Amendments Nos. 1, 9 and 13 will be taken together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Regulation of Lobbying (Amendment) Bill 2022: Committee Stage
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 3, to delete lines 20 to 22 and substitute the following:
“ “(c) each subsequent successive period of 3 years, or earlier if the Minister deems appropriate, beginning on the commencement of section 2 of the Regulation of Lobbying (Amendment) Act 2023.”.”.
Amendment No. 1 seeks to remove the amendment of section 2 of the principal Act, which changes the review period from every three years to every five. What is the rationale for introducing this change into the principal Act? We know there are a lot of problems with this issue, including in respect of the resourcing adequacy of the powers of the commission. I am concerned that this delay of the review mechanism effectively means it has been expanded from something that can be fixed within a Government term to something which could not be fixed for an entire Government term. That is a concern. I do not see any rationale for letting these issues, if they do come to light, slide for longer than is necessary and issues have come to light in the past. It should be the case that the review mechanism remains the same, both to respond to the existing and known challenges and those which may emerge in the coming years. As I said, if we are having an issue whereby our regulation of lobbying legislation is not working appropriately, it should not be the case that this would not be addressed for the equivalent of an entire Government term.
Amendment No. 9 introduces a new subsection (14) into section 30, which would provide that within three years of the passing of this Act, the Minister would produce a report evaluating what the impact of the administrative sanctions has been, and crucially, whether the commission possesses the adequate resources and powers to implement this regime. We know, and it has been documented, that the Standards in Public Office Commission, SIPO, has in the past been told it needed further powers. It has spoken about needing further powers and we have seen situations, which in the public mind are areas that should be addressed, but in which SIPO has told us it did not have sufficient powers. Along with the powers issue comes the issue of resources. As resources are part of it, that is something I have added in. It is there in general within the regulatory mechanisms of the State, to ensure we do not have a situation whereby there is a lack of resources in dealing with, for example, a new pattern of lobbying behaviour that might emerge.
On a broader point, I also want to compliment Senator Boylan's amendment on fossil fuel lobbyists, which we will discuss in more detail later. There is urgency here in respect of the climate crisis. The lobbying of the fossil fuel industry over decades has resulted in serious delays to climate action when we are operating in a situation where every year matters. Again, this is something where SIPO would need the powers and resources. If we are in a situation whereby the new legislation put forward is not working effectively, we need to be able to correct course very rapidly because in some of the areas where lobbying may be having a significant impact, we have very limited time and a limited window within which to act appropriately.
Amendment No. 13 inserts a new section 24 into the Bill, which provides that the Minister shall, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, lay a report before the Houses of the Oireachtas outlining the potential for the introduction of legislative measures that might provide for a differential form of restrictions on post-term employment as a lobbyist for former office holders who seek to lobby on behalf of a sector for which they previously held a regulatory function.
This amendment is important because, as we know, there are instances in which individuals who held significant regulatory roles as officeholders and were responsible for the stewardship of legislation relevant to particular sectors have, very soon after leaving those roles, moved to work as lobbyists for the exacts industries in respect of which they had a regulatory function. My colleagues and I in the Civil Engagement Group made a submission to the consultation that fed into this legislation in which we highlighted this issue and suggested a differential cooling-off period for officeholders who have regulatory functions in respect of specific industries. There is a difference between being an officeholder and having significant power in a specific area and being an ordinary Member of the Oireachtas. That needs to be recognised and I reserve the right to bring forward amendments in this regard on Report Stage. There is a significantly increased level of risk attached to a Secretary General or Minister, compared with ordinary Oireachtas Members, in terms of the impact of an inappropriate transition.
In our submission, we also proposed the introduction of a cooling-off period in respect of the trading of stocks and shares. High-ranking public officials should not be able, in the period immediately after they leave office, to use the information and insights they may have gained from having significant access to Cabinet decision-making and so forth. I reserve the right potentially to introduce amendments on Report Stage in respect of the trading of stocks and shares. A cooling-off period of one year in respect of any substantial stock trading should be enforced for all former taoisigh, Ministers, Ministers of State, senior advisers and Secretaries General.
I thank Senators Higgins and Ruane for taking the time to table these amendments. Amendment No. 1 proposes to reset the period between statutory reviews to three years and to allow for a shorter timeframe if the Minister deems it appropriate.
Amendments Nos. 9 and 13 propose the introduction of two new reviews. The first would evaluate the impact of administrative sanctions and the capacity of the SIPO to impose this regime three years after the system becomes operable. The second new review would, within 12 months, report on restrictions on post-term employment as a lobbyist. Section 2 of the Regulation of Lobbying Act 2015 obliges the Minister to conduct a review of the operation of the legislation every three years and to make a report of the findings of each review along with the conclusions drawn from same to the Houses of the Oireachtas. There have been three reviews of the legislation since it was enacted in 2015. As the Act already provides for a regular comprehensive review regime, I do not consider that any additional review systems are required.
Section 2 of the Regulation of Lobbying (Amendment) Bill 2022 amends section 2 of the 2015 Act to allow for the period between statutory reviews of the Act to be extended from three to five years. Following the recent in-depth review of the Act, I have decided the review period should be five years. There are several reasons for this. First, this Bill must supplement other legislative provisions for scrutinising the impact of legislation. This amending legislation, like all legislation, will be subject to post-legislative scrutiny one year after enactment. Second, the experience of the statutory reviews of the 2015 Act has been that conducting a review every three years does not allow enough time to see the impact of changes to the legislation. Third, SIPO has stated that it would not object to an increase in the intervals at which such reviews take place, provided those intervals remain reasonable. Furthermore, my officials keep in close contact with SIPO regarding the operation of the legislation, in addition to the formal statutory review process.
There will be nothing to prevent my Department conducting a review within an earlier timeframe if the situation should warrant it. In the most recent example, the Minister decided to have an early review because it was deemed to be warranted based on what had happened. A review takes approximately a year to complete. Being in a constant period of review is not a good thing. It takes some time to work out whether changes are having an effect. My Department has consulted extensively with SIPO on all the changes proposed in the Bill. That is really worthwhile because it affords us the perspective of the people who are at the coalface and who see every day what it is like to implement and operate the existing laws. The proposed changes have not been put forward in a vacuum. For these reasons, I am rejecting the Senators' amendments.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 2 agreed to.
Section 3 agreed to.
SECTION 4
Question proposed: "That section 4 stand part of the Bill."
I seek clarification from the Minister of State on the subject of transparency in respect of members' organisations that are engaged in lobbying. I refer to subsection (4)(b)(iii), which amends section 5 of the principal Act to create the new subsections (5)(2)(d) and (5)(2)(e). From my reading, this will amend the 2015 Act such that where a person is a representative body or an issue-based organisation that has no employees, it must supply the name of every person who is a member of the organisation. Might it be possible for a body evade an obligation under this provision by hiring somebody even on a part-time basis, thereby bypassing the regulation? I would appreciate clarification on this.
Is the Senator asking whether it is possible to avoid or evade the provisions of this section by having part-time employees rather than full-time employees?
Yes, and whether the obligation might be evaded by having any employee at all.
I will think about that and get back to the Senator later in the debate, if that is okay.
I have concerns around how section 4(b) intersects with section 7 in the context of ensuring transparency. I and others have amendments to do with transparency in later sections but I hereby give an advance signal that I may bring forward amendments to this section on Report Stage. The provision concerns a situation in which a person is a body that has no full-time employees and is representing the interests of its members. My concern relates to a circumstance whereby, for example, such a body is funded by a corporate entity or operating within the remit of an entity that may have employees. There should not be an opportunity to evade regulation based on technicalities. I will be looking at this further for Report Stage. I am concerned that potential loopholes may be attached to this provision.
I note the Senator's intention potentially to bring forward an amendment on Report Stage.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 5 and 6 agreed to.
SECTION 7
Amendment No. 2 in the names of Senators Boylan, Gavan, Ó Donnghaile and Warfield has been ruled out of order.
Amendment No. 2 not moved.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 5, between lines 23 and 24, to insert the following:
"Amendment of 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.".".
I welcome the Minister of State to the House. This amendment proposes to amend the principal Act by the insertion of a section after section 10. The amendment relates to transparency in respect of the finances of lobbying bodies. It is clear in what it seeks to do.
It seeks to require the registration of the fact that where at least 50% of the income of a registered body under the terms of this Act would come from a State or non-State source, it is a person to the extent that 50% of that would be a matter for registration.
This is Senator McDowell's amendment but it is one that I heartily support. In developing the case for this amendment I am speaking to my concerns and I do not know whether the examples I would have in mind are similar to those Senator McDowell would have in mind. Let us cast our minds to the question of the funding of politicians as an example. We all know we are required, as Members, to keep donation statements. There are also limits on the amount we can receive in any calendar year and donations to us above a certain threshold have to be declared. Let us think about why that is and why all of that matters. It is obvious; out of the goodness of their hearts, some people may donate money or resources because they want to help the democratic process but they also want to support and promote policy and legislation in a particular direction. There is nothing wrong with that and people are entitled to use their resources to put their money where their mouths are or, in some cases, to put their money where their mouths are not because there are those who do not want to be in the public eye and who do not want to be the ones making the argument or the laws in public. There are even those who do not want to be out canvassing door to door and making the case but they want to put their money where their mouths are not because they want to use their resources to support a particular person, policy or legislative outcome. We should never be afraid to say that this is a good thing.
However, it is a good thing that is capable of being abused, like all good things are, and that is capable of working against the common good. That is why there is transparency and why there are two ways in which we seek to limit the danger for politicians and from politicians. First is to put limits on the amount or extent to which somebody can provide support, and if they are from outside the country or are not residents or citizens they cannot donate or support at all. Second is to make sure there is transparency above a certain amount. The possibility of abuse is limited plus there is a transparency requirement. We will agree that while some of the aspects of this should maybe change. In general, this is a policy in pursuit of something that is good, acknowledging the existence of something that is good, namely political donations, and then seeking to regulate it because it needs to be regulated to keep it good.
Let us move from that area to the funding of lobbying groups and where they or registered organisations in this place get their money. There was a lot of conversation a number of years ago, for example, about whether money had been given by foreign organisations or individuals, for example, to organisations that were involved in advocacy on one side or the other of the abortion issue. It also arose before that in the context of the redefinition of "marriage" in the context of the marriage referendum. These sensitive social issues going on in our country and debates among our people were of great interest to other players outside our jurisdiction. I recall that George Soros's Open Society Foundation made no bones about the fact that it was funding Amnesty International at one point with a view to securing a certain outcome in the change of Ireland's abortion laws. That was highly controversial in my eyes and in the eyes of a lot of other people. It led to some proceedings in court involving SIPO and so on and so forth.
That issue of whether "outsiders" should influence national debates is important. Again, there are no absolutes in this area and it can be entirely legitimate for somebody outside of our jurisdiction to take a strong view on the promotion of human rights in a particular country; then it seems on the face of it to be legitimate that they should try to support that case in some way, except that when it gets to a certain extent or point, there is a danger that democracy is being usurped. If somebody like George Soros and his Open Society Foundation, are capable of bankrolling major campaigns in another country, which perhaps might not have the resources to compete with that, then we can see how the ability of the people of that country to order their affairs could be seriously undermined.
There have been debates about the way in which countries such as Russia and Hungary have sought to control the involvement of external lobby groups in the running of their affairs. Some of those are regimes we would not admire, and one would root for the lobby groups, and some of them are regimes of which we would agree that they might have a case to make about external interference. All of that is in the background so when we come to this situation about a lobby group in Ireland seeking to advance particular policy points, we can ask the same questions. Ought they be getting money from the State and ought they be transparent about it?
I think, in particular in recent times, of the activities of the National Women's Council of Ireland, for example, which does not represent all women and which certainly does not represent all women’s' organisations in terms of its extreme advocacy on abortion, which we have seen in these days. Yet, it gets an awful lot of taxpayer's money to do what it does and under the principle of fungibility of money, whatever it gets its money for from the State, it effectively bankrolls its pro-abortion advocacy. Some Members will say they have no problem with that but all I am doing here is drawing people's attention to the potential problem. When the apparatus of power is acting in the interests, not just of the 40% or 50% who elected the Government, but of all society and is responsible for the use of all of taxpayers' money, we have to be careful about how the people's money may be used to press agendas that do not reflect all of the people's concerns. That has to be an issue of concern in a democracy, for example, no matter what side of the debate one would be on.
Though this may not be what is in the minds of Senators McDowell or Boylan in bringing forward the amendment, that is a core issue. Senator Boylan is looking at me and she wants to get in so I will finish up. It is important that we set out the rationale for this and I would not want to do less than justice to Senator McDowell's fine amendment because there is an issue here of how taxpayer's money is used by lobby groups and whether we always know where they are getting their money from and how much they are getting. It seems to me to be a minimalist enough proposed amendment to require that where as much as 50% of a body that is subject to registration is getting its money either from a State source or from some other single person's source, that this is something which there is a legitimate public interest in knowing about.
I will be brief because I want to get to my amendment, No. 4. I support Senator McDowell's amendment on funding from State sources and it is important that people know where their money is being spent. I am flagging that we might expand on this on Report Stage because I am concerned about a particular expert body. This goes back to when I was asking for clarification on section 4 and if someone is hired whether there is transparency around the members of expert bodies. There is an expert body that is constantly on the airwaves in this country commenting on energy policy. We do not know the make-up of the membership of the expert committees in that body and, equally, when asked about where their funding came from, they did not respond. They said it is subscription membership-based plus corporate donations. The amendment could go further to look at anybody setting themselves up as an expert advisory board that is lobbying Government and Government policy. They should be open and transparent about where their funding is coming from.
I would also look to expand on this area. There are valid points but there are also some concerns, which we can see highlighted. For example, it is important that we do not have measures used as an attempt to create a chilling effect in advocacy on NGOs or civil society. Ireland has been a strong champion for the role of civil society as part of democracy internationally. However, we have had lacunas and problems within our legislation.
I understand my amendment No. 12, which I tabled with Senator Ruane, will be ruled out of order. I would be much more confident about this amendment if amendment No. 12 was also being addressed. It dealt with the problem of how "political purposes" has been defined, something that SIPO has signalled. I think Bobby Molloy brought in that legislation, which envisaged political purposes as rightly looking to restrictions relating to referendums and electoral decisions. However, the ambiguity in how it was framed has led to its being interpreted in such a wide way that it has acted effectively to chill civil society from being able to engage with things.
When I worked for Trócaire many years ago there was an ad which said that girls experience inequality, which is a fairly obvious fact. The BAI pulled it because it was concerned about it being a political message. That problem with political purposes, which has been long signalled to the Minister of State, Deputy Noonan, and others, really needs to be addressed. We have been promised for years that it would be addressed. If that was in place, it would be useful in terms of this. We would not have situations as we have seen. There has been a suggestion which should not be the case that a body receiving Government funding should not be able to criticise Government policy. It is really important that this sort of measure is not used to interpret it in that way. Many of those receive Government funding because they bring an expertise or an insight. For example, the National Women's Council of Ireland has 180 member organisations and many hundreds of thousands of women are represented by it. It brings the voices of a large constituency through and we need to look to how we bring the voices through, much as unions, for instance, bring a very large constituency of voices through. That is what we want because we want people to be involved in decision-making. We want decisions and policies better informed by the widest possible perspectives and not solely by those with financial interests.
I wanted to highlight another concern over why we might need to expand this amendment. We do not want to force NGOs to have financial transparency, something I am completely in favour of, but not address corporate entities. This measure refers to a person but if for example, five fossil fuel industry lobby corporations are funding an organisation, that would not be visible. We also know some of the religious orders have subsidiary organisations. Several different kinds of entities are in play. State funding is one part of it but there are also cases where a subsidiary group registered as a lobbying entity may not reflect that it is operating within a larger context. I gave the example of religious organisations, but there are multiple others. Perhaps a more useful and relevant one might be a lobbying entity that is in favour of green energy but in fact is largely funded by a corporation that also has just as many and possibly far more financial interests in respect of fossil fuels.
Those are the examples that I am going to signal. I see the direction of travel of this amendment. I generally favour transparency in that regard, but we might need to widen how we frame that transparency. I would be very concerned that this amendment might create a chilling effect on Government regarding advocacy or might lead to NGOs being targeted, as we have seen in Hungary. We have seen a two-pronged attack. I saw this when I was a member of the European Women's Lobby executive board and I worked with organisations in Hungary long before some of the concerns we have been fighting about recently. There was a double-pronged attack where bodies were cut off from state funding and also not allowed to receive any other funding. Effectively it was used particularly to target women's organisations and LGBT organisations.
I am just signalling those concerns about this amendment and I may table my own amendments on Report Stage. I apologise for the extensive comment.
Senator Mullen raised an interesting point about transparency over international lobbying. He made the point that both liberals and conservatives alike may be concerned about interference from a left-wing or a right-wing group in another country. While that is an interesting debate to have and I want to have it, it does not relate to the amendment.
Senator Higgins pointed out the risk of a chilling effect on NGOs and notes the possibility of impersonation-type lobby groups. There are groups pretending to be green lobby groups that are actually funded by the opposite side. That is also a concern.
I will address the amendment that relates to ownership and State ownership, including financial disclosure. This issue of including financial disclosure requirements in returns to the register was considered when the Act was originally developed. It was then raised in the first and second statutory reviews of the Act. The Department has given much consideration to the practical ways this could be implemented. The report of the first review outlined the options for requiring financial disclosure and they were examined at the policy development stage. It was considered that including any financial disclosure on the register would require striking an appropriate balance, on the one hand, between required transparency while ensuring the confidentiality of commercially sensitive information and, on the other, safeguarding the right to privacy. It emerged that there would be significant administrative issues in establishing consistent and comparable financial data for inclusion in the register.
It was determined that it should not be a requirement to include such data. A balance needs to be struck between the requirement for more information to increase transparency and the level of administrative burden that the provision and evaluation of such information may place on the commission. In addition, it is important to remember that the spending on lobbying activities is not necessarily an accurate indicator of the impact of lobbying activity. For example, a lobbying campaign undertaken by a PR company that costs €100,000 might not have as much effect on the issue in question as a well placed phone call to a Minister that would have no financial cost at all.
I consider that at present it is more important to have correct and up-to-date information regarding lobbying events in each relevant period contained in the register. The commission has outlined that it liaises with those registered on the register in instances where a return may not meet the required standard and this work is done on a continual basis.
Considering the wording of the amendment a number of things stick out for me. One is this idea that we would determine whether a lobbying group had 50% of its income in any year. Does that mean that a lobby group that received 50% of its money 20 years ago and now they do not get any State funding? This language is not sufficiently precise. This lobbying Bill is not the place to carry out this form of financial disclosure. It would be open to interpretation and on our consultation with representatives of SIPO, they felt it would not be administrable. On those grounds, I am not accepting the amendment.
I thank the Minister of State for his response. I will certainly consider it and no doubt Senator McDowell will also consider it. The reference to "in any year" really refers to the fact that if in any year an organisation received more than 50%, its returns for that year would need to reflect it. I do not think it is suggesting that it would need to go back to any historical year. I think it relates to the relationship between the year of making the return and the year on which that return reports. I could be wrong on that, but I think that was the intent of the amendment.
While I am on my feet, I just wish to clarify that if I press this amendment, it cannot be reintroduced on Report Stage. Is that correct?
If it is defeated, it cannot.
On that basis, I will not press the amendment because I think Senator McDowell would like to consider it further, as would I.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 7 agreed to.
Section 8 agreed to.
NEW SECTIONS
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 6, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following:
“Amendment of section 16 of Principal Act
9. The Principal Act is amended by the insertion of the following section after section 16:
“The code of conduct to protect the public interest from fossil fuel lobbying 16A. In this section—
‘fossil fuel lobbyist’ means a person carrying on lobbying activities, and such bodies representing them, for a fossil fuel undertaking or groups with fossil fuel undertakings as members;
‘fossil fuel undertaking’ has the meaning given to it in the Fossil Fuel Divestment Act 2018.
(1) The Commission may produce, and from time to time revise, a code of conduct for fossil fuel lobbyists and designated public officials with a view to -
(a) promoting climate policy development and implementation in the public interest,
(b) curtailing the influence of fossil fuel lobbyists who have had for decades lobbied to deny science, and delay, weaken, and sabotage climate action - despite knowing their business heats the planet and destroys communities, and
(c) mitigating greenhouse gas emissions and complying with its obligations under section 15 of the Climate and Low Carbon Development Acts 2015 to 2021.
