[ad_1]
According to Sweden’s vaccine coordinator, a COVID-19 vaccine can already be sent to EU member states at Christmas, less than a year after the first case of the disease was confirmed in the Union and before expected by the EU. The production and purchase of vaccines has never been faster and the procedure is described as a success story.
– I really want to send the message that the whole process is good. We have asked the Commissioner of Health how to ensure equitable distribution of the vaccine, that the vaccines we receive are effective and safe. And the big story is that they have done a solid job, says EU MP Jytte Guteland (S).
Yet what neither Jytte Guteland nor anyone in the European Parliament can comment on is how well the European Commission has negotiated favorable deals with vaccine companies. The agreements in their entirety, including how much you have paid for each dose, are secret.
The role of the European Parliament is examine how the Commission manages the EU budget. Several MPs, including Jytte Guteland, have demanded that the Commission publish the cost of producing the vaccine and the price the EU pays, where the vaccine is produced and who is responsible if vaccinated people are harmed.
– If you look at the downsides of the process, we’ve mentioned that we want to see more transparency in the appearance of the deals. We know that companies think that pricing issues are sensitive and that it may not be the Commission that is primarily opposed. But it’s important to have open books so that citizens know what it’s like, says Jytte Guteland.
Jytte Guteland (S).
Photo: Fredrik Persson / TT
In recent weeks, diverse information has been circulating about what the agreements contain. Questions have been raised as to whether the Commission may have paid too much for the vaccine, given that the EU has contributed large sums to research and production. Rumors have also emerged that different member states have to pay different amounts for their doses, and that companies have been cleared of liability in case of potential future problems with the vaccine.
Jytte Guteland has She said she and her colleagues are taking seriously the information that the deal may contain a disclaimer for companies, including Swedish radio. To DN, she does not want to comment on the specific issue, because she does not know if it is true.
– We have not been allowed to read the agreement. But there is a discussion about the balance between companies that are in a good position to dare to take the risks that such a presentation entails, while we should not renounce the responsibility that a company should reasonably assume. The EU, as the main actor, must be strong in this matter, it says and continues:
– I think it can be a good driving force if you, when you negotiate, know that you will show how well you have done because you will be open after the negotiation.
Historically, drug and vaccine procurement agreements have been concluded in the EU.
In this case, there is There are no rules on how the EU Commission should act during negotiations or how transparent it should be with the outcome, explains Ulrik Åshuvud, president of Transparency International Sweden.
– You have to be humble for the work you do. This is a situation that the EU has never faced before, but it does not mean that there cannot be transparency. Relatively few people seem to mind spending a lot of money on effective vaccines, but citizens have a right to know how public funds have been used, he tells DN.
The EU’s purchase of the covid-19 vaccine cannot be considered an acquisition, says Ulrik Åshuvud. In this case, the European Commission has dyed a product enough that they did not know exactly what it was about.
– This is more of a race to the top than an acquisition. Then the transparency around the process and the reserved amounts become particularly significant. Transparency does not necessarily have to be present during ongoing negotiations, but it should inform how the result was achieved and at what price. Transparency, especially in difficult and complex events, gives credibility and builds trust. It also provides a basis for both praise and accountability, says Ulrik Åshuvud.
The risk of corruption and irregularities increase because the process is unregulated and must go fast, says Ulrik Åshuvud. For example, it will be easier to overlook potential conflicts of interest.
In a single crisis situation, it can be explained to some extent that important aspects, such as transparency, are forgotten in the process, but can be corrected later. A non-transparent process can damage the public’s confidence in the legitimacy and safety of the vaccine in the long term, says Ulrik Åshuvud.
– If the rumor mill shows that someone judges that there are errors, that some country has received more doses faster than others or similar rumors, the doubt increases. But if, instead, it publishes information on costs and conditions, it guarantees commitment to the vaccine, it says and continues:
– Currently, I do not see any reason why the most important parts of the agreements should not be published soon. And if you, as a negotiator, were in the situation where you promised nothing would come of it, you have made a mistake and have not met the necessary requirement.
More about the vaccine:
Fewer doses of vaccine to Sweden in January than previously planned
Studio DN December 14: “The protection against covid-19 is expected to last for several years”
The calendar: then the vaccine is released to the Swedish people
Report: Vaccine Storage in Rich Countries Affects Poor Countries
