Author: Ilona Bērziņa
The “restart” of the Latvian government announced by Prime Minister Evika Siliņa has created fertile ground for discussions about government instability and the possibility of its collapse. While the public welcomed the resignation request of Minister of Transport Kaspars Briškens (“Progressives”) with applause, the simultaneous request for the resignation of Minister of Welfare Uldis Augulis (“Union of Greens and Farmers”) caused, to put it mildly, confusion.
How stable is the government? What should be done about Rail Baltica? How should illegal migration be tackled? To discuss these and other pressing issues, BNN invited Armands Krauze, Chairman of the Board of the Union of Greens and Farmers (ZZS) and Minister of Agriculture, for an interview. This time, we focus primarily on political matters, leaving agricultural issues for another occasion.
How does the Union of Greens and Farmers view Evika Siliņa’s proposed “government restart”?
I really dislike using the word “restart.” We use various Anglicisms, but essentially, it means that the government needs changes. I think changes should be in actions and speed of decision-making. It’s no secret that we are stagnating with all the Rail Baltica issues, which have been dragging on, and this is one of the reasons why a push is needed. The situation is clear – the available funds are what they are, and we can only achieve as much as we are able to achieve.
We have to be honest and say that we cannot invest more than what is planned in the budget. People should forget the dream of connecting Tallinn and Vilnius by means of Rail Baltica by the year 2030. That simply will not happen. The Minister of Transport must clearly communicate this and move forward step by step. It must be said that, given the current geopolitical situation, as well as the European Union’s and Latvia’s state budget constraints, we can complete this project, for example, by 2035 or 2040. But this decision must be made quickly and publicly announced.
Perhaps then, we should cancel the Daugava bridge project or the EUR 114 million reallocation for the construction of the southern section of Riga Central Railway Station?
I wouldn’t want to go into details, as I am not the Minister of Transport. However, I believe both stations should be made functional and completed, and there should be a connection to the airport using the existing rail gauge. This means that people arriving in Riga—whether from Valmiera, Rēzekne, or Ludza – should be able to arrive at a modern station using our trains, whether the old diesel ones or the new yellow ViVi trains. Likewise, someone travelling from Jēkabpils should be able to arrive directly at Riga Airport. Then there will be a point from all this and it will actually benefit our citizens.
To complete the line I am referring to, we don’t need a new bridge over Daugava River. The only thing in need of construction is approximately three kilometres of railway from Imanta Station to the airport, along with the completion of both station buildings. There is no need to leave unfinished infrastructure projects. They should be completed and made accessible to every citizen. I see nothing wrong with the idea that I could board a train in my home town of Sigulda and ride it all the way to the airport. Or that travellers returning from vacation could head straight to Daugavpils. Beautiful, isn’t it?
We just need a clear statement on when, how, and whether this will happen at all.
Building three kilometres of railway! That’s not 300 kilometres! This decision can be made quickly, and it does not require an astronomical amount of money. Moreover, it should be acknowledged that financial difficulties are not present only in Latvia. Lithuania, Estonia, and even the European Union are facing similar challenges. Therefore, we must focus on what is truly necessary. Essentially, we need to focus on our own needs rather than worrying about when Estonians will be able to travel to Vilnius.
The Union of Greens and Farmers is a partner of the ruling coalition, and in such cases, it is customary to either speak well of partners or remain silent. However, from an outsider’s perspective, it seems that the turbulence in Siliņa’s government has largely been caused by a kind of “blackmail” from the “Progressives.” Let’s recall Mr. Šuvajevs’ statement that the position of each “Progressive” minister is also a matter of government stability. Now, we see the result – if you want to replace our Briškens, then you must also sacrifice ministers from other coalition parties. How would you comment on this situation?
The government is led by the Prime Minister, who ensures its functioning. When it comes to changes, it is her duty, as the team leader, to present her proposal. She has done this. The coalition consists of three parties, all of which have equal rights to decide whether to stay in the coalition or leave, and whether to strengthen or weaken the government. Therefore, I wouldn’t say that there was any “blackmail” from the “Progressives.” They have taken a firm stance on their minister, which is politically correct. However, I do not believe that forcing two additional ministers to step down was the right approach. If someone is underperforming, they should be replaced, but not at the cost of dragging others down. The Prime Minister chose this approach, and now it is up to her to convince coalition partners, including ZZS, that this is the right decision. We focus on results and are evaluating her proposed 4×4 plan to determine if it is the right path forward.