(2) Before producing or revising the code of conduct the Commission shall consult such persons carrying on lobbying activities and such bodies representing them, environmental NGOs, unions, and such other persons, as the Commission considers appropriate.
(3) The code of conduct may contain different provisions in relation to different descriptions of fossil fuel lobbyists and designated public officials which may include but not be limited to the following:
(a) limiting interactions between designated public officials and fossil fuel lobbyists to only where strictly necessary to enable designated public officials to effectively regulate the industry and accelerate the transition to a fossil free economy;
(b) interactions, where they do occur, should be requested by a designated public official and 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’ expert 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’ expert 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 on the Leinster House complex, which are not otherwise open to the public.
(4) The Commission shall publish the code of conduct to protect the public interest from fossil fuel lobbying in such manner and form as the Commission considers appropriate.
(5) A person carrying on lobbying activities and a designated public official shall act in a manner consistent with the code of conduct.”.”.
This amendment is to address the issue of the fossil fuel industry, the vested interests that it has in maintaining its position and profitability, and its long history of funding climate change denial and climate change delaying tactics.
We have seen exactly how fossil fuel lobbyists have successfully watered down the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, report from March, and how at the Conference of the Parties, COP, in Egypt the fossil fuel lobbyists actually outnumbered every national delegation. When I was an MEP in Brussels, we also saw how lobbyists were very keen to walk the corridors of power when seeking to influence politicians, but when it came to being held to account, ExxonMobil, for example, were nowhere to be found when they were asked to come in to the committee to explain why they had been funding climate change denial for years.
When we look at Ireland's lobbying registry, there are plenty of entries from fossil fuel companies. I believe that Vermilion Exploration and Production met the Tánaiste, Deputy Micheál Martin, about expanding the current operations. Its managing director is now head of the Irish Offshore Operators Association, and it is also lobbying under that title. We have seen Europa lobbying lately, and very successfully, on the Inishkea gas prospect. The Minister, Deputy Eamon Ryan, granted them an extension. That lobbying was done by Joanne Lonergan who was with the Department of the Taoiseach for five years under the then Taoiseach, Enda Kenny, and then was special adviser with the Minister, Deputy Harris, for five years until March 2021. By February 2022, 11 months later, she was lobbying with Murray Consultants on behalf of Europa Oil and Gas. This is all detailed on her LinkedIn account. From the lobbying register we can also see multiple requests from Mag Mell Energy, which is a developer of liquefied natural gas, LNG, terminals, seeking meetings with senior politicians. We have also seen them present in the audiovisual room in Leinster House, talking about the biggest risk to climate change being population growth and not carbon emissions. We have seen EPH-Tynagh Energy lobbying the Minister, Deputy Eamon Ryan, through Red Flag Consulting. It has a new gas plant under appeal by An Taisce. Its lobbyist is Deirdre Grant, the managing director at Red Flag Consulting and special adviser previously to former Deputy Ruairí Quinn when he was the Minister for Education and Skills, and then Minister of State, Deputy Nash, at the Department of Business, Enterprise and Innovation until 2016. We can see the revolving door between the corridors of power and lobbying are spinning nicely and are well oiled, to use that phrase. The lobbying sector is alive and well in the fossil fuel industry.
To tackle the climate emergency and ensure that climate policy is conducted entirely in the public interest, we must cut the fossil fuel interests out of our politics. We have done this with the tobacco industry. We accepted that there is nothing positive to come from the tobacco industry. We accept that in the climate emergency we need to decarbonise our economies and that we need to reach our 2030 and 2050 targets.
In practical terms, this amendment seeks to draw up a code of conduct for fossil fuel lobbyists and the people they lobby. Under this code of conduct, only designated public officials would be able to interact with fossil fuel lobbyists when it was necessary to effectively regulate the industry and to promote the transition to a fossil fuel-free economy. It would also only be at the request of the designated officials. If an official in the Department or a Minister needs to talk to the fossil fuel industry about regulation or about how we are going to decarbonise our economy, then that would still be allowed. What we must not have, is them proactively engaging and lobbying Ministers and officials to prolong that transition.
The code would also prohibit fossil fuel lobbyists from participating in public institutions or expert and advisory bodies, and from organising events on government premises such as in Leinster House. I have given the example of such an event in the audiovisual visual room here in Leinster House only a few months ago.
Some critics might say that this goes too far and that what we actually need is greater transparency, but as I have said the issue of transparency in the fossil fuel industry is the same as with the tobacco industry. We all know that we need to get off fossil fuels, and therefore I believe we need to go much further than just having transparency. From recent exposés, which included Irish MEPs, we have also seen that the fossil fuel industry was able to find a way around the rules no matter how high the bar was set with regard to transparency. I do not believe it is enough to protect the public interest. We need to effectively bring an end to the revolving doors and to fossil fuel lobbyists having access to officials and Ministers.
I wish to indicate my full support. This is a very important amendment. It is an example of an area where we cannot afford to get it wrong. We cannot afford come back in five years' time, for example, to discover that the legislation as it was drafted has not been sufficient to protect against this kind of fossil fuel lobbyist. Every year matters and I believe this is an opportunity to get it right in this legislation.
Does the Senator wish to second the amendment?
I do not believe that is required but I would be very happy to.
Before I start, I wish to answer a question that Senator Boylan asked earlier about section (4)(b), which amends section 5 of the principal Act. This provision makes two technical amendments. They are needed by the insertion of new paragraphs (d) and (e) into section 5(2) of the principal Act. The final amendment brings certain informal business groups, which themselves have no full-time employees, within the scope of the Act, and in particular bodies formed to represent the interests of their members and bodies that are established mainly to take up specific issues. Such bodies will only be brought within the scope of the Act where at least one of the members of the body would be classified by the Act as carrying on lobbying activities if they were acting solely on their own behalf. I hope this answers that question.
I will now turn to the amendment. Amendment No. 4 proposes to introduce a new code of conduct to protect the public interest from fossil fuel lobbying. Under section 16 of the Regulation of Lobbying Act 2015, the Standards in Public Office Commission may produce a code of conduct for persons carrying on lobbying activities "with a view to promoting high professional standards and good practice". This code of conduct, which came into effect on 1 January 2019, was developed by the commission following a public consultation process and it had regard to other models and international best practice. The consultation process to draw up this code of conduct was launched in June 2018. It was completed over that summer and yielded a total of 40 responses. Submissions were received from Departments, public bodies, other regulatory bodies and representative bodies, advocacy bodies and from other organisations and individuals, including from registrants. The code of conduct sets standards of conduct for persons carrying on lobbying activities. The purpose of this code is to govern the behaviour of persons carrying on lobbying activities. The Standards in Public Office Commission is of the view that this code sets out principles that can be applied equally to professional lobbyists, employers, representative advocacy bodies and individuals, and by which persons carrying on lobbying activities may conduct the lobbying activities transparently and ethically. The code is not intended to supersede or replace any requirement that a person carrying on lobbying activities may have to comply with the 2015 Act, or to comply with any other legislation, professional code of conduct or industry rules and regulations that might apply to them.
Given the existence this code, I do not believe that a further separate code for a specific cohort is necessary or would be beneficial. The preamble to the existing code sets out that:
Lobbying activities are undertaken by many people and organisations in relation to a broad range of matters. Lobbying activities are a legitimate means of accessing access to parliamentary government and municipal institutions. Lobbying activities contribute to informing informed decision-making by elected and appointed public officials. The legitimacy of lobbying is reinforced when lobbying activity activities are kept carried out transparently and in an ethical manner. In support of the Act's objectives to foster transparency and the proper conduct of lobbying activities, this Code of Conduct sets out several principles by which persons carrying on lobbying activities should govern themselves in the course of carrying out lobbying activities, namely: ... Demonstrating respect for public bodies; ... Acting with honesty and integrity; ... Ensuring accuracy of information; ... Disclosure of identity and purposes of lobbying activities; ... Preserving confidentiality; ... Avoiding improper influence; ... Observing the provisions of the Regulation of Lobbying Act; and ... Having regard to the code of conduct.
