Official Report 475KB pdf
We move to item 2, and I welcome His Excellency Andris Teikmanis, who is the Republic of Latvia’s ambassador to the United Kingdom; Solveiga Silkalna, the deputy head of mission in the embassy of Latvia; and our very own John McGregor, the honorary consul of Latvia in Scotland. We are delighted to have you here. We thank you very much for the wonderful reception that you provided for us last night. The music was fantastic, especially the last piece. I see that people went mad raving about it on Twitter.
Ambassador, I understand that you have an opening statement to make.
First, allow me to thank you for inviting me to your committee meeting and allowing me to share our priorities for the Latvian presidency of the Council of the European Union.
It is a great challenge for Latvia. This is—11 years after joining the EU—our first presidency. A number of member states have great experience in conducting presidencies. Indeed, some of them have done so six or nine times. However, the timing of presidencies has changed, and member states will take on the role only every 14 or 15 years, so it presents a particular challenge.
As a small country, we want to make our presidency efficient and useful, which very much reflects the needs of the time. That was our assumption when we chose the major objectives and priorities of our presidency. The most important task is to overcome fully the financial and economic crisis. We consider that we can do that and be more competitive. Therefore, we have chosen three major areas on which to concentrate our efforts: a competitive Europe, a digital Europe and an engaged Europe.
A competitive Europe means creating jobs and returning to economic growth. We see that there are several instruments that could be helpful to implement that programme. First is the Commission’s plan for investment—the Juncker plan—through which €315 billion is to be devoted to an investment package for big and small and medium-sized companies.
We have advanced quite well in that direction. We hope that, by the end of our presidency, we will be able to launch the plan fully. This week, the economic and financial affairs council endorsed a strategic investment fund. The Commission has also published a green paper on capital market union. We see that instrument as another good tool to get access to investment for any companies, including SMEs.
We very much hope that those instruments will be a good boost for the recovery of the European economy, getting back to growth and creating jobs.
We care very much about the social dimension. That comes from our Latvian experience from the time when we had to overcome a financial and economic crisis. One of the key factors was maintaining good dialogue with social partners. Therefore, we are very much engaged in keeping social dialogue in a three-part summit with employers and trade unions.
We are working on the implementation of the banking union and all its mechanisms. No particular new approaches are envisaged, but we want to launch the newly created structures and check that they are functioning properly.
An efficient energy policy is one of the key elements of a competitive Europe. We are determined to move on with the creation of the energy union. Again, we have advanced quite well. A high-level conference took place in Riga at the beginning of February in which the energy union was discussed, and our energy union strategy has been endorsed by the transport, telecommunications and energy council. We expect that, in March, the European Council will give its green light to energy union and that, in the June Council, the next legislative act will be adopted to implement it.
We see energy union as crucial in our time. It is not only part of the European economy; it is part of European security. In our vision, we see energy union based on five major principles: the principles of solidarity and an interconnected energy market, efficient common energy diplomacy, competitive energy independence, diversification of sources and of delivery, and good governance across energy policy.
In the Baltic Sea region, we have quite good experience of how good and efficient governance of all those principles is being created. Countries around the Baltic Sea are doing much to interconnect different kinds of energy sources. Gas pipelines cross the countries around the Baltic with the ultimate goal of creating a common gas grid around it. There are electricity cables from Estonia to Finland, from Lithuania to Sweden, from Lithuania to Poland, and from Latvia to Estonia. That gives an efficient tool to change when necessary the flows of energy such as electricity and to differentiate sources. A common Baltic energy stock exchange gives an opportunity to buy electricity in one exchange not knowing who produces it. That gives a real alternative and real competition between energy companies.
We see that we and the United Kingdom are like-minded on matters of development, strengthening the single market and all the regulatory framework of the single market. That will be one of the permanent issues of the competitiveness council. We are determined to make the single market a more efficient and affordable tool to strengthen competition among companies in the European Union.
10:30A digital Europe is one of the key elements of competitiveness. Our digital philosophy is based on the assumption that digital solutions should be found by default. That means that we look for digital solutions to cope with new challenges and for digital opportunities. That approach gives Europe enormous opportunities for trade, movement of goods and services.
At the same time, we are thinking about issues such as data protection, the security of information systems, the accessibility of the web and, of course, education on security among youngsters in particular. We will discuss all those issues during the digital assembly that will take place in Riga on 17 and 18 June.
There are a number of challenging issues on the agenda. I will mention a few of them.
The telecommunications package is quite a difficult item because, across Europe, there is a great number of different actors and stakeholders—companies and states—who have different interests and, perhaps, a different level of development in telecommunications. The discussions are not going easily, but we want to push them ahead to get some affordable compromise on roaming and telecommunication tariffs. We hope that we will make as much progress as possible and not leave too much to our trio partner Luxembourg.
The digital single market is also a crucial point on the agenda. It is in our interests to develop the digital single market as much as possible bearing in mind the fact that it should safeguard the quality of services at a reasonable cost for customers.
We are advancing the network and information security directive, which is crucial for the further development of the digital market in Europe and the protection of consumers. We are also working on personal data protection, an interoperability solution for European public administration and more implementation of e-government, e-governance and e-services offered by Governments.
The agenda is vast and we are happy to share our experience. In Latvia, digital services and digital government solutions are used very much and many consider the opportunity to use free wi-fi across the country to be part of their daily human rights.
I will speak about two major points on moving towards a connected Europe. One concerns trade issues. We are concentrating on advancing free trade negotiations, starting with TTIP. There are a lot of discussions around TTIP. Those discussions are everywhere—they are in the press and other media and among politicians. Many questions arise from the TTIP negotiations on issues such as genetically modified organisms, the transparency of the negotiation process and whether TTIP might affect health services.
The presidency is not involved directly in TTIP negotiations—the European Commission has the mandate. The Commission is conducting the negotiations quite actively. There have been eight negotiation rounds and two more rounds are envisaged during the Latvian presidency. We are trying to push the whole negotiation process ahead. We are representing the EU position at different global trade conferences. We are also working on increasing the transparency of the negotiations.
We should keep in mind that transparency cannot be one sided. Furthermore, we are not interested in weakening the negotiating team’s positions. However, there was a high public demand to see more information about the potential impact on health services, for example. Questions were put and answers were given on health services. When Commissioner Malmström recently visited London, she explicitly said that health services are not part of the TTIP negotiating mandate.
We are pushing ahead other free trade agreements on the EU agenda, such as the comprehensive economic and trade agreement—CETA—with Canada. That has been approved, but it needs to be implemented. We are pushing the Parliament’s process for approving the agreement. We are pushing ahead the EU FTA with Vietnam, too.
The mandate for those negotiations is huge, the points are many and the agenda is vast. The negotiators must think about what is a reasonable compromise, but winning negotiations should not be at any cost. In the end, the Commission will do its job properly and in the interests of member states and Europeans.
Another important area of our connected Europe programme is the development of the European neighbourhood policy to the south and east. We have more knowledge and experience of the east, and we are concentrating our efforts on developing the European Union’s eastern partnership policy. We are planning to host a summit in Riga on 21 and 22 May. We hope that there will be good and high-level participation.
It is not an easy time to convene a summit, but previous experience shows that, although every member state that holds the presidency plans its own agenda, it must also be prepared for challenges coming from unplanned regions and topics.
We have not particularly envisaged in our agenda the funding solution for Greek issues; neither have we particularly planned something in the response to the crisis in Ukraine, but we are facing it and we should respond to those challenges.
We see that European partnership policy, since its launch in 2007, has become more individual. At that time, all six countries were standing on the same line, but now, after eight years, we see that there are front runners and there are countries that are still a little hesitant about going more deeply into the relationship with the European Union. That is quite normal, but instead of wishing for those countries to approach more closely or to take on European standards and values, they have to decide for themselves, and that may not be an easy political decision for them.
We see now how three countries are advancing. Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova have advanced in matters of association agreements and mobility agreements and in implementing programmes and the rule of law. There are countries such as Azerbaijan, Moldova and Armenia that have a more flexible agenda, but we want each country to shape its own tailor-made policies. During the summit in Riga, we want to establish a new set of guidelines for how to move ahead in the future in relations with those countries.
We also want to review our European central Asia strategy. That is a region that is playing quite a crucial role for Europe, not only as a part of common energy policy—we should not lose sight of the fact that it is a region where substantial energy resources are located—but also as an important region for Asian security policy, bearing in mind what is going on in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq. Those countries are concerned about all those processes, and we should work together with them.
We have concentrated on three major directions in co-operation with those countries: sustainable development to strengthen the rule of law and a market economy; border security; and education. We think that those three directions could be beneficial and useful for those countries, as well as being beneficial for the interests of the European Union.
All the neighbourhood policies have quite a particular security dimension. We have seen how the security situation in Europe has changed during the past year alone, and we should respond to those challenges and changes, so we envisage that during our presidency, at the June summit and European Council meeting, we will review the crucial documents on reshaping European security strategy. Of course, we will work together with the European External Action Service, which will prepare the revised strategy, but it is essential to give a proper response on the new security challenge and the existing security architecture, as the security order in Europe has changed, whether we like it or not.
We have to find a proper response and increase European security. We know that European security is very much based on strong transatlantic links. That should be taken into account, but there are new challenges these days. Russia has stepped out of the CFE treaty—the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe—which is not a good sign.
10:45Europe needs a proper response and to find appropriate finances for defence issues. The relationship between countries 20 years ago was such that conditions were nice and kind. European politicians used to find the best solutions through diplomatic means, negotiations and finding compromises. We should not neglect the current situation. We should assess it and not forget about proper financing of defence policies.
I could tell you much more about climate policy, enlargement and migration issues, which are all on the agenda of the Latvian presidency, but I will try to save you time. I am happy to respond to questions. Thank you for listening to me.
Thank you, ambassador. That introduction was extremely comprehensive and covered every topic that the committee has looked at.
Good morning, ambassador. I would like to ask you a question on the digital single market, which I was asking our cabinet secretary about when you joined the meeting. The European Commission has just published its digital economy and society index, which shows us that the integration of digital services has the poorest performance of a range of areas in the digital economy in Europe. How, then, can you explain the decision of European Governments to delay the abolition of data roaming charges for another three years? Does that not give the wrong message to European consumers about our intention to create a digital single market?
I would not call it a delay. We should acknowledge that the negotiations are not moving very fast. As I mentioned, there are a number of stakeholders. We should take into account the interests of companies, which should not have losses in offering telecommunications services. At the same time, though, a number of years ago the European Commission started to limit roaming charges. You may remember that, 10 years ago, the charges were enormous. If you were travelling outside your own country, you were faced with roaming charges five or 10 times higher than you would pay in your own country.
The goal now is to align roaming charges with national charges. To achieve that, a good compromise should be found. A number of issues for companies in different member countries should be taken into account. I do not think that the Commission is somehow delaying the whole process. There are too many actors around the issue, and therefore the negotiation process is not as quick as we might wish it to be.
For us as a presidency, it is more important to achieve a good compromise—not to force one or other issue but to get some agreement across the 28. Therefore, I would not say that the process is delayed; it is simply that the process is quite complicated because many actors and many stakeholders are taking part.
My understanding is that roaming charges were supposed to be abolished by the end of this year. During your country’s presidency, will you continue to press for that to happen at the earliest opportunity so that consumers in Europe can get a better deal and so that Europe can move towards a truly integrated digital market, which I am sure we all support?
We really need to find a compromise. Our goal is that transactions between service providers and service consumers are safe and secure. It is quite essential to take into account the security aspect, including the security of personal data, when we discuss the package, as well as how we can fight cyber criminals—there are more than a few of them around. There are a number of different aspects to consider. It is essential to consider the interests both of consumers and of service providers. We are trying to find the most appropriate solution.
Thank you.
Good morning, ambassador. In your very articulate talk, you have answered most of the questions that I was going to ask, but I am pleased to see that you will be hosting the eastern partnership summit in Riga. In relation to recent developments in Ukraine and your worries about security, what part do you see the eastern partnership playing?
