Statements by the Committee on Finance concerning theEU and the economic crisisThe Riksdag Committee on Finance has considered matters connected withthe economic crisis in various contexts. In this memorandum an account isgiven of the Committee's positions, as well as reservations from theopposition parties, on the following EU documents:Communication from the Commission on Reinforced EconomicPolicy Coordination (COM (2010) 250) (pp. 1-6);Green Paper from the Commission on Corporate Governance inFinancial Institutions and Remuneration Policies (COM (2010) 284)(pp. 7-8);Communication from the Commission, Europe 2020 - A strategy forsmart, sustainable and inclusive growth (COM (2010) 2020) (pp.9-23);Communication from the Commission, Budget Reform, ChangingEurope. A public consultation paper in view of the 2008/2009Budget Review (SEC (2007) 1188) (pp. 24-35).

Statement by the Committee on Finance 2009/10:FiU40on Reinforced Economic Policy CoordinationThe statement was approved in the Committee on 17 June 2010.IntroductionThe Committee emphasises that the economic crisis has demonstrated theneed for stable budgetary frameworks, at both the national level and the EUlevel. It is therefore crucial that the Stability and Growth Pact is respected. Itis also important to keep public finances in good order. Each member statehas the right to choose its own expenditure and revenue levels, but it maynot choose such different expenditure and revenue levels that other countriesare affected by instability.In the current situation, both acute measures and more long-term action arerequired. In the short term, countries with large deficits need to takeconcrete decisions to show that they are able to get the situation undercontrol. In the longer term, the financial policy framework needs to bedesigned so as to prevent the accumulation of large deficits and debts. Thisis especially important in euro area countries, but also for other EU memberstates.

Sweden’s experience shows the value of stable economic policyframeworks. With the changes introduced since the mid-1990s, the variousstages in the Swedish budget process have been tightened up. The morestringent budget process has helped to stabilise economic policy. TheCommittee will return to the subject of Sweden’s economic policyframework below.Strong framework at EU level, but the national parliaments decideAs regards the proposal for a “European Semester”, the Committee wishesto stress that, in its opinion, it is not appropriate for the Budget Bill to beexamined in advance in the EU before it is presented to the Riksdag. It is theRiksdag that decides on the budget, both expenditure and revenue, and theproposal for the central government budget must therefore be presented tothe Riksdag first. If the proposal were to be examined in advance, this couldbe interpreted as meaning that the financial power does not rest with theRiksdag. There is also a risk of greater lack of clarity when differentdocuments of diffuse status are examined at different stages.It can also be mentioned that the Government presents a Spring FiscalPolicy Bill in April every year, setting out Sweden’s economic policy andbudget policy guidelines. The bill contains proposals for guidelines for workwith the budget for the coming year. In the opinion of the Committee, thisbill should not be examined in advance either.The above does not, however, rule out the possibility that the Government’sassessments in, for example, the Spring Fiscal Policy Bill, regardingeconomic growth, inflation and estimated balance for general governmentnet lending (financial saving) are presented in the EU after the Bill has beendelivered to the Riksdag.The Committee also wishes to emphasise that there is reason for countriesthat that request loans or support from other member states and from the EUto clearly demonstrate the intended direction of national policy. The samemay apply to countries that do not meet the requirements made jointly.It is not always clear from the Commission’s Communication whatmeasures are intended solely for those countries that have introduced theeuro as their currency. The Committee would like to stress that theEuropean Union consists of cooperation between 27 equal states. Even ifthere may be reason for the euro area countries to introduce more detailedrules internally, the interests of the Union as a whole must also be taken intoaccount when the euro area countries hold their deliberations.The issue of sanctions against countries that breach the Stability and GrowthPact has been raised. The Committee notes that experience shows that thereis reason for sanctions to be guided by rules to a greater extent than they aretoday and that they are introduced at an early stage of the process too. Itshould also be considered whether there should be a quicker process in thecase of countries that repeatedly break the rules. Non-pecuniary sanctionsshould also be considered. The Committee wants to bring to mind that it2

is also important not to make any distinction between small and largecountries when applying the rules. It is the obligation of all countries tocomply with joint rules, and the sanctions should be the same for anycountry that fails to comply.A further matter that has been raised is that of debt levels. The Committeeshares the opinion that the level of public debt should receive greaterattention and that this matter should also be afforded greater importance inthe Stability and Growth Pact. It is important that debt levels are reduced ata satisfactory rate and the regulatory framework should also be betterimplemented and developed in this respect.It is important to improve the quality of public finance statistics. On 6 May2010, the Committee held deliberations with the Minister for Financeregarding the Commission's proposals on this matter. The Committeestressed that a solution needs to be found to the issue of statistics secrecy,and assumes that this will also be the case.The Committee wishes to bring to mind its earlier statement in connectionwith discussions on EU 2020 (Committee report 2009/10:FiU29). TheCommittee stressed that high levels of public debt cannot be allowed tocontinue indefinitely. Measures to achieve the goals of EU 2020 must bebased on developing a credible exit strategy from the acute measures takenas a result of the economic crisis. The Committee stressed the importance ofcontinuing to respect the Stability and Growth Pact. Long-termresponsibility for public finances is of central importance, both in order tomaintain credibility and to prevent large and drastic cuts in our welfaresystems. In parallel with dealing with the acute economic crisis it is alsocrucial to ensure that public finances are sustainable in the long term too.The EU member states need to take action so that they can re-establish asituation in which they keep within the limits jointly established under theStability and Growth Pact. The Committee reiterates this opinion.There is also reason to recall the Committee’s previous position regardingthe EU budget review (Committee report 2007/08:FiU14). The Committeeconsidered that the following principles would be guiding for the budget:subsidiarity, European added value, proportionality, sound financialadministration and restrictiveness. A comprehensive review of priorities inEU budget expenditure is needed. Amendments to the composition ofexpenditure should be made without any increase to overall expenditure. Inthis current context the Committee wishes to emphasise that in a situation inwhich demands are made that national budgets should be restrictive it iseven more important to impose requirements for restrictiveness in the EUbudget.As regards the decisions at Ecofin on 9 May, the Committee considers itpositive that support mechanisms can be created. The first mechanism isessentially very similar to existing mechanisms providing loans for non-euroarea member states with balance of payment problems. There has not beenany such opportunity for euro areas countries, and it is therefore3

reasonable that this is now introduced. As regards the Special PurposeVehicle (SPV), the Committee notes that the Government does not intend topropose to the Riksdag that Sweden should be part of this arrangement.Whether or not Sweden will participate in individual support programmesshall be determined on a case by case basis. Important conditions forparticipating in such programmes are that Sweden can take a full part in thedrawing up and decision-making stages of the programme. Further, theprogramme must be drawn up with clear conditionality and in cooperationwith the IMF. It is the Riksdag that decides on Sweden’s participation inany such programme.Strong national financial policy frameworkThe Swedish budget process was reformed in the mid-1990s. Thebackground was that the state of Sweden’s public finances had rapidlydeteriorated, with a large budget deficit and central government debt as aresult.An important aspect of the reformed framework concerns the Riksdag’sbudget process. In a first stage, the Riksdag decides on the distribution ofcentral government expenditure into 27 different expenditure areas, and anestimate of budget revenue. This is done by means of a decision. As bothexpenditure and revenue are decided on, the size of the budget balance isalready determined at this stage. It is the Committee on Finance thatprepares the Government’s and opposition parties’ proposals and thatpresents what is known as a framework report for the Chamber. The other14 parliamentary committees submit comments on the Budget Bill andassociated private members' motions to the Committee on Finance.In a second stage, the matter of appropriations for the various expenditureareas is considered by the 15 parliamentary committees. The frameworks forthe expenditure areas decided in the first stage may not be exceeded. Thismeans that at this stage it is only possible to propose an increasedappropriation within one expenditure area if this is also accompanied by areduction of another appropriation within the same expenditure area.The Riksdag’s decision-making process means that the Riksdag has acomprehensive approach to the entire budget. Instead of decisions that,individually, may appear suitable but jointly have undesired consequences,the Riksdag has a clear overview of both expenditure and revenue.Another aspect of the financial policy framework is the central governmentexpenditure ceiling. The Riksdag takes a decision on this ceiling on thebasis of a proposal in the Budget Bill. The ceiling is set in nominal termsand is decided three years in advance. If there is a risk that the ceiling willbe exceeded during the current budget year, the Government is to takemeasures or propose measures to the Riksdag to prevent this fromhappening.Further, there is a surplus target for general government net lending(financial saving). The Riksdag has decided that the target for financial4

saving (for the entire public sector) shall amount to an average of 1 per centof GDP over a business cycle.There is a special balance requirement for the local government sector.According to this balance requirement, each municipality and countycouncil shall budget for balance. If a municipality or county council latershows a deficit, the balance shall be restored within three years, unlessexceptional grounds exist. This balance requirement is a minimumrequirement. According to the Local Government Act, municipalities andcounty councils shall also, observe the principle of good financialmanagement, according to which they in their budgets shall also take intoaccount increased future costs, for example, in the form of large pensioncommitments.An important element is also that the central government budget process hasbeen made more transparent. The principle rule is that all items are to beentered in their gross value. In this context, there is also reason to point outthat gross accounting also applies to the contribution to the EU and to EUsubsidies. This helps to give a fair picture of the budget. Another principleknown as the "completeness principle" is also applied, according to whichall items affected by the central government borrowing requirement are tobe included in the central government budget. Overall this gives a cleareraccount of central government commitments and a better understanding ofthe central government budget.Further it should be emphasised that the development of public finances andapplication of financial policy are followed up by external assessors. InSweden this is, for example, done by the Swedish Fiscal Policy Council, theNational Financial Management Authority, the National Institute ofEconomic Research and the National Audit Office.All together, the Swedish financial policy framework gives stability tofinancial policy. The central government budget process is characterised bya clear medium-term, top-down perspective. The framework thereforecovers a number of years at a time. Important purposes are weighed upagainst each other in a transparent way.The Committee wishes to recall that however well a framework is designed,the framework in itself is not sufficient. Those that are to apply theframework must be prepared to follow it and to take the consequences whendecisions are to be made.ConclusionThe Commission deals with important issues in its communication. Asdescribed, the Committee wishes to stress the importance of well-orderedpublic finances, combined with the value of stable financial policyframeworks both at the EU level and at the national level. The Swedishfinancial policy framework works well and could serve as a source ofinspiration for other countries.5

