Paul Murphy condemns corporate lobbying as undemocratic influence

I was listening to the Minister's introduction upstairs and I was struck that there is quite a fundamental difference between the Minister's view of lobbying and People Before Profit's view of lobbying and that explains why we have quite a limited reform here, a tiny step in the right direction but really quite limited and quite inadequate. Because the Minister was saying that lobbying is an invaluable part of politics, provides an invaluable insight for politicians about the details, the workings of things and so on. It was really extolling the virtues of lobbying and fundamentally I do not agree. Part of how you make that case is kind of by throwing it all in together. So the football club that contacts the TD or the councillor about the pitch that needs to get fixed or whatever, that's in the same category as the major multinational corporation paying tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of euros to former TDs, former ministers to lobby for changes in their interests. And I just, they're not the same thing, they're fundamentally different, the kind of campaigning and informing that goes on from the point of view of ordinary people, the point of view of community groups, sports groups, trade unionists, etc. There's something fundamentally different about that, between that and what makes up the vast majority of lobbying as a business. And we have to remember that that's what this is. Lobbying is a multi-billion euro industry on an EU-wide basis. There's certainly a multi-million euro industry in this country. And the purpose of that lobbying, which again is the vast majority of the lobbying in terms of by value, the money that is spent on these things, is to shape laws in the interests of particular, defined, discrete business interests, to try to make sure that their interests are represented. And they're spending the money on this, billions of euros on a worldwide basis, because they think it works. If they didn't think it worked in shaping laws, then they wouldn't spend the money. So you have to presume that these people who are hard-headed business people have the evidence to show that it's worth spending these multiple millions of euros or dollars to get their way, i.e. that it has an impact, that the legislation that results in terms of environment, in terms of labour, in terms of planning, in terms of consumer rights, is, at least to some degree, affected and shaped in the interest by those who are paying to try to do so. And that's fundamentally undemocratic. That's fundamentally about those who have economic power, using that economic power to ensure that they also have political power. And that is not something that is open to community groups, local residents in an area, trade unionists, ordinary people. Because the difference is that these people have the money to spend millions or whatever on lobbyists. And that's why I take a much more dim view of the role of lobbying within this political system. It was Connolly who wrote that governments in capitalist society are but committees of the rich to manage the affairs of the capitalist class. But the right-wing governments that generally pursue the interests of managing the affairs of the rich, the 1% in our societies, they don't necessarily know the exact details of what different sections of the capitalist class want. And the role of lobbying fundamentally is to inform them of that, is to transmit the direct interests of big business to government. And that there is a reason, I've made this point here before, but I think it bears repeating. And there is a reason that they like to employ former ministers, former TDs as lobbyists. And it is not, no offence to the people individually, but it is not because they have particular aptitudes or intelligence set up for lobbying. That's not why. The reason, very clearly, is because precisely they are former ministers or former TDs, i.e. they're political insiders, and they have access, both physically and metaphorically. And again, it's worth pointing out that if the lobbying companies didn't think it was worth their money to employ former politicians, well then they wouldn't do it. They obviously feel that that access means something. And you look at the examples, you know, Brian Hayes going from being a Fine Gael MEP to the head of the banking lobbyist organisation. Even more blatantly, Michael Darcy going from Minister of State with responsibility for the financial sector to being CEO of the Irish Association of Investment Managers. There's a reason that those people are chosen, and it's not a personal criticism of those people to say that it's not about some inherent talent or skill. It's about the former job that they had, and therefore the access. Because the point is, that when the government goes... Sure. Again, just to be clear, I'm not making any personal charge. I'm just, you know, the description of the jobs they had, and they have, is 100% accurate. But it clearly suits, for example, the banks, that when they go and sit down across the table from a government which has Fine Gael in it, to have on their side a former, very senior member of Fine Gael. So, clearly suits their interests. It clearly greases the wheels of the communications, of just the social dialogue, the chats, the informal access. All of that is made easier by having a former senior politician on your side. The point has been well made by Deputy Shorthall in terms of the physical access. The fact that there are lobbyists in this country who are allowed to drive in through the front door of our national parliament, the front gates, and park in the car park alongside the TDs and Senators, get out of their car together, have a chat about the weather, about the politics, about what's happening, and then while they're at it, maybe, oh, could I just ask about that? How's that going? That is entirely inappropriate. It's a distortion of any basic idea of what democracy is supposed to look like. There was an example a couple of years ago. I won't name the person, but a former press secretary, having taken up a role with a PR company, and then was repeatedly reported to be repeatedly asking the Fine Gael Climate Committee Chair for details of private deliberations on what was described as a controversial bill to ban oil and gas exploration. That was in Hugh O'Connell in the Irish Independent in 2019, and the relevant bill was People Before Profits Climate