International Health Regulations 2005

Maria Miller Excerpts

Monday 18th December 2023 Westminster Hall

[Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 635904, relating to the International Health Regulations 2005.

In March 2021, a group of world leaders including the then UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced an initiative for a new treaty on pandemic preparedness and response. The initiative was taken to the World Health Organisation and will be negotiated, drafted and debated by a newly established, intergovernmental negotiation body. This is the second time that the Petitions Committee has scheduled this issue for debate. In April this year, a petition that called for the Government to

“commit to not signing any international treaty on pandemic prevention and preparedness established by the World Health Organization (WHO), unless this is approved through a public referendum”

was debated after it reached the threshold of 156,086 signatures. Today’s e-petition calls on Parliament to

“Hold a parliamentary vote on whether to reject amendments to the IHR 2005”.

The Government have responded to the petition, explaining that the UK supports strengthening the IHR and the amendment process.

Having met the petitioner, I know that she would like the Minister to address the concerns of the petitioners in his response, specifically which amendments, if accepted, would require changes to UK domestic legislation; who represents the UK; if the information will be publicly available; the Government’s position on the amendments that change language in the regulations from “may” to “shall”; and if the UK will vote against those changes. What is the UK’s position on whether the regulations should be binding or non-binding, and has it proposed any amendments? I hope that the Minister will be able to address those issues in his remarks when we get to that stage of the debate.

In the March 2021 joint article, the group of leaders said:

“The main goal of this treaty would be to foster an all of government and all of society approach, strengthening national, regional and global capacities and resilience to future pandemics. This includes greatly enhancing international co-operation to improve, for example, alert systems, data-sharing, research and local, regional and global production and distribution of medical and public health counter-measures such as vaccines, medicines, diagnostics and personal protective equipment.”

Given the weekend news coverage of the fallout from some of the challenges faced in the procurement of PPE, it is perhaps timely that we debate the petition today. When the next pandemic happens, I hope that any future Government will have learned the lessons from the past.

On specific questions of UK sovereignty and amendments relating to restrictive measures, the UK Government have explained in their response to the petition that

“we have been clear that the UK will not sign up to any IHR amendments that would compromise the UK’s ability to take domestic decisions on national public health measures. There are currently no plans to hold a vote on IHR amendments. Should the UK Government wish to accept an IHR amendment, then depending on the content of the respective IHR amendment, changes to domestic law considered necessary or appropriate to reflect obligations under the IHR amendment, may be required. The Government would prepare such draft legislation before Parliament in the usual way. In all circumstances, the sovereignty of the UK Parliament would remain unchanged, and the UK would remain in control of any future domestic decisions about national public health measures.”

Finally, I take the opportunity to thank all our healthcare workers who worked through the pandemic. As we go into the Christmas period, many of them will be working while we are enjoying turkey dinners with our families, so I pay tribute to their commitment and to all others who work in our healthcare systems. The pandemic affected us all differently, and I hope that in this season of good will we are mindful of all those who are more vulnerable than ourselves. With that, and on behalf of the Petitions Committee, I thank all members of the public who have engaged with e-petitions, including this one in 2023. I look forward to hearing the well-informed contributions of hon. Members.

[Dame Maria Miller (in the Chair)]

Before I call the first speaker, I remind Members that if they wish to contribute, they should bob. I remind those sitting in the Public Gallery that there should be no applause and no photographs at any time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)]

I am very pleased to be able to speak in this debate. I thank all the petitioners and members of the public who are interested in the debate, and the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) who introduced it. It is worrying that so few Members are present. I am always proud to act in concert with my band of brothers here—we happy few who seem to fight on multiple fronts. This is a fringe issue in Parliament, as demonstrated by the empty Benches, but significant numbers of the public have a real interest in this topic, so what is going on?

I think the explanations are partly that it is a complex matter. It requires significant delving into pretty abstruse documentation and websites. As the debate goes on, it is not always thrilling. It is also that we debate issues of principle, such as the abstractions of sovereignty and individual rights, that often fail to get traction in the media. Although occasionally generating headlines, they do not generate proper attention in Parliament or the media.

