Mr. Dáithí O'Ceallaigh:

There is much there to discuss. I agree with the Chairman. Let me deal with the first one on the future for the Good Friday Agreement. The two Governments committed themselves solemnly to the agreement. Both made enormous changes in how they handled themselves. For six years, from 2001 to 2007, I was the Irish ambassador in London. The Good Friday Agreement was not a final agreement. It was an overall agreement and there were many pieces in it that had to be dealt with before it was concluded. During the six years that I was in London, the two Governments were exceedingly close together. It did not mean that they always agreed, but they were determined together to try to provide peace in Northern Ireland. They did so on the basis that what they were trying to do would have to be acceptable to both sides. That is what has been missing over the past four years.

There was a minority British Government which was in very serious difficulties and dependent on the DUP. In political terms, one could understand why they had to listen carefully to the DUP. However, the DUP was only one voice from Northern Ireland. Other voices from Northern Ireland were not being heard at all. There was no nationalist in Westminster. Sinn Féin had many seats but, for one reason or another, its Members did not take their seats in Westminster. The one voice from Northern Ireland in the House of Commons who was against Brexit - she was a very brave lady indeed - was that of Lady Hermon, Jack Hermon's widow, but she was not listened to.

What does the future hold? There are difficulties in Northern Ireland. Politics is very fragile in Northern Ireland. If it is to move forward in a positive way, it will be totally dependent on the two Governments moving forward together.

I am not saying that there are not good relationships. There are good relationships between the two Governments, but what we need are structures, whether they be structures that currently exist, such as the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference, which has not met for a long time, or new types of structures which the Taoiseach mentioned in his speech to the institute in January. I refer to structures that are perhaps not dissimilar to the type of structures the British have for their annual meetings with the French or the Germans. We do need some way of ensuring that the two Governments can address problems in Northern Ireland together without megaphone diplomacy on a regular basis where it becomes just normal and where nobody gets frightened or upset when it is happening. It takes two to tango though.

As regards Northern Ireland, the unionists are refusing to talk to us. Effectively, they have been refusing to talk to us for quite a long while now. There was not an Executive in Northern Ireland and the unionist power was in the DUP in Westminster, so they thought they had the upper hand and that is okay if that is the way they look at it, but as it turned out they did not have the upper hand. I can understand what they say about the equivalence of a border down the Irish Sea and a border between Northern Ireland and the Republic, but I am afraid I disagree with them. There are different borders down the Irish Sea. The British Government has taken, for example, views on abortion, transgender issues and so on which were not effected in Northern Ireland. Was that a constitutional crisis between Northern Ireland and Britain? No. At the beginning of January, Arlene Foster, who does not like the protocol – I understand why she does not like it – said that while she did not like it she would try to work it and then things went awry for one reason or another. One was the invocation by the Commission of Article 16 with regard to the possible export of vaccines to the United Kingdom. Another was the sort of publicity that existed in London about the DUP.

George Osborne, the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, had a long piece in the Evening Standardin January in which he said that there is now an economic border down the Irish Sea and that it would shortly become a political border down the Irish Sea. That must have been extremely upsetting for Ulster unionists. It should be upsetting for us as well because we have accepted in the Good Friday Agreement the legitimacy of unionism and its position. If unionists are as upset now, as they are, that is dangerous for us, for people in Northern Ireland and for the whole situation.

For what it is worth, my understanding is that there are 27 technical issues in the protocol and that probably 23 of them can be resolved technically. The difficult ones are those that deal with health and veterinary standards. That does concern plants, seed potatoes, live meat exports and the export of food products. The EU has reached an agreement on veterinary arrangements with Switzerland which effectively eliminated such controls between the two. It has also reached an agreement with New Zealand – I do not think it is quite as extensive as the agreement with Switzerland – which allows, for example, the importation of New Zealand lamb into the European Union. It is only on sovereignty grounds, but so far, the British have refused to agree to veterinary arrangements between Great Britain and the EU. Were they to do so, these problems with regard to food, pets and all that sort of stuff could all disappear immediately.

That is what the non-unionist parties in Northern Ireland want, without exception. They want a veterinary arrangement with the United Kingdom that will allow these things to go backwards and forwards. There are solutions to the technical issues, but the notion in unionists' minds that this has become a constitutional matter is worrying and more difficult to deal with. I do not think it is a constitutional matter, but that is a personal view. What I think does not matter; it is what they think, and they think it is a constitutional matter.

We are going through a difficult time in our relations with London and with the North. We need to try to keep talking as much as we can and meeting as often as we can in the hope that a period will arrive when we can make progress together to deal with these issues that are dividing society.

I hope that answered the questions.