Mr. Eugene Drennan:

We were brought in to be told what was to be done at the end of different agendas being decided. I would not call it a consultation. We were told what was coming, how we were to go about it and what we had to do. We do not feel that we were consulted.

The previous speaker referred to ships and the safety and security declaration. In the declaration, under the customs union, customs officials have been strict about telling us that the carrier of the load is the registered number of the ship. If the carrier under the Union customs code is the registered number of the ship, why does the truck owner now have to take responsibility for the safety and security declaration? If we are the carriers of the load, the truck's trailer should be the identifier.

In these systems if one does not put in the correct ship registered number and one travels on a different ship, which happens regularly, that triggers a check. One will have to go through the process of being checked. Also, one has to amend the declaration. If one does not get checked in Dublin, one must amend it within four days. That is yet another declaration and uploading. That is part of the cumbersome method.

In addition, I wish to cover something that was said a minute ago, and I believe we have a breakthrough here with Mr. Harrahill. I agree with him. It is a collective approach, but the agreement has allowed us to identify what is GB product and Irish product. If the agreement allows us to do that, all of that product surely could come into a simpler system. This is why we need an independent person from business to try to tie these systems with customs' other system relating to what they do themselves. Agriculture has its system relating to what it does itself. The issue is the tie-up, the connectivity and to simplify it. If the agreement allows identifying the product, surely the system of taking that product could also be simplified.