While the Act governs communications of designated public officials, and of course this includes Ministers, Ministers of State, and advisers, elected representatives and certain senior public servants, the principles of the code should apply to all communications with persons in public office, whether prescribed for the purposes of the Act or not.
The Act, together with the code of conduct and associated regulations, guidelines, and standards of conduct applicable to officeholders, elected representatives, and public servants, aims to ensure that lobbying activities are conducted in accordance with public expectations of transparency and integrity, and that decisions are made in the public interest.
Persons carrying on lobbying activities may also wish to have regard to other guidance material published by the Standards in Public Office Commission in relation to the Act; the transparency code, which was published by the Ministers for Finance and Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform; and the Standards in Public Office Commission's data protection policy; as well as to the Ethics in Public Office Acts 1995 and 2001.
Senator Boylan has stated that the issue is the same as with the tobacco industry and draws a parallel between them. Of course, there are tobacco lobbyists as well and there is not a specific code of conduct for tobacco lobbyists, for people selling cars, for people selling food that is carcinogenic, for people selling alcohol or for people promoting the legalisation of currently illicit drugs. I am not sure how the parallel is exactly the same; we have managed, greatly through regulation, to reduce tobacco consumption. It is a policy success and I would like to see that reflected in our attempts to reduce fossil fuel consumption as well.
I remind the Minister of State that there is the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, and there are limits on the tobacco industry lobbying. Meetings with the tobacco industry are not allowed regarding the promotion of the product. That is exactly the reason I am making the point; we have accepted that there are certain industries that we are moving away from and that we need to have special rules around. It is the same as fossil fuel advertisement bans, and that is why the environmental NGOs are calling for those as well. These are sectors where we are running out of time.
We have transparency in respect of fossil fuel companies at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC and at the Committee of the Parties, COP every year, and we have seen the impact those fossil fuel companies have on watering down the measures that are needed to address the climate crisis. I am afraid that I do not accept that currently, the legislation sufficiently covers the fossil fuel industry. This is a huge opportunity for the Minister of State to set Ireland out and to show that we are serious about decarbonising our society, and that we will only engage with the fossil fuel industry when it is essential in terms of regulation of that industry.
I thank Senator Boylan. I was not aware that there are separate rules for the lobbying of the tobacco industry, so I thank her for telling me that. I will consider that, and if the Senator wants to introduce amendments on Report Stage, I will consider them on the basis of that.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 6; Níl, 24.
Tá
- Black, Frances.
- Boylan, Lynn.
- Higgins, Alice-Mary.
- Keogan, Sharon.
- Ó Donnghaile, Niall.
- Wall, Mark.
Níl
- Ahearn, Garret.
- Burke, Paddy.
- Byrne, Malcolm.
- Byrne, Maria.
- Casey, Pat.
- Clifford-Lee, Lorraine.
- Conway, Martin.
- Crowe, Ollie.
- Cummins, John.
- Currie, Emer.
- Doherty, Regina.
- Dolan, Aisling.
- Dooley, Timmy.
- Fitzpatrick, Mary.
- Gallagher, Robbie.
- Hackett, Pippa.
- Horkan, Gerry.
- Kyne, Seán.
- Lombard, Tim.
- Martin, Vincent P.
- O'Donovan, Denis.
- O'Sullivan, Ned.
- Seery Kearney, Mary.
- Wilson, Diarmuid.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Lynn Boylan and Alice-Mary Higgins; Níl, Senators Robbie Gallagher and Regina Doherty.
“Pursuant to Standing Order 57A, Senator Rebecca Moynihan has notified the Cathaoirleach that she is on maternity leave from 6th February to 18th August, 2023, and the Whip of the Fine Gael Group has notified the Cathaoirleach that the Fine Gael Group has entered into a voting pairing arrangement with Senator Moynihan for the duration of her maternity leave.”
Amendment declared lost.
As it is now past 2.30 p.m., the debate must be adjourned in accordance with the order of the Seanad today.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
Cuireadh an Seanad ar fionraí ar 2.36 p.m. agus cuireadh tús leis arís ar 3.05 p.m.
Sitting suspended at 2.36 p.m. and resumed at 3.05 p.m.