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.