or something of that kind to a significant degree, which I do not believe is the case, it would be useful if that were publicly known. Likewise, sometimes on social issues, to go back to the example I chose of TENI, it is fairly tough in the language it uses and accuses people of being transphobes and the like. If this is Exchequer-funded language being used in a political context, somebody who listens to RTÉ is entitled to know that the representative of that body is in fact lobbying the Government or the Oireachtas to change something using public funds and that it is not simply an NGO which is wholly independent of the State.

I agree with the Minister of State that perhaps it is a wider issue. It seems to me that, since all the tribunals, there has been a very significant restriction on funding of political parties. There is transparency, and the amount of money that can be given to them by any individual is strictly limited, but that does not seem to apply to do-gooder NGOs, whether the State is providing the funding or some American political right-wing or left-wing fund or some left-wing international organisation is. That transparency does not exist. It is all very well for a politician from a party to go on the radio and be confronted with the views of an apparently apolitical NGO of some kind which is active in the debate, but it affects the status of a lobbying activity if the body is in fact dependent on the State to renew the grant next year. There is a different relationship to the Government if a Department of State is lobbied by a body that depends on a Minister's goodwill to keep it in existence financially. I just think we lack transparency completely on that front, and that is what this amendment is all about.

I will press the amendment, but not to a full vote.

Eugene Murphy (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Senator is most co-operative.

Eugene Murphy (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 4 is out of order. It was previously rejected by a committee of the whole Seanad.

Eugene Murphy (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.

Lynn Boylan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 6, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following: “Insertion of section 16A into Principal Act

9.The Principal Act is amended by the insertion of the following section after section 16:

“Report on code of conduct to protect the public interest from fossil fuel lobbying

16A.(1) Having regard to the success of the United Nations World Health Organisation Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, the Minister shall, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the potential benefits of developing a code of conduct for fossil fuel lobbyists.

(2) The report may consider the following:

(a) limiting interactions between designated public officials and fossil fuel lobbyists only where strictly necessary to enable designated public officials to effectively regulate the industry and accelerate the transition to a fossil free economy;

(b) where interactions do occur, they should be requested by a designated public official, be held in a place that is open to the public, with public notice given in advance, and with detailed minutes published online;

(c) fossil fuel lobbyists should be excluded from participation in public institutions’ experts and advisory bodies (including fossil fuel lobbyists who are acting in personal capacity);

(d) designated public officials should be excluded from participation in fossil fuel undertakings’ experts and advisory bodies (including designated public officials who are in personal capacity);

(e) designated public officials should not appear at events, debates or activities, sponsored or organised by fossil fuel undertakings;

(f) fossil fuel lobbyists should be prohibited from organising events, exhibitions or other activities on government premises, including in the Houses of the Oireachtas complex;

(g) designated public officials should be prohibited from inviting fossil fuel lobbyists to events, exhibitions or other activities on government premises, including in the Leinster House complex, which are not otherwise open to the public.”.”.

Paul Gavan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I second the amendment.

Lynn Boylan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

These amendments follow on from the debate we had on Committee Stage. On Committee Stage we had tried to bring in a code of conduct specific to fossil fuel lobbying, building on the style of the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. I think there is a general acceptance that we are now at a situation when it comes to climate change that we do not have time with fossil fuels and we have to decarbonise our society and move away from the use of fossil fuels. We know that both the fossil fuel industry and the tobacco industry use very similar tactics in trying to sow division and doubt and in spreading misinformation and disinformation when it comes to their industries. Now they are on a policy of delay rather than denial.

While amendment No. 4 was voted against on Committee Stage, we have introduced an amendment arising out of that debate which just seeks a report on the code of conduct from fossil fuel lobbying. We have seen quite recently in these Houses that the audiovisual room was used by a fossil fuel lobby organisation to promote the use of an LNG terminal. It spread misinformation at that meeting as well. It tried to blame climate change on population growth instead of the use of fossil fuels and stated that our focus should be on reducing the population and not on addressing the decarbonisation of our society.

The proposal in amendment No. 5 is very modest, calling for a report on the code of conduct to protect the public interest from fossil fuel lobbying. As I said, we had a very detailed discussion about the need for it on Committee Stage, but we are now at the point where we need to treat the fossil fuel industry as we have treated the tobacco industry, whereby we can engage with them on matters of regulation or energy security but we cannot allow the fossil fuel industry to sow those seeds of doubt or to try to delay decarbonisation. Amendment No.6 is an alternative to amendment No. 5. It notes that: "Having regard to the success of the United Nations World Health Organisation Framework Convention on Tobacco Control [which Ireland is a party to] the Minister shall, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on potential measures to protect the public interest from fossil fuel lobbyists." As I said, this House has very recently seen fossil fuel lobbyists use institutions for their own benefit to try to delay the decarbonisation process. We are running out of time to reach our 2030 targets. It is a very modest proposal to call for a report into the code of conduct for the fossil fuel industry.

Michael McDowell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I understand where the Senator is coming from. She has been single-minded in pursuit of decarbonisation and in her opposition to the continued use of fossil fuels. To go back to the remarks on the previous amendment, I found the Irish Academy of Engineering analysis quite helpful to my understanding of the matter. I do not think that body was trying to mislead me in any way. Members of the Government parties, or some of them at any rate, support the LNG terminal. Whether they are right or wrong, to do so is another matter - but they are there. There is a legitimate point of view to be expressed.

When it came to that LNG terminal, it appeared the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications, Deputy Eamon Ryan, was quite prepared to have storage facilities for gas in Ireland as long as they were publicly owned. I do not know what the rights and wrongs of that are either, but he seemed to have an ideological objection to any private construction of these facilities and required them to be built by the State. Bearing in mind how long everything the State does takes, I would prefer, at the very least, to see an absolute guarantee that if such a terminal and storage facility is necessary that it be built quickly. Some of the sluggish rate of progress in public infrastructure investment is just breathtaking.

I will say one last thing on the tobacco convention. I agree with the gist of it in that we have to square up to people who are using every device and, from time to time, the legal system, to throw spanners in the works regarding the danger posed by tobacco consumption. I fully agree with that. I will, however, put one matter on the record of the House. The convention has been taken to such an extent that people who are engaged as tobacconists and are entitled to sell as such, and who want to make representations to the relevant Department about whether cigarettes can be sold in packets of 30, which is now the case in Ireland more than other places, or about the size of packets in which cigarettes can be legally sold, now find that the convention operates to the extent that the Departments in question will not even respond to their letters, even to inform them those letters have gone into a wastepaper basket. Whether cigarettes are sold in packs of 20 or 30 is something on which tobacconists - I am not talking about an alliance of retail sellers of tobacco products but corner-store alliances that have a view on this issue - are now in the position whereby they cannot even be heard by a Department. Their views cannot even be entertained due to that particular convention. That seems an over-zealous application of its terms. Due to the looseness of the language used in the convention regarding tobacconists, they were considered part of the tobacco industry because they were involved in the selling of tobacco. All they were trying to do, however, was to engage with the Department on why people were selling cigarettes in packets of 30 to a far greater extent in this State than is happening in the United Kingdom, and whether that was a good or bad thing in terms of overall consumption of tobacco products as opposed to the sale of cigarettes in packets of 20.

Having said all those things, I do not know whether I agree with the Senator that the fossil fuel industry should be made so anathema that no Department of State can even talk to it about anything or whether that is a good idea. No matter who is in government in this country, we will be dependent on natural gas, as a back-up or whatever, for the next 25 years. Nobody really disputes that. We need something. Unless we have nuclear power or something else, we will be dependent on natural gas, as a back-up at the very least, for the next generation. To introduce into law a provision that no Department of State can have anything to do with, or can receive any lobbying by, anybody involved in the supply of that fossil fuel is pushing things a little too far.

Eugene Murphy (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is lovely to see Senator Norris in the House. Cuirim fáilte roimhe inniu. Does he wish to make a contribution?

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, I do.

Eugene Murphy (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

By all means.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The tobacco lobby has been absolutely disgraceful. It knew about the link between lung cancer and smoking and suppressed it. It had that knowledge, which should have been publicly available. That industry is an absolute and utter disgrace. It was in it for the money and nothing else.

Eugene Murphy (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Well said. Does Senator Boylan wish to come back in before I allow the Minister of State to respond?

Lynn Boylan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I wholeheartedly agree with Senator Norris that the tobacco industry engaged in the exact same tactics as the fossil fuel industry, which knew for decades that its activities were leading to global warming but fought and spread disinformation. In fact, some of the same individuals were involved in spreading that misinformation. Exxon's whole campaign has been very well publicised, where America is trying to tackle the damage caused by the fossil fuel industry and what that industry has done to delay all of the world in taking on climate action.

I will pick up on a few points. It is very important to state that I am not saying the Irish Academy of Engineering is funded by the fossil fuel industry. I am saying that when it is asked, it will not give the information as to who its subscriptions are coming from. It will also not give the information on who the experts are on the expert committees. I have heard members of that body on the radio and, with all due respect to them, they are working off a grid that is not the same as the grid we need now. We need a dynamic grid when it comes to energy systems here. Many members of the Irish Academy of Engineering are retired engineers who are working in a system that is no longer the system we need to have for the future. We need a dynamic grid, with batteries on it, and renewables. I have asked the academy who is funding its subscriptions. If it gave me that information, I would not be worried about where its agenda is coming from, but it will not.

On a commercially owned LNG terminal, I am trying to have a code of conduct for fossil fuel lobbyists because, again, they have spread misinformation. We do not have an issue around energy security in this country. In fact, we are the third most energy-secure country in Europe. What we have is a generating issue. We could have all the gas in the world, and ten LNG terminals, but we do not have the generators to burn the gas to provide the electricity. That is why we have now passed emergency legislation three times in this House to bring in new emergency generating capacity. It has nothing to do with the source of gas. It is very important that people understand this is about electricity generation and not about energy security. In addition, as I said, lobbyists have been on the radio spreading and sowing that seed of doubt and making people think the LNG terminal would stop blackouts. It would have nothing do with blackouts, which are about electricity generation. It is very important people get that distinction.

As I said, we are not calling for no engagement whatsoever with the fossil fuel industry. We are asking for a report on the code of conduct so we know who is meeting who, who is funding it, and what they are saying.Recently, I put in a freedom of information request on the oil refinery that has intervened on the windfall tax but the whole thing was completely redacted. We have to take the word of Government that this oil refinery provided adequate evidence to show that it would go out of business if we had enforced a better windfall tax because we cannot prove it. The oil refinery will not give us the information and the Department will not give us the information. When the information comes through freedom information, it is completely redacted. We have to take the Government's word that this oil refinery would go out of business if we introduced a windfall tax similar to other EU jurisdictions and that is my point. We need to have a code of conduct so that we know what it is being said, who they are meeting, and what influence they are having on the future decarbonisation on this country.

Eugene Murphy (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I usually do not make a comment but if you were in my county, you would ask the following question if you were in the farming community. Who funds the environmentalists who hold up legitimate works and take court cases which result in people's premises and houses to be flooded? That is an issue for another day. That is the other side of the argument and we should be balanced on it.

Jennifer Carroll MacNeill (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is probably worth going back to first principles on the lobbying Act because there are quite a number of different issues there. The purpose of the lobbying register is to enhance transparency in the activities of entities under the Act with Government. The purpose of it is to provide people of this State with clear information about who is engaging with Government, when, and on what basis. It is not an effort to curtail freedom of expression of any individual or any corporate body. While I am a full supporter of a decarbonisation agenda and how Ireland gets to that, particularly in my constituency, where I would worry about using the lobbying Act to single out an individual entity or body is that it risks being a curtailment on that freedom of expression more broadly with potential read-across which would be concerning.

We have discussed the questions of financing earlier. The code referenced by the Senator in relation to the World Health Organization is a very important one but it is important to say it does not eliminate contact with Government; it prescribes it. It says in the context of public health policy, interactions with the tobacco industry should be limited, and where interactions take place, they should be conducted with maximum transparency. It is left to the Department to work out how that is done. The Department of Health is responsible for the development and promotion of public health policies and it will prepare guidance for its officials on supporting the implementation of the WHO guidelines in respect of tobacco. That is how that is being managed but not specifically through the lobbying register which performs a different function. The approach is slightly different.

The purpose of the lobbying register is to enhance maximum transparency. Even in singling out a particular body or treating it differently, one may be creating incentives for it to start behaving differently outside of that. I would simply say that the lobbying register provides the best possible transparency in terms of interactions and that we should want to know as much about that as possible. I honestly think that is a better approach.

There was something else I wanted to say but it has gone out of my mind.

Sharon Keogan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does Senator Boylan want to make a concluding remark?

Lynn Boylan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No.

Lynn Boylan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 6, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following: “Insertion of section 16A into Principal Act

9. The Principal Act is amended by the insertion of the following section after section 16:

“Report on how to protect the public interest from fossil fuel lobbying

16A. Having regard to the success of the United Nations World Health Organisation Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, the Minister shall, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on potential measures to protect the public interest from fossil fuel lobbyists.”.”.

Paul Gavan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I second the amendment.

Sharon Keogan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Pursuant to Standing Order 154, it is reported to the Seanad that the committee has amended the Title of the Bill.

Sharon Keogan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When is it proposed to take the next Stage?

Eugene Murphy (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Now.

Sharon Keogan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is that agreed? Agreed.