PositionThe Commission refers to weak public finances in the monetary union’smember states as one of the main reasons for the recent economicturbulence in some member states. On the basis of this analysis, theCommission presents a proposal designed to strengthen the budgetrestrictions stipulated in the Stability and Growth Pact and proposalsdesigned to strengthen coordination of economic policy in the EU in generaland among the monetary union’s member states in particular. The Left Partydoes not agree with the Commission’s analysis of the reasons for the recenteconomic turbulence. In our opinion, the large deficits in some memberstates is sooner a result of weaknesses in the construction of the monetaryunion, than the reason for the current economic problems. Without thepossibility to pursue independent monetary policies, several countries insouthern Europe have seen their competitiveness undermined as a result ofdifferences in productivity growth among the countries of the monetaryunion. This has led to large deficits in balances on current accounts and inpublic finances. Greater budget restrictions will not strengthen thecompetitiveness of countries in southern Europe. On the contrary; therestrictions imposed by a more stringent framework pose a threat toeconomic recovery and risk leading to permanent, higher, levels ofunemployment.The statement from the majority of members of the Committee highlightsthe Swedish budget policy framework that emerged after the crisis of the1990s as a successful example as regards achieving financial stability andstrong public finances. However, this historical analysis is misleading as, inprinciple, the entire budget consolidation following the crisis of the 1990swas decided prior to the introduction of the current budget policyframework. The Committee majority have also forgotten to point out thatboth the economic recovery and the budgetary consolidation in the 1990swould have taken considerably longer and involved significantly greatercosts had Sweden not been able to abandon its fixed exchange rate policyand allow the Swedish krona to depreciate, which is a tool that the memberstates of the monetary union lack. The Left Party further notes that thecurrent framework has not prevented unemployment in the wake of thefinancial crisis from increasing more in Sweden than in the EU as a whole.Even if the Commission seems to see the weak public finances as the mainreason for the recent financial turbulence, it is not entirely blind to theeconomic tensions that differences in competitiveness and balances oncurrent accounts create. In order to reduce these differences, the6

Commission is launching, in addition to proposals on improved applicationof the Stability and Growth Pact, a number of proposals designed tostrengthen coordination of finance policy, primarily among the countries ofthe monetary union, but also within the EU as a whole. The Commissionproposes that a "scoreboard” for the euro area member states be introduced.This would also include an account of a number of macroeconomicindicators such as unit labour costs, productivity growth, real effectiveexchange rates, foreign asset positions etc. the development of thesemacroeconomic indicators will then be examined and serve as the basis forpolicy recommendations from the Commission, among others. As theCommission, strangely enough, only seems to regard deficits (and notsurpluses) in current accounts as a problem, one can only draw theconclusion that the Commission’s solution to the macroeconomic tensionswithin the monetary union is spelt wage reductions and deregulated labourmarkets in the deficit countries. The Left Party does not agree with thisanalysis, but considers that increased domestic demand in the surpluscountries should be a central element of a policy for increased economicstability in the EU.The Commission also proposes that the national budgets in the EU memberstates should be the subject of assessment and examination before theirconsideration by the national parliaments. This would be a deviation fromnational right to make decisions on finance policy and the Left Party isstrongly opposed to this. We note with satisfaction that the Committeemajority seems to share this opinion.

Statement by the Committee on Finance 2009/10:FiU41on the Green Paper on Corporate Governance inFinancial Institutions and Remuneration PoliciesThe statement was approved in the Committee on 17 June 2010.PositionInitially, the Committee on Finance wishes to note that the financial crisishas demonstrated the need for more effective supervision and regulation ofthe actors on the financial market. The Green Paper is one element of thework on this matter and it takes up many issues. It is clear that regulation isrequired, while at the same time the scope and level of detail remain open todiscussion. Since financial markets are a cross-border phenomenon there aregrounds for joint regulation in the EU while at the same time thesubsidiarity principle and the principle of proportionality have to be applied.In June 2009 the Committee considered (report 2008/09:FiU42) theCommission’s Communication on European Financial Supervision (COM(2009) 252 Final). As the Committee pointed out at the time, the course ofthe crisis has clearly shown how the increased integration of financialmarkets in the EU calls for rapid and coordinated measures to resolveproblems in financial companies with operations in a number of memberstates. The Committee does not wish to change the assessments it made inthis statement.The Committee has had cause to consider matters relating to remunerationschemes in the financial sector in relation to discussions on theCommission's Proposal for a Capital Requirements Directive (CRD III). TheCommittee has deliberated with the Government in this matter. In theCommittee's view, the financial crisis shows that inappropriately designedremuneration schemes in the financial sector can lead to exaggerated risk-taking with considerable macro-economic costs. It is therefore necessary tofind a solution that can lead to remuneration policies that are compatiblewith the requirements of sound and effective risk management and thatensure a long-term perspective in the activities of financial companies. TheCommittee notes that the consideration of the Commission's Proposal for aCapital Requirements Directive has continued. It is imperative that thisconsideration leads to solutions to the problems that have surfaced.The Committee has also deliberated with the Government on theCommission's Proposal for a Directive on Alternative Investment FundManagers (AIFM). The proposal constitutes an element of the work beingdone to reform the EU's financial architecture and achieve broader macrosupervision. The Committee reiterates its view that it is imperative to devisean appropriate and balanced set of regulations. It is therefore important thatit is made very clear which managers are covered. The rules should besufficiently differentiated to take account of differences in regard tosystemic risks, redemption of shares, business models and operative risks. Itis not appropriate to have identical rules for hedge fund managers and forventure capital fund managers.8

In conjunction with its autumn 2008 consideration of the Government Billon measures to strengthen the stability of the Swedish financial system, theCommittee considered demands which may be made on institutionsparticipating in support schemes or benefiting from support measures(Gvt.Bill 2008/09:61, report 2008/09:FiU16). The Committee stated that itis very important that an explicit link is made between on the one hand statesupport measures, which in the final instance may be borne by taxpayers,and on the other demands that the risk of loss must primarily be borne bythe recipient institutions and their owners. It is important that the centralgovernment's ability to make clear demands and conditions for its support istaken advantage of in each individual case. To safeguard taxpayers, theCommittee considers it a major principle that central government supportgiven in accordance with the legislation in force at the time must be linkedwith conditions intended to ensure that any losses that may arise are bornein the first instance by the institutions and their owners.The Committee further recalls that during its Presidency of the Council ofthe European Union in the second half of 2009, Sweden actively advancedthe work being done on financial supervision. At the national level, rules onremuneration policies in the financial sector, described above, have beenimplemented by means of decisions by the Financial Supervisory Authority.The Financial Supervisory Authority will be actively supervisingremuneration principles and carefully monitoring the measures actors takeas a result of the new regulations. A report on the Authority's observations isto be submitted to the Government not later than 1 October 2010.As regards regulation of corporate governance in financial institutions, theCommittee would like to stress that we should proceed carefully withchanges that affect the current division of roles between shareholders,boards and operative management in Swedish financial institutions. Acrucial issue requiring a careful weighing of alternatives is the role of theboard, particularly in relation to operative management. How this weighingof alternatives is to be done requires continued deliberation. It will also bevaluable to discuss the shareholders' role from a perspective of theprinciples involved.The Committee would also like to stress that a sound corporate culture isimportant. A smoothly working corporate culture can be achieved by way ofself-regulation, but there may also be grounds for legally binding regulatoryframeworks. There are different traditions of corporate governance, and theissue of the type of regulation needed at national level and at EU levelrespectively should continue to be discussed.The Committee further notes that a number of the proposals presented bythe Commission apply in relatively detailed circumstances. In Sweden theregulation of conditions at that level is normally done not by parliamentarylegislation but by means of regulation at agency level. The Committee doesnot intend to preempt the ongoing national consideration of the GreenPaper, in which both concerned government agencies and private interestshave reason to study the proposals more closely.9

The Committee on Finance statement 2009/10:FiU29Statement on EU future strategy 2020This statement was confirmed at the Committee meeting on 18 March 2010.The Committee on Industry and Trade, the Committee on the LabourMarket, the Committee on Transport and Communications, the Committeeon Social Insurance and the Committee on Civil Affairs have submittedstatements to the Committee on Finance concerning this matter.IntroductionThe Committee on Finance is able to observe that the EU and its memberstates are currently facing several major challenges. In the short-termperspective the aim is to manage the economic and financial crisis, and toidentify solutions that will help us to emerge from it stronger and healthier.However the EU also has to meet economic, social and environmentalchallenges of a more structural type. European economies are becomingincreasingly interdependent, both within the EU and in relationship to therest of the world. The new EU 2020 strategy must be a central element inEU policies in order for the Union to move itself out of the crisis and movetowards long-term, sustainable development in a world of new markets andnew competitors.The EU 2020 strategy may form a vital contribution to the work ofincreasing the Union's growth potential and employment opportunities. It isalso essential to safeguard what has already been achieved through theinternal market as well as working to achieve external openness.The Committee on Finance wishes, as does the Committee on Trade andIndustry, to assert that a future strategy should possess a more general focusand be aimed at long-term structural growth. This strategy should be aimedat increasing the competitive edge of the European economies andconsequently also Europe's long-term employment situation.In addition, the Committee would like to emphasise that one, absolutelydecisive, issue affecting the maintenance of welfare in the EU countries ishow well enterprise develops. Conditions for starting up companies must beas simple as possible. In this context the Committee would like to issue areminder that in the EU 2020 strategy, discussion on employment goalsshould not only include employment as an employee. Increased employmentopportunities may also be achieved by encouraging individuals to start uptheir own businesses and become independent business operators.The strategy is to contribute to sustainable public finances and promote acompetitive, green and resource-efficient economy. The Committee is inagreement with the Government concerning the following urgent priorities:¶. strengthen the internal market and utilise the advantages brought byforeign trade and transparency;11

