Asked by
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress they have made in
discussions with members of the World Trade Organisation to
facilitate increased production and supply of COVID-19 vaccines.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for
Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy () (Con)
My Lords, the UK is proud to be playing a global leading role in
the development and distribution of coronavirus vaccines. What is
now needed most is the scaling up of existing and new vaccine
production to achieve equitable, affordable access for all. We
continue to engage actively and constructively at the WTO
regarding increasing the production and supply of Covid-19
vaccines.
(LD)
My Lords, the temporary TRIPS waiver proposed by South Africa and
India to the WTO is supported by the US and France, as well as
the leaders of the COVAX initiative—Gavi and the WHO—which has
proven entire-chain processes that deliver to the last mile. Does
the Minister agree that the counter-proposal by the European
Commission to encourage voluntary action and reliance on
compulsory licences is a red herring, because both options
already exist? Millions of people have died while we rely on the
good will of big pharma, which has yet again failed the humanity
test.
(Con)
I am afraid that I do not agree with the noble Baroness. We are
working with industry, the COVAX Manufacturing Task Force and the
ACT-A Vaccine Manufacturing Working Group to champion other
routes to scale up capacity and engage on forward supply chain
planning in order to accelerate and progress vaccination
programmes across the world. We think that is the best way
forward.
(Lab) [V]
Ensuring accessible and affordable Covid-19 vaccines across the
globe is a human rights duty that requires international
co-operation. Can the Minister give details of government support
for the WHO Technology Access Pool, and have the Government
ensured that the intellectual property in respect of vaccines
developed with the support of public funding has been deposited
with C-TAP, in order to scale up production in countries that
have untapped capacity?
(Con)
It is not simply a question of scaling up untapped capacity;
producing these vaccines is complicated and technically
challenging, and we need the support of big pharma to do it.
There are few facilities across the world that can produce them
properly and we have seen, even in the West, how some batches
have gone wrong because of manufacturing problems. However, we
are proud to be working with the COVAX initiative. We have helped
to raise more than £1 billion through match funding other donors.
Combined with our aid, that is helping to distribute 1.8 billion
doses across the world.
(Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, AstraZeneca has been generous in providing vaccines to
the world at cost. Do other companies oppose the principle of
giving up their intellectual property rights in respect of these
vaccines? As there is a humanitarian justification in their
allowing the world to so benefit, would there be any merit in
naming and shaming such big pharma companies?
(Con)
It remains the case that we have not seen any convincing evidence
that intellectual property is a limiting factor in the production
and/or supply of Covid vaccines or other technologies. As the
noble Lord points out, the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine is being
made available at cost.
(Con) [V]
My Lords, first, I congratulate the Government, through my noble
friend, on the success of the UK vaccine rollout and the
involvement with AstraZeneca, whose vaccine is widely being
offered on a no-profit basis, as has been said. While I hope for
our continuing commitment in assisting with worldwide protection,
can my noble friend confirm that, in any discussions on possible
intellectual property waivers, he will ensure that standards of
production and vaccine quality will not be prejudiced at all?
(Con)
I thank my noble friend for his comments and he makes a very good
point, the same point that I made earlier. Production of these
vaccines is technically complicated, particularly the mRNA
vaccines. There are not really any other production facilities
outside the West in the property of big pharmaceutical companies
that are able to produce them. It is not a question of simply
waiving the IP rights and allowing anybody to produce them.
(LD)
My Lords, paragraph 10 of the G7 communiqué refers to 700 million
doses being made available from domestic productions, over half
of which have gone to other G7 countries. Uganda, for example, is
paying three times as much as the EU and the UK for the
AstraZeneca vaccine because of the limit and because it is not
using the WHO Technology Access Pool. Will the Government think
again and open up access to technology and know-how in order to
allow other countries to increase domestic production, so that
they pay the same to AstraZeneca as the UK is paying?
(Con)
I am not sure that the noble Lord’s figures are correct. I will
certainly write to him if that is not the case, but my
understanding is that the vaccines are being distributed at cost.
AstraZeneca already has supply agreements—with the Serum
Institute of India, for example, to produce 1 billion doses. We
will donate 100 million surplus coronavirus vaccine doses within
the next year. We are committed to helping the third world to
access the vaccines it needs.