The EU started its neighbourhood policy in the late 1990s and it was oriented more towards the southern region; afterwards, the focus moved towards the eastern region. The ultimate goal of the neighbourhood policy was economic development, followed by security. Bearing in mind that quite legitimate approach, democratic countries with responsible Governments and with common market rules were considered to be more stable, more predictable and more reliable neighbours for EU member countries.
At the same time, it is the sovereign decision of any European state whether or not to choose such an option. The eastern partnership policy is a very good example of how the EU conducts policy based on free choice. There are front-runners—three countries that have declared that they want to align with European standards and European values. Of course, if the EU considers itself to be a union of values, it should defend and endorse those values if other countries want to align with them. Equally, if countries such as Armenia, Azerbaijan or Belarus are still hesitating and considering different options on how to shape their foreign policy, it is at their discretion to choose an option. The EU will not impose an option on them; it will not make them accept one single model.
One size does not fit all. The partnership policy is the best example that it is not the case. In general, I think that a democratic Ukraine, based on the rule of law, strong democratic institutions, a market economy and rules that are observed on both sides of its border with Poland, for example, is in the general interests of the European Union and Ukraine. However, again, the issue is a sovereign decision for Ukrainians. A year ago, they made their desperate attempt and decision to turn to these European values and come closer to them, and the European Union is obliged to provide as much assistance as possible to them.
So far, there is a philosophy of partnership. There is a bilateral partnership in a common frame between the EU and any of those countries. It is not directed towards any other country. Russia sometimes claims that it is directed against it, but it is not. It is up to the EU to shape its own foreign policy. The EU should not ask Russia or America how to develop its relations with Morocco, Ukraine or Egypt. It is a matter of discretion for the EU. Russia does not ask the EU when it implements projects relating to Eurasian economic union, although that concerns the interests of the EU. That is a matter for the discretion of Russia.
We should honour the sovereign decisions of states. That is what the EU is doing.
I am delighted that, alongside having a strong financial sector, you want to promote growth and jobs. You think that TTIP might be a way of kick-starting a spark to lift the stagnation in the eurozone, which would make the eurozone and European values more attractive. On that point, I am delighted to see that Latvia would like to simplify the common agricultural policy. Do you have any views on how that might be done?
The common agricultural policy demands quite a sensitive discussion across all 28 member states. We have not envisaged a substantial shift in the common agricultural policy during our presidency. The financial framework and the basic principles of financing the CAP were set two years ago. We consider that we need to discuss reducing the administrative burden and red tape associated with the implementation of the CAP. We envisage a discussion in the agriculture council in March and we hope that that discussion will be continued in May. We are not about to change agreed decisions on the CAP or on its reform. However, we want to make the CAP more efficient.
We have invited all the member states to present their proposals for the areas in which the administrative burden on farmers could be reduced. We look forward to advancing that discussion to make farmers’ lives easier and not burden them with too many reports, papers and other administrative burdens.
11:00
Can I carry on?
I have two other members waiting, Jamie.
I will ask one very small question, then.
Ambassador, you mentioned that one of the issues with TTIP is worries about food safety legislation. You also mentioned advancing legislation on food safety, particularly on novel foods. Is it a problem that the US does not appear to have such strong safety precautions on food as Europe?
The Commission negotiating team knows that food safety is a very sensitive issue across all the European Union member countries, so it is paying particular attention to it. It is also taking into account the fact that, in European Union member countries, the attitude towards genetically modified products is quite negative. There are also production safety issues—the contamination of soil and the environment—that affect food safety and food quality. Those issues are taken into account too.
During our presidency, we envisage that there will be a discussion about food safety and genetically modified products in the agriculture council in April, so we think that ministers will come to a proper position that defends the interests of all the member countries.
We are quickly running out of time.
Good morning, ambassador. In the justice and home affairs section of the helpful submission that Scotland Europa prepared on your presidency, there is reference to
“The creation of a bill of new psychoactive substances (legal highs)”,
which is a subject that the Parliament has shown interest in. Are you able to help us with any more information on that?
I am sorry, but I could not understand the question.
