Priority Questions
1. Deputy Brendan Smith asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade the progress he has made in conjunction with his EU colleagues in relation to building a UN consensus for a negotiated peace settlement in Syria; the steps he has taken to ensure that all States meet their committed financial obligations for humanitarian assistance to the region; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23488/13]
Amharc ar fhreagraThe rapidly worsening situation in Syria is a central item on the EU's agenda. The Foreign Affairs Council remains actively engaged in efforts to promote a peaceful resolution and assist the thousands of Syrians who are fleeing the violence. A political solution to the crisis is the only way forward. The United Nations and Arab League joint special envoy, Mr. Lakhdar Brahimi, has been actively pursuing this objective and emphasising that only concerted action by the UN Security Council will carry sufficient weight to bring both sides to the negotiation table. I therefore warmly welcome the joint announcement on 7 May by Russia and the United States of their agreement to organise an international conference on Syria as a follow-up to the Geneva conference of June 2012. I hope this initiative will enable concrete steps to be taken towards a peaceful settlement and I urge both sides to the conflict to seize this opportunity and enter into genuine negotiations which will map out a way towards political transition in Syria.
The European Union also remains actively engaged in efforts to address the humanitarian situation in and around Syria. Ireland has already made available a total of €5.7 million in humanitarian assistance this year, including €4.7 million committed by the Minister of State, Deputy Joe Costello, at the Kuwait pledging conference in January and a further €1 million which I announced when visiting the Nizip refugee camp on the Turkish-Syrian border last month. Total Irish assistance to Syria since the start of the crisis amounts to €8.15 million, while the EU overall contribution stands at €600 million. Regrettably, only 58% of the pledges made in Kuwait have so far been honoured. Ireland urges all donors to fulfil the pledges made and deliver on their commitments.
With our EU partners, we will continue our efforts to ensure a peaceful resolution that finally brings about a civil, democratic and pluralist Syria.
I welcome the Tánaiste's reply. We have discussed this issue on Question Time and at meetings of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade in recent months. As the Tánaiste stated, the situation in Syria is frightening. This is a massive humanitarian issue, with possibly 100,000 people dead. There are 6.8 million people in need of aid, more than 50% of whom are children. In addition, 4.2 million individuals have been internally displaced. The Tánaiste has highlighted this matter in recent months with his colleagues on the Foreign Affairs Council of the European Union and I urge him to continue his efforts in this regard. It is most disappointing that the international community outside Europe has not honoured the pledges made in respect of the provision of humanitarian aid. A few weeks ago, only 20% of the aid that had been either pledged or promised had actually been delivered. I welcome the fact that there has been an increase but obviously this is not sufficient. As the Tánaiste indicated and as matters stand, only 50% of what was promised has been delivered to the region, which is in dire need of additional assistance.
I welcome the fact that the Tánaiste has continued to state that Ireland wishes to see a negotiated settlement. The statements made by US Secretary of State Kerry and the Russian authorities in that regard are welcome. Will the Tánaiste comment on the vote which took place at the UN yesterday and which showed some deviation, in the context of numbers, from a previous vote? There appears to be a level of concern among certain members of the United Nations regarding Islamic infiltration of the opposition grouping in Syria.
On the humanitarian front, some 58% of the pledges made in Kuwait have been honoured. We want the remainder of those pledges to be honoured. Ireland is in a particularly strong position to ask for them to be honoured because, on a per-capita basis, it is one of the highest contributors to the humanitarian effort relating to this crisis. There is no doubt that it is a crisis. More than 1 million people are in refugee camps in Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon and 4 million overall have been affected by the situation. The latter includes 2 million displaced persons.
Efforts have been made to deal with this issue previously and they have not been as successful as the international community had initially envisaged. I hope last week's meeting involving US Secretary of State Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov will lead to a conference and provide a basis for a settlement. As Deputy Smith stated, there is concern with regard to the composition of the various forces which comprise the Syrian opposition. There is no doubt there is quite a range of such forces and that some extreme elements are involved.
