Dominic Hannigan (Meath East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I remind those who have just arrived to switch off their mobile telephones. It is not sufficient to place them in silent mode because they will continue to interfere with the recording equipment. Apologies have been received from Deputy Seán Crowe and Senator Terry Leyden.

On behalf of the committee I welcome His Excellency, Mr. Mait Martinson, ambassador of Estonia to Ireland, and His Excellency, Mr. Gints Apals, ambassador of Latvia to Ireland. Latvia and Estonia joined the European Union in 2004, almost ten years ago. This meeting will allow members to explore the impact European Union membership has had on both Baltic countries. Our countries have experienced similar problems in recent years and all three are geographically peripheral in the context of the EU. Our countries enjoyed economic booms before being hit very hard by economic recessions. This meeting will give us an opportunity to discuss with the ambassadors the approaches currently being taken in their countries in respect of the EU project and further EU integration and also the attitude of Latvian and Estonian citizens to the EU.

Before we begin, I am obliged to remind members of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. By virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give to the committee. If they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence in regard to a particular matter and continue to do so, they will be entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and are asked to respect the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against any person, persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable.

I invite ambassador Martinson to make his presentation.

H. E. Mr. Mait Martinson:

I thank the Chairman. It is unusual for me to be seated on this side of the room rather than in the Visitors Gallery. I thank the committee for its kind invitation to make a presentation to it and to discuss with members Estonia's experience within the European Union. It is especially good to discuss this matter in a country which held the Presidency when Estonia and nine other successful candidate countries joined the Union. As member may recall, the accession ceremony took place on a lovely sunny day in May 2004 at Farmleigh House in Dublin. During its seventh Presidency earlier this year, Ireland brought in another new member state, namely, Croatia. We can see from this that Ireland has adhered to the policy of enlargement and that it has delivered very nicely on the motto of its recent Presidency, that is, "Stability, jobs and growth". In respect of the latter, I could refer to the EU budget, the adoption of the multi-annual finance framework, MFF, trade agreements, patent law, Common Agricultural Policy reforms, advancement on the digital single market and so on.

The experience of my own country in the EU has been mostly positive. We have learned and gained a great deal from our membership. In essence, Estonia has become probably the most integrated country in the Nordic-Baltic region. Estonia is a member of the EU, the eurozone, NATO, the OECD and the Schengen area. It is not always recognised but our Government and people took clear decisions to join these. Our positive experience within the EU may have led Estonia - the position may be the same for other member states - into what might be termed a comfort zone. A great deal of rebuilding needs to be done in the context of the EU's structures and functions. Not only must we be bear in mind that strategical issues in this regard, we are also obliged to engage in firefighting on a daily basis. In such circumstances, our target is clear. We must bring the European Union out of its comfort zone. In that context, we should increase the level of responsibility among member states, enhance to rules that apply and strengthen the capacity of both the Union and the eurozone. In essence, this is the Government of Estonia's view of what should happen in the EU in the coming years.

It is not good for Estonia when Europe is tottering. On the other hand, however, Ireland is recovering and this is good not only for other countries such as Portugal but also because it provides relief to the entire euro area. It also provides encouragement to Estonia that even difficult issues relating to peripheral areas located to the very north and west of the Union can be resolved.

What about the future? It is not only the need to engage in firefighting which we must consider. We must also examine ways in which the EU can be advanced in order that all of its citizens will be of the view that it continues to serve both the common interest and the needs of individual nations. Let us consider what the future will bring in terms of sovereignty issues. This matter will be debated in the context of the European Parliament elections to be held next spring. Will individual states' sovereignty be lost or will sovereignty be shared or combined? Our view is that most probably a combination of sovereignty through integration of our strengths in different fields might be one way to proceed. Joint interests should be properly financed, represented and protected by the Union and what is not part of EU competences could be flexibility handled by member states. A balance will have to be struck and I am glad all the nations are working to achieve this.

Estonia is not protecting its own narrow national interests. Instead, it is aiming to push policies that will give rise to higher growth and job creation, reduce barriers and advance European security. We are very glad that the agenda relating to the single digital market was afforded high priority during Ireland's Presidency. We see this as one of the areas in respect of which all member states - but, more particularly, the smaller ones - will benefit if barriers are removed and if services are allowed to flow, in a really free way, across internal European borders. Public support for the European Union in Estonia is strong. According to the most recent Eurobarometer survey, some 70% of Estonians consider themselves to be citizens of the European Union. This means that the solid two-to-one majority achieved in the referendum on accession ten years ago remains intact.

