Mr. Colm Markey:

I will try to take the issues from top to bottom. The importance of Europe was raised by Senator Robbie Gallagher and his point was quite reflective. On the ground, the image of Europe has not been helped in the last six or 12 months. The Brexit issue probably has not helped but, equally, there is the whole vaccine situation and, although it has probably improved in the last month or two, the perception of Europe is not as good as it should be on the ground. Ireland was always a very pro-European country but there is a disconnect and it is very important that we bridge that disconnect. The forum on the future of Europe is a part of that but we have to be careful it does not become a PR exercise for Europe. It has to be about people engaging with the substance of the issues, and the talk of scrutiny of legislation being brought into an Irish context is very important because it makes all that European activity relevant.

In regard to the Senator’s comments about worrying times in the North, that commentary was very fair. There are obviously those who are trying to stoke up a bit of fervour coming into the marching season and there is a need, particularly at European level, to let that pass to some degree, and then let us have the conversations in more measured times than in the middle of the marching season. Perhaps we can buy a little time and move it to the autumn, where it might be more straightforward to have a conversation and the grandstanding might be gone at that stage. To be honest, every time I have seen a new leader on the unionist side in the North, grandstanding in the early days has always been a big part of it. That might change a little over time, so the Senator's suggestion about the season we are in and taking a little time is very important.

With regard to the rest of the EU and Brexit, there is a distinct frustration or lack of tolerance at a couple of levels, in particular in regard to it taking centre stage and being a distraction from the rest of the work being done. That is the first point. The second is the fact it was felt that the measures were put in place and that this should, in many ways, allow things to progress, and a lot of work was put into that. As much as anything, there is the broader question of whether this is impacting on the EU and what the collateral damage for Europe in the long term could be if a country cannot hold to its commitments, and whether this means other countries would look at this. The unity and the definition of what it is to be part of the EU has been challenged by some of this, and that is a frustration at European level.

I will move on to the points from Senator Niall Ó Donnghaile. With regard to the digital green certificate, from the get-go, at European level the sense was that this is something that Europe was open to rolling out on a broader basis if others were willing to co-operate with it. That is the starting position from Europe. The question then is whether others are willing to engage on the other side. There is certainly interest in engaging in regard to the vaccines but, in the broader sense, it will take the other parties to come on board in order to get co-operation. Certainly, from the European perspective, while the digital green certificate came in for an enormous amount of flak at the start from pressure groups, the general consensus is that it is a good idea. It is definitely something I would see like to see rolled out to the UK and the USA but it remains to be seen.

In regard to a health insurance card, I would not comment as I am not an expert. I appreciate the point the Senator is making about the number of countries that are outside and I can certainly come back to the Senator on that scenario. It is important that, in all these measures, and it is no different from the Erasmus programme, we bridge the gap and keep everyone unified in whatever way we can because it might be good in the longer term.

Senator Tim Lombard raised several points. On the situation on products of mixed origin, there is a point that has not been covered. That is the fact that, particularly on the dairy side, in the same way that this product is not eligible for third country trade agreements, it also may not be eligible for intervention-type supports if they were needed in the future because it may not actually be European produce, and there is a question of how we deal with it in that context. There is a question and there is certainly a need for clarity. I specifically asked the Commission about this several times recently and it has not come back with an answer. However, it is vital that the North South Ministerial Council feeds into this because it has the option to come up with workarounds that could be a solution to put forward to the EU, and that has not happened.

It is a massive issue when we consider the level of exports involved on the dairy side, but particularly on the whiskey side. We see Irish whiskey moving up the charts in terms of the competition with Scottish whisky, which was always the dominant player in previous decades. If that is going to be challenged by us being at a competitive disadvantage because of trade agreements, it is very significant to the future of that industry. It is something the Seanad should look at further.

On the fisheries issues, I agree totally with the Senator in terms of the multipliers, which are different from the agri sector. In rural economies which do not have many other things, the multiplier from the fisheries side is vital. When we talk about the cuts in fish quota, the question is where we recover that from. Compensation only lasts so long and it is only backstopped for 18 months. We have to look at the Common Fisheries Policy in the longer term - it is a long-term play - and we have to look at total available catch, TAC, so there are those two options whereby we could work our way back from the current position. With regard to total available catch, that is really looking at other countries giving ground towards Ireland and, given the amount of work that has gone into Brexit in the last couple of years, that is going to be hard. However, total available catch and the Common Fisheries Policy are two issues we should focus on in terms of the future of the fisheries industry. If we go back to the Hague preferences from the 1980s, there was a clear identification that Ireland was at a disadvantage and, through the Hague preferences, additional recognition was given. If we can use that as precedent to suggest something similar can happen again, it would be very important.

On the tourism point, I sit on the transport and tourism committee. At European level, the budget for tourism is extremely small. When I asked about that, the reason given is that it is due to the fact the competition is between European countries and one is pitching against the other for the same market, that is, the European tourist. We need to look at this in the context of attracting US tourists or those from outside of the EU so we are looking at bringing additional tourism business into the EU. That is a way to look at it that may be relevant as a justification for a greater tourism budget going forward. It is definitely not considered a priority for EU funding currently because it is seen as an internal market rather than an international market, although that is possibly something we should change.

To come to the Chairman's points in regard to the protocol and the situation in four years time, as it stands, a significant cohort of people in Northern Ireland are ideologically opposed to the protocol and we are going to have a massive challenge, so I could not agree more with the Chairman. However, one thing that has not been allowed to be part of the conversation to date, although it may be when the marching season is ended and calm comes again, is the unique status that Northern Ireland has been given in the trade and co-operation agreement through the protocol in terms of having a foot in each camp. That has not even begun to be a conversation in any of this yet.

Perhaps we have an opportunity to win over people who are currently sceptical about it if, at the end of the day, it is money in someone's pocket. I always believed that when we were flying during Celtic tiger times, the negative sentiment towards the South from the unionist community was less. If we can create an economic opportunity for unionism, and everybody in the North, around the TCA and the protocol that gives them a unique status they can build on, then maybe they will start to believe in it. It is very important that we do that.

On the UK coordination group, while to date there have been no Irish people on it, it has to be recognised by everybody that this group has been very good to Ireland during the workings-out of the past number of years. In a way, maybe it was more objective without Irish people on it because outsiders on that group were batting for the Irish interest. That has not necessarily been a negative. However, at this stage, where it is becoming more about implementation and the latter stages of all this, it is practical, on-the-ground experience that will count. There now needs to be a change towards, let us say, a more Irish influence, where it is experience of the practical concerns and how they are playing out on the ground that will be very important.

There is a need for a system approach change from an objective European position up until now to a more considered, practical experience on-the-ground position in that UK co-ordination group. That could be telling in undermining some of the negatives or misrepresentation that has come from other sides on this as well. If there are people with practical experience on the ground in Ireland, for instance, who are able to challenge the misrepresentation of the situation, that could be key going forward. A greater Irish interest in that would be welcome. There may be a willingness at European level to look at that too because, frankly, in many places across Europe people feel they have given enough to Brexit. If somebody from this end could step in and offer a few solutions that would move things forward, Europe would be receptive to that. Certainly, we need to look at getting greater representation from an Irish perspective.

I will leave it at that. I appreciate all the questions from everyone. As we said at the start, engagements like this are very important, especially if we can do it on an ongoing basis. For one thing, it makes Europe far more relevant at home but it also brings the interaction between the two parliaments closer together. That is very important.