The Committee on Finance wishes to state that the Committee shares theopinions stated in the other committees’ reports. These reports show thebreadth of the issues brought to the fore by this matter. For more detailedviews on the different elements, the Committee on Finance refers to thevarious reports in question.As concerns the goals stated by the Commission, the Committee observesthat Sweden occupies a good position. If Sweden is to continue to showsuch good results then policies are necessary that aim at, to use theCommission's own words, smart and sustainable growth for all. The EU andits member states must implement policies that are able to respond tostructural challenges.Below, the Committee on Finance deals with the three special areas that theCommission makes special mention of in its document. Then the Committeedeals with certain issues that lie within the Committee's own are ofresponsibilities.Smart growthThe Committee on Finance wishes to underline the importance of researchfor long-term economic development. Successful research policies generatepositive ripple effects a long way away from the narrow research sphere.Successful research can contribute to the management of the challenges nowfacing the economy and society.The Commission also, more specifically, takes up the issue of innovation. Inline with the views of the Committee on Trade and Industry, the Committeeon Finance wishes to emphasise that measures to facilitate thecommercialisation of innovations are vital.Sustainable growthThe Committee on Finance would like to issue a reminder of the importanceof financial control instruments in environmental policies. Energy andenvironmental taxes have been used successfully in Sweden for many yearsin order to contribute to the fulfilment of various goals in the energy andclimate fields. The Carbon Dioxide Tax and the Energy Tax are powerful,economically-efficient control instruments which should continue to occupya central position in future Swedish climate and energy policies.12

Environmental taxes and other economic control instruments are of centralimportance if future goals within the climate and energy fields are to beachieved. These instruments are to be designed in a socioeconomicallyefficient manner, taking into consideration the conditions experienced by thecountry's citizens. The different economic instruments provide differentincentives and, if efficiency and maximum effect is to be achieved, theymust be coordinated.EU member states need to reduce their CO2 emissions at the same time asthey must improve their tax revenues. Consequently it is logical tosuccessively increase carbon dioxide tax levels as these are the primary,most efficient instruments of control. They are aimed directly at emissions.They provide tax revenue and mean that the entity that is actually doing thepolluting also pays for it. It is more efficient and accurate to tax undesirablebehaviour than to subsidise good behaviour.The Committee would also like to assert that environmentally-adaptedpublic procurement is a market-based, powerful control instrument in thework of guiding society towards long-term sustainable consumption, andconsequently production. Environmental requirements during publicprocurement can contribute to a strong competitive edge on future marketsfor Swedish companies who adapt their production to high-levelenvironmental requirements. In addition this can provide the driving forcefor the early development of environmental technology which is a strongfuture market. The Committee, however, would like to underline theimportance of the fact that EU regulations concerning free and opencompetition and equal treatment during public procurement may not beinfringed upon or evaded, and that the environmental argument duringpublic procurements may not be used for what are basically protectionistaims.Inclusive growthThe Committee on Finance wishes to, in this report, especially emphasisethat Sweden is working very actively with the issue of the participation ofwomen on the labour market. The strategy must encompass a clearly-defined gender equality perspective that provides the same financialincentives, conditions and opportunities for both women and men toincrease their participation in the labour market. A gender equalityperspective is required in EU 2020 in order to guarantee a long-termcompetitive edge and growth in Europe, to restore sustainable publicfinances and to deal with the consequences of an aging population.Even if Sweden has received a response in that gender equality issues aretouched upon in the Commission's paper, the fact that increasedemployment opportunities must apply to both women and men is notexpressly stated in the concrete goal formulations. The Committee onFinance wishes to, in line with the report from the Committee on the LabourMarket, indicate that if the issue of women's increased entry into the labourmarket is to move centre stage in continued measures in this field, anexpressly stated goal concerning the level of employment opportunities13

for women is highly desirable. In order to successfully fulfil theemployment goal it is necessary that women, and other groups who arecurrently positioned far too far outside the labour market, can be providedwith the necessary incentives and tools to enter. In the opinion of theCommittee on Finance, this situation should also be reflected in the overallgoals of the EU 2020 strategy, as well as in future integrated guidelines andemployment guidelines.Other matters: EU budget, public finances – exit strategies, forms ofgovernanceThe Committee on Finance is now moving to the consideration of someissues which are more specific to the Committee's area of responsibilities.The EU budgetThe Committee has, on several occasions, maintained that EU budget policyshould be characterised by restrictiveness (cf. Committee Report2009/10:FiU5). One of the goals of the Swedish budget policy in the EU isthat Sweden is to work to achieve an efficient, restrained budget policywithin the EU. Consequently this goal also means that Sweden must work toachieve cost-efficient utilisation of EU funds. This approach is also relevantto the work with EU 2020.The Committee on Finance considered the issue of a review of the EUbudget in its report 2007/08:FiU14. The Committee wishes to emphasisethat this position concerning the review still applies. The Committeeconsequently considers that a thorough review of priorities of all areas ofEU budget expenditure is necessary, and that changes are to be madewithout any increase in total budget expenditure. The following principlesand points of departure are to govern this budget review: subsidiarity,European added value, proportionality, sound economic management andrestraint.EU budget expenditure for agricultural policies should be reduced and thespecial review of the Common Agricultural Policy, known as the HealthCheck, may not cause the reduction of opportunities to reform agriculturalpolicy and reduce its scope.Regional policies are also in need of reform as concerns both design andscope. The Union's regional activities should be concentrated to thecountries in the EU with a clearly lower-than- average level of welfare. Thebenefit of regional support to richer countries in the EU can be seriouslyquestioned.It is necessary to award higher priority to several areas in order to meetcurrent and future political and economic challenges. Increased efforts mustbe made concerning competitiveness, research and development, strategicinvestments in infrastructure projects and exchange programmes within theeducational field. Legal challenges such as serious, cross-border criminal14

activities, human trafficking, drug smuggling and terrorism also need moreresources. If the EU wishes to play a leading role on the global stage thenthe Union must also be prepared to act in order to contribute to democracyand human rights. This area also requires increased input. Environmentaland climate issues and research and development activities must also beawarded high priority. There are clearly-observable reasons for EU-levelinput in both these areas.Public finances – exit strategiesAs the Commission asserts in its paper, high levels of public debt cannotcontinue forever. Activities aimed at achieving the EU 2020 goals must bebased on a credible exit strategy from the emergency measures that havebeen taken due to the economic crisis.The Committee wishes to assert the importance of maintaining respect forthe Stability and Growth Pact. Long-term responsibility is of centralimportance, both to preserve credibility and to prevent major, drasticcutbacks in welfare systems.At the same time as the acute economic crisis must be managed, it is ofgreat importance that public finances are sustainable in the long term. EUmember states must take relevant action to ensure that they, as soon as ispossible, return to a situation in which they remain within the limits thatwere jointly established in the Stability and Growth Pact.As concerns exit strategies linked to measures on the finance markets, theCommittee wishes to refer to the Council Conclusions adopted by Ecofin inDecember 2009 during the period of the Swedish Presidency. The Councilagreed on a number of principles for the withdrawal of support measures forthe finance markets. This procedure should be well-coordinated between themember states in order to avoid negative ripple effects. The actual points intime for this withdrawal may differ between member states depending ontheir situations, given that the primary aim of these measures is to maintainfinancial stability. Withdrawal strategies should provide sound banks withthe correct incentives for a return to a competitive market situation and theother banks with incentives to deal with their shortcomings. One method ofcreating such incentives is to start up the withdrawal process by phasing outstate guarantees. The Council also emphasises the importance of publicsupport and that bank profits are used to build up buffers of capital, not toincrease bank shareholder dividends or employee bonuses. The financialsector should immediately introduce sound employee remuneration systems.Forms of governanceThe Committee notes that the Commission states that the strategy is to beimplemented with the assistance of partnership and be aimed at a limitednumber of central goals. The specific measures and goals for the strategycan, in the opinion of the Commission, only be achieved through partnershipas it is necessary to take measures at EU level, national level and regionallevel and as the interplay between these levels is essential if the strategy isto achieve its full potential. According to the Commission all national,15

regional and local authorities should implement their partnership in closecooperation with their national parliaments, among others. The EuropeanParliament should, according to the Commission, play an important role inthis strategy, not merely in its role as co-legislator but also as a driving forceaimed at mobilising the general public and the national parliaments. In thiscontext the Committee wishes to issue a reminder that two members of theCommittee participated in the European Parliament Conference on Europe2020 (and other matters) on 16–17 March 2010.The Committee intends to continue to monitor the EU 2020 strategy and isable to observe that there is broad interest in this issue in the Riksdag, aswitnessed by the various committee reports. In addition it can be noted thatEU 2020 has also been considered in the Riksdag Committee on EU Affairswhich the Government consults prior to EU Council of Minister meetings.The Committee on EU Affairs has considered the EU 2020 strategy prior tomeetings in several different Council instances. In addition the PrimeMinister consults the Committee on EU Affairs prior to meetings of theEuropean Council where the strategy will also be considered.The Committee wishes to emphasise that it is important to continue an opendebate on the EU 2020 strategy and its implementation. It is vital to learnlessons form the work carried out on the Lisbon Strategy. The Committeeon Finance notes the observations made by the Committee on Trade andIndustry, which bore primary responsibility for the Lisbon Strategy in theRiksdag. The Committee on Trade and Industry states that successfullytransforming this type of overall strategy, such as EU 2020, into practicalmeasures leading to established goals is a fairly general problem. A greatdeal of effort should, accordingly, be put into formulating and makingconcrete what is required so that the EU 2020 strategy achieves a greaterlevel of success than the Lisbon Strategy has.Consequently there is good reason to carefully follow the continuingprocess. It is important to state clearly what can be achieved by theEuropean Union acting as an entity, and what can be achieved through theactions of the individual member states. It is necessary that the greatestamount of work aimed at the achievement of smart, sustainable andinclusive growth be carried out at national level, however cooperation at EUlevel is of great importance.ReservationsThe Committee's proposal for a decision by the Riksdag and positionsresulted in the following reservations. The heading indicates which item inthe Committee's proposal for a decision by the Riksdag that is referred to inthat particular section.1. EU 2020, overall guidelines, item 1 – explanatory statement(SocDem, Lft, Grn)by Thomas Östros (SocDem), Sonia Karlsson (SocDem), Monica Green(SocDem), Hans Hoff (SocDem), Ulla Andersson (Lft), Tommy Ternemar(SocDem), Christina Zedell (SocDem) and Mats Pertoft (Grn).16

PositionWe consider that considerable transparency is required in the procedureregarding the EU 2020 strategy. In order to achieve greater public support,time is needed for discussions and debate. In this reservation we present ourposition on a number of areas.IntroductionIt is time for a citizens' Europe that puts people first, instead of the market.We are currently experiencing a global crisis with enormous politicalchallenges. This gives us a unique opportunity to launch a more effectivestrategy for a Europe with more jobs, greater justice, greatercompetitiveness and greener development.Unfortunately the European Commission’s proposal resembles a crisisstrategy rather than a strategy for the future, which we find regrettable. Ifthe strategy is to hold for another ten years, we need policies that can dealwith the challenges and at the same time show the direction for EU policy.High levels of employment help to maintain high levels of demand and arethe basis for sustainable economic growth at a high and stable level.Environmentally sound and productive jobs are the basis for continuedgrowth.In our opinion, the EU faces a number of major, long-term challenges. Therapid globalisation of the economy, the threat to the climate, wideningincome gaps and an increasingly skewed demography will all dominate theEU's political agenda for a long time to come. In our opinion, it is in thesechallenges that the successor to the Lisbon Strategy – EU 2020 – must haveits point of departure. In the light of this, the EU 2020 strategy must beenseen as a threefold strategy, encompassing social policy, economic policyand environmental policy which should mutually reinforce each other.There is clear evidence that enhanced social and environmental conditionsare strong driving forces for social development. The Nordic model inparticular shows that it is fully possible to create societies that are botheconomically and socially successful at the same time as imposingconsiderable environmental requirements.Strong public finances are the basis for political manoeuvringGender equality, high employment levels and low unemployment are thebasis for strong, sustainable public finances. Without a stable economywhich is sustainable in the long term, democracy and the realisation ofdemocratic decisions are obstructed - regardless of whether you are dealingwith employment policy, welfare development, environmental and climatepolicies or global competitiveness.Long-term responsibility for public finances is of central importance, bothin order to maintain credibility and to prevent large and drastic cuts in ourwelfare systems. In parallel with dealing with the acute economic crisis17

it is also crucial to ensure that public finances are sustainable in the longterm too.Regarding the EU’s own budget policy, we consider that it should berestrictive and cost efficient. The same applies to work with the EU 2020strategy. In addition, a comprehensive revision of priorities as regardsexpenditure in the EU budget is required, and should be implementedwithout increasing the budget’s overall expenditure. The followingprinciples and points of departure should guide the budget: subsidiarity,European added value, proportionality, sound financial administration andrestrictiveness. EU budget expenditure for agricultural policy should bereduced and its organisation revised. Regional policy also needs to berevised as regards both organisation and scope.A more stable economic development is possibleLong-term economic policy is crucial for a secure welfare system and for afair distribution of resources. By actively counteracting major fluctuationsin demand by means of sound financial and monetary policies, economicstability will be enhanced. By having high levels of employment,counteracting unemployment and creating job opportunities, it will bepossible to avoid the waste of human capital that comes when individualsare permanently eliminated from the labour market. The economic crisisdemonstrates that this is a genuine risk.The competitiveness of the EU area needs to be strengthened, especiallywith a view to growing global competition. Economic transparency, highemployment levels and sustainable development must be key words inefforts to improve competitiveness.We need a better overview, not only of the long-term impact of economicpolicy on the development of the EU, but also on the potential of thefinancial market to affect the economies of entire countries, people's lives,and fluctuations in production and employment. The financial sector needsthorough regulation and supervision. The newly-established supervisoryauthority in the EU is a step in the right direction, but practice, transparencyand more detailed regulation still need to be developed.A new policy for the changing global structureIt is positive that China, India and other countries are rapidly becoming partof the global economy. This development brings both opportunities andchallenges for the EU member states. The question is how well the EUsucceeds in adapting to the considerable shift that is expected to take place.The EU’s future does not lie in competing with low wages, but withknowledge. This demands an active policy with public investments ineducation, security systems and research as well as measures to encouragenew innovations.The growing role of small and medium-sized companies needs to betaken into account18

Small and medium-sized companies provide for two-thirds of allemployment in the EU and an even greater share of new jobs. The EU 2020strategy must therefore have these companies' development conditions as aclear point of departure. Both obstacles and opportunities for growth need tobe identified and linked to concrete measures.Getting onto the international market is often a precondition for growth anddevelopment in a small company. This applies in particular to companiesactive in small, knowledge-intensive sectors. A lack of knowledge aboutconditions on the international market is often perceived as the greatestobstacle to starting export operations. More public measures for exportadvice are therefore of great importance. For small companies with limitedeconomic and administrative resources, trade barriers of various kinds aresignificantly more difficult to overcome than for larger companies. Inaddition to measures to promote export operations, we would also like tohighlight the need for further measures to reduce the regulatory burden onsmall and medium-sized companies, as well as measures to improve theprovision of qualified labour. The latter is of central importance. For smalland medium-sized companies active in advanced technological andknowledege-based sectors, the lack of qualified labour is perhaps thegreatest obstacle. Increased public investments in higher education andimproved opportunities for lifelong learning are important aspects of astrategy to address these problems.Further, the difficulties for small and medium-sized companies to recruitqualified labour show that greater cooperation between the business andpublic sectors is needed into order to improve the match between supply ofeducation programmes and demand for skills.A clear public role in the innovation processIn a globalised economy, it will be increasingly difficult for Europe to retainproduction within less complex, wage-competitive sectors. The EU’scomparative advantage lies in knowledge and innovation-baseddevelopment. The importance of investments in equality, education andresearch will continue to grow. In order to strengthen the EU's competitivepower, the public sector also needs to be involved in the later stage of theinnovation process. A critical factor for the ability to commercialise newideas, in particular for small and medium-sized companies, is access toventure capital. Venture capital supply must be improved.Opportunities for growth and new jobs in the transition to a greenerfuture must be made use ofThe transition to a green Europe that is independent of fossil fuels is bothnecessary and desirable. In our opinion the EU has excellent potential toacquire a role as leader in international climate efforts and has everything togain from this. If it is properly designed, the transition can contribute to newjobs and better development. The European companies that are first todevelop fossil-free technology will have good potential to strengthen theirinternational competitiveness. The companies that invest in energyefficiency enhancement will win cost benefits over their competitors. In19

view of this we consider that the potential for a transition to a green Europeto promote economic development and new jobs should be given aprominent role in the EU 2020 strategy.We note in the Commission’s communication that the fulfilment of theclimate and environmental goals 20/20/20 is listed as one of the fiveproposed headline targets. In our opinion, the level of ambition should besignificantly higher. We also have considerable doubts about theCommission’s focus on “CCS technology” and new nuclear technology.Labour market policyThe choice of direction is clear. The future of Europe is not about competingwith low wages but about good and secure working conditions, highemployment levels and knowledge. This requires public investments ineducation, research and measures to promote innovation, as well as goodlegislation for employees. In order to address the risk of increasingstructural unemployment among people with low education levels or thewrong education, a good system of security and a forceful labour marketpolicy is required that can serve as a bridge between the new and old jobs.The EU needs to be encouraged to pursue an active employment policy, andin our opinion, the individual EU member states need to ensure that theircitizens have reasonable levels of compensation in the security systems.This makes it possible to match supply and demand for labour with high-quality job opportunities and to increase employment levels. Benefits duringunemployment should provide a good standard of living, they should besustainable and should be linked to mobilisation strategies and high-qualityemployment. People who feel secure also have the courage to change jobs.Without financial security on a changing labour market, we create peoplewho are afraid.What should the EU do to adapt to the comprehensive restructuring ahead ofus? An important answer, as we have pointed out above, is to increaseemission targets for carbon dioxide in the EU 2020 strategy to at least 30per cent and to press forward with the transition to a green Europe. Atransition to a green Europe is clearly linked to the creation of new jobs forthe future in the EU areas. A Green New Deal at EU level is needed. Newjobs can, for example, be created in the environmental technology sectorthrough investments in energy efficiency measures, in renewable energysources and in the further development of low-emissions modes of transportand infrastructures. If companies in the EU area invest in more energyefficient technology now, they will win cost benefits over their competitors.If we design EU support to the transition of industry in the right way thetransition to a green Europe will provide job opportunities in the future andgains both for companies and as regards climate policy. In our opinion,climate and labour market policies go hand-in-hand.Politics should be about empowering people to shape their own lives. Thisnaturally includes a strong desire to give people the opportunity to movefreely on the European labour market. However, the goal of an20

integrated labour market in the EU must not be used as an excuse to worsenconditions for employees. The need for constant development must beweighed against fundamental principles of equity. We can never accept thatemployees are discriminated against and receive pay on the basis of wherethey come from. Equal pay for equal work according to existing legislationand agreements is a principle that must apply throughout the EU.In our opinion, the judgment of the Court of Justice in the Laval caseundermined the Swedish system of collective agreements and employeerights. The Swedish Government’s position of “guaranteeing employabilityfor individuals […] on the basis of the principle of flexicurity” involves afurther risk of weakening employee rights in Sweden and other EUcountries. Cases such as Laval and Rüffert demonstrate that the freedom ofmarket forces has once again been given priority over the possibility fortrade unions to demand reasonable working conditions for their members. Inreality this development also entails a risk to competitive neutrality betweencompanies on the same market. Respect for trade union rights, where theILO’s central conventions set out minimum requirements, must characteriseEU 2020. With a binding Charter of Fundamental Rights concerning boththe right to exert an influence and working conditions, trade union rights aregiven greater legal weight in the EU. The social dialogue must, both at theEU level and at the national and local levels, be given the opportunity todevelop.With more force than the Commission’s proposal, the EU 2020 strategyneeds to be characterised by a desire for full equality on the labour market.We continue to be struck by now little EU 2020 deals with the issue ofequality. According to Article 2 of the Treaty, the European Union is to bebased on the principle of equality between women and men. A moreinclusive working life will enable us to counteract discrimination and reduceinequality, but also to increase growth. In many EU countries the proportionof women in paid employment is still low. A natural way for these countriesto deal with the demographic challenge is to increase women’s participationon the labour market. That is why the further development of high-qualitychild and elderly care services in several countries in the EU is a conditionfor dealing with demographic developments and at the same time, helping toget more people to participate in the labour market. Pay differentials existand need to be combated. Gender equality must be a clearer goal and theremust be political ambition in this area. It should therefore also be includedin the headline targets.Labour market policy also needs to play a key role in measures to deal withan aging population. When the burden of supporting an increasing numberof aging people increases for the part of the population of working age, theEU cannot afford to have people outside the labour market. All efforts andevery working hour will be needed. That is why it is so important that thereare job opportunities that enable people to contribute to the extent that theycan. Making use of everyone’s ability does not only involve economic gain,but also social gain, as a job, for most people, involves added social valuetoo. The EU’s future is not about competing with low wages, but with21

knowledge. This demands an active policy with public investments ineducation, research and measures to create new innovations. In order toaddress the risk of increasing structural unemployment among people withlow education levels or the wrong education, a good system of security anda strong labour market policy is required that can serve as a bridge betweenthe new and old jobs.Widespread unemployment among young people is one of the most seriousthreats to growth and employment - and to the dreams of entire generations.Unemployment must never be allowed to gain a foothold. Vigorousmeasures are needed to give young unemployed people a foot into thelabour market, through education and work placements that lead to jobs.This is of course especially relevant in the countries – unfortunatelyincluding Sweden – with the highest youth unemployment in the EU.In the EU strategy, and also in the Swedish position, there are noformulations or opinions on the importance of the public sector foremployment, welfare, sustainable economic development and environmentaland climate measures. The EU needs to contribute to stimulating an activeemployment policy, and not create obstacles. There is a clear negative trend,with an increase in what are referred to as atypical jobs with poor conditionsand weak social rights as a consequence. The worst hit here are women. Weconsider that the EU needs to draw up a more long-term policy forqualitative improvements in working life. Measures and reforms must notlead to poorer income protection and weaker security for individuals.Measures for a good working environment at workplaces throughout the EUmust continue to be developed. Working life needs to be organised so thatpeople have the ability to work for a full working-life, but also combine thiswith family life and leisure time. The demands of working life must matchthe ability and potential of the individual. Both the individual and theemployer stand to gain from this. People who are contented and well alsoachieve more. The EU of the future needs to be a social EU, where people'swelfare takes priority over market forces.At the same time it is important to specify that the member states are toretain responsibility for most employment policy and welfare policy. Theopen method of coordination in the field of labour market policy must notbe developed in such a way that greater power is given to the EUinstitutions. On the contrary. It should also continue to serve as a forum forthe exchange of good practices, bearing in mind the fact that labour marketpolicies are so different in the 27 countries. These differences are somethingwe must respect and draw advantage from, rather than regarding them as aproblem.Certain aspects of the social dimensionIt is important that people’s security and opportunities, through educationand support, form the nucleus of a document on the EU’s future. In ouropinion, the social dimension in the EU needs to be strengthened. Withoutfinancial security on a changing labour market, we create people who areafraid.22

Regarding the target to reduce poverty, we want to highlight that an equalsociety develops more positively – people feel happier and receive betterconditions.As regards the target to increase employment levels to 75 per cent of thepopulation between the ages of 20 and 64, we would like to highlight thatthe target is full employment. In its working paper, the Commissionmentions measures to bring young people onto the labour market at anearlier stage and to increase financial incentives for older people to worklonger. Unfortunately both the Commission’s document and the SwedishGovernment’s position lack any reasoning on improved workingenvironments that could contribute to encouraging more people to workuntil full retirement age.Among the five headline targets raised in the EU 2020 strategy, several aredirectly linked to the resolution adopted by the WHO in May 2009, on thebasis of the report “Closing the gap in a generation” (WHA62.14). Thereport contains a detailed analysis of childhood conditions, environment,working conditions and working environment, the importance of socialwelfare and health and medical care that are available to all. It also coversclimate change and the need to link public health and environmental efforts,that is, the social and ecological dimensions of sustainable development. Inthe report on which the WHO resolution is based, three overallrecommendations are set out:- improve daily living conditions;- tackle the inequitable distribution of power, money and resources -globally, nationally and locally;- measure the problem, evaluate action, expand the knowledge base, developa workforce that is trained in the social determinants of health, and raisepublic awareness about the social determinants of health.We consider that these recommendations should be taken into account inwork with the EU 2020 strategy.Develop lifelong learningEducation is a crucial precondition for consolidating democracy andlevelling out inequalities in the distribution of welfare, exercise of influenceand the chance to actively participate in society. Education, green researchand development and lifelong learning must be included in the EU 2020strategy. A society with many, well-educated people has better potential ofbeing a good society with good development. Just two countries - Finlandand Sweden - have reached the previous target of investing 3 per cent ofGDP in research and development.We recognise the need to continue to increase the internationalisation andattractiveness of education, of creating clarity and comparability23

internationally and nationally and contributing to higher levels of quality.It is important that investments in education benefit all parties. All too manypeople are unemployed today and are without opportunities for furthereducation or a work placement. This is a waste of resources. We would liketo see the EU highlighting the importance of investments in human capital.Lifelong learning needs to be developed in cooperation with the businesssector and to serve as an engine for a greatly increased innovative force. Weneed to make better use of employees' skills and commitment by means ofemployee-driven innovation. In addition, the EU needs to get better atrecognising the value of informal learning, which is an important aspect oflifelong learning.In our opinion individual EU countries need to give more people theopportunity to continue to higher education. Providing knowledgecorresponding to eligibility to higher education to more Europeans willbenefit social mobility, transition and productivity. Research, education andvocational training must be the most important means of dealing withunemployment and shortages of qualified labour.Knowledge is the basis of a favourable social development. Investments inresearch give something in return in the form of knowledge and socialdevelopment. It is important that the EU invests in quality and advancedresearch environments, regardless of where these are. Both breadth andspecialisation are needed.Consumers and 2020Today services encompass a range of areas from SMS loans (loans by textmessage), online purchase of white goods and increased trade in second-hand goods. Regulations are needed to make consumers feel secure withthese purchase methods. It may not, for example, be made possible todistribute alcohol and tobacco to people in Sweden under the ages of 20 and18 respectively, or to sell products that are classed as narcotic drugs incertain countries.As regards food, it is important to improve information about contents,storage and sometimes also preparation. Cases of cheating the consumer, ashave been highlighted by the media from time to time, must be prevented,and there should be clear repercussions for those that claim something thatis not true in declarations of ingredients etc. Measurements and weightsshould also be standardised to facilitate price comparisons.2. Certain questions about economic policy and forms of guidance, item2 - explanatory statement (Lft)by Ulla Andersson (Left Party).

of money. Today there is talk of creating a common fund as an alternative tothe International Monetary Fund (IMF) to provide countries that areencountering difficulties with support from tax payers in other countries.This, however, would require a treaty amendment, and there is considerabledisagreement in the member states about giving up large parts of theirfinancial power to save the precarious EMU project.Within the EU, major issues relating to the future such as a review of thelong-term budget are being considered, and closely linked to this is thereview of the common agricultural policy. The Commission has presentedideas on a radical reform of the EU budget, especially as regards agriculturalsupport and structural funds. But even at the hearing with the candidates forthe new Commission, the candidates discarded the reform proposal.This has presumably undermined the Commission's credibility. It is nottenable to show how member states are to review their budgets in the waythe Commission desires, when the Commission itself has not succeededwith the same thing.The Commission’s communication on the EU 2020 strategy will bediscussed at the forthcoming meeting of the European Council at the end ofMarch, and the intention is that a decision on the strategy will be adopted atthe European Council meeting in June.Criticism that the Commission’s ten-year strategy is unrealistic has beenvoiced from many parts of Europe. One aspect is that Europe can expect atleast five years of recovery from the economic crisis, and that severalforecasts indicate that a majority of EU member states will be forced to payoff their excessive central government debts over the next ten years.Therefore, the Left Party considers that it is not justified, during the shortperiod since the Commission presented its proposal and the summit in June,for the member states to have time to take into account the opinions fromthe member states and various stakeholders. We therefore consider thatSweden should primarily try to ensure that a decision on the strategy is nottaken during these six months. The discussions will show whether there isany need such a strategy at all, whose target seems to be up in the blue,when Europe's citizens have needs that need to be met here and now.3. Certain consumer issues relating to the internal market, item 3 –explanatory statement (Lft)by Ulla Andersson (Left Party).

an active consumer policy that will increase consumer confidence as regardscross-border purchases. In my opinion, however, consumer protection is notcovered sufficiently in the Commission’s proposal for measures tostrengthen the internal market. In accordance with what the Left Party haspreviously stated during the Committee on Civil Affairs’ deliberations withthe Government on the proposals in the directive on consumer rights, Iconsider that the desire for harmonised rules in the EU must not be allowedto obstruct each country’s opportunities for providing more stringentconsumer protection laws in favour of consumer protection and interests.Likewise, the need for a simplification of the rules and the principle onbalance between parties in a contract situation may not be allowed toencroach on consumer protection. Otherwise there is a risk that the internalmarket will be strengthened at the expense of consumers, quality andsustainable development.I further consider that the expansion of the area of recognition andenforcement of judgments from other countries should not apply withoutdue consideration being given to the maintenance of existing guarantees tosafeguard legal rights and the satisfaction of the interests of protection.Judgments pronounced in certain countries cannot automatically be enforcedin without a Swedish court examining whether these judgments arecompatible with Swedish law and Swedish legal tradition (see the LeftParty’s dissenting opinion in 2008/09:CU3y).4. Certain consumer issues relating to the internal market, item 3 –explanatory statement (Lft)by Mats Pertoft (Green Party).

