Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would also like to express my thanks to the two rapporteurs. I think we have a good compromise package on the table and I will work to ensure that this House votes for it by a large majority tomorrow. The most important point, in my view, is that we will have a uniform system of protection in Europe. Regardless of whether we think that eight or nine years is the right period, I believe it is very important, in an internal market, that we do not have the differences which have hitherto existed in Europe. That is a major step forward. I also greatly welcome the fact that we have been able to achieve an additional year of protection for existing substances. Progress sometimes proceeds at a snail’s pace, and it is not always a new substance that brings improvements. Sometimes, improvements can also be achieved through studies on existing substances. I think we have achieved very important progress here. Let me remind you that at first reading, there were a number of points which were already non-contentious but were nonetheless very important. We need to speed up procedures. We also need to speed up the procedures further where particularly important medicines are concerned, and we need an adjustment of the structures of the European Medicines Agency to the EU of the Twenty-Five. All this is very positive. I also think we were right to reject the Commission’s proposal on information and advertising. The Commissioner has expressed his regret yet again that this was the case, saying that the Commission was proposing to modernise this part of the legislation. I am still sceptical. Let me give you a specific example to show why I am so sceptical. The industry claims that it merely wants to provide information and naturally has no intention of engaging in the type of aggressive advertising that we are familiar with from the USA. A few weeks ago, I was in Bratislava in Slovakia, which is not yet part of the EU but thankfully will be joining on 1 May 2004. Opposite my hotel, there was a large billboard. It showed two people – a couple – lying listlessly in bed. Above them, there was Pfizer’s little blue pill – Viagra – and the name of the website: www.potentia.sk I thought to myself: ‘So this is the objective information that the industry wants to supply to patients via the Internet.’ This was advertising, and I for one would prefer not to have this type of advertising in Europe. It is not that I have anything against Viagra, but I think that in view of its side effects, Viagra should not be marketed on the Internet but should be prescribed by doctors. Objective information should also not be supplied in the manner depicted on the billboard. That is why I think we were right to reject this proposal and accept Mrs Grossetête’s compromise. I think we have achieved a great deal. Sadly, we have surrendered on one point, Commissioner. We said that we would not include paediatric medicinal products in this legislation so that the rules on paediatrics could be adopted more swiftly than the overall package. Unfortunately, we still do not have a proposal from the Commission. Regrettably, I must say to the Commissioner that the Commission should keep its Christmas break short. We expect your proposal on paediatric medicinal products in January.

Political group: PPE-DE