Mr. Bertie Ahern:

The last question is easy to answer. I doubt it. It would have been very difficult. I am not sure how members do anything these days with social media. I wish them well.

Going back to the Senator's other questions, the UK is on a different path. The big difficulty was Brexit, albeit not so much the vote itself, which was bad enough. I think it was in her Lancaster House speech when Theresa May said the UK was leaving the Single Market and was against the European Court of Justice. We all knew that. However, in the same speech she stated for the first time, and it had not even been debated, that she was against the customs union and wanted to pull out of it. It is the customs union bit that has created the problem in the North today. I would hope that somewhere along the way, Britain will come back into that because it can be out of the Single Market but in the customs union. They were separate issues. I think Theresa May is a good person and she did a lot to try to be helpful in her proposals but that one was not helpful. Since then, they have been on a track and we have all seen what has gone on in Britain over the last five to six years. The politicians are very slow to admit that this started with Brexit. Some day, some of them will be brave enough to say that it was Brexit that created their difficulties. I do not expect them to change their minds and to join the European Union tomorrow but they could start co-operating and integrating things that are in their interests, which are in our interests as well. I think that is where that could happen.

On the issue of the North-South bodies and the institutions, I agree with the Senator's point. The three strands of the agreement should be worked very actively. I have mentioned the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference already. It is in all our interests to put time and effort into that. It has not moved at anything like the pace that I would have expected. There should be far more action and interaction. I know that is not easy when one side does not want to turn up to meetings. It has been disappointing. Hopefully, we will get the institutions up and running.

On the St. Andrews Agreement, it goes back to the issue that I mentioned in response to the Chairman's question. We can make changes to the agreement at any time. The reasons that we made changes at St. Andrews was because we were trying to get the DUP on board. I remember Martin McGuinness bending over backwards to try to help ensure that the positions of First Minister and deputy First Minister would be on an absolutely equal footing. It is funny to see the DUP now being so interested in trying to convince people that they are different, when the whole argument was to ensure that they were on an equal footing. At one stage, I had a list drawn up which set out all of the tasks of the First Minister and of the deputy First Minister. We tried to see if there was any distinction between the two, other than the title of the office. Perhaps we should not have used those titles. Ms Gildernew will recall that Martin McGuinness even offered using the same title for the two offices but that offer was rejected. As I said to Alliance people recently, if changes are to be made all we need is a review. Proposals can be put forward. I must say that 25 years ago I did think that we would ultimately see government and opposition, which would grow incrementally. I wondered how we would get government and everyone in opposition working together. The Chairman can imagine trying to do that in these Houses. It would be difficult. Now is not the time to do that nowt. We cannot do it now because it would cause more problems than it would solve. Hopefully, we can do it further down the road, if the institutions are working. I emphasise the point, however, and it is important to put on the record, that if people have difficulties with the agreement or see something in its workings, all that can be dealt with in a review. You do not have to change the basis, structure or the fundamentals of the agreement.

I will not speak to them all, but I can think of about five or six things that should be changed, but time will tell. Maybe we should have a fixed-term parliament where one you can only pull out after 15 years or so, and where everyone has to stay working together.