Mr. Hilary Benn:

That could set off quite a debate which the committee may or may not want to hear. I will return to Deputy Ó Murchú's first question on the clauses in the Internal Market Bill. To be frank, there are some people at this meeting who would agree that we thought it was a negotiating tactic and others who would say it was a necessary backstop because the terms of the withdrawal agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol were not specific enough about how to interpret goods at risk and what checks and so on would be required. What is not in dispute, whatever side of that question one finds oneself, is that it did affect trust between the negotiating partners. If a year ago, the EU had negotiated a deal with the UK and then the UK Government said it was proposing unilaterally to vary part of the agreement it had negotiated, read, signed up to, and given effect to in our Parliament, it does raise concerns in the minds of the EU side, because if something which it thought was agreed and was an international binding treaty turns out not to be an international binding treaty and can be varied by one side, then there is a bit of a problem when it comes to negotiating a new agreement. That is why the withdrawal of the clauses is so important. The Government is now saying it will not break international law and it does restore some sense of confidence in what was negotiated, but it has left a lingering effect which has impacted on the negotiations.