Lobbying bill could have been stronger

As Fianna Fáil’s bruised justice spokesman Niall Collins might confirm, inappropriate lobbying can have negative and unintended consequences. As our economy still shows lobbying by narrow interests can have spectacular, destructive and long-lasting consequences.

This week, Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform Brendan Howlin brought the long-awaited Registration of Lobbying Bill to Cabinet. It represents the delivery of a cornerstone in the reform project but, unfortunately, falls some way short of what had been promised.

The Bill concentrates on establishing the nature, the frequency and the targets of lobbying rather than logging every communication. A register of lobbying and lobbyists is proposed and this will be accessible online. The register, which will be overseen by a regulator, will name those lobbying government ministers, departments or public bodies. This is a considerable advance, but it might be foolish to imagine that this legislation might facilitate the recording of every golf-course chat, every winner’s enclosure nudge nudge, as it would be impossible to hermetically seal those myriad channels of communication.

It would strengthen the integrity of this legislation and round out the principles behind it though if this register also recorded instances where ministers refused to meet lobbyists, especially community groups. After all, access to power and the influence that facilitates it is the core issue, and if a cause is denied access to a minister or their officials then that should be made known. As some activists will confirm it is more than galling to know that those proposing something you oppose have the minister’s ear even though you are denied a hearing.

The one-year cooling-off period suggested for officials or politicians who have come to the end of their public career and wish to use their skills and contacts to work as a lobbyist is far, far too short. This, like it or not, gives a tacit green light to the gamekeepers who might consider becoming poachers. There is a five-year veto on crossing this line in America and that seems a far more appropriate recognition of human weaknesses.

Government should not be shy about challenging this feather-bedding because it has the potential to represent the worst kind of insider trading. A way to control this very questionable fence jumping might be to defer all pensions as long as former officials or politicians work in the area of the private sector they once worked in for government. The common good should trump the ambitions of the individual and a new and very hard-nosed approach is entirely justified.

It must be acknowledged though that lobbying is an entirely acceptable part of the democratic process and if done transparently to achieve legitimate ends then so be it, but as this legislation recognises it is too easy to imagine that process does not always observe the highest standards.

Despite being far too feeble in some areas, the legislation is welcome — it can always be amended to strengthen it — but it runs the risk of all new, well-intentioned supervisory legislation in this country. The intent behind it and society’s need for it to succeed are not always matched by the resources needed to ensure the project’s success. If the regulator is not given ample resources, this will be just another empty gesture rather than a driver of reform and a building block in new more transparent and honest society.