1-20 of 121 results for house:"House of Lords"
Librarians' tools
- Search time
- 0.496 seconds
- Solr query time
- 0.008 seconds
- Search query
- house:"House of Lords"
- We searched for
- legislature_ses:25277
Type
House
Session
Year
Department
Member
More
Primary member
More
Answering member
Legislative stage
Legislation
Subject
More
Publisher
My Lords, I think there is widespread agreement across the House on these programmes. To be fair, as the Minister pointed out in her initial Answer, the previous Government committed £1.65 billion between 2021-25, supporting Gavi to immunise some 300 million children and save up to 18 million lives from vaccine-preventable diseases. This is a vital programme. I understand that the Minister cannot give specific numbers at this stage, but perhaps she could set out the general role that the Government should play in global vaccine equity.
My Lords, I think there is widespread agreement across the House on these programmes. To be fair, as the Minister pointed out in her initial Answer, the previous Government committed £1.65 billion between 2021-25, supporting Gavi to immunise some 300 million children and save up to 18 million lives from vaccine-preventable diseases. This is a vital programme. I understand that the Minister cannot give specific numbers at this stage, but perhaps she could set out the general role that the Government should play in global vaccine equity.
The noble Lord is right; I am not going to give a number this afternoon, because the replenishment is taking place next week. I will be attending, alongside the Foreign Secretary, and we will be making the announcement he talks about. I pay tribute to the previous Government for investing in and supporting Gavi. I am proud that it was started under a Labour Government and continued by successive Conservative Governments. We will continue to support it too, because it is such a successful initiative.
My Right Honourable friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kwasi Kwarteng) has today made the following statement:
BEIS has been committed to improving the business environment and delivering upon the pillars of the Plan for Growth. We have a plan to secure more domestic energy, support...
My Right Honourable friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kwasi Kwarteng) has today made the following statement:
BEIS has been committed to improving the business environment and delivering upon the pillars of the Plan for Growth. We have a plan to secure more domestic energy, support...
My Lords, the consensus-based agreement reached at the WTO’s 12th ministerial conference streamlines compulsory licensing processes for developing countries to manufacture and export Covid-19 vaccines while preserving the incentives to innovation that the international IP system provides. We welcome that the agreement does not undermine the existing IP framework, which has been key to the effective response to the pandemic.
My Lords, the consensus-based agreement reached at the WTO’s 12th ministerial conference streamlines compulsory licensing processes for developing countries to manufacture and export Covid-19 vaccines while preserving the incentives to innovation that the international IP system provides. We welcome that the agreement does not undermine the existing IP framework, which has been key to the effective response to the pandemic.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how, and to what extent, the temporary waiver of provisions of the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), agreed at the World Trade Organization’s Ministerial Conference on 17 June, will expand access to current and new vaccines, given that it does not include a waiver of trade secrets.
I disagree. This is a very good agreement, and the Government have seen no evidence that IP rights, including the protection of undisclosed information or trade secrets, are any barrier to accessing treatments for Covid-19. The problem now is that we are seeing supply effectively outstrip demand, with the current level of vaccine production. There is evidence—reports of a South African Covid-19 vaccine plant being at risk of closure because it has no orders, and the Serum Institute of India halving production of AstraZeneca’s vaccine due to no new orders.
I disagree. This is a very good agreement, and the Government have seen no evidence that IP rights, including the protection of undisclosed information or trade secrets, are any barrier to accessing treatments for Covid-19. The problem now is that we are seeing supply effectively outstrip demand, with the current level of vaccine production. There is evidence—reports of a South African Covid-19 vaccine plant being at risk of closure because it has no orders, and the Serum Institute of India halving production of AstraZeneca’s vaccine due to no new orders.
My Lords, regrettably, the Minister’s Answer—I do not blame him for this as he was probably following his brief—did not address the issue that, without the inclusion of a waiver of trade secrets, essential access to critical manufacturing know-how and clinical data, and therefore to the ability to manufacture new vaccines, is denied. Why is this our Government’s policy, and why did our negotiators, who spent 18 months resisting this waiver completely, try to weaken the text further by requesting the deletion of the reference to the possibility of expanding the agreement in TRIPS on Covid-19 to include therapeutics and diagnostics in six months’ time? Who on earth instructed them to do that?
I thank my noble friend for the question. All vaccine dose donations will be reported as official development assistance and be included in the 0.5% total. Expenditure for 2021 has been published in the UK Statistics on International Development, and by the OECD Development Assistance Committee. In 2021, we donated 30.8 million doses of AstraZeneca, which we reported at cost in line with the DAC guidance.
