Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-03-12-Speech-1-111"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010312.7.1-111"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, I should first like to sincerely thank Mr Schwaiger and the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy for this excellent report.
Our position on services is, briefly, as follows. Firstly, in our position at the head of the league of service exporters and importers in the world, we have conflicting commercial interests. Secondly, we wish to take development issues into consideration. Thirdly, and this answers Mr Herzog and Mrs Fiebiger, we are fully aware of the effects upon government policy of negotiations on services and we therefore agree absolutely with your recommendation as to the special nature of public service provision. The agreements already signed or yet to be signed under GATS, the General Agreement on Trade in Services, do not commit European States to a policy of privatisation or deregulation. In the sectors related to government and to public services of health, education and culture, we must and we shall therefore safeguard our legislative prerogatives, our social and cultural identity and our high levels of consumer safety and protection.
On intellectual property, let me stress one point that Mrs Kinnock raised and which is highlighted in a topical court case in South Africa, where the pharmaceutical industry is in conflict with the South African Government. I shall not comment on the case in question, since it is
and it is not customary for the Commission to comment on such cases, but I would like to give you a clear explanation of the Commission’s policy on the issue of transmissible diseases affecting developing countries. This is a matter that was referred to us last summer.
A high-level international Round Table on the subject was held in Brussels in September 2000. The Round Table recommended a global approach based on three aspects, firstly, stepping up support from development policy, secondly, reducing the price of essential medicines, and thirdly, resuming high level research into such treatment. Following close on the heels of this Round Table, which brought together developing world governments, international organisations and the Member States, as well as a number of non-governmental organisations, we have just adopted a specific action programme based on this approach. Indeed I believe we are starting to see the first practical effects of this, with several pharmaceutical companies making commitments to reduce prices.
What role does intellectual property have to play in this context? In our opinion, it has an essential role in stimulating innovation and research. This is clearly stated in the GATT TRIPs agreement, but we should say just as clearly, Mrs Kinnock, that there are cases where exemptions to patent law are permitted and are authorised under the TRIPs Agreement. It is termed ‘compulsory licensing’ and is authorised in cases where exceptions are justified on public health grounds or in a health emergency. The agreement permits, and makes provision for, such flexibility and our position on this continues to be what I have been stating in public for several weeks
all the agreement and nothing but the agreement. It is true that there is, as yet, no real international consensus on a balanced interpretation of these provisions but we have undertaken to promote this clear position: intellectual property is to be protected but exemptions must be maintained and applied where stipulated, both in the WTO, WIPO and elsewhere.
I shall answer Mrs Mann very quickly, though this may take me slightly over my allotted five minutes. We have indeed started to readjust our pre-Seattle mandate in the light of the concerns expressed by a number of developing countries. At this stage we do not need any official amendment to that mandate. We shall return to that matter when the time comes.
In reply to her question on the United States, it is true that I spent part of last week in the States. I return with a generally favourable impression of the administration, but one point is clear, and I must remind the House of this: US trade policy depends more on Congress than on the administration.
That brings me straight to the institutional aspect of your report. We agree that the parliaments should be involved to a greater extent in the WTO debates. In terms of our internal procedures, we have, as you know, lost the ‘Battle of Nice’, which, to tell the truth, we were the only ones waging and, hence, we have to go back to the spirit of the framework agreement on relations between Parliament and the Commission which we adopted in July 2000. I think that this framework agreement contains all we need to organise cooperation between our institutions and if we have a few outstanding problems on the settlement of disputes, then I am perfectly willing to discuss this question, if it is understood, however, that the settlement of disputes is not negotiation nor the establishment of internal legislation, but an executive prerogative. So, while I am happy to discuss and to provide information, none of us should confuse the management and settlement of disputes with legislative prerogatives.
Ladies and gentlemen, the next phase before us is the Conference of Ministers in Qatar, from 9 to 13 November, this year. It goes without saying that, in the intervening period, we shall continue to work relentlessly with the competent parliamentary committee on the agenda and the progress that we are able to make.
I must stress that now is the time to consider the practical arrangements for taking part in the Qatar Conference. My intention is to adhere to the practice we established for Seattle in terms of the membership of your own delegation, and in Qatar I shall be counting on the active participation of some of the Members of this House in promoting what appear to be, according to this report, our common objectives.
It provides valuable support for the positions adopted by the European Union and, indeed as Mrs Mann did, I was pleased to note that it had aroused great interest among the Members of Parliament, judging at least by the number of amendments that have been tabled.
Basically, the considerations and concerns you express in this report are broadly in line with those of the Commission which, of course, as some of you have said, go beyond the scope of the Built-In Agenda which is our current objective in Geneva.
Like us, you seek to set up a framework for the liberalisation of trade in the form of a set of mutually accepted multilateral regulations, you wish to increase the transparency of WTO negotiation procedures, you wish to improve the integration of developing countries into the multilateral system, you wish to safeguard European models in agriculture and public health, and likewise in the fields of the environment and public services. This is basically a summary of the European Union agenda for the first round of negotiations.
We have always considered that progress on the Built-In Agenda, the subject of your report, would be facilitated by being incorporated in a wider agenda. Your report basically highlights the same argument and, in making this point, I am responding to Mr Berthu’s comment. We are making very slow progress in Geneva in what are really the preparations for talks on agriculture and services, while we know full well that only a comprehensive round will really be able to catalyse any relaunch. That is the stage we are at today.
I shall endeavour to comment briefly on the matters you raised in your report, particularly on agriculture, services and intellectual property, which were often brought up in the speeches I have just heard.
Concerning agriculture, we agree with you. Firstly, I confirm that the European Union’s negotiating position is indeed shaped by Agenda 2000. Secondly, the needs of developing countries are top of our list of concerns in agricultural matters, and this, indeed, was the objective of the ‘everything but arms’ initiative which I must thank you for supporting. Thirdly, you wish to safeguard the European farm model, considering the many roles it plays in social, environmental and food-related matters, and this meets with the full agreement of Franz Fischler and myself. Let me reassure Messrs Seguro and Cunha on this point, the promotion of considerations in agriculture unrelated to trade and the safeguarding of our own farm model continue to be key components of our negotiation objectives.
Regarding the precautionary principle which you have just stressed, I think it is clear that BSE and, more recently, foot-and-mouth disease inevitably raise questions of this kind. Do we have the multilateral framework needed to deal with these questions? At the international level, we feel that the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures is appropriate as it stands and does not therefore need to be renegotiated as such. The Commission, however, like the Council, shares the wish expressed again by Mr Kreissl-Dörfler to look into the precautionary approach in this sector. We have presented proposals in this respect and we shall continue to debate the issue in the multilateral negotiations. That is part of our agenda.
To my last point on agriculture, in answer to Mr Clegg, there is indeed a ‘peace clause’ or, to be more precise, a non-aggression clause, which exempts the field of agriculture from disputes on subsidies until the end of 2003. We think this non-aggression pact is beneficial to all parties and that is something that all parties should bear in mind when this issue is raised next time, that is, at the end of 2003. The ‘peace clause’ is not a Damocles’ sword hanging over the head of Europe alone. If indeed it is a Damocles’ sword, then it is also threatening the other heads around the negotiating table in Geneva."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples