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

As we have a quorum we can commence public session and I ask our guests to be seated. There will be a number of items of private business later, including the proposed visit to Luxembourg and London. Members can go through those afterwards.

I remind guests and witnesses that they should turn off their mobile phones. It is insufficient to put them on a silent setting as they could interfere with the recording equipment. We have not received any apologies today.

On behalf of the committee I welcome H.E. Dr. Gints Apals, ambassador of Latvia to Ireland. I welcome him and thank him for meeting us today to discuss the programme and priorities of the first Latvian Presidency of the European Union. The Presidency seeks to build on the competitiveness agenda of the EU by promoting growth and job creation. The Presidency will also focus on enhancing engagement with our EU neighbours and looking at the all-important Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, TTIP, agenda, which this committee has debated internally in the past. We look forward to exploring these issues with the ambassador.

Before beginning, I 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 Houses or an official either by name or in a way that makes him or her identifiable.

I advise the witnesses that, by virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to this committee. If they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and they continue to so do, they are 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. They are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person or persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. Members are reminded of the long-standing ruling of the Chair to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or any official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.
I invite the ambassador to make his opening remarks.

H.E. Dr. Gints Apals:

I thank the Chairman and distinguished members of the committee, excellencies, ladies and gentlemen. Three weeks have passed since the official launch of the Latvian Presidency of the EU Council. These days have been marked by intensive consultation with all the actors concerned, namely, EU member states, EU institutions, parliamentarians, various non-governmental structures and external partners. The tragic acts of terror in Paris have shocked European citizens who are rightly awaiting an adequate response. The economic, social and political situations in several EU countries remain challenging. Also, the external environment remains rather difficult. Conflicts in Ukraine and in the Middle East continue and the Ebola problem has not disappeared. It is no wonder that President Tusk, when meeting my Prime Minister some ten days ago, said that the Latvian Presidency had started in a rather difficult situation. Nevertheless, my government is very conscious of this fact, Latvian institutions are well prepared for the challenges to come and we are determined to be as dynamic as the situation requires, both internally and externally.

Before presenting the priorities of the Latvian Presidency I would like to remind the committee that the functioning of the EU is a well co-ordinated process. The Latvian Presidency intends to work in full conformity with the provisions of the Lisbon treaty respecting the competencies and prerogatives of the EU institutions, other member states and all the partners concerned.

As the holder of the Presidency, Latvia will ensure that the Council plays its part to facilitate achieving the ambitious goals set out in the June 2014 European Council strategic agenda for the Union in times of change. The priorities of the Latvian Presidency have been developed over the past year, in close consultation with members of the trio, namely, Italy, Luxembourg, the European institutions, member states and other partners. The priorities I present today are essentially the result of Latvia's and the trio’s 18-month work programme. Naturally, the Presidency has paid due attention to the priorities of President Juncker, announced last summer, and the work programme of the Commission for the year 2015.

It is our collective task to develop a Union built on shared values of peace, freedom, democracy, human rights, the rule of law and solidarity. Europe must be a source of inspiration, not only for Europeans, but also for societies beyond our frontiers. Latvia’s commitment to strengthening the EU, its institutions and its policies is rooted in these common values, the preservation of European identity and an acknowledgment of a shared European future. It goes without saying that under these circumstances, Europe should work more efficiently to ensure the safety of its citizens and to contribute to peace and prosperity within and beyond its borders.

My government is fully aware of the fact that European citizens expect improvements in the functioning of the EU. To meet their expectations the Presidency is fully committed to strengthening the decision-making process within the EU and to improving inter-institutional co-operation within the existing treaties.

The Latvian Presidency has two broad major objectives. The first is to steer the work of all relevant Council formations in order to fully overcome the economic and financial crisis. I remind the committee that there are approximately 1,500 meetings of various committees, working parties and working groups in Brussels and Luxembourg, plus approximately 200 meetings to be held in Riga over the next six months.

In order to achieve these two major objectives, the Presidency intends to focus on three main themes, namely, competitive Europe, digital Europe and engaged Europe.
The priority of competitive Europe is based on our understanding that Europe needs to enhance its economic capacity by promoting investment in new and competitive products and services. Only by developing competitive industry and service sectors can Europe facilitate job creation and thus also promote social cohesion. Based on Latvia's experience, we know that this is possible through efficient structural reforms and growth-stimulating investment measures. Hence, Latvia is committed to fast-tracking at the Council procedures relating to the investment plan for Europe that are aimed at unlocking public and private investment in the real economy. The Presidency will also continue work on the reduction of administrative obstacles and the continued development of the Single Market in order to enhance economic activity through the EU. This will allow Europe to truly benefit from the multiplication effect of investment. The Presidency is fully committed to facilitating the well co-ordinated and efficient conduct of the European semester, based on the goals of the renewed Strategy Europe 2020, and will work to ensure that the Council plays its role in the multilateral process. The Presidency welcomes the Commission's ideas for a more streamlined European Semester process to secure the proper involvement of all member states, national parliaments and stakeholders in the discussions on country specific recommendations.
The Presidency will prioritise work on strengthening the Single Market through swift progress on the remaining Single Market Act II proposals, while maintaining and promoting the four freedoms. The Presidency intends to launch discussions on the expected Internal Market strategy for goods and services, thereby contributing to enhancing the competitiveness of industry and related service sectors. The Presidency's guiding principle will be better regulation and the wider use of competitiveness proofing. More efficient and targeted regulation means focusing human and financial resources towards the main objectives of growth, jobs and competitiveness.
The need to establish an energy union has been evident for many years and the EU must make this vision a reality. We are of the view that there needs to be an energy policy built on solidarity, trust and security. The entire Union would benefit from a better integrated energy infrastructure grid and improved governance in the sector. The EU also needs solid energy diplomacy vis-à-visits external suppliers, increased use of renewables and better implementation of energy efficiency measures already agreed.
On the second of its priorities, the Presidency's priority is the development of a true digital Europe through devoting permanent attention to building trust in the digital Single Market, digitalisation of the public sector and increasing safety and security in the digital environment. Streamlined and enhanced use of digital capacities must continue. The Presidency will seek to conclude negotiations and reach an agreement on legislative proposals currently under discussion. It will also focus on building a stronger and more coherent data protection framework. Seeking agreement on the general data protection regulation and directive is one of our immediate tasks. Safety, in its widest sense, will also be enhanced through the implementation of the cyber security strategy and by finalising negotiations on the network and information security directive. The Presidency is looking forward to the timely publication of the digital Single Market strategy. We will hold proper discussions at the Council, as well as making use of informal events, for this purpose.

