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

I thank the Deputy for what is quite a thoughtful question on the democratic deficit issue. The opportunity and upside of the protocol for Northern Ireland is of course that it has left the EU but is still treated as part of the EU Single Market for goods. This is a unique opportunity for it where trade and business are concerned. In the context of how the rules of the Single Market develop and are discussed and debated in Brussels, there are no politicians from Northern Ireland taking part. Certainly, political leaders in Northern Ireland have an input and a say in the context of the protocol and its implementation through the specialised committee. That is very much the case. There is also a real effort by the EU side to actually have regular consultation and reach out to business leaders and political leaders to really understand how the protocol is impacting. However, it would also be a difficult proposition to suggest that there be MEPs from Northern Ireland in the European Parliament when Northern Ireland is not in the EU. Thus there are compromises being made in the context of trying to prevent what would be a bigger problem, namely, having to put border infrastructure between North and South on the island of Ireland, which is something I do not think is doable, implementable or politically acceptable. Of course, the alternative to that is that the Republic of Ireland, and the island as a whole, would be taken out of the EU Single Market for goods by default, which we could not allow either given that it is in many ways the basis of a competitive economy for us here. The protocol, therefore, is a way of trying to manage disruption in the best way available. However, it is not perfect and we will try to do everything we can to listen to and ensure political leaders in Northern Ireland are part of the discussion so we can reflect those views in European institutions when and where necessary. The political tensions around the implementation of the protocol and so on have created an atmosphere where it is difficult to get constructive dialogue at the moment but, hopefully, that is something that can change over time and we can ensure concerns in Northern Ireland are more than reflected in Brussels.

On fishing, I am very familiar with that element of the TCA and spent many hours trying to influence that outcome. It could have been a lot worse but it still was not a good outcome.

A no-deal Brexit would have been far worse for the fishing industry but we are still talking about Ireland losing approximately 15% of our total value of fish quota in 2020, which is approximately €43 million of a lost catch opportunity for our industry, which is significant. Much of this is mackerel, which is the most valuable fish stock to our fishing industry, particularly in Donegal. There is an ongoing conversation between the Government and the European Commission led primarily by the Minister, Deputy McConalogue, supported by the Taoiseach and me, to look at what we can do in the European Union to try to remedy what we regard as a burden sharing issue, whereby Ireland is being asked to carry too much of the burden versus other EU countries that have not lost the same level of percentage losses that we have. Let us wait and see where that goes.

I do not think it is a realistic proposition that we could start negotiating on a bilateral basis with the UK and access UK waters. This, of course, is part of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, which is an EU-UK negotiation. We cannot legally start doing side deals that undermine the international trade agreement between the EU and UK when the competence on trade negotiation is at EU level rather than member state level. I do not want to raise expectations.

There are some issues on which we need to try to negotiate solutions bilaterally with the UK and Scotland, for example with regard to Rockall, but negotiating quota share and access as a side deal, and expecting that other EU interests would not notice it and that there would not be a consequence for Ireland in terms of quota allocation under the Common Fisheries Policy, will not happen. It is important to be honest about this.

Certainly within the EU, we have not yet concluded fishing discussions regarding whether Ireland has been asked to take an unfair level of the burden of fishing opportunity losses. As I said, no deal would have been far worse. What the UK Government was looking for on fishing was many multiples of what it got in terms of access to extra fish. Even so, €43 million is a lot of money to an industry that has quite tight margins and it does have an impact, not only on fishing opportunities but also on the processing sector. We have to look to compensate primarily with fish and not money. What the fishing industry wants is fishing opportunities from stocks that are well managed as opposed to money in handouts. Financial compensation may well be part of the package also.

I hope that in the coming weeks we will have a conclusion to the discussions on the Brexit adjustment fund. The Deputy said it is not a lot of money but to get more than €1 billion of a €5 billion fund means more than 20% of the overall pot is going to a country that has 2% of the population. I know we are impacted significantly more than any other country but it still represents a pretty good outcome. We will continue to negotiate to maximise the amount of money available to the country.