Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I will come back with a couple of issues. I agree on conflicts of interest and on the need to ensure there are not such conflicts and that the general public is not misled by somebody with such a conflict or a lobbyist with a particular interest by virtue of being such but who, in so far as the general public is concerned, is a private citizen having no interest whatsoever. That needs to be covered.

In the context of the legislation regarding Oireachtas Members having influence on issues such as were covered by the Mahon tribunal, I cannot understand how they would have such influence at present. Oireachtas Members are not members of local authorities and have no function in the matter.

The GDPR was landed upon us all without warning. I opposed it in principle because it was sprung upon the Oireachtas on the basis that it had to be. It was a decision made somewhere else. It is now being used as a means of depriving us of information that we, as public representatives, have a right to get from various offices, on the basis of being elected. On the other hand, there is often an expectation that we get a letter from the individual or group with regard to whom we are making the enquiry, and get their permission beforehand. That has no basis in law anywhere. I have never heard of anything like it. It was foisted upon everybody, affects all public representatives and is a means of slowing down or refusing to give information that is requested. That is a breach of the democratic principles we represent.

I would be loath to see the development of something similar in the lobbying Act because people have rights and we public representatives derive our rights to make representations on behalf of citizens from the electorate and not from anybody else. If we are impeded in that regard and if guidelines or rules are made to restrict the manner in which we can do it, how would we make representations in a case where we are opposed to the antics or activities of the person concerned? Do we presume that we get permission from the individual or entity to make the case against him, her or it? That does not stand up.

I am only using this as an example. I am in agreement with the Act in principle. I worry a little about the need for a bit more clarity on where we are going. In the course of my weekly advice clinics, I could meet somebody who is a lobbyist but I would not know that. Am I going to question all the people concerned? I do not know that either. I am not too sure about it. I am also not too sure about its constitutionality in this country. In other countries across Europe, some of which have different constitutions to ours, it is possible to do things regarding prevention we could not or would not do here. I am talking about clarity.

I agree with cooling-off periods but there is a danger we may eventually end up paying people during those periods, if we prevent them taking up another role somewhere when they may have commitments, families, liabilities or whatever the case may be. We do not know that yet. That will be tested in court. If it is, and it transpires the State has to compensate people - it would be more common at the lower levels of remuneration - we cannot, for instance, freeze the right of a family to obtain employment by simply saying they cannot have employment A or B but they can get employment at a lower level somewhere else. That is not constitutional either. I am stating that so we are all aware because I want to do the right thing, as do Deputies Doherty and Farrell. We do not want to be in conflict with the system but we do not want the system to be so convoluted that we cannot do our job without breaching it. It is a wide road. I see Mr. Devitt is raring to comment.