Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-02-10-Speech-1-094"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030210.8.1-094"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, this is a difficult issue on which feelings can run high. I would first like to thank the representatives of all the groups who have expressed their support for the position I have adopted on behalf of the Commission. I have noted the statements made by Mr Wijkman, Mrs McNally, Mr Clegg, Mr Marset Campos and Mrs Maes in particular. The European Parliament is firmly united on this issue. This is very important for us at the Commission, it is important to me and it is important in the field of external relations.
I would point out that the issue of the use of compulsory licences by countries with a pharmaceutical industry to obtain benefit from differentiated prices and lower prices was settled at Doha. On that occasion we did not however settle the issue of countries which have to resort to imports. This implies that the system of compulsory licensing could be applied across international boundaries, giving rise to complicated legal problems.
This problem is currently dealt with on a provisional basis. All developing countries can at present use a compulsory licensing system to obtain benefit from differentiated prices. This applies to medicines to treat diseases like AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis and certain other diseases. This is possible because of the provisional arrangement that the United States and the European Union implemented in December. This provisional arrangement is simply not enough however. We think it is unlikely to galvanise all the parties involved. These parties are the governments concerned, their health systems and the pharmaceutical industry. A long-term solution must therefore be found. None has so far emerged from the discussions taking place in Geneva, because of the American position. Further evidence of this was provided at the Council on TRIPS this morning.
I would like to reassure Mrs Kinnock on one point. The issue of access to medicines is not on the Doha negotiating programme due to be concluded at the end of 2004. It does not feature amongst the fifteen subjects we decided to discuss. The issue falls beyond the scope of these negotiations and will therefore not be the subject of any kind of trade-off. It stands alone as a subject in its own right and on the table of the World Trade Organisation. This issue is not linked to the rest of the negotiations by virtue of the agenda but because it testifies to the capacity of the World Trade Organisation to instil confidence in its members. Consequently, when it comes to discussing the question of whether the compulsory licensing system should be used for Viagra or for medicines to treat toothache for example, members have the confidence to prevent the discussions degenerating into a legal battle. I am simply referring to this particular example because I have read about it in the press. This all amounts to a major problem for the World Trade Organisation.
I wonder why the pharmaceutical industry has adopted the position it has. The latter resulted in the United States rejecting the compromise on the table in December. I have to say that I am completely baffled. I did not understand the position that the American pharmaceutical industry took in South Africa either, and I also failed to understand the position it adopted when it very nearly caused a stand-off between the United States and Brazil, until the United States Government saw the light. I just cannot understand its attitude. Its stance will only strengthen opposition to the principle of intellectual property across a large number of sectors. In truth, it is easy to present this conflict between health and profits in such a way that, little by little, if the American pharmaceutical industry continues as it has been doing, there will be sound political reasons for starting work on agreements on intellectual property. This time the determination will be there.
I would urge those of you who have some influence in this field to use this argument to try to convince these people that their attitude will not get them where they want to be, but will lead them in the opposite direction. The United States would do well to consider an example of how to reach a consensus when circumstances make this imperative. They could study the attitude adopted by the European Union recently towards the Kimberly process on the subject of blood diamonds. This may be a less high profile case, but it is nonetheless important, especially for certain developing countries. We Europeans were isolated in the World Trade Organisation. We were the only party reluctant to ask the WTO for a dispensation to implement the Kimberly agreements. We stood alone and eventually decided to go along with the consensus because we did not want to stand in the way of this solution. We shall do so by coming up with our own interpretation of the articles of the WTO. The United States could perfectly well adopt the same approach on this issue.
On the question of parallel imports raised by several Members, I am sure you will be aware that the Commission has put forward a proposal for the European Union. The Council is currently studying the proposal. Those of you with an interest in the matter could join me in urging the Council to take less time than usual to rule on the proposal.
I would now like to move on to my last point. I agree with those Members who explained that while the problem of price and the problem of taking account of patent law in connection with prices are important, these are not the only problems to be solved. There are many other issues to address if we are to ensure better access to medicines for people in developing countries. The quality of the health systems must be improved. There needs to be a system of public research into diseases that no longer exist in developed countries and are therefore no longer of interest to the pharmaceutical industry. Problems of distribution and medical culture must be resolved. There will still be much to be done, even after the difficulties relating to patent law have been overcome, which I trust will be soon. This is not however a reason for giving up on our determined efforts to ensure that this first, important and highly symbolic step is taken with the help of the European Union. The Commission will certainly persevere, spurred on by the statements made during this debate."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples