Mr. Hilary Benn:

I will pick up on a couple of the points and then ask Dr. Whitford to respond to some of the others. I do not know which of my colleagues would like to offer a view on the Dover question. If nobody volunteers, I will take that question as well.

On the view of the United States of America, what pressure or conversations have taken place privately we will discover when the history books of this extraordinary time come to be written. We are all aware of the public comments that President-elect Biden and Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, have made about what might be the consequences of any undermining of the Good Friday Agreement. That has been made clear. I agree with Senator Chambers that we are back where we started, although in fairness the withdrawal agreement did not get into the specific details of how one deals with a lorry load of goods bound for a supermarket in Belfast. We hope to hear more about that this afternoon. I have some sympathy with the joint committee that it had to turn broad principles in regard to risk into something that can be made to work in practice. The evidence we have had in front of the select committee is that those trading east-west and west-east, with a month or two to go, had no idea what the arrangements will be. I hope we will hear more about that this afternoon.

On the strategic review mentioned by Deputy Haughey, it is a very sensible initiative. We must safeguard what was carefully put together in the Good Friday Agreement but as I said earlier my hope is that that relationship will be strengthened. If there can be a joint agreement on any changes or additions to the way in which we talk to each other and build our relationship then we should all welcome that. I agree with Deputy Haughey's point on negotiations continuing. I suspect that will happen whether there is an agreement or not because the general consensus in some respects is that any deal will be on the thin side, such that when people see it, they are likely to raise questions about this and that. If there is no deal, will that be the end? Are we going to say that is it, bye bye? I find that hard to believe. It would be very painful for all of us to go through no deal and, having realised that was not very sensible, to then have to come back around the table and try to find a way forward.

The other point I would make is that Brexit has happened legally. The UK has left the European Union and it leaves the Single Market and the customs union arrangements at the end of this month. Therefore, it seems to me the question for British politics, whether one is for Brexit or against it - Senators and Deputies can tell from the membership of this delegation this morning we are on different sides of the argument - is what should our future relationship be with our biggest, nearest and most important trading partners, friends and countries we co-operate with on security and defence? From my point of view, I would say we want the closest possible relationship that works in our mutual interest. That is what I am hoping for. Maybe, as Brexit politics, of which there has been a lot in this, gradually fades away because one side won in terms of the debate, however much I regret that, we can turn to the real question of how we are going to get on in future. Then, we can judge every item that is being negotiated on the basis of whether it is good for the country. I am certain that we will be continuing negotiations and a dialogue. Ms Hart has indicated in regard to the Dover question so I will pass over to her at this point.