Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-05-09-Speech-1-155-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20110509.20.1-155-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, I would like to thank colleagues for the very rich debate on the FTA negotiations with India. It is, of course, very difficult to go into all the questions in a detailed manner, but let me just focus on some questions that have been repeatedly put.
On public procurement, it is obvious that the public procurement chapter will focus on federal level, not on provincial level. By the way, this is the first time ever that they have been ready to negotiate on public procurement as such, but I also want to indicate the limitations of this. What is very important is that our negotiations also cover to the maximum extent possible India’s central level public sector undertakings where the bulk of procurement is done. Niccolò Rinaldi gave the example of trains, which is obviously one of the major sectors, given the difficult position of India with regard to infrastructure.
Another question that has been repeatedly touched upon is child labour. I think it is fair to make a distinction between child labour in manufacturing and child labour in agriculture. Obviously, there are still quite a lot of youngsters working in agriculture. Whether they combine it or not with schooling is not always very clear, but I think the majority of them do so. It may also be the case that the number of children working in manufacturing goods that will be exported to Europe is rather limited so I think, as Mr Newton Dunn rightly pointed out, we should clearly distinguish between the two.
Let me also say that child labour is a very complex matter and it has always been a very complex matter in our own countries. I remember very well that when I was young, which is, of course, some time ago, but nevertheless not ages, a lot of children were still working specifically in agriculture, so this is not something that completely belongs to the Dark Ages in Europe either.
Mr Désir raised the issue of Europe’s demand for data exclusivity to be included in our negotiations. Several other Members specifically raised this point in connection with doctors in developing countries.
I would like to be very clear, however, and I have already said this on several occasions, during conferences and also directly to the NGOs concerned: we are not asking for data exclusivity; we are simply not asking for that. What we are saying – and it seems reasonable to me anyway – is that, if India ever decides by itself to apply data exclusivity, then it will apply to us too. There is what we call in our jargon ‘national treatment’, and I believe that that is the right approach. I therefore believe that I would be criticised to some extent if I agreed to apply protection measures to the Indian pharmaceutical industry that were not applied to our own industry. That is what this is about, nothing else. I really want to be very clear on that.
Other issues have been raised, Madam President, in particular with regard to tariffs – an issue raised, among others, by Mr Caspary. There is, of course, a different timeframe for, let us say, the path to zero for India and for Europe, which is understandable because they have different levels of development. The only question is whether zero can be achieved in certain sectors. We always emphasise the need to achieve it in every sector. Even so, I should like to draw your attention to the following, Mr Caspary: what will benefit our industry the most? A path towards zero in the very long term, or a rather drastic reduction in the first few years? I believe that we actually need to strike a balance between the two and then see where it takes us. Nevertheless, I should like to draw your attention to the two objectives: to reach zero in, say, 20 years, and to obtain a very moderate reduction in the meantime. The same solution is not necessarily that attractive to our industry, in my view. Therefore, we shall see, and I am sure that together, we shall come up with the best possible solution during this discussion.
Concerning the GIs, the high level of protection is an important objective in this negotiation and it has taken quite some time and effort with India to come to a common approach. One should also consider that India has never protected GIs through a bilateral agreement, so this is the first time that they are discussing this with a partner. We will continue to pursue this issue vigorously with the overall objective of achieving a high level of protection for our GIs.
I think that I have covered most of the other issues. I am certainly willing to continue the discussion on this agreement with Parliament and the Committee on International Trade, the more so now that we are reaching the end game in this discussion. I am not going to pronounce on the exact timeframe for coming to a final agreement. In any case, this cannot be long now because we are now dealing with the most sensitive topics – cars, wine and spirits, public procurement and GIs. We have to come to a conclusion, so we are really in what I would call the end game of these negotiations. We are in the last stretch to the finish, but the road will still be rather bumpy."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples