I thank the Deputy for raising the issue. Including financial disclosure requirements in returns to the register was considered when the original Act was developed. It was also raised as part of the first and second statutory reviews of the Act. As outlined in the report relating to the first review, the options for requiring a financial disclosure were examined at the policy development stage. It was considered that including any financial disclosures on the register would require striking an appropriate balance between required transparency, ensuring the confidentiality of commercially sensitive information and safeguarding the right to privacy. It emerged that there would be significant administrative issues in establishing consistent and comparable financial data for inclusion in the register, and it was determined there should not be a requirement to include such data. A balance has to be struck between the requirement for more information to increase transparency and the level of administrative burden the provision and evaluation of such information may place on the commission. I should put on record that this is not a change the Standards in Public Office Commission, SIPO, has been seeking.
In addition, it is important to remember that the degree of spending on lobbying activities is not necessarily an accurate indicator of the impact of any lobbying activity. For example, a lobbying campaign undertaken by a PR company costing, say, €100,000 may not have as much impact on the issue in question as a phone call to the relevant Minister, which would have no financial cost, might have. I would consider that it is more important for correct and up-to-date information regarding lobbying events in each relevant period to be contained on the register. The commission has outlined that it liaises with those on the register in instances where a return may not meet the required standard, and this work is done on a continuous basis. I will not, therefore, accept the Deputy's amendment.
I might conclude with a quick word about the other issue the Deputy raised. She has raised it previously in the House. I acknowledge that the relevant amendment has been ruled out of order. It relates to the issue of former Members of this House engaging in lobbying activity here. I have been clear in my view that that should not take place, but I do not believe it is our position as a Legislature to do that through an Act of the Oireachtas. Rather, I think it is a matter for the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission. If it were done through legislation, that would raise many questions such as who would police it and whether somebody having been registered as a lobbyist would mean he or she could not in any circumstances enter the House despite being a former Member, or whether it would be only that such a person would not be allowed to enter if he or she was coming in to conduct an act of lobbying. It should also be borne in mind that irrespective of where an act of lobbying takes place, it is reportable and should be recorded on the lobbying register. That is a statutory requirement and it is important to make that point.
There are many lobbyists around Leinster House, although very few of them are former Members. There seems to be easy access, which is appropriate in the vast majority of cases, whereby groups and individuals are allowed to come in and make their cases in respect of different issues. It is a matter for the Oireachtas, as a body, to adjudicate on what is or is not appropriate because it would fall on the Oireachtas to put in place the mechanisms to police and enforce any such rules that would have to be brought about. I reiterate my view that it is not appropriate that lobbying would be conducted by former Members in the precincts of Leinster House. I do not agree with that being done.
