Professor Gary Murphy:

When the Act was brought in in 2015, it was new and minor contraventions were practically inevitable. However, we have seen how a former senior Minister discussed an issue that came under his responsibility with a lobbyist and said it was a personal view. That cannot happen in a proper democracy where the Minister has responsibility for the issue in question. I cannot see how one can have private views regarding something one is in charge of publicly. That is what I was getting at in respect of the idea that some people have not quite got their heads around the regulatory framework. This is not extraordinarily onerous. The 2015 Act was not extraordinarily onerous. Mr. Devitt spoke about the possibility of finance being included - in other words, how much was spent on lobbying. That does not exist but it exists in other states.

Regarding the question about the cooling-off period, I visited the state of Washington 15 years ago. The cooling-off period there was five years. I gave a presentation to PRII where I mentioned this. You can imagine that the faces were aghast. That is a very long time - probably too long. A year is too short. I think two years is reasonable. The whole idea is to stop those who implement policy going back as lobbyists within a very short period of time to those implementing the policy.

That is why one year is simply too short. If it was anything over two years, issues could potentially arise with regard to individuals trying to make a living. As we know, there is a constitutional requirement in that regard. I believe two years is reasonable. Some of the states in the United States got into difficulties with the period being simply too long. Five years is an extraordinary amount of time. To the Deputy's final question, it is my view that the more information that is given to the regulator and ultimately the public by those who lobby, the better. I include text messages in that. That is where I stand. It goes to the heart of the principle. I do not believe any democrat or elected representative could have difficulty with the idea of those who act for the public having to be open to the public.