The Presidency will also seek an overall compromise on the telecommunications market package. The guiding principle will be to find a balance between high quality services and a reasonable cost for consumers. Sufficient attention will be devoted also to aspects of inter-operability, web accessibility and the digital transformation of the public sector to make it efficient and innovative.

The third major priority area for the Latvian Presidency is "engaged Europe". Since the adoption of the European security strategy in 2003, the EU has strived to assume a full and active role on the global stage. Now facing similar conflicts on our doorstep, the situation in the neighbourhood is even more challenging than previously. Therefore, Latvia will support the efforts of the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and will work closely with the European External Action Service. The European neighbourhood policy, ENP, comprising its eastern and southern dimensions, is a policy of continuous engagement and is a priority of EU external relations, beyond the priorities of the Latvian Presidency. The member states have agreed that the ENP should be strengthened through a comprehensive review process. During the Riga Eastern Partnership summit, to be held in May this year, we will send a strong signal reaffirming our long-term strategic support for this initiative. The ENP review process should allow the EU to develop more flexible and inclusive approaches to all its partner countries based on differentiation and the well-known more-for-more principle, emphasising joint ownership of the initiative.

The EU's external engagement also includes a commitment towards a stronger transatlantic partnership, notably by making every effort to conclude negotiations on an ambitious, comprehensive and mutually beneficial transatlantic trade and investment partnership, TTIP, agreement by the end of 2015. Enhancing relations with other strategic partners is equally important for the Presidency. The Presidency looks forward to the conclusion of the EU-Canada comprehensive economic and trade agreement talks and the advancement of the EU-Japan free trade agreement negotiations. We also support the early conclusion and implementation of the deep and comprehensive free trade agreements, DCFTAs, with countries such as Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine.

Latvia also looks forward to the review of the EU-central Asia strategy. EU engagement with that region can be enhanced by discussions on security, border management, energy supply, and educational exchange, while keeping civil society interests and human rights high on the agenda.

This year offers a unique opportunity to promote an ambitious, transformative and inclusive post-2015 development agenda. The EU is entering a new phase of intergovernmental negotiations on the follow-up process to the sustainable development goals and financing for development. The Presidency wishes to highlight gender equality and women's empowerment as a thematic issue for development co-operation during the first semester of this year.

The Presidency is fully committed to the EU enlargement policy as agreed by all member states several years ago. We believe that this process contributes significantly to the mutual benefits of peace, democracy, security and prosperity in Europe.

Before concluding I wish to quote the President of the Commission, Mr. Juncker. Speaking at the European Parliament on 14 January he said: "The Latvian Presidency is the symbol of reconciliation in the history of the EU. Thirty years ago no-one could have imagined this." President Juncker added that Latvia has succeeded in changing the course of history.

My compatriots and my colleagues in the capital take his words as inspiration and encouragement. Needless to say, this also fully applies to the Latvian embassy in Dublin.

Let me assure all the Members of the Dáil and Seanad that the Latvian Government will do its best to implement the priorities mentioned and spare no effort to promote the values and principles of the Union in a changing world. As was said a few days ago by the Prime Minister, Ms Laimdota Straujuma: "Our objective is to defend the European values, a space of freedom, security, justice and mutual tolerance, characterising Europe in the world." I thank the committee.

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

I thank the ambassador for outlining the priorities of the Presidency. I have some questions and comments. I am glad to hear that Latvia will examine improving the functioning of the European Union. I spent yesterday in Brussels with my Latvian colleague,Ms Lolita Čigâne, and we discussed how we could improve the inter-institutional agreements between our countries and the role of national parliaments within the current treaty structure. Members will be glad to hear that at the COSAC in Riga in two weeks' time and in June we will discuss how we can improve the operation of the yellow card system and will have several proposals on how we can work within the treaties to do that.
Dr. Apals said the investment plan for Europe would be fast-tracked. That is good news for all of us and is something everybody on this committee would welcome. We had a presentation on it just before Christmas. One key part of the investment plan is to ensure that any expenditure is treated outside the fiscal compact limits. There was discussion across European capitals as to whether that would be universally acceptable. Could Dr. Apals advise us on the status of those discussion? Is there agreement on how we treat this additional capital investment?
Dr. Apals referred to his hopes for the eastern partnership. I understand there will be a summit in Riga in May. What does he hope to achieve regarding the ongoing situation in Ukraine?
My final question concerns enlargement. He said he will look to ensure that the path to enlargement continues. Can he tell the committee his hopes for Montenegro and Serbia in regard to the opening of chapters? How does he see the Turkish application progressing over the next six months of the Presidency?

Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Chairman. I welcome the ambassador and his staff and thank him for setting out his broad objectives and how he intends to reach a position on them over the next number of months.

I wish to raise some issues that have been outstanding for some time, one of which is banking union. What role can Dr. Apals play in driving that agenda? From our economic perspective it is quite important, and as a nation we recognise its importance. There is a level of frustration among the citizens of this country. Decisions were taken at a Council meeting in June 2012, when the Government was able to leave the meeting in the belief that it had received a ground-breaking deal on the capacity to get support from the ESM to assist in the retrospective recapitalisation of our banks. At the time we were told that decision would be subject to a finalisation of banking union.

It is no wonder that citizens lose interest in the European project when they see that we are now heading for the middle of 2015 and banking union has not happened. It now looks like the decisions which were taken then are not considered relevant by the current Government or will not happen. That is a domestic issue, and we will hold the Government to account on it in the Parliament. From a European perspective, there is quite a lot of annoyance among citizens who are still waiting for the baking union to progress.

From a European perspective, there is much annoyance among the citizens still awaiting the progression of banking union because of the lack of cohesive banking regulation throughout the Union. Some believe this had a significant impact on our banks during the financial crisis, as did the lending practices which prevailed at the time. The ambassador spoke about digital Europe, which is extremely important. We have issues here with the roll-out of broadband but they are domestic. Where the citizens of this country saw phenomenal benefits associated with our membership of Europe was with regard to roaming charges being harmonised or eliminated. This is where we can really show the benefits of working in a co-operative environment. However, the telecommunications companies are still creaming off and increasing profits by virtue of roaming charges on the use of data. It is hardly any wonder that roaming charges have reduced on voice telephony when one considers many people have moved to a data environment and this is where the market is at for them. Does Latvia intend to try to push this agenda, with regard to reducing charges for data for those travelling within and between member states?

The ambassador also spoke about the security issue, and it is significant and right that he would do so, with regard to trying to get a level of further co-operation in light of the threat. Comments have been made by certain individuals in the UK who believe a particular airport in Ireland is considered to be a legitimate target for acts of aggression. This is misconceived. The action spoken about never happened. Notwithstanding this, the Irish Government is clearly concerned about it. How does Latvia intend to formulate a way of dealing with this perceived threat?

Eric Byrne (Dublin South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome Dr. Apals. I have a soft spot for my Latvian colleagues as we have much in common. We have endured a terrible economic crisis. I understand the crisis in Latvia was even more difficult than the one here, and the ambassador has our sympathy. Like Ireland, Latvia has successfully turned an economic corner, and growth this year is estimated to be 5%, which is remarkable.

Approximately 25,000 Latvians live in Ireland. They are all hard working and very welcome. They add a nice diversity to our culture. I wish Latvia well because this is its first Presidency and I have no doubt it will make a success of it. This year is of crucial international importance and Dr. Apals has touched on some of the reasons for this. Given Latvia's history, and that of its neighbours, Estonia and Lithuania, it is possessed with great understanding of the region and the Russian Federation, which has us rather concerned. Given their history, Russian is widely spoken in the three countries. We are now seeing the disastrous effects of the difficulties which have been unfolding in Ukraine over a long period. We have another crisis as the ceasefires have collapsed and Luhansk is in very serious turmoil. Perhaps the Russians have reintroduced their troops to fight against the Ukrainian armed forces.

The EU has a new high representative for foreign affairs. I heard her speak in Dublin Castle and I was deeply impressed by her contribution. I was also impressed by her contribution when we met her in private. Does Dr. Apals agree with her scenario that Russia is a problem, but Russia as a problem is part of the solution?

Will Dr. Apals assure me that the Latvian Presidency will engage with Russia and that Europe might learn some lessons from the collapse in the eastern partnerships with Armenia initially and subsequently Ukraine? Our relationship with the latter has resulted in some disaffection in the east.

I support the comments on the digital Europe issue. The Estonian Prime Minister is an expert in digital content. Estonia is to the fore in terms of digital media.

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

Did the Deputy say the Estonian Prime Minister?

Eric Byrne (Dublin South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes. It was suggested that, where the issue of people hacking into and stealing secrets was concerned, the main bugbear was China. Then Edward Snowden was able to prove that the Americans might actually have been worse. The North Koreans were blamed for the Sony matter, but someone suggested that disaffected employees were to blame.
Given the questions of digital Europe and reputed hacking, for example, the American command centre has allegedly been hacked, and despite the pace of digital development, is Dr. Apals worried by the many weaknesses in the digital media structure that Europe would have to go about securing carefully?
I applaud Dr. Apals’s welcome of the deep and comprehensive free trade agreement with Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine, which we will discuss with our Minister tomorrow. I wish Latvia every successin its Presidency. This is a crucial time in the world of politics.

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

Is it the foreign affairs committee that will be discussing the agreement?

Eric Byrne (Dublin South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Tomorrow. The Minister will present his case for the ratification of the eastern partnership agreements with Moldova, Georgia and Ukraine.

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

That is good to know. Before reverting to the ambassador, I will take one more member. We will then have a second round.

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

I welcome the ambassador and his colleagues and congratulate him on Latvia’s objectives. Dr. Apals's comments were true. Some issues were not mentioned but still remain. In terms of cohesion and security, Europe is a challenging place at the moment. The Latvian and subsequent Presidencies will have to address the emerging issue of security. We do not want to see a repetition of how relatives were not allowed to collect belongings after an aeroplane was downed in Ukraine. Hooded, masked and armed personnel surrounded them and prevented them from doing so. Such a situation was seriously damaging to the concept of a powerful, cohesive and protective Europe that wanted to push ahead economically and socially.

