The second E the Minister spoke about was the energy question. There is no doubt that there is a major problem in terms of energy security. The economy influences this. Steps that we might not have been willing to consider previously in Europe might now need to be considered. In terms of the countries in Europe that depend on Russia almost entirely for their energy supplies, the Ukraine-Russia difficulty is a challenge for them. Four European countries rely 100% on Russia for their energy supplies. France, on the other hand, has little need in that respect because it has nuclear power. Will we consider the possibly of nuclear power, something we would not have considered until this financial crisis? Is it possible that it should not be considered? I am not an advocate of it. I do not know enough about it and I doubt very much if moving in that direction would be an easy step, but in the new financial situation prevailing throughout Europe perhaps we have to examine the situation in France which invested in nuclear power a long time ago. That direction has been successful for it. A number of other countries do not face the same challenge because they found alternative methods to provide for their energy needs. I hope the question of the energy crisis and the energy security will receive the attention it deserves.

I have two other points regarding general relations. One concerns a report in a newspaper over the weekend that documentation from the Czech Presidency referred to the fact that it would not bring up the question of harmonisation of tax until the Irish referendum has taken place. That is quite frightening. I hope the Minister will query this. I acknowledge this issue relates to the tax base, but regardless of the tax base, they say it will not occur and apparently have agreed - I do not know from where the memo came but it was cited in a newspaper article - not to raise that matter until after the Irish referendum has taken place. I would like the Minister to inquire from his hosts in Prague if that is correct and, if so, to ascertain what is the position in that respect.

I was in Brussels yesterday and my visit there overlapped with a visit from Mr. Erdogan, the Prime Minister of Turkey. It was his first visit there in four years. Apparently, he is now back in Turkey because they are trying to resurrect the question of Turkey’s accession to Europe. The Minister did not mention that, nor was it mentioned in the documentation. Perhaps it is not high on the agenda, but I would like to know what is happening regarding the Turkish application and whether it will be reconsidered.

I do not want to repeat what others have said regarding external relations but I want to speak about the situation in Gaza. I thought the Minister’s tone when he spoke about the situation there today was moderate and acceptable. I do not know if the tone of the statement he made on 28 December, 24 hours after the Israeli invasion of Gaza, was moderate. It seemed it was aimed directly and only at Israel and it was only after some paragraphs that he mentioned the Hamas bombs and rockets that had been invading and attacking Israel since 19 December. For one week at least since the end of the ceasefire was announced by Hamas, it was sending rockets into Israel. Maybe its action was a provocation and that was the objective of its action, but the fact that the Minister did not condemn Israel until 24 hours after the Israeli invasion and did not appear to give anything like the same attention to a condemnation of Hamas was less than moderate.

In regard to Israel, people should always ask if this will achieve the objective they want. I am sure what Israel had as an objective is not what it is getting at the moment, which is, condemnation for the overreaction. Perhaps Hamas anticipated this reaction to its provocation and it is exactly what it wanted, although I am not sure. I am would be glad to hear the Minister’s views on that.