The fundamental reason why the topic and the proposed regulations and treaty from the World Health Organisation have not generated the sort of disquiet that we few Members feel among our colleagues, the wider public and the media is that we want, as individuals and citizens, to trust in the Government when it comes to healthcare. We really do. That is why we have such a commitment to the NHS in our country. We want the state to be trusted, authoritative and capable when it comes to our health. We instinctively recoil at suggestions that there is a problem when it comes to the management of healthcare, and yet, as we have heard today from colleagues who put the details very well—I will not reiterate the points that have been made—there is clearly a difficulty, a challenge, a problem with the proposed regulations and treaty.

It is suggested by the World Health Organisation and the Governments who are contributing to the design of the regulations and the treaty that the WHO should move from being responsible for identifying pandemics on behalf of countries, and towards taking responsibility for co-ordinating the response to pandemics. That is an enormously significant change. It would co-ordinate the response of nation states and how they managed their health care. We have heard expressed very well the threat that that represents; it could mean enforced mandates, forced lockdowns and so on. I echo the call on the Minister to address the question whether the World Health Organisation will be able to impose a lockdown, or any other intervention, without the consent of Parliament.

I would also like the Minister to reflect on the provision in the proposed regulations that suggests that the World Health Organisation would require countries to tackle misinformation and disinformation. We must remember that in January 2020, the organisation aspiring to this power denied that there was human-to-human transmission of covid-19. For many months, it denied the possibility that the virus had a human origin and originated in a Wuhan facility. This is the organisation that we propose giving the power to intervene in national debates, and to close down discussion about the origins and appropriate response to pandemics under the guise of tackling misinformation and disinformation.

We should be concerned about the value of the World Health Organisation, given its record, and we should, I am afraid, have the same scepticism about our Government’s role. The trust that we all desperately want to have in healthcare has been badly tested by the experience of recent years. I echo many of the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) about radicalisation; we both experienced that radicalisation over the course of the covid experience. We went from a position of trust in the state to profound scepticism.

I want to call attention to a new book that has come out, to which I contributed the afterword.

[Dame Maria Miller (in the Chair)]

Order. I do not think that we do advertising in here.

[Danny Kruger]

Okay. Forgive me. I will not advertise the book, although I derive no benefit from it, I should emphasise. It is written by the campaigners UsforThem, who did such good work in calling attention to the effect of the lockdowns on children, and who became radicalised through the experience of covid. UsforThem has written a very good book about the lack of accountability for the response to covid. I do not share some of its concerns about particular decisions made by particular officials or Ministers, but I absolutely share its concerns about the failure of accountability in the system as a whole.

The inquiry into the whole covid episode, which we are all watching, is performing a fairly useful function in identifying misdemeanours, confusions, and, in a rather whodunnit way, which Ministers, officials and advisers deserve individual blame. What we are really getting out of it, however, is evidence that the system as a whole failed. There is no point in identifying the culpability of individuals when the fundamental problem that the inquiry, and the experience of us all, demonstrates is that the British state failed.

On the regulations, as I said in April, during the last debate we had on this subject in this place, the problem during the whole covid episode was not the lack of international co-operation; there was a very high, remarkable, degree of that. Almost every country did exactly the same thing, following China’s example. What we did not have enough of was independent decision making at nation state level. The bits that worked at nation state level were times when individuals and communities on the ground, local government, local public services and local businesses took the initiative to collaborate and develop their own responses, and took responsibility for supporting communities. That is what we needed at the national level, too—more independent decision making, while obviously collaborating and sharing information about what works.

I recognise the point made by the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood. I hope that the Minister will say that the Government are committed to ensuring that British national sovereignty is reflected in the wording of any new treaty. I am afraid—we are familiar with this from current debates—that peppering legislation with the language of sovereignty is not sufficient. What we really need is the practice of sovereignty and the declaration of principles. Principles are only valid in so far as they are put into practice. We want actual practice of the principle of sovereignty through the treaty that emerges, and in any amendments to the regulations.

I conclude with four questions for the Minister, who I hope will be able to answer them. First, when will we see the next iteration of the draft regulations? I had understood that they were expected now. Secondly, which Minister is responsible for negotiating the treaty and the regulations? Is it him or a colleague? I would also be interested to know which civil servants are involved. We knew who the civil servants negotiating Brexit were. I wonder who has been delegated to the WHO and is working on our behalf there.

Thirdly, colleagues raised the issue of the WHO mandates potentially imposing a very significant bill on the taxpayer. Has work been done to quantify the potential cost to the taxpayer of implementing the requirements of the treaty? Finally, I appreciate that the Minister is probably not in a position to do so today, but will the Government commit to publishing their red lines—what they will and will not accept? Vague commitments to preserving sovereignty are not sufficient. What exactly will be acceptable and not? I appreciate that the negotiations are going on with other states, but I think it would be appropriate for our Government, at this advanced stage of the negotiations, to declare publicly what they are and are not prepared to cede, by way of our independence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Absolutely; I agree with my right hon. Friend. We do not want to withdraw; there is no need to withdraw from a voluntary organisation that is confined to giving us advice and providing data and information. Who would resent having access to data and information? Indeed, the essence of the relationship between a responsible society and its Government is that the Government should provide information to enable individuals to decide for themselves whether they want to take particular medicines, go on trips to particular countries, be vaccinated in a particular way, or whatever.

I see the proper role of the WHO as providing information to Governments across the globe. Those Governments can then decide for themselves what they like and do not like, having regard to the fact that the WHO’s chairman seems to have been imposed on it by the People’s Republic of China, and was strongly opposed by our Government. It seems very much as though the whole WHO is too beholden to China. The WHO is also beholden to some of its big donors; if one analyses how the WHO is funded, one sees that organisations such as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation are significant supporters. He who pays the piper calls the tune. I think that is a good starting point when looking at these things. In the case of the WHO, there is too much evidence that the people paying the piper are calling the tune to too great an extent.

Once bitten, twice shy. Let us remind ourselves what happened during the pandemic. As others have mentioned, the WHO went into the pandemic with a policy of saying that lockdowns were not, and could not be, the right answer to a pandemic for all sorts of reasons. We can now see the adverse consequences that flowed from our country’s decision to have a lockdown, and we can compare that with what happened in Sweden. Then, during the early part of the pandemic discussions, and without any evidence being brought forward, the WHO suddenly changed its advice. Why? There is a suspicion that it was because of undue influence from the pressures that I have been describing. We will never know why it changed its advice. All we know is that somebody who changes their advice like that, without any evidence, should not tell us what to do. We should say, “If you want to change your advice, fine, but why do you change it? We don’t have to follow it.” However, under the proposed treaty amendments, we would have to follow it. That is obviously of great concern, because people can see what happened in the past, and that is potentially a guide to the future.

Even more sinister than the change in advice on lockdowns was the WHO’s approach to finding a treatment for covid-19 patients. There was a lot of evidence to suggest that ivermectin—it was not the only such drug—could be used to really good effect to improve outcomes for patients suffering from covid-19. Strong evidence suggested that treatment with ivermectin might improve someone’s chances of survival by as much as 81%, but the WHO intervened at the behest of certain pharmaceutical companies that were in competition with the producers of ivermectin. It gave very dubious advice, to the effect that ivermectin should be used only in clinical trials.

To those who are not familiar with too much of the detail, I commend a book by Dr Pierre Kory, a distinguished physician and epidemiologist—I think he is an epidemiologist. He certainly deals with pulmonary and critical-care medicine; he is a specialist in that. He was in charge of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, and produced a book called “The War on Ivermectin”. It was a war, organised by the WHO, against a remedy for covid-19, because, obviously, the whole vaccine development programme was premised on there being no cure for covid-19, and no effective treatment for it. In the absence of such treatment, it was legitimate for experimental vaccines to be brought into play without undergoing the full process set out in the Licensing Act 2003, because there was there was nothing else. We were in the desperate situation of there being no other way out. Actually, however, there was a lot of evidence to suggest that ivermectin—

[Dame Maria Miller (in the Chair)]

Order. I am sure that the hon. Member is not intending to use a prop. Let us leave it to Amazon to sell books.