Mr President, thank you, Commissioner Lamy, for your introduction to this important and complicated subject. It is only just over a week since Parliament, at first reading, voted by a large majority in favour of a new regulation on combating HIV, malaria and tuberculosis in the poor countries of the world. We had been working on this issue for almost a year. The debate focused sharply upon the uneven struggle waged in the vast majority of poor countries between, on the one hand, the spread of serious infectious diseases and, on the other hand, access to the resources available both for preventing that spread and for helping people who have been affected and have fallen ill. A large problem in this connection is the fact that such a small portion of the world’s health research is directed precisely at those diseases that strike such a large proportion of the world’s population. The reason for this is, of course, that a great many pharmaceutical companies see no real profitability in this type of research. That is why we must seek innovative solutions. The market alone will not manage successfully to solve this problem. What, instead, is required is cooperation between the public aid organisations and industry. Another problem touched upon in the debate was the current imbalance within TRIPS and the WTO when it comes to the possibility, in special situations, of having recourse to what are known as compulsory licences. I am naturally aware of the negotiations in which the Commissioner has been involved. I can only regret that nothing has been achieved in the way of results. This is an incredibly important issue. The countries most dependent upon these exemption rules in the TRIPS Agreement are now in a position in which they are being discriminated against. I myself believe that, ideally, those countries in the South that lack production capacity should be treated in precisely the same way as countries in Europe or North America. The compromise that Commissioner Lamy is now trying to bring about contains a list. I think this list appears to be fine, but ideally, of course, there would be no need for any list at all. If we are now nonetheless to be heading towards a compromise, I think that what you have accomplished so far is commendable. I also think that the link with the WHO is an interesting idea. I believe I can guarantee that you have Parliament’s unqualified support in your endeavours to achieve a positive outcome, so that action can be taken on this issue too and, above all, so that the whole Doha process can continue. Because what hopefully will be some form of solution will be in the nature of a compromise, I also think it would be entirely reasonable to establish a deadline, for example a couple of years from now, by which this compromise should have been evaluated so that we can really see if it is operating well and, if it is not, can develop and improve it. In conclusion, I want to say that it is incredibly unfortunate that we have ended up in this position. I find it incomprehensible that there is actually opposition on this issue. I can understand the concern about the existence of cheating and parallel imports, but these are general problems that it should be possible to solve and that should preferably not take precedence over the health care situation in the world’s poor countries.

Political group: PPE-DE