Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I thank all the witnesses for the written papers they submitted. They were optimistic in their presentations and perhaps they have to be. Politicians also try to be optimistic but I am afraid I am a little more sanguine on a number of issues.

Across the political divide here, Brexit was regarded as a bad idea and the protocol was the best negotiated device we could make to deal with the unique situation of Northern Ireland. There was obviously going to be an outworking of it because, like with all overarching agreements reached under time pressure, specific issues were left to be teased out over time. We understood that would work, but for that to work - and this is the point I really want to make - there must be a willingness for it to work. According to all the witnesses' presentations, there is a willingness. Deputy Richmond is positive about that but the whole Brexit strategy is to create a point of division in British politics. There is an enduring residual group - I heard a senior member of the Tory Party describe it this morning as the UK Independence Party, UKIP, branch of the Tory Party - who want a permanent conflict with the EU as part of the political narrative they think they can win votes with. If that is the reality, how can the issues ever be resolved?

I chaired the economic committee of the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly. We worked for the past year or so examining the trade implications of the Brexit deal and produced a report. In all our discussions with practical businesses and such groups in Northern Ireland, people spoke about difficulties that needed to be resolved. It was the same in Britain as regards transport and so on. People were concerned with practical difficulties all of which, from a practical politician's perspective, can be resolved but the starting point must be a willingness not to seek to have points of division as political rallying points but to minimise division to work to a solution.

Most of our conversation has been about GB-Northern Ireland trade and so on. Of course there is Republic of Ireland-GB trade as well. On Monday I was with a significant manufacturing company in my constituency of Wexford, Danone. It exports 20% of its baby-food products to the UK. It does not know what future summary of product characteristics, SPC, standards will be and how they will impact on its trade. There is much uncertainty about Republic of Ireland-GB future trade because not all of the barriers to trade or the tests have been put in place yet. They are being pushed back but inevitably some form of testing will be done. Hopefully, another solution is being considered, namely, that those tests could take place on the island of Ireland before products are transferred to any part of Great Britain.

An important issue we have been talking about for years is the question of how we construct a proper dialogue between the European institutions and the UK into the future. Bluntly, a twice annual gathering of individual politicians, who quite often will not be the same politicians, meeting informally is no substitution for the deep engagement we have had for 40 years. We need something more substantial than that. I am interested to hear the witnesses' views on that.

With respect to the strong point made by Professor Shirlow about decisions being made with a lack of evidence, that is not unique to Brexit. It seems to be the overwhelming perspective of our times. Mr. Gove spoke about having enough of experts. We hear people say we can go on gut instincts. Even objective truth is no longer objective truth. It is what the speaker believes it to be. These are difficult and challenging times. I am interested in the witnesses' take on my fundamental question, which is whether they believe the Sunak administration is the pragmatic, engaging, solution-finding administration it is presented as, or is Prime Minister Sunak as much a captive of the divisions in the Tory Party his three predecessors came a cropper with?