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.