PositionUnlike the majority of members of the Committee on Finance, I cannot fullysupport the arguments put forward by the Committee on Civil Affairs in itsstatement.In its statement, the Committee on Civil Affairs refers to national measuresto provide more efficient energy in buildings and to the goal for energyconsumption in residential and commercial buildings established by theRiksdag in the spring of 2006. I would like to call to mind the fact that theGreen Party, in that context, presented proposals for a more ambitious andfar-reaching target for measures to provide more efficient energy. Thedevelopments in the last four years and a generally greater awareness aboutclimate issues show that these energy goals must be made more stringent assoon as possible, both nationally and in the EU. I therefore consider that theEurope 2020 strategy must have this point of departure too.It is positive that consumer protection is being further developed at EUlevel, but I consider that the regulatory framework at EU level should, forthe time being, serve as a regulatory framework with minimum levels. Eachindividual country should then be able to set more stringent levels ofconsumer protection.26

Significant changes have taken place, both in the EU and elsewhere. As aresult, new problems have emerged, but also new opportunities. Greaterinternational competition, the growth of cross-border crime, growingmigration flows, climate, environmental and energy issues, and the need forinternational initiatives for peace, democracy and combating poverty are allareas in which the EU needs to play a prominent role. Meeting thesechallenges makes considerable demands on EU cooperation. The commonresources of the EU must be used effectively and appropriately.It is important to bear in mind that the budget is just one of several toolswhich the EU has at its disposal to implement its policies. Many futurechallenges are of a kind that cannot be tackled by budgetary measures.Instead, other forms of cooperation must be applied. These may involvepolitical cooperation and a common regulatory framework. The mostappropriate measures vary, and must be assessed in each individual case.There are thus many urgent matters which are not necessarily best resolvedby means of the budget.Like the Government and other committees, the Committee on Financeconsiders it imperative to make good use of this opportunity to carry out abudget review, and that this review is thorough-going. Priorities in thebudget need to be adjusted in accordance with current demands, the budgetstructure needs to be simplified and modernised, implementation needs to bemore stringent, and budget control and follow-up need to be toughened up.It is therefore very gratifying that the Commission is initiating anunconditional discussion in which all aspects of the EU budget can beraised.The Committee also supports the principles and points of departure whichthe Government considers should guide work on the budget: subsidiarity,European added value, proportionality, sound financial management andrestrictiveness. In the Committee's view, changes in expenditure should bemade without any increase in aggregate spending. The subsidiarity principlemeans that the Union should only implement a measure if the targets cannotbe achieved adequately by means of initiatives at a lower level, or to put itanother way, when a measure at EU level adds something which themember states cannot accomplish on their own. In the Committee's view,

the terms subsidiarity and European added value are different ways ofexpressing the same thing. Before a measure is considered for the EUbudget at all, it must be carefully considered whether an intervention at EUlevel is the most appropriate way of resolving the issue in question.Currently a special review of of EU agricultural policy - the "health check" -is under way, and special reviews are also being carried out of otherimportant parts of the budget. It is absolutely crucial that these specialreviews do not lock down certain matters or entail restrictions in thechanges which may be prompted in the course of this general budget review.A free and open debate on the budget which is permitted to explore everyaspect of the question will be of little use if agricultural policy or other partsof expenditure are regarded as out of bounds as a result of recentlyconducted special reviews.The ability of the EU budget to deal with changing prioritiesIn its consultation document, the Commission gives a retrospectiveoverview of how the composition of EU budget expenditure has changedover time. In 1988, agricultural policy absorbed 61 per cent of spending, andin 2013 it is estimated that this proportion (excluding rural development)will have decreased to 32 per cent. In 1988, the proportion of the budgetused for cohesion policies, i.e. various forms of regional support, constitutedjust over 17 per cent of spending, while it is estimated that it will haveincreased to 36 per cent in 2013. Funding for other policy areas is estimatedto show an increase from 7 per cent to 26 per cent of budget expenditurebetween 1988 and 2013.

The EU budget has shown a certain degree of flexibility and its compositionhas changed over time. However, the Committee on Finance considers, asdo the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on EuropeanUnion Affairs in their statements, that insufficient flexibility has been inevidence. The part of budget expenditure used for "traditional" spendingsuch as agricultural policy and various forms of regional support, hashitherto predominated and is expected to remain predominant in 2013. TheCommon Agricultural Policy and EU Cohesion Policy together accountedfor 78 per cent of spending in 1988 and it is estimated that they will accountfor 68 per cent in 2013. In addition funding for rural development estimatedto amount to 7 per cent of budgetary expenditure in 2013 is reported in theCommission Communication under Other Policy Areas. These funds alsohave the character of traditional expenditure and are intended to help meetthe objectives of the Common Agricultural Policy. The EU budget has beenand still is completely dominated by traditional spending on agriculturalpolicy and regional support. There has been increased spending in certainnew areas, but these increases have been from very low levels and inabsolute numbers they are minimal.In the opinion of the Committee on Finance, it is evident that thecomposition of expenditure reflects past concerns rather than those of thefuture. As a result, the ability of the budget to meet new challenges cannot29

be considered satisfactory. It is therefore necessary to comprehensivelyreadjust priorities in budgetary spending.The design of the future EU budget

Expenditure priorities

In the Committee's view, the challenges for the future noted by theCommission in its Communication give a good description of the futureconcerns facing the EU. They also show with admirable clarity that thepresent-day budget is not designed to meet them and that a thorough-goingreform and readjustment of priorities is absolutely necessary if the resourcesmobilised by the budget are to correspond to these future challenges. TheCommittee shares the view of the Committee on EU Affairs that it isimportant that policy areas which are given high priority also get theresources they require – even if they are new – and that expenditure is keptwithin budget limits. The ability of the EU budget to adapt to newconditions and political challenges must therefore be improved, as theCommittee has previously noted.

The Committee notes that despite the shifts in expenditure which have takenplace in the EU budget, it is still dominated by traditional spending, i.e. theCommon Agricultural Policy and regional policy. It is estimated that thesetwo areas together will represent more than three quarters of budgetexpenditure in 2013. In the Committee's view, a distribution of expenditureof this kind corresponds very poorly to the problems facing the Union nowand in the future.There is also good reason to query many of these costs on the basis of thefundamental principles which should underlie the EU budget. Direct supportto agriculture has taken on the form of general income support exclusivelyaddressing the agricultural sector where those who produced most accordingto earlier support schemes continue to receive the greatest support. There isreason to ask whether this support generates any European added value atall. The Committee on Finance agrees with other committees and thinks thatreforms in agricultural policy should be guided by deregulation and market-orientation, attention to consumer and environmental protection, the phasingout of direct support and the abolition of export subsidies. Currentagricultural policy contributes to maintaining high prices and lockingresources into sectors with low productivity, in some cases it has negativeeffects on the environment and it is very expensive. In the opinion of theCommittee on Finance, spending on the Common Agricultural Policyshould be drastically reduced, both in absolute terms and as a proportion ofEU expenditure.The other element of traditional EU expenditure – regional policy - mustalso be reformed in terms of both scope and content. The gradualenlargement of the EU, both in 2004 and 2007, has given rise to increaseddifferences in prosperity between the Union's member states and this is adevelopment which may be expected to continue as future enlargementstake place.30

There are good reasons for the EU to fund measures whose purpose is toimprove economic developments in parts of the EU with relatively lowlevels of prosperity, and such support is also imperative on grounds ofsolidarity. It is, however, difficult to argue that the parts of EU cohesionpolicy targeting member states with relatively high levels of prosperitygenerate enough European added value to justify action at EU level. To theextent that prosperous European countries consider it justified to supportweak regions in their own country, this should be a national matter. The factthat relatively prosperous member states spend large sums on redistributingresources among each other via the EU is not an expression of solidaritywithin the Union but rather the result of an endeavour to maximise theirown revenues from the Union budget. The EU's common resources shouldbe concentrated to areas where they are most useful, and regional policymeasures in prosperous countries can hardly be considered to belong in thiscategory.It would be advantageous to orient the implementation of EU cohesionpolicy in relatively prosperous countries towards the political and strategiccoordination of different regional development initiatives. For this reasonEU cohesion policy in relatively prosperous member states should beconducted by other means than jointly-funded support. This kind of supportshould instead go to countries with the lowest economic standard andtherefore the greatest need. In the view of the Committee, there is both agreat need and great potential for reducing EU budget expenditure forvarious kinds of regional policy measures.With regard to areas which should be given priority and allocated increasedresources in the future, the Committee supports the assessment made bygovernment minister Malmström at the hearing of 6 December. In the firstplace, greater efforts are needed in relation to competitiveness, R&D,strategic investments in infrastructural projects, and exchange programmesin education. In the second place, greater efforts are needed in regard tolegal issues relating to serious cross-border crimes such as trafficking inhuman beings, trafficking in drugs and terrorism. In the third place, EUrelations to other countries should be given priority. If the EU is to play aleading role globally it must also to be prepared to act to contribute todemocracy and human rights.Besides the above-mentioned points, the Committee particularly wishes tonote certain areas which should be given greater priority. In common withthe Committee on European Union Affairs and the Committee on Industryand Trade, the Committee wishes to emphasise environmental and climateissues, and R&D initiatives. In both these areas there is clear justificationfor initiatives at EU level.Environmental policy is typically cross-border in character and there is agreat need for action at EU level. It is, however, not self-evident thatbudgetary measures are the most efficient way to conduct environmentalpolicy. Common rules and common legislation with national responsibilityfor implementation may provide a first-hand alternative.31

Environmental and climate issues are, however, very broad in character andcannot well be dealt with using only measures exclusive to environmentalpolicy. Environmental awareness must instead permeate the whole of thebudget. This can apply to such things as infrastructural planning, the use ofinformation technology or research, and the development of efficient energytechnology. The Committee on Industry and Trade writes in its statement ofopinion that the EU should take increased responsibility for general criticalissues which cannot be resolved by individual countries. Energy, the climateand the environment constitute a set of problems of this type. Theenvironment has not previously attracted attention in budget planning withthe same clarity as growth, and constitutes a very modest proportion of thecurrent budget. In the view of the Committee on Industry and Trade theinterconnected issues of energy, the climate and the environment should begiven greater priority in future budgets. The Committee on Finance sharesthis view.In the area of R&D, the Committee on Finance also thinks that there arecompelling reasons to increase joint efforts in the EU. Such measures can beexpected to give positive cross-border knock-on effects with respect to bothresearch findings and researchers. Initiatives focusing on research arenecessary if companies in Europe are to make their mark in the globaleconomy. At the same time work on ecologically, socially and financiallysustainable development demands new knowledge and technology.Individual European countries, however, cannot single-handedly fund all theresearch which the development of society requires. For this reason there aregreat opportunities for the EU to use strategic research initiatives to generateEuropean added value which member states are unable to create themselves.To a greater and greater extent, research of the highest scientific calibrerequires investments in research infrastructure. These investments, however,are frequently of such dimensions that individual countries alone are unableto finance them. Cooperation at EU level is for this reason an appropriateway to create a research infrastructure which will generate European addedvalue further down the line. Infrastructure initiatives furthermore have thepositive effect that they tend to attract the most eminent researchers, whichmeans that researchers from both Europe and the rest of the world will be atthese European research facilities. The 2007–2013 Seventh FrameworkProgramme's budget for research infrastructure corresponds neither to theneeds of European research nor to its potential. A suitable starting point forfuture European efforts regarding research infrastructure is the work beingdone in the European Strategic Forum for Research Infrastructure (ESFRI).The Committee also thinks that the European Research Council will have avery beneficial influence on European research. Competition for researchfunding at a European level makes visible the European frontline of researchwithin various areas, while at the same time helping to promote a high levelof quality in the research being done. The research funded by the Councilthus provides a benchmark for all European research. To make full use ofthe potential positive effects of the European Research Council on32

European research, the Committee considers that efforts in this area shouldbe increased.Beside these high-priority areas there are other areas that require urgentattention.In its statement of opinion, the Committee on Transport andCommunications notes that a reorientation of the transport system towardsmore environmentally friendly, energy-saving and efficient means oftransport is needed to achieve present climate targets, and that this must beclearly highlighted among the important challenges facing the EU in comingdecades. Issues in the transport, postal services, telecommunications and ITareas are crucial to the development of a sustainable society and toachieving the objectives set out in the updated Lisbon Strategy for growthand employment. The Committee on Transport and Communications notesthat there are good reasons to continue having special programmes in theCommunity budget for these areas in the future. At the same time theCommittee wishes to draw attention to the fact that initiatives relating toinfrastructural projects are primarily a national concern and in certain casesa regional or local responsibility, although in certain circumstances,particularly in relation to cross-border projects and adaptation to climatechange, it is justifiable to fund them at EU level.

The Committee on Finance shares the view of the Committee on Transportand Communications that in some cases there may be grounds for EU levelinitiatives in order to finance a more sustainable and effective transportsystem. The Committee would like to emphasise, however, that Europeanadded value must be in focus for measures at EU level. For this reason it isof crucial importance that the selection of measures is not determined byregional policy aspects or by a desire to distribute funds among the memberstates. Infrastructural initiatives are primarily a national undertaking and it isimportant that clear European added value can be demonstrated to justifyfunding from the EU budget.In the area of European defence and security policy there are clearadvantages to common initiatives at EU level. Acting jointly, the EU has fargreater potential for making an impact in the international arena than if eachcountry acts on its own. It is, however, important to ensure that internationaloperations during crises do not overlap UN or NATO operations. Needs inthis area are greater than currently available resources and they can beexpected to increase in the future.The need for humanitarian assistance is considerable and can furthermore beexpected to become even greater in the future as a consequence of climatechange, for instance. The Committee on Finance considers that EUinitiatives for humanitarian assistance and combating poverty in the thirdworld should be increased, and that in particular initiatives to combat childpoverty should be given high priority. Poverty reduction, however, is notjust about support in emergency situations but also about creating good33

conditions for growth and development in poor countries. Measures via thebudget only form part of policies for combating poverty. Besides budgetmeasures the EU also needs to use its trade policies to make things easierfor countries in the third world so that protectionist currents do not putobstacles in the way of economic development.

Implementation of the EU budget

Sound economic management is one of the fundamental principles on whichfuture reforms of the EU budget should be based. The Committee considersthat economic management should ensure that funds are used correctly,effectively and appropriately, and that the budget should be characterised bya restrictive attitude with regard to expenditure. This is an area where muchcan and should be done.

In recent years the EU has made a comprehensive effort to improvemanagement and control of common Union funds. Despite this, for the pastthirteen years the Court of Auditors has been in a position to present anaudit report without objections. For this reason there are compelling groundsto continue working for improved internal governance and control of EUfinances.The Committee on European Union Affairs emphasises that responsibility inrelation to the implementation of the budget is of crucial significance. Bettergovernance with clearer objectives, a clearer division of responsibilities(including increased delegation), and better possibilities for imposingsanctions are three areas of improvement, all of which would give the Courtof Auditors better conditions for scrutinising the budget and in extensionconsiderably increase the proportion of correctly administered funds. TheCommittee on Finance shares this view.Of course improved control is necessary to ensure that EU funds are usedcorrectly and legally, but in the Committee's view, stronger control is notenough. To promote financial effectiveness and ensure good results frominitiatives funded by the Union budget, more is required than merelyobserving rules, however conscientiously this is done. Measures in thebudget must also be designed to actually produce the desired results.The Committee on Finance advocates planning and administering the EUbudget in a result-oriented manner to a higher degree than is currently thecase, so that focus is on the effects of budgetary measures for Unionmember states and citizens. For this reason the Court of Auditors should begiven greater scope for carrying out performance audits and thereby notonly controlling that funds are used correctly in a legal sense, but also thatthe expenditure systems are appropriately designed.Changing the role of the Court of Auditors in this direction, however, isassociated with a number of difficulties. It is only possible to decide if aspending programme has the intended effect if the objectives are expressedwith clarity and precision. A programme should not have too manyobjectives, and the various objectives must not be contradictory,34

although this is often the case today. It must be clear who is responsible forwhat in the implementation of the budget, not only in a strictly officialsense, but also in practical terms. The Committee does not consider it astraightforward matter to improve control of the use of common EU funds.However, it is imperative that an effort is made to improve openness andtransparency, responsibility and accountability, and control in theimplementation of the budget.The Committee on Transport and Communications writes that both the EUbudget and the structure of individual EU programmes can be ratherimpenetrable, and that it is therefore imperative to have clear andtransparent delimitation and a simple programme structure. The Committeeon Finance shares this view. Transparency, simplicity and an explicitdivision of responsibilities should be guiding principles in formulating boththe budget in itself and individual expenditure programmes. Simplicity,clarity and a clear chain of responsibility in turn entail improvedpreconditions for the implementation of follow-ups and evaluations ofvarious kinds, as well as for demanding accountability.The Committee would like to see a rapid implementation of changes in thebudget, if possible before the completion of the current programme period,i.e. before the end of 2013. Rapid implementation must not, however, be atthe expense of the content of the reforms. It is far more important that thereforms are of the thorough-going and far-reaching kind advocated by theCommittee, even if this means that no changes can be implemented before2014.The Committee also wishes to take the opportunity of raising the issue ofthe location of the European Parliament. The Committee is well aware thatthis matter is regulated by treaty and that for this reason the budget reviewwill probably not affect it. Even though the Parliament's location will not bereconsidered in conjunction with the budget review for formal reasons, theCommittee nevertheless considers that the issue is relevant in this context.The budget review creates opportunities for a discussion of every aspect ofEU expenditure and is therefore not restricted by whether or not a matter isregulated in the treaty. In the view of the Committee the current order ofthings, in which Parliament shifts its activities from Brussels to Strasbourgeleven times a year, is not fit for purpose. The system entails an ineffectiveuse of both financial resources and time, and leads to unnecessary travelwith associated environmental stress. Perhaps the most serious consequenceof the current setup with a commuter parliament, however, is that itundermines the confidence of citizens in Parliament and by extension in theEU as a whole when it comes to responsible management of Union fundsand sound economic management. The Committee considers that theEuropean Parliament should only be located in Brussels.EU budget revenuesIn the view of the Committee, the revenue and expenditure aspects of theEU budget must be seen in a single context. Various corrections haveemerged because the overall budget burden for different member states35

has become unreasonably skewed, as budgetary expenditure is veryunevenly distributed. Combining the current expenditure structure with arevenue system designed using criteria of efficiency and simplicity, e.g.some kind of GNI-based system, would in the Committee's view lead to acompletely unacceptable distribution of burdens between member states. Anecessary precondition for changes in the revenue side of the budget musttherefore be drastic changes in the expenditure side.In the Committee's view, the argument that expenditure and revenue aredetermined separately and that the net position is thus a residual that lacksimportance, or that at least ought to lack importance, is unrealistic. Inpractice, net positions are very important to member states.It is the firm opinion of the Committee on Finance that a reform of theexpenditure side of the EU budget is a matter of urgency, and that such areform must precede any changes in the revenue side.The Committee also opposes the introduction of any form of EU tax. In theopinion of the Committee, there is broad political and popular resistance toany transfer of the right to levy taxes to the EU. The right to levy taxes isand should continue to be a national concern.Reservations

1. Review of the EU budget – Explanatory statement (Lft)

by Ulla Andersson (Left Party).PositionThe Left Party wishes to strengthen freedom for national self-determinationboth within and outside the EU. For this reason we wish to reduce EUrevenues and expenses in general. Activities which are currentlyadministered by the EU could be managed both more democratically andwith greater financial efficiency if they were the responsibility of themember states instead.

