Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-10-22-Speech-2-027"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021022.1.2-027"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I would also like to thank Commissioner Liikanen’s staff, and above all Mrs Grossetête and Mrs Müller, for the quality of their work on one of the most important public health dossiers of our parliamentary term.
Since the main points have already been covered, I shall devote my speaking time to the points on which there is still disagreement. Firstly, as far as the European Agency for the evaluation of medicinal products in London is concerned, I feel it is important to stress the essential role this body has played for seven years, a role which, in view of the forthcoming enlargement and of improving the way the internal market works, deserves to be extended to all medicinal products using a new active substance. That is why the Liberal Group is categorically opposed to Amendment Nos 136 of the report by Mrs Müller.
Regarding the protection of commercial data, the compromise adopted in committee, by 8 Members with 2 abstentions, balances the requirements and is, in my view, perfectly suitable. Why is this? Because no one has been able to demonstrate a direct and unique link between industrial protection and the success of generic products. The case of Germany and the United Kingdom, with ten full years of data protection and generic products which in fact have a 20% market share, illustrate this point remarkably well. If we attack research and development, we are attacking the wrong target and putting the very foundations of health protection at risk. It would be more honest, I believe, to acknowledge the genuine influence, on the development of generic products, of a genuine policy that works as an incentive in terms of price and refunds and, in parallel, of an effort by health professionals to enlighten their patients, and I support Mrs Oomen-Ruijten’s arguments on this point.
My last point concerns the ‘Information for patients’ section. Like other Members, I am not satisfied with the vote that took place in committee. Firstly, because the European Commission had the courage to tackle head on a considerable and practical problem which, whether you like it or not, must be resolved. Medical information on the Internet, freely accessible, is not monitored at present, which may have damaging consequences, as Commissioner Liikanen mentioned at the beginning of the debate. Next, because accurate information, it must indeed be pointed out, is not necessarily advertising, and because the equation between the two that some skilfully maintain is simplistic and misleading. We should therefore clarify and refine the Commission’s text, which is what Mrs Grossetête tried to do, rather than delete everything.
To sum up, Mr President – and this is the most important point, the rapporteurs have emphasised this sufficiently – it is vital to maintain a fair balance between the essential priorities of public health and those priorities which aim to encourage the competitiveness of the pharmaceutical industry, and therefore research in Europe, and the completion of our single market."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples