Billy Timmins
Ceist:99 Deputy Billy Timmins asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the situation in Zimbabwe; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2310/09]
Priority Questions.
Human Rights Issues.
The situation in Zimbabwe remains dire. The country effectively has not been governed since March 2008 and after years of mismanagement and neglect, its infrastructure appears to be in terminal collapse. Inflation continues unabated and those in power have found no better response than to print ever larger bank notes, the most recent of which was a 100 trillion Zimbabwean dollar note, which then quickly lose their value. Millions of Zimbabweans are dependent on food aid and on what friends and relatives can send them from abroad. One of the most tragic symptoms of the failure of governance in Zimbabwe is the ongoing cholera epidemic, which is estimated by the World Health Organisation to have cost more than 2,500 lives. Those who protest against this state of affairs and against the abuse of human rights risk arrest and there are reports that some of those in custody, including Ms Jestina Mukoko, may have been tortured.
Discussions last week between President Mugabe and Morgan Tsvangirai resulted in no further progress towards the establishment of a power-sharing government, as agreed in principle last September. The central issue remains the allocation of key Ministries between ZANU-PF and the MDC.
Zimbabwe's neighbours, who have the greatest capacity to exert influence in this troubled country, bear the greatest responsibility to exert pressure towards a solution. The extraordinary summit on Zimbabwe held yesterday by the Southern African Development Community, SADC, outlined a formula for the formation of a unity government by mid-February, with Mr. Tsvangirai to become Prime Minister on 11 February. However, despite claims that this was agreed by the MDC, there is considerable doubt over whether this is in fact the case and the MDC council is to meet at the end of the week. There seem to be few grounds for confidence at present that the arrangements proposed will provide a basis for progress towards a meaningful resolution to the current crisis.
Although the collapse of the Zimbabwean economy and the isolation of the Mugabe regime mean that unfortunately, EU leverage is limited, we are using every avenue open to us. At the General Affairs and External Relations Council yesterday, my EU colleagues and I formally renewed the EU's targeted restrictive measures against individuals and businesses that have supported or participated in the destruction wrought by the Mugabe regime. We also added new names and a number of companies to the list. We are determined to target the regime's finances, that is, the revenues used to support the lifestyle of the elite, to keep the security services on its side and to cushion Mugabe and his cronies from the economic catastrophe they have created.
The European Union continues to provide humanitarian support to Zimbabweans and to press for greater involvement by SADC or the African Union in the mediation process. Yesterday, we reconfirmed that the EU stands ready to support the economic and social recovery of Zimbabwe once a government is formed that reflects the will of the Zimbabwean people and which returns to respect for human rights, the rule of law and responsible macroeconomic management.
For several years, the situation in Zimbabwe has deteriorated dramatically and there has been no government there for more than a year. As the Minister noted, an agreement for power-sharing was signed last September between ZANU-PF and the Movement for Democratic Change but that agreement was broken by Mr. Mugabe in a dispute over the Ministries of Foreign Affairs and Home Affairs. In light of the deaths from cholera of almost 3,000 people since August 2008 and the dependence of almost half the population, 5 million people, on food aid in Zimbabwe, what can we in Ireland actually do? A certain number of individuals have had sanctions imposed on them and I note that number was increased recently by the European Union. However, this is not good enough and there appears to be general acceptance that this is okay. Has the Minister had discussions with the South African ambassador recently? If not, will he summon the ambassador and outline the dissatisfaction people in Ireland have regarding the lack of progress towards a resolution?
Does the Minister have a view on why the South African Development Community, in a statement yesterday, stated that a new government would be signed-up to on 11 February when it is clear that Mr. Morgan Tsvangirai and the Movement for Democratic Change had not signed up to it? What forces are at play here?
I agree with Deputy Timmins's concern and anger at the situation in Zimbabwe. We have conveyed our concerns directly to the governments of key partner countries in Africa and, most recently, in December, the Irish ambassador to Zimbabwe, who is based in Pretoria, communicated Ireland's strong views to the Zimbabwean ambassador there. I have made my views personally known to the South African ambassador in Dublin and they are well aware of our views.
We believe it is at EU level that we can leverage the maximum influence. However, the problem is of course that while we have sanctions against named individuals and companies which are targeted at those who are propping up the regime, in essence it is the considered view of the EU partners that ultimately it is the regional partners who can exert the greatest degree of influence on, and exact the leverage over, President Mugabe.
We are not satisfied with the SADC approach to date. It seems to us that yesterday an attempt was made to force the MDC and Tsvangirai into a position to accept what was on offer. We are not entirely comfortable with that approach. We are not confident that the formula outlined, particularly in terms of the portfolios that the MDC would get, would be a sustainable and viable proposition for good governance in Zimbabwe.
Has the Minister any idea of how much trade we do with Zimbabwe and would he give consideration to breaking off trade links with it? An argument will be made questioning such punishment of all the population——
That is the point.
——but the position has deteriorated further and there must be a wake-up call. Until such time as the international community takes tangible action, Mr. Mugabe will remain in his position.
There is a real humanitarian crisis in Zimbabwe and the last thing we want to do is take action or initiatives that would exacerbate the suffering of ordinary people. Therefore, that is not a route we will go down.
Our trade with Zimbabwe is minuscule and the economy has collapsed. As I mentioned, the cholera outbreak provides an opportunity and an avenue through which stronger international intervention could be considered, particularly in terms of the significant health epidemic that is taking place there. Ultimately, the real leverage is at the regional level and in our view, the main regional actors have not acted in a way that they should.
Middle East Peace Process.
Michael D. Higgins
Ceist:100 Deputy Michael D. Higgins asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs his views on the call made by a person (details supplied) and supported by Secretary General of the UN, Ban Ki-Moon, for a full investigation in order to establish whether war crimes were committed in the recent military operations in Gaza. [2308/09]
Pat Breen
Ceist:102 Deputy Pat Breen asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs his views on whether the unconditional support given by previous US Governments to Israel has been an obstacle to achieving a permanent peace in the Middle East; if, in his contacts with the new US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the US Administration, he will urge her to join with the EU in developing a policy which respects the rights and addresses the fears of both the Israeli and Palestinian communities and ensures that there is no reoccurrence of the events that happened in Gaza in the past month; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2313/09]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 100 and 102 together.
The war in Gaza, arising from the launch of Operation Cast Lead by Israel on 27 December 2008, was a profound tragedy for the people of Gaza and for the region. I welcome that the unilateral ceasefires announced by Israel and Hamas on 18 January continue to hold. The costs of the war have been stark — 1,300 Palestinian dead and over 5,500 severely injured, with more than 40% of the victims women and children. Much of Gaza lies in ruins, with extensive destruction to homes and public infrastructure and utilities throughout the territory.
The immediate imperatives are the delivery of humanitarian relief to the population of Gaza and the consolidation of the current fragile cessation into a durable truce through the full implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1860. Following the halt in rockets launched into Israel and the withdrawal on 21 January of Israeli troops from Gaza, the crossings into Gaza must to be reopened and a mechanism developed to prevent arms smuggling into Gaza.
The conflict witnessed a number of appalling incidents and alleged violations of international humanitarian law by both parties. I have already made clear that I agree with and fully support the call by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon for these incidents to be fully investigated and, where evidence of violations of international humanitarian law is adduced, those responsible should be held to account.
I believe that there is a case for an independent international investigation and I made clear my position to EU Foreign Ministers on Monday last. Among the incidents which require to be properly investigated are the shelling of UN schools and facilities, with attendant heavy civilian casualties, including children; attacks on humanitarian convoys and the deaths of humanitarian and medical personnel; reports of the parties using civilians as human shields; and the use of white phosphorous by the Israeli military. I note that the Israeli Government is to set up an investigation into allegations against its defence forces. At a minimum such an investigation would require the involvement of independent international experts if it were to have any credibility. No investigation needs to be conducted to prove that Hamas, in its indiscriminate shelling of southern Israel, violated international law.
Looking forward, and in order to move away from the grim cycle of violence which has too often characterised the region, the search for a comprehensive peace in the Middle East must be the diplomatic priority for the international community. In general, the US has endeavoured to play a constructive role in supporting the efforts of the parties to reach a settlement. At the same time, the nature of American support for Israel has, at times, impacted upon the perception, and arguably the reality, of the role of the US as a neutral or honest broker. However, the US remains an indispensable partner for peace in the Middle East.
I am very much encouraged therefore that President Obama has promised that his Administration will "actively and aggressively" pursue Middle East peace and that he will invest time, political capital and finance in the effort. I also warmly welcomed the appointment of Senator George Mitchell, a true friend of Ireland and a masterful mediator, as an inspired choice to serve as President Obama's Middle East envoy. Ireland and our EU partners look forward to working closely together with Secretary of State Clinton and Senator Mitchell in a renewed transatlantic effort to promote what Europe and America recognise as the strategic priority of a comprehensive Middle East peace settlement.
Following this crisis in Gaza, it is more critical than ever that the Palestinian and Israeli people can have faith in a revived and credible political process that is seen to be addressing the underlying causes of the conflict, ending the occupation and leading to a two-state solution. However, no comprehensive peace is possible without intra-Palestinian reconciliation and the political reunification of Gaza and the West Bank, and I support the efforts of Egypt and other regional actors to promote such reconciliation.
I am grateful for the Minister's reply, and I note and welcome the distinction between the Irish position and the position of the European Union. Yesterday's meeting of the general affairs and external relations Ministers must be regarded as not only disappointing but as irresponsible in its failure to reach a conclusion to support international law.
There are restrictions on what supplementary questions I might ask. I might put it like this. The European Union has a clear duty in international law, as have its member countries as third parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention, to see that there is compliance with international law on the protection of civilians.
If the European Union was being even-handed, as it could be, it could have looked at breaches of international law by both sides, such as the rockets at Sderot associated with the military wing of Hamas and then, most particularly, the material presented by a distinguished Irish citizen, Mr. John Ging, the person to whom I referred in my question, when he supplied in advance the co-ordinates of schools which were hit some 11 days later. UN installations were hit not once but three times. This was first denied but when caught out the story was changed. This was a major breach. I believe the Minister agrees with me on that.
However, the equivocation at EU level is appalling. The Presidency issued a statement that it preferred Israeli courts to international law. It was totally silent on the issue of the duties of an occupying power or of compliance with the Geneva Conventions. In addition, four or five countries have canvassed for no criticism at all.
I appreciate that the Union is divided and I appreciate the Irish position, but it is time to be very open about it. Why did the meeting not end the discussion on deepening the trade agreement if it was sincere?
While I do not have time to go into all of the details, the time has come for the European Union to be an actor of first instance. Reverting to the Quartet would be nonsense. Is recognition of the state of Israel, which is one of the Quartet's three demands, to be de facto or de jure?
Regarding the final part of the Minister's reply, how will there be a reconstruction of Gaza if the administrative authority, the non-political wing of Hamas, is not talked to? How can reconstruction stemming from the large bidding conference on 28 February occur if the opening of the crossings has not been secured? The meeting was a disaster in terms of its moral failure and its cowardice in the defence of children and civilians.
At the EU meeting, I made it clear to my colleagues that, as far as I was concerned, the EU has a duty to international law. It must also be consistent, since we cannot set criteria and standards for other countries and condemn and criticise them at will while remaining mute in respect of other conflicts, particularly in the Middle East.
On the other hand, the EU condemned the attack on UNRWA unequivocally in its statement and conclusions. I detected a shift at the meeting. As the Deputy knows well, there are different perspectives in Europe because countries have different approaches to this issue historically.
Different dishonest relationships with the region.
Our Sunday meetings with the Foreign Ministers of Egypt, Jordan, the Palestinian Authority, Norway and Turkey were particularly interesting and useful in terms of moving matters forward a little, starting with a durable truce and ceasefire. Currently, there are two unilateral ceasefires, but a sustained period of quiet is necessary, which would facilitate the opening of the crossings.
Intra-Palestinian reconciliation is important if the reconstruction of Gaza is to be facilitated and humanitarian aid is to enter it. If a mechanism involving Palestinian consensus can be established to facilitate that reconstruction, the clear message from our Arab colleagues is for Europe not to close the door or to be absolutist this time and for it to adopt a flexible approach to what may emerge from the Egyptian negotiations.
Like Deputy Higgins, I was disappointed by yesterday's meeting in Brussels. History has shown that no political problem can be resolved militarily. Any attempt using excessive force only creates a new breed of terrorist. The situation is volatile. This morning, two people were killed. We do not yet know whether this incident has broken the ceasefire, but the Israeli Minister for Defence, Ehud Barak, has stated that he is willing to use force again.
Does the Minister plan to meet the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, regarding her new job and her special relationship with Ireland? Senator George Mitchell, who is on his way to the Middle East as we speak, has a major task in hand. He has a good record of conflict resolution. He is meeting a number of prime ministers and other interested parties, but should he also meet Hamas during his discussions? Irrespective of whether one likes it, Hamas is a significant part of the problem and has been recognised by the Palestinian people. Fatah is not as popular as it was. Some damage was done to the President, Mahmoud Abbas, because of his support for Israel at the start of the conflict. The EU and the Americans should make a considerable international effort and work together on a resolution to the conflict.
We will meet the Secretary of State in due course. Indeed, we have written to congratulate her on her appointment and to offer any assistance. I have also written to George Mitchell to congratulate him on his appointment and to offer any assistance or advice that Ireland can give, considering our history of conflict resolution and the noble role that he played in assisting the peace process, which led to the Good Friday Agreement. He is an experienced mediator and is not new to events in the Middle East. He is fully aware of the different approaches to various parties. The main game in town is the Egyptian process and the sets of negotiations in which the Egyptians are engaged. Senator Mitchell, who is in the Middle East this week, will take cognisance of the process and talk to all of the major players.
The question on Hamas was fair. During the EU meeting, it was raised by a number of Foreign Ministers. In our situation, people who were outside the mainstream of political opinion, such as those in the Sinn Féin movement, took a lengthy period before they entered the political discussions. Events had to occur beforehand. They did not occur by accident. People needed to change their positions and sequencing, mutual understanding and so forth were required. All of these constitute the delicate art of peace building and will be required in the Middle East.
Hamas must also move. It cannot stay rooted. Seeking ways to bring Hamas and others into the political mainstream, to have it renounce violence and to enter a process that offers a genuine two-state solution, would be worthwhile. There must be a sincerity behind the process. This is the creativity that Senator Mitchell and others will bring to the table.
We have gone over time. I will allow Deputy Higgins to ask a brief supplementary question before giving the Minister a chance to respond.
I will make it brief. When Mr. John Ging stood alongside Ban Ki-moon in front of burning humanitarian aid in the UN compound, the UN Secretary General's request was that those responsible be brought to account. Nothing I have heard suggests that they will ever be brought to account. While I would welcome the Minister's strong position, an admission that the EU will not bring such people to account would be helpful. In that light, its credibility in respect of international humanitarian law would be damaged.
I have visited Gaza and travelled through the crossings as late as 2005. How is humanitarian relief to be brought into Gaza while the discussion continues if the crossings are closed? This shows the absolute nonsense of events at the General Affairs and External Relations Council, GAERC. It is time to expose the military members of the EU who will not condemn outright the actions that are in breach of international law. In the case of the British, they are afraid of such condemnation being invoked against themselves in some of their military actions elsewhere. These are facts.
Does the Minister agree that the Northern Ireland situation is slightly different from the Middle East's? The IRA wanted the British out of Northern Ireland. It did not want to take over London. The Hamas situation is entirely different. Will the Minister briefly outline what steps the EU took at the recent meeting concerning the prevention of arms smuggling into Israel?