Will the Tánaiste continue to raise at the Foreign Affairs Council the concern that exists in respect of the investigation into the use of chemical weapons by the UN? That investigation has been blocked because Assad's Government has refused to grant an international inspection team unfettered access to the country. I understand the Assad regime wanted certain regions to be excluded and that these are the ones in which it is suspected that alleged chemical weapons attacks - which the rebels and the Government accuse each other of having perpetrated - took place. Will the Tánaiste continue to clearly let it be known at the Foreign Affairs Council that Ireland will oppose the possible ending of the European Union's ban on arms exports to Syria? There has been increasing pressure from some member states to the effect that the Syrian rebels should be armed. I take it that the Irish position will continue to be that we want a negotiated settlement and that we do not see the lifting of the ban on arms sales as a means to achieving such an urgently required settlement?
I can confirm that I will be arguing at the Foreign Affairs Council that there must be a full investigation into the allegations relating to the use of chemical weapons. The European Union has already written to the Secretary General of the United Nations to insist that said investigation must be comprehensive and must contemplate all serious allegations relating to the use of chemical weapons. On 20 March last the Secretary General of the UN agreed to a Syrian request to investigate a specific incident in which the Syrian authorities allege that opposition forces used chemical weapons. The problem which arises is that it has not proved possible, so far, for the Secretary General to agree terms of reference with the Syrian authorities in respect of such an investigation. The position in this regard is both deplorable and unsustainable. The information and allegations which have emerged since 20 March make the opening of that investigation, without delay, all the more urgent.
On the arms embargo, I expect that the Foreign Affairs Council will address the issue of the renewal of the sanctions regime relating to Syria later this month. That regime includes the arms embargo. We have argued that the lifting of the embargo would lead to a further militarisation of the situation in Syria and that this is not desirable. That remains our position. It is important that we achieve agreement on these issues at the Foreign Affairs Council in order that we might maintain a coherent and unified European Union position on the issue.
2. Deputy Seán Crowe asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade if his attention has been drawn to the ongoing hunger strikes in the Guantanamo Bay detention facility; if his attention has been drawn to the force feeding of some hunger strikers; and if he has raised this issue with the American Government. [23370/13]
Amharc ar fhreagraI am being kept informed of developments relating to the hunger strike which is taking place at the Guantanamo Bay detention centre. I have made clear on many occasions my view that the centre should be closed and that the detainees should be either brought to trial or released as soon as possible. I discussed this issue with Hillary Clinton when she was US Secretary of State. It is also mentioned regularly in discussions between Irish and US officials and between the EU and the US. I will mention it when I next meet US Secretary of State Kerry. President Obama has made a political commitment to close the centre. I very much welcome this, along with his indication last week that he will make renewed efforts to secure closure.
I understand that approximately 100 of the detainees are currently on hunger strike. This is a difficult and delicate situation. I hope it will be handled in a humane and sensitive manner and that the rights of those involved - including that to peaceful protest - will be fully respected. We all wish to see a peaceful outcome without loss of life. I also understand that the US Government has confirmed that a number of the hunger strikers are being force-fed through tubes. I am concerned at this development because I have profound reservations about this practice from an ethical standpoint. I hope the use of force-feeding will be reconsidered and discontinued immediately.
My original question inquired as to whether the Tánaiste had raised this matter with the relevant authorities. From his reply, I take it he intends to do so at some point in the future. Tomorrow will be the 100th day of the hunger strike. The Tánaiste is correct in stating that prisoners are being force-fed. This new element has brought the reality of what is happening to many people. As a result of our own history and the experience of the suffragettes, Irish trade unionists and Irish republican prisoners, we are aware of the effects of force-feeding. Essentially, this process involves strapping the person to a chair, forcing a tube down his or her throat and then holding his or her nose. I spoke to one prisoner, Mr. Gerry Kelly, MLA, who underwent this procedure and I am aware that what those who are subjected to it are forced to endure is absolutely horrifying. Michael Gaughan, an Irish hunger striker in the 1970s, was force-fed by the authorities in Britain and ended up dying of pneumonia. Thomas Ashe, another hunger striker who was subjected to this procedure in 1917, died as a result of the fact that material entered his lungs.
The UN has condemned force-feeding on humanitarian grounds. This matter needs to be raised at some level, perhaps even at the UN. Everyone agrees that the Guantanamo Bay facility should be closed. I am concerned by that fact that as a result of their utter despair, the prisoners there felt they had no option but to go on hunger strike.
Some 66 of the prisoners have been cleared by the President Obama regime, but there appears to be no mechanism for their release. Many have been there for 11 years and believe that their only options are to leave dead in a box or to take this approach of forcing a change.
