← Back to Westminster Hall Debates
International Health Regulations 2005
18 December 2023
Lead MP
Cat Smith
Lancaster and Wyre
Lab
Responding Minister
Andrew Stephenson
Tags
No tags
Word Count: 16030
Other Contributors: 8
At a Glance
Cat Smith raised concerns about international health regulations 2005 in Westminster Hall. A government minister responded.
Key Requests to Government:
I ask the Minister to address the concerns of the petitioners, specifically which amendments require changes to UK domestic legislation and whether the UK will vote against those changes. The Government should also clarify its position on whether the regulations should be binding or non-binding and if it has proposed any amendments. The Member asks the Minister if the amendments could even potentially allow the World Health Organisation to put this country into lockdown without our approval. He requests a specific answer in the minister's closing remarks.
How the Debate Unfolded
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said:
Lead Contributor
I am concerned about the need for stronger international health regulations to address future pandemics. The petition calls on Parliament to hold a vote on rejecting amendments to the International Health Regulations 2005, specifically addressing concerns over UK sovereignty and the binding nature of the regulations. The Government has previously stated that it will not sign up to any IHR amendments that would compromise the UK's ability to take domestic decisions on national public health measures. The Member is concerned about the potential amendments to the International Health Regulations 2005 being brought forth by the World Health Organisation, particularly as these would give the WHO extremely strong powers in any future pandemic. The amendments reduce the time available for countries to reject IHR amendments adopted at future World Health Assemblies from 18 months to 10 months. They include making WHO emergency guidance legally binding and empowering the WHO director general to declare a public health emergency of international concern, potentially mandating restrictive measures such as lockdowns without UK approval.
Andrew Bridgen
Con
North West Leicestershire
Expresses concern about the WHO's proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations and a new pandemic agreement, arguing that they represent a transfer of decision-making power from nations to the WHO. Cites examples of human rights being violated under these proposals and questions the motivations behind such changes. Expressed concerns that the WHO refuses to review its recommendations from the covid-19 pandemic and questioned the wisdom of signing up to instruments that would give more power to an organisation without proper scrutiny. Asked if John Redwood would give way for an intervention.
Christchurch
Mr. Chope expressed concern about the WHO's influence and control over domestic policies, citing its role during the pandemic, particularly in relation to lockdowns and the treatment of COVID-19 with ivermectin. He criticised the organisation for being too beholden to China and other major donors, questioning its impartiality and the reliability of its advice. Mr. Chope also highlighted concerns over potential changes to international treaties that could give more power to the WHO, potentially undermining parliamentary sovereignty.
Danny Kruger
Reform
East Wiltshire
Mr. Kruger is concerned about the lack of public and parliamentary engagement with the proposed World Health Organisation regulations, which he believes could lead to enforced mandates and lockdowns without Parliament's consent. He questions the WHO's reliability given its handling of misinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic and calls for stronger accountability in government decision-making. Mr. Kruger also asks for updates on draft regulations, identifies responsible Ministers and civil servants, and seeks clarity on potential costs to taxpayers.
John Redwood
Con
Wokingham
Does my hon. Friend share my concern about the lack of accountability? We are having an extensive and public examination of the Government's response to covid, but there is no comparable examination of the important decisions and advice that the WHO offered to the whole world, and it probably had more influence. Suggested that vesting powers in the WHO is wrong, as it does not account for local circumstances. He questioned why the WHO focused on vaccines and did not explore other methods to handle the pandemic, such as drug testing or isolation hospitals. Questioned the hon. Lady's argument regarding the amendment to regulations, expressing confusion over how the WHO could mandate health crisis handling without Britain's consent.
Mark Francois
Con
Rayleigh and Wickford
For the avoidance of doubt, he clarified that none of them argued for withdrawal from the World Health Organisation, suggesting a term 'Wexit'. Asked why Parliament spent two weeks discussing Rwanda and questioned the Labour Benches' absence in debates about WHO treaty amendments. Inquired if a future Labour Government would accept or oppose such amendments. Mr Francois requested an intervention to address a specific point raised by Ms Gill.
Philip Davies
Con
Shipley
Philip Davies expressed concern about the proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations 2005 and the new World Health Organisation pandemic treaty, arguing that they could undermine UK sovereignty and impose binding decisions on national public health measures. He highlighted the potential for mandates such as vaccinations and lockdowns under article 18 of the IHR, and questioned the science behind mask mandates during the COVID-19 pandemic. Davies also mentioned that over 166,000 people signed a petition supporting this debate. Questioned the decision to give power to a WHO official who was initially opposed by the UK during his election, suggesting that this person is heavily influenced by China. He agreed with the statement and emphasised the need to ensure that the WHO cannot override parliamentary sovereignty.
Philip Hollobone
Con
Kettering
Encourages the Minister to personally attend negotiations to ensure civil servants follow the ministerial line regarding the International Health Regulations.
Preet Kaur Gill
Lab Co-op
Birmingham Edgbaston
Ms Gill highlighted the importance of strengthening international health regulations to better prepare for future pandemics, emphasising the need for global cooperation and the protection of national sovereignty. She discussed the impact of the covid pandemic on public health measures and economic recovery, urging that lessons learned should inform future policy.
Government Response
Andrew Stephenson
Government Response
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir George, and I am grateful to the British public and the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood for raising the important issues covered in the e-petition we are considering today. I thank my hon. Friend for that point. I genuinely believe that a lot here is in all our interests, and I do not want to turn this into a party political ding-dong. I genuinely believe that having us in Government leading the negotiations and getting them settled before any general election is firmly in the UK's national interest, because I believe that we will deliver a treaty that is in the interests of all our citizens and respects national sovereignty. However, I very much hope that an incoming Labour Government would do the same. That is one of the reasons why I believe that we need to make rapid international progress to agree any revisions to the IHR—because I believe that we are in a good place to do that now and should move swiftly, rather than kicking it into the long grass. The last pandemic taught us that trying to make things up as we go along was not the best course of action. Laying some good foundations and providing some better certainty on how things will be dealt with is the best way forwards. I hear where my right hon. Friend comes from and I share his concern. As I hope he will recognise, the WHO is led by its 193 member states, which are currently negotiating this. All international health regulations to date have been agreed by consensus, and we would hope that any changes to the regulations are also agreed by consensus. We came together with other nations through the World Health Organisation to agree a process to negotiate targeted amendments to the IHR at the 75th World Health Assembly back in May 2022. By consensus, we adopted process-related amendments under article 59 of the regulations. The UK supported those amendments because they increased the timeliness of member states' compliance with future amendments to the IHR. That will better protect us from future global health emergencies. If the UK Government accept an IHR amendment that we have negotiated with our international partners, then, depending on the context of that amendment, changes to international law may be required. In those instances, the Government would prepare any draft legislation, and Parliament would vote on it in the usual way. It is important to remember that, in and of themselves, IHR amendments and the new pandemic accord do not change the power of UK law. If required, we would ourselves change UK law through our sovereign Parliament, to reflect our international obligations under the IHR amendments. Let me be clear: in all circumstances, the sovereignty of the UK Parliament would remain unchanged and we would remain in control of any future domestic decisions on national public health measures. I can give a categorical reassurance to my right hon. Friend that that is a red line for the UK Government. We would never allow the World Health Organisation to impose a lockdown in the UK. That is a clear red line for us. This is a member state-led process, with 193 member states negotiating. It will be a difficult negotiation, but all previous regulations have been agreed by consensus. If the text ends up in a position where the UK Government do not feel that we can sign up to it, the other member states may decide to proceed, but they will not be regulations that we are bound by, because we will not agree to them.
▸
Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy
About Westminster Hall Debates
Westminster Hall debates are a chance for MPs to raise important issues affecting their constituents and get a response from a government minister. Unlike Prime Minister's Questions, these debates are more in-depth and collaborative. The MP who secured the debate speaks first, other MPs can contribute, and a minister responds with the government's position.