H.E. Mr. Vidmantas Purlys:

I will deal with the Eastern Partnership and Ukraine in my concluding remarks.

First, let me respond to questions on the level of public support for the euro. The Lithuanian Government has started an extensive, targeted information campaign. I am aware that the experience of other countries that recently made the transition to the euro has been similar. The support for the currency stands at just over 40% and those who have doubts are close to 50% of the population. We have some way to go to convince some of our people. The Government and the Prime Minister are very committed to explaining the process in detail. He is doing a very important job in that regard. This is a popular Government, which has prioritised the introduction of the euro in its legislative programme. The euro is viewed positively by business circles and they have joined the campaign on the "Yes" side and I think the outlook will change quite rapidly.

I know from the experience of our neighbouring country, Latvia, that its people also expressed doubts in advance of the currency transition, especially in respect of price increases and speculation on consumer goods, but their experience of the euro has been very positive from the beginning. Members have pointed out that the introduction of the euro in Latvia has been very successful. We are in close contact, not only with Latvia but also with our colleagues in Estonia and have the privilege of learning from their experience on how to make the transition to the euro in the most efficient and effective way. I am confident that the support for the euro will increase and will substantially exceed the 50% threshold.

The financial sector in Lithuania is sound and is dominated by conservative retail banking, which has limited international exposure. Lending conditions have normalised after pronounced leveraging and the banks in Lithuania are predominantly from Scandinavia and the Nordic region. They are subject to international scrutiny mechanisms and are solid and stable institutions. There are no issues in that regard.

Lithuania had its significant crisis in 2009, at the time I came to Ireland. The then Government took serious measures across the board to effect savings. When I appeared before the committee on a previous occasion, I explained that the capital programme was downsized and salaries and wages across the public sector were cut significantly. This had an effect on our competitiveness and in 2010, we were back to growth.

Although the shock to individual citizens was quite significant, the process itself was orderly and manageable. Since we returned to growth in recent years it has been continuous and steady. The general public can feel the effect of the increase in exports as the economy is driven by export and trade. We have won a number of important investment projects and have had a range of success stories in recent years. All in all, the economy is back on track and on a much more sustainable footing since the crisis. The reasons for the 2009 crisis were largely the same as they were in Ireland, including an over-reliance on real estate development as the major contributory factor.

With regard to the national currency, the feeling is to keep it for a while. The Lithuanian currency is pegged to the euro at a fixed rate, so de factoit is the same currency, but we are not yet part of the eurozone. Given our connection with the EU, and the fact that the euro is used in Latvia and Estonia, the Lithuanian people are exposed to the euro. Therefore, our introduction of the euro should be a positive experience.

We do not believe the Eastern Partnership project failed at the Vilnius Summit in November, as important steps were taken on Georgia and Moldova. While Ukraine did not sign the association agreement, it was an important juncture in the events that unfolded there. Ukrainians stood up for their European choice and we saw Russia was not at all happy. This has been followed by cynical aggression in Crimea. Discussions took place on this in the EU and in the international arena on how to respond to the violation by Russia of all possible international agreements and norms which civilised nations built up after the Second World War to prevent open aggression against other countries. The EU leaders' summit that took place last week reached conclusions, and the process continues. Ukraine will be able to sign the political part of the association agreement. We must be very careful and monitor the situation closely as far as Moldova and Georgia are concerned. We need to increase our efforts to sign the relevant agreements with them. We must also examine how to make the Eastern Partnership policy more effective. We may need to go back to the drawing board to redesign European Russian policy, learn lessons from recent experiences and see what we can do to preserve international stability in the region and beyond.