International Health Regulations 2005

Debate between Andrew Bridgen and Andrew Stephenson

Monday 18th December 2023 Westminster Hall

[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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Andrew Bridgen and Andrew Stephenson

Thursday 3rd February 2022 Commons Chamber

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

Will the Secretary of State agree to an urgent meeting with me and representatives of the business community in North West Leicestershire impacted by the Birmingham to East Midlands Parkway route of HS2, to discuss the necessary changes to the route to enter Parkway station and any possible mitigations?

[Andrew Stephenson]

My hon. Friend remains a doughty champion of businesses in his constituency that will be affected by the proposals in the integrated rail plan. I would be more than happy to meet him again to discuss those proposals and the specific impacts on residents and businesses.

High Speed Rail (West Midlands - Crewe) Bill: Revival

Debate between Andrew Bridgen and Andrew Stephenson

Carry-over motion & Bill reintroduced & Bill reintroduced: House of Commons & motion to revive Bill: House of Commons
Monday 2nd March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Stephenson]

Yes.

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

Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?

[Andrew Stephenson]

No.

My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan) talked eloquently about the benefits to his constituency, and it was great to visit his patch last week. My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) has been consistent in his opposition to High Speed 2, but I am afraid that I agree with his good friend Andy Street; this scheme has huge benefits for every part of the west midlands and we need to move forward. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Theo Clarke), despite being elected only in December, has already raised with me the concerns of her constituents by phone, text, WhatsApp and letter, in face-to-face meetings and again in the Chamber today. I have been left in no doubt about the strength of feeling in her constituency and about the fact that she will work tirelessly to represent all those directly affected by this section of the line. I share her concern about the way some people and communities have been treated by HS2 Ltd, and it must improve, as the Prime Minister said on 11 February. She asked about a timeline for compensation. As she will know, HS2 Ltd is required to pay landowners 90% of HS2 Ltd’s valuation within three months of receiving a claim or the date of possession, whichever is the later. The time taken to agree a settlement will often depend on the time parties take to negotiate and agree a property’s valuation and other statutory compensation. However, this is an area where I want to see real improvement, and I will be happy to meet her to discuss specific constituency cases and what more can be done to end the uncertainty that has hung over people for far too long. I thank her for the tone of her remarks tonight.

My right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) raised his concerns about cost. We have made it clear that we are committed to drawing a line under the past problems of cost control, and the Government recognise that things must change going forward. The latest cost estimate, as outlined in the Oakervee review, indicates that the full network cost will be between £72 billion and £98 billion, in 2019 prices. My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder) raised issues relating to the south-west. I can reassure him that we will not take our focus off other issues, particularly those he raises. That is why the Minister of State, Department for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) is here with me tonight, and it is why the Government are spending £48 billion between 2019 and 2024 on the conventional rail network. My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) asked a few questions, on which I may come back to him, but this measure does not pass the budget—there will be many more debates.

Finally, I wish to remind the House of the reasons for bringing forward this motion to revive the Bill. By reviving the Bill, we allow those who are directly and specifically affected by the building of this section of HS2 to get the earliest possible resolution to their petitions. We prevent the need to restart this Bill, saving time and money for those who have already petitioned and protecting the investment already made by the taxpayer. This Government want to get on and provide certainty to those affected by phase 2a, the west midlands to Crewe section of the line. By reviving this Bill tonight, we provide that certainty to people as quickly as possible. I commend the motion to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That if a Bill is presented to this House in this session in the same terms as those in which the High Speed Rail (West Midlands - Crewe) Bill stood at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the 2019 session—

(a) the Bill so presented shall be deemed to have passed through all its stages in this

House, and

(b) the Standing Orders and practice of the House applicable to the Bill, so far as complied with or dispensed with in the 2019 session, shall be deemed to have been complied with or (as the case may be) dispensed with in this session.

That the above Orders be Standing Orders of the House.