Thomas Byrne (Meath East, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

That is probably a better approach. Deputy Calleary has asked some very important and fundamental questions on various aspects of this.

On the question of Article 16 being triggered, while we might not be as shocked now two weeks on, the reaction Deputy Calleary shows today is similar to the Government's reaction on the day, namely, one of complete shock and surprise. It is absolutely the case that we had no knowledge of what was being planned. We had spent the previous weeks being asked about Article 16 from another perspective, and quite rightly pointed out that this was a pretty standard safeguarding clause in trade agreements and was not designed to eliminate the protocol or be used except in the most extreme circumstances. It came as a complete surprise to us when we saw that it was invoked. In my case, I saw it on social media at 4.30 p.m on the Friday while I was out for a walk. I was a bit shocked. It went against everything we had been considering and planning for over the previous weeks when this was an issue. It has caused continued consternation and has been deeply unhelpful.

On the how and the why the article was triggered, these are questions for the European Commission. Clearly, it should not have happened. There was a commercial dispute with AstraZeneca. We stand in solidarity with the Commission on that and on the vaccine purchasing arrangement. Article 16 should not have come into that at all, however. As soon as the Taoiseach was informed of this by his chief Sherpa he was immediately on the phone to Ursula von der Leyen. There was ongoing engagement in the early evening, but the Taoiseach will have to speak for himself on that because he was the one making the calls. There was subsequent engagement with Boris Johnson. We continue to engage with the Commission and other member states, at my level, at the Minister for Foreign Affairs' level, at the Taoiseach's level and at ambassadorial level.

The point of concern for the moment, and which Deputy Calleary has hit upon, relates to how will we ensure this does not happen again. The Government wants an early warning system to be put in place. Whatever meeting is reported today, there are also ongoing meetings. I will have a range of meetings with my counterparts too. There is a view, which is a risky view, that yes the Commission made a mistake and has acknowledged the mistake and that everything has been resolved. Clearly, that is not the case because the consequences of this matter are continuing. We must apprise our colleagues around the EU of the lasting consequences of what has happened around the protocol, and that when one action is taken it inevitably provokes an opposite reaction. Members may have seen press reports where our ambassador gave a full-blooded account of the consequences of invoking Article 16 to other EU ambassadors at a meeting of the Committee of the Permanent Representatives of the Governments of the Member States to the European Union, COREPER, last week. I have also done this with my colleagues, as has the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Coveney, and the Taoiseach in his interactions.

This has not been good and we want an early warning system. I am not sure about a formal process, as Deputy Calleary referred to, but engagement is ongoing to make sure that it does work. Before my time in the role, a great deal of work was done in recent years to keep the Commission and the other member states apprised of the actual situation on the ground in Northern Ireland. We cannot assume prior knowledge. We were lucky with Michel Barnier in that he had a long history in the context of the various roles he has held. He was a Minister for agriculture and for foreign affairs and then he was in the Commission when the PEACE programme funding was first put in place. Mr. Barnier had a deep knowledge of the situation in Northern Ireland but this may not be the case for everybody else, which would be natural. That is one of the first points. We must make sure that people know what the situation is like on the ground, that it is not simply something that can be put in writing between the EU and Britain and that there are many complicated aspects to it. Whatever meeting is reported today, I will not come here and describe this as a key, crunch meeting. There is ongoing engagement under way and we may not have a resolution on it today. It is safe to say that people are fully aware of the significance of what has transpired.

I will now turn to the Deputy's point on trade volumes and the concern about co-ordination.

A group comprised of representatives of all Departments meets on a daily basis to examine all of the issues around trading goods, particularly between Britain and Ireland. We are also, as I am sure are members, engaging with hauliers and logistics companies and their concerns are being fed into the system. I compliment officials and Government agencies on taking on board some of the concerns. People at the coalface and on the front line of importing and logistics need to get things done. Much of this work is time sensitive. They have brought many issues to our attention and I encourage them to continue to do that. The numbers show that some trade has moved from the land bridge to the direct routes. We can see that by volume. It is not possible to do an exact comparison but some trade has moved. Numbers on the Ireland-Britain route are down but they have increased dramatically on the direct continental routes.

I mentioned in my earlier contribution that Britain has not yet introduced checks to the extent that we have. Businesses will have to start preparing for this and Government will be trying to help them prepare for it through the various schemes. Businesses need to be aware that things are going to get more difficult. It is important to remember that checks are taking place for a reason. This is our contribution to the European Union Single Market and customs union. The Single Market was created to avoid red tape and border checks. Britain decided to leave the Single Market and that has inevitably resulted in checks raising their heads again. They are not temporary. This is an obligation we have to take seriously because our economic prosperity and the protection of our public health and safety depend on it. The Single Market is essential to our economy. That is an important message. We do not want these checks but they are essential to our membership of the Single Market. Revenue has introduced some easements to help the situation and that may continue but these are not exemptions or free passes. We have to implement the new arrangements in the most practical way possible.