Seanad debates
Wednesday, 13 March 2019
Withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2019: Committee and Remaining Stages
11:30 am
Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source
I have a long written note here, but I do not need to read it all. We have discussed these issues. As a country, we would like to be able to do something on this unilaterally, but we cannot do so. This is an EU competence, which is covered by an EU directive. If there is to be some accommodation here to prevent the need for proof of international motor insurance, which can be provided for by having a green card on the dashboard and which is simply proof of valid insurance outside the jurisdiction of the EU, that can only be solved by the EU facilitating the UK on that, which it could do in the context of contingency planning. We have spoken to the UK about that. That will continue to be an active conversation if we continue to move towards a no-deal Brexit. We hope it will not become a likelihood rather than a possibility. I hope we will move away from that likelihood tonight. The Senator is asking me to do something that legally cannot be done. We cannot introduce this kind of law here because we do not have the legal competence to overrule a European directive.
I understand the issue. I understand the annoyance among drivers who cross the Border on a daily basis, or even just once a year. I can understand why it grates on people that it has been called a green card, of all names. The insurance industry had to act. It had to do something to put contingency in place for itself and its clients and customers to ensure people could continue to drive back and forth. There is a mechanism which allows for that in the context of this green card system. It is a fallback position. It is a contingency. It is not something we wanted in place. It is certainly much better than not being able to drive into Northern Ireland and not being able to provide proof of insurance on an international basis.
I give the House a commitment that we will continue to talk to the European Commission about trying to resolve this issue in the context of contingency planning. If we move towards a no-deal as a likelihood, there will need to be a great deal of interaction between the Irish and British Governments and the Commission. The three groups in the room will need to look at how an all-island economy will function. The idea that the UK can unilaterally do something along the lines of what it published this morning, and that Ireland and the EU will unilaterally do something else, is not conducive to a functioning system of trade and movement on the island of Ireland. From my perspective, if a no-deal moves over the next 48 hours from a possibility to a strong likelihood, we will be in a different space and we will have to try to negotiate a lot of contingency work. This is one of many issues that would be part of such a discussion. We will continue to raise it. In the meantime, the industry is right to make progress with this as a solution. As I have said, it is not something that people want. I can understand why it frustrates and annoys people. This is a less than perfect contingency. That is the way people should see it.
I cannot accommodate the amendment that the Senator is advocating for. If I could have done this, it would have been in the Bill as a means of trying to protect the status quo. There are some things that we simply do not have the legal competence to do, and I am afraid this is one of them. I know the Senator needs to push certain amendments, but I ask him to bear in mind what I am saying because it is factually true.
No comments