Mr President, my report refers to the fourth consultation of the European Parliament on the EU/Mexico Agreement. Since it is also probably the last consultation for the foreseeable future it has particular importance. The report concerns aspects of the agreement that are not covered by the so-called interim agreement, i.e. services, investment and aspects of intellectual property. From a European perspective, the EU/Mexico agreement is generally seen as a milestone in the forthcoming relations with Latin American countries. It has the largest scope of any agreement the EU has ever concluded with a third country, providing EC operators with more rapid preferential treatment than Mexico has ever before granted to any of its preferential partners. Indeed, with this agreement, the EU has not only succeeded in achieving NAFTA parity but has actually achieved a result that goes beyond NAFTA privileges in a number of areas. Among those are the ones that I focus on in this report. However, I believe that some of these gains for the EU are being made at the expense of the people of Mexico. Although my report approves the proposal for a Council decision, it does so with some reluctance and with a number of serious reservations and recommendations for reform which I should like to set out now. First and most important is the issue of poverty in Mexico. It is essential that the agreement more fully reflects the fact that Mexico has an ambiguous position in terms of its development status. On the one hand, it is a member of the OECD and thus is considered to be one of the industrialised countries; but, on the other hand, it is a country with 95 million inhabitants where well over half the population – 65% – live in poverty. That means it is absolutely essential to take seriously the coherence principle of the European Union. To me, the bottom line must be that a reinforced economic partnership with Mexico and better access to Mexican markets must not contradict development objectives and must not exacerbate the existing asymmetry between the two parties. It is therefore of considerable concern that in a significant number of places the agreement is likely to hinder, rather than to support, poverty eradication, human rights and sustainable development. I will outline some of these in a moment. A good example is the fact that the agreement foresees the almost total prohibition of performance requirements which will prevent the Mexican side from specifying the terms on which it would like to see trade and foreign investment. That means that Mexico will not be able to ensure that trade and foreign investment support its own emerging markets and its own development objectives. Looking at the agreement in more detail, starting with services: For the Commission, the negotiated trade package in services is: 'of key offensive interest'. Indeed the liberalisation covers very nearly all sectors. So its terms and scope are very far-reaching. But, more worryingly, it contains a stand-still clause which, by prohibiting Mexico from introducing any further standards and conditions in the future, could seriously damage the social and economic development and policy autonomy of this country. Furthermore the agreement states that: 'no mode of supply is a priori excluded from coverage'. If that implies that education and health might be covered without safeguards, this is an area of further concern. I am sure Members will recall that in the European Parliament in 1999, in our response to the approach to the Millennium Round, we made a specific demand that health and education be excluded from the revision of the GATS. It would therefore be inconsistent to include education and health in the EU/Mexico agreement as sectors that could be liberalised. Finally, Mexican civil society groups believe that the Mexican negotiators went beyond their powers in making this agreement, since the agreement establishes the powers of the Joint Council to dismantle Mexican trade and services legislation, which clearly should be within the remit of the legislative power. Parliament should support civil society in Mexico, which is asking for this unconstitutional provision to be changed. On investment, the different economic crashes we have seen in Mexico make investment a particularly sensitive issue. However, the definition of investment in the agreement includes direct investment, real estate and purchases of securities, and therefore seems to open the door to speculative movements and thus to further financial instability. I could go on citing more problems that we can see in the area of intellectual property rights, on conflict resolution and, indeed, on human rights. But to conclude in terms of where we need to go now, we need to have a clear statement from the Commissioner about the agenda of the Joint Council meeting on 27 February. There are a number of key issues which I have raised which must be on that agenda. I would like to know from the Commissioner present if and when we will get the agenda of this meeting, if he is going to include the kinds of issues that I have raised in my speech – and also in the report itself – and when we will get the results of that meeting of 27 February. The Joint Council meeting must include the competences of the Joint Council along with the Mexican constitution, ensuring their compatibility. It must include effective monitoring of human rights. It must include a commitment to coherence and compatibility of trade measures and it must ensure that the European Parliament is closely associated with this agreement in all its future changes.

Political group: Verts-ALE