Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-12-11-Speech-2-262"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011211.11.2-262"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, before Doha, many of us were clearly aware that the issue of access to medicine was going to be the benchmark that developing countries would use to test our seriousness about whether we wanted to launch a development round. What we have seen is a declaration on access to medicines and public health. Even the title is important because it is not just about access to medicines, it is about support for public health. It is groundbreaking and, as someone said this morning, it has within it a commitment to the whole question of flexibility of the agreement on TRIPS. As the Commissioner is well aware, the United States and Switzerland, in particular, argued that the reference to public health was too broad. They wanted it to be limited to certain infectious diseases.
But I have to say, Commissioner – and you will agree – that what happened represented a real victory for developing countries because they were skilled in negotiation, and that position by the US and Switzerland, in particular, was finally rejected. It is important that we pay tribute to developing countries and to the negotiating skills that they displayed.
The belief traditionally fostered by the pharmaceutical companies has been that patents are sacrosanct. After Doha that has changed. If drug companies price medicines beyond the reach of people who need them, governments can override patents without the fear of retribution.
Despite the progress at Doha, as far as patent rules are concerned, the story is far from over.
I have two specific questions, Commissioner. Does the Commission agree that the immediate challenge is to ensure that the WTO lifts the restrictions on the export of cheap equivalents of patented drugs to countries which have decided to override a patent but do not have the necessary manufacturing capacity? That issue was not resolved at Doha and has been referred to the TRIPS Council.
Secondly, how does the Commission intend to ensure that countries without production capacity or insufficient production capacity can make full use of the compulsory licensing provisions? This must, in my view, be accompanied by a reduction in the length of drug patents in poor countries. TRIPS currently dictates a patent term of 20 years world-wide.
At the review of the rules scheduled for 2002, the WTO should at least agree to extend the deadline for TRIPS compliance for all developing countries and base it on development progress rather than on arbitrary dates. I wonder if the Commissioner agrees with me on this?
Finally, on the question of developing countries, I would like to pay tribute, in particular, to ACP countries, in which we have a particular interest and partnership in the European Union. The 77 ACP countries succeeded in obtaining a waiver. They put out a brilliant declaration before Doha. I have had several meetings with them since then. They are well pleased with the results."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples