At the moment when the Prime Minister explained to the Latvian public that, in his view, good cooperation between a minister and their sector is unacceptable, we decided: “We must talk about this, but later.” The 13th Saeima has been berated more and praised less, heavily criticised and ridiculed, but... For years we have heard from time to time about the need for new people in politics, and (yet again) but... Often enough, people who have worn down the pavements of Riga and occupied many chairs, people who have been in politics for a long time, as well as political commentators, complain about the lack of fresh talent, while also enthusiastically criticising those same newcomers. How have things gone for a four-year newcomer to Latvian politics since 2018?

When, in your opinion, should a person be called a politician? In Latvia, it happens quite quickly – if you are on an election list, you are already called one. Is that enough? At what point did you feel like a politician?

You are a politician only if you can achieve something! A person can be called a politician the moment the mandate given by the voter is transformed into a real, tangible result. If you have the ability to persuade others, both in your own political forces and in others, you can be a politician.

We are talking about real work in the Saeima, not just being on a list...

Exactly! I believe that four years in the Saeima can be spent in different ways – idling, or working like a hamster in a wheel, and blaming yourself for not having managed to do everything.

I come from the private sector myself. The elections (in the autumn of 2018) had finished, work in the Saeima was waiting, and there was a short pause between the two stages. At that time, in the press, you could hear complaints from the MPs who were not re-elected that they didn't really know or understand what to do now. It made me say to myself: “Vitenbergs, you are young enough, you must not 'slack off', the Saeima is not going to be a vacation!” If 2,797 people have given me a plus, I have to work so that next time there will be even more pluses. I received great support in my home village of Zentene. I remember that the first ones to bring me “back down to earth” after the election were the members of the local hunting club, and later the rest of the people of Zentene. I think that being an MP and a minister, I have remained down-to-earth. I talk to people and entrepreneurs every day, so I hear assessments of my work regularly, which is very good.

Remaining down-to-earth... If we look at the former Cabinet composition of this Saeima convocation, three ministers (if I am not mistaken) were from regions far from Riga and its surroundings – Ramona Petraviča, Sandis Ģirģens, and you. On social networks, people close to politics and serving politics occasionally sneered – what are these country bumpkins going to do in the Saeima and ministries. How does this attitude fit in with the desire to change the situation so that everything in Latvia doesn't just happen in Riga, and how does it fit in with regional development and young people in politics? Could it be felt – newcomers are one thing, but newcomers from the regions are something else entirely...

Yes, most ministers and MPs come from Riga and the large cities; this is explained by the number of voters! However, all Latvian regions must be represented in politics, and young people must also enter the field.

Once, in a coalition meeting during a political dispute, an experienced female politician called me a “first-winterer”. Things like that happen too. I am stubborn enough. Before the Saeima, I had 10 years of experience in management positions at fairly large companies. I have been responsible for people, and my salary and theirs have always depended on the results achieved. Working in an international company, I knew that I could work under quite high pressure and intensity. In the Saeima and the Cabinet of Ministers, the scale changed; it was important to maintain contacts with both entrepreneurs and my own office, to ask for advice or recommendations from those who know the respective issue better, and to be able to understand what are the interests of one or a few companies and what are the needs of the entire sector.

At a government event, I concluded that I was the only minister who had finished a rural primary school. I believe that I have this added value – I come from the countryside, I understand and know how people live. Both in the Saeima and as a minister, it has been my great advantage – to understand what people think and how, how the small entrepreneur is faring, and what happens in a family business. This was especially important during C19, when a large part of the government representatives did not understand what the specific decisions meant for specific people and how they would affect them. I think this practical knowledge and experience always came in handy.

I once asked your advisor Kristaps Klauss this question, namely, what you have done to provoke the commentator Aivars Ozoliņš of the magazine “Ir”, who barely mentioned you in his columns during C19... It had been a long time since such colourful descriptions had been seen, including the “angel of death”... It was very “independent” and conspicuous.

I do not know Mr Ozoliņš. I do not diligently follow what someone says about me in an interview or mentions in an article. I focused on the work in the ministry. The most important thing was to represent entrepreneurs and understand the situation. If someone writes something like that, you probably have to ask him – why. They called me the “angel of death”. I assume it was because I wanted Covid restrictions not to destroy our companies. Regarding the situation at that time – those who worked and participated remember what was happening – the main goal was to fight and achieve logical explanations for restrictions and proportional adjustment to the situation. Decisions were often made in haste, and then we saved individual sectors, especially those most negatively affected by these decisions. I want to compare this time to participating in a court case – to relax and review restrictions, we worked with sectors, collected statistics and data, explained what a specific idle period would cost the state, etc. It took a lot of time!

Speaking with entrepreneurs, we found that the C19 order and restrictions were implemented by their own efforts in the teams they managed, and quite sensibly and promptly at that. Summing up the question about state support – it existed during C19, and because of the rise in resource costs caused by the war, it will exist again – why, in your opinion, do we pay too little attention to how the state can encourage residents to venture into entrepreneurship and earn money. People talk loudly about what needs to be obtained from the state, but – where is it all to come from? For example, now during the pre-election period, they are promising strikes, “to quickly, quickly get something”...

A large part of these funds are aimed at creating new products, at changing production directions, and at finding new international cooperation partners. Speaking about the C19 time – we saw that in the neighbouring countries, health and economic issues were balanced much more reasonably. If you allow work and do not close specific sectors, it is logical that there is no need for such large support and funding. What was clear elsewhere was forgotten in Latvia.

I must say, I am watching what is happening this summer and this autumn with concern; I am waiting, but I do not hear specific and clear activities and plans from the Ministry of Health. For example, what should I as a representative of the public do? In my opinion, looking at past experience, in the summer we should have done everything so that in the autumn we wouldn't have to say – the health care system is overheating... It is not serious; there has been enough time to prepare. The main criterion for C19 restrictions was the capacity of the health system; as soon as the system couldn't handle the situation, a forced change in public habits was implemented, gathering opportunities were reduced, etc. I still have no clear answers to the questions left unanswered during the winter period. If I meet entrepreneurs now who are interested in what to expect in the autumn, I understand that we as a state cannot afford another period of chaotic decisions and restrictions.

During C19, the government was often blamed for allegedly unanimous decisions, but very different commentary on what was decided. How was it really? For example, do ministers decide simply by voting, or is something accepted through arguing about how to do it better? For a large part of the Latvian public, the pandemic-time decisions were not clear and were not explained. Often the situation looked like this: “Why must this be done?” “We decided so!”

Unanimity in the government was rare. Each minister cared about the sector they represented, which is basically correct because a minister should know their sector better than others. Decisions were not easy for anyone. I often had to be the government rebel so that my colleagues wouldn't lose track of who earns money in the country and what money our budget is formed from. In the first waves of C19, the position and demands of the Ministry of Health clearly dominated; the ministry got the funds, it was the crisis of that sector, and they dictated the relevant restrictions. To eventually ensure that the economic block (economic interests) was also heard was not easy, but it succeeded; cooperation was formed, the Prime Minister became interested in the economy, etc.

In August and September, I participated in and worked on programmes for which an agreement was reached at one time while I was in the position of minister. I would really like to help bring what was started to a logical conclusion.

zemeunvalsts.lv interlocutors, while you were in the position of minister, more than once praised your strong team of advisors – was choosing professionals a matter of previous experience, or intuition.

Starting to lead the Ministry of Economics, I had no time to think and ponder because the result was demanded from me immediately; it was during the peak of Covid morbidity. This was an opportunity to use the experience gained in the private business. As I already mentioned – at that time (in private business) our salaries depended on what was accomplished – we could not afford weak team members. If not everyone works, someone has to do more. When I was invited to the position of minister, I said that there would be no political or otherwise useful people in my team, but there would be professionals. There were people who thanked me for the invitation and declined, as they were not ready to get involved. The composition of the team eventually turned out well, I could rely on everyone. The team strengthened me as a minister. For example, the energy package we prepared last winter was “felt” by almost every resident of Latvia. However, not everyone knows the other part of the story – the bill for implementing this support was created in a short time, in one weekend; the people in the ministry were ready to work to help the people of Latvia as quickly as possible. Remote weekend meetings had become part of everyday life. I am glad that a large part of my team is now working with the current minister.

It is very important to regularly listen to industry specialists, to achieve quick feedback on what has been decided. I have not talked about this much, but I maintained frequent enough contacts with the managers of large companies in the sectors, who could and knew how to tell what is happening in the sectors and what they need. If you understand how each sector lives, work will go more smoothly and better. The biggest possible mistake in either the Saeima or the ministry is to think that you know better and will think of something better. People who have worked for 20-30 years definitely know and understand the “ins and outs of the industry” much more thoroughly and precisely.

Even back when we interviewed you as the Chairman of the Saeima Economic, Agricultural, Environmental and Regional Policy Committee, you seriously defended the interests of the peat industry.

I do not own a peat bog, and I have not worked in this industry. But – I have always been annoyed by the inability to use our country's strengths and opportunities, and what nature has given us. In the Saeima committee, hearing about the Just Transition Fund, I became very angry, because it seemed to me like another story about our inability to fight and our reliance on foreign lobbyists in the corridors of Brussels. In my opinion, it was a great injustice to the peat industry; the Saeima committee got involved in solving this issue together with the industry.

While in the position of minister, I met with colleagues from Finland, Estonia, and Lithuania; we talked a lot about these issues. In Mediterranean countries or island nations, where, figuratively speaking, a few pines grow and where there is no peat or strong forest industry, this is a completely different and incomprehensible story. Our neighbours understand the situation; we achieved a unified position. A similar example is the story about wood chips – a year ago, talk was heard that wood should no longer be used for heating. In this regard, too, a lot of nonsense has been heard (to put it mildly).

Peat is a mineral resource available and usable in Latvia, which is enriched and from which local companies produce substrate; moreover, these companies provide well-paid jobs and are located in the regions, which is doubly important.

The last Cabinet of Ministers decision on the ban on using peat in energy production from 2030... I hadn't participated in coalition talks for a while; I went and “had a fight” with all my former colleagues. Support for the Ministry of Environmental Protection and Regional Development (VARAM) position – to ban the use of peat for heating after 2030... We don't know what will happen in the near future; different turns are possible. Finland, for example, is building reserves, looking at peat as an emergency solution. I personally don't understand why, when we are unable to predict the situation in the future, we have to run with a flag ahead of everyone else again.

To put it simply: in neighbouring countries, they think about their residents; that is the duty of the institutions and parliamentary deputies of those countries. With us, public sector officials often give the impression that their duty is to say: “Yes, sir, in Brussels (or elsewhere...)!”

In the aforementioned meeting, I listened to accusations that I wanted to start large-scale use of peat in heating. One – we practically don't use it in heating at all; two – if an acute need arises, boiler houses that use wood chips can technologically use a mixture of peat as well. Why not use it if the resources exist? We don't have to be the cork for all bottles or a nature reserve for the European Union. Latvians live and manage things in Latvia.

We have enough local resources. But – as soon as the desire to loosen the reins on management is voiced, inadequate screaming begins. The essence of the problem can be compared to the neighbouring country Russia – people believe the screamers, no matter how much they lie...

While driving to this conversation, I was thinking about this issue. For example, about the latest changes to the Cabinet of Ministers Regulations regarding tree felling and diameter. Obviously, there is a group of people or interests that considers it very profitable to cultivate the view that a Latvian does not know how to manage things or is a bad manager. After the Agrarian Reform in the 1920s, it was Latvia that changed the deep-rooted beliefs, saying, “give the serfs land, they won't know what to do, they need an estate and a landlord.” Nothing of the sort! Give a Latvian an area of land that needs tending, and they will get the job done!

Of course, over time we will find stories, for example, about the 90s, where an owner, having recovered their forest, cut it down, spent the money, did not replant the forest – they didn't act like a careful manager. That time has passed! If you allow a person to manage things, they are not a fool – they will plough when they need to plough, cut when they need to cut, and act when it is most profitable and justified. The skill of managing is our lifestyle.

To think that changes in some regulations will make every forest owner sharpen their saw and rush into the forest... To speak in similes, a farmer would currently be allowed to slaughter their herd, and will everyone who has a few animals in the barn now rush to slaughter them? To think this is self-disrespect and denigration.

Once, working in trade, we knew an unwritten rule – you can sell while being with the client. Finding time is not always easy, but it is necessary to maintain contact with the client. Starting work in the Saeima, I promised myself – no matter how difficult, on Fridays I must go to see the entrepreneurs. It happens that colleagues go, for example, 168 km from Riga, visit a few companies, and have lunch with the local municipal leadership. I go to small entrepreneurs or family businesses who are not afraid and not shy to say what they think. These conversations are real. Some time ago, I was with fisherman Andris Cīrulis in Bērzciems; he invited me to go out to sea, to inspect the nets. I heard and saw the story about seals that tear the nets and eat the caught fish. In neighbouring countries, they fight the seals; we protect them and do nothing... I can imagine what will happen if this issue is tackled in Latvia, but – it certainly must be done and moved forward. Fisheries is a sector of the national economy that has potential, and there is demand for its products. I think business-minded politicians must fight for this, and, unfortunately, I feel that it will become increasingly difficult for the economic block. The thoughts that are swirling around, for example, how bad it will be if we manage things at all or manage them more freely, are floating in the air and have more and more supporters.

In the 1990s, the conviction gradually arose that the time for empty phrases in Latvian politics was over. This conviction began to fade 6-8 years ago and now it has actually vanished completely... The changes occurring around us, starting with C19, the war happening nearby, anxiety about the climate, and the coming winter, require concrete and clear solutions. You won't light a furnace with phrases. We have heard – crises are opportunities, etc. Have the state opportunities been used?

Talking about nothing is annoying. I will repeat, I come from a different environment and it is not customary there; there is no place for empty conversations without a tangible result.

Regarding crises and using opportunities, I won't be that critical. There have been various programmes for both small and large merchants. For example, a woodworking company with an export market in Germany. C19 started. In Latvia, work continued; in Germany, everything was closed. What now? They found another market. For example, fish processors worked a lot with Russia until 2008... With the situation changing and companies reorienting, I think the fish processing sector is now much stronger. Markets have changed; Western Europeans have concluded that some of the existing producers cannot be relied upon, our companies are relatively small and better able to adapt and change.

My question about entrepreneurs was not about how things are at the state level. For quite some time now, the view has been sounded quite openly: “Money comes from an ATM.” There is no reaction from state institutions. Our economy is very important to us.

Speaking with entrepreneurs, I heard that during C19 there were employees in my ministry who did not answer phone calls. It will sound funny, but I have organised meetings in the ministry where I explained to colleagues how things work in private business – the client calls; if you don't pick up the phone – the client can change their business partner. In times of crisis, many have uncertainty; if the responsible person thinks that a possible conversation will be unpleasant and doesn't pick up the phone... Well... A “settled-in” and lazy official is also a very great evil for the state.

Firing officials is not that simple...

Very difficult, but... I would especially like to praise those people who worked during C19, and at an intensity that hadn't happened before, on regulations and all the changes taking place, so that they would be sensible and more understandable.

What do entrepreneurs tell you, what do they want, what are they concerned about? Not speaking about global issues.

In places where production is developed, a big problem is the housing stock. In my opinion, it is one of the biggest problems in the country. I remember, speaking about the European Recovery and Resilience Facility programme, I noticed smirking – why do we need money for a rental housing programme... We must ensure that movement starts in the regions. Outside of Riga and its surroundings, you can count new multi-apartment residential buildings on your fingers. We started working on the “Help for local industry” programme, because there are many companies that produce small modular houses, but they are taken to Scandinavia.

“Līvas grupa” in Jaunpils works only for the Latvian market.

That is a good example, but, for example, in Rauna there are several strong companies that mostly export houses. As I already mentioned, there will be a rental programme, and I hope soon shovels will hit the ground and construction will start, and there will be nearly 1,000 new apartments in Latvia's regions. In the ministry, we have developed a standard design for wooden buildings for this purpose.

It is clear that Latvians prefer to live in their own house; multi-apartment buildings are a legacy from old times. We have started work on a new programme for the construction of standard private houses – rent-to-own, so that young families and families with children can get a modern home, promoting habitation in the municipalities.

On the portal, we have often mentioned the invitation of the Smiltene municipality, Kārķi and Ērģeme parishes to live in rural homesteads – have you had to get involved in this process?

That is interesting; there are quite a lot of empty homesteads, especially in the border zone. In Estonia, there is a similar programme where families are granted certain funds. I think for municipalities that own land, together with a state support programme for the installation of modular private houses with purchase rights, this would be a good solution. We have enough space! The only “benefit” brought by C19 was “pushing” people to the countryside. For example, in Zentene, I still meet classmates who were not seen for years before C19. I think many city dwellers could want to earn money and escape from the city.

1990 and 1991 – independence. 2004 – the European Union and NATO. 2014 – the euro. For a good while, we haven't heard anything about Latvia's further plans. Where to next?

The next year will be very, very (even critically) important for strengthening economic independence. We are a free country, but after C19 and the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the unfinished homework is clearly visible. We have been overly self-confident, having forgotten historical events. There will be inconveniences, there will be a rapid, even unusual pace, but it is surmountable, and for the sake of future generations, it must be done as quickly as possible. Latvia is not large, and the basis of our success has always been the ability to survive like a grain between two millstones. Wisdom and the ability to find one's place will be the determining factor for the further survival of the Latvian people and the Latvian state.