Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-10-04-Speech-4-037"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011004.2.4-037"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, others have established the need for action. I should just like to add one fact: in the UK and Europe drugs cocktails have decreased AIDS deaths by 75%, in sub-Saharan Africa, where two-thirds of all people infected with HIV live, only one person in a thousand receives drug treatment. Education is crucial to prevent people being infected with HIV in the first place, but access to drugs really does make a difference.
The drug companies are our partners. But it is crucial that they act with integrity. I will never forget the representative for SmithKline Beecham sitting in our EU/ACP Joint Assembly in Brussels, banging the table and saying that they had lowered the prices of essential medicines. And then later in the year Mr Nielson was told they were going to lower them all over again. Which is the lowest price – the one they told us in the spring, or the one they told us in the autumn?
I went to Gabon and South Africa and met doctors who are desperate to use those drugs, who have read the Internet press releases saying that the prices have been brought down; yet when they ring up they cannot actually acquire the drugs to treat those patients.
I have asked SmithKline Beecham what is the genuine, long-term cost of production of these drugs. They will not say. I have asked them how long they will commit themselves to these lower prices. They will not commit themselves. I have asked them why, if they are seeking a partnership with developing country governments, they face legal action, not just in South Africa but in India, Brazil and elsewhere. They just will not answer.
We send a clear message to the drugs companies in this resolution: prices are too high and legislative action, including compulsory licensing in cases of national emergency, is needed to deal with it.
Finally, to Mr Khanbhai, it is no good claiming that you are seeking consensus, including NGOs for example, and then putting forward your Amendment No 1, opposing a reduction in patent protection. Name one NGO which supports that position.
I will always remember that SmithKline Beecham's key anti-retroviral drug was not brought onto the market because of privately-funded research. It was publicly-funded research. They used a dormant patent to acquire that protection for their own commercial gain. Let us have some clear speaking in this debate."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples