International Health Regulations 2005

Andrew Bridgen Excerpts

Monday 18th December 2023 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Reclaim)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Maria. I, too, thank the 116,000 members of the public who signed this public petition so that we can have this important debate today. I would also like to thank Dr David Bell—someone who actually worked for the WHO for a number of years—for his briefings to me, and also the Swiss lawyer Philipp Kruse for his contributions to the information I have with me today.

I would like to start by agreeing with the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies). Both he and I spoke in the public petition debate on 17 April this year when we considered the pandemic treaty. It is impossible to consider either the pandemic treaty or the amendments to the international health regulations in isolation; they are two linked instruments of the WHO, and they need to be considered in parallel. My opening question is this: why does the WHO make false claims regarding proposals to seize states’ sovereignty?

In referring to the WHO’s new pandemic agreement and the proposed amendments to the international health regulations currently being negotiated, the director general of the WHO has stated:

“No country will cede any sovereignty to WHO.”

His statements are clear, unequivocal, and also wholly inconsistent with the text he is referring to. I remind the Chamber that this is the unelected, unaccountable, non-taxpaying, and immune-from-prosecution-due-to-diplomatic-immunity director general of the WHO. All employees of the United Nations and the WHO enjoy those particular perks.

Any rational examination of the text in question shows that the documents propose a transfer of decision-making power to the WHO regarding basic aspects of societal function that countries undertake to enact. The WHO director general will have the sole authority to decide when and where they are required, and the proposals are intended to be binding under international law. Continued claims that sovereignty is not lost, echoed by politicians in this House, other elected assemblies, and of course the media, therefore raise very important questions concerning motivations, competence and ethics.

The intent of the texts is a transfer of decision making, currently vested in nations and individuals, to the WHO when its director general decides that there is a threat of a significant disease outbreak or other health emergency likely to cross multiple national borders. It is very unusual for nations to undertake to follow external entities regarding the basic rights and healthcare of their citizens, more so when that has a major economic and geopolitical implication. The question of whether sovereignty is being transferred, and the legal status of such an agreement, is therefore of vital importance, particularly to legislators of democratic states such as ourselves. We have an absolute duty to be sure of our ground, and I systematically examine that ground here today.

Amending the 2005 international health regulations may be a straightforward way to quickly deploy and enforce what appears to be the new normal for health control measures that we have seen implemented since the covid-19 pandemic. The current text applies to virtually the entire global population, counting 196 states, including all 194 WHO member states. Approval may or may not be required by a formal vote of the World Health Assembly: the recent 2022 amendment was adopted through consensus. If the same approval mechanism were to be used in May 2024, many countries, and indeed the public, might remain unaware of the broad scope of the new text and its implications for national and individual sovereignty. That is why today’s debate is so important.

The IHR set recommendations under a treaty process that currently has force under international law. Those recommendations seek to provide the WHO with some moral authority to co-ordinate and lead responses when an international health emergency occurs, such as the pandemic. Most are non-binding, and those regulations contain very specific examples of measures that the WHO can currently recommend. That includes article 18, under which it can

“require medical examinations; review proof of vaccination or other prophylaxis; require vaccination or other prophylaxis; place suspect persons under public health observation; implement quarantine or other health measures for suspect persons; implement isolation and treatment where necessary of affected persons; implement tracing of contacts of suspect or affected persons; refuse entry of suspect and affected persons; refuse entry of unaffected persons to affected areas; and implement exit screening and/or restrictions on persons from affected areas.”

When implemented together, those measures have generally been referred to since 2020 as lockdowns and mandates—“lockdown” was previously a term reserved for people incarcerated as criminals. It removes basic, universally accepted human rights. Such measures were previously considered by the WHO itself to be detrimental to public health.

However, since 2020, it has become the default standard for public health authorities to manage epidemics, despite its contradictions to multiple stipulations of the universal declaration of human rights—the UDHR. I will remind the Chamber of those rights. Under article 2,

“Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind”,

including, under article 9, no arbitrary detention. Protected under article 12,

“No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence”.

Under article 13,

“Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state”

and,

“Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.”

Under article 19,

“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

Under article 20,

“Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.”

Under article 21,

“The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government”.

Under article 23,

“Everyone has the right to work”.

Under article 26,

“Everyone has the right to education.”

Under article 28,

“Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.”

Under article 30,

“Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group of person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.”

These UDHR stipulations are the basis of the modern concept of individual sovereignty and the relationship between authorities and their populations. Considered the highest codification of the rights and freedoms of individuals in the 20th century, they may soon be dismantled behind closed doors in a meeting room in Geneva.

The proposed amendments will change the “recommendations” of the current documentation to requirements through three mechanisms. The first is the removal the term “non-binding” from article 1, as we have already heard from the hon. Member for Shipley. Second is the insertion under new article 13A the phrase that “Member States” will

“undertake to follow WHO’s recommendations”

and recognise WHO not as an organisation under the control of countries, but as the “co-ordinating authority”. New article 13A states:

“States Parties recognize WHO as the guidance and coordinating authority of international public health response during public health Emergency of International Concern and undertake to follow WHO’s recommendations in their international public health response.”

As article 18 makes clear, these include multiple actions directly restricting individual liberty. If the transfer of decision-making power—sovereignty—is not intended here, then the current status of the IHR as “recommendations” could remain and countries would not be undertaking to follow the WHO’s requirements.

Thirdly, under article 42, “State Parties” undertake to enact what previously were merely recommendations, without delay, including requirements of WHO regarding non-state entities under their jurisdiction. Article 42 states:

“Health measures taken pursuant to these Regulations, including the recommendations made under Article 15 and 16, shall be initiated and completed without delay by all State Parties, and applied in a transparent, equitable and non-discriminatory manner. State Parties shall also take measures to ensure Non-State Actors operating in their respective territories comply with such measures.”

“Non-State Actors” means private businesses, charities, and individuals. In other words, everyone and everything comes under the control of the WHO, once the director general declares a public health emergency of international concern.

Articles 15 and 16 mentioned here allow the WHO to require a state to provide resources,

“health products, technologies and knowhow”

and to allow the WHO to deploy “personnel” into the country—that is, it will have control over entry across national borders for whoever it chooses. The WHO also repeats the requirement for the country to require the implementation of “medical countermeasures”—testing, vaccines, quarantine—on their population where the WHO demands it.

Of note, the proposed article 1 amendment to remove the term “non-binding” is actually redundant if new article 13A and/or the changes to article 42 remain in place. That can, and likely will, be removed in the final text, giving the appearance of a compromise without actually changing the thrust of the transfer of the sovereignty, because of the two other articles.

All of the public health measures in article 18, and additional ones such as limiting freedom of speech to reduce public exposure to alternative viewpoints—as annex 1, new article 5(e) says, “Counter misinformation and disinformation”—clash directly with the UDHR. Although freedom of speech is currently exclusively for national authorities to decide, and its restriction is generally seen as being negative and abusive, United Nations institutions including the WHO have been advocating for censoring unofficial views in order to protect the people from what they call “information integrity”. No doubt, if these amendments were in place, I would not be allowed to give this speech and, if I was, it would not be allowed to be reported in the mainstream media or even on social media.

It seems outrageous, from a human rights perspective, that the amendments will allow the WHO to dictate to countries to require individual medical examinations and vaccinations whenever it declares a pandemic. While the Nuremberg code and the declaration of Helsinki refer specifically to human experimentation in cases such as clinical trials and vaccines, and the universal declaration on bioethics and human rights refers specifically to the provider-patient relationship, they can reasonably be extended to public health measures that impose restrictions or changes to human behaviour and specifically to any measures requiring injection, medication or medical examination, which involve a direct provider-person interaction.

If vaccines or drugs are still under trial and not fully tested, the issue of being subject to an experiment is also real. There is a very clear intent to employ the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness and Innovations’ 100-day vaccine programme, which, by definition, cannot complete meaningful safety and efficacy trials within the timespan. As we know, the covid-19 vaccines are still experimental, years on from their first introduction, because they are still under emergency use authorisation. Forced examination or medication outside of a situation where the recipient is clearly not mentally competent to be able to comply or reject, when provided with the information, is unethical. Requiring compliance to access what are considered basic human rights under the UDHR would constitute coercion. If that does not fit with the WHO’s definition of infringement of individual sovereignty or of national sovereignty, then the director general and his supporters need to publicly explain what definition of sovereignty they are using.

The proposed pandemic agreement will set humanity into a new era that is strangely organised around pandemics: pre-pandemic, pandemic and inter-pandemic times. A new governance structure, under WHO auspices, will oversee the IHR amendments and related initiatives. It will rely on new funding requirements, including the WHO’s ability to demand additional funding and materials from countries and to run a supply network to support its work in health emergencies. That is under article 12, which states that

“in the event of a pandemic, real-time access by WHO to a minimum of 20% (10% as a donation and 10% at affordable prices to WHO) of the production of safe, efficacious and effective pandemic-related products for distribution based on public health risks and needs, with the understanding that each Party that has manufacturing facilities that produce pandemic-related products in its jurisdiction shall take all necessary steps to facilitate the export of such pandemic-related products, in accordance with timetables to be agreed between WHO and manufacturers”

and article 20(1)(e):

“provide support and assistance to other Parties, upon request, to facilitate the containment of spill-over at the source.”

The entire structure will be financed by a new funding stream that is separate from WHO funding and an additional requirement on taxpayers over current national commitments. Article 20(2) states that the funding will also include an endowment of

“voluntary…contributions from all relevant sectors that benefit from international work to strengthen pandemic prevention, preparedness and response; and…donations from philanthropic organizations”.

I wonder who those organisations referred to in article 20(2)(b) might be; perhaps someone who made a lot of money out of mRNA vaccination.

This is taxation without representation. Currently, countries decide on their level of foreign aid on the basis of national priorities, apart from limited funding that they may already have agreed to allocate to organisations such as the WHO under existing obligations or treaties. The proposed agreement is remarkable not just in greatly increasing the amount of money that countries must give as part of treaty agreements but in setting up a parallel funding structure disconnected from other disease priorities, which is quite the opposite of previous ideas on integrated health policy. It also gives power to external groups, which are not directly accountable, to demand or acquire further resources whenever they deem it necessary.

In a further encroachment into what is normally within the legal jurisdiction of nation states, the agreement will require countries to establish, under article 15:

“no-fault vaccine injury compensation mechanism(s)”.

That will consecrate effective immunity for pharmaceutical companies for harm to citizens resulting from use of their products that the WHO recommends under an emergency use authorisation—that will be embedded; that will be the norm—or indeed that the WHO requires countries to mandate on their citizens.

As is becoming increasingly acceptable for those in power, ratifying countries will agree to limit the right of their public to voice opposition to the WHO’s measures and claims regarding such an emergency, under article 18, in order to:

“combat false, misleading, misinformation or disinformation, including through effective international collaboration and cooperation”.

As we have seen during the covid-19 response, the definition of “misleading” information can depend on political or commercial expediency, including factual information on vaccine efficacy and safety and orthodox immunology that would impair the sale of health commodities. This is why open democracies put such emphasis on defending free speech, even at the risk of sometimes being misleading. In signing this agreement, Governments will be agreeing to abrogate that principle regarding their own citizens when instructed to do so by the WHO.

The scope of this proposed agreement and the IHR amendments is broader than pandemics, greatly expanding the scope under which a transfer of decision-making powers can be demanded by the WHO. Other environmental threats to health, such as changes in climate, can be declared emergencies at the director general’s discretion, if broad definitions of a One Health policy are adopted as recommended.

It is difficult to think of another international instrument where such powers over national resources are passed to an unelected external organisation, and it is even more challenging to envisage how this can be seen as anything other than a loss of sovereignty. The only justification for this claim would appear to be if the draft agreement is to be signed on the basis of deceit and that there is no intention for us to treat it in any other way than as an irrelevant piece of paper or as something that would perhaps only apply to less powerful states than the United Kingdom—possibly as a colonialist tool. I have spoken at length to elected representatives in Africa and urged them to urge their elected assemblies to reject this power-grab by the unelected and unaccountable WHO.

Both texts are intended to be legally binding; the IHR already has such status. Therefore, the impact of the proposed changes on the need for new acceptance by countries are complicated national jurisdictional issues. There is a current mechanism for rejection of new amendments. However, unless a high number of countries actively voice their opposition and rejections, the adoption of the current published version, dated February 2023, will likely lead to a future shadowed by the permanent risks of the WHO’s lockdown and lockstep diktats.

The proposed pandemic agreement is also clearly intended to be legally binding. The WHO discusses this issue, and it has been supported by the International Negotiating Body and various declarations of the G20.

As I have said, the IHR already has standing under international law. While seeking such status, WHO officials, who previously described the proposed agreement as a “treaty”, now insist that neither instrument impacts sovereignty. The implication is that it is states’ representatives at the World Health Assembly who will agree the transfer, not the WHO itself, as if that makes any difference to the UK’s loss of sovereignty.

The WHO’s position raises a real question of whether its leadership is truly ignorant of what is being proposed or is actively seeking to mislead countries and the public in order to increase the probability of acceptance. The latest version, dated 30 October 2023, requires 40 ratifications for the future agreement to enter into force, after a two-thirds vote in favour within the WHA. Opposition from a considerable number of countries will therefore be needed to derail the project. Because it is backed by powerful Governments and institutions, financial mechanisms, including the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and bilateral aid, are likely to make opposition from lower-income countries extremely difficult to sustain. Much of the world therefore looks to our Parliament to step up to the plate and protect democracy around the world.

The relevant question regarding the two WHO instruments should be not whether sovereignty is threatened, but why democratic states would forfeit any sovereignty to an organisation that is significantly funded by and bound to obey the dictates of corporations and self-proclaimed philanthropists, and jointly governed by member states half of which are not even open and transparent democracies. Why would we do that? If sovereignty is being knowingly forfeited by Governments, without the knowledge and consent of their peoples and based on the false claims of Governments and the WHO, the implications are extremely serious. It would imply that leaders were working directly against the interests of their people. Most countries have specific fundamental laws for dealing with that practice, so it is important that those defending these projects to either explain their definitions of sovereignty and democratic process, or explicitly seek informed public consent.

The other question to be asked is why public health authorities and the media are repeating the WHO’s assurances of the benign nature of the pandemic instruments. They assert that claims of reduced sovereignty are misinformation or disinformation, which they assert elsewhere are major killers of mankind. Although such claims are somewhat ludicrous and appear intended to denigrate dissenters, such as myself, the WHO is clearly guilty of the very crime of which it accuses others. If its leadership cannot demonstrate how its claims regarding these pandemic instruments are not deliberately misleading, its leadership would appear ethically compelled to resign from their positions, and we should defund them.

The WHO lists three major pandemics of the last century: the influenza outbreaks in late 1950s and 1960s, and the covid-19 pandemic. The first two killed fewer than die each year from tuberculosis. The reported deaths from covid-19 never reached the level of cancer or cardiovascular disease, and remain almost irrelevant in low-income countries compared with endemic infectious diseases including tuberculosis, malaria and HIV/AIDS. To put the pandemics in perspective, no other non-influenza outbreak recorded by the WHO that fits the definition of a pandemic—that is, the rapid spread across international borders for a limited time of a pathogen that does not normally cause significant harm—has caused greater mortality in total than a few days of tuberculosis, which kills about 4,000 a day, or more life years lost than a few days of malaria, which sadly kills 1,500 children under five every day.

If our Government, the Opposition parties and their supporters in the public health community consider that the powers currently vested in national jurisdictions should be given over to external bodies on the basis of that level of recorded harm, it would be best that we have a public conversation as to whether this is a sufficient basis for abandoning democratic ideals in favour of a more fascist and authoritarian approach. After all, we are talking about restricting basic human rights that are essential for any democracy to function.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Bridgen]

Does the right hon. Gentleman share my concerns that the WHO refuses to conduct any review of the recommendations it issued during the covid-19 pandemic, so sure is it that its advice and recommendations were absolutely perfect? If we sign up to these instruments, we will only get more of the same.

[John Redwood]

That is one of my worries. We need more transparency, debate, discussion and challenge of those in the well-paid positions at the WHO, so that science can advance.

As I understand scientific method, it is not choosing a limited number of scientists and believing everything they say; it is having a population of talented and able scientists who challenge each other, because then we get more truth out of the challenge and exchange of ideas. We do not want an international body saying, “There’s only one way to look at this problem or to think about it.” We need that process of challenge, and we need it to be an accelerated process. When we have an urgent and immediate need of better medicines, vaccines, procedures and approaches to lockdown or non-lockdown, that is surely the time for healthy debate, constant review and sufficient humility by all of us who venture opinions, because time and events could disprove them very quickly. If that happens, we should learn from the process and be honest about it, rather than saying that we were right all along and there was only one possible approach.

That is all I wish to say, that I think we need much more accountability, exposure and proper debate. Yes, the WHO can make an important contribution and can be a forum for scientists, pharmaceutical companies and others who will be part of the solution should we get some future wave of infection, but please, Government, do not trust it with everything. Do not ensure that future Ministers are unable to act responsibly and well in response to public opinion and to medical opinion within our own country. Do not sell us short, because that would also sell the world short. This country has a lot to offer in these fields, and it will be best if we allow open debate, proper review and serious challenge.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Dame Maria.

I begin by declaring an interest. My wife, Olivia, works as a senior radiographer in the national health service. Throughout the pandemic, she continued to report for duty at her hospital, including, on occasion, knowingly treating patients who were covid positive. I married a good and brave woman, Dame Maria. She does not know I am about to say this: I want to pay tribute to her and all her colleagues in the national health service, who put their lives on the line to save those of many others. They deserve our admiration and thanks from their Parliament.

I have received quite a few emails from constituents on this issue. I have also had strong personal representations from Councillor Ian Ward, who ably represents Lodge ward on Rochford District Council, who feels very strongly—take my word for it, Dame Maria—about all this and has made his views very clear to me as his MP.

For the record, I am all for better sharing of information and intelligence between nations to try to prevent the spread of any future pandemic. Would that the Chinese had done more, and more quickly, to warn the rest of the world about what was coming from Wuhan. I reluctantly accepted the need for an initial lockdown, but I confess that as time wore on, I became increasingly uneasy at the effects of the lockdown, not just economically but socially, and not least the impact on people’s mental health. We are still seeing some of those effects playing out in our schools today, as my headteachers tell me when I visit local schools.

I am now concerned about the potential amendments to the International Health Regulations 2005 being brought about at the behest of the World Health Organisation, not least because the WHO will be given extremely strong powers in any future pandemic. As one constituent put it in her email:

“Almost no-one who is informed believes the…WHO performed anything other than appallingly during Covid, with disastrous results. Yet there seems to be no attempt to reform this unelected, unaccountable organisation, which British taxpayers fund in the millions. On the contrary, a drive is evident to give the totally undemocratic WHO ever more power, ever more of our money and ever less scrutiny.”

That was her opinion, but I think my constituent has a point.

I understand that on 31 May 2022, the delegates of the WHO formally adopted five new amendments to the international health regulations. I further understand that those amendments come into force under international law for all member states within 24 months—that is, by 31 May 2024—unless those member states choose proactively to opt out of them. Of the five new amendments, there is one of particular concern as it would severely compromise the ability of the public to lobby politicians to reject future amendments by reducing the time available before they might come into force. That amendment to article 59 would significantly reduce the time allowed for a country’s leadership to reject IHR amendments adopted at future World Health Assemblies from 18 months to 10 months.

