Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

The Minister of State, Deputy Byrne, was meant to do the summing up but is unable to as he is waiting for a test result, having been abroad. He is complying with the protocol for officeholders and is waiting for a test result. I am sure it will be fine because I spoke to him this morning and he is in good health.

I will try to respond to the debate. I thank everybody for contributing seriously to these statements on Brexit. I understand the anger and the frustration, particularly with regard to the UK Internal Market Bill introduced at Westminster, but name-calling in anger will not help us with the challenges we need to overcome in the coming weeks. My focus, as well as that of Michel Barnier, Maros Sefcovic and the EU task force collectively, is on finding a way to resolve outstanding issues and to get a future relationship agreement in place, if possible, in the weeks we have left available to us in these negotiations. If we allow ourselves to get distracted by other things such as relationships, history or, for that matter, histrionics, we are taking our eye off the real prize. That prize is, as some speakers have referred to, at least a basic trade agreement with the UK that avoids tariffs and quotas and, in doing so, makes the full implementation of the withdrawal agreement and the protocol on Northern Ireland and Ireland less disruptive and a lot easier for everybody to live with. This is what is needed for the tens of thousands of businesses who rely on people like me, the Taoiseach and many others to work through Michel Barnier and his task force and with other EU colleagues and leaders to find a way of getting a deal with the UK.

It is a big mistake for those of us in this House to turn a debate on Brexit into one on constitutional change on the island of Ireland. That creates more tension and results in more hackles being raised. If we are to get an agreement that is going to work, we need to take on board the concerns of everybody living on this island, North and South, including unionists and nationalists in order that what has already been agreed can be implemented in a way that works as well as it can for everybody. We must also try to put a new agreement in place with regard to the future relationship, which will remove as many barriers as possible and manage the disruption caused by the inevitable changes Brexit will bring about as best we can. Some of the commentary in this debate would feel almost threatening to a moderate unionist in Northern Ireland. That does not contribute to what we are trying to do, which is to work through a very detailed, complex and technical brief.

Of course, there is nothing wrong with an aspiration for reunification on this island at some point in the future. That is as legitimate an aspiration as that of those who want to maintain the status quoas regards the constitutional status on this island. These are, however, debates for a different time. In the weeks ahead, which is all the time we have, we are trying to ensure that what was already been agreed and settled less than 12 months ago in the withdrawal agreement can be implemented in full. The withdrawal agreement and the protocol on Northern Ireland and Ireland was about trying to deal with the complexity of Brexit in the context of the island of Ireland and trying to ensure the result of Brexit will not be the reimposition of economic division on this island through border checks between North and South.

We have achieved that. If we were to pursue solutions in the way some people have been suggesting in this debate, we would never have secured the protocol on Northern Ireland and Ireland in the way we did. It is though diplomacy and building relationships and trust, sometimes with people with whose views we disagree or who come to these negotiations from a different perspective, that we try to build pressure and get outcomes that are good for everyone. The outcome of the withdrawal agreement and the protocol on Northern Ireland and Ireland was the best possible outcome available at that time - this time last year - to avert the crisis that would have been created from a no-deal Brexit at the time, should that have happened. It did not happen.

Now, we face another challenge in working with our friends and partners across the European Union who are in charge of this negotiation. Let us not pretend otherwise. I hear people saying it is time we put our foot down and we have to fight for Ireland and stand up to the British Prime Minister. This is an EU and UK negotiation. We have done a good job, through professional civil servants across the European Union in every Irish embassy, of creating a strength of solidarity on the Irish vulnerabilities linked to Brexit in a way that has resulted in Michel Barnier and his team ensuring that the solutions agreed thus far with the British Government have accommodated these Irish vulnerabilities in the best possible way for North and South. We are at the point again of trusting and working with the task force and Michel Barnier. We are also trying to work with the relationships we have with members of the British Government to ensure we find accommodation and a way forward to limit the damage. That is what this is about.

As some speakers have said, there is no real upside to Brexit. This is about damage limitation. The way to limit damage between now and the end of the year is to get a future relationship agreement in place and intact. That means a basic free trade agreement. For that to happen and for there to be a foundation stone, there will need to be an agreement and understanding around the level playing field issues to ensure free and fair competition between the two markets of the UK and the EU. Ireland is in the middle of all of that. There will need to be a governance model to ensure that if, in future, either side breaches the agreement or there is a dispute, there is a way of resolving such disputes in a way that is fair, independent and accepted by both sides. Surely that is not an unreasonable request of the EU.