Emergency Bill to ban oil and gas exploration licences. Again, the revolving door being used to get access, to get information, to pursue, in this case, the interests of the fossil fuel industry, certainly up there with one of the most destructive, damaging, you could say evil, industries in our society at the moment. And all of that, like, everybody else can't have those accesses. Those accesses are bought for, they're paid for, and they're not accessible to ordinary people. I made the example before that at the time of the so-called Leo the Leak scandal, where there was very ready access by the head of the National Association of General Practitioners to the Tawnashta, at the very same time, paramedics organised within NASRA were on a picket line, were looking to be recognised, were looking to be dealt with, they weren't able to get the sort of access that the National Association of GPs were able to get. All of that is even without dealing with all the other kind of old boys networks that exist, the clubs, debating societies, the social circles in which Ireland's elite circulate and meet and decide in what is in the best interest of the quote-unquote nation. The reality is that some lobbyists will always have preferential access to and influence on the political elite and the senior civil servants that they meet. You look at the role of the Construction Industry Federation, which is on the public record, it was the Construction Industry Federation which lobbied for the build to rent, or sorry, the first-time buyers scheme. They lobbied for that in their documents, then it appeared, obviously, as a mechanism for getting homes for first-time buyers, which the government presented, you know, who could possibly object to that? But, of course, the role of the Construction Industry Federation isn't to lobby in the interest of first-time buyers, it's to lobby in the interest of the construction industry in order to maximise their profits, and that was the purpose of that scheme. The help to buy scheme is what it's called, but in reality it's a help to profit scheme. They've even been given quasi-statutory functions with the recent register relating to building standards, and clearly what they say has significantly more impact on the government, on senior civil servants, than, for example, what trade union officials might say. Continuous revolving doors from government to private lobbying, to representative, or lobbying effectively, organisations, and then elsewhere. Again, with civil servants, the same thing applies. There's an article recently in the Irish Independent, I won't name the people, but about 11 key officials who left NAMA, who went in and out of NAMA, and then with their contacts, with their phone numbers, into private real estate or related firms. None of that is deemed to be corrupt. None of it would breach the lobbying act, either as it is now, or as it will be, but is a small example of how Ireland works, and how, like, when people ask, how can we have the kind of society that we have? It's one of the richest countries in the world, and yet we have health crisis, education crisis, complete absence of action in terms of climate change. How can we get there? How can we have this tax haven system? And this is part of the answer, in terms of the massive influence that the top 1% have in terms of politics in this country, and that's part of how that is expressed. Just to finish, in relation to what should be done, I think at the very, very least, the demands from the, or the requests from Transparency International should be impacted. So, extending the standard cooling off period to two years. I have to say, I thought, it's a bit ludicrous, the argument that's being made, that, like, we really have to pay a lot of attention to the rights of former politicians to get a job in lobbying. I mean, I just, that's like, nobody else in the world has the right to a job in lobbying. The only reason they're getting access to these jobs is because they're former politicians. They're not getting it otherwise. The idea that these people have some innate right, and that we need to give significant weight to that, there's plenty of other jobs in the world. Most people don't get access to these lobbying jobs, wouldn't have a chance. So, we just make it clear, there's at least a two-year cooling off period whereby you can't walk out of politics and walk into a lobbying job for obvious reasons. You know what I mean? I just think, clearly, the interests of society as a whole, not to have this, you know, inappropriate influence and so on, take significant precedence over the individual right of former TDs or former Ministers to get job in lobbying firms. Secondly, the categorisation of breaches of cooling off periods and other post-term employment regulations as offences. I think it's bizarre that we would say that these things are not offences. And the outright ban on all members of the Oireachtas or local authorities from acting as lobbyists or receiving any income for the purpose of influencing public policy. Other additional points, I thought they were strong, is that the fact that there should be a requirement to disclose not just the source, but the amounts of funding received or fees charged by lobbyists with the lobbying regulator, as well as details of any gifts, hospitality or travel provided to the targets of lobbying. And to echo the point the Deputy Shorthall made in terms of access, I just, you know, I mean, I think it's ridiculous enough that former TDs get access to the car park, for example, car parking for life. Clearly, that should just be gone. We don't need this massive car park in the middle of town encouraging people to drive into town forever. But clearly, people should lose access. If they become, let's say, you had a cooling off period for two years and afterwards people become lobbyists, they should then be lobbyists like everybody else. They shouldn't have special privileges that relate to the fact that they were previously elected. They give that up for the period when they're lobbyists so that you don't have people just able to waltz in here and able to easily access. Obviously, yeah, you can't take their phone books away from them. You can't stop people calling people. You can't stop people having the social relations that they may have. But at least you send a signal that that sort of access is inappropriate and that we're opposed to the revolving door continuing to revolve. Thanks a lot. Thank you.