[Andrew Bridgen]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Francois]

Forgive me, but the hon. Gentleman spoke at some length; perhaps he will let some of the rest of us have a go.

Up to 300 amendments to the international health regulations are being negotiated and finalised, to be voted on in May 2024 at the 77th World Health Assembly. The amendments being negotiated include: first, amendments to make WHO emergency guidance legally binding—it is currently only advisory—on member states; and secondly, amendments that would empower the WHO director general to single-handedly declare a public health emergency of international concern, giving this unelected, unaccountable individual unprecedented levels of power to dictate UK public health policy and to restrict fundamental freedoms.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Health and Secondary Care (Andrew Stephenson)]

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 (Cat Smith) for raising the important issues covered in the e-petition we are considering today. I start by thanking for their contributions the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) and my hon. Friends the Members for Shipley (Philip Davies), for Devizes (Danny Kruger) and for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), as well as my right hon. Friends the Members for Wokingham (John Redwood) and for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois). I also thank the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill) for her remarks. I am only surprised not to see our friend the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) here, although I am sure that he would be if he were able.

We have held a similar debate on this matter already. However, this debate is slightly different from the one we had in April; the matter before us is whether the House should vote on amendments to the international health regulations. That has stirred discussions both in this place and outside because it relates to two vital aspects of our governance: our sovereignty and our national interest. On both, I am pleased to offer assurances to colleagues and the public that I am satisfied that our approach to the negotiations safeguards our national interest without compromising our sovereignty. I will set out why I believe that before turning to the specific questions put by my right hon. and hon. Friends during the debate.

Why are the negotiations in our national interest? Because the international health regulations do not just exist to protect others from health threats: they directly benefit the UK and help to keep our people safe. The last decade has shown that diseases such as covid, mpox and Ebola do not respect borders. In the case of other health threats, such as the recent case of botulism in France, the IHR allowed us to swiftly engage with French officials to identify and follow up with exposed UK citizens. When Vladimir Putin committed an act of terror on our own soil, the IHR helped to slow and stop the spread in Salisbury. The IHR provide international standards for what it means in practice for each WHO member state to prepare for, detect, prevent and respond to public health events.

[Andrew Bridgen]

I thank the Minister for the speech he is making. The point he is actually making is that the IHR are currently working perfectly adequately—in which case, why do we need to amend them?

[Andrew Stephenson]

The IHR are working well. However, as a number of my hon. and right hon. Friends said in the debate, there has been lots of criticism of how they worked. As the hon. Gentleman will remember, our right hon. Friend who is no longer in this place—Boris Johnson, the former Prime Minister—was one of the leading voices in saying that we should update the IHR, because we surely need to learn lessons and move forwards.

I believe that there is mutual interest—interest for us and for other countries—in working together. One example is delivering a sensitive surveillance system providing an early warning of potential threats to inform decisions that national Governments will make during public health events and emergencies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Stephenson]

Yes, that is exactly what consensus means. To be clear, the WHO secretariat is supporting both processes by hosting the international negotiating body and the working group on amendments to the regulations, and by supporting the chairs to prepare texts and answer questions from member states. Both negotiations, however, are member state-led processes. It is member states that are negotiating; it is not the World Health Organisation. I completely appreciate that some see this as a WHO power grab, but it is important to remember that it is a member state-led process.

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. As part of the agreed process, member states could submit proposed amendments for consideration, and to that end a working group, made up of all WHO member states, through which the amendments would be negotiated and agreed was created.

[Andrew Bridgen]

The Minister is being generous with his time. The crucial question on which the Chamber and the public would like an answer from the Minister, who is speaking on behalf of the Government who are negotiating the instruments, is whether the Minister believes that the WHO guidance—recommendations, as they were—becoming mandatory under amendments to article 1 and new article 13A of the treaty are compatible with retaining UK sovereignty.

[Andrew Stephenson]

I think that that was covered in the previous debate and has been covered by various Ministers. We have been clear from the outset of the process that we will not agree to any amendments that cede UK sovereignty. 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.