Paul Murphy: Demands DRIPS Waiver, Condemns Vaccine Profiteering

We had a hearing on this in the Committee on Enterprise Trade and Employment last week and what we heard from the representatives of Médecins Sans Frontières, Oxfam and the pharmaceutical industry was shocking. Médecins Sans Frontières said that literally millions of people have died as a consequence of the failure to give a DRIPS waiver. We heard about the almost $100 billion in public funding given to the pharmaceutical industry to develop these vaccines and then the very significant profits which weren't contested by the pharmaceutical industry where the three of the biggest companies are between them making $1,000 a minute at the moment in profits from these vaccines. So massive profiteering. The outcome, I mean yesterday at our private meeting we agreed unanimously including government TDs from government supporting parties to send a letter to the Tanaiste asking him to agree for the government position to be in favour of supporting a DRIPS waiver. So our position as a committee was absolutely clear. It would be interesting to see what the government says in response. It's a lot to get through from that. Thanks Chair. Yeah, and look, guys, I wasn't at that committee so I would be happy to read back over the submissions on that because I haven't had a chance just to get a sense of what's been put forward there. But a lot of the debate around this, even since we had these debates in the Houses here and back in the Shannon as well, was focusing on the supply and that the supply was the issue. Where the EU always took the position that that wouldn't necessarily be the issue, that it wasn't just the solution, there's a lot of other parts of this too, that the capacity of those countries to be able to administer the vaccine on the ground and the demand for that as well. So it's quite clear now that the supply is not the issue and the EU were right on that. You will all disagree, of course, I accept that, but the facts are there for themselves that the supply of the vaccines are up to a level that are needed. There is a compromise proposal being put forward now, the WTO, and it's not just Europe. This is a WTO, it's not just Europe or one player on that as well. And I will say it repeatedly, Europe has laid out on this in relation to distribution and the export. I think others might have to question themselves on that as well, outside of the EU, but the EU has played their part in relation to that as well. So I think compromise tax, we think, will be beneficial and will help with that. And it is a compromise and has been worked out since last autumn. The Irish government supports that as well. It's now informally in those trade talks. And I believe there's a meeting scheduled, if I'm correct, for the end of this month or early June to try to bring this to a formal decision as well, which I think will be positive. But I do think we have to continue to support not just the access to the manufacturing and the production of it, but also to the investment in the systems in these countries to be able to administer the vaccine as well. Healthcare workers, logistics, information sharing, the demand for the vaccines, all that's part of that as well. So I don't agree that the EU have held this back. They're part of the world trade talks and that's a part of it as well. But we are, though, as an Irish government, and we said this in the chat in motion where we didn't oppose, I think there was agreement there, of everyone's intention here. But there's more than one way to achieve this. And the discussion that I've heard has always focused on that the supply was the issue, when clearly it's not necessarily the supply in relation to the investment of public money. And a lot of the work that's happening at our level and European level is also to try to recognise the importance of giving access and greater access to the vaccines, but also to protect our IP regime, not just for now, but for the future as well. Because we talk about the public money that was invested in bringing forward these vaccines quickly. And I've always acknowledged that, massive public investment all over the world. But that also was combined with massive private investment from many years before that. Because the vaccine that has been used has been a combination of new research, but also a lot of investment and development over many, many, many years as well. And we want to continue with that investment. I know members in this House, I've had debates here before, many years ago, in relation to the investment in R&D and research and development. And there's a few in this House believe that it should all be done by public money. But that does not get us the best results. It doesn't lead to the best development of all the potential medical interventions and solutions and drugs and so on. You need the blend and combination of both private and public money to achieve a much greater impact. But that's not acknowledged by some contributors here. And I accept that. We would differ. It's important that we have a right model that encourages private investment as well as the public investment to get the best products developed for people. Minister, you're closing your eyes to the actual truth and just resting in a comfortable ideology that the free market is delivering. What happened here was public money. $100 billion of public money because the public said we need to develop vaccines and therapeutics as quick as possible. And then what happened is that that benefit was privatized. Earlier on I said, sorry, they're making $1,000 profit a minute. I meant $1,000 profit every second. That's Pfizer, Moderna and BioNTech. These companies spend more on advertising than they do on research. That's the truth of it. That's Pfizer for example. It's not true that there's no problem in terms of supply. What came out very clearly at the committee was in particular in terms of mRNA vaccines, the best quality vaccines. There's a huge problem in terms of supply. It's why only one in six people in Africa are fully vaccinated. The compromise is not good enough. It covers only vaccines, not therapeutics. It covers only patents, not other intellectual property barriers such as trade secrets. It doesn't cover every country. It requires an agreement on a case-by-case basis by each country which makes it extremely cumbersome. All of it is designed to protect the profits of the corporations which will result in more people dying. Thanks, Chair. Again, a couple of issues there. Again, I think the debate hasn't changed much. We are very much focused around the IP and the IP regime. The EU position has always been that that's not just what the sole focus should be. But we've differed on that for a long number of months. I'm not going to change our mind here. I'll be happy to look at the Larry of St. Overs and respond to that as well. I've always said there's a combination of public and private money being invested in the solutions here. There's never been any dispute on that. And the figures are there. I don't have the advertising budget of those companies mentioned by Deputy Paul Murphy. I would seriously doubt that you're factually right, though, on that. That they spend more on advertising than R&D. But if you're right, I'll give way to that. But I haven't seen that. And it's certainly something that I'd be interested in. But in relation to public and private collaboration has been contributing significantly to the development of treatments and vaccines against COVID-19. The development of new therapeutics is based on years of research, clinical trials, and it's successful developing manufacturing capacity and distribution networks which are not necessarily publicly funded. Intellectual property is a crucial incentive for the research and development of novel vaccines, medicines and treatments, and investment in production capacity. Experts agree, but you have a different view from the experts you listen to, that the current COVID vaccines were produced in record time as industry was able to piggyback years of investment in other vaccine productions, which has been incentivized by, in part, a support of intellectual property regime. And that's something we want to protect, not just for now, but for the future. Because we recognize that the best results to develop the best products and medical solutions is a combination of public and private money. And we have to recognize that. But in relation to dealing with what's happening now, to be very, very clear in relation to our role in this with the EU, the trade is an exclusive competence of the EU. And accordingly, the negotiations and trips as a trade matter are led by the EU. We feed into that. Ireland engages with the European Commission and other EU member states on the EU position for the WTO discussions on the TRIPS waiver. The EU has not necessarily agreed with the TRIPS waiver on the grounds that intellectual property rights are not the primary obstacle to the access and supply of vaccines around the world. I'm conscious to the people you listen to, you're convinced of that, and I accept your position. But it's not necessarily the case accepted by everybody else. Since last autumn, the EU was actively engaged in informal discussions with representatives of South Africa, India and the US referred to the process.