When I spoke to Mr. John Ging of UNRWA on the morning after the attack on his headquarters, he told me about something that smelled and looked like white phosphorus. He gave me the co-ordinates and so on. In my opinion, the UN is the ideal vehicle to instigate an investigation.
Yes, but it may be vetoed on the Security Council by the United States.
Mr. Ban Ki-moon has changed his position slightly from that as articulated earlier by the Deputy in that in the immediate aftermath of the event, he condemned it and asked that people be taken into account. That position appears to have been modified somewhat. In my view, his position is as articulated in the response to the parliamentary question. I believe the UN is the vehicle through which this matter should be investigated. If not, another mechanism must be devised that is external to Israel and is independent enough to follow through the investigation.
A tribunal would have to be agreed by the Security Council.
We must move on.
On the crossings, it was also agreed yesterday that it is unacceptable that they are not open as this is hampering humanitarian aid efforts.
The Egyptian and Palestinian Foreign Ministers told us that only 153 of the 800 trucks dispatched daily are getting through. There is increasing frustration among EU member states that despite the fact that the ceasefire was announced approximately ten days ago, the crossings are not yet open to facilitate access to humanitarian aid. Different countries are having different experiences in terms of facilitating the evacuation of children who require surgery and so on, which is unsatisfactory.
We must move on, Minister. We are well over time.
I am not saying Northern Ireland is the same as the Middle East. I never said that. We have always been careful to say that no one conflict situation is directly comparable to another. However, there are similarities in terms of peace building generally and in terms of the principles of resolving conflicts, which requires movement and the development of mutual respect on all sides before a political settlement can be put together.
Human Rights Issues.
Billy Timmins
Ceist:101 Deputy Billy Timmins asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if Ireland has been requested to take any of the detainees from Guantanamo Bay; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2311/09]
As the Deputy will be aware, on 22 January, President Obama signed four Executive Orders concerning the closure of the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay and related matters. I warmly welcome this decisive and immediate move by the President. As I said in my immediate reaction to the news, it represents an historic new beginning in efforts to uphold and promote human rights and will be welcomed by all friends of the United States.
The relevant Executive Order states that Guantanamo is to close within one year and that appropriate arrangements will need to be made to deal with the remaining detainees either by prosecuting them, returning them to their home countries, releasing them or transferring them to a third country. The Executive Order directs the Secretary of State to seek international co-operation aimed at achieving the transfers of detainees.
Ireland, with our EU partners, has consistently called for the closure of Guantanamo and the bringing to trial or release of detainees held there. At yesterday's meeting of the General Affairs and External Relations Council, Foreign Ministers held an initial discussion of how European Union member states might approach the issue and strongly welcomed President Obama's move. It is, however, clear that there is a range of complex legal, practical and political issues to be worked through, primarily on the US side in the first instance. Nevertheless, I made clear that Ireland is ready in this new context to examine how we may be supportive of the United States Government as it proceeds towards the closure of Guantanamo.
While any decisions on resettlement are for each member state to take individually, a co-ordinated EU approach would be highly desirable. With the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, whose Department has responsibility for the reception and integration of citizens of third countries, I will keep the matter under review and, as necessary, will bring any specific proposals to Government. While there have as yet been no approaches from the new US Administration on the matter, I expect that it will feature in our future dialogue with it.
There were some discussions last year with the US authorities at official level in my Department and in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform regarding the possible acceptance by Ireland of detainees. Also, informal contacts with interested parties and lawyers representing one of these detainees have taken place. However, given President Obama's decision last Thursday, the context has clearly changed.
Fine Gael welcomes the proposed closure of Guantanamo, which it always believed was a bad concept. I watched with interest European countries adopt the high moral ground during the past number of years in respect of Guantanamo. One would have thought at one stage that all the detainees had been former Reverend Mothers. The chickens have come to roost in terms of the EU's duplicitous approach in respect to Guantanamo.
