Professor David Phinnemore:

I will respond to the question on the European Court of Justice because the Deputy asked it directly. In the last two polls we asked people whether they had concerns - "Yes" or "No" - about the full operation or scope of the implementation of the protocol? We found that about one third said they did not have concerns. We then looked at those who do have concerns - the figure was 55% or 56% - and asked them, on a scale of 1 to 10, how concerned they were about these different issues. On the European Court of Justice question, 56% of respondents ranked that as an issue about which they were highly concerned. When we take that 56% of the 55%, it amounts to one third of the population of Northern Ireland, based on participation in our polls. It is a significant issue for that proportion but it is not an issue which has widespread high levels of concern.

What is also interesting in those data is that the European Court of Justice issue is rated as an issue of no concern among the 10% or 12% of people who do have concerns about the protocol. It is not the issue it is made out to be in certain quarters. Going back to the command paper last year, when the UK Government put the European Court of Justice issue in, it raised a number of eyebrows who said that in the debate we have observed in Northern Ireland over the oast 18 months or so, this issue has not been coming through in our stakeholder engagement and polling findings. This comes back to a question about what is at stake in terms of the UK Government's position. Is it specific interests being raised in Northern Ireland, namely, the focus of the implementation of the protocol, or are these issues of concern for the UK from a more ideological perspective? When one goes through the Northern Ireland protocol Bill and the command paper, one sees issues we would certainly recognise as ones we have come across in Northern Ireland but there are others driven more by what the preference is in Westminster. The key for the UK at the moment is to try to move away from that London preference-driven agenda for a deal with the EU and focus more on what the issues are in Northern Ireland because those are the ones the EU would be willing to respond to.

How do we address some of the deficits in the institutional structures? The institutional structures proposed or provided for in the protocol are exactly those that were in the backstop version of the protocol. No thought was given to how to manage an actual relationship, as opposed to what was going to be a potential relationship, depending on the wider one of the UK-EU. There is a recognition that the institutional arrangements set out in the protocol need to be revisited and looked at. We have seen that in the ad hoc informal stakeholder engagement that has been developed. We also saw it when David Frost and Maroš Šefovi appeared before a committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly. To me, that suggests that there is innovation there. We also saw it in the presence of the observers on the Parliamentary Partnership Assembly; there is innovation there. How you then bring in the institutions of the Good Friday Agreement is going to be down to the UK and the EU deciding what can be done with those institutions. What it often forgotten in the institutional framework for the protocol is that, while there is the joint committee and the specialised committee, below that, the North-South Ministerial Council, NSMC, can feed in recommendations. There are arrangements whereby the joint implementation bodies feed into the process, as do the rights bodies. What is to stop the strand three institutions finding a way in? It would be very difficult for the EU to turn around and say we cannot have those feeding in because the principle is already there of extra-EU bodies feeding into the government's arrangements for the protocol. Some creative thinking can be done there.

We also need to ensure as part of the process that we know who is part of the UK delegation. Each of the meetings of the joint committee and the specialised committee has had representation from Northern Ireland. The First Minister and deputy First Minister, when they were in position, and Northern Ireland officials were part of it. There is also the joint consultative working group, which is working well now. It is in a regular pattern of meetings in which there are UK officials and Northern Ireland officials involved. They seem to be doing some good work but there is no transparency about it.

We do not know what is going on there. It comes back to a point I made in my previous responses. The UK and the EU need to be more upfront about what is happening as opposed to what is not happening. We need more transparency and honesty about what is taking place and to think creatively about what we might be able to do bring the institutions of the 1998 agreement into this process.