Of course there needs to be what has been agreed in the political declaration, which was agreed in parallel with the withdrawal agreement. There needs to be an agreement on fishing. We have an extraordinarily complex relationship with the UK with regard to fishing. Deputy Michael Collins in particular referred to that today, as have others. The people who live in Greencastle or Killybegs understand the relationship between fishing fleets in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Donegal in terms of how they catch mackerel and where they spawn, breed and grow. They understand how they are then fished to the maximum advantage of everyone, including with regard to the sustainability of the stock. This is something we need to consider in these negotiations. My job is to ensure I protect the interests of the Irish fishing fleet in the context of the overall discussions and negotiations undertaken by Michel Barnier. That is what we are doing. I spoke to Mr. Barnier in some detail this week about our concerns on fishing. These include concerns relating to white fish as well as pelagic species. Those in ports like Castletownbere and Rossaveel as well as the ports along the south and east coasts are concerned. They are waiting for an outcome they hope they can live with in future. Whether it is mackerel, prawns, megrim or hake, whatever the species, we need to ensure we are working towards an outcome that allows our fishing industry to continue in future in the context of access and quota share when it comes to British fishing interests as well.

Many useful questions have been asked. If it is okay, I will try to respond in writing to as many of them as I can. Detailed questions were asked on tariffs and the impact on markets. Deputy Peter Fitzpatrick asked a series of questions that have good and reassuring answers. We will come back to him on these.

Deputy Michael Collins asked questions about cross-border healthcare. We will be introducing omnibus legislation linked to Brexit probably in three weeks' time. Health is a major part of that. I am confident that we will be able to deal with the issues Deputy Collins has raised in that legislation, which he will see when it is published.

I will sum up by saying there are challenges. Two parallel negotiations are taking place as we speak and there are structures to deal with both. There are two significant outstanding issues in the way of getting a free trade agreement and a future relationship deal done before the end of the year. One relates to the level playing field issue and a governance model that can deal with that fairly for both sides. We have to make progress on that soon. Fishing is also an area where both sides will have to start talking about how we are to find a landing zone to get a deal done. Those are the two big outstanding issues. There are a range of further linked issues but those are the two key issues.

Deputies have heard me speak about the implementation of the withdrawal agreement and the protocol on Northern Ireland in particular, as well as the linkage to the UK Internal Market Bill. There are effectively three outstanding issues in that regard. I will finish on this because I know I am tight for time. One is the issue of export summary declarations. There is a focus on trying to find a way of resolving that issue in a way that both sides can accept. The other two issues around state aid are linked to the protocol. The issues on Northern Ireland are clear but the extension of that issue into Great Britain is something that needs a resolution. However, if there were agreement around level playing field issues and the state aid element of this in the future relationship, it would effectively solve the problem for the implementation of the protocol. This is because it is a far less complex problem once those state aid issues are addressed in the future relationship. The position is likewise with the goods at risk issue. This applies to the imposition of tariffs on goods coming from Great Britain to Northern Ireland potentially finding their way into the EU Single Market. If we can get a free trade agreement that avoids tariffs and quotas, the goods at risk issue, which is contentious at the moment between the two teams, becomes far less of a problem.

There is a way to get these things done. I encourage both negotiating teams to grasp the opportunity that will present from next week on. There will be a parliamentary break in respect of the passage of the UK Internal Market Bill that has caused so much strife and damaged trust. As it finishes in the House of Commons and before it gets to the House of Lords, there will be a break of several weeks offering a window for negotiation. I hope the two negotiation teams, in particular, the UK side, will use this window to give the signals that are necessary to move this process to a more intensive phase of trying to close out the issues. It is possible to get a deal. We cannot allow ourselves to become pessimistic and defeatist on that. I believe there will be a deal but we need to be firm, respectful and realistic in terms of what is needed to get one across the line. If we do so between now and the end of the year, it will be worthwhile in the context of what would otherwise be the case on 1 January for Irish business and the relationship between Ireland and the UK.

See this speech in context