John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con):
I hope that the Minister will listen very carefully to the debate and the petitioners, because it would be a grave error were the Government to sign a treaty that gives away important powers over the future conduct of health policy. It is wrong to give to the WHO the sole power to decide when there is an emergency, and it is wrong to give away our powers of self-decision were such an emergency to be visited upon us.
We are, of course, members of the WHO, and I think we all agree that we should continue to be members of the WHO. We should share our information; we should draw on its research, and it will draw on research and knowledge in this country, where there is much medical and pharmaceutical company expertise, and together, as collaborators, we may get to better answers in the future. However, it would be quite wrong to vest the power of decision in people so far away from our own country who are not in full knowledge of the local circumstances.
Before any such power is vested in the WHO, there should be a proper inquiry and debate about how it performed over the course of the most recent covid pandemic. Why, for example, did the WHO seemingly concentrate on vaccines, rather than other methods of handling the problem? Why was there the delay or difficulty in testing existing drugs, which had already passed proper safety procedures and might have had beneficial or easing effects for those who got the condition? Why was more work not done on use of ultraviolet light behind the scenes in airflow systems, to clean up air when circulating? Why was more consideration not given to isolation hospitals and health centres, given that, unfortunately, quite a lot of the disease was spread through health premises. With the use of isolation, other healthcare could have continued during the course of covid treatment without so much cross-contamination within general hospitals. Why were there not recommendations and advice on isolation?
Why was there not more careful consideration of whether it would be better to concentrate on ensuring that those who were most vulnerable were protected from the presence of the disease as much as possible, rather than trying to lock down whole populations and then having to make exemptions so that we could keep the lights on and some food could be delivered to people’s homes? There was something rather arbitrary about who was allowed to go to work and who was not.
Why was more work not done by the WHO on cleaning up the data? We were given comparisons between countries, but when we looked beneath the data, we discovered that those countries were using very different definitions of what a covid death was. In individual countries, under the impact of the wave of the disease, there were often great difficulties in carrying out proper diagnosis of whether someone did have covid, or whether other medical problems that the person was suffering from were more likely to have caused the death. Some countries took a very tough line, saying that anybody with covid died of covid, even though they might have had lots of other conditions, so those countries had big figures, while other countries took a rather narrow view and said, “Well, this person was in their mid-80s and they were suffering from another a number of other conditions that might have led to the difficulties.”
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.
December 20, 2023
I FULLY Agree, Parliament must not devolve power over the UK response to pandemics. The national response to a pandemic is very dependent on local circumstances. We are a sovereign nation and must remain so.
December 20, 2023
Agree.
December 20, 2023
One word, sinister.
Those British based bureaucrats, activists, experts and politicians aiding and abetting this theft of sovereignty and accountability must be exposed for what they truly are, a threat to national security
It is a debate that shouldn’t even be entertained. That it is should trigger deep concern
December 20, 2023
Absolutely.
December 20, 2023
Agree.
December 20, 2023
The questins raised by Sir John are all appropriately addressed at national level. The idea that the WHO would have enough knowledge of national or local populations to be able to prescribe pandemic measures in each and every country is absurd. Australia ignored the WHO’s advice and did much better as a result. It is right that WHO provides a useful service as a repository of knowledge, a research sponsor, as an early warning system and a distribution system for vaccines in poorer countries. It could also usefully provide a forum for the exchange of ideas and international co-operation. eg on international movements, but I suspect multi-lateral networks, especially in this digital age, and liaison by states is adequate without another layer of bureacracy. Perhaps these functions could be improved or enhanced. There is no need to give it powers to regulate countries. It is more likely to prescribe the wrong measures than national or state governments because of its lack of such knowledge. NPIs need to be tailored at a scale no greater than nation states and, if possible, to be more localised than that.
Sir John raises the question of approval of drugs already released in the market. It is important that each country makes its own decisions regarding approval of drugs. These issues are never completely clear cut and it is wrong to deny nation states the power to make their own decisions on risks, costs, benefits and alternatives. Again there is rapid communication between regulatory authorities so there is no need for the WHO’s regulatory intervention.
December 20, 2023
PS. The UK’s Covid Enquiry does not seem, at least so far, to be addressing the key issues and has not made any attempt to find out why the UK performed badly on both health and economic performance. Either it, or some other body should be making such international comparisons. Perhaps this would best be done by WHO.
