EUU, Alm.del - 2010-11 (1. samling) - Bilag 242: Udtalelse fra Litauens parlament til Europa-Parlamentets CRIS-udvalg (det særlige udvalg om den finansielle, økonomiske og sociale krise)

1.What specific EU projects, actions and legislative proposals would you favour inorder to improve the potential of the EU economy in terms of sustainability,competitiveness and employment in a ten-year perspective, taking into account theEU 2020 strategy and the functioning of the Internal Market? How would you like topromote innovation, competitiveness and long term investments particularly forSmall and Medium Enterprises (SMEs)?We support the call for the EU 2020 strategy to pursue a broad political concept of the future ofthe EU as a competitive, social, sustainable Union that places people and the protection of theenvironment at the centre of policy making. We agree with the statement that if the Europe 2020strategy is to be credible, greater compatibility and complementarity are needed between thenational budgets of the 27 EU Member States and the EU budget and that the EU budget shouldplay a greater role in terms of pooling resources. We support the proposal to establish a strongerlink between the Stability and Growth Pact, macroeconomic instruments and the Europe 2020National Reform Programmes. We share the view that the long-term sustainability of publicfinances is essential to ensure stability and growth. We also welcome the Commission proposalsto strengthen the management of the euro zone in the medium and long term. We support and tryto implement the provision according to which the Member States should hold debates in theirrespective national parliaments prior to adoption of their stability and growth programmes.Small and medium-seized enterprises (SMEs) play a significant role in boosting competitivenessand job creation; therefore we consider that it is important to support SMEs by facilitating theiraccess to credit, through support for guarantee schemes and creation of a guarantee fund.Furthermore, we support the initiative to reduce the number of administrative procedures relatedto public procurement and to cut red tape, the move that is essential to the wellbeing of SMEs. Inaddition to funding for SMEs, the EU has to take a coordinated approach to funding research andinnovation and be at the forefront of establishing new employment sectors and attracting privateinvestment. We also agree with the development of mechanisms whereby SMEs and otherinnovators would be offered risk-softening funding through stimulation of public-privatepartnership and the use of private equity funds to attract private investment.2.What financial resources do you favour at EU level in order to re-launch theeconomic recovery of the EU, taking into account the principles of sustainability,subsidiarity and solidarity? Are you in favour of introducing own financingmechanisms at EU level, such as so-called 'Euro-bonds' as a tool to finance specificEU projects?The EU budget is limited while the number of tasks undertaken by the EU is increasing. Therefore,innovative financing could supplement the presently dominating grants (unrequited direct paymentsfrom the EU budget) approach. The use of such instruments, however, should not serve as a basisfor the reduction of the EU budget expenditure for direct funding.It should be noted that during further development of the initiative whereby Eurobonds would beissued to finance specific EU projects, it is essential that the following conditions are met: bondissue should be promoted to implement those projects which will generate income in the future and

3. Are you in favour of the introduction of a financial transaction tax?Additional taxation on the financial sector as a mechanism to generate extra budget revenue couldbe considered only after assessing the possible effect of other post-crisis measures (strengthening ofbanking regulation (Basel III Agreement) and levies on banks if they are imposed) on the financialsector. This tax could only be imposed in a coordinated way and at a global level. If no consensuson this issue is achieved, it will be useless to introduce this tax in the EU alone, since it could giverise to an active relocation of financial centres outside the EU and result in a fall in employment.The alternative to the financial transactions tax can be a financial activities tax which is imposed onthe total profit of financial institutions and wages, but it does not discriminate between differentfinancial products nor does it depend on the level of turnover. This tax on the financial sector ismore reasonable since it would be more effective and its administration would be easier. It is moredifficult to shift the tax directly on to the users of specific financial services and the tax is likely tohave less adverse and unpredictable effects on the markets.When the possibility of imposing new taxes on financial markets is assessed, it is important to takeaccount of the future budget revenue generated by new taxes as well as the impact such taxationcould have on the stability of financial markets and risk management.

4.What further actions can be undertaken at EU and national levels in order to increaseterritorial and regional and social cohesion and stimulate an inclusive and mobilelabour market and the sustainability of our social patterns?In this respect it is essential to increase energy independence of the Member States with a view toestablishing a fully functioning internal energy market, solving the issue of missing links andencouraging the integration of renewable energy resources. Aiming at a sustainable, competitiveand inclusive EU economy, we approve of the proposals to ensure energy supply to all the memberstates by negotiating supply contracts, organising storage capacities and funding research. Webelieve that it is important to invest in the development of renewable energy sources and theincreasing of energy efficiency; we also welcome the determination to develop an integratedrailway infrastructure in the EU. We agree to the prioritisation of investment in the renewal ofhousing stock and public transport in order to reduce energy costs.With a view to improving the territorial, economic, regional and social cohesion, the consistentprocess of policy planning and implementation is needed on the EU and national levels. This maybe achieved by:- Identifying major long-term territorial specificities reflecting economic, social and territorialdevelopment objectives in the territory;- Reciprocity in adjusting territorial development objectives horizontally (between differentpolicies and development dimensions (social, economic, territorial and other development)) andvertically (on the EU, national, regional and local levels), so that social development objectives arein line with territorial objectives, local objectives are in line with regional objectives, etc.;- Providing for the most appropriate ways of achieving the development objectives;2

- Ensuring coordination of the implementation of EU and national policies contributing toachieving the objectives and, first and foremost, aiming at avoiding the overlapping of financedactivities;- Providing local and regional authorities and citizens with as many opportunities as possibleto participate in making the decisions directly affecting their life quality. The wider application ofthe multilevel governance including the involvement of administrative territorial units and, inparticular, civil society into the process of policy making, implementation and assessment, wouldmarkedly contribute to the promotion of the political process “from bottom to top” resulting inhigher compatibility between local, EU and national policy objectives. Please note that the EUcohesion policy presents a great example of practical implementation of multilevel governance, thegood practice that needs to be passed on to other policy areas. The use of EU structural supportalready contributes effectively to the promotion of strategic planning, strengthening of nationaladministrative capacities and capabilities and involvement of local and regional institutions as wellas social, economic and territorial partners into the process of policy making.We think that the economic, social and territorial cohesion of the EU regions, enshrined in theLisbon Treaty, must remain the principle objective of the EU cohesion policy after 2013 (EUcohesion policy should not be divided into sectors, i.e., investment should not be directed towardsachieving individual objectives of sectoral policies). In this respect, the European Social Fundshould remain a constituent part of the EU cohesion policy and, aiming at a greater effect ofinvestment, be designed together with other EU cohesion policy funds.In our opinion, it is possible to ensure social and territorial cohesion only by developing aninclusive and job-creating labour market so that all individuals wishing to work can make use of theadvantages offered by growth and new jobs while socially excluded individuals can activelyparticipate in educational programmes. Better education would improve opportunities to find a joband the growing employment would reduce poverty.Proper functioning of an inclusive labour market is limited by the following three major obstacles:scarce employment opportunities due to the lack of jobs; qualifications of the labour not fullymeeting the needs of the labour market; economic passivity of individuals outside the labour marketand their lack of motivation to integrate into the labour market; barriers to integration created inrespect of individual groups of people.When increasing employment and adjusting labour supply to the market needs, the key factors willbe the following changes in educational, professional training and qualification upgradingsystems: increased openness and flexibility of these systems, an opportunity to apply flexiblelearning methods, development of partnership between education and labour sectors, and responseto the needs of the labour market. Improved professional guidance and training as well asapplication of additional measures for developing professional skills would increase youthintegration into the labour market.Despite the pension reforms carried out, the crisis has exposed the need to take further measures formitigating aging effects on pension systems. Lithuania faces the major challenge of ensuring thelong-term sustainability of the pension system in view of aging.The Government of the Republic of Lithuania has approved the concept of the pension systemreform, which provides for establishing a stronger link between social insurance pensioncontributions and benefits. This would increase the attractiveness of the system and encouragepeople to take part in it as well as establish interdependence between the size of benefits, on the onehand, and economic and demographic indicators, on the other.

The issue of adequate, secure and financially stable pension systems will also arise whileimplementing the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy. During the following decade, Lithuaniawill aim at reducing the number of people exposed to poverty risk by 170 thousand, i.e. by one-fourth. The most important measures for the implementation of this strategy are related to thepolicy of increasing employment: it is these measures in particular that will be given specialattention.We are aware that there is a risk that the recovery of the European economy may not bring aboutgrowth in employment, so there is a need for decisive action in this area. Since inadequate youthemployment presents a burning problem, we believe that the EU has to undertake an important taskof making quality and accessibility improvements in the education system. Therefore, we agreewith the opinion that education should be placed at the very heart of the Union's economic strategyand that education should constitute a public good in the eyes of the Union, with investment in allaspects of the education system, in quality of education and in broadening access to highereducation. We support the proposal to introduce a permanent, inclusive European-level system oflifelong learning. Still, it is important to promote public-private partnerships in education and cross-border mobility for students and researchers.We support the European Parliament in highlighting the importance of qualitative employmentand development of effectively operating labour markets for employment growth. We agree on theneed to eliminate illegal labour and to remove the obstacles for entering the labour market for itsoutsiders. We are also in favour of incentives for employers, which encourage creation andmaintaining of jobs, support innovation, and make long-term investments. We appreciate thedevelopment of employers’ and employees’ initiatives in building a functioning labour market.We believe that it is reasonable to strive for 75% employment rate on the EU level by 2020 (butwe have certain reservations about the 50% EU target of poverty reduction having in mind that theEurope 2020 strategy provides for 25% reduction in view of the actual potential of the MemberStates and public finance sustainability1).

5. Which mechanisms should be established to create effective European economicgovernance in order to overcome macroeconomic imbalances, exit from the public debt crisisand prevent its recurrence in the Member States, while fostering growth, employment andsocial cohesion? Would you favour a permanent crisis resolution mechanism at EU level?We support the strengthening of the prevention and correction parts of the Stability and GrowthPact with more focus on limiting the growth of public sector expenditure in the Member States inrelation to the growth of potential GDP as the main tool to achieve a medium-term budget target ofa Member State, which would ensure a sustainable financial situation in the public sector and wouldharmonise budget policy with the economic cycle. In order to achieve this goal we also support theidea to enhance sanctions. As for the enhanced sanctions in the case of breach of budgetarydiscipline when making use of the EU budget, it is important that the sanctions imposed shouldensure the equality of Member States and are proportionate.National budget planning regulations are also important for ensuring budgetary discipline. Lithuaniais also currently working on the reform of the system of budgetary planning and implementationthat will facilitate fiscal policy planning with due consideration of an economic cycle andaccumulation of a reserve within the national treasury for the period of an economic downturn.

Concerning the establishment of a scoreboard of macroeconomic performance indicators, which canbe used to alert the Member States that exceed macroeconomic imbalances, it is essential to takeinto consideration the level of economic development of the Member States when defining thethresholds of performance indicators because it may determine a different dynamics of theprocesses.We believe that it is essential to implement further the reform of the cohesion policy framework andenhance its flexibility enabling a faster and more efficient allocation of resources for Member Statesand regions. We support the need to establish a link between long-term investment strategies basedon the cohesion policy and results in the areas of competitiveness, creation of jobs, etc. We believethat delegation of more powers to regions and communities will give a positive impetus in attainingterritorial and social cohesion on the national level. We recognise the need for promotingentrepreneurship, funding SMEs, and directing financial support offered to SMEs under thecohesion policy to provision of risk capital while encouraging wider involvement of the bankingsector and enhancing the efficient use of the structural funds.We support the establishment of a permanent crisis-resolution mechanism. At the European Councilin December 2010 we expressed a position that Lithuania is cautious about the revision of the EUTreaty. It is important for Lithuania that further consultations on the permanent crisis-resolutionmechanism are transparent and in cooperation with all EU Member States and National Parliaments.In this context, it is crucial for Lithuania to retain the current mechanism of financial support fornon-euro area states. We are of the opinion that while the permanent crisis-resolution mechanism isbeing established, the terms for euro area membership should not become stricter or more rigid. Inaddition, the amendment of the EU Treaty should not imply compulsory financial obligations ofnon-euro area states towards the EU budget.

6. Given the adoption of the legislative package on EU prudential supervision, the USfinancial market reform bill and the Basel committee proposals, which further action shouldbe taken at global and, in particular, at EU level in order to stabilize and reform the financialmarkets with a view to long term investment and sustainable development?As the global financial crisis emerged, the reform of the regulatory and supervisory framework forfinancial markets was undertaken both on the EU and global levels, with a view to preventingsimilar crises in the future, as well as restoring and ensuring reliability of financial markets andsustainable development. Therefore, a number of reforms were initiated, including thetransformation of the supervisory framework for financial markets, review of requirements for bankliquidity and capital, elaboration of crisis prevention and management systems, widening of therange of financial services and enterprises under supervision and regulation, searching foradditional measures to ensure reliability of financial institutions of systemic importance and reducethe burden of their potential operational failure on taxpayers, review of deposit and investmentguarantee systems, etc. It is worthwhile noting that the majority of the reforms are still to beimplemented in practice and some of them are under discussion. The new measures will increase aregulatory, and in some cases (e.g. the Basel Committee proposals), a financial burden on financialmarket participants; therefore it will take some time for the market to adjust to the newrequirements, including the abovementioned stricter requirements for monetary policy, as well asfor policies of borrowing and borrowing in foreign currencies.Considering the large number of initiatives, we believe that the major focus should be placed oneffective completion of initiatives undertaken and proper and timely fulfilment of internationalobligations undertaken on global, regional, and national levels.

7. Would you recommend a reform of the global financial and economic governancestructures, such as a reform of the G20, the IMF and the World Bank? If yes, what would bethe basis of a new institutional structure? What form of coordination should be achieved atglobal level?The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, which Lithuania is a member of, areinternational financial institutions uniting nearly all the countries of the world. These institutions arenot static as they are constantly engaged in negotiations on more effective representation of membercountry interests, internal institutional reforms, and adequate adjustment to the ongoing economicand political processes. Recently, intensive discussions have been held in these institutions onreform aiming at bringing the activities of international financial institutions closer to the present-day realities.In the Group of Twenty (G20), which encompasses only the major economies, Lithuania isrepresented through the European Union. Although G20 is not a formal organisation and itsdecisions are of recommendatory character only, its decisions are important and have an impact onthe global economy. However, considering the fact that G20 represents only a small part of worldcountries, we think that it is essential to strengthen the existing international financial organisationsthat have deeply rooted traditions and avoid establishing new ones that can result in an additionaladministrative burden. Lithuania is in favour of a transparent representation of interests of allcountries and a possibility to express their own opinions, especially when decisions taken have adirect impact on the countries or are obligatory to other institutions.