I have already raised the issue of the closure of Guantanamo at Secretary of State level. It continues to be discussed at official level between the EU and the US.
From an ethical and humanitarian point of view, I have deep reservations about the forced feeding of hunger strikers. Medical organisations and the International Committee of the Red Cross have expressed significant concern about this practice. In the context of the Guantanamo detention centre, a range of medical and legal groups, international relief organisations and UN officials have called on the US Administration to stop the forced feeding.
As Deputy Crowe is aware, Ireland is a member of the UN Human Rights Council, UNHRC, where concerns about the situation have been voiced. This month, the UN special procedures mandate holders called on the US to respect and guarantee the life, health and personal integrity of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, particularly in the context of the hunger strike. The UN special rapporteur on health also expressed specific concerns about forced feeding or other forms of coercion being applied to individuals on hunger strike.
Does the Tánaiste share the UNHRC's opinion? The UN human rights office has condemned the forced feeding of the hunger strikers. The World Medical Association has stated that forceful feeding is a form of inhuman treatment and is never ethically acceptable. Will the Government use all avenues to try to bring the hunger strike to an end before people lose their lives? What is happening is horrific. We need to use whatever resources we can to bring about a successful conclusion and resolve the situation through the closure of the interrogation camps.
I agree with the UN statement. Ireland adheres to and supports international human rights law and respects the rights of individuals to refuse food if they so choose. For example, forced feeding would not be resorted to were a prisoner to go on hunger strike in Ireland. Forced feeding violates the fundamental rights of an individual to be treated with inherent dignity. We will continue to have the issue discussed with the US authorities. When I next have the opportunity, I will mention the issue again to the Secretary of State, Mr. John Kerry.
3. Deputy Mick Wallace asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade in view of Ireland's hosting of the EU Presidency, the proactive steps he has taken to address the violation of international law by Israel, most recently its aerial bombardment inside Syria; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23487/13]
Amharc ar fhreagraThe Deputy is aware that EU policy on the Middle East is co-ordinated and led by the High Representative and the European External Action Service, EEAS, of the EU, not by the rotating national Presidency. An ever present danger in the Syrian crisis has been that it would escalate to engulf the wider region. Recent events, such as the alleged Israeli bombing of a target in Syria, the dreadful car bombing in Turkey last weekend, the recent kidnapping of UN Disengagement Observer Force, UNDOF, peacekeepers in the Golan and the continuing threat facing personnel serving with that vital mission, reinforce those fears and underline the urgent need for concerted international action to achieve a peaceful resolution as well as to provide urgent humanitarian assistance.
Israel is widely believed to have been responsible for an attack on a Syrian military base on 5 May, a further attack on a military convoy heading towards the Lebanese border on 2 May and an earlier incident in January, but this has not been confirmed. The Israeli Government, as is its practice, has not officially commented or accepted responsibility for these attacks. I am concerned if this is indeed the case, but I am also concerned about the reported movement of advanced weapons from Syria to supply Hizbollah in Lebanon and the use of these weapons by Hizbollah in attacks on Israeli cities.
All sides in the internal Syrian conflict and in the wider region need to show restraint at this critical juncture. Focusing exclusively on the actions of one party to a complex series of conflicts involving many parties will not help to achieve peace in Syria or the wider Middle East.
Syria's gruesome civil war threatens to spill into a wider Middle Eastern conflict. Israel's aerial attacks on Syrian military installations near Damascus, killing more than 100 people, certainly have not helped. The bombing raids, which were unprovoked and illegal, were immediately supported by the US and British Governments. However, given the fact that Israel has illegally occupied Syria's Golan Heights for 46 years, the legitimacy of a few more air raids probably hardly matters. Nevertheless, I wonder what would be the reaction of the West had Syria or Iran launched such an attack on Israel or one of the Arab regimes arming the Syrian rebels. International legality, equity or rights of self-defence have little to do with it.
President Assad's regime is battered, discredited and unacceptable, but is unlikely to be dislodged by force any time soon. Intensified military action has no real prospect of breaking this destructive and horrific stalemate.
Will the Deputy frame a question, please?
The West seems tempted to get involved. It likes some of the rebels, but not others. It would like to build up its favoured groups and weaken the role of the jihadists, who seem to be taking on a stronger role in the war. Foreign intervention on both sides has had the drastic effect of escalating the conflict. Apart from Israel and the US, among those pushing for more intervention is Prime Minister David Cameron, eager to ingratiate himself with the Gulf's dictators. He has been pressing for the EU's arms embargo to be lifted. Does the Tánaiste not agree that lifting the embargo would only escalate the problem further?
I am on public record as stating that I do not support the lifting of the arms embargo and the further militarisation of the conflict in Syria. The EU's sanctions regime in respect of Syria is due for renewal and I expect it will be discussed at the Foreign Affairs Council in May. As is well known, some member states have been seeking a lifting of the arms embargo. Ireland is among a number of countries that do not support such action.
However difficult it may be, we must work towards a peaceful resolution of the conflict in Syria. That conflict is complex, brutal and savage and has had a considerable impact on Syrians. To date, an estimated 70,000 people have been killed. This is probably a conservative estimate. More than 1 million people have been driven out of the country into refugee camps and approximately 2 million people have been internally displaced. We are attempting to address this significant humanitarian crisis.
In this context, it is important that the situation not be militarised further, either by the actions of other states or more arms entering that bloody and brutal conflict.
I welcome the Tánaiste's comments. Will he remind Prime Minister Cameron of the lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan, that being, without a workable political plan, the use of force is a recipe for deep and prolonged trouble? An internationally and regionally backed deal is the only way out of this disaster. The US and Russia must talk. Does the Tánaiste not agree that they are the only players that can bring an end to this humanitarian crisis?
The US and Russia have already talked. There was a meeting between Secretary of State Kerry and Foreign Minister Mr. Sergey Lavrov just over a week ago.
My understanding is that it has been agreed that a conference will be convened within a number of weeks, which would build on the conference that took place in Geneva last June. The difficulty is that the international community wants a peaceful resolution of the situation in Syria but the slaughter is continuing within the country. The Assad regime is continuing its brutal attacks on its own people. There is a degree of frustration internationally that the conflict is not coming to an end and that the efforts of Dr. Brahimi have not yet resulted in a settlement. The Brahimi solution is the only one available and we support it through the European Union. We continue to do what we can to bring humanitarian aid to the unfortunate people who are suffering as a result of the conflict.
4. Deputy Brendan Smith asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade the discussions he has held with the Northern Secretary of State, the Northern Executive, Parades Commission and the PSNI in relation to the upcoming marching season in view of the flag protests over the past number of months; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23489/13]
Amharc ar fhreagraContentious issues surrounding culture and identity necessarily feature in most of our discussions and contact in Northern Ireland, and particularly so in recent months. I can confirm that the specific issue of the upcoming marching season was reviewed during my bilateral discussions with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Theresa Villiers, MP, on 29 April in Belfast. It also featured in the joint meeting which the Secretary of State and I had with Northern Ireland’s First Minister, Peter Robinson, MLA, and with the Deputy First Minister, Martin McGuinness, MLA, later that day at Stormont Castle. It had also featured in discussions which the Taoiseach and I had with the First Minister and Deputy First Minister in Washington DC over St. Patrick’s Day. Government officials working at the British-Irish Intergovernmental Secretariat in Belfast maintain contact with the full range of concerned parties, notably community groups, interface workers and public representatives who work to support peace and good relations during the annual marching season.
In these meetings, I expressed the Government’s concerns about the current situation. I have reiterated that it is essential that the determinations of the Parades Commission are fully respected and that the commission and the Police Service of Northern Ireland continue to receive full support from everyone. I know that this position enjoys unanimous support from all parties in the House. We all recognise that the Police Service of Northern Ireland faces a very challenging situation this marching season, as it has during the recent illegal street protests about Belfast City Council’s December decision on flag flying. It is a great shame that such scenes continue to strain community relations in Belfast and damage Northern Ireland’s well deserved international reputation as a place to visit and do business.
Resolving contentious parades and other aspects of culture and identity requires a renewed commitment to the values of equality and mutual respect which are central to the peace process. In that context, I welcome the announcement last week by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister of a new initiative entitled, Together: Building a United Community. I call for all parties to engage in resolving sectarianism and to prioritise support for peace and greater understanding ahead of all other considerations during the marching season ahead.