I believe I have covered the European issues.

I would not be fair if I were to say that everything is rosy, but I am glad that we see advancements in some of the concerns - transport, connections from peripheral areas to the core, energy, the Common Agricultural Policy or Cohesion Funds. I hope some expectations in those areas that have not been met during the almost first decade of membership will be addressed and dealt with under future Presidencies and successfully agreed multi-annual financial frameworks.

H. E. Mr. Gints Apals:

I thank the Chairman and the committee for their interest in Latvia's experience and for their kind invitation to participate in this meeting. We all know that the EU is much more than just another international organisation. Therefore, the experience of membership in the Union is rather complex and at the same time individual.

I hope the committee will allow me to start with a small retrospection to say that Latvia’s decision to move towards full membership of the EU was determined by geopolitical factors and by its own historical experience. The Soviet occupation and annexation separated my country from other European nations for five decades and soon after the restoration of national independence in 1991, Latvia started to build a modern democratic society seeking security and prosperity through close co-operation with the existing European and Euro-Atlantic structures, namely, NATO, the OSCE, the European Free Trade Association which existed at that time, and above all, the European Union. In the 1990s the EU gradually became the most dynamic and powerful European structure embarking on an ambitious policy of enlargement. Inevitably, Latvia decided to follow the general trend which prevailed in the whole of central and eastern Europe and decided to adopt the European socio-economic model, applying for membership in the EU soon after.

I would like to structure my short presentation today along three main vectors, namely, the political, economic and societal impact of Latvia’s accession to the EU. Before identifying the advantages attained, it is necessary to remind one that Latvia implemented significant reforms and benefited from EU assistance even before accession. Approximation of legislation and transposition of EU norms happened on the basis of the association agreement concluded in 1995 and, more importantly, in the process of negotiations on the accession agreement. Those negotiations started in 2000.

In the economic dimension, the EU is rightly considered as one of the most important resources for the social and economic development of my country. The EU provided significant support to Latvia’s infrastructure and economy through its structural funds, the Cohesion Fund and the Common Agricultural Policy. For example, in the financial framework for 2007 to 2013, Latvia received €4.5 billion through the acquisition of EU funds and €1.8 billion more under the CAP. I remind members that the annual GDP figure in Latvia for the year 2010 was just €22 billion. That means that almost 5% of our GDP was drawn from EU structural policies.

The accession to the EU made Latvia part of the Single Market. I remind members that the reorientation of foreign trade was a major task of my government back in the 1990s when Latvia sought to reduce its dependence on the Eurasian markets. At present, in 2013, a total of 70% of Latvia’s exports and 77% of its imports come from the EU. Needless to say, Latvia has adopted all the relevant quality and safety standards and norms that facilitate our co-operation with EU partners and also our trade with third countries.

Membership of the EU opened therefore the introduction of the single currency. The economic and financial crisis of 2008 and 2009 delayed Latvia’s accession to the eurozone by several years but at present all the criteria have been fulfilled and Latvia is about to introduce the euro on 1 January 2014, thus obtaining an even more favourable environment for investment and trade.

On the societal impact, individuals and society as a whole have greatly benefitted from Latvia’s membership. The major issues are improved standards of environmental protection, access to education and health services in all EU member states, EU support for youth and the integration of society in Latvia. Many Latvians made use of the opportunities offered by the free movement of individuals and labour force in the EU. Almost 300,000 people out of a total population of 2.2 million have travelled abroad to work or study. A total of 50,000 Latvians have come to Ireland for shorter or longer stays. The current number of Latvians residing in Ireland is approximately 25,000. My compatriots contribute to the local economy and also benefit from the Irish social system in full accordance with existing legislation.

A separate but no less important issue is the beneficial effect of membership on the development of the Latvian language and culture. Today, the Latvian language functions as a fully fledged official language of the EU. The population of Latvia profits from cultural exchanges with other European nations.

Next, I will deal with the political impact. In 2004, Latvia became a full participant in the EU decision-making process, significantly amplifying its political influence on internal and external policies of the Union and the functioning of European institutions. The new situation changed the horizon of domestic policy-making. Before the accession, Latvia was much less concerned with such global challenges as climate change, safety of energy supply, global competitiveness, migration, international terrorism and other such issues. After 2004, Latvia had put itself into a much wider international context, addressing many issues and challenges. Participation in the common foreign and security policy and the European scrutiny and defence policy was a major aspect of that process. A small nation could not conduct intensive political and economic relations with all the countries of the world on its own. Now, according to the provisions of the Lisbon treaty, the European External Action Service and the European Commission provide us with much broader outreach.

Having touched on external relations I wish to add a few words on security. We cannot overlook the security dimension. While recognising the fact that the EU is by no means a defence alliance, my country highly values the solidarity clause enshrined in Article 222 of the Lisbon treaty. That also provides us with a perspective for the future and there are many issues on which to work. I will conclude my presentation and I am ready to answer any questions.

Dominic Hannigan (Meath East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank both ambassadors. Before I take questions I wish to ask one question of ambassador Apals. It relates to Latvians in Ireland and their experiences. The population of Estonia is approximately 1.3 million and the population of Latvia is more than that, it is 2 million, yet there are probably ten times as many Latvians as Estonians in Ireland. As the ambassador said, there are approximately 25,000 Latvians in this country. I come from the Louth-Meath area where more than 2,000 Latvians live. What makes Ireland such an attractive destination for Latvian people? As ambassador to the Latvians living here, what are their general experiences and what issues does he deal with on a regular basis?

H. E. Mr. Gints Apals:

Every country in the EU has its own pattern of migration.

In Ireland, the largest European immigrant population is Polish, followed by Lithuanians, with Latvians and Slovakians sharing the fourth position. What facilitated migration to Ireland was the economic boom ten years ago. Many jobs were available in this country at that time and foreign workers were very much in demand. Besides the economic factors, there are also cultural factors which make Ireland attractive, including the fact that Irish communities are very much open and welcoming to migrants. That facilitates migrants' lives here and allows them to put down roots.

At the same time, we recognise that some of the people who come to Ireland will stay here while others will return to Latvia or move to other European countries. Free movement within the Union is simply a reality. People from other countries might prefer other destinations within Europe. Ireland has offered quite favourable conditions for European migrants, which is appreciated by those who come here. Latvian people who come to this country learn from the Irish. My Government would expect some of them to return to Latvia sooner or later, bringing with them the experience they have gained in Ireland. Some of them will use that experience to start independent businesses at home or will employ their new skills to work in the Latvian economy.

Dominic Hannigan (Meath East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Apals. I will take questions from members, beginning with Deputy Bernard Durkan.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Chairman. I welcome our guests and thank them for their presentations. Mr. Martinson referred to two issues that are very important for smaller countries within the European Union, namely, sovereignty and the digital economy. Sovereignty is something we can make and break ourselves, in that our contribution to the sum total of what the European Union is will, in many ways, determine our sovereignty. If we stand aloof from the Union - if we do not engage with it - that tends to undermine our sovereignty to a far greater extent than embracing the Union. Indeed, those countries that have embraced the Union to a greater extent have lost less sovereignty than those which took the opposite position. Having said that, loss of sovereignty is in essence mythical because it is really a case of countries coming together to share their sovereignty for the common good. That can only be a good thing.

Regarding the digital economy, there are tremendous opportunities in that area for countries at the periphery of the Union, which include Latvia, Estonia and Ireland. Technology being what it is, it is possible to set up industry and create employment in smaller areas with less infrastructural investment. It is something in which all member states can engage.

The Single Market has several very interesting aspects. It has, however, been something of a two-edged sword in that, as well as the free movement of goods, people and services, we have seen how greater supervision and regulation in regard to the movement of money would have served us well in the past ten years. This is true for all member states and the Union in general. It is not possible to have a population of 500 million people and allow the totality of freedom to dictate where investment takes place and where money will go. There has to be a balancing factor. I sincerely hope we have learned that lesson.

In regard to alternative energy and its benefits, to what extent have both the ambassadors' countries managed to promote interest in such initiatives? I am particularly interested in wind energy, although I understand that hydro offers greater potential in some countries than in others.

Dara Murphy (Cork North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome both of our guests and thank them for their presentations. One of the narratives we often hear in Ireland is that power in Europe is essentially held by Germany and strongly influenced by one or two other countries. As three of the smallest countries in Europe, as well as being on the periphery, there is an onus on Ireland, Estonia and Latvia to build strong relationships. Deputy Bernard Durkan is correct that the countries which engage most within Europe get the most from the Union. The public should be made more aware that the sum of the smaller countries working together can potentially significantly outweigh the power concentrated in one or two large ones. I hope our countries continue to develop a strong working relationship.

In regard to how Europe is perceived within the ambassadors' countries, Mr. Martinson indicated that the latest information indicates that support for membership in his country is running at 70% or thereabouts. Can Mr. Apals provide the same information for Latvia? I am aware that each country is at different stages of the process in terms of participation in the eurozone. Estonia came in at probably the worst time. Will Mr. Martinson indicate how it is working out? Mr. Apals might indicate the perception in Latvia as his country prepares to join the eurozone in January. Given that the euro has recovered much of its reputation, I am interested to know the view in both countries.

Will both ambassadors comment on the scope they see for us, as Irish parliamentarians, to facilitate the potential for greater bilateral trade between our country and theirs?

H. E. Mr. Mait Martinson:

All of the questions are very good. If I had no time limit, I could keep talking forever. Deputy Bernard Durkan asked about the extent to which we have embraced the Union. We have certainly seen a rather quick change in that Estonia became a member state during the boom years in the early part of the last decade. People questioned whether we should join at that time. We have learned through the turbulence which followed that embracing the core values gives us a voice around the table. It is up to oneself how one builds relationships and alliances with similar thinking partners from near and far. Fortunately, Ireland is not considered a faraway place for Estonia.

Regarding the digital economy, this is an issue on which the European Council is very much concentrating. I am pleased we have established a good link to different Irish players, be it through our dealings with the chief information officer appointed by the Irish Government or via other channels. We expect significant numbers at the forthcoming web summit and cyber security conference. It is an opportunity to show what we have experienced and to see what we can do together.

This takes me to Deputy Dara Murphy's question regarding bilateral engagement. At some point during the financial difficulties and cutbacks of recent years, the question arose as to whether we really need embassies. Do we need to travel to so many European capitals or would Brussels and Strasbourg do the job? By now, we know and understand that businesses get built up by having a cup of coffee with a counterpart, whether in Tallinn, Riga or Helsinki; by having lunch with fellows and seeing that, yes, we can do business with them which will benefit both sides.

As for the euro experience, it is good. People like it. Initially, yes, as for the price increases and taking of the exchange rate, some services-----

Dominic Hannigan (Meath East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Was there much inflation?

H. E. Mr. Mait Martinson:

Not really. It was 3%. However, it pertains to what one takes psychologically and I will say parenthetically that we live in a funny neighbourhood, where people look at comparable living standards in Finland and Sweden. They see people in Finland getting €3,000 per month, whereas the equivalent rate in Estonia might be €1,000 per month. This raises questions from the people on the street as to the reason it is so different. However, one has no time to explain that Sweden has not had wars for three centuries, etc., and that consequently, the basis is different.

On the last point regarding energy and interconnections, we are very glad that we now have had two interconnections built to Finland - the second one will be finished. As for green energy, it mostly is wind energy. Unless I am mistaken, we are at the top of the European Union in adopting green energy policies and right now, there is even talk in some other member states that perhaps we have over-invested in green policies but we will see. I might get the figure wrong but right now I think we are getting approximately 7% of our electricity needs in this way.

H. E. Mr. Gints Apals:

If I may respond briefly to the questions raised by members of the joint committee, I will touch upon several issues. The first concerns regulation of financial flows and services. Here, I must state the reasons for the financial crisis in Latvia are very similar to the reasons for the financial crisis in Ireland. As many economists will state these days, the crisis arose because a small economy was overwhelmed by an influx of very cheap money. That also influenced the consumption patterns of people, as well as increasing the real estate and mortgage prices. At a certain point, when the cheap money became more expensive or was no longer available, the crisis began at that moment. This also was a very serious issue for my country. However, I believe the European Union is now taking the right steps to introduce regulation and controls through a banking union and the European institutions are working hard on this issue. From the perspective of Latvia, this would be the right way to address the issues, namely, through regulation at the European level, again because a small nation is subject to big flows of finance. On the other hand, a small nation cannot necessarily put restrictions on or regulate these flows. This should be done by the banking union at a much higher level because through the Single Market and the four freedoms of movement, we are all interconnected.

The second question concerned energy and alternative energy sources. Alternative energy should play a much bigger role in the future because the supply of hydrocarbons is not unlimited. In addition, alternative energy would provide a much cleaner environment. In my country, we are working on these issues using both wind energy and to an even larger extent, the vast resources of wood. Our situation today is not comparable with that which obtained a decade ago. These days, every single piece of wood is utilised. It is not discarded but is utilised to produce heating pellets and everything else. In our region, one could regard wood as processed energy of the sun. We do not use solar panels as much because there is not enough sunshine but we certainly can use wood as a resource for production, heating and everything else. Consequently, alternative energy plays a big role. However, at this point alternative energy still cannot entirely replace traditional sources of energy. There are many discussions, plans and projects in the region, one such project being the construction of a nuclear power plant. There is also the question of building liquefied natural gas, LNG, terminals, which would provide these rather small countries with supplies of LNG coming from abroad and thereby reducing dependence on Russian gas pipelines, which I must note still exists. Interconnection concerning electricity is of course very important. In the case of Latvia, we have interconnection with Sweden, from which we receive electricity produced by hydropower plants and by nuclear power plants.

The next question I wish to address is the working relationship between small nations. Perhaps I did not emphasise sufficiently the fact that small nations become much more influential in European structures. Our influence in European Union decision-making is not entirely proportional to our size but is much bigger. Therefore, we can build alliances, address common issues and use these structures to promote our shared interests. Again, however, the configuration of such alliances differs from case to case depending on one's geographical position or economic situation. There are important fields in which the unanimity rule still prevails and here I will mention the common foreign and security policy, CFSP, and the European security and defence policy, ESDP, in which all countries must agree to a decision, meaning that sovereignty in these important sectors is retained by the nation states.

As for the introduction of the euro, I will comment briefly by repeating that in our view, the euro is not a technocratic project. I have already made reference to the geopolitical considerations that are equally important. One should probably state there are integration processes both in Europe and in Eurasia. From our perspective, introducing the euro would anchor our economy in the European market. That means the introduction of the euro would both facilitate investment and trade with European nations and would tie our economy to the European markets, which is a very important consideration. Moreover, if one considers the issue of financial stability, there have been many pressures to devalue the national currency, which my Government has resisted successfully. Now, the introduction of the euro is certainly a guarantee for financial stability in the future because of course one cannot talk of devaluation of the euro. That would be a global issue and Latvia will be part of the eurozone and then of course will function according to its rules.

On the last question concerning parliamentary co-operation, my country greatly values the parliamentary co-operation between Latvia and Ireland. Already this year, a delegation from the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade came to Latvia and I now have been informed that a delegation from this joint committee is visiting my capital city in less than ten days. We greatly value these contacts because European institutions have very broad competences but at the same time, these competences are limited both in a sectoral sense and to a certain number of people who attend meetings in Brussels or who work there. This probably has a slightly wider dimension. It is known that many mass media would raise the issue of the deficits of democracy in the European Union. The way to address this deficit of democracy probably is through involvement of national parliaments and through direct contacts between national parliaments discussing wider European issues. In addition to these contacts, I would also emphasise the importance of people-to-people contacts. The average person or citizen should have much broader contacts with representatives of other European countries and without such foundations, the European Union probably will continue to suffer from the deficit of democracy that is claimed by some observers.

Dominic Hannigan (Meath East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the ambassador and note the last subject on which he touched as to how one ensures democratic legitimacy at a European level will be debated at the COSAC plenary session next week, to which we look forward. I will begin by asking both ambassadors some regional questions. I have three questions, the first of which relates to integration between the Baltic states and I believe ambassador Martinson mentioned transport links.

Can the ambassadors give us an update on the Rail Baltica project, the rail line to link all three Baltic states’ capitals? During the Lithuanian EU Presidency, there was some success with eastern partnerships and the situation in the Ukraine. Will the eastern partnerships continue to be a priority when Latvia takes over the Presidency next year? How are the rights of the Russian minority in the Baltic States respected, maintained and enhanced?

Joe O'Reilly (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome both ambassadors and would like to re-echo the fact that we in Ireland feel a great bond of friendship with the smaller eastern European countries, particularly with Estonia and Latvia. I was fascinated by the Chairman’s question on migration from Latvia to here and the ambassador’s response to that. My colleague on my side here pointed out there has been a significant number of marriages between the Latvian population here and Irish people. This suggests the ambassador’s hope that they may go home again might be thwarted.

This week the Minister of State with responsibility for European affairs, Deputy Pascal Donohoe, in a separate address said shared sovereignty is enhanced sovereignty. If we pool our sovereignties, then we enhance them to work for each other’s mutual benefit. If one cannot share one’s sovereignty, it only leads to insecurity and xenophobia. It is important the smaller member states work together. We have a community of interests in the EU among the smaller member states which should be maintained when it comes to budget and other negotiations, as we need to rely on each other.

Never again should it happen that the ordinary taxpayer, the regular normal folk on the streets, pay the brunt of future banking crises as they did the last time. If we have another bubble in our economy with a subsequent collapse of the banking system, it cannot be tolerated that regular folk who work in factories or the myriad of shops should have to bear the brunt of it, and for generations, with diminished services and incomes as a result. Responsibilities must be taken on board by bondholders, bank shareholders and depositors in some instances. The last place we should turn to in future is the first place we turned the last time, to the ordinary people. That was wrong and is something smaller member states could work on as a community.

I compliment our professional backup people here for the comprehensive and interesting briefing material on Latvia. I note Latvia has a list system for its elections. During a casual lunch with colleagues the other day, some were bemoaning the proportional representation system and multi-seat constituencies as creating too much internal competition and useless activity among Members. While I personally do not agree with this, how does the list system work for Latvia and would the ambassador commend it for Ireland? My instincts are against it because it smacks of elitism and has risks of centralisation and favouritism which could all lead to a democratic deficit. Do the people of Latvia experience that and resent it?

I have been to Estonia but not Latvia. Maybe I would accept an invitation there.

Joe O'Reilly (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am jesting about that. I visited Estonia with the communications and energy committee. We examined the degree to which the electricity suppliers there had put their cables underground and the relevant merits of doing it. Many of its cables were still overground. Is Estonia putting many of its electricity cables underground? If it is, is it working? When the committee was there, the cost-benefit analysis suggested the Estonians keep it overground.

As we embrace green energy, the cost of producing it has, unfortunately, been more of an expensive option than continuing to use fossil fuels. As Estonia and Latvia are pioneers in the green energy area, what has been their experience in this regard? Will technological advances reduce costs in this area?

We welcome the ambassadors again and want to enhance and continue the great bonds of friendship that exist between us.

Catherine Noone (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the ambassadors for attending the committee. I am a member of a committee that will be going to Riga, Vilnius and Tallinn on Saturday. I agree with other members on building relationships. As smaller member states, it is important we rally together on issues we have in common.

I bow to my colleague’s superior knowledge on underground cabling. This morning the Seanad had a debate on EU scrutiny. What systems are operated in the Latvian and Estonian Parliaments to scrutinise EU legislation? What became obvious from the Seanad debate this morning was that we do not do enough to scrutinise EU legislation here. There is an argument that one should be careful what one wishes for as the detail can be quite exhausting.

At last week’s committee, there was some discussion on the French lobbying the Council for a digital tax or a Google tax. Has this arisen with the Latvian and Estonian authorities? Ireland would see this as negative as we have so many of the key players in the technology space.

The Irish electorate seems to be somewhat disengaged from the EU and its processes at all levels. I am doing a survey on how many people know their local MEP. With the European Parliament elections coming up, what has been voter turn-out like for previous elections in Latvia and Estonia?

Obviously, they take place here at the same time and in conjunction with our local elections. I do not know if the same approach is taken in our guests' countries in order try to boost turnout. I thank them for coming before us today.

H. E. Mr. Gints Apals:

I will do my best to answer the questions which have been asked, even though - as I must confess - I am not an expert on specific energy issues. I hope members will also excuse me for not being able to outline the exact position of my Government in respect of the digital tax. I will do my best to answer the other questions that were posed.

On the comment to the effect that some members of the Latvian community have an ambition to return home, this is currently an official policy of my Government. We have adopted an reintegration plan to facilitate and help those who would like to return to their country of origin to do so. At the same time, we realise that a significant part of the Latvian community here will remain in Ireland for a long time. In this context, we should simply learn from the Irish experience in terms of how we should work with our diaspora. We know there are very important forums are discussing this matter in Ireland at present. The Irish diaspora could be play a vital role with regard to the development of this country's economy in the future, even though its members may never return here to live. We should, therefore, consider encouraging broader co-operation and retaining contacts with members of our community in Ireland, even those who are going to remain here for a longer period than they initially expected. After all, those to whom I refer are all EU citizens and they enjoy the relevant economic, social and political rights. Many of them have already or will become Irish citizens. Even those who choose not to do so still have full access to the rights to which I refer because they are European citizens. Among those rights is that which allows them to vote in local and European elections.

Reference was made to the Eastern Partnership. In the context of Latvia's priorities for 2015 - when it will hold the Presidency of the Council of the EU - specifically in the area of the common foreign and security policy, CFSP, our foreign minister has identified two major priorities. The first of these relates to the development and promotion of the Eastern Partnership and the second would involve closer relations with central Asian countries. On the Eastern Partnership, the summit in Vilnius will probably address the issue of Ukraine's association agreement. There will be another Eastern Partnership summit in 2015 and this will be hosted by Latvia. I will take the liberty of expressing a personal view at this point and state that we will have an opportunity to further develop the Eastern Partnership at that point.

Dominic Hannigan (Meath East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That will be during Latvia's Presidency.

H. E. Mr. Gints Apals:

Yes. Not only will we be implementing the relevant objectives and making full use of existing structures, we will also be considering and debating the future of the Eastern Partnership. My Government would regard this initiative as a longer process. We do not believe, for example, that the current objectives of the partnership could be realised very soon and that it should then stop operating. We hope that this initiative will continue to evolve and develop.

On the question of Russian minorities in Latvia and the recommendation that their rights should be respected and enhanced, the integration of society is, again, a policy which my country has been pursuing since the early 1990s. While the presence of a large number of people who arrived from the former Soviet Union when my country was under soviet rule is a reality, successive governments of Latvia have done their best to integrate these individuals into Latvian society. However, our approach is strictly individual. If we are discussing this matter in the context of EU treaties and agreements, I remind everyone that these treaties refer to the rights of persons belonging to national minorities. There is no such thing as collective rights of minorities in the EU treaties. This is also the basis of the approach of my Government. We will do everything to guarantee the full rights of every individual. At this moment, however, we are probably not talking of collective rights because there is also a problem with the definition of minority. There is no single definition in that regard in Europe. The obligation of my Government under international treaties and commitments is to guarantee the rights of every person. Of course, naturalisation is available to any long-term resident of Latvia. Any person who has resided in Latvia can apply for citizenship. The naturalisation procedure is quite simple. There is a very simple test in the Latvian language, which is the only official language in the country. There is also a very basic test of a person's knowledge of Latvia's constitution and its history. That is all.

The question regarding what can be done to further enhance the position of Russian speakers in my country is, in my opinion, quite easily answered. We could promote integration at individual level and that is being done and will continue to be done. Concerning the broader definition in respect of the Russian community in my country, this is an extremely difficult issue. Even Russian people in Latvia do not define themselves as a single minority. Many individuals would rather refer to a Russian-speaking minority, which comprises those who speak Russian as their first language. Again, this is a very peculiar definition. I could regard myself as a Russian speaker because Russian was probably my first foreign language. In such circumstances I could pose a question as to whether I am a member of the Russian-speaking community. I will conclude my rather lengthy comments on this matter by stating that the existing policy of Latvia has been recognised by all international organisations and by many international experts. When Latvia was in the process of joining the EU, the Union concluded that my country had fulfilled its obligations in the field of human rights. That was a precondition of our membership in 2004. The same position has been taken by other international organisations, be it the United Nations or the OSCE. Many experts have come to Latvia to observe the situation on the ground and advise my Government on the improvement of legislation. This co-operation will continue into the future.

The next question related to sovereignty. I fully agree with Deputy O'Reilly that shared sovereignty is enhanced sovereignty. The structure of the EU has traditionally based on three pillars and the third pillar - which relates to the CFSP and the European security and defence policy, ESDP - involves specific provisions. Under the Lisbon treaty, we accepted majority rule and qualified majority voting in the first two pillars. This does not mean that we will now broaden our sovereignty and embark on nationalisation policies. These matters are probably the subject of public debate in some EU member states.

The final question related to the Latvian electoral system. The list system was inherited from the constitution adopted in 1922. As members may know, Latvia decided to restore its national independence on the basis of the same constitution. This decision provided us with legal continuity. Latvia is not a new state; it was proclaimed and recognised in 1918. Our state is a continuation of that which was proclaimed in 1918 and, as a result, the constitution and our electoral law remain valid.

The constitution and electoral law, therefore, remain solid. There is broad public debate about what can be done to improve the electoral system. There have not been many recommendations thus far to move away from the list system but the debate is ongoing on how to improve it. A citizen can express his or her views by a preferential vote to give a preference to one candidate on the list over another. The broader debate about our political system is centred on the current parliamentary system versus the introduction of a presidential system or a mixed system. This debate is not so much about the list system.

Dominic Hannigan (Meath East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

A Latvian citizen can move somebody up or down the list by expressing a preference.

H. E. Mr. Gints Apals:

Yes.

Dominic Hannigan (Meath East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The citizen puts an X against the person he or she wants to be moved up. Can one also move candidates down the list?

H. E. Mr. Gints Apals:

That is no longer possible. It was previously the case but now people can only prioritise certain people on the list.

H. E. Mr. Mait Martinson:

It gets very technical but I am glad we are learning from the best. The Irish diaspora is well known for offering support to Ireland from the other side of the Atlantic. We have followed Ireland's example so that we have a half-Estonian Member of the Oireachtas, Deputy Jim Daly, who is married to an Estonian woman and has three sons. That is an example of integration going extremely well.

Catherine Noone (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This is like a Fine Gael internal meeting.

Dara Murphy (Cork North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I think he had four sons at last count.

H. E. Mr. Mait Martinson:

I am falling behind. There were good articles on Rail Baltica in recent issues of The Economist and the Financial Times. We are glad to finally see that a connect Europe facility is getting off the ground. A joint facility has been created between Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, with Finland and Estonia as the main forces behind it. The route should be finalised by the end of 2015 and, everything going to plan, we expect the real work to commence two years after that. We still face several hurdles, including different views on the route. The route as proposed at present does not go through Vilnius, the capital of Lithuania, and it was creating uneasiness at one point. I understand that solutions have been found because it is better to have a connection than not to have one.

In regard to elections and minority rights, we staged local elections on 20 October. The capital was, once again, the leading force in terms of support from non-Estonian speakers. A good balance was reached. In respect of our angle on the situation, I would compare it to Ireland. In Ireland, people with different backgrounds bring something with them and it is up to the nation and the society to figure out how to benefit from their knowledge and differences. They can enrich the range of possibilities. The most sought after workforce in Estonia are people in their late 20s who speak at least three languages. For this reason, those who have a good knowledge of Russian seem to do well because it easier for them to pick up Estonian and English. They are seen by employers as offering more advantages than their Estonian compatriots because they can work simultaneously with the north, east and the west.

We mainly construct electricity lines over ground but that is an ongoing debate. The facilities to produce electricity and transfer lines have been separated so that different operators control them. The bills are growing longer because one pays for 13 different lines, as well as crane taxes, and so forth. We are in a unique position in regard to fossil fuels because we use oil shale. This is a strange product to dig out but it is different to shale oil. Some 90% of our electricity is produced from oil shale. As it has less energy value than coal, it is in our interest to find a proper balance.

Joe O'Reilly (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does it produce a high level of carbon emissions?

H. E. Mr. Mait Martinson:

Yes. A considerable amount has been invested in this area over the past ten years as part of our EU negotiations.

Dominic Hannigan (Meath East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is it drilled in Estonia?

H. E. Mr. Mait Martinson:

We burn it.

Dominic Hannigan (Meath East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is it imported or indigenous?

H. E. Mr. Mait Martinson:

It is natural. We are almost fully self-sufficient in electricity. Gas supplies account for approximately 10% of general use. As my Latvian colleague noted, LNG is vital to allowing us to diversify risks. We are engaged in a good discussion in this regard, sometimes even among friends. As Estonia and Finland do not want to hurt each other, we are letting the Commission decide the side of the gulf on which a terminal should be located. It will come up with a decision before the end of the year. I hope we will get a result that does not sour relations between Finland and Estonia.

I have no knowledge of the recent movement on a digital tax. In the last two years, scrutiny of EU legislation has become an issue.

We have managed to adopt everything so far but there is a feeling that we have reached the limit and that if something else should come on those lines we might need to have a referendum, which so far we have not been required to do. The trouble is that we are scrutinising some EU laws not to our benefit but we adopt a stricter line because sometimes one has a corridor in which to play and the initial practice was to use the stricter end of a corridor.

On population engagement with the EU, we joined during a good time and Europe was brought into our minds very clearly. We are living through the best times in our history. When talking to people in Ireland I have noticed that sometimes enlargement countries or the enlargement itself has not been as deeply recognised as we expect in some corners. I was surprised to see how much positive reaction the football matches between Ireland and Estonia brought. We are a very hospitable nation and we would like to see it happening again.

Dominic Hannigan (Meath East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Estonia deserved to win.

Joe O'Reilly (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The old city of Tallinn is one of the most beautiful places. It is extraordinarily beautiful. I commend it to Senator Noone for a look.

Catherine Noone (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I intend to enjoy it.

Dominic Hannigan (Meath East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have heard that. Its reputation is well known. We thank both ambassadors for coming here and sharing their views on the current situation in both countries. It is always good to have ambassadors in from our EU colleagues. As Senator Noone said, we look forward to meeting some of their officials and representatives next week, first in Lithuania and then in Riga and Tallinn.