Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

13. To ask the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment further to Parliamentary Question No. 2 of 12 October 2022, the status of his engagement at WTO and EU level with regard to the proposal to extend the 17 June 2022 decision of the WTO on the TRIPS Agreement to cover Covid-19 therapeutics and diagnostic tests with no further conditions to the text; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [53788/22]

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

14. To ask the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment if he will support strengthening the very limited TRIPS waiver agreed in relation to Covid-19 vaccines to include suspending all relevant intellectual property rules and ensuring the mandatory pooling of all COVID-19-related knowledge, data and technologies in order that any nation can produce or buy sufficient and affordable doses of vaccines, treatments and tests; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [53850/22]

Pádraig O'Sullivan (Cork North Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

43. To ask the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the engagement that he has had at an EU level regarding the proposed extension of the TRIPS waiver to therapeutics and diagnostics for Covid-19; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [53672/22]

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I want to ask the Tánaiste about the status of his engagement at WTO and EU level with regard to the proposal to not apply the TRIPS Agreement to cover Covid-19 therapeutics and diagnostic tests, as well as the issue of vaccines.

Damien English (Meath West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am taking Questions Nos. 13, 14 and 43 together. Is that okay?

Pádraig O'Sullivan (Cork North Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Mheas mé gurb é Ceist Uimh. 14 amháin a bhí i gceist ach tá an ceart ag an Aire Stáit.

Damien English (Meath West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Responding to the exceptional circumstances of the Covid-19 pandemic, Ministers at the WTO Ministerial Conference in June 2022 agreed an outcome in relation to the production and supply of Covid-19 vaccines. The ministerial decision on the TRIPS Agreement provides for a waiver of certain obligations of the agreement and includes clarifications that will allow eligible WTO members to authorise a company to manufacture and export Covid-19 vaccines in a fast and simplified manner and without the consent of the patent owner. Developing countries will be able to use this solution to authorise the manufacture, import or export of Covid-19 vaccines without prior negotiation with the patent owner and without any notification requirements that would delay the start of the manufacture or export. Equally important is the clarification that the remuneration for patent owners may take account of humanitarian or not-for-profit purpose of production and hence support the production and supply of Covid-19 vaccines at affordable prices for those in need.

The ministerial decision covers Covid-19 vaccines as well as the ingredients and processes necessary for their manufacture. At the time of the adoption of the decision, there was no consensus among the members to cover also Covid-19 diagnostics and therapeutics. As a compromise, paragraph 8 of the decision stipulates that no later than six months from the date of that decision, which would bring us to 17 December next, members will be expected to decide on whether to extend the decision to cover the production and supply of Covid-19 diagnostics and therapeutics.

Deputies will already be aware that trade is an exclusive competence of the EU, and, accordingly, the negotiations on TRIPS, as a trade matter, are led by the EU. The EU is in the process of conducting internal consultations and analysis on the extension, taking into consideration that the case for Covid-19 therapeutics and diagnostics is more complex than the one pertaining to vaccines. Discussions on the extension of the mechanism to cover the production and supply of Covid-19 diagnostics and therapeutics are ongoing at the WTO. The EU is engaging constructively in these discussions.

Ireland will continue to engage with the European Commission and other member states on the EU position. A decision to extend the earlier ministerial decision from June will require the agreement of all WTO members. The next main date is December, if we are to stay within the six month-period. We will certainly update Deputies after that session as well.

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What is Ireland's position? The Minister of State spoke for a long time but he did not say what Ireland's position is. Does Ireland support extending the TRIPS waiver to diagnostics - technology other than vaccines - or does it not? Does it stand with the poorest people in the world who want to get access to the technology to be able to test for Covid, etc., or does it stand with the big pharmaceutical companies that want to keep a monopoly on those technologies in order to maximise their profits?

Where does Ireland stand? That is important to know because what is being reported is that the obstructive position in the talks is being taken by the EU, the UK, Canada and Japan which are seeking to delay progress in relation to that. Obviously, Ireland is part of the EU. What is Ireland's position? Does the Government support extending the TRIPS waiver to diagnostics and therapeutics or does it not?

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would also like that question answered. It is specific. I have had the advantage over Deputy Paul Murphy of reading it. The Minister of State is not dealing with the question in the context of what is Ireland's position. The decision that was agreed in June falls far short of what was asked by countries, led by India and others, in October 2020. They asked for a lot more.

Here we are now. In the beginning, there might have been some excuse, although I do not think there was. We were reacting. Now there has been time for reflection. Is our voice being heard at EU level to say this has to be extended in a fair manner to diagnostics, tests and treatments? Is that happening? Where is our voice?

The Government continuously tells us that trade is an EU competency. We know that. We do not need the Minister of State to keep telling us that. This is a health matter. This is about human beings and about justice, equality and fairness. Where is our voice at EU level in that regard?

Damien English (Meath West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is probably fair to say that the ministerial decision was the outcome of extensive, detailed and politically sensitive negotiations which we have discussed here quite a lot over the past year. Ireland has always taken a prominent position on that within the EU. They hold the competency for this and we contribute to that. Our officials in Dublin, Brussels and Geneva are involved in a round of negotiations since that meeting nearly four and a half months ago in preparing for the next round, which is on 17 December, and we are feeding into that.

