Vol. 533 No. 2
2 Mr. M. Higgins asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he proposes to emulate such other Ministers for Development Aid as have asked the international pharmaceutical companies to suspend their action against the South African Government in relation to the production of low cost drugs needed for the treatment of HIV-AIDS; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8432/01]
The Constitutional Court hearing, which took place in South Africa on 5 March, follows two years of legal action and discussion between the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association, PMA, representing approximately 40 local and international drugs companies, and the South African Government. The PMA wants the court to prevent the implementation of section 15C of the 1997 Medicines and Related Substances Control Amendment Act, which is intended to provide affordable pharmaceutical products for the South African population. The central issue is the PMA's contention that certain sections of the Act are in breach of the South African Patents Act and the country's international obligations under the WTO Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights Agreement, or TRIPS Agreement. The case, which is expected to last up to two years, is currently adjourned to allow the PMA time to respond to legal points raised by the Treatment Action Campaign, an AIDS activist group.
From the outset of this epidemic, Ireland has recognised that the provision of cheaper drugs to combat HIV-AIDS is an important component of the fight against the disease. Political leadership, national prevention strategies and the long-term development of sustainable health systems are also vital. Ireland has pressed for the use of innovative measures to improve the supply of essential drugs. As long ago as January 2000, the Taoiseach wrote to the President of the European Commission, Mr. Prodi, pressing for an accelerated EU response to the AIDS crisis, and raising the issues of access to drugs for poor countries. We have continued to press this issue at EU level and measures to improve the supply of drugs at an affordable price are a key element of the new EU accelerated action policy to combat HIV-AIDS.
At UN level, we have used our membership of the Security Council to highlight the issue. In our statement to the Security Council on 19 January we called for an intensification of efforts by the UN bodies, drugs industry and other relevant organisations to address the complex issues of access to medicines in developing countries with a view to overcoming the obstacles in that regard. We called for clarity about issues such as tiered pricing, compulsory licensing, parallel imports and the rights and obligations of both patent holders and signatories to international patent protection agreements.
It is clear that HIV-AIDS is now the major development challenge facing Africa. The scale of the epidemic is unprecedented with up to 30 million people infected in sub-Saharan Africa. In South Africa, UNAIDS estimates that up to 20% of the adult population is infected. Against that background, it is regrettable that international drugs companies have decided to use the courts to try to block the efforts of the South African Government to provide cheaper drugs. I support calls for this action to be withdrawn.
I thank the Minister for his reply and the up-to-date information he has provided. Does the Minister of State with responsibility for overseas development aid have the same opinion as the German Minister for Development Aid who has called on the drugs companies to withdraw their action in South Africa? Part of the difficulty with some elegantly written responses is that they appear to take every side and be in favour of apple pie. Ultimately, a choice must be made. Does the Minister agree that an interpretation of the TRIPS Agreement under the WTO is possible which will allow a licensing system for South Africa, India and Brazil? If he is forced to choose in offering an opinion in preparation for the WTO talks, will he side with the 20 million AIDS sufferers, or the ten million sufferers in Africa? If he is forced to choose between South African, Brazilian or Indian peasants and the pharmaceutical companies, will he side with the peasants? Does he believe that it is possible to align the position of the pharmaceutical companies with the needs of those who desperately require cheaper drugs?
I said in my reply to the initial question that we support calls for the withdrawal by the PMA of the court action which has the effect of compromising the ability of the South African Government to provide drugs at an affordable price to its people who are infected with this terminal disease. We are of the same view as the German Minister. If we can be proactive in terms of communicating that position, we will certainly do that.
We want affordable drugs to be made available to people in developing countries. The legal issues in relation to patent rights, both under South African and international law, which have been raised in this case are complex. The TRIPs Agreement provides for the protection of patents. It provides legal certainty that the huge research costs of financial risks associated with the development of lifesaving drugs can be rewarded through patent protection. The agreement recognises that a balance must be established between patent protection and issues which constitute a major national threat. The agreement allows Governments to take extraordinary measures to respond to crises such as the AIDS epidemic. Under certain conditions, including a national emergency, Governments are permitted to resort to compulsory licensing to produce patented drugs at cheaper prices. It seems clear that the current AIDS epidemic in South Africa, for example, qualifies by any standards as a national emergency. The commitment by the South African Government that it will implement the 1997 Act in a TRIPs consistent way is also welcome. I hope in that context that the adjournment of the court case will allow the drug companies to reach agreement with the South African Government on a way to provide for increased availability of affordable drugs. We support such an interpretation and believe the criteria are met in these and other cases.
I welcome the Minister's reply. On a related matter, will he use Ireland's membership of the Security Council to point to the contrast in the 1999 WHO figures and elsewhere whereby the total expenditure on preventable diseases is $15 billion per year, on armaments it is $885 billion and on television advertising it is $65 billion? In that context, will he agree that it is absolutely important the South African view, including the Indian and Brazilian view, succeeds? In Africa young people under ten have a 50% chance of contracting HIV positive.
I take the Deputy's point on the contrast between the availability of drugs at affordable prices, the armaments industry and other issues. We made our views clear in a statement on 19 January. I will reiterate the Deputy's views when the issue is next discussed.
