Andrew Bridgen stated that while MPs are elected to speak on behalf of their constituents, sovereignty ultimately lies with the people. He suggested that decisions regarding giving away sovereignty should be made through referendums rather than by individual representatives. Asked the right hon. Gentleman if he had read the pandemic treaty proposed by the WHO and amendments to international health regulations. Also questioned whether Pfizer's vaccine was proven or safe before mandated use. Expressed severe worries about the WHO's proposed amendments to the international health regulations and the pandemic treaty, citing concerns over external influence on policy-making, financial interests of donors, and potential infringement on sovereignty and human rights. My right hon. Friend is making a great and informed speech. Are she and the Chamber aware that WHO has extended the public health emergency of international concern every six months since January 2020? As far as WHO is concerned, we are still in an emergency? Andrew Bridgen expressed concern that the WHO has failed to investigate the origin of the virus, arguing that identifying and holding accountable those responsible could prevent future pandemics. He also suggested a scenario where another pandemic occurs before the WHO instruments are ratified in May 2024, emphasizing the need for parliamentary debate on these instruments now. My right hon. Friend says that amendments are being brought forward on the basis of lessons learnt, but does she not agree that WHO has refused to have an investigation into how it handled itself or into its recommendations during the pandemic? How can we have knowledge where it went right or wrong if it will not have a review of its own performance?

The SNP supports an international approach to pandemic prevention, emphasizing the need for global cooperation. She highlighted that the World Health Organisation's work respects national sovereignty and would not require nations to follow WHO recommendations in a binding manner. McLaughlin also criticised UK Government cuts to overseas aid, which have created a £4.6 billion funding shortfall compared to 2019 levels.

Mr Chope questioned why the Government supports changes to the treaty based on article 19, instead of the more flexible article 21. He argued that a mandatory treaty would limit national flexibility and cited Sweden as an example of a country whose approach diverged from global consensus during the pandemic. Mr Chope also raised concerns about the WHO's authority and influence under its current director general, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, and suggested that this body is now subservient to China. Chope asked Anne McLaughlin why she supports article 19 as the means of introducing the measure, rather than the more flexible article 21. Does my right hon. Friend believe that China is complying with the requirements to be open and transparent, sharing all its data and letting everybody know exactly how the covid-19 virus began, or does she believe that China is covering it up?

Mr Kruger thanked the Chair and acknowledged the importance of the debate. He highlighted the concerns of UsforThem regarding the WHO's proposal, stating that the lack of readiness for the pandemic was due to insufficient domestic contingency planning rather than a lack of international co-operation. Mr Kruger argued against centralised solutions and emphasised the effectiveness of local decision-making during the pandemic. He warned about potential infringements on liberty if countries opt into the treaty and regulations proposed by the WHO, urging for independent development of medical devices and treatments. He also expressed doubt in the accountability and accuracy of information from supranational agencies like the WHO.

Ms McVey expressed concerns about the World Health Organisation's potential overreach and its impact on national sovereignty. She highlighted specific instances where WHO had previously issued inconsistent guidance, such as in 2019 when it went against its own influenza pandemic guidelines regarding lockdowns. Ms McVey also raised issues with the financial implications of lockdown measures, including estimates that school closures could result in £40,000 being lost from each individual's lifetime earnings and a loss of 2.5 million life years due to GDP reduction. Can the Minister reassure my constituents who are concerned that the Government will concede sovereignty and hand power to WHO? Can she give reassurances that that will not happen?

Mr Redwood asked supporters of the treaty why they should accept advice from the WHO when it might be incorrect, questioning the necessity of adhering to decisions made by an external body rather than making independent choices. Asked how it makes sense to give away powers to an international quango when Parliament should have the right to discuss and vote on such matters, despite agreeing that better parliamentary scrutiny is needed.

John Spellar thanked the hon. Gentleman for highlighting smallpox and polio, arguing that worldwide vaccination programmes have enabled these successes and demonstrated the falseness of anti-vax campaigns. Discussed the impact of conspiracy theories on vaccination rates, highlighted the importance of international scientific cooperation in developing vaccines quickly during pandemics. Argued against holding referenda for every policy or treaty.

He dismissed conspiracy theories about the WHO and argued for parliamentary accountability in public health emergencies. He highlighted the importance of global cooperation against pandemics, emphasizing the need for transparency and scientific evidence in decision-making processes.

Agreed with John Spellar that exiting the EU allowed Britain to react agilely and roll out a vaccine quickly, saving millions of lives. Suggested this should serve as a model for future pandemic responses.

The MP discussed the impact of the pandemic, highlighting issues like NHS waiting lists at record levels before the crisis and staff shortages. She criticised the government for failing to adequately prepare for a potential pandemic despite warnings from exercises. The MP also raised concerns about the lack of preparedness in dealing with new variants and the need for stronger international cooperation through a WHO treaty.

The initiative for a new treaty on pandemic preparedness was taken to the WHO, but concerns exist about its potential impact on UK sovereignty. Petitioners want a referendum before any treaty is signed. The petition has over 156,000 signatures, with Dover constituents representing nearly 0.4% of signatories. She wants assurance that the treaty will not override UK policies or cede sovereignty to the WHO.

Mr Brine questioned the nature of the debate, suggesting it was about constitutional procedure rather than pandemic preparedness. He highlighted that the UK is the second-largest contributor to the WHO and emphasised the importance of being at the heart of scrutinising future treaties negotiated through the organisation. As a former health Minister with responsibility for the WHO, he worked closely with the organisation and stated that it is driven by its members. He urged for scrutiny of the agreement in this House.