(Con)
My Lords, as the Minister said, the process of manufacturing
vaccines is complex and difficult, as we saw with Johnson &
Johnson in America, for example. The fastest and best way to set
up large-scale vaccine manufacturing in developing countries is
for the rights holders to invest. Will our Government work with
IP holders such as AstraZeneca to set up across the world? We do
not need to deprive them of their rights. The Oxford/AstraZeneca
group intends its vaccine to be for the world; will our
Government help it to deliver that?
(Con)
My noble friend is correct and speaks with great authority on
this subject, but the best way forward is voluntary licensing and
technology transfer partnerships. They are making a real and
positive impact on vaccine delivery, and the UK Government will
of course do all we can to facilitate this process.
(CB) [V]
My Lords, as president of the CBI, I chaired the B7, which fed
into the G7. The B7 was attended by Dr Ngozi, the new
director-general of the WTO. There was unanimous agreement on the
free flow of trade for the manufacture and distribution of
vaccines. Do the Government agree that there needs to be
unhindered trade for vaccine manufacture and distribution? The
Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine, for example, contains 280 different
components, manufactured in 86 different sites across 19
countries. Does the Minister also agree that, although it is good
that the UK and US have agreed to supply 600 million surplus
doses of vaccines around the world, what is actually needed is
for the wealthiest countries in the world to urgently finance and
help enable the manufacture and distribution of 11 billion doses,
including at the Serum Institute of India, which the Minister
just mentioned?
(Con)
There was a lot in those questions. The best way to facilitate
this is through the COVAX initiative. The UK is proud to be one
of its largest funders. We have helped to raise almost $1 billion
for that initiative, which is helping to supply vaccines to 92
developing countries across the world.
(Lab)
The G7 leaders’ communiqué notes
“the positive impact that voluntary licensing and technology
transfer on mutually agreed terms have already made to increasing
global supply.”
But untransparent exclusive bilateral voluntary licences from
pharmaceutical companies have led to the grossly insufficient
quantities of Covid-19 vaccines that we see today. I return to
the line of questioning of the noble Baroness, Lady Bryan, and
the noble Lord, Lord Purvis: will the UK Government not continue
to miss the point but instead use their initiative and push
pharmaceutical companies to share intellectual property and tech
through the World Health Organization’s Covid-19 Technology
Access Pool?
(Con)
My Lords, the intellectual property for the AstraZeneca vaccine,
as is known, is actually owned by the University of Oxford. We
will of course work with the companies and everyone possible to
make sure that the third world is vaccinated, because that is in
our interests. That is why we have contributed so much to the
COVAX initiative.
(LD)
Does the Minister agree that it was ODA funding to the Jenner
Institute, for the Ebola crisis, that helped to underpin what it
was later able to do in this pandemic? Has any new money been
allocated by the UK to COVAX since the ODA cut last year?
(Con)
We have donated £548 million to the COVAX initiative, which has
been match funded to a total of $1 billion.
(CB)
My Lords, given the government statement at the TRIPS council
meeting on 9 June that suggested that
“vaccines for new pandemics will simply not be developed”
if there is action on intellectual property, what role does the
Minister consider the £100 billion in taxpayer subsidies played
in Covid-19 vaccine development? Will he confirm that, apart from
the role of big pharma, to which he has referred, 97% of the
costs of developing the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine were covered
by public funds?
(Con)
A strong IP system is crucial in supporting the rapid development
of new vaccines, but the noble Lord is right: we contributed
extensive taxpayer funds to supporting it.
(Con)
My Lords, as my noble friend has said, ramping up production of
vaccines is key in the medium and long term but, in the short
term, rich countries such as ours have been fortunate enough to
be able to buy sufficient vaccines to vaccinate our population
many times over. The 100 million doses the UK has now committed
is a welcome first step, but 70 million will not be distributed
until next year. Given that we will have fully vaccinated our
adult population by the end of the summer, can my noble friend
look again at the timing of our contribution?
(Con)
We will certainly look at it, as my noble friend suggests, but
the Prime Minister has announced that the UK will share 100
million doses within the next year, of which 30 million will be
delivered by the end of 2021. We currently do not have any
surplus vaccines and the health of the UK public remains our
first priority. But I agree with my noble friend that this virus
will not truly be beaten until it is defeated everywhere. We have
been committed to affordable access to vaccines for all since the
start of the pandemic, and this announcement is another tangible
demonstration of that.
