Dr. Aisling McMahon:

On the current state of affairs with the TRIPS waiver proposal, this was discussed before Christmas. If my recollection serves me right, it was put forward by countries in October and it has been discussed since then. There were informal discussions again, I think, last week, and as far as I am aware there will be further discussions. In March, there will be more discussions within the formal meeting context on the TRIPS situation, so it is still ongoing.

In response to some of the other questions, the C-TAP initiative is a voluntary system. It does not suspend and instead encourages companies to share their intellectual property rights. They retain those rights. It is also a non-exclusive system so they would still be able to have licensing agreements. That is the key difference between the two. The other difference is that C-TAP encourages the sharing of know-how, which is crucial within the vaccine context. Both of those measures are ongoing and, as we have said, both are ones that we support.

On the first question that Deputy Clarke asked about the figures that we mentioned earlier of nine out of ten people not being able to get vaccines, and some of those figures are for Oxfam and other groups, our hope is that is based on projections around the current vaccine situation. We hope that with agreements like C-TAP or, indeed, if more companies are willing to engage in voluntary licensing, that would either increase the capacity, because we are going to have more and more manufacturers producing these vaccines, or it would build capacity. It would mean new manufacturers coming on board to produce those vaccines. Our hope is that that would then increase the numbers available and bring the figures down, thus making sure we have a more equitable spread because, essentially, the aim is to produce more and have more manufacturers doing more.

In terms of IP, that currently is tricky. If companies have intellectual property and if they are not sharing the know-how, then other manufacturers cannot come on board because it would be in breach of intellectual property rights, but also they may not have the know-how to do that. They need the know-how and the sharing.

On who else supports or whether any pharmaceutical companies support the C-TAP measure, there is news that 18 generic companies, that is, 18 companies that could produce generic products, have come on board and are supportive of the C-TAP arrangement. As I have said, I am not aware of the current picture and to what extent they are coming on board, although I am sure they are, and there are negotiations between the WHO and the pharmaceutical companies that have some of the rights at the moment. Certainly, generic companies are coming on board, and the latest figure is that there are 18 companies that are generic producers and that are willing to do that.

In terms of Senator Craughwell's questions, one was very important as it mentioned the idea of human rights. This is something we have touched on briefly. It has to be said and must be emphasised, however, that there is a human right to life and there is also a human right to health protected both under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and under international agreements such as the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. All countries that are party to those would have obligations to protect and promote human rights, and not just a legal obligation, although clearly there is one, but also a moral obligation in terms of these issues.

I know, given the time, we may not get the opportunity to say more on the following, so we would like to thank the committee again today, but one of the things that I would ask for is that there would be consideration given to or discussion of formal endorsement of C-TAP. It is very important. Others have mentioned Ireland's place on the international stage. It is not enough just to support C-TAP. We certainly support that and hope that the Government would do that, but also, if possible and ideally, the Government should be advocating for C-TAP and other mechanisms at an international level, particularly at the EU level but also, given its role internationally in terms of the UN Security Council, being an advocate and being a part of that.

The other thing is to encourage other pharmaceutical companies to join. Some companies, it must be said, have already engaged in and entered into voluntary licensing deals and I know this has been mentioned. These include Pfizer and BioNTech with Sanofi, AstraZeneca with the Serum Institute of India. More of that needs to happen and C-TAP, if they supported it, could facilitate that at a larger scale. The idea of whether a Dáil motion might be something that would be possible was also mentioned earlier. We would particularly welcome a Dáil motion or Seanad motion tabling these types of issues if it was something Members were willing to consider, particularly an endorsement of the C-TAP initiative, but also the other initiatives such as the waiver or other proposals to facilitate equitable global access.