International Health Regulations 2005

Mark Francois Excerpts

Monday 18th December 2023 Westminster Hall

[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.

[Philip Davies]

Is it not even more extraordinary that that power would be given to that person, given that, as I understand it, the UK voted against his becoming the director general of the World Health Organisation in the first place, and he was China’s man for the job. Does that not make it even more extraordinary that the UK would want him to have those powers?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Francois]

It does, although some people favoured by China have been doing very well lately. None the less, I take my hon. Friend’s point.

Thirdly, there are amendments to implement an international global health certification system enabling nations to enforce travel restrictions using tools such as vaccine certificates, passenger locator forms and travel health declarations—all tied, potentially, to a personal QR code. Fourthly, there are amendments that would increase censorship of dissenting voices by mandating systematic global collaboration to counter dissent to official governmental or WHO guidance.

Taken together, the proposed amendments empower the WHO to issue requirements for the UK to mandate highly restrictive measures, such as lockdowns, masks, quarantines, travel restrictions and medication of individuals, including vaccination, once a PHEIC has been declared by the WHO. That is something we should all be very concerned about. We as parliamentarians are guardians of the country’s liberty, so we need to be very anxious about that.

I have been known to raise concerns about the loss of our sovereignty in Parliament before. Section 38 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 states that the will of Parliament is sovereign—and so it should remain. I have a key question for the Minister—I have known him for years; he is a decent man. Will he take the trouble to answer this question very specifically in his wind-up? Otherwise, I will intervene on him. My key question is: could the amendments, even potentially, allow the World Health Organisation to put this country into lockdown without our approval? Yes or no?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I, too, thank the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) for setting out the issue, quite succinctly. I also thank her in her capacity as Chair of the Petitions Committee for having allowed us a three-hour debate. A consequence is that once all the Back-Bench contributions have been heard, we will be able to hear in extenso how His Majesty’s official Opposition will deal with this issue. Even more importantly, we will be able to hear the Minister, who I am delighted to see in his place, say exactly what the Government are doing in response to each of the issues raised in this debate, which are of crucial importance to so many of our constituents.

One of the reasons why we are where we are today is that the response to the debate we had on a petition on this subject in April was, frankly, totally inadequate. It was full of generalisations, and vague suggestions that somehow it was all going to be all right in a day. It really was, “Why are you bothering the Government with this trivial material?” This issue goes to the heart of what the House is all about. It is about who is in charge. Are we, as a democratic Parliament, in charge of the laws of our country, and any attempt by the Government to give away control over those laws to an unaccountable international organisation? It is because of that concern that so many people have signed this petition and we are having this debate again today.

If my right hon. Friend the Minister does not address these issues today, people will say that the Government are not taking this seriously. That would be a disaster. Once we have given away these powers to the WHO, which is power hungry—what international organisation is not power hungry? The WHO certainly is—it is very difficult to get them back. There are ongoing discussions about where we stand in relation to international treaties and international law. There is the insidious development, following the recent Supreme Court case, of what is called “customary” international law. That development basically means that a group of outsiders can tell us in this country what is good for us and what is not.

[Mr Francois]

For the avoidance of doubt, will my hon. Friend agree that none of us has argued this afternoon for withdrawal from the World Health Organisation—we might call it Wexit, for want of a better phrase—

[Philip Davies]

Yet.

[Mr Francois]

“Yet,” says another hon. Friend. But we want to be assured that the WHO cannot overrule this sovereign Parliament. That is a fundamental difference, is it not?

[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—

--- Later in debate ---

[Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir George, on this debate responding to the e-petition 635904, which relates to the International Health Regulations 2005. It is wonderful to see so many of the public in attendance.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith), who is Chair of the Petitions Committee, for opening the debate. I also thank the right hon. Members for Wokingham (John Redwood) and for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) and the hon. Members for Shipley (Philip Davies), for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen), for Devizes (Danny Kruger) and for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) for their contributions. I was in the debate responding to a similar petition regarding the draft treaty on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response in April; I hope hon. Members who were also in that debate will forgive me for retreading some similar ground.

The covid pandemic was one of the most surreal and seismic events of our lifetimes. Hundreds of thousands of people died here in the United Kingdom and millions more were extremely ill. There are perhaps two million people still living restricted lives, who are now in their fourth year of shielding because they are clinically vulnerable to the virus—we should not forget them. As our economy and public services still recover, it is vital that we learn lessons and take steps to strengthen our resilience for the future, and I hope that the inquiry taking place at the moment will be a valuable resource in that respect. Our NHS was badly prepared, the Government’s handling of public health measures was chaotic, and we jumped in and out of lockdowns. Some measures, such as guidance issued to care homes and eat out to help out, were raised as concerns by Members of this House, including myself.

As we discuss the petition, we must recognise the international dimension of the pandemic, too. Deadly infectious diseases do not respect borders. It is therefore squarely in our interests to co-operate with other nations and support efforts to co-ordinate the global public health response. The lesson of the pandemic was that no one is safe until everyone is safe, so it is clear that global co-operation on pandemics and biological threats needs to be strengthened. Labour absolutely supports the principle of legally binding international health regulations that define the obligations of countries in handling pandemic-level threats. That is critical to our national health security.

