Examination of Witnesses (Questions 40-59)
TUESDAY 15 JULY 2003
DR CHARLES
CLIFT, MR
RAMIL BURDEN
AND MR
JULYAN ELBRO
Q40 Hugh Bayley: In all countries?
Mr Elbro: As far as I am aware.
Generally speaking it is about twenty years. There are some variations
in that.
Q41 Hugh Bayley: Do you need further
regulation that would stop that, or am I just talking out of ignorance?
Mr Elbro: I cannot make a categorical
statement but I am unaware of any regime where patents are not
time limited.
Q42 Mr Colman: I have two brief questions
further about this whole area of WIPO and the WTO. Concern has
been expressed to us that many developing countries are being
pressed into TRIPS plus agreements. What do you believe the government
should be doing in terms of ensuring that the European Union does
not require its developing country partners to establish inappropriate
IPR regimes?
Mr Elbro: As we make clear in
the government response, our position within the EU in terms of
bearing on trade negotiations is that we do not support the imposition
of higher levels of IPR protection. That is not to preclude the
possibility that developing countries themselves may decide it
is in their best interests to provide higher levels of intellectual
property protection than are required by TRIPS in some circumstances.
Q43 Mr Colman: But do you believe
that European Union will be commenting on this as part of its
negotiations at Cancu«n? Will it be seeking to persuade the
Americans that they perhaps, or that other countries outside the
European Union, are pushing LDCs to get into TRIPS compliant legislation
well ahead of 2016? Are we taking a proactive stance on this?
Mr Elbro: I do not believe there
is an issue at Cancu«n to do with requiring earlier compliance.
Mr Burden: No, there is not an
issue there. There might be an issue about accessions to the WTO.
For example, Cambodia which is an LDC is hoping to accede to the
WTO at Cancu«n and obviously it would have to accede also
to the TRIPS agreement. I know there are concerns that certain
members of the WTO are trying to limit flexibilities of TRIPS
for LDCs. I have to say that the United Kingdom government's position
is that LDCs should have the full flexibilities afforded to all
other LDCs currently in the WTO as they accede.
Q44 Alistair Burt: Given the near
silence of poverty reduction strategy papers on trade as a whole,
never mind the details of IPRs, what is the government doing to
ensure that the good idea of including intellectual property issues
in the integrated framework, is really translated into reality?
Dr Clift: As you say, in a sense
the first question is can we get trade issues accepted into PRSPs,
which is not a matter for us but a matter for countries themselves
to recognise the importance of trade and trade liberalisation
and other matters for their development and for poverty reduction.
I know in this document we said that it would also be appropriate
to include intellectual property and we will try to see how we
can address that, but I think the wider question is the trade
question and then we will see if intellectual property can be
integrated in that as part of it.
Q45 Alistair Burt: And in terms of
applying pressure, it is a good idea and it is something you care
about, but in terms of driving that idea forward what are the
next steps in doing so to make sure there is some inclusion?
Dr Clift: With my colleagues in
the International Trade Department in DFID, we have quite a lot
to do with the Integrated Framework, and we provide significant
funding for the studies related to the integrated framework so
we are in quite a good position to try and influence what happens,
but there is a limit to the extent we should try and influence
what developing countries want to put in their development plans
so we have to tread carefully. It is a dialogue: not an imposition.
Q46 Alistair Burt: We discussed much
in trade terms of the need for developing countries to have their
own voices in these particular areas. One would imagine it is
even more awkward in the area we are speaking about rather than
trade and agriculture and things like that. Is that your sense
and, if that is the case, what assistance can be given in developing
capacity there so you can be sure that, as well as speaking with
their own voice, it is a voice based on knowledge and understanding?
Dr Clift: There are two aspects
to that. Firstly, what we are doing already is we fund various
projects—two actually—which help negotiators in Geneva
and in capitals to get access to information and research and
also we fund another NGO that helps developing country negotiators
to understand issues, to discuss them, and therefore to negotiate
more effectively; and, secondly, which is brought up in the government
response, it is important that technical assistance in this field
should be appropriately provided. The government has endorsed
the idea that there might be room for improvement in the way technical
assistance is provided by WIPO, by bilateral offices and by the
European Patent Office, in particular to ensure that developing
countries are given proper advice about all the flexibilities
in TRIPS and how to put them in practice in their domestic legislation.
Q47 Mr Colman: Can you give some
examples of particular developing countries that have built trade
or policies on IPR into their PRSP?
Dr Clift: I suspect the answer
is none but I can certainly check that and let you know. I think
the answer is none.
Q48 Mr Colman: Not yet?
Dr Clift: I will check that.[1]
Q49 Mr Colman: That is somewhat stunning,
I have to say, given the strength of views of the previous Secretary
of State and the policy documents that have come from DFID over
the last six years.
Dr Clift: I see what you mean
but in the end it is up to countries what they do.
Q50 Mr Walter: The Commission on
Intellectual Property Rights overturned some of the key assumptions
that the TRIPS agreement was intrinsically built on and if my
briefing is right Susan Prowse, from DFID's International Trade
Department stated earlier this year at a seminar on Special and
Differential Treatment that these are: "One size fits all
(No it does not); Extended timetables will suffice (No they will
not); Fudged terminology can create room for manoeuvre (No it
won't really); Re-negotiation is possible (This is most unlikely)"!
To this might be added the fact that relatively simple framework
agreements which are sold to developing countries and are development-friendly
can grow into time-consuming, resource-intensive, development-unfriendly
monsters. What lessons do you think the government has learned
about the nature of development-friendly agreements and the processes
from its experience with TRIPS, and how are these lessons being
used to inform both its policy and its stance on other issues
in the WTO?
Mr Burden: We have to look at
Special and Differential Treatment as a key concern and it is
one of the priorities to be addressed at the meeting of the WTO
ministers in Cancu«n in September. Special and Differential
Treatment has to be addressed and there is package of proposals
on the table which the membership of the WTO will be discussing.
Longer term I think your question is about how we ensure that
the agreements and policies in the WTO take on board in a more
coherent and systematic way the development angle, and that is
thinking that we are doing now. The government, and you mentioned
Susan Prowse who works in ITD in DFID, is working on some ideas
about how we ensure that the WTO does reform itself and incorporates
the development angles into agreements. I think we are talking
about future agreements but I think the United Kingdom government
firmly believes that any future agreements have to have a much
more coherent development angle to them rather than something
we just bolt on.
Q51 Mr Walter: That, of course, was
not the only criticism. Oxfam's reading of the CIPR report said
that TRIPS is essentially bad for development, and if this is
the case a logical response would seem to be fundamental reform
to TRIPS. Does the government support the suggestions made by
Oxfam and a number of other organisations that a fundamental review,
particularly of the health and development implications of the
TRIPS agreement, should be carried out by UNCTAD and other international
bodies, and that it is on that basis that reforms should take
place?
Mr Elbro: If I can state what
we very much took from the Commission for Intellectual Property
Rights report: it is important to say one size does not fit all
and it is important that developing countries tailor their intellectual
property systems to their individual development needs. However,
this is do-able within the international architecture, including
the TRIPS agreement. The issue of health is dealt with by the
Ministerial Declaration at Doha under TRIPS and Public Health,
which primarily made clear the existing flexibilities in the TRIPS
agreement that could be used by developing countries in order
to address issues of public health.
Mr Colman: Finally, generally, what value
did the Commission on Intellectual Property Rights add to government's
policy making processes? Would it not have been more helpful if
the Commission had been established somewhat earlier prior to
the initial negotiation of the TRIPS agreement?
Q52 Alistair Burt: "Yes".
One word answers will do!
Mr Elbro: In terms of seeing the
impact of the TRIPS agreement in many ways the transition periods
for developing countries have only just begun to expire on the
TRIPS agreement and we have yet to reach a situation where we
can see what the full impact of TRIPS will be. The Commission
was able to get some insight to that by looking at it at this
point in time.
Q53 Mr Colman: Do you all agree with
that?
Mr Burden: Yes.
Dr Clift: Yes.
Q54 Mr Colman: More value possibly?
Dr Clift: As the government response
says, it raises a lot of valuable issues. The government did not
agree with all of them, if you read the government response carefully,
but it did agree that the Commission report was a very good analysis
of these issues, and that it should be further debated in different
fora such as the WTO and WIPO.
Q55 Mr Colman: And the DTI?
Mr Burden: Yes.
Q56 Mr Colman: What about the idea
of establishing a similar commission now, and we mean now, to
examine what a development-friendly investment agreement would
look like ahead of any potential negotiations at Cancu«n?
You will know that we have suggested in our report we published
yesterday that investment perhaps should be dealt with after this
round and not within this round. Would it not be a very good initiative
to have a similar commission to look at a development-friendly
investment agreement for the world rather than, if you like, getting
it wrong?
Mr Burden: The report was published
yesterday, and if my memory serves me right, ministers have not
yet taken a view on that particular proposal.
Q57 Mr Colman: Indeed, but from the
point of view of the idea of whether it would be helpful to have
a commission, we are not suggesting it is related to our report
of yesterday but do you think it would be a useful idea to have
a commission looking at a development-friendly investment agreement
as a way forward? I am not trying to put words into your mouth
that ministers would not agree to, but here we have a commission
on intellectual property rights; it has come somewhat late to
the party but it is useful on discussion; would it be useful to
have, do you think, a commission on investment which could be
there at the beginning so it could inform debate?
Mr Burden: The reason I am slightly
reluctant is that I am not an expert on the investment issue in
the WTO—I have other colleagues in the DTI who deal with
that—but what ministers have said is that the development
aspect of any investment agreement has to be key.
Q58 Mr Khabra: On the setting up
of the Commission, was there any prior consultation with the staff
of DFID because to me it appears that this is another institution
which has been set up which may not add any value at all but which
has already been done, and it may have cost more to the Department
in terms of money which could have been spent more usefully on
another proposition.
Dr Clift: You mean the Commission
on Intellectual Property Rights?
Q59 Mr Khabra: Yes.
Dr Clift: I would not agree with
that point of view myself. It did not cost a great deal of money
compared to many other expenditures we make; it was a tiny proportion
of our annual budget.
1 After checking with DFID colleagues, Dr. Clift confirmed
that it is extremely likely that no PRSPs include consideration
of IPRs. Back
| 