The EU is in the process of engaging with various stakeholders, conducting internal consultations and analysing available information to gain an understanding, and we are feeding into that as well. We have always had the view - we are clear from an Irish point of view - that we had to find the best way to get access to what was on offer while protecting the intellectual property, IP, as well. Deputy Paul Murphy and I differ on that. We believe that one must protect an IP regime to encourage more people to invest in that and to invest in future medicines and future therapeutics, and health services as well. If one does not have that regime right, one will lose out on that investment and everyone - developing countries or not - suffers.

We have been feeding in to try to find the best way. We have always made it clear that the opportunity to manufacture and access the infrastructure on the ground was important. We have made a lot of progress since the previous talks. The conversation has moved on and that is the part in which the EU is involved. The talks are politically sensitive and they involve many countries. The EU has been one of the leaders in this and we have made some progress since the previous talks. I will be able to update Deputy Murphy after the December meeting. I am afraid that is as far as we can go today.

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is not acceptable. We are asking a question. The answer of the Minister of State, repeatedly, was to say we are feeding in to find the best way. I have no idea what this means. Is Ireland at European Council level pushing for the EU to support the extension of the waiver or is it not? We have the right to know what position the Irish Government is taking. The Minister of State does not, or certainly should not, have the right to come in here and talk nonsense and not say anything. He says he supports the intellectual property. If the Government's position is that the right of the companies to profit and the right of Ireland to get a small amount of corporation tax should come before the lives of millions of people the Minister of State should come and argue that position and let us have a debate about it. To hide Ireland's position in language stating that we are feeding in to try to find the best way is quite craven. Come out and say what is the Irish Government's position. If the Irish Government supports the extension of that waiver that is great. Clearly that is what I think we should be doing. It is not acceptable to refuse to answer the question. The negotiations are happening now. As the Minister of State said, this has to be done by 17 December. It will be scandalous if the Irish Government stands with the pharmaceutical companies and not billions of people around the world.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would love to hear the voice of the Tánaiste on this because we need leadership on it. I understand he is in possession of a letter from more than 18 non-governmental organisations, including the Irish Council for Civil Liberties. They have pointed out that less than 20% of people in the poorest countries are fully vaccinated. At the same time high-income countries account for 75% of total known supplied details of all existing therapeutics. Within a minute one cannot read out the letter. The NGOs are deeply disappointed that the WTO TRIPS decision, made on 17 June and endorsed by the Irish Government, was not comprehensive.

We are speaking about health. There is no point in making Ireland safe if other countries are not safe. If we endorsed a system that enriched a small number of pharmaceutical companies beyond belief on public money let us learn from it. Let us stop praising the wonderful pharmaceutical companies that did this on public money. Perhaps at some point the Minister of State might tell us how much public money went into it. He might also tell us how many vaccine doses we have given to COVAX. I do not expect him to have the answers now. We are constantly trying to get information. At this point I am just asking for leadership to let our voice be heard.

Damien English (Meath West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I also have the letter that was addressed to the Taoiseach from the individuals outlining their concerns. We have to reflect on what progress has already been made on access to the vaccine since we discussed this when people raised it previously. The ministerial decision on the TRIPS agreement provides for a waiver of certain obligations of the TRIPS agreement. It includes clarifications that will allow eligible WTO members to authorise a company to manufacture and export Covid-19 vaccines in a fast and simplified manner and without the consent of the patent owner. There have been major changes. Developing countries will be able to use this solution to authorise the manufacture, import or export of Covid-19 vaccines without prior negotiation with the patent owner and without notification requirements that would delay the start of the manufacture or export.

Equally important is the clarification that the remuneration for patent owners may take account of a humanitarian or not-for-profit purpose of production and hence support the production supply of Covid-19 vaccines at affordable prices for those in need. The decision that has been made will simplify to the maximum the process to export vaccines and their ingredients to other developing countries. This includes waiving various prior notification packaging or labelling requirements. It will also enable developing countries to scale up production capacity and supply vaccines to other eligible members. It will also support the establishment of manufacturing hubs that rely on supply chains in multiple countries. This will facilitate, for instance, filling and finishing capacity in several countries. The outcome maintains the protection of intellectual property as opposed to waving intellectual property rights. This is a key element for developing countries not only to benefit from the innovation the system sustains but also to have an environment that incentivises investment the international community should make to boost capacity and diversification in the production of vaccines and pharmaceutical products more broadly throughout the world.

I have argued previously that the successful production of new vaccines and new medicines involves public money and private money.

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Mostly public.

Damien English (Meath West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is fair to say a lot of extra public money was put on top of billions of euro of private money for Covid. There is no doubt about this. There was an investment of private money well before this. We have to make sure the intellectual property regime protects both of these investments and enhances the best opportunities. We believe Ireland's role in our negotiations through the EU in the trade talks has assisted with these changes. We will continue to take this approach in the coming months until 17 December. They are negotiations. We are part of negotiations through the EU and the WTO that involve more than 150 companies. I cannot go into every little detail the Deputy wants but we recognise-----

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I think it is public, private and profit.

Damien English (Meath West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is about how we best maximise money for research. I do not have all the figures here today but I ask Deputy Connolly to trust me that the private end has been higher than the public end for a long number of years. Let us be fair about this. It is important that we maximise the opportunity. We differ on the need to have a blend of public and private money in research. To me it is about how we maximise the impact of expenditure. This is done by combining the two in many ways. This is not an approach shared by Deputy Paul Murphy. I am not sure of the approach of Deputy Connolly but I know Deputy Murphy believes it should be all taxpayers' money. I believe that would miss out on opportunities that we have to build on.

With regard to COVAX I do not have the figures but I will get them for Deputy Connolly.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is great.