The Italian Prime Minister mentioned that Europe was at a crossroads. It has been at a crossroads for many years. Some would suggest that it has been on a roundabout, unable to decide which exit to take. The time has come for the European leadership to concentrate on where Europe is going and to move away from the old adage about the future of Europe and how Europe is changing. We make the future. We make the change. Each member state has a contribution to make.

In this context, I will allude to the elephant in the room, namely, the situation in the UK.

To what extent will the ongoing question of the UK's future in the European Union impact on the cohesiveness and competitiveness of the Union in the foreseeable future?

In regard to digitalisation and innovation, I hope euroscepticism which has grown in the past number of years is finally addressed over the next couple of years. If that is not done, it will lead to unfortunate circumstances. However, we can address the matter on a number of levels. Digitalisation and innovation in job creation can be utilised in addressing issues that affect people. We also need to identify the main underlying reasons for euroscepticism which we can see evidence of on a daily basis and read about all the time. If such scepticism is not addressed, it will continue to grow. Some scepticism may stem from domestic politics in individual member states. Collectively, however, it has a debilitating effect on the concept of developing and consolidating Europe, what it stands for, where it has come from and where it is going, particularly in terms of the future of Europe.

We are faced with the challenge of achieving higher levels of economic growth and development. Europe has a huge population of 500 million and thus has massive economic clout so it should be able to generate the necessary growth and development to be a world leader. Job creation automatically follows such growth and development.

Social cohesion will suffer and fracture as a result of dissension within. One cannot have dissension, a wish to opt in or opt out and euroscepticism at the same time as an evolving concept of modern European. I referred to security earlier.

With regard to my colleague's comments, I do not necessarily agree with the claim that nothing has happened in banking. Quite a considerable amount of progress has been made in that area. At least there is an indication now that all European countries recognise that something had to be done, and that we generally point in the same direction. It is very important that we all face in the same direction throughout the European Union because, otherwise, we will not succeed.

A few years ago during the boom years in Europe we were told that we had no control over our currency because it was controlled by Brussels, that interest rates were controlled by Brussels and nothing could be done. That was untrue because we now know credit controls were possible at all times and had to be introduced in the final analysis. Credit controls were introduced and were effective. Many eurosceptics were critical of the European project, suggested that we should devalue our currency and claimed that if we were not in the eurozone we could have done so. We devalued our currency and it is now called the euro. We collectively own the euro and whatever happens to it affects Irish citizens. The euro is now almost back down to parity with the US dollar where it started. To those who suggested that devaluation was the solution to all of our problems I say that we would have resolved some of our problems at this stage by now.

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

As Deputy O'Reilly must leave shortly, I suggest we allow him to make a brief contribution before returning to the ambassador for his comments.

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

I have received word my visitors have arrived so I must depart and I appreciate the Chairman allowing me this opportunity to speak.

I share the Chairman's happiness that he expressed to the delegation on Latvia's ambition to bring forward the €300 billion investment package. I ask the ambassador to elaborate a bit more on the investment and I will read his comments later in the transcript. Allocations will be made to each country. Is the ambassador happy with the design of the investment package and the selection of infrastructure to be boosted? Job creation projects should be left to individual countries to design rather than be too prescriptive. I ask the ambassador to comment on the matter. I am interested the learn the proposed timeframe for delivering the package.

I ask Dr. Apals to comment on youth unemployment. I believe it should be the priority for all governments. Countries must make, in so far as possible, dealing with youth unemployment a big priority. We are happy to have reached 10.7% unemployment now but that level is still unacceptable.

There is a greater level of youth unemployment which needs to be addressed.

With regard to digital Europe, I am interested in the ambassador's comment on how to strike the balance between security and freedom. We must be aware of people's privacy but at the same time maintain security and prevent terrorism. I presume an issue in every European country is cyberbullying through the use of the Internet and various social media sites. Will the ambassador comment on that? Has Latvia considered strategies to eliminate cyberbullying and promote more responsibility in providers to prevent it?

I am happy that Latvia is interested in advancing a European energy policy. Will the ambassador comment on the balance between green energy and the possibility of using more nuclear energy? How safe does the ambassador believe is nuclear energy and are we advancing the goal of eliminating waste? Do more possibilities exist with nuclear energy if the question of waste can be dealt with? I thank the Chairman for allowing me to speak.

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

Perhaps the ambassador can answer those questions and other members wish to ask some questions afterwards.

H.E. Dr. Gints Apals:

Before answering each question, I remind the committee of an important consideration. As I have tried to explain, the responsibility of the Presidency is to ensure the smooth functioning of all council information. The efficiency of a Presidency cannot be measured by a number of decisions adopted. We are in a policy process both in terms of the trio work programme and harmonisation between the Presidency priorities, the trio work programme and work programmes of the European Commission and other institutions and partners. I cannot comment too much on positions of other member states concerning specific issues. The representatives of many member states are here and it would not be appropriate for me to comment on their national positions.

The Presidency intends to ensure smooth functioning of institutions and it also intends to remain perfectly neutral when it comes to all member states. We cannot use the position of the Presidency to promote our national interest or take sides. We should forge a compromise and, therefore, compromise on each and every issue is an ultimate objective. This will leave space for the incoming Presidency to continue from the point where our Presidency ends.

I will now go through the questions individually. There was a question about fiscal compact limits in light of the ongoing discussion concerning the European fund for strategic investment. I can outline the calendar for European debate of these issues. As we know, the proposals concerning the strategic investment fund will be discussed and submitted before the meeting of economic and financial affairs ministers. That will happen on 27 January. A status report will follow to the same Council formation in February. The Presidency intends to formulate a common approach by March. In the margins of the General Affairs Council in March and June, we will work towards a draft European Council decision. The collective undertaking of the EU is to have a political decision this year. This means that decisions should be taken at the latest in May in order that the fund can start functioning in June.

The problem, namely, the fiscal compact limits, will form part of the wider debate. I hope this issue will be successfully resolved according to the existing schedule.

Concerning the eastern partnership, this should be one of my favourite subjects because it is a high priority for my government, in view of our geographical location and historical experience. I referred to one major event which is the eastern partnership summit to be held on 20 to 21 May, in Riga. There will also be debates and discussions at ministerial level and the participation of civil society from all eastern partnership countries before and after the summit meeting. The objective of all these activities is to reconfirm the interest of the European Union in having a close partnership with eastern partnership countries, namely, the six countries participating in that project, which are Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Moldova.

In our view it would be right to keep that platform of multilateral co-operation for future relationships. These countries are not all the same in that they have varying degrees of ambition when it comes to relationships with the EU. Nevertheless, we think that keeping the platform is very important in order to have a more or less balanced progress through the geographical area to the east - while not exactly continuing bilateral co-operation with these countries - but also to ensure that the process develops in a more balanced manner in all six countries.

Concrete deliverables for the Riga summit would be, first, decisions and debate on visa liberalisation; second, an evaluation of the results concerning the implementation of the decisions; and stocktaking on the progress of association agreements with Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova. We could also start a debate on the role of the Russian Federation, how to conduct dialogue with the Russian Federation and how to change the image of the eastern partnership in the Russian-speaking media. There could also be a debate on strategic development of the initiative and on how the initiative should develop in the future. I will comment on that initiative in more detail if necessary and on the deliverables of the Riga summit.

On the question about enlargement, our priority is to keep the enlargement process alive. We know that pessimistic comments were voiced last year by many high level representatives of European institutions. Nevertheless, the Presidency is directly responsible for chairing all the Council meetings and also for steering the enlargement process. Therefore, in co-operation with the European Commission, we intend to continue the negotiation process in good faith. I cannot comment further on whether significant progress will be achieved because high level representatives have already stated it is probable that actual enlargement will not happen in the coming years.

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

That was President Juncker.

H.E. Dr. Gints Apals:

It is not only President Juncker who has said this. The responsibility of the Presidency is only to ensure that the negotiation process continues and that the process is credible.

Concerning the countries specifically mentioned here, with regard to Montenegro I can only confirm that the Latvian Presidency will proceed with the ongoing accession negotiations with Montenegro, Serbia and Turkey, with the view of achieving further sustained progress. In the case of Montenegro, we expect to continue to work mainly on chapters without opening benchmarks.

In the context of Montenegro, we expect to continue to work - mainly on chapters and without establishing benchmarks - provided progress continues in the areas of the rule of law and fundamental rights. We know that the rule of law is a problem for many accession countries. This could, therefore, be regarded as our priority in respect of Montenegro. We would also like progress to be made in the negotiations with Turkey. If actions are to follow words with regard to moving closer to EU values, certain internal developments in Turkey could give rise to questions in respect of the application of such values there in daily internal political life. We hope that Turkey will be as credible a partner as all other accession countries and we intend to continue the negotiations in good faith. We hope to be able to open the first chapters of negotiations with Serbia. We are aware that serious efforts will be necessary on both sides regarding the process of normalising relations with Kosovo. As members know, significant progress has been achieved in this area during the past two years. However, that progress has not exactly been conclusive. Problems remain and these are a consideration in the context of the negotiation process. We will pursue the negotiations relating to all three countries and enlargement policy in general on the basis of the principle of conditionality and the merits of each individual state.

The question of a banking union is an extremely complex subject in respect of which not only the Presidency but also many member states, the Commission and the European Central Bank have roles to play. The Presidency can only represent the Council in negotiations with the Commission and the European Central Bank and seek to advance the process in all Council deliberations relating to that subject. The general approach of the Presidency is characterised by the fact that Latvia believes the new legislative framework for the formation of a banking union will have a positive impact on the stability of the financial sector. We will follow closely the implementation of the banking union. Proper and timely implementation of measures aimed at ensuring the smooth functioning of newly-operational banking mechanisms will be at the centre of the Latvian Presidency. Members will excuse me for voicing such general comments as I try to explain the position. Progress depends on the specific positions of member states, the Commission and the European Central Bank and, therefore, we can address these questions in more detail separately rather than during this meeting.

Digital Europe is a high priority for my country's Government. An interesting debate on the subject, organised by the European movement, already took place here in Ireland. During this debate representatives of the Irish public voiced similar questions and it emerged that we should consider digital issues from three different perspectives. The most important of these is the economic perspective. We are looking at the digital economy as a way to produce jobs, etc. As members stated, there are also issues relating to human rights involved. I refer here to the need for data protection. In addition, issues of social policy come into play and these have already been highlighted by members of the Irish public. The Presidency will certainly do its best to take all three dimensions into account when advancing the debate on the digital economy at the Council. Of course, the overarching objective in this regard is to stimulate economic growth. However, the issues mentioned at this meeting and at others already held in Ireland will be duly communicated to my Government and to colleagues back home in order to draw their attention to the many matters that are related to the digital economy and the overall objectives relating thereto.

I am of the view that security issues should be discussed in the context of human rights dimension of the digital economy and data protection.

At the same time one should protect not only the individual security of a person in the digital environment, but also the security of businesses, institutions and, possibly, nation states. This will remain a big issue for the future and that will be addressed in the Justice and Home Affairs Council. The next meeting of that Council, an informal one, is scheduled for 29 January and it will take place in Riga. It will address many issues which were already raised on 11 January following the acts of terror in Paris and continue the debate on many issues, including data and digital security, and partially related phenomena such as foreign fighters and the reason for them. The departure point of my government is to start from better implementation of existing European decisions. Before producing new decisions we should implement what is already on the table. We should also aim at better efficiency within the existing European structures in that area as well as co-operation between all member states.

There was a set of questions concerning the eastern partnership, Ukraine, the role of the Russian Federation, our approach to the crisis in Ukraine and relations between the EU and the Russian Federation. I share the view of Deputy Eric Byrne that the speech of the High Representative in Dublin was very impressive. We heard a very balanced approach to all the questions mentioned by the members. On the one hand it did not compromise on our principles, including the fundamental principles of international law as far as Ukraine is concerned, and on the other it referred to continuing constructive dialogue with the Russian Federation and trying to achieve normalisation of the situation in Ukraine.

The role of the Presidency in that area is not decisive. The External Action Service and the High Representative have the prerogative of steering the external relations of the EU. The Presidency may assist the High Representative and the External Action Service, if invited. Certainly, my government has assisted the High Representative on several occasions, for example, presiding over several ministerial level meetings with central Asian countries, both in the region and in Brussels. However, the ultimate responsibility remains with the High Representative. The Latvian Foreign Minister has done much to assist the High Representative to promote progress on the crisis in Ukraine and to achieve some progress in normalisation of EU-Russian relations, namely, by paying a visit to Moscow a few days ago. That visit followed his visit to Kiev. The Presidency can use its position to pursue bilateral national dialogue and then use the results of the dialogue during the debate on external relations in Brussels when formulating the common European position. This is exactly what my authorities are doing and will continue to do.

One of the specific questions raised by Deputy Eric Byrne concerned the future deep and comprehensive free trade agreements with three countries, which will be discussed tomorrow in the Dáil. My government is 100% positive that these agreements should be concluded and implemented. The philosophy and approach of the EU to the eastern partnership has been based not only on political partnership, but also on economic partnership. The deep and comprehensive free trade agreements are an integral part of the association agreement and one cannot separate the political dialogue from dialogue on other issues, be they economic, social or legal issues.

We should have a more complex approach and, therefore, these agreements will probably provide a positive effect for the overall relationship within the EU and eastern partnership countries and will also leave a positive impression on EU relations with Belarus, Armenia and Azerbaijan.

On the question concerning lessons from EU-Ukraine relations, the lessons will be drawn collectively in the formation of an EU Council or a European Parliament. In my national capacity, I can only say that the experience we had with Ukraine affirms two important lessons. One is that we should advance the negotiations and have a firm legal basis for our relationship in the form of an association agreement, including the economic part. The second is that we should keep the eastern partnership as a platform comprising six countries so that we could have multilateral dialogue with all of the countries concerned. By doing so, we could avoid bilateral contradictions. This could also be possible between the Russian Federation and the countries concerned.

The question of security and Ukraine was already addressed. On the euroscepticism issue, it does not belong to the competencies of the Presidency. As a diplomat, I can only observe that the degree of euroscepticism varies throughout Europe. There are countries which are more eurosceptic and others that do not have any significant political force which could be described as eurosceptic. It is probably related to the overall perception of the euro and economic prospects in society. Delivering on the primary objectives of the Presidency, which are stimulating economic growth, employment and social cohesion, would probably be the right answer to euroscepticism. Euroscepticism could also be approached from the perspective of social cohesion.

On the question concerning the European Investment Fund national allocations, this question belongs to discussion on the Council and it would not be appropriate for me to comment on the positions of individual member states and their national priorities. Youth unemployment is a general problem which will be addressed in close co-operation with the European Commission when implementing the youth employment plan in all European countries.

At this stage I will stop and listen to further comments and questions.

Derek Keating (Dublin Mid West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will be brief. I join with the Chairman and committee in welcoming Dr. Apals and his colleagues and wish them well, in particular with the Presidency. It is very early days and the circumstances relating to Latvia taking the Presidency have been rather difficult over the past couple of weeks. I too welcome the commitment to fast-tracking the investment plan for Europe, which will be very important.

Dr. Apals made reference to some administrative obstacles he identified in his presentation. Perhaps he could expand on that and outline what particular problems he has identified which he needs to overcome.

I had a question on digital Europe, which has been touched on, and I will not repeat it. I endorse the comments of Deputy Durkan on banking. We have all come a very long way in the context of banking, and we have all learned an awful lot and are prepared for the other problems which might arise in the future.

John Halligan (Waterford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome Dr. Apals and wish him well. In his initial remarks he touched on external problems, and spoke about the conflict between Ukraine and Russia. He stated the Latvian ambassador had been in touch with both parties, which answered one of the questions I was going to ask. Has Latvia been able to put forward any conflict resolution proposal? It does not appear that many resolutions have been put forward by the countries in the area, perhaps because of a fear of having to take sides. Will Dr. Apals elaborate on the talks Latvia has had with Russia and Ukraine?

I believe a sizeable Russian minority, which amounts to approximately 26% of the population, lives in Latvia. Is Russian still not given any status as an official language in Latvia, as was the case when I visited there? Is there a ban on employing Russians in certain professions? Does Dr. Apals believe this leads to a form of inequality which will inevitably lead to disquiet and dissent among this sizeable minority? My facts may be wrong, and perhaps the situation has dramatically changed in Latvia in this regard. I was given information just before I came in that dual citizenship is provided with regard to specified countries, including all EU member states, NATO members and Australia, but not Russia or Israel. If this is the case, why is it so? I have the idea that if there is such a sizeable minority in the country and it is prohibited from taking part in the country's affairs, its language is not acknowledged and its members are excluded from certain professions, these issues need to be dealt with. This is not interfering with the country, or telling the ambassador how to run it; these were some of the problems which reared their heads in Ukraine with regard to the Russian minority there. I would like to hear Dr. Apals views on the conflict. Countries such as Latvia have a very important part to play in the peace process for which we all wish. Does he believe there is a resolution and if so what might it be?

Seán Crowe (Dublin South West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will develop some of the points raised by Deputy Halligan. I was approached by people on the same issue, with regard to dealing with minorities in Europe. Latvia has its experience, as do other countries in the region. Part of the difficulty in Ukraine was the response of the authorities to people who see themselves as Russian speakers. There were also outside influences. With regard to addressing minorities in Latvia and other regions in Europe, will Latvia encourage a different approach from that which we have had until now? This is an issue not only in Latvia's region, but throughout Europe. There is a difficulty with the approach to the Irish language in Northern Ireland. The issue exists throughout Europe, such as in the Basque country and Catalonia in Spain. At one time Latvia had a language test, which people said was quite expensive. People stated their payscale was based on the outcome of this test on their language ability.

Some people have what is deemed to be an alien passport even though they were born in that country. That seems to be a difficulty in some regions. Does the ambassador have views on those matters? What approach should Europe be taking in that regard?

The ambassador mentioned the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, TTIP, agreement in his presentation and that progressing the negotiations on it will be a priority for the Latvian Presidency and that trade issues and geopolitical issues will also serve to broad the EU's relation with the US. If it is sought to popularise this agreement in Europe, part of the difficulty - although there does not seem to be the same difficulty in the US - is the secrecy that has surrounded much of the negotiations on it. Does the ambassador envisage a different approach will be taken under Latvia's Presidency to open up the process and give people across Europe more information on it? I have attended a number of meetings on it and we have discussed it at this committee, at the foreign affairs committee and at other fora inside and outside the Parliament and people have continued to point to the secrecy surrounding the negotiations. While they have heard all the positive news about it, they have not heard of the potential negatives involved for different industries and workers. Does the ambassador have a view on that?

The ambassador talked about the accession countries and he mentioned Serbia and Turkey. There has been a breakdown in the talks over the partition of Cyprus. Does the ambassador consider that issue to be not only part of those negotiations, but part of the proactive work that needs to be done within the EU? He referred to the Presidency being a symbol of reconciliation. If we consider what happened in Cyprus, it was invaded and partitioned. Part of the negotiations comprised the potential for reconciliation and that the city of Famagusta would be rebuilt but unfortunately the Cypriots withdrew from the discussions because of the Turkish involvement in searching for gas and oil off the shores of Cyprus on the Turkish-Cypriot side and the impact it has had. Does the ambassador believe there will be any movement forward in dealing with that conflict and would he view that as a priority for his country's Presidency? It is a country within Europe but it is divided. It is similar to Palestine in the Middle East with people having been settled on the island and the impact that has had. There has been a planation of sorts there. Does the ambassador view that issue as one of the Latvian Presidency's areas of priority?

In terms of an inclusive approach in Europe, one of the issues is migration and emigration. The ambassador spoke in terms of having more open borders and so on but how does he see that developing with the imbalance that there is in Europe with northern Europe carrying the weight for southern Europe? How does he see that impacting and the Latvian Presidency addressing it? We discussed the experiences of some countries in Europe last week. It would not be unknown in some countries for 4,000 or 6,000 people to land on their shores in boats and to find bodies floating up on to beaches.

Should Europe have a common approach to people fleeing conflict or war and how does the ambassador see such a system developing? Will greater supports be available for those countries that have a significant impact in that regard? I seek an overall view of the Presidency itself.

President Juncker was quoted. There was much criticism of his involvement in the Greek elections. Does the ambassador consider it helpful to the new Commission but also to the European ideal of the Commission for people to involve themselves in elections in various countries in the EU? Does the Latvian Government, as President, have a view on more involvement from Commission members in such elections in terms of who they would like to see being elected and the approach of governments? It is seen by many as a direct intervention in the political process within the country in question. If a similar intervention took place in Ireland or Latvia, people would have been extremely upset and annoyed. Does the ambassador have a view in that regard? I wish to hear a response to the rise in racism, xenophobia and anti-Semitism across Europe. What is Latvia's experience? Does the ambassador see that as one of the key issues to be addressed by the Presidency?

I wish Latvia well with the Presidency. The issues of focus such as growth and jobs are positive. In terms of jobs, we are interested in the type of jobs created, equality and who the growth will benefit. They are some of the issues I wish to raise. I do not know if other speakers addressed them. The ambassador outlined some of the priorities in his speech but I wish to dig down and get a sense of what new issues will come forward during the Presidency.

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

I invite the ambassador to answer as many of the questions as possible and also to sum up his overall position. I accept time is limited.

H.E. Dr. Gints Apals:

Thank you, Chairman. Not all questions are exactly pertinent to my function as representative of the Presidency but in view of the fact that this meeting is being broadcast live and is therefore available to the Irish public, I feel obliged to respond to questions also concerning the situation in my country, especially those raised by Deputy Halligan. I regret that he has left the room but for the record I will briefly comment on the questions and positions raised by him, first concerning the citizenship policy of my country. Approximately 13% of permanent residents in Latvia are not Latvian citizens. They are not Latvian citizens for many reasons. The most important consideration is that any permanent resident of Latvia is entitled to apply for Latvian citizenship following a rather simple naturalisation procedure and to become a citizen of Latvia. The problem is that not all permanent residents would like to become Latvian citizens, and the official position of the State is that citizenship cannot be imposed on anyone, including collectively on a group of people. Citizenship is an issue for the individual and individual application is needed, in addition to the wish to become a citizen. That is the departure line, which probably explains why 13% of the population of Latvia, most of whom who came from the Soviet Union as Soviet citizens under Soviet occupation, have not yet decided to apply for a Latvian passport.

Our citizenship policy does not have any ethnic dimension. Citizenship is by no means related to the ethnic background of the people concerned. There are probably about 100 different ethnicities among Latvian citizens in Latvia, including a large number of ethnic Russian citizens of Latvia.

The second part of the same question concerned my country's language policy. According to the constitution of Latvia there is only one official language which is the Latvian language. Three years ago, we had a referendum on this subject and the results of the referendum were binding. Some 75% of all participants - and the participation rate was very high - voted to keep the provision that there should be only one official language, which is Latvian. Some 25% of participants thought that the Russian language should also become official along with the Latvian language, but here we are talking about a relatively small minority. Therefore, my country still continues with its constitutional provision for one state language. I assure the committee that no discrimination is taking place on the language basis. The few examples mentioned here by Deputy Halligan are not related to the language group represented by the persons concerned.

Deputy Halligan spoke of a ban on employment. Here I would say that, yes, there are a few positions, for example, officials of the security services, where only Latvian citizens can work. Those people who have not bothered to apply for Latvian citizenship are not entitled to hold sensitive positions, but they are relatively few. Restrictions on the employment of people who are not Latvian citizens are based on considerations pertinent to national security or public health.

There is no language-based discrimination in employment policy in Latvia whatsoever. I have already discussed the question of language status; the issue was resolved through a referendum. As regards the pay test, I have no information that people speaking only Russian are receiving more or less than others. The reality of a market economy, however, is that normally people speaking many languages would receive higher salaries. Of course, we should not intervene in the private sector and tell employers how much to pay their employees on the basis of the number of languages they know. Many industries, especially the services sector, require a knowledge of several languages to be successful. Employers have the right to promote multilingual people.

Having answered Deputy Halligan's questions, I will now move on to the EU Presidency's business, if I may. I remind the committee that I cannot comment precisely on internal developments in Cyprus, Turkey or other countries. The position of the ambassador representing the Presidency requires perfect neutrality. Cyprus is an EU member state and I think Cypriot diplomats in Dublin could provide the committee with much broader and better information, including on relations between Turkey and Cyprus.

I have already commented on the issue of Turkey. The Latvian EU Presidency intends to pursue enlargement negotiations according to the established schedule. I cannot tell at the moment whether the relationship between Turkey and Cyprus will have an impact on the dynamism of that process.

The next question concerns the Greek elections. I should apologise but I cannot comment on internal developments in EU member states. I am confident that the Greek elections will happen in a transparent and democratic manner and in full accordance with Greek law concerning these issues.

Another question is whether members of the European Commission should have an opinion, intervene or try to shape public opinion.

Unfortunately, that is beyond my competence at present.

On another question concerning inclusive Europe and migration, I should recognise that migration is a permanent item on the Council agenda and this is not exactly a priority of Latvia's Presidency. We recognise the fact that migration was one of the priorities of the preceding Presidency of Italy. The Presidency system means that we probably achieve the ultimate balance in EU policy through the fact that the priorities change twice a year. Italy's Presidency achieved significant progress in this respect. We believe that future Presidencies will also prioritise that part of the agenda. From our national perspective, unfortunately, we are not able to attach priority status to each and every task. Our priority list was already extensive enough.

Conflict resolution in general and also in Ukraine is a broad subject, while belonging to the domain of common foreign and security policy, CFSP, and common security and defence policy, CSDP. The committee will be aware that the EU is not a military alliance and, therefore, the EU cannot use military means to resolve conflicts in its neighbourhood. The policy instruments at the disposal of the EU and at the disposal first of the European External Action Service are conflict prevention mechanisms and negotiation with all the parties concerned. When it comes within the competence of the Commission and member states, there are such instruments as CSDP missions. For example, for some period a CSDP mission was considered for Ukraine which would not be a military peacekeeping or peace enforcement mission but rather a police mission assisting the Ukrainian police in its preparations for guaranteeing peace, security and stability in areas under its control. Of course, in the domain of foreign relations, there is such an instrument as economic sanctions which are applied according to decisions of the European Council. In that process also, the European Commission plays its role.

However, in my capacity as a representative of the Presidency, I can only say at this point that the Presidency will do everything possible to promote progress through Council decisions on promoting conflict resolution in Ukraine and elsewhere. This is what we can do. Otherwise, the Council is free to apply any of the instruments I mentioned on that basis but the Presidency cannot separately promote conflict resolution without consulting the External Action Service and without consideration to prerogatives of other European institutions.

Eric Byrne (Dublin South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My apologies. Unfortunately, the Chairman had to leave but he has left the running of the remainder of the committee meeting in safe hands.

I thank the ambassador and his colleagues from the embassy for a comprehensive and detailed discussion. We wish him and Latvia's Presidency every success. It is a tough, hard-working six-month period. I extend the committee's hopes for a wonderful six-month Presidency. I thank him for his contribution.

H.E. Dr. Gints Apals:

I thank the Acting Chairman.

Eric Byrne (Dublin South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will now go into private session.