The international health regulations under discussion have of course existed in various forms since the 1960s. The latest iteration came into force in 2007. As they stand, the regulations obligate the 196 state parties to develop national core public health capacities for the detection, assessment, control and reporting of public health events. At some international ports, airports and ground crossings, they require parties to notify the WHO of serious diseases with risk of international spread. They set some of the human rights and other protections for any of us travelling abroad—protection of personal health data, for example. Those requirements are hardly controversial, apart from the fact that they were not on their own sufficient to prevent the spread of covid-19 around the world. That is why we think they must be strengthened. Climate change and globalisation mean that biological threats are only becoming more common, and future pandemics could be deadlier than covid-19. If another epidemic strikes with that same infectious potential, we must ensure that we are better prepared.

The subject of debate today is how amendments to the international health regulations and the pandemic accord under negotiation at the World Health Organisation might actually impact the United Kingdom’s public health policy in the future. Earlier I mentioned some of the measures taken by the UK Government during the pandemic, ranging from interventions like eat out to help out to the three national lockdowns. The variety of those policies and how they compare with some of the other 195 countries who are also signed up to the international health regulations shows that the UK and other countries were able to exercise considerable discretion in their domestic responses to the pandemic.

It is important to emphasise this fact: the e-petition we are discussing asks for Parliament to vote on amendments to the IHR, which are being negotiated alongside the draft text of the pandemic accord that we debated here in April. It raises concern that Parliament has not voted on an amendment to which the UK Government agreed and that was adopted at the World Health Assembly last year. That is a process-related amendment under article 59 of the international health regulations, which reduces the time for future amendments to come into force to 12 months. Of course, until any such future amendments are agreed, it will have no impact on the United Kingdom.

In any case, the principles that protect our national sovereignty will remain. The democratically elected Government are responsible for negotiating, signing, ratifying, amending and withdrawing from international treaties under their prerogative powers. Any legislation, if necessary to implement the regulations, would have to go through the proper parliamentary process. No international treaty can, by itself, change United Kingdom law. As for the future amendment, it makes sense that, as the only international treaty on infectious diseases, changes to the IHR are considered alongside the draft text for the pandemic accord. Of course, as negotiations are still under way, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.

[Mr Francois]

If what the hon. Lady says is true, why has Parliament just spent two weeks arguing about Rwanda? Can I ask her a direct question? She has heard many concerns expressed from the Conservative Benches about these proposed amendments. With the exception of the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith), who introduced the debate, not a single Labour Back Bencher has even been present, let alone contributed. Here is the question: would a future Labour Government be minded to accept the spirit of those amendments to the WHO treaty or to oppose them? Our position is very clear. What is the hon. Lady’s?

[Sir George Howarth (in the Chair)]

Order. I understand that feelings are running high and people have areas that they want to explore, but I hope that any further interventions are brief.

--- Later in debate ---

[Preet Kaur Gill]

I think that I have made my position really clear, hence my question to the Minister. Our constituents want reassurance that the Government would not sign up to anything that would compromise our ability to take domestic decisions on national public health measures. Nothing has been agreed. Today is an opportunity to hear from the Minister about how those negotiations are going forward and what amendments have been accepted. I also want to hear from the Minister.

[Mr Francois]

On that point, will the hon. Lady give way?

[Preet Kaur Gill]

I am not taking any more interventions. The reality is that although the pandemic is over now, the threat is not over. We must never leave our country with such a soft underbelly again. We strongly support efforts to strengthen the international legal framework to prevent, protect against, control and respond to cross-border health threats. It is squarely in our interests and integral to our security to encourage other countries to commit to do the same.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Mr Francois]

The House has already heard that we may have to vote on the amendments, along with others, by the end of May 2024. It is possible that by then we will already have had a general election. The House has heard very plainly from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill) that the Labour party would be minded to support all the amendments; when we challenged her, she stopped taking interventions. Labour would back these amendments if it was in government. What would the Conservative party do?

[Andrew Stephenson]

I thank my right 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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Mr Francois]

I thank the Minister for giving way so often. To be clear and to follow on from my earlier question, he has put on the record that we have a right to opt out of any amendments with which the UK does not agree. That is reassuring. On that basis, if an amendment were to be voted on by the WHO to say that it could impose a lockdown on the United Kingdom without our approval, will the Minister give a commitment that we would opt out of it?

[Andrew Stephenson]

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. I cannot think of any Minister who would agree to such a request.

I can confidently say to my colleagues—as someone who campaigned for Brexit and who has helped to deliver Brexit in this place—that I am passionate about this country’s sovereignty. I believe that the Government’s position needs to be crystal clear and it is one that I endorse. We support the member state-led process of agreeing targeted amendments to the IHR and the new pandemic accord for the sake of global health preparedness, but we will not agree in any circumstances to provisions that would cede sovereignty to the WHO. That includes the ability to make decisions on national public health measures, whether lockdowns, which we just mentioned, or vaccine programmes.