Verbatim report of proceedings

Tuesday, 22 May 2007 - Strasbourg

6. Global Europe - External aspects of competitiveness (debate)

  President. The next item is the report (A6-0149/2007) by Daniel Caspary, on behalf of the Committee on International Trade, on Global Europe – external aspects of competitiveness (2006/2292(INI)).

  Daniel Caspary (PPE-DE), rapporteur. – (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this European Union of ours, being the biggest single market in the world, carries, globally speaking, particular weight, and, if we are to remain internationally successful, we have to create the right framework conditions at home, while also organising our external trade policy in such a way that takes adequate account of our own economic interests.

It was in October 2006 that the Commission set out its thinking on a trade strategy of this kind, in its communication ‘Global Europe: competing in the world’. This report by the Committee on International Trade is not intended as a riposte to that, but is meant to adjust certain priorities, for the Commission – and you, too, Commissioner – must have the right priorities rather than pursuing short-term results.

Everyone gains from the opening up of our trading partners’ markets; the European Union is a very good example of just how successful open markets are, and it is the World Trade Organisation, the WTO, that offers the best machinery currently available for opening them up. The goal of multilateral trade liberalisation within the WTO framework must be that of making great forward strides in the current trade round, despite all the difficulties associated with it; even though the prospects for a successful completion are certainly not the best, we in the European Union should continue to do all in our power to make it a success, for bilateral or regional free trade agreements are no more than the second-best option or even emergency solutions, given the multifarious disadvantages associated with them. If free trade agreements are to be concluded, then certain conditions need to apply: for a start, the choice of free trade agreements needs to be limited to the states or economic regions with which our competitors have already concluded an agreement or are in the process of negotiating one; secondly, the scope of such a free trade agreement should go well beyond the WTO topics, and we in the European Union should also, additionally, endeavour to entrench in this free trade agreement standards agreed plurilaterally on the broadest possible basis. I am thinking, for example, of rules of origin, which are negotiated in different ways in every free trade agreement and are scarcely applicable to our small and medium-sized businesses, more and more of which are seizing the opportunities afforded by globalisation and exporting their products.

In the past, alas, other political goals were prioritised at the cost of trade policy, and so we should, in future, avoid burdening trade policy with irrelevant issues, while, at the same time, taking care that the existing rules, to which we and our trading partners have agreed are actually complied with. This is particularly the case as regards intellectual property, with its many instances of existing law and contractual agreements being no more than inadequately applied or even of their application being actively frustrated. The European Union’s trade protection instruments, the anti-dumping rules in particular, offer protection against unfair trading practices.

I would like to point out that a very broad majority in the Committee on Trade concurred with me that there is at present no need for the revision of the trade protection instruments advocated by the Commission. We should not pre-empt the outcomes of talks within the WTO, however difficult they may at present be; the European Union’s trade protection instruments have, by and large, proved their worth, and are not, at present, in need of any modification.

Now that tariffs are being reduced, other forms of obstacles to trade are gaining in importance. For example, anti-terror measures in all economic areas must not become the 21st century’s non-tariff barrier to trade, and regulation, too, plays an important part in this, so we must do more to make our internal rules and regulations compatible with the rules of our main trading partners. It is for that reason in particular that I firmly support cooperation with the United States and the efforts made over recent weeks.

I am highly confident that we will be able to make proper use of the opportunities afforded by global markets for our own benefit and for that of other countries, be they in the process of development or already industrialised, provided that the right priorities are set. People in Europe and around the world will feel the positive effects of this, and I am very grateful to the Members, the Committee Secretariat and the staff of the groups for making it possible for us, in the course of the past few weeks, to draw up a report that I believe might well find a broad majority in this House when it comes to the final vote. I extend warm thanks to them for their cooperation, and also to the Commission for taking our suggestions on board.

  Peter Mandelson, Member of the Commission. Madam President, this is a very important report. Let me recall the background of Global Europe. In Europe we face huge challenges due to the pace of change in the global economy. This creates new opportunities, but it also generates some insecurity and understandable concerns.

Our core message is clear: rejection of protectionism at home, activism in opening markets abroad. We need to look beyond tariff reduction, to the trade barriers that lie behind borders. We also need to step up our engagement with the major economies of the next generation, particularly – but not only – in Asia, where there is huge potential for growth but where Europe is not performing as strongly as it should.

Our first priority remains the WTO and the Doha Development Agenda and I want to say something about that. There is a lot at stake for the global economy and for the developing world, and I will certainly explore every avenue in the weeks ahead to make a deal possible.

For two days last week the European Union hosted the Brazilian, Indian and US ministerial negotiators just outside Brussels. We had a constructive meeting, focusing on numbers and outcomes. Achieving these outcomes will not be at all easy. However, I believe on balance that we can find our way through this negotiation and conclude the Doha Round this year, as we agreed in Delhi in April. This requires convergence amongst the G4 in the next month or so. The political commitment to that objective is high indeed at the highest political level.

The gaps are still wide between us, both inside agriculture and between agriculture and industry and services. However, they are bridgeable if all parties agree to combine sufficient ambition with sufficient flexibility. I will insist on the basic principle that there should be real cuts and effective reductions from all key players in all key areas. Real market access in agriculture is worth real farm subsidy reductions and real cuts in industrial goods tariffs.

The level of ambition of the final package in agriculture and in industrial tariffs is inextricably linked. Europe is prepared to do a lot – indeed more than others – but we are not prepared to go to the limit of our ambition if others do not do the same. Of course there must be proportionate effort between developed and developing countries.

It is also vital to remember that the bulk of the economic gains in the Doha Round will not come from agricultural market access or indeed non-agricultural market access but from commitments by WTO members to open their services markets and from cutting the red tape and costs in time and money affecting trade flows worldwide. The services and trade facilitation negotiations are operating on a different timeline to the market access negotiations, but they must not fall through the gaps.

All of us amongst the core negotiators must assume our fair share of the effort and responsibility needed for a balanced outcome in this round. We all need to look forward to the economies we want to create in the future, rather than backwards to defend the structures of the past. Yes, consolidate the gains from past market opening, but also make a contribution to the new market opening needed to boost trade growth in the future. That is the only basis on which these negotiations can conclude, and we have little over a month to do so.

However, we can and should build on the platform created by the WTO to generate new opportunities for growth by further opening markets bilaterally to trade and investment, not as an alternative but as a complement to the DDA.

We have quite an ambitious agenda ahead of us: FTA negotiations with Korea, India and ASEAN, stepping up our engagement with China and the United States, IPR enforcement, a renewed market access strategy, follow-up of the trade defence instruments Green Paper, and further work on the trade and development agenda. We do this against the background of this complex multilateral trade round. This requires careful handling. But the first six months of our Global Europe strategy demonstrate that we can move forward in parallel: we have taken concrete initiatives following our Global Europe agenda and we have put the DDA back on track.

I should like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Caspary, for his excellent work. I am very happy to see the way the report handles all these issues. I am glad that Parliament takes a high interest in the report, which is clearly demonstrated in the almost 200 amendments. I am also happy to see that the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has been associated, given the link with the Lisbon Strategy.

Let me assure you that we have involved Parliament, and will continue to do so in the future, in the development of the Global Europe agenda. We informed the Committee on International Trade during the preparatory work of our overall communication, which I presented to the Committee on International Trade once it had been adopted by the Commission. My departments or myself have discussed all initiatives following the Global Europe agenda – i.e. the communication on China, the Green Paper on TDI, the communication on market access – at different times with Parliament.

For new FTAs, the negotiating directives have been provided to the Committee on International Trade – which is a novelty – and my departments have briefed the committee recently on the state of play. I will update the Committee on International Trade in early June on the FTA negotiations that we have just kicked off.

The Commission will consider carefully the recommendations and suggestions made by Parliament in its resolution. However, as guardian of the treaties we will do so by respecting the existing framework.

We need your continued full cooperation and your valid input on Global Europe in order to make the right choices on this ambitious journey. I am very glad that we have made good progress on this today with the Caspary report.

  Benoît Hamon (PSE), draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. – (FR) Madam President, I should like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Caspary. I am going to confine myself, in one minute’s speaking time, to mentioning the main facts in the report by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, which is responsible for monetary policy issues.

The Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs took an interest in the issue of the rates of exchange between the euro and the currencies of our main partners and competitors in order to highlight that the benefits expected from a reduction in customs duties on exports, or the market shares that one might hope for from enhanced controls in the area of non-tariff barriers, may clearly be reduced to nothing by an unfavourable change in the exchange rate. That is why we are suggesting that the Commission propose new trade defence instruments that will enable European producers to defend themselves faced with an excessive depreciation in the currencies of our competitors and that we look at the United States, where a number of our fellow legislators in the US Senate have devised a system that hits imports from countries with artificially undervalued currencies with a corresponding customs duty. So, without going that far, we believe that the inertia shown in this area has become incomprehensible.

The other issue among the many contributions in the report by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, which I should like to point out quickly, is the issue of the environment. I believe that it is unfair that European producers, who must meet costs associated with less-polluting production methods, should have to compete with cheap imports from countries that refuse to do their bit to help combat global warming. That is why the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs is proposing the creation of a carbon tax.

  Syed Kamall, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – Madam President, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Caspary, on such a wide-ranging report – not surprising given the title of Global Europe – and I welcome its general tone. However, I have a few concerns and worries about a few possible contradictions.

I read a report calling for all so-called ‘public’ services to be kept out of trade negotiations, including media services. But surely focusing on media services goes against the grain of the Lisbon Agenda, which aims to make the EU a leading digital economy? However, even if we leave media services aside, are we really going to ignore citizens in poorer countries who have to put up with poor or non-existent health, education, water and transport services run by poorly-performing state monopolies or companies often linked to corrupt or inefficient politicians? I urge my fellow Members to listen to the citizens and not the politicians of these countries.

I also see Paragraph 80 supporting the view that trade defence instruments need not be reviewed, but I ask that the Commission no longer succumb to the protectionist sentiments of uncompetitive companies. For example, TDIs have made shoes more expensive for poor families, especially those with children, and penalise those EU companies that have grasped the opportunity provided by globalisation and global supply chains, creating high-value research, design and marketing jobs in the EU while outsourcing low-value jobs to Asia. In truth, TDIs mean that the Commission listens more to uncompetitive European companies than it does to consumers, retailers and global EU suppliers and I do not believe that they will save one European manufacturing job in the long run.

However, I do not wish to dwell only on my concerns. The report rightly confirms that the benefits of liberalisation outweigh any disruptive impact and that those countries that lift tariffs and non-tariff barriers and open up their markets benefit most. It also highlights the problem that the new French President will have to grapple with, in that protectionism leads to unemployment. For these reasons, I commend the report.

  Elisa Ferreira, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (PT) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too should like to begin by congratulating the rapporteur. Europe today needs to clarify where it stands in the globalised economy.

As socialists – and I was shadow rapporteur for the Socialist Group in the European Parliament – we unequivocally advocate the World Trade Organisation’s multilateral framework. The relative deadlock, however, on the Doha talks has led the Commission and our main partners to seek temporary solutions by means of bilateral or regional trade agreements. This is clearly not the ideal strategy and it will only be acceptable if the agreements are compatible with the success of the Doha talks and include minimum environmental and social conditions conforming to the internationally recognised standards such as decent work.

I should like to point out, however, that the unilateral review of trade defence instruments, as the rapporteur said, is totally inappropriate. Furthermore, it must be inferred that the economically powerful partners, that is to say those with negotiating power equivalent to that of the European Union, are to be treated differently from the least developed countries or those with serious development problems.

With regard to the former – Korea, India, Brazil, Mexico, China and Indonesia – the time has come for the EU to demand a measure of reciprocity in the areas of market access, respect for intellectual property, compliance with trade rules, investment policy and competition. Europe’s citizens demand this. However, this reciprocity can never be required of vulnerable countries or those with development problems. On the contrary, this strategy will give the EU extra responsibilities in relation to such countries; the EU must make it possible for international trade to be used to speed up development in these countries.

Of course, it will not be easy to strike a balance between these objectives. I hope it will be possible, however, to find a spirit of compromise and sufficient consensus between the various political groups, so that the European citizens we represent in this Chamber can feel more secure in the face of the uncertainties of globalisation.

  Ignasi Guardans Cambó, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (ES) Madam President, when we talk about the competitiveness of global Europe, we are not talking about a theoretical or academic issue, we are talking about creating wealth, about creating jobs, about well-being for our citizens, about Europe's role in the world, about its responsibilities, and about how it exercises them, with regard to its neighbours, its commercial partners and also with regard to those in the weakest position, who may suffer most as a result of what has come to be known as globalisation.

On behalf of my group, I would like to welcome Mr Caspary’s report, to which, in the subsequent vote, we shall add certain amendments that will improve and expand on some of its statements, not with a view to removing anything, but with a view to contributing certain ideas to support the amendments presented by other groups.

Trade and the free market are not a dogma. They are not a religious truth that must be defended in all circumstances.

It is a reality, a fact, that only free trade, with clear and fair rules for everybody, can contribute to creating wealth, well-being and development. Protectionism can never do that, and there has never been any evidence that it contributes anything. Free trade, the openness of markets at global level, lead indirectly to the creation of greater individual freedoms for those who benefit from that freedom. We are therefore in favour of the opening up of markets and liberalisation, not because we are defending a dogma or a religious truth, or a principle to which we are politically attached, but because its benefits are absolutely clear.

When the European Union defends that same principle, it is defending, in the new strategy of a global Europe, this openness of the markets at global level, and it must also fulfil its own responsibilities. The European Union has serious responsibilities. It has them when it represents us and when it defends us.

For that reason, and my group agrees with what other spokespeople have said in this regard, this is not the time to revise the commercial defence instruments, it is a time, perhaps, to adjust them, but not to remove them, not to modify them, because it is the European Union’s responsibility not to lose sight of the restrictions that still exist, in many cases non-tariff restrictions, which are gradually being imposed. I would highlight one of them that we have had the opportunity to discuss: the commercial denigration suffered by European products in certain countries.

The European Union also has a responsibility when it negotiates on our behalf, when it calls for access to the services market, when it negotiates in the field of public tenders.

It is very important that our commercial policy is not just compatible, but also that it fits perfectly, with our development policy. I am not saying that that is not the case already, but there is a risk that we could have a commercial policy that does not run parallel with our obligations in the field of development. We shall therefore also table some amendments to this report in order to clarify this notion.

  Konrad Szymański, on behalf of the UEN Group. – (PL) Madam President, Commissioner, essentially, globalisation represents an opportunity for Europe. I would like to thank the rapporteur for making this concept clear in his report. I would also like to impress it most especially on our colleagues from the Left, who are mainly responsible for associating free trade with unemployment and social disaster.

If we are to avoid the negative consequences of global trade and gain the upper hand in competition at a global level, we must sort out our own system for allocating resources. Currently, excessive regulation and control of the common market within the European Union itself is distorting the latter. We are slowly letting this opportunity slip by where services and the labour market in the European Union are concerned.

We are still not exploiting all the competitive advantages that could be gained from a common Euro-Atlantic market. Instead of spreading alarm regarding cheaper services, labour and tax competition, we should be deriving common benefits from this situation. We must compete in this race and make every effort to win it.

  Pierre Jonckheer, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (FR) Madam President, Commissioner, political persuasions aside, in November 2006 the governments adopted the general guidelines proposed by the Commission, and the Commission has now formally entered into negotiations, not least with South Korea and the ASEAN countries, on the basis of mandates decided on by the Council, on the proposal of the Commission.

In these matters, let us recall, the European Parliament merely has the power of speech and must make do with an assent procedure at the end of the term. The same is true, I might add, for the national parliaments. Trade negotiations remain a prerogative of the national and Community executives, which is something that we have been criticising for 25 years.

We should like it, in fact, if the European Parliament in particular were involved in defining the negotiating mandates via a codecision procedure and if a follow-up procedure could then be genuinely implemented, and, from this point of view, I believe that, as interesting as they are, the appearances made by Mr Mandelson before our committee are not enough.

My second message concerns rules. Since the Bruntland report, we have been calling for international trade rules to be adapted to the major demands of a new means of development benefiting all the peoples of our small planet.

It hardly needs pointing out, Commissioner, that the ecological footprint of our current lifestyles here in Europe represents three times the Earth's capacities. This state of affairs would therefore be intolerable if it were to become more widespread; that is the simple reason why international standards relating to the environment and social conditions must urgently be enforced, and not just encouraged, in these trade negotiations, an opinion that is unfortunately shared by neither the Commission nor the majority of this House, blinded as they are by short-term interests.

For these, and many other, reasons, and particularly in view of the impact that these negotiations could have on the future development of European legislation, my entire group will reject this report.

  Helmuth Markov, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, Mr Caspary, with whom I sit on the same committee, has produced a report that is, in essence, a repetition of what is expressed in the Commission’s ‘Global Europe’ strategy, a foreign trade policy edition of the Lisbon Strategy, and something that I can no more endorse than I can the market access strategy that was published in April or the policy to be found in the new free trade agreements, which follows on seamlessly from it. The pre-eminent object of both the strategy and its implementation is to secure European businesses better access to the markets of third countries, and there is no a priori objection to that.

By way of the abolition of – if at all possible – all barriers to trade, the attempt is being made to subject not only tariffs but also measures of consumer policy, environmental policy, social policy and development policy to the principle of competitiveness, as free trade oriented thinking requires, while, at the same time, it is proposed that the European Union’s trade protection instruments be applied more consistently and that the protection of intellectual property – by which is meant ‘patents’ – be extended. Since it is evident that there is little chance of any multilateral agreement within the WTO on that sort of one-sided preferential treatment for mainly larger European enterprises, the Commission and the Council are becoming more and more open about their desire to see European economic interests prevail by way of bilateral and regional agreements that go well beyond what is actually meant to be debated in the Doha round, featuring such things as the deregulation of investments, of public tendering, and of competition policy. My group cannot agree to a policy that has ceased to have anything to do with the establishment of a fair and multilateral system of trade; treating the weak and the strong the same way is not the same thing as giving them fair treatment, when what is needed is a fair trade agreement.

There is, though, one right and important point in the Caspary report that I should like to highlight, and it is that it cannot be acceptable that almost all major European decisions at the European level are taken without the European Parliament having any power of codecision over them. This afternoon we will have more to say about economic partnership agreements. Yes, Commissioner, it is true that the committee is the scene of lively exchanges with you and with the Trade Directorate-General, but the Committee on International Trade is not provided with the drafts of documents. For as long as that sort of secret diplomacy is going on within the European Parliament, it is only understandable that many of the EU’s citizens will take a more and more sceptical view of what the European Union does.

  Graham Booth, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – Madam President, I believe in free trade. It has benefited my country and is an important tool in helping the world’s poorest nations escape from poverty. However, the EPAs do more harm than good to the cause of free trade because of the hypocrisy of the European Union.

On the face of it, opening up our markets to imports from these countries sounds very good as it will help boost their economies, but, as always, there is a flip side to the coin. The developing countries have to open up their markets to goods from Europe, to drop their import tariffs – according to the EU’s timescale by the end of the year – and, if they will not, up will go European trade barriers and down will come the amount of European aid. You cannot run before you can walk. As the rapporteur notes, the facilities are not yet in place in many ACP countries for revenue collection to replace tariffs as a principal source of government funding.

In trying to force the pace, I believe we are doing more harm than good to the cause of global free trade. Furthermore, who do we think we are to be bullying these nations into scrapping tariffs? After all, only last year the Commission brought in tariffs on shoes from China. But that was not free trade, or fair for that matter. We were told that they were dumping subsidised products on us. But what are we doing with our surplus agricultural products, subsidised by the CAP? Exactly the same thing: we are dumping them on poor countries and, in the process, dragging their farmers into poverty.

The rapporteur says that EPAs are going to be concluded between the EU and many ACP countries. This may well be true, but only because the EU holds the whip hand. ‘Partnership’ it may be called, but it is a most unequal partnership. It suits big business but it does not suit the developing countries. The health and environment standards in Europe are so high that the potential for many ACP countries to export their agricultural produce will be very limited.

What is more, the Commission’s own impact assessment suggests that signing these deals could well precipitate the collapse of manufacturing in West Africa. As a citizen of a country that has historically espoused and promoted genuine free trade, I do not want to be complicit in this. It only adds to my determination that my country will negotiate its own trading arrangements and leave this appalling European Union, which, for all its pious talk of relieving poverty and encouraging development, has actually been directly responsible for causing poverty on a massive scale throughout the developing countries of the world.

  Dumitru Gheorghe Mircea Coşea, în numele grupului ITS. – Îl felicit pe raportor pentru munca excelentă pe care a depus-o, dar subliniez şi susţin în acelaşi timp remarca pe care raportorul o face în legătură cu faptul că este regretabilă situaţia în care cetăţenii Uniunii Europene stabilesc o paralelă între, pe de o parte, mondializare, iar, pe de altă parte, scăderea producţiei europene şi pierderea de locuri de muncă. În acest context se înscrie şi reacţia negativă pe care cetăţenii europeni o au faţă de procesul delocalizării unor întreprinderi productive spre noile state membre în scopul utilizării unei forţe de muncă mai ieftine. Am remarcat o astfel de reacţie negativă şi în timpul campaniei electorale prezidenţiale din Franţa, şi m-a deranjat faptul că România este prezentată ca o ţară care ar atrage aceste delocalizări, prejudiciind situaţia locurilor de muncă în alte ţări membre ale Uniunii. Se vorbeşte chiar de o politică de dumping social pe care ar practica-o România. Constat, cu regret, lipsa de informaţii pe care o au cetăţenii europeni şi insist pe nevoia unei informări nu numai ample, dar şi mai corecte.

În acest sens ar trebui ştiut că România, prin strategia sa de postaderare, nu încurajează delocalizarea, deoarece, în multe cazuri, prin aceasta se produc dezechilibre majore din punctul de vedere al protecţiei mediului, se dezvoltă ramuri industriale energofage şi utilizatoare de muncă slab calificată. Interesul actual al României este dezvoltarea unor ramuri industriale moderne, care să ridice gradul de competitivitate al economiei, şi nu aglomerarea pe teritoriul ţării a unui amalgam de întreprinderi, deplasate tehnic şi tehnologic. Iată de ce consider că delocalizarea este un proces care nu avantajează pe nimeni în interiorul Uniunii şi apare ca fiind extrem de necesară adoptarea unei strategii care să permită ca într-adevăr mondializarea să contribuie la respectarea interesului, nu numai al Uniunii, dar şi al diferitelor ţări membre în parte.

  Roger Helmer (NI), – Madam President, there are some good things in this report – the importance of the transatlantic relationship, the progressive reduction of tariffs on transatlantic trade, the importance of trade liberalisation and the fact that protectionism leads to unemployment – and yet the report is practically schizophrenic on customs duties. On the one hand it commends what it calls ‘the success of the EU’s customs union’, despite Europe’s long-term economic decline compared to Asia and the US, and on the other hand it calls for the progressive reduction of tariffs.

We must make up our minds. Trade barriers are either good or bad – they cannot be both at the same time. The fact is that customs unions are a 19th-century Bismarckian concept and they have no place in the 21st century. It is time to abandon the EU’s common external tariff and to create a European free-trade area.

The report also commends the European social model and the updated Lisbon Agenda, yet we all know that the Lisbon Agenda is a dead letter. We talk about it but fail to put it into action, while EU competitiveness slips ever further behind our competitors. I well remember our British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, in this very Chamber, asking the question: What sort of social model is it that leaves 20 million unemployed across Europe? Answer: the European social model. I also remember a visit to Singapore when the then Prime Minister, Mr Goh Chok Tong, was asked by our colleague Mr Corbett why a prosperous country like Singapore had such poor social benefits and unemployment pay. Mr Goh Chok Tong replied: ‘We find that when we pay people to be unemployed we get a lot of unemployed people, so we don’t do that’. That is the wisdom of the Orient, and we would do well to bear it in mind.

There is only one way forward for a competitive Europe: we need Konrad Adenauer’s ‘bonfire of the regulations’. We need major reductions in taxes and in social and employment costs. Then, perhaps, we can start to compete in the world.

  Georgios Papastamkos (PPE-DE). – (EL) Madam President, access for exporters and undertakings to the markets of numerous important trading partners of the Union is not always easy. It comes up against high tariffs and technical barriers, non-transparent and unfair practices, administrative and fiscal barriers and, in general, the incomplete application of the principle of national treatment.

I would also like to emphasise, as the rapporteur Mr Caspary also mentioned, the ineffective protection of intellectual and industrial property rights at global level.

Another parameter which affects the reduced competitiveness of European products and services is the obligation to comply with stricter product, public health, environmental and consumer safety specifications and health and safety regulations.

I am not in favour of watering down the European regulatory framework; I am in favour of pursuing terms of reciprocity with our trading partners.

Furthermore, at both bilateral and multilateral level, we need to ensure that not only economic dumping, as it applies today, but also social and ecological dumping are avoided.

In this particular instance, the European Union is rightly pursuing, within the framework of current WTO negotiations, the abolition of import duty on so-called ‘green goods’. At the same time, however, the possibility needs to be examined of imposing a ‘green tax’ on imports from states not bound by the Kyoto Protocol, in order to counterbalance the competitive disadvantage of European undertakings and prevent them from possibly relocating to areas with more flexible environmental rules.

The equilibrium of the global trade system depends on converging systems, institutional transparency and converging social and environmental specifications.

  Erika Mann (PSE). – (DE) Madam President, I would like to address a number of points relating to Mr Caspary’s report and to the Commission proposal that are of importance to my group.

I would very much like to thank the Commissioner for being courageous enough to raise these issues in the first place and for proposing that the European Union change its strategy, something that this House had called for back in 2002, when it was I who proposed that we look more to Asia where agreements are concerned, so you have my heartfelt thanks for that.

The problem is, though, that the global economy has been undergoing fundamental changes since 2002. Along with China, other players have entered the game, and the proposed countries – Korea, for example, and some ASEAN states, along with India – are no longer developing countries in the traditional sense of the word, but already have emergent economies and have become extremely competitive, yet, within some of them, great poverty predominates, which presents the European Union with challenges, and that means that we will have to follow through with a well-thought out strategy that promotes fairness in trade with these countries.

We will have to strike a balance by, on the one hand, taking decisions on the opening up of markets together with the countries concerned and on a case-by-case basis, while also, of course, insisting on standards in the areas of environmental protection and safety in the workplace, and also, of course, in that of intellectual property. Achieving that balance will be a difficult business.

You said, Commissioner, that you had already accorded Parliament more rights by entrusting it with the decision on the mandate. That is indeed so, and I would like to express my gratitude for it, but I would nevertheless ask you for your continued support as we demand of the Council that we should, in future, be granted the right of assent, which will be a considerable help in developing a proper trade policy.

I would like to thank Mr Caspary and my colleague Mrs Ferreira, who acted as shadow rapporteur, for the report itself and for their willingness to cooperate with us.

  Gianluca Susta (ALDE). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Europe’s ongoing commitment to fostering increasingly open markets must not prevent Europe itself from promoting its own interests in this globalised world. The Lisbon Strategy represents an ambitious target on which we can all agree, and enables us to take up the challenge that the European Union’s competitors have set us.

We must bear in mind, however, that the great trade and development game is often not played on a level field, and this lack of reciprocity, even though justified by the fact that many countries have started developing late, penalises our production systems and has serious social consequences. While maintaining our commitment to a multilateral approach, we must also pursue bilateral agreements if necessary. Our policy is one of opening up the market, steadily reducing customs duties, and creating a level playing field for competition. In this context, our policies on innovation, the opening-up of markets and support for the restructuring of ageing and no longer competitive productive sectors should go hand in hand with measures to safeguard intellectual property and with commercial protection more generally, as indicated in the Green Paper and acutely taken up in the Caspary report.

  Seán Ó Neachtain (UEN). – A Uachtaráin, ba mhaith liom a dheimhniú ar an gcéad dul síos nach n-aontaíonn mise beag ná mór leis an gcur chuige oibre atá ag Peter Mandelson, Coimisinéir Trádála an AE, maidir le comhráití DOHA ar thrádáil Domhanda.

Dealraíonn sé domsa go bhfuil an tUasal Mandelson ag iarraidh margadh trádála ilshleasach a bhaint amach, is cuma cé a ghortófar sa phroiseas. Tá an iomarca géillte ag an Aontas Eorpach cheana féin sna cainteanna seo. Tá ciorraithe móra déanta ag an AE ar an tacaíocht a thugtar d'fheirmeoirí na hÉireann agus na hEorpa, agus táimid fós ag feitheamh go gcuirfeadh Meiriceá agus Grúpa Cairns na leasaithe a gheall siad féin i gcrích.

Ba chóir go mbeadh Rialtais na mBallstát uilig an-soiléir agus an-chúramach maidir leis an gcineál margaíochta ar mian leo a dhéanfadh an Coimisinéir Mandelson ar a son. Níor chóir dúinn ár bhfoinse beatha a bheith chomh fada ó bhaile le Meiriceá Theas. Ba chóir dúinn é a chothú anseo ag baile agus bá chóir dúinn é a dhéanamh ar na bunphrionsabail ar bunaíodh an tAontas Eorpach orthu, agus bá chóir go dtuigfeadh an tUasal Mandelson é sin. Is Sasanach é, agus ba chóir go mbeadh ciall ceannaithe ag Sasana sa phróiséis seo anois.

  Jacky Henin (GUE/NGL). – (FR) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, let us dare to put an end to the myth: free trade no longer reduces poverty and no longer stimulates development. The latest studies published by the World Bank evaluate the almost non-existent profits made, and of those almost non-existent profits, the bulk went to China.

If we take account of the disappearance of customs duties, the balance sheet becomes particularly negative for developing countries. Capitalist globalisation does not orchestrate competition between the large multinationals; it protects them. On the other hand, it creates a harsh form of competition between the social and fiscal systems that have been chosen democratically by the citizens of each nation. One of the consequences of free trade is, moreover, a wholesale shift of the corporate tax burden onto households. That is why the great sentences in the report about the preservation of the European social model are nothing but dramatic expressions designed to get the tears flowing. If we want to get away from this, we need to replace the principle of free trade with that of fair trade.

The fall in the dollar and the yen is bleeding industrial employment dry in the euro zone. And the report invites the Commission to…invite! Tartuffe could not have put it better! There is not a single word on the iniquitous desire to tone down the anti-dumping regulations on the pretext that they harm certain financial interests, namely European ones. Because we are here to serve Europeans and not speculative investment companies, let us choose cooperation over competitiveness, let us choose a form of rational protectionism that relies on social and ecological customs duties, and let us establish a control on exchange and movement of capital.

I firmly believe, Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, that if we persevere with this headlong flight towards free trade, the Union will go straight to the wall, with its foot down, shouting at the top of its voice!

  Bastiaan Belder (IND/DEM). – (NL) Madam President, first of all, I should like to congratulate the rapporteur on his even-handed report, which can count on my support during tomorrow’s vote.

As rapporteur for EU-China relations, I was particularly interested in the paragraphs on trade relations with the People's Republic, but I was taken aback by the wording in paragraph 44, because I certainly do not see China as the most obvious illustration of a country that has had a positive impact on trade liberalisation and has actively participated in global and competitive markets. In fact, to judge by the long list of concerns and points of difference that follows, the rapporteur shares my view on this.

Quite apart from the problems in the social and environmental fields, and our concerns about the protection of European intellectual property, I should also like to make a point of mentioning the inadequate access that is being gained by European companies to the Chinese market and dumping practices in China, something which is also harmful to European industry. After all, the Chinese are protecting their own market from foreign competition whilst giving their own manufacturers undue preference.

An open economy in a globalising world is often – and erroneously – confused with an economy without barriers. Fortunately, the rapporteur has not opted to do so. In paragraph 17 of his report, Mr Gaspari is right to refer to the damage incurred by the European economy at the hands of countries that flout trade rules. As a reaction, the European Union should protect itself against unfair trade practices.

I would therefore urge the Commission to spell out, both within and outside of a WTO context, that the Union does not tolerate unfair behaviour. This means, however, that the EU must also be prepared to put actual sanctions in place by means of adequate trade protective instruments, not resulting from a protectionist knee-jerk reaction, but from the realisation that in some cases, only sanctions will help guarantee a level playing field for the EU’s industries.

  Jean-Marie Le Pen (ITS). – (FR) Madam President, the report by our fellow member from the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, Mr Caspary, takes a near caricatural approach to stating the benefits of globalisation and of the European Union's trade policy.

Indeed, it sees only advantages to it: the opening up of markets, in particular public procurement markets, increased competition, the benefits of competition and worldwide free trade, but with a slight dampener where intellectual property rights are concerned.

In contrast, protectionism is condemned irrevocably, and customs duties are held up to public obloquy as intolerable insults to the Trade god. Faced with the all-powerful ultraliberals of the European Parliament and of the Commission, it will be interesting to see what Mr Sarkozy’s government is going to do to protect our businesses, in particular, our SMEs-SMIs, our agriculture and our public services.

With Europe already being the world’s most open economic unit, it is paradoxical to want to go further, unless we want to sacrifice our agriculture and our industry on purpose, and once and for all. And yet, that is what the Europe of Brussels is doing, in the name of competition and of the pro-free trade dogma and in order to satisfy our US allies. Under these circumstances, with no trade protection worthy of the name, with no effective instruments of protection and with no European officials who are independent of the Anglo-Saxon lobbies, what can Europe do to prevent businesses from relocating and skilled workers and capital from going abroad? It can rely on thousand-year-old nations, and not on the ultra-European mirage defended by Mr Caspary, one that guarantees serious disillusionment for Europeans.

  Alessandro Battilocchio (NI). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, within the WTO Europe has always – often alone and at the expense of its own immediate economic interests – stood up for the strict interpretation of the rules of the system and carefully watched out for any practices that might cause distortions in the domestic and international market. For these rules to make any sense, the EU must strongly insist that they must also be applied by the other members, particularly our direct competitors.

It is also important that such rules should be periodically adjusted to the constant changes in commercial practices and in the productive system, as in the recent cases involving relocation, in order to safeguard not only the quality and number of jobs within the EU, but also respect for social and environmental standards in countries outside Europe. In that respect it is important to encourage and speed up the procedures currently under way for creating the European quality mark and protecting intellectual property, so that the competitiveness of our businesses, particularly of our smaller enterprises, and the quality of our production can be safeguarded both within and beyond our borders.

As a member of the Committee on Development, I feel I have to point out that a flexible and gradual approach is in any case necessary for those developing countries which, before the market is fully opened up, are committed to providing for the basic needs of their own peoples: fair access to clean water, education and efficient health systems, for example, which are essential preconditions for subsequent sustainable economic development.

  Christofer Fjellner (PPE-DE). – (SV) First of all, I wish to begin by thanking Mr Caspary. I have to say that this is one of the best reports on trade policy I have seen in Parliament, clearly stating that free trade promotes prosperity and that protectionism promotes poverty. It is a positive step forwards that we are able to state this together in the European Parliament. The Commission’s Global Europe initiative on the external dimension of competitiveness is also extremely constructive. Trade policy ought of course to have been part of the Lisbon Agenda from the very beginning. To talk about European competitiveness without talking about our trade with the surrounding world is otherwise just to spout empty words.

While you are still here, I should like to take the opportunity to put two points of view to you, Mr Mandelson.

Firstly, I have noticed that the Commission often talks about competitiveness, but then almost only of the importance of increasing market access and reducing customs duties in other countries. However, it is at least as important to increase access and other countries’ opportunities to come here and to reduce our own duties. It would not only give European consumers and companies cheaper products but would also make for keener competition and thus increase our competitiveness in relation to the surrounding world. Reducing our own duties is, then, at least as important as others doing so.

The other matter I wish to address is the need to reform trade defence instruments. On that matter, I do not really agree with the report before us. I understand that a very great deal of pressure was placed on the Commission after that initiative was put forward. Unfortunately, that pressure appears to have led to a lower level of ambition on the part of the Commission. The rhetoric has shifted from talk of reform to talk of an overhaul, but I expect the Commission to present a reform of the trade defence instruments that is worthy of the name. That the EU should defend us from trade is, of course, as stupid as it sounds.

I would also refer to one of my favourite examples of absurd trade barriers, namely the EU’s peculiar duties on low-energy light bulbs as, at the same time as we worry about the greenhouse effect and talk about banning ordinary light bulbs, we protect ourselves from the import of low-energy light bulbs by means of high duties.

No, Mr Mandelson, we must carry out a thoroughgoing reform of the trade defence instruments without delay.

  Harlem Désir (PSE). – (FR) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to confine myself to making four remarks.

Firstly, Commissioner, I believe that you were right to stress the fact that the strategy of a global Europe must not mean ceasing to give priority to multilateral negotiations. There is a great deal of enthusiasm, but also a great many illusions, regarding the contribution that bilateral free trade agreements can make. We are told that we must have such agreements because others have made a commitment along these lines, including, for example, the United States. In fact, the United States has signed only six or seven free trade agreements, which represent scarcely 5% of its external trade. The other agreements have failed, because they pose the same problems as in the multilateral framework, with, generally speaking, the same kind of partners. I should like to add that these negotiations often result in agreements that are more unbalanced towards developing countries, to the obvious advantage of developed countries.

This leads me to my second remark: in moving from the multilateral context to the bilateral context, we must not abandon the trade policy development objectives along the way. From this point of view, Mr Caspary, I do not believe that it can be said that trade policy is unrelated to other dimensions: development, the fight against poverty, the environment and social policy. The fact is, the relationship between trade and development and trade and poverty reduction is not automatic. For example, it is said that, if Africa does not trade, it will remain poor. That is true. But does it mean that any trade agreement with Africa will necessarily benefit it? No, that is not true. We need to take account of a more differentiated, controlled, form of liberalisation, which caters for the fragile sectors of a number of countries. This is not the case solely for the poorest countries; it is also the case for emerging countries, countries such as India, which are among those with the poorest populations in the world.

Thirdly, this global Europe strategy should not result in the re-introduction of subjects that have been excluded from the multilateral framework. I am thinking of the Singapore issues and of the negotiations on investment, public contracts and public services. The re-introduction of these subjects is not justifiable; it will result in the same problems, in the same standstills, or else these subjects will be forcibly imposed, when they go beyond the trade rules and concern the internal regulation of sensitive sectors, such as access to essential services, to public services.

Fourthly – and I shall conclude on this point – like Mr Jonckheer, I believe that we should not lose sight of the fact that the Union, through its trade policy too, is working to implement social rules and environmental rules. These rules are being implemented by means of the enhanced system of generalised preferences and no longer in the free trade agreements, and I regret this because we should also promote compliance, for instance, with the ILO rules.

  Jan Tadeusz Masiel (UEN). – (PL) Madam President, Commissioner, the European Commission should provide more information on its proposed trade policy, not only to Parliament but also, most especially, to its citizens. At present, Europeans in many different countries are afraid of the WTO and of its actions.

A greater effort must be made to explain to the citizens the principle that a free trade policy leads to economic growth, job creation and sustainable development around the world, providing that the policy is based on partnership and that it is increasingly balanced and honest. In addition, such a policy should be inspired in our own European social and environmental standards. We lay great store by that. On the one hand, there should be a free market and free competition, and on the other, European environmental and social standards.

At present, this is wishful thinking, but these two sets of values must come together at some stage. That is what you should work towards, Commissioner.

IN THE CHAIR: MR BIELAN
Vice-President

  Tokia Saïfi (PPE-DE). – (FR) Mr President, I should like to begin by congratulating my colleague, Mr Caspary, on this very good report.

Due to the fact that globalisation imposes unprecedented changes, the European Union must today carry out the necessary reforms that will enable it to get the very most out of globalisation. One of these reforms is based on the adaptation of European trade policy to the challenges of competitiveness. We must, in fact, put an end to the rationale that draws a parallel between, on the one hand, globalisation, and, on the other, the decline in European manufacturing and job losses.

Europe must be able to become an area of synergies and of industrial cooperation. To achieve this, everything hinges on its attractiveness, specialisation and defence. Europe must therefore conduct policies promoting an environment that is conducive to the spirit of enterprise, production and job creation. As the key actors in these policies, SMEs must therefore have easy access to public contracts, as we note already happens in the United States. If they are to be more comprehensive, more integrated and focused on the future, these policies must not abandon the agricultural sector, which is a strategic trade instrument of the European Union, not a bargaining chip. It would have been timely, moreover, for this communication to have made reference to the agricultural sector, just as it makes reference to the services sector and to high value added goods.

In parallel with this proactive attitude, Europe must also be a protector. The performance of the European Union in relation to the emerging economies is today compromised by a lack of reciprocity concerning market access conditions and by the proliferation of unfair trade practices. Faced with this loss of pace, Europe must adopt a more resolute stance. It must thus be able to protect itself from economic, social and environmental dumping by means of trade defence instruments, which are at present the only stopgap measures there to make up for the absence of internationally-recognised trade rules. As we can see, the external competitiveness of the European Union will be guaranteed and this, by means of its ability to attack and to defend itself.

  Carlos Carnero González (PSE). – (ES) Mr President, it is true, we are facing globalisation, and there are two possible ways to react to it: to be led by events or to try to manage it, to intervene in it, ultimately to regulate it.

I believe that that is our intention through our trade policy, and, in my view, that is the intention of the European Commission’s Communication and, generally speaking, of Mr Caspary’s report as well.

We must send a very clear message to our citizens in the debate that we are holding today. Our intention is not simply to grab our quota of the market, regardless of other criteria. We want to be present on the world market, but in doing so we want to promote both the strengthening of the European social model and the spreading of wealth, hence reducing poverty throughout the world.

This must be achieved in a multilateral manner, first and foremost. The World Trade Organisation is still the European Union’s preferred means for intervening in globalisation. In this regard, we must continue to make every possible effort to conclude the Doha Development Round.

Until this happens, out of responsibility towards our citizens and also towards the citizens of the countries with which we wish to establish free trade agreements, we must promote this second instrument.

Mr Caspary's report takes up elements that are very important to Socialists and Social Democrats. These include paragraph 20, on the rules of the International Labour Organisation, or paragraph 65, which clearly differentiates commercial services from public services.

Furthermore, if the Caspary report were to take up our Amendments 43 and 52, it would be much better oriented towards our intentions. Even so, I believe that this report makes a positive contribution.

I would also like to say, as a member of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, that I hope and pray that the Council will agree to implement what the Constitution, which is in the process of ratification or modification, provides for: not just assent, but also participation in the mandate, in the monitoring of negotiations, and hence the full representation of the citizens in something that, at the end of the day, has a very clear effect on their daily lives.

  Zbigniew Krzysztof Kuźmiuk (UEN). – (PL) Mr President, Commissioner, I would like to highlight three issues in my contribution to this debate.

The subject of the report before us is the development of trade, and I should like to say first of all that this must not be deemed an end in itself. It must be perceived in terms of its impact on economic growth, including European production, and in terms of its impact on trends in the European labour market and on the balanced development of the entire European Union.

Secondly, the statements contained in the report regarding market openness are correct, providing they are based on the principle of reciprocity and on respect for the principles of fair competition. The EU often opens up its market in circumstances when its foreign partners have no intention of observing reciprocity and certainly not the principles of fair competition.

Thirdly, it is particularly important for these principles to be complied with where trade in food products is concerned. Some of the Union’s partners have failed to abide by the principles of fair competition in this regard, leading to cutbacks in many areas of farming within Europe. Production has even ceased completely in some cases. Europe will find it very difficult, if not impossible to restart activity in the future, in a situation where foreign partners are able to set the prices.

  Alexander Stubb (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I should like to make three points. The first is to thank Mr Caspary for doing an excellent job on this report and to congratulate him on continuing a good, free-trade, liberal line.

My second point is that I am a supporter of free trade and multilateralism. However, I understand that in the current Doha Round we have to take some measures, which we do not necessarily like, on the line of bilateralism, but we have to stick to it.

I should like to say to Mr Mandelson that it is very good that he is promoting us as a superpower in trade: over 20% of world trade is with us, 20% with the US. When we talk on trade people listen, and that is why it is very important to find a balance between free trade and protectionism.

On the trade defence instrument itself, I am a bit iffy – for example, I like Chinese tennis shoes! – and therefore I should like the Commissioner to be careful about that and not push it too far. We do not want to become a European Colbert state.

My final point concerns globalisation, in particular the sales of globalisation. I am very saddened when I listen to the likes of Jean-Marie Le Pen – which I do not do very often. It seems as if globalisation has become the scapegoat for everything: everything that is bad is thanks to globalisation and everything that is good is thanks to the Member State itself. This is the wrong way to approach things. I really do not want the European Union to become a modern Colbert, in other words, a mercantilist, which believes in its own exports but wants to prevent imports from elsewhere. That is not what we are about: our basic line is about the free movement of goods, services, people and money, and we need to promote that worldwide as well.

  Kader Arif (PSE). – (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to point out a few fundamental principles and express some concerns about the new trade strategy being advocated today by the Commission and taken up in the report by our fellow Member, Mr Caspary.

The first principle to point out is that priority must always be given to multilateralism. We know that the excessive proliferation of bilateral agreements seriously harms the regulated multilateral structure, to which we adhere. The second principle is that we should not undermine the Union’s commitment to a trade policy that promotes development, a policy integrating non-commercial dimensions, such as decent work, access to medicines, the environment and the eradication of poverty.

As for my concerns, they relate to three points. The first is that priority is no longer given to the pro-development dimension of the Doha Round in the future free trade agreements and the new EU trade agenda, even though the EU’s trade policy objectives should always be compatible with its development policy and should usefully supplement it, particularly where social and environmental issues are concerned.

My second object of concern is the scope of these agreements, which go far beyond the current WTO provisions. For example, the principle of full reciprocity to which we aim to give priority, including for emerging countries faced with large-scale poverty, is unacceptable. We must enable developing countries temporarily to protect the fragile and sensitive sectors of their economies. In short, we must not impose on others that which we do not know how to impose on ourselves.

My last concern, to conclude, relates to the provisions aimed at negotiating on the so-called Singapore issues. These very controversial issues were excluded from the Doha Round following widespread opposition from developing and emerging countries. The controversy had previously resulted in the failure of Cancún.

We know that these issues, which are as complex for the Union as they are for our partners, raise sensitive questions, relating to internal policy and, therefore, to the very sovereignty of the Member States. These issues could, moreover, have a considerable impact on the economic and social models and, therefore, on the very development of our partners.

It is vital that the Union does not push for these issues to be included in the negotiations. Nothing could justify that which has been thrown out the door of a multilateral round coming back in through the narrow window of a bilateral agreement. What is at stake here is our consistency, our credibility and a certain development model that we have always sought to promote.

  Glyn Ford (PSE). – Mr President, I should like to express my appreciation for all the work that Mr Caspary has put into this report. As Commissioner Mandelson rightly said, our priority this year is to conclude the multilateral Doha development round. Alongside this, there are complementary negotiations for bilateral free trade agreements with South Korea, ASEAN and India.

Mr Caspary’s report lays down a template within which we must try to operate in these negotiations, not because of Mr Caspary but because of our committee. The report however contains its contradictions, I think, as Mr Helmer said, it is positively schizophrenic.

Some members of my group complain that the report is not development-friendly. I am not sure it was intended to be as our imminent negotiations are with countries like Singapore and South Korea, Thailand and India, countries not really in anyone’s less-developed countries category any more. Within ASEAN, Laos and Cambodia are covered by the EU’s ‘anything but arms’ policy and therefore have a degree of protection.

I welcome paragraph 30 of the report, which takes into account the interests of the smallest and weakest countries. I certainly welcome paragraph 32 that demands that ILO standards on decent work be included in future FTAs.

I have some sympathy with Mr Kamall’s points with regard to audiovisual services, though I have to say that the privatisation of health, education, drinking water and energy rarely helps the poor in developing countries; rather it helps the minority rich population.

I welcome paragraph 33, which makes it easier to suspend free trade agreements when they are not fulfilled, particularly with respect to social clauses. Yet for some in the PSE Group, it is paragraph 29 which is the killer paragraph. It demands far-reaching liberalisation of services. My group met yesterday and narrowly decided that it could not support the report if this and similar paragraphs were included.

  Peter Mandelson, Member of the Commission. Mr President, we have heard some very well informed and very intelligent contributions to this debate. I appreciate them and thank those who have taken the trouble to speak.

I think that the spirit, if not absolutely every letter, both of my own approach and of Mr Caspary’s report was captured by Mr Fjellner when he said that free trade spreads prosperity while protectionism spreads poverty. Broadly speaking, I think that is correct but I would say that free trade is a necessary but insufficient condition to bring about economic development and poverty alleviation in some of the more needy countries of the world.

I agree with those, including Mr Désir, who would like the Commission to operate a principle of proportionate reciprocity as far as developing countries are concerned. I agree with that and my approach reflects the capacities of the developing country markets in question. The EU asks of trading partners only what their level of development allows but, as others have pointed out, the sorts of economies that are seeking free trade agreements with us – Korea, the ASEAN countries, India – could hardly be described as typical least-developed countries in the world.

Mr Arif focused on the so-called Singapore issues, as did Mr Désir himself. All I can say in this regard is that, if partner countries decide that they wish to discuss these issues bilaterally with the European Union as a means of promoting their own development and creating economic opportunities for them, why should they not do so? I do not think it is for us in Europe to tell developing countries and emerging economies that they should not be addressing issues like investment, competition and transparency in government procurement.

One or two honourable Members have alluded to trade defence. Mr Caspary did at the outset and Mr Guardans Cambó has done so subsequently, as has Mrs Saïfi. There is no question in my mind of removing Europe’s right of recourse to anti-dumping measures. Trade defence instruments are a vital way of ensuring fair trade where goods have been produced in conditions of subsidy or where price distortion is taking place. Of course that should not be confused with the ordinary low-cost advantages in trade for many developing countries. Our purpose in using trade defence instruments is not to protect European business from fair low-cost competition.

It is true that from time to time I sometimes encounter those seeking use of TDI because they are afraid of competition, not because they want to engage fairly in competition. But I think that a periodic review allows us to ensure that public confidence in these instruments is maintained and to make sure that, if necessary, these instruments can change in order to reflect a changing world. That is all we are doing.

I should like to go back to one or two points that have been made. As regards the question of services liberalisation, I have quite a lot of sympathy with Mr Kamall’s point. Yes, we will be looking at market opening in the services sector in our bilateral FTA negotiations, but this will be a negotiation where our partners will maintain the right to regulate their services sectors and their right to decide whether or not to open public services sectors. That is for them to decide. It is not for us to impose.

I am also glad that one or two honourable Members have focused on the issue of labour conditions, social conditions and environmental conditions amongst our trading partners. I passionately believe that sustainable development, which touches on all those issues, is an overarching objective for trade policy as well. One trade and environment issue that we have pursued vigorously in the Doha talks, but which some countries have opposed, is lowering tariffs on environmental goods. Many environmental problems could be addressed by helping this trade. In future FTAs we will also continue to include commitments to standards at the workplace.

Honourable Members will know that we run into some opposition from our negotiating partners in respect of these conditions. They see them not as a way of levering up standards but as a way for those in the developed world to use new pretexts to keep their markets closed to the goods and services being exported from developing countries. So it important for us to keep a balance in these matters and certainly, as far as these issues are concerned, I strongly believe that we should be using the pressure that we have at our disposal by means of incentives, not sanctions.

Mr Markov and Mrs Mann both touched on the issue of the role of the European Parliament. I have always been interested in and committed to close cooperation with the European Parliament in the context of the Framework Agreement that we have. Wherever possible we extend our participation with the Parliament on trade matters. That is why we have shared with Parliament the negotiating directives for the FTAs in an entirely transparent way.

I would like just to touch on something that Mr Papastamkos said. In addition to his reference to our pursuit of zero taxes for an agreed list of environmental goods, I believe and I accept that we need to examine and find a way to deal with the free-rider issue in respect of climate-friendly policies and in connection with the Kyoto Protocol. In the long term this is going to become an increasingly important feature of the climate change debate. I think it is premature to think of a carbon tax. In my view, there are very many practical as well as legal difficulties in pursuing that specific idea. We must be careful that any climate-friendly policies and instruments that we might develop in the future do not become protectionist instruments. However, I entirely accept that the time has come for us to look carefully at these issues, because they are going to become increasingly relevant in the long term.

I should like to thank all those honourable Members who have spoken and contributed so well to this debate. I look forward to continuing and strong cooperation between myself and my services and this Parliament.

  President. The debate is closed.

The vote will take place today at 12 noon.

Written statement (Article 142)

  Edit Herczog (PSE), in writing. – (HU) I congratulate the rapporteur, and wish especially to welcome the effective collaboration of my fellow Member Mrs Elisa Ferreira. Europe takes a twofold position on globalisation: on the one hand, we are the most active and committed supporters of developing countries, because we believe in the values of democracy and of social and economic progress. On the other hand, as soon as the developing countries grow into economic competitors, we become afraid of them and see them as a threat to our own economy, our own prosperity. Yet it is untenable either within the EU or vis-à-vis third countries, that the poorer party should be a partner only as long as it remains poorer.

We must remember that in Europe, social achievements were built on an economic upswing, and not the other way around. We can only expect our partners to achieve economic and social prosperity if we allow and help them to grow wealthier. Yet it is in the developed countries, in Europe, that they are able to grow wealthier on markets with high purchasing power. If we close our markets to them, we thwart their prospects for growth.

This does not mean that we have to give up our own growth, but simply that we have to understand: we cannot be more competitive than everyone else in every field. Within current global economic conditions, it is with our technological progress, environmental awareness, intellectual products and services, and innovative competence that we can excel, and it is on these that we must build our own competitiveness.

Europe must bear in mind that, in global competition, the best species of bird is the goose: it can sing, swim, run and fly. It is not the best at any of these, but can hold its own in each. An example to be taken to heart.