Examination of Witnesses (Questions 260
- 267)
MONDAY 3 MARCH 2008
Professor Sir Michael Marmot, Professor Anne Johnson,
Professor Angela McLean and Professor Neil Ferguson
Q260 Chairman:
You need both or separately?
Professor Mclean: I agree with the point that
the two would be the same.
Q261 Chairman:
Right.
Professor Ferguson: The US has a slightly different
perspective. They agree that you want multi-use strategies, particularly
response and contingency plans. But the forensic aspect of investigation,
of identifying culprits and responding is very important to them
as well, and talking to people in the Home Office that is also
a concern here and does lead to some differences in how to go
about doing things.
Q262 Chairman:
But not the essential—
Professor Ferguson: Not in terms of the human
response, but in terms of how you maybe investigate.
Q263 Chairman:
So it may be a security response rather than if you like—
Professor Ferguson: It is a broader response
because it involves the security apparatus as well.
Chairman: Any other questions?
Baroness Whitaker: Could I be really messy and
jump back.
Chairman: Please jump back for a few
more moments.
Q264 Baroness Whitaker:
This very potent idea of health equity: in respect of patent medicines,
what happens if the WTO is not prepared to adopt the idea of the
primacy of health equity? What if it only wants to enable trade
and for manufacturers to make a lot of money? How does the WHO
on this co-ordinated committee sell health equity as a criterion
for patent law to the WTO?
Professor Sir Michael Marmot: The civil society
organisations who have been co-operating with my Commission from
the beginning say: "You give us the ammunition, we will run
with it."
Q265 Baroness Whitaker:
They will make a fuss?
Professor Sir Michael Marmot: They will make
a fuss.
Baroness Whitaker: Which has actually
happened to some extent.
Lord Desai: I think there is a conflict there,
because somebody could argue that trade encourages development,
which improves health, and so it is not always clear that some
of the NGOs who do not like free trade are necessarily on the
side of development.
Chairman: If you can answer this in one
minute, you will do rather better than the rest of us put together,
but have a shot at it.
Q266 Lord Hannay of Chiswick:
Surely it is another aspect of the environmental issue with trade,
which is exactly the same thing?
Professor Sir Michael Marmot: I can answer it
easily by saying we are not against trade. We do not buy the argument.
We are not against globalisation.
Q267 Chairman:
It is not an either/or you mean?
Professor Sir Michael Marmot: Globalisation
is a force for good, the problem is the way it is operated; and
trade is a force good, the issue is the way it is operated. That
is why we would want to have the idea of an equity gauge in the
context of agreements about trade. Similarly, tariff reduction.
Tariff reduction, if it promotes trade, is potentially a force
for good, but where it is a main source of government revenue
for poor countries, there have got to be transitional arrangements.
So we are not against trade, we are not against the markets, we
are not against any of those things. Some NGOs that we have talked
to are against those things, but we are not. We are in favour
of operating in a way that is fair and just and our criterion
is health equity.
Chairman: Thank you very much indeed.
We are very grateful. You have given very full and very helpful
answers. If you feel there are other issues or things we have
not touched on, or if there is anything you want to elaborate
on, as I have indicated, please contact the Clerk. Meanwhile,
thank you very much indeed.
| 