This is one of the rare cases where a dismissed minister – Welfare Minister Uldis Augulis – has received strong support from the non-governmental sector. The Latvian Pensioners’ Federation is demanding an explanation from Evika Siliņa regarding Augulis’ dismissal, and the Medical Workers’ Union is also asking for clarification. What is your opinion?
As I mentioned earlier, this “collective punishment” approach is not the right method. We need to assess whether a minister has truly performed so poorly that dismissal is necessary. If a minister’s performance is lacking, discussions should be held, deadlines set, and more ambitious goals defined. The opinions of the industry and non-governmental organizations are also very important. Politicians may judge their colleagues, but we must remember that politicians are also competitors. The fact that the industry views Augulis very positively is testament to his professionalism.
Given the current situation, do you believe that Siliņa’s government could collapse and a new coalition be formed? If that happens, what role would ZZS play? Are there any “red lines” you absolutely will not cross?
ZZS will certainly not be the force that brings down the government. That depends on the Prime Minister. If she succeeeds, the government will not fall. I believe this government can function well until the next parliamentary elections. However, any government may collapse at any time, and all politicians must be prepared for that possibility.
What is your party’s position on the long-stalled port reform? How would you respond to claims that ZZS is implementing Aivars Lembergs’ interests or directives regarding the Ventspils port?
I’ll start with the question about Aivars Lembergs – these claims are absolute nonsense. Our interest is to ensure that all three major Latvian ports operate under the same model – one that works, functions efficiently, and benefits the economy. We cannot impose a special model for one port just because someone dislikes Lembergs, another has objections to the Riga port administration, or yet another has issues with Uldis Sesks in Liepāja. The fact that each port currently has its own unique model is completely wrong and even harmful from a national perspective.
All three major ports must operate under a single, well-functioning model, with governance shared among representatives from the state, municipalities, and businesses. Only if these three groups work together effectively can a port truly develop. ZZS firmly believes that a uniform model across all three major ports is the correct and necessary approach from a national standpoint.
Is there hope that migration issues will finally receive sufficient attention from the government? You have stated that, in ZZS’s view, not only the Ministries of Welfare and Economy but also the Ministries of Interior, Justice, and Finance should be involved in addressing this issue. Has ZZS’s position found support in the government?
The Prime Minister included migration as one of the urgent issues in her 4×4 plan. Therefore, I believe that this issue must now be addressed as part of the government’s new commitments.
A great example of inter-agency cooperation is how the Food and Veterinary Service, while registering online food delivery couriers, discovered numerous individuals – migrants – who were residing in Latvia without permits. This has also shed light on the so-called “student” issue. While some universities approach this matter responsibly, others enroll thousands of students from third countries, yet only about two hundred actually graduate. This raises serious doubts about whether they are genuinely students. Personally, I believe that if a courier does not speak English, he is almost certainly not a student.
The issue extends beyond just students. As labour availability in regions decreases, a significant number of workers are being brought into Latvia from third countries. A pressing question is whether they leave after their employment contracts expire.
This is why cooperation between all relevant institutions, as well as citizen involvement, is crucial. For instance, if you go to a café and the person serving you does not speak Latvian, it’s worth remembering that use of the state language is mandatory in the service sector. In such a case, the State Language Centre should be informed so they can inspect the café in question. Similarly, if the Food and Veterinary Service finds that a restaurant employs illegal workers, this should be immediately reported to the state or municipal police. The police could also conduct random checks on couriers in the streets to verify whether they have valid residence permits. Moreover, businesses that invite migrant workers must take responsibility for them. That is, they should arrive in Latvia, work for a specified period, and then leave once their contract expires. This is how the system should work, with a strong emphasis on employer accountability. We have severely bureaucratized the entry process into Latvia, yet loopholes remain, allowing illegal migrants to stay and work here. We need to simplify entry procedures for those who come to perform temporary work, such as berry picking, and then leave once their job is done.
There is some doubt, however, about whether the police – whether state or municipal – will truly address the issue of illegal migrants. Isn’t it more convenient for them to issue fines to drivers for unauthorized parking?
This, once again, brings us back to the importance of action. The discussion should not be about personnel changes but about the necessary tasks that need to be done as a result of government reforms.
Speaking of actions, I’d like to ask you as the Minister of Agriculture: Has any agreement been reached, or at least productive discussions held, with retailers regarding the reduction of prices for locally produced food products in stores?
So far, no such agreement has been reached. However, I have invited the management of “Rimi” for a meeting, and I plan to hold individual discussions with the heads of all major retail chains. Only then will we be able to determine the next steps – whether they are open to cooperation or solely focused on representing the financial interests of their investors.