I thank the Tánaiste for his reply. Parades and flags are major divisive issues in Northern Ireland. Unfortunately, in 2013 parading remains a major risk to civic stability in the North. I live near the Border and have contacts in the North. I speak to people every weekend from County Fermanagh and elsewhere. There is a lot of nervousness about the upcoming parading season. The season started earlier than usual this year, around Christmas. We have had the fall-out from the flags protest violence in December and January. From contacts in Belfast and media reports, it appears that some communities such as the Short Strand enclave in east Belfast have effectively endured a continuous parading season because of the fall-out of the flags feud. That is not acceptable for any community. It also raises tensions.
Does the Tánaiste agree that the decision of the First Minister last summer to co-sign an open letter condemning the Parades Commission and its determination sent the wrong message? It was a wrong decision and sent the wrong message to all communities who want peace and stability. Did the Tánaiste and Taoiseach raise that with First Minister when they met him? People who are part of the process cannot co-sign a letter objecting to a determination by the Parades Commission and nor can the First Minister. A determination by the Parades Commission is a legal document.
The Government and the British Government are strongly of the view that the Parades Commission must be strongly supported, that its determinations must be respected, and that we support the Police Service of Northern Ireland in the implementation of same.
We must look forward to the parading season this year. While a significant number of discussions are taking place at local level to resolve parading issues, it is fair to say that the recent flag protests have unfortunately raised tensions between both communities and might make it more difficult to promote dialogue and engagement on contentious parades in the coming months. Therefore, I urge all parties to engage with local residents and to identify compromise solutions that respect the wishes of both marchers and community residents. For our part, we will continue to work with the Northern Ireland Executive and political leaders in Northern Ireland to formulate a strategic framework.
I agree entirely with An Tánaiste that the Parades Commission has to be supported by both Governments and every member of the community in Northern Ireland. A clear message must go out to everybody in Northern Ireland that the Parades Commission can only continue in its vitally important work if it is not second-guessed, especially by public representatives who have a responsibility to be leaders in their community. No strand of political opinion can be allowed to undermine determinations that have legal status.
I am familiar with officials from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the commitment, effort and knowledge they bring to their work with local communities. I am sure they are very active. A recent report indicated the concerns of Dolores Kelly, MLA, about the starting point for a parade in the Garvaghy Road area on 8 June. The clear message must again go out that the Government and the British Government will not tolerate any strand of political opinion second-guessing the Parades Commission or not giving their full support. The stability of society in Northern Ireland and the welfare of citizens is much too important to be second-guessed by people who do not like particular determinations on certain dates.
The best way to resolve parades issues is directly between the organisers and local residents. We have seen that work successfully for many parades. In the absence of such agreement it then falls to the Parades Commission to make a determination on how a parade should be organised and the various conditions attaching to it. I am very clear in that regard, as is Secretary of State Villiers. We have both expressed our view in the discussions we have had with the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, and with other political leaders in Northern Ireland. Our view is that the determinations of the Parades Commission must be respected. That is the purpose of the commission. There can be no equivocation or second-guessing of the determinations of the Parades Commission. That is the arrangement that is in place for dealing with issues relating to parades. There is a big parade on 21 June - the Tour of the North; the Battle of the Somme commemorations are on 7 July, there are the 12 July commemorations, the Apprentice Boys parade in Derry is on 10 August and the parade in Rasharkin is on 16 August.
There is a long parades season ahead and of course there are many other parades planned for various venues. I urge that discussions take place between the organisers and residents where there are issues to be resolved, that efforts are made to resolve them and that when the Parades Commission makes a determination, it is respected by everybody.
5. Deputy Seán Crowe asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade in view of the rate of expansion of Israeli settlements, and the deterioration of the situation on the ground in the past 12 months since the EU Foreign Affairs Council conclusions of May 2012, if he will use the opportunity of the upcoming EU Foreign Affairs Council to formally propose an EU-wide ban on settlement goods. [23371/13]
Amharc ar fhreagraDeputies will be aware of my deep concerns about continued settlement expansion. There has been a worrying increase in settlement announcements in the last year, although few of these have, as yet, begun construction. It is clear, however, that settlements are now very close to making the creation of a Palestinian state, and thus a two-State solution, physically impossible, as indeed they are intended to do.
Within the EU, Ireland has focused attention on settlements and surrounding issues such as exclusions and demolitions. The Foreign Affairs Council addressed these issues in a strong set of conclusions which it adopted in May 2012. I have emphasised to my colleagues the need for an early review by the council of these conclusions. At official level, work is proceeding in a number of areas in preparation for such a review, which I hope can take place at this month’s meeting or at the June meeting.
I believe that in the absence of a positive response by Israel to the EU’s concerns, the council should consider stronger measures. I have stated before, and do so again, that a reasonable measure to be considered in this context would be a ban on settlement goods entering the EU. However, Deputies must be clear that there is no prospect of EU agreement on such a ban and as long as this is not a viable prospect, it would be a mistake for Ireland to concentrate our efforts on this aspect.
Work is, however, proceeding on possible EU guidelines on place-of-origin labelling for settlement goods, so that consumers can recognise and decide whether or not to buy them. I have joined other EU colleagues in writing to the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy to support this move. I hope these can be agreed in the near future and believe that this would send an important political signal of the unacceptability of the settlement project.
I thank the Minister and welcome the statement he made last Friday following his meeting with the so-called Elders group that goods from illegal Israeli settlement colonies or colonies in the West Bank should be clearly labelled in all EU countries. This would give consumers a real choice as to whether they want to buy, boycott or bin such goods. However, I believe the EU should go further and ban such goods. Would the Minister accept that politically, a ban would have a greater impact on Israeli policy? I believe such a ban would send a strong message to the Israeli Government should it continue to ignore or defy international law. Many people speculated about possible initiatives during our Presidency but we are in month five of our six-month term now. Will the initiative centre on labelling, and will we go our own way in terms of a ban? The Minister said he is hoping to reach consensus on the issue of a ban. I presume that is his favoured position in that regard. Which comes first, the labelling or the ban? Many people are looking to Ireland for leadership on this issue.
Last May, the European Union adopted a very strong set of conclusions regarding settlements. At the end of that meeting I stated my belief that if the settlements did not stop, the EU would have to consider stronger measures. I suggested at that stage that we would have to consider the possibility of imposing a ban on settlement products entering the EU. In my judgment, we will not get agreement at EU level for an EU-wide ban on settlement products. Therefore, we have concentrated our energies and efforts on introducing a labelling regime. The EU High Representative, Catherine Ashton, has circulated a set of proposals and guidelines on labelling. A number of colleague foreign Ministers and I have responded to that initiative and expressed our support for an EU-wide set of guidelines on the labelling of products from settlement areas. I believe that would be most effective as it would operate on an EU-wide basis. I have also begun discussions with other Departments here with a view to pursuing national guidelines, if needs be. However, it is preferable that we do this on an EU-wide basis, for obvious reasons. Ireland is a market of only 4.5 million, whereas the EU is a market of over 500 million, so an EU-wide labelling regime would have a much bigger impact. The state of play at the moment is that proposals have been circulated by the EU High Representative. A number of member states, including Ireland, have expressed support for those proposals. I do not expect that we will have a full discussion on this at the May Foreign Affairs Council meeting but I do expect us to have a full discussion on it at the June meeting.
On Tuesday of last week, there were media reports that the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, had ordered a freeze on the construction of illegal colonial settlements. Has the Minister heard anything in that regard? Two days later, however, on Thursday of last week, the Israeli Government signed off on plans to build nearly 300 new settlements near Ramallah, which dashed the hopes of many.
I welcome the fact that the Minister has outlined a timescale with regard to the introduction of a labelling regime. However, I believe a ban is the best way forward and would have the most impact. It might not have an enormous impact economically but it would help to raise awareness of the settlement issue and, hopefully, put a halt to the construction of many illegal settlements.
I have seen the various reports to which Deputy Crowe referred. We must be conscious of the fact that in the background, we need to get a renewed effort at a peace settlement moving again. I am encouraged by the fact that the United States has now re-engaged with that. President Obama has been to Israel recently and the Secretary of State, Mr. John Kerry, has visited on a number of occasions. I have had discussions with Mr. Kerry on the approach being taken to the issue. It is important that there is a co-ordinated EU-USA approach to the issue. It is a case of getting peace talks moving again. At the same time, we must be mindful of the situation on the ground. The continuation of the building of settlements in the West Bank will make the two-State solution physically impossible. That is why it is so critically important that the settlements are halted.