I refer to a Scotland Europa submission on matters that affect justice and home affairs. There is reference to data protection packages and the pursuit of fraud in relation to European financial interests, but there is also a reference to
“The creation of a bill of new psychoactive substances”.
Can you help us with that? If not, do not worry; I will move on.
It is a specific issue and I can reply only rather generally at the moment. The consumption of drugs and the appearance of new types of drugs that are not yet listed but which still represent a high danger for consumers, particularly among young people, is at the top of our agenda.
During our presidency, we will do our utmost to get proper regulations on the health and security of young people in particular. That will raise awareness and knowledge of the consequences of using such dangerous drugs. Maybe I can find and send the committee a more explicit answer in writing. Today I can give only some rather general answers; I am sorry for that.
That is fine.
You referred earlier to trying to get the European Parliament’s approval for CETA. The last time that I looked at that—I might be a bit out of date—the European Parliament had had only one plenary session on CETA. Obviously, there is considerable concern over here about TTIP and, in some respects, CETA sets the path on that. Can you help us with any further information about the scrutiny process for CETA at the European level?
The European Parliament is following the TTIP negotiations closely. We should, of course, take into account the fact that, while the negotiations are being conducted, Parliament cannot make any decision on the negotiation process or on the result because there is no result yet. Of course, the European Parliament will carefully scrutinise TTIP when the negotiations are finished.
During our presidency, we have had a substantive dialogue with the European Parliament on TTIP. We intend to continue with that dialogue, because it is important for the negotiating team to know what the European Parliament thinks about the whole process, including the level of transparency of the negotiating process and the particular interests of the European Parliament on particular topics.
At the same time, we expect that the European Parliament will start with the notification procedures for the Canada agreement. Negotiations are finished, so now the European Parliament has to do its part. In our presidency, we are trying to move the Canada agreement ahead to get Parliament’s approval.
I will leave it there, convener.
Welcome, ambassador. Like Scotland, Latvia is a relatively small country in Europe but, unlike Scotland, you are a member state of the European Union in your own right. As I understand it, this is Latvia’s first term in the EU presidency. What impact has that had in Latvia? What impact has it had on your international relationships?
That is really a philosophical question and I thank you for it. For a small country like Latvia, membership of the European Union brings enormous opportunities to increase its global influence through the structure of the European Union and the mechanisms of the relationships between EU and other countries and regions of the world. Latvia, as a small country, is therefore gaining in importance in the world.
Assuming the challenges of the presidency is something particular. It brings more knowledge about our country to the world. We should recognise that people in most countries of the globe probably do not wake up in the morning with the thought, “What’s going on in Latvia?” Many of them do not know where Latvia is. There is an excellent, enormous opportunity to bring knowledge about Latvia to people.
Next Sunday, I am going to Australia and New Zealand with a particular presidency programme to take information about Latvia to Australians and New Zealanders. We can use the presidency to increase knowledge about my country, and we are happy about that. That costs quite a lot, of course. Any presidency costs millions, and it costs a lot of engagement and work, but Latvians are not afraid of work. They are happy to work hard.
There is an enormous opportunity for a small country to be more visible on a global scale. We should somehow put aside our strictly national interests and work on achieving compromise among all 28 member countries. A country’s achievement of an appropriate compromise among all the member countries and not so much how it advanced its own proper interests is a sign of a successful presidency. If a country advanced its own proper interests, that would not be the best presidency. We are trying to do our best in promoting the interests of the whole European Union, and those common interests are very much in line with our national interests. Therefore, we are also working for our national sake in aiming for a successful presidency.
The first presidency for Latvia is a real challenge for us, but I think that we can cope with it. Latvians are quite pragmatic. We are more to the north and are used to not very favourable natural conditions. We know that we should fight for ourselves permanently and be strong, and that helps us in conducting the presidency.
Thank you very much. We wish you every success.
Thank you.
That concludes our time with you, ambassador. On behalf of the committee, I thank you very much for a comprehensive insight into Latvia’s presidency, the work that has already been done and the work that is in the pipeline. As Adam Ingram said, we wish you every success in that.
You are welcome to stay with us until we conclude a final piece of business in public. There can be a formal introduction to the committee afterwards.