SIPO f lags power gap

Standards commission felt it lacked teeth to investigate D’Arcy post-Seanad post

AN INQUIRY by the Standards in Public Office Commission found a former Fine Gael minister should have notified it of his plan to immediately take up a lucrative role with a lobby group for the investment industry after resigning as a senator.

However, the standards commission was powerless to act and had such weak powers it could not even compel Michael D’Arcy, pictured, to correspond with it because of a ‘lacuna’, or a gap, in lobbying legislation.

Internal records also reveal how SIPO had repeatedly flagged its lack of enforcement powers with the Department of Public Expenditure but that nothing had been done to strengthen the law.

Former Fine Gael minister Michael D’Arcy stepped down as a senator last September to take up a role as chief executive of the Irish Association of Investment Managers (IAIM).

Two TDs – Sinn Féin’s Pearse Doherty and Deputy Paul Murphy

– made complaints to the standards commission about the move and how a one-year cooling-off period had not applied for the job change.

However, documents describe how SIPO’s hands were tied as to what it could do, despite believing Mr D’Arcy should have notified the commission about the post.

In a letter to him last November, SIPO wrote: ‘On the basis of the information available to it, the commission is of the view that your obligations under Section 22 of the Act were engaged in taking up such a position, given the nature of the organisation and its registration on the Register of Lobbying, and that the consent of the commission should have been sought.

‘The commission has formed no view as to whether consent would have been granted, with or without conditions.’

Mr D’Arcy made no further contact with SIPO but had said in previous correspondence that his advice was that he did not need to notify it. An earlier letter from the commission on September 30, explained: ‘I note that in your email you state your view that your obligations under Section 22 of the Act are not engaged. It is not clear why you believe this to be the case.’

It said even though the IAIM had not submitted lobbying returns in some time, it was still registered as a lobbyist, and that the organisation’s website said it was ‘actively involved in policy development’.

It continued: ‘As you have neither sought nor obtained the consent of the commission to waive or reduce your cooling-off period, the commission wishes to ascertain whether you should have done so.’

The response from Mr D’Arcy to that letter was withheld under FoI.

Internal emails also disclose how the commission judged it a ‘serious matter’ but warned that its ability to investigate was limited. One official wrote that they couldn’t even compel a response from Mr D’Arcy, although he did write back following the first letter.

‘We may not receive a response given the lack of formal investigation powers or sanctions under the Act but we can, at least, make inquiries,’ said an email.

Correspondence with the Department of Public Expenditure also flagged SIPO’s previous complaints about its lack of enforcement powers. One email to the department said it had ‘commented repeatedly’ on how toothless it was when it came to post-employment matters and that the lacuna would have to be legislated for.

Sherry Perreault, SIPO’s head of ethics and lobbying regulation, said SIPO had twice made submissions in 2016 and 2019 to Government seeking stronger powers. ‘The Department of Public Expenditure and Reform has the policy lead for the legislation and is currently undertaking a new review,’ she added.

‘We can, at least, make enquiries’