Thomas Byrne (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I do not blame officials. It is our responsibility. Former Members are another issue. I believe that will be dealt with in the legislation. That is an issue. They are allowed to come but one could ask what they are doing. There are people the public would not know if they visited the Houses or saw television cameras pointing them out. We must ask what people are doing and why they seem to have free run of the building. I object to that. I have never allowed someone to have free run of the building but it seems to be common practice in these Houses at the moment. It has been most obvious in recent weeks. I often wondered how certain individuals seemed to have free run of the place. That must stop. We do not need lobbying legislation. The various administrative committees in the Houses could easily come up with rules such as publishing the register of visitors. Ordinary members of the public have nothing to fear from that and Members have nothing to fear either.

The meeting of the Taoiseach and the tobacco industry illustrates the need for a more open and transparent system in which citizens can have faith. I met representatives of the tobacco industry about a year after I was elected. It was only subsequent to the meeting that I realised it was a gross violation of United Nations protocol. I was quite embarrassed that I did not know that when I met the representatives. It is something politicians are not meant to do but the situation has changed under the current Government. It is the first time such a meeting took place. It seems to be the case that if one gets the right politically connected consultant or lobbyist to do the work, the meeting will take place.

The situation did not start with this Government but it seems to be continuing. We all know what went on and we have all read about the Mahon and Moriarty tribunals. We hear from the tapes how the banks wound up politicians and regulators. There was too much close interaction in that regard. Once again, the banks seem to have too much influence on the process for dealing with mortgage arrears. The banks have been let off and given what they want in the personal insolvency legislation and the code of conduct for mortgage arrears that is due to be published. There is too much of that going on and it must stop.

As Members of this House we could pledge not to allow lobbyists to have free access and not to sign in people in order that they can go around visiting Members. When I ran for the Seanad it was suggested to me to come back to Leinster House to canvass sitting Members. I thought that was most inappropriate and I did not do it. I am sure many did and perhaps they did not see anything wrong with it but I did not think the Houses of Parliament were the place for such activity.

We must take a much more rigorous approach. The Government appears to be trying to water down some original proposals in the Bill on lobbying. That is most unwelcome. Situations can arise at social functions and things could be said that might have consequences and should be regulated. I have no difficulty with any record of who contacts us. We are lobbied daily. As the main Opposition spokesperson in the Seanad on the area, I note that I was not contacted by Camelot. Perhaps that is an indication either of the lack of importance of the Seanad or my lack of importance. I do not know. I do not think I would have met Camelot.

It is not just Camelot, gambling interests in general are very active. The alcohol industry is also very active and it must be said that NGOs are active and while we support the work they do, it should be registered and done in public so there is no issue that could arise. Not everyone will agree when someone asks us to change legislation. Some NGOs have different reasons for doing things so it must be regulated so the public knows what is being sought by whom and who they are meeting. A simple first step would be for us to state that we will not let lobbyists have free run of the Houses. It only takes a few Members to allow that to happen.

We support this motion. I do not see why the Government amended it as it was non-controversial. The Government would agree with everything in it, although perhaps the reference to the tobacco industry was seen as political. The wording of the motion states there is a need for transparent and accountable regulations governing parliamentarians in their engagement with those representatives, which we are told the Government agrees with. It is a pity, however, that meeting took place. It will be chalked up as a major victory for tobacco interests that they got into a Government. They try in every way to meet representatives and they are clever enough. There was a particularly controversial issue in the last Dáil and I was targeted to be persuaded to vote a certain way. It was left to a small number of individuals, with whom I was personally friendly, to talk to me about it and it was very hard to say no in those circumstances. Once I acquainted myself with the principles involving parliamentarians meeting the tobacco industry, I made every possible excuse not to meet them. The lobbyist who contacted me moved on from the tobacco industry and acknowledged that to me subsequently. He could see it and told me he understood. They understand in their heart of hearts because there are rules in place for a reason.