Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)

The Deputy's first question was about Dáil reform. We must ensure the provision of considered and accurate information for the House is not supplanted by topicality, as if we were here to provide a day-to-day commentary on newsworthy issues. The Parliament must do its business according to the priorities it sets itself, which must include policy formulation and dealing with issues that will develop over a certain timeframe. We must not accept the idea that we are only relevant if we discuss issues that happen to be topical or are mentioned on morning radio programmes. Parliament must find a balance between taking up issues of urgent public importance and maintaining its role as the main legislative and debating forum in the democratic life of the country. This may mean discussing issues that are not of immediate topicality in wider society but the discussion of which is necessary in order to formulate ideas and decide how we should respond to the major issues of the day as they affect us and our relations with other countries and international organisations. Sometimes I feel Dáil reform is only about facilitating discussion of subjects that will be printable the following day. That is one aspect of it but it is not the full role of Parliament. Sometimes this point is missed. This is an issue for consideration by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. All parties in the House will participate and the Chief Whip will play a constructive role, now that he has settled in to his job, over the course of the summer.

The Minister of State, Deputy Roche, chairs an interdepartmental co-ordinating committee on European Union affairs. His job in this respect is to make sure the Government responds to emerging issues highlighted by Departments based on the work they do. We hear a lot about the importance of the Commissioner in the role of the civil service, so to speak, of the Union. We also have 90 people in Brussels on a full-time basis defending our interests through the Permanent Representation, where much detailed work is done on how to adapt and formulate policies at European level which are subsequently transposed into Irish law to ensure they meet our requirements. We do not hear one word about this during the course of the debate. It is as though the one person appointed as Commissioner, no matter who it is, is the embodiment of how we defend all our concerns. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the Commissioner, on taking up his or her position, must primarily focus on European interests. In the recent debate on the Lisbon treaty, this was an aberration in terms of the role of Commissioner and those who are defending our interests in the Union. I was asked whether the principle of proportionality is being respected with regard to the transposition of European legislation. As the Deputy correctly said, if we had passed the Lisbon treaty we would have a far better structure in terms of the role of national parliaments and national parliamentarians would have an enhanced role in terms of policy formulation in European legislation. This is now not available to us. The principles of proportionality and subsidiarity would have been prominent in the future workings of the Union, had it proceeded along the lines of the Lisbon treaty model. In any event, we are where we are.

During the referendum campaign it was suggested — I heard it in my part of the country and Members probable heard it in the west — that people will no longer be allowed to cut turf from their bogs. The ten year exemption, which is soon to expire, under the habitats directive relates to saving blanket bogs in special areas of conservation but opponents of the treaty presented it as though it denied people this freedom in every respect. Nothing could be further from the truth but who seeks accuracy when trying to win an argument? It depends on what side of the argument one is on. This is another example of people portraying the Union in an unfair way, in this case by suggesting it has the power to impose such a ban, which it has not. It is simply implementing a directive agreed by member states. We must decide either that we should have a habitats directive with special areas of conservation and national heritage areas or that we should not. The people who argue that the European Union is being too intrusive will next week oppose developments in certain areas because they want to maintain our heritage and protect the environment. I suppose it depends on what argument suits them on the day and nobody need seek consistency.

This is another example of an open misrepresentation of the position. Canvass teams told me that opposing canvass teams were talking this nonsense and reducing voters' consideration of a matter of national interest on the basis that they would never be able to cut turf again.

See this speech in context