Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I am a long-standing Deputy for the constituency of Wexford. I am a former leader of the Irish Labour Party and have been privileged to serve in three Irish Governments, most recently between 2011 and 2016. I co-chaired, with Northern Ireland's Minister of Finance, the special EU programme bodies that distributed both the PEACE funds and the regional development funds.

It is important, because we are in public session, to state that one of the terms of reference of Lord Jay's committee is to have an understanding of the perspective of the Oireachtas in relation to the protocol. There is a consensus view across all shades of opinion and parties in the Oireachtas which is against Brexit because that was always going to be a disruptor, and a consensus that the type of exit should be minimally disruptive to relations between Ireland and the United Kingdom. Unfortunately, the most severe form of Brexit, exiting the Single Market and customs union, was the path chosen. That was always going to cause a problem because if both of our jurisdictions were to be in separate customs unions, there was going to have to be a point of division, either on the Irish Sea or the island of Ireland. It was inevitable. That is why we have a protocol. We spent four years trying to find a solution to that question, which simply could not be avoided.

There is no doubt that real issues have emerged from negotiations. People have talked about sanitary and phytosanitary agreements, the importation of meat products that may enter the European Single Market which may be a cause of concern, and so on. The witnesses have presented much evidence. My fundamental question is about the growing consensus view in the UK Parliament about mechanisms to resolve those issues. It seems to me that there are two positions. I think the consensus position in the Oireachtas is that all these issues can be resolved within the architecture of the protocol and the mechanisms of dialogue that are there. We have had discussions with Maroš Šefovi, who is flexible in all of these matters. Are there issues which are fundamentally unresolvable? In that case, the protocol itself must be either set aside or fundamentally altered. Those are two definitive positions. We need to know which approach is being taken by the British Government and Parliament. We can resolve matters by dialogue through the mechanisms available, flexibilities, understandings and the talking process. From a political perspective, there are those who want to exploit difficulties for political reasons. If it is determined that these matters must be resolved by setting aside the protocol, we have a fundamental issue that we need to talk about separately.