What contribution did the Minister make to the discussion on this issue? We seem to be waiting in the wings on Europe. While we hear much of the need for one voice in Europe, member states are now taking different positions on this issue. My understanding is that the Portuguese sought to put the item on the agenda at a late stage. Perhaps the Minister will state Ireland's position in this regard and will outline why approximately 70 or 80 detainees cannot return to their home countries. What was our position to the General Affairs and External Relations Council with respect to Ireland agreeing to accept detainees?
My understanding is that one of the Government parties, the Green Party, has actively sought to have a particular detainee brought here. What is the Minister's response to this matter? I am sure he is in a position to make a unilateral decision in this regard and does not need Mr. Miliband or President Sarkozy to tell him what to do.
The issue was discussed formally over lunch yesterday at the EU Council Meeting. Considerable debate on the issue took place for quite a long time. Deputy Breen is correct that the Portuguese Foreign Minister, Luis Amado, circulated correspondence on the matter to all member states requesting that the issue be discussed. The issue is not one of whether a country takes one detainee or a number of detainees. Freedom of mobility means such persons would be free to move to other European countries. There is a strong European dimension involved. Member states have different legal systems. As the discussion unfolded, it became clear that there were significant issues involved in terms of freedom of movement, different legal systems, relocation to third countries and so on. It was decided to await a paper on the matter from the Commission which would analyse all of the issues raised. The Americans have stated that Guantanamo will be closed within one year.
We await engagement on the matter from the Americans. The position is as I stated yesterday, we welcome the decision to close Guantanamo. This decision represents more than just the closure of Guantanamo; it represents a new commitment to a more multilateral approach and an engagement with the EU and other global powers by the United States and the new President. We will co-operate and work with the US in facilitating the closure of Guantanamo. However, we must wait to see what track that takes in the coming months.
The Minister is saying that we cannot make a decision in respect of accepting detainees without the agreement of our European partners.
No, I did not say that. I said in my reply that the decision is ultimately one for each member state.
Will the Minister set out the position in regard to the request in respect of a particular detainee? Is it his view that we should accept that detainee?
Also, will the Minister state if he intends to visit Cuba shortly. During the silly season, the Minister mentioned a proposed visit to Cuba and perhaps he might outline the position in this regard.
On the Deputy's key point, each member state has the right to make its own decision in respect of detainees. Britain has already taken 12 detainees, all British citizens, from Guantanamo and will shortly take in two more. The Belgians took in two detainees in 2006.
As regards the particular detainee referred to, informal discussions took place last year with the individual's lawyer.
My colleagues in the Green Party have also raised the case with me. We are examining the matter. It was agreed at yesterday's meeting that more detailed work was required before people would take unilateral action. It must be pointed out that President Obama has not, as yet, requested anything of us. Undoubtedly, there will be further discussions on the matter. President Obama said it will take a year to close down Guantanamo. Three categories of prisoners have been identified. We have made clear that we will not accept people with terrorist backgrounds. There is no need to rush the fences today or tomorrow; we can work through this issue.
Question No. 102 answered with Question No. 100.
EU Presidency.
Lucinda Creighton
Ceist:103 Deputy Lucinda Creighton asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the priorities for the new EU Presidency; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2404/09]
Under an over-arching motto of "Europe Without Barriers," the Czech Presidency will focus on the economy, energy and the European Union in the world. Under the external relations umbrella, the Czech Presidency has identified three key priorities: the eastern partnership, transatlantic relations and Western Balkans-enlargement. The eastern partnership, which is part of the European neighbourhood policy, is a key Presidency priority. The Commission's communication of 3 December will form the basis for the Czech Presidency's efforts to move this initiative forward.
On Kosovo, the main task for the incoming Presidency will be to ensure that, following initial deployment of the EU Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo, EULEX, on 9 December, it will be in a position to focus on the full implementation of its mandate. The Presidency will prioritise the accession negotiations with Croatia, which is aiming to complete its negotiations by the end of 2009.
In addition to addressing the issue of energy security, the Czech Presidency will have an important role to play in shaping the Union's continuing response to current extremely difficult global economic conditions. These events have underlined the value of European nations working closely together under the EU umbrella in order to protect our many shared interests.
