Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-02-10-Speech-1-082"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2003-02-10"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Authorisation of generic medicines at WTO level2
dcterms:Language	"fr"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20030210.8.1-082"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2003-02-10-Speech-1-0832
lpv:speaker	lp:Didier Rod2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Les Verts-Europe-Ecologie (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; G/EFA (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Committee on Development and Cooperation (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 member; Members from the European Parliament to the Joint Parliamentary Assembly of the Agreement between the African, Caribbean and Pacific States and the European Union (ACP-EU) (2002-02-06--2003-02-28)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, I am amazed and saddened that this matter should be back up for discussion. In November 2001, the developing countries were rejoicing in the Doha Declaration, which authorised them to have recourse to compulsory licences for public health reasons. There is just one cloud on the horizon: countries with no production capacity must have the medicines they need manufactured in another country and a company may only manufacture a medicine if 51% of its production is intended for the national market. This problem in paragraph 6 should have been solved before the end of 2002. It has still not been solved. In the meantime, the American pharmaceutical laboratories, who are the main financial backers for the Bush campaign, have returned to the attack. The proposals made by the United States or the European Union, which are each more restrictive than the last, have resulted in failure. Today, the Trips Council is proposing to return to the previous wording allowing recourse to compulsory licences in urgent cases, a solution that proved inapplicable and led to the Doha Declaration. The objective of paragraph 6 must be to ensure that countries with no production capacity can genuinely use compulsory licences. On the contrary, however, some proposals create discrimination between first-class countries with a production capacity and second-class countries with no production capacity, which are, in fact, the poorest countries. The former will be able to use compulsory licences to manufacture any medicine that responds to a public health problem that they themselves have identified, whereas the latter will have to prove that they are experiencing a national situation of urgency. Although, in theory, all countries may have recourse to compulsory licences, in practice, the poorest countries will have to fight to have urgent situations recognised, obtain their licence and have their medicines manufactured. This proposal is unacceptable and I would ask you, Mr Lamy, to propose a solution that is genuinely beneficial to developing countries so that health takes precedence over profit, as you yourself said so well."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph