The Luxembourg chamber of commerce said the 2018-2023 government programme seemed to confrm the “new government’s willingness to work towards an enabling environment for new and existing businesses.”
Photo: Matic Zorman/archives
The Luxembourg Chamber of Commerce gave a semi-critical response to the new government’s programme, saying it includes “laudable announcements, positive accents, but also uncertain funding and many questions”.
Delivering its opinion at a press conference on Tuesday 11 December, the business body said the 2018-2023 government programme seemed to confrm the “new government’s willingness to work towards an enabling environment for new and existing businesses.” However, it pointed out that the programme “includes many very ambitious unbudgeted commitments, the achievement of which will depend on the sustainability of a very high growth rate.”
Among the questions the chamber raises is the matter of maintaining the Luxembourg economy in good health while making it more resilient to external shocks and able to cope with the dual ecological and digital transition. It welcomed the ambition to move towards qualitative growth, resource efficiency, productivity and increased digitalisation with administration and companies. It also expressed a hope for a quick implementation of real investment incentives, an efficient immigration regime to attract talent, researchers and startups, and greater promotion of intangible assets.
The chamber threw its weight behind efforts to tackle the skilled labour shortage, saying it will “spare no effort to contribute to a real skills offensive in the digital age”, through training opportunities.
It ended the analysis by including its end-of-year wishlist for the new government, which included supporting Luxexpo The Box, which it described as fundamental in terms of business tourism, releasing pressure on the country’s oversaturated transport infrastructure and reassessing existing housing promotion instruments.
Furthermore, in relation to reconciling work and family life, the chamber said its members had made considerable contributions, and hoped the government would leave enough flexibility for employers and employees to find their own solutions. It added its members did not “want the subject to get bogged down in a sterile debate with social partners.”