I particularly look forward to co-operating with the Presidency in taking work forward on the legal guarantees on the Lisbon treaty committed to Ireland by the December European Council in response to concerns that surfaced during our referendum campaign. It is important that we finalise these guarantees to our full satisfaction in the coming months. The Czech Presidency is a fitting way to mark the 20th anniversary of the collapse of the Soviet system. I wish the Czech Government well for its Presidency and expect that it will discharge its responsibilities in an effective manner.
I am aware that the economy, energy and external relations are the key themes. However, I am surprised that the Minister has managed to gloss over the economy, which is probably the most pressing issue of direct relevance to this country. I have noted that the Czech Presidency has laid particular emphasis on the role of the EU in enhancing competitiveness, and I have some questions in that regard. We have seen emphasis over the past ten years or so as regards the Lisbon strategy and improving and enhancing competitiveness across the EU. I wonder whether any particular developments are envisaged in that regard, because this is now of major concern to the Irish people.
In addition, under the economy heading, a good deal of emphasis has been laid on the role of small and medium-sized enterprises, SMEs. As I am sure the Minister is aware a package, known as the "Small Business Act", which is a series of proposals on reducing regulation and making it easier for SMEs to operate in the EU, is of major concern, both for the Irish and the European-wide economies, and is being emphasised, it appears, by the Czech Presidency as well. I wonder whether there are concrete proposals in that regard. I asked the Minister's colleague, the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Mary Coughlan, about this last autumn, but bizarrely, she did not even seem to have heard of it. Are there any specific proposals on credit flows for SMEs under that package?
The major package on the economy was the one agreed at the December Council, initiated by the French Presidency, namely, the economic recovery plan, which was an over-arching framework for providing a stimulus to EU economies. In the Irish context the more than 5% investment in capital infrastructure, which will take place in 2009, represents our economic stimulus package on the economy. It is double the rate of most of EU states in terms of capital spend. In terms of the development of small to medium-sized enterprises, we have been very active, for example as regards the implementation of the small business forum, that I established about two years ago when I was Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment. This comprised SME entrepreneurs along with the agencies in devising a blueprint for the development of small business, such as the provision of venture capital, and facilitating access to business agencies, funding and so on.
The European Investment Bank as part of the EU's reaction to the current economic crisis, provided substantial funding through loan facilities. It is up to the banks in member states to avail of the EIB package to assist credit flows to SMEs across the European Union.
In terms of the Czech Presidency, the ECOFIN Council will deal primarily with the economic side, while GAERC will deal, mainly, with the foreign affairs agenda and——
The platitudes.
No, that is not correct. It will deal with the other dimensions, such as energy, which we dealt withyesterday. There is a key emphasis on energy infrastructure because of the Ukraine-Russian crisis.
As regards the energy flow, in particular, we urgently need to see a reduction in our dependence on Russia. That was particularly highlighted over the Christmas period, given the crisis in eastern Europe, which clearly will have a knock-on effect if we do not reduce our dependency. Perhaps the Minister can enlighten the House as to whether there are any proposals or developments in that area.
On the priority being given to Croatian accession, does the Minister intend to impose the same restrictions on free movement of Croatian workers, in the event, as are at present in place for Bulgaria and Romania?
In terms of the energy situation, clearly the issues that arose between Russia and Ukraine had severe impacts on quite a number of EU member states. In a spirit of solidarity all member states are very concerned at what transpired, in terms of the commercial and economic disruption as well as the inability of both countries to live up to their contractual responsibilities in terms of the delivery of gas to EU member state customers. That has highlighted the need to diversify in terms of energy.
In the context of the economic recovery plan, a range of energy infrastructure projects are under discussion, relating to inter-connection and the improvement of energy supply and so forth, which would facilitate a better and more diversified energy situation. That is under active consideration by the Commission as we speak.
As regards Croatia, once the terms of an accession treaty have been agreed, the Tánaiste, as Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment will bring recommendations to Government as regards how that particular matter will be dealt with.