Mr. Colm Markey:

I thank the Chairperson and all of the members of the committee for inviting us to this engagement his afternoon. It is very important. Since joining the European Parliament, through my membership of various committees, including those on agriculture, transport and tourism and fisheries, I have found myself engaged at the coalface of the key issues involved in the withdrawal of the UK from the European Union. I will focus on a couple of examples of the issues I have encountered.

There are many issues of concern in the area of agriculture and food. One in particular relates to products of mixed origin, such as milk which is collected on both sides of the Border before being pooled and processed together to make cheese, milk powder or Bailey's, for instance. Likewise, there are products such as whiskey, which traditionally moved seamlessly over and back across the Border at the various stages of processing and bottling. Where products are sourced, processed and packaged exclusively in either the South or the North, their status is clear. However, where products are sourced or processed on both sides of the Border, their status is not clear. They may not qualify for trade agreements and, therefore, may be subject to higher tariffs that undermine the idea of an all-Ireland economy. The UK has taken a flexible approach in this area. I have questioned the EU's approach and urge the Government to ensure the EU takes an equally flexible approach.

As regards fishing, the most significant problem is the disproportionate loss of fish quotas, which has created great difficulties for an already struggling industry. The Government must continue to work at Council level for a rebalancing of the burden sharing and to explore practical opportunities such as total allowable catches, TACs, under the Common Fisheries Policy to adjust share of fishing rights to help countries worst affected. I look forward to the report from the Government seafood task force and the recommendations it makes. Ultimately, fishermen want to fish and talk of compensation or decommissioning of boats holds no appeal.

In the area of transport and trade, there have been successes and challenges. The enhanced ferry capacity to mainland Europe which has been delivered by public and private investment has been extremely effective. However, since the start of the year, there has been a significant reduction in trade between Britain and the Republic. A corresponding increase in trade with Northern Ireland might suggest it is being used as a back door. The Government and its agencies need to offer support to importers and exporters, particularly in navigating the complexities of customs clearance. The removal of derogations in the coming months will further increase the regulatory burden on these businesses.

Previous speakers referred to the €5 billion Brexit adjustment reserve. I have questioned the motivation of some countries who sought, if you like, to reopen the allocation key for the reserve. I pointed out in a committee that it was something of a cash grab. It seemed in some way to change the direction of travel of this. While the European Parliament has agreed its position and that is to be voted through this week, I remain concerned that when it goes to trialogue the Council of Ministers will seek to change the allocations. It is vital the Government continues to defend the Irish position and does not let the allocation be eroded in any way.

These issues serve as examples of the practical difficulties we have encountered. As the Member of the European Parliament who lives closest to the Border, I believe the biggest concern of people I know, North and South, is the re-emergence of any semblance of a border, economically or socially. Recent comments and events have served to reignite these fears. Suggestions of alternative approaches serve to undermine the structures that have already been painstakingly agreed and are underpinned by international agreements. This approach is being championed by people who are uncomfortable with how effective the protocol and withdrawal agreement can be and have placed ideology ahead of practical solutions. Those interested in dividing rather than uniting, looking to undermine rather than build out current structures and concerned with personal attacks rather than finding workable solutions need to stop playing politics with the Northern Ireland protocol and get down to the critical work of forging real solutions for the unique status that Northern Ireland has and which such people have not focused on making enough of. I look forward to the committee’s questions.