David Norris (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister to the House and I welcome the legislation, although it is fairly timid. It is very important because there is something insidious about unacknowledged lobbyists floating around the Houses. I was not aware that several former Members of the Oireachtas were active as lobbyists in the House. When I saw them around I thought they were just visiting and it leads to the idea of a golden circle of cronyism. A decent and honourable man, Tom Parlon, was a Minister of State one day and a lobbyist the next. There is cause for some hesitation.

As Members of the Oireachtas, we must prepare a register of interests and show our stock holdings, if any, or other occupational interests. I do not see why we should not have to acknowledge if we are members of Marriage Equality, the Iona Institute or the Knights of St. Columbanus. It would be very interesting to know people's background and where people are coming from. That would be very useful. Membership of these organisations is more important than having a few shares in the Ford Motor Company.

Looking at the history of this country, I can produce a number of examples of lobbying that were disadvantageous. A decent man and a former Member of the House, Des Hanafin, lobbied the Government privately and secretly, while a Member of the House to obtain an exemption from a European treaty on the issue of abortion. It was legitimate for him to lobby but nobody knew about it and the measure suddenly appeared. That is wrong. In the same way, the beef industry lobbied to get export credit guarantees and we were faced with the bill for supporting the industry.

Looking at the American experience, which is cited, how lamentable is the pork barrel nature of American politics and the fact that the gun lobby, the NRA, has such a bite on Congress and the Senate. The tobacco industry has the same and the arms industry holds the American parliamentary system in thrall. I presume research was done on this area in order to understand these negative examples because the American experience seems completely negative.

There should be some provision in the Bill to require Ministers to keep a written record of what was said at any of the meetings. It is important we know what was said and not just that the meetings took place. The Minister is correct in saying there is a strong public interest in knowing who was lobbying who about what, which is the baseline. Then there is the question of various voluntary bodies that lobby out of a specific interest. It is very valuable and it is part of the flow of information to us as public representatives. I would like the Minister to keep an eye on the use of the audiovisual, AV, room because there have been attempts by staff of the House to restrict the use of the AV room for lobbying purposes. That is its principal function. It is not there for the entertainment of schoolchildren, it is there for the information of politicians.