Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I do not want to over-comment on knocking off the barnacles. I know what the Prime Minister was getting at. He wants to try to smooth the implementation, which has been very jarring for some people in terms of tension on certain issues, such as bringing plants into garden centres in Northern Ireland in the springtime and the time delays in ports. Some people would make a very strong case that the grace periods need to be a lot longer than they have been. There is a range of issues.

The difficulty is that sometimes in politics we can use deliberately ambiguous language and different people can take what suits them from these messages. It is much harder to do this on something such as trade, which is very black and white with regard to the legal responsibilities on protections of an EU Single Market and the precedent being set if we do not implement the rules in a rigid and consistent way. This is why the protocol is there. It would not be there if it did not really need to be. We cannot have a situation where other countries in the EU are suspicious that there is, essentially, an unguarded back door into the EU Single Market through Northern Ireland. They will not tolerate that. Some in the Chamber have been in the European Parliament and they will understand why. Countries such as France, Germany, the Netherlands and Belgium and many others value the protections provided by the Single Market and the need to protect the integrity of the Single Market for everybody staying in the EU. We cannot create a double standard just because of a difficult political negotiation with the UK. This is why the solution became the only one left on the table. It was because of the kind of Brexit the British Government insisted on pursuing that Northern Ireland had to be treated in a slightly different way to the rest of the UK by a de facto extension of the EU Single Market for goods to prevent the need for any border infrastructure on the island of Ireland. The price of this was limited checks in the ports of Larne and Belfast. Now we have to try to find a way to implementing this in a way that can be accepted.

I do not want to overplay the positivity about negotiations between Lord Frost and Vice-President Šefovi. There was a reasonably good meeting the week before last in Brussels but there are still serious outstanding issues. Both negotiators are under some pressure to deliver. Certainly from Vice-President Šefovi's perspective, he needs to ensure the EU is seeing follow-through on the commitments to which the UK has signed up, which to me seems a perfectly reasonable ask. He is willing to show some flexibility in timelines on the implementation. I do not want to comment too much on British politics but certainly there are also political pressures on Lord Frost and expectations around this.

As I have said, from what I can remember there are 26 issues and five of six which are political and contentious. I mentioned some of them earlier with regard to SPS arrangements, steel, tariffs, country of origin issues and ensuring no impediments to the supply of medicines into Northern Ireland. There has been an issue regarding VAT on second-hand cars, which was quite contentious. Again, both sides are looking at what is possible and what is not. This gives the committee a flavour of some of the technical issues. Then, of course, there are discussions on grace periods on issues such as veterinary health certificates and for how long the grace periods are acceptable.

Likewise, with regard to raw prepared meats such as minced meat and sausages, there is no third country in the world that exports prepared raw meat into the EU Single Market. It just does not happen. The UK is looking for an exception to this rule. The EU is stating it cannot do this without creating a precedent for a range of other countries that would like the same provisions. At present, there is a grace period, which means sausages and minced meat come into Northern Ireland, but this grace period will end at some point. When this will happen and what will happen after it are the types of issues under discussion. These are not easy issues to resolve, even though they were resolved in the protocol when it was signed up to and in the implementation plan for the protocol, which was also signed up to by the British Government in December. They have been reopened and the EU is trying to be as pragmatic and reasonable as possible but it can only go so far.

With regard to Article 16, this was a mistake that should not have happened. It would not have happened if there had been normal consultation. It was a very unusual week when it happened. The European Commission was under a lot of pressure about the lack of supply of vaccines, particularly from AstraZeneca, and the focus of the discussion was very much not the protocol at all. It was around trying to secure consistent supplies of vaccine that were being produced in the EU but some of which were being exported out of the Union by companies that were not fulfilling commitments to the Union. Unfortunately, the protocol got caught up in that debate on the basis of the fear of some supposedly legal expert that if there were to be any limitation on export of vaccines because of the protocol they could travel through Northern Ireland and into Great Britain in a way that could not be managed. This was flawed thinking on many levels quite frankly but that is how it happened

In my view, although I do not know for sure, even Vice-President Šefovi did not know this was being proposed. Certainly Commissioner Mairead McGuinness did not know. This was managed by quite a small circle of people and mistakes were made. Once we heard about it we acted very quickly. We got on the phone and spoke to all of the people who needed to be part of the conversation and it was reversed within four hours. Unfortunately, the issue lit a flame under people who were opposed to the protocol and we have not managed to dampen down those flames since, quite frankly. I do not think this was the only issue but it was the trigger that allowed some people to take a very aggressive stance against the protocol and against the EU's approach to Northern Ireland more generally. This is a significant frustration within the Commission. It certainly contributed to the negative environment that is there.

The Deputy's final question was on the fact that we cannot rely on relationships. This is totally true. We cannot have relationships between an Irish Government and EU institutions based on the personalities that happen to be in the privileged positions at the time. The only reason I make the point on personal relationships is that we are fortunate with the two key negotiators for the EU. Michel Barnier has a real understanding and passion for Ireland that started long before Brexit discussions. It goes right back to when he was a Commissioner.

Likewise, Vice-President Maros Šefovi is genuinely interested in Ireland and the complexity of politics on the island of Ireland, and that helps. Of course, many of these relationships are between my officials and their counterparts in the European Commission; this is not solely reliant on two individuals or, for example the Taoiseach's relationship with President Von der Leyen, which is also a very good relationship. It is an institutional linkage and we have invested heavily in ensuring we have a team in Brussels that can reinforce those relationships and we will continue to do that.