I thank my noble friend for the question. All vaccine dose donations will be reported as official development assistance and be included in the 0.5% total. Expenditure for 2021 has been published in the UK Statistics on International Development, and by the OECD Development Assistance Committee. In 2021, we donated 30.8 million doses of AstraZeneca, which we reported at cost in line with the DAC guidance.
My Lords, I hear what my noble friend the Minister says around supply now but, if all the vaccines that the G7 committed to had been donated in 2021, around 600,000 lives would have been saved. I would like to ask about the finances. The UK has delivered some of the vaccines that it committed
to, but I understand from the British Medical Journal that the Government have charged donated vaccines to the aid budget at much more than they paid for them, which has meant that there have been further cuts to life-saving UK aid programmes. Why have the Government counted each vaccine as £3.26 of aid spending, despite paying just £2.30 for doses in the first place?
The noble Lord makes a very good point, of course. The best answer to future vaccine development is achieved by preserving the intellectual property system. It is a good, consensus-based agreement that all member states can go along with, and a good agreement for vaccine manufacturers and developing countries.
The noble Lord makes a very good point, of course. The best answer to future vaccine development is achieved by preserving the intellectual property system. It is a good, consensus-based agreement that all member states can go along with, and a good agreement for vaccine manufacturers and developing countries.
My Lords, what are the Government doing to prepare for when the next global pandemic comes along, to make sure that there is better and more equitable distribution of vaccines to developing countries? If this is such a wonderful agreement, why were we the last people to accept it?
My Lords, I think the noble Lord is wrong: the problem is not with vaccine production, as there is now an excess number of vaccines being produced; the problem is with the healthcare systems of individual countries that are unable to store, distribute and inject those vaccines, which is why we are working with developing countries to help them with that. We know that this is the case because of the problems we had rolling out the vaccine in this country, which of course has a very advanced healthcare system. I repeat the point: the problem is not with vaccine production, as there are already excess vaccines being produced; the problem is with the healthcare systems in those countries which enable them to be distributed and put into peoples’ arms.
My Lords, I think the noble Lord is wrong: the problem is not with vaccine production, as there is now an excess number of vaccines being produced; the problem is with the healthcare systems of individual countries that are unable to store, distribute and inject those vaccines, which is why we are working with developing countries to help them with that. We know that this is the case because of the problems we had rolling out the vaccine in this country, which of course has a very advanced healthcare system. I repeat the point: the problem is not with vaccine production, as there are already excess vaccines being produced; the problem is with the healthcare systems in those countries which enable them to be distributed and put into peoples’ arms.
My Lords, under the existing intellectual property system, as of June this year 72.9% of people in high-income countries have been vaccinated with at least one dose of Covid-19 vaccine whereas only 17.94% in low-income countries have been vaccinated. The UN special rapporteur on discrimination and the Office of the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights have attributed this directly to the existing TRIPS intellectual property system. What is the moral justification for that?
The position is as I repeated to my noble friend Lady Sugg: all vaccine dose donations will be reported as overseas development assistance and be included within the 0.5%. I think the noble Lord is being very unfair about the UK’s support. We are in fact a leader of international support in response to the pandemic; we have spent more than £2.1 billion since 2020 to address its impacts and that includes up to £829 million to support the global development, manufacture and delivery of vaccines, treatments and tests in lower-income countries.
The position is as I repeated to my noble friend Lady Sugg: all vaccine dose donations will be reported as overseas development assistance and be included within the 0.5%. I think the noble Lord is being very unfair about the UK’s support. We are in fact a leader of international support in response to the pandemic; we have spent more than £2.1 billion since 2020 to address its impacts and that includes up to £829 million to support the global development, manufacture and delivery of vaccines, treatments and tests in lower-income countries.
So why was it that the Government cut by nearly 60% their support for countries to have the health systems to distribute the vaccines when they became available? Why was it that when countries needed the vaccines, at the early stage of
this, the Government vehemently opposed this move at the WTO? Returning to the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, can the Minister be very clear as to whether vaccine support is within or over and above the 0.5% cap? In March, in relation to a donation to Bangladesh, the Government said:
“The cost of this donation has been funded through UK Overseas Development Assistance and will come over and above the ODA spending target of 0.5% of GNI if needed.”
That is not what the Minister just told the House, so which is it?
The UK Government have regular meetings with pharmaceutical companies. Of course we want to see the maximum amount of support offered to lower-income countries. I just outlined the support we are providing, but we agreed at the meeting to a consensus-based decision that does not waive IP rights but streamlines the processes for developing countries using compulsory licensing to produce and export Covid-19 vaccines.