The Left Party is profoundly critical of the EU’s agricultural policy – notonly because it is extraordinarily expensive but also because it is inefficient,bureaucratic, encourages cheating and is profoundly unjust towards the thirdworld. In addition, it favours the development of large-scale industrialagriculture with long-distance animal transports, which are not wanted byeither farmers or consumers. By far the greatest part of agricultural policyshould be returned to the member states.Structural funding and regional policy are also ineffective and bureaucratic.They are surrounded by large-scale cheating and financial irregularities,lock regions into dependence on grants, and make it more difficult to createreal jobs in the public sector since many of the temporary projects requirepublic cofunding. As in the case of agricultural policy, structural fundingand regional policy should be returned to the member states in all essentials.The EU budget has not responded sufficiently to the need for moreenvironment and climate friendly policies. Climate change, biodiversity36

and healthy ecosystems are the most important challenges facingagricultural policy. The impact of agriculture on the marine environmentand the problems connected with eutrophication have not been raised clearlyin either the Commission consultation document or in the deliberations ofthe Committee majority. Another important challenge, which is not clearlypresented in the Commission's description, is how the EU can supportsustainable agriculture in developing countries. EU fisheries policy musttake into account the needs of developing countries in a completely differentway.The Committee considers that there are clear advantages to joint initiativesat EU level in defence and security policy. The Left Party endeavours on thecontrary to foster more robust national self-determination both within andoutside the EU and for this reason wishes to reduce appropriations formilitary purposes. Our policies entail a foreign and security policy based onSweden once more having a strong voice in the world. Foreign and securitypolicy must for this reason be returned to member states.The Left Party is also strongly opposed to the development of a commonEuropean foreign affairs administration, as we have considers it to diminishnational self-determination. We consider that Sweden as a rich country thatdoes not participate in military alliances can also play a decisive role in theworld in the future by means of an independent foreign and security policy.The world is in great need of individual states that stand up for democracy,human rights and international law, regardless of where, by whom and withwhat motives they are violated or limited. By participating in the EU jointforeign and security policy Sweden is renouncing its ability to to be such acountry.The Left Party is further profoundly critical to the construction of "FortressEurope". The militarisation of the external borders of the EU, carrierresponsibility, visa compulsion, and the Dublin system all hinder peopleneeding protection from war and persecution from seeking asylum in the EUand force people into the hands of refugee smugglers instead. We opposegreater supranational action in the asylum and immigration policy areas andthink that this will lead to even more restrictive policies and to increasedmilitarisation of the external borders of the EU and that it will underminethe right of asylum.We want to see a Europe based on intergovernmental cooperation andsolidarity between people and states within and outside Europe. EU foreignpolicy must be returned to the member states, and the military alliancesmust be phased out and replaced by a common security system based onOSCE and in collaboration with the UN.With regard to EU budget revenues the Left Party advocates charges relatedto the financial strength of the member states. Rebates, particularly that ofthe UK, should be phased out.

To a great extent, the majority in the Committee on Finance, that is to saythe four centre-right parties and the Social Democratic Party, have writtenan opinion on the Commission Communication on a budget reform which iscomprehensive and takes up "general Swedish" views and deliberationsconcerning the EU budget which the Green Party also supports. There are,however, several important issues we would have liked to have consideredwhere we have a different view from the majority.The Green Party considers that climate policy has not been given sufficientresources within current budget limits. The proportion of the budget dealingwith new challenges is small and started at a very low level. It should beadded here, however, that significant parts of climate and environmentalpolicy should of course be implemented nationally on the basis of thedifferent conditions in different countries, and that parts are moreappropriately dealt with by legislation than as budget items. At the sametime it is important that the EU budget does not contain elements whichcounteract an active climate policy, which both the structural funds andagricultural policy do.With regard to areas which are to be prioritised in the future, the GreenParty considers that it is not enough to enumerate in very broad terms suchareas as competitiveness, the fight against crime and relations to othercountries. Prioritisation and ranking should be both clearer and morerestrictive. The Green Party considers that the budget must be adapted toprioritise future concerns such as climate and environmental policy and givethem a larger proportion of the EU budget, and that the EU budget should beclimate-proofed, i.e. that the budget should not fund activities whichdamage the climate. This means, for instance, fewer financial resources formotorways and airports and more money for railways. In railway policyspecifically there is clear added value for the EU: if people are to be able toreplace air travel (which destroys the climate,) with rail travel (which isbetter for the environment) it is also necessary for rail networks to beimproved across borders improved and that a drastic extension of high speedtrains within and over national borders is undertaken. We also considered itto be a important priority to highlight the social dimension and that thesetwo fundamental factors permeate all policy areas in the EU, in order foroptimal coordination to take place. There must not continue to be watertightbarriers between the various policy areas. The Green Party considers that itis possible to further restrict the EU budget, which we also considered to bepossible when the current five-year budget was approved by all the otherRiksdag parties in December 2005. A reformed and more future-orientedbudget should be able to improve the Swedish net position considerably.The Green Party considers that a special working group should be appointedat EU level to review the EU budget from the perspective of the climatequestion, as part of the review now under way, and to study the steps38

necessary to make the EU budget climate-proof. It should be in the interestof both Sweden and the EU to attempt to reorient the budget to promotedevelopments which will not hasten climate change. Unfortunately largeparts of the EU budget today are directly destructive for the climate, despitethe grandiose objectives set at the EU summit of March 2007 such asreducing emissions by 20% by 2020.The Green Party considers that trade in agricultural products cannot beviewed in the same way as trade in other goods, since agriculture has manymore functions just food production. These broader functions are of greatimportance to society, and for this reason it must not just be market forceswhich govern how agricultural production is located and developed. Weconsider that there are compelling reasons to maintain and developagriculture even in countries which lack the conditions to be competitive inthe world market. For reasons of food security, the environment andregional policy there is frequently great value to be gained by having a highlevel of self-sufficiency where basic foods are concerned. In addition, exportsupport, which has proved to have a negative effect on agriculture in poorercountries, should be removed. The problems which have attracted attentionin relation to the climate impact of animal production should also be notedand the remaining export grants for animals in the EU should be stopped.The EU fisheries budget should be reviewed. Many of the countries the EUhas negotiated with over fishing agreements are developing countries. Theybelong to the group of countries with the greatest needs and frequently haveproblems when it comes managing fishing in a responsible manner. As longas it is only a question of coastal fishing the problems are not great, but assoon as large industrial fishing vessels arrive there is a great need forresearch, control and implementation programmes, data collection,consultation, training, etc. The EU's agreements must contain provisions forhelping to develop competence lacked by the country in question. ReducingEU access to stocks, however, must not lead to reducing payments to thecountry in question. Currently payment is calculated in relation to theamount of access to fish stocks, and the agreements contain a clause whichentails that if access to fish stocks diminishes then payment will also bereduced. This creates a situation with no incentives at all to reduce fishing inorder to preserve fish stocks, which is crucial for continued sustainablefishing.The Green Party rejects the transfer in any form of the right to levy taxes atEU level, as does the Committee majority. The need to improve Sweden'snet position is important, primarily by a reduction in charges. We alsoconsider it important to review the budget process. In the European debateproposals have been presented that it should first should be decided howmuch each country is to pay net and only then go into detail about how themoney should be distributed. The current procedure is first to decide howmuch each country is to pay, and then argue about where spending is to beallocated, which means that national ministers are tempted to push for badexpenditure just to get political credit for reducing the net charge. It wouldbe desirable if the EU or Sweden looked more closely at this part of the39

ContentsStatement by the Committee on Finance 2009/10:FiU40 on ReinforcedEconomic Policy CoordinationFinansutskottets utlåtande 2009/10:FiU41 Utlåtande om grönbok omföretagsstyrning i finansiella institut och om ersättningspolicy ..............Fejl!Bogmærke er ikke defineret.Finansutskottets utlåtande 2009/10:FiU29 Utlåtande över EU:sframtidsstrategi 2020 ................................................................................... 11Reservationer ..........................................Fejl!Bogmærke er ikke defineret.1. EU 2020, övergripande riktlinjer, punkt 1 – motiveringen (s, v, mp) .Fejl!Bogmærke er ikke defineret.2. Vissa frågor om ekonomisk politik och styrformer, punkt 2 –motiveringen (v) .....................................Fejl!Bogmærke er ikke defineret.3. Vissa konsumentfrågor som rör den inre marknaden, punkt 3 –motiveringen (v) .....................................Fejl!Bogmærke er ikke defineret.4. Vissa konsumentfrågor som rör den inre marknaden, punkt 3 –motiveringen (mp) ..................................Fejl!Bogmærke er ikke defineret.Finansutskottets utlåtande 2007/08:FiU14 Översyn av EU:s budget ......Fejl!Bogmærke er ikke defineret.Övergripande synpunkter........................Fejl!Bogmærke er ikke defineret.EU-budgetens förmåga att hantera skiftande prioriteringar .Fejl!Bogmærkeer ikke defineret.Utformningen av den framtida EU-budgeten ..........Fejl!Bogmærke er ikkedefineret.Utgiftsprioriteringar................................Fejl!Bogmærke er ikke defineret.EU-budgetens implementering ...............Fejl!Bogmærke er ikke defineret.EU-budgetens inkomster ........................Fejl!Bogmærke er ikke defineret.Reservationer ..........................................Fejl!Bogmærke er ikke defineret.1. Översyn av EU:s budget – motiveringen (v) .......Fejl!Bogmærke er ikkedefineret.2. Översyn av EU:s budget – motiveringen (mp) ....Fejl!Bogmærke er ikkedefineret.

Expenditure priorities

Implementation of the EU budget

1. Review of the EU budget – Explanatory statement (Lft)

2. Review of the EU budget – Explanatory statement (Grn)