Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Commission Vice-President. Like all my colleagues I acknowledge the record of the Commission in supporting Ireland since the Brexit vote. Indeed in 2017 Mr. Barnier spoke in this Chamber and addressed a joint session of the Dáil and Seanad which is a rare honour. It was a recognition of his role and also the importance of the matter. In his remarks the Vice-President said that Northern Ireland was on the mind and in the hearts of the Commission during the negotiations. While that is true, it was not so on 29 January. I know he does not want to engage in that and does not want to engage in what he sees as a blame game. Our job here is parliamentary scrutiny of our relationship with the European Union institutions. We would be remiss in our job if we did not pursue what happened in the days leading up to 29 January. I am concerned that he has not engaged with my colleagues who have previously asked about those issues. It is part of our job to try to get there.

The Vice-President said Article 16 was never activated. With complete respect I say he is splitting hairs because the signal was given that it would be activated. Were it not for the intervention of the Taoiseach and the Minister, Deputy Coveney, it probably would have been activated. However, giving the signal was enough to do the damage my colleagues have mentioned. Who inserted the signal into the documentation?

We are led to understand that notification was given to Commissioners and their cabinets half an hour before it became public. Will the Vice-President confirm if that is true? Was notification given to individual commissioners or their cabinets before it was published? Was it the Vice-President or the president who was involved in inserting the original signalling of the article in the document? The export process was signalled for a number of days. Therefore, presumably the intention to trigger Article 16 was being discussed beforehand. It is our job to try to understand that so that it does not happen again. That brings me to my second question.

I accept the Vice-President has very strong personal relationships with the Minister, Deputy Coveney, and other officials. However, particularly in politics, people move on, as we know. Article 16 will still be there and the protocol will still be there. I welcome the Vice-President's reiteration of support for the protocol. We need a permanent mechanism that will withstand the changes in personnel and will withstand the changes in relationships between the Commission and a potential future government. Senator Chambers and other colleagues have put it to the Vice-President that there should be a formal mechanism involving the Irish Government, and dare I say it the Northern Ireland Executive, such that when Article 16 is to be discussed, and it is to be hoped it will never be triggered again, the Commission cannot do so on its own and cannot even signal that it will be done without the co-operation and consent of the Irish Government and by consultation with the Northern Ireland Executive. I ask the Vice-President to give us his thoughts on a more permanent solution that is not based solely on personal relationships, which are important but transient. If we are to avoid the damage that has occurred on our island as a consequence of what happened on 29 January, we need a permanent reaction.

I reiterate that we acknowledge the support. However, the committee's job is parliamentary scrutiny of the work of the Vice-President and of the Commission. We have a responsibility to our colleagues in both Houses of the Oireachtas and the people we represent to get to the detail of what happened on 29 January and on the days leading to that date so that the committee can make recommendations to ensure it does not happen again. It is not a blame game; we are doing our job.