The UK Government have regular meetings with pharmaceutical companies. Of course we want to see the maximum amount of support offered to lower-income countries. I just outlined the support we are providing, but we agreed at the meeting to a consensus-based decision that does not waive IP rights but streamlines the processes for developing countries using compulsory licensing to produce and export Covid-19 vaccines.
My Lord, the deal agreed at the WTO conference obviously fell short of what was initially proposed. Even after 18 months, discussions on extending the waiver to treatments and tests have been postponed again by another six months. Surely sharing clinical data and research on vaccine production is in our own self-interest, but a poor substitute would be having a relationship with or speaking to the pharmaceutical industry. Have Her Majesty’s Government had any representations with British pharmaceutical corporations to try to bypass the obstacles that exist?
I did answer the question but let me repeat the answer. In 2021, we donated 30.8 million doses of AstraZeneca—
I did answer the question but let me repeat the answer. In 2021, we donated 30.8 million doses of AstraZeneca—
My Lords, I have been listening very carefully to what the noble Lord has said so far; I did not hear him answer the question that the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, asked him, which was about the difference between the price that was paid and the price that was charged for the vaccines. Will he have another go at explaining that difference?
If noble Lords would listen—which we reported at cost, in line with the DAC guidance.
If noble Lords would listen—which we reported at cost, in line with the DAC guidance.
My Lords, I have been listening very carefully to what the noble Lord has said so far; I did not hear him answer the question that the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, asked him, which was about the difference between the price that was paid and the price that was charged for the vaccines. Will he have another go at explaining that difference?
It is making sacrifices. I agree with the noble Baroness about the sacrifices that have been made, but if we want big pharma and the private sector to invest, then we need to preserve the intellectual property regime, because next time it will require billions of pounds of investment, production and research. That is best achieved by preserving the intellectual property regime, but we need to make sure that developing countries have access to these vaccines, which we have done. Many of these countries do not have the facilities, the knowledge, the expertise or the know-how to produce these vaccines.
It is making sacrifices. I agree with the noble Baroness about the sacrifices that have been made, but if we want big pharma and the private sector to invest, then we need to preserve the intellectual property regime, because next time it will require billions of pounds of investment, production and research. That is best achieved by preserving the intellectual property regime, but we need to make sure that developing countries have access to these vaccines, which we have done. Many of these countries do not have the facilities, the knowledge, the expertise or the know-how to produce these vaccines.
My Lords, this question of intellectual property is going to be really important in future pandemics. It is not absolute. We gave up liberties. People stayed at home and did not go to work. All sorts of sacrifices were made. Why cannot big pharma make its little bit of sacrifice as well?
The noble Baroness is partly right; of course, there was substantial public research, but we needed the facilities in the private sector to help with the development, production and distribution of those vaccines. It was a partnership. The House is eager to criticise big pharma, but AstraZeneca produced all these vaccines at cost and donated many of them to the third world; it has done a fantastic job, for which we should be grateful.
The noble Baroness is partly right; of course, there was substantial public research, but we needed the facilities in the private sector to help with the development, production and distribution of those vaccines. It was a partnership. The House is eager to criticise big pharma, but AstraZeneca produced all these vaccines at cost and donated many of them to the third world; it has done a fantastic job, for which we should be grateful.
My Lords, developed countries have been accused of aligning themselves with the narrative of the pharmaceutical industry. Does the Minister accept that the development of these vaccines was not dependent on the innovation of the private sector, but rather came out of public investment and research? Can he explain why these companies were allowed to influence these vital discussions?
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how, and to what extent, the temporary waiver of provisions of the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), agreed at the World Trade Organization’s Ministerial Conference on 17 June, will expand access to current and new vaccines, given that it does not include a waiver of trade secrets.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how, and to what extent, the temporary waiver of provisions of the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), agreed at the World Trade Organization’s Ministerial Conference on 17 June, will expand access to current and new vaccines, given that it does not include a waiver of trade secrets.
My Lords, the consensus-based agreement reached at the WTO’s 12th ministerial conference streamlines compulsory licensing processes for developing countries to manufacture and export Covid-19 vaccines while preserving the incentives to innovation that the international IP system provides. We welcome that the agreement does not undermine the existing IP framework, which has been key to the effective response to the pandemic.
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many doses of the (1) Pfizer, and (2) Moderna, vaccines they have purchased for children under the age of five; and when such vaccines will be made available to those children.
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many doses of the (1) Pfizer, and (2) Moderna, vaccines they have purchased for children under the age of five; and when such vaccines will be made available to those children.
There are no Covid-19 vaccines for under 5s currently approved for use in the UK, and as such we have not specifically procured vaccines for this cohort. The Government will continue monitoring developments and seek the advice of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation going forward.
To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of calls by the President of the United States and NGOs to waive intellectual property rights on COVID-19 vaccines.
To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of calls by the President of the United States and NGOs to waive intellectual property rights on COVID-19 vaccines.
Intellectual Property rights have been critical in underpinning innovators’ confidence to form over 300 partnerships - an unprecedented number - which have made real, positive impacts on vaccine delivery; examples include AstraZeneca and the Serum Institute of India, and Pfizer-BioNTech and BIOVAC in South Africa. These examples show what is possible when the right partners work together and share technology.
While we must continue to ensure vaccine production needs are met globally, the WHO news release of 7 October made it clear that, “With global vaccine production now at nearly 1.5 billion doses per month, there is sufficient vaccine from a supply perspective to achieve global vaccination targets”. We must therefore also focus on issues of distribution and delivery to successfully vaccinate the globe.
To ask Her Majesty's Government which manufacturers are supplying COVID-19 vaccines for the current booster campaign in the UK; and what proportion of the campaign total has been supplied by each provider.
To ask Her Majesty's Government which manufacturers are supplying COVID-19 vaccines for the current booster campaign in the UK; and what proportion of the campaign total has been supplied by each provider.
The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) advises that the Pfizer vaccine and a half dose of the Moderna vaccine can be offered as the third booster dose, irrespective of which vaccine someone has received as their primary course. Where mRNA vaccines cannot be offered e.g. due to contraindication, vaccination with the AstraZeneca vaccine may be considered for those who received AstraZeneca vaccine in their primary course.
Individual developers are responsible for organising supply from different supply chains to customers. In line with existing MHRA approved production procedures we expect these doses to come from various manufacturers based in different European countries. The overall number of vaccinations is publicly available and updated weekly, however the proportion supplied by each provider is commercially sensitive.
To ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have, if any, to withdraw vaccines promised to the COVAX scheme to supply the UK’s vaccine booster programme; and what assessment they have made of the effect of such a step on the COVAX scheme.
To ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have, if any, to withdraw vaccines promised to the COVAX scheme to supply the UK’s vaccine booster programme; and what assessment they have made of the effect of such a step on the COVAX scheme.
We have already secured the doses we need for everyone in the UK who requires a booster this Autumn/Winter. The UK has an excellent track record in securing steady supply and delivery of Covid-19 vaccines. We are in regular contact with the vaccine manufacturers and are confident in our vaccine supplies for our domestic vaccination programmes.
Our G7 commitment to share 100m doses to those countries that most need them and to split this 80/20 between COVAX and bilateral donations still stands. We have set out how we will meet 70% of this target and are confident in meeting 30m by the end of 2021 as per our announcement at the G20 on 30 October.
To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have of the decision by the government of Switzerland to pass their contracted doses of the Moderna vaccine to the COVAX scheme; and what plans they have, if any, to do the same.
To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have of the decision by the government of Switzerland to pass their contracted doses of the Moderna vaccine to the COVAX scheme; and what plans they have, if any, to do the same.
Continued collective global efforts will be crucial to address vaccine inequities. The UK has worked from the start of the pandemic to support equitable access, helping to establish a COVAX to support both higher- and lower-income countries secure the vaccines they need. We invested approximately £71 million to help COVAX secure early supply deals with manufacturers and donated £548 million to the COVAX Advanced Market Commitment to support the procurement of vaccines for lower and middle-income economies, making the UK one of the earliest and largest COVAX donors.
The UK Government through Vaccines Taskforce proactively manages its vaccine supply so that all procured doses are either used rapidly by our domestic programme or shared internationally. This is as per our commitment at the G7 to donate 100 million doses by the end of June 2022, with 30m by the end of 2021.
To ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have to provide COVID-19 vaccines with a longer expiry date to poorer nations to ensure they can be used.
To ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have to provide COVID-19 vaccines with a longer expiry date to poorer nations to ensure they can be used.
The Vaccine Task Force is working closely with vaccine suppliers, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and international partners such as COVAX and UNICEF to allocate vaccines according to need, facilitate the rapid delivery of doses and maximise the shelf life available to recipients.
Our approach to the 20m recently announced for donation via COVAX at the G20 in October was also previously laid out in the answer given by my Hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State to the Hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon on 9th November 2021 to Question 69687.