December 20, 2023
Overall over the one year to eighteen month period that Covid was prevalent and adjustments were being made the UK performed towards the median of countries. Certainly did not perform badly overall.
Aided no doubt by the early releasing of lockdown.
December 20, 2023
Agree.
December 20, 2023
Excellent speech, Sir John.
The WHO’s Pandemic Preparedness Treaty has got the finger prints of a global dictatorship all over it.
December 20, 2023
Agree.
December 20, 2023
On the money again, Sir John,
I hope you will find strong support on this.
I also hope that the European Defence Force has got your antennae twitching.
December 20, 2023
I also hope it has got every member of our serving forces, and prospective members to reflect on who will instruct them to take military action not agreed by UK Parliament!
December 20, 2023
The WHO’s attempted power-grab over Sovereign nations is a Totalitarian’s Wet Dream.
The Government should reject the proposals outright, not seek to tweak them to “achieve CONsensus” with 192 other Governments, most of them NOT democracies.
December 20, 2023
Agree.
December 20, 2023
It strikes me that the best defence against this type of attack, because that is what it is, is to be particularly clever and stringent within our own borders and to ensure no external transmission can occur. We didn’t show this in the covid situation. Total shambles. One can see why NZ are reviewing their response to this as they shut borders sensibly as a precaution, and were at least in control of their destiny, however good or bad. Their situation had no real external effect, so they have a good argument for putting 2 fingers up to the external world. We sadly don’t.
December 20, 2023
Points well made against allowing another supra-national entity to have final say in our behaviour.
I would also urge you to find a way to get the text of this speech to the ongoing Covid inquiry. The points you make are far more pertinent to learning for the future than the salacious poring over of WhatApp messages and flagellation of men in government.
December 20, 2023
Agree.
December 20, 2023
Thank you for speaking out for us
December 20, 2023
Yes, thank you John.
December 20, 2023
Thank you for your speech on the WHO Treaty, you spoke for many of us.
I am trying to understand the necessity for this Pandemic Preparedness Treaty. The only conclusion I can make is that it is an attempted power grab, it has no other purpose.
December 20, 2023
Agree.
December 20, 2023
Cooperation helps us achieve what is better for us and others.
Treaties restrict our ability to decide what is best for us when things go wonky.
We should maintain high standards of performance in all we do and help others as much as is sensible, but retaining the right to choose holds those standards highest.
Some treaties risk treating us unfavourably against our will.
December 20, 2023
Agree.
December 20, 2023
Any international treaty that restricts, curtails, or overrides our sovereignty should be placed before the people ….its not for government to sign off our sovereignty
December 20, 2023
Totally agree.
December 20, 2023
I would like to thank Sir John for his measured and forceful contributions to this debate, and for publishing them here. we are increasingly coerced into accepting draconian and often damaging regulations in the name of ‘international law’. Parliament seems to be overrun with lawyers who are all mustard keen on international law, to our national detriment.
December 20, 2023
Agreed, “…it would be quite wrong to vest the power of decision in people so far away from our own country who are not in full knowledge of the local circumstances” for it was bad enough when the power was exercised locally, concealed behind an array of flags in the intervals between parties and cake-eating merriment.
That this rotten government contemplates such treachery is alas not a shock.
December 20, 2023
Dear Sir John,
I do hope that whoever takes the final decisions, which is probably not Mr Stevenson, listens to or reads your wise words – for which thank you.
Your point about the scientific method of challenge and debate is crucial, both in analysing the international response to Covid 19 and in designing ways to handle any future pandemic.
Free markets work better than central planning mainly because there are more people making decisions, so some are more likely to prove right and those decisions will prevail. It is the same as evolution, where many novel variations are winnowed by natural selection to yield progress.
History shows that unified top-down war commands that brook no alternative strategy often lead to catastrophe. Pandemics should not be run like that but by encouraging competing responses. The obvious official hostility to alternative treatments for Covid19 was frustrating and alarming. And if Sweden had been obliged to follow the Chinese lockdown model, we should not know that it is possible to respond as effectively without inflicting world-war scale damage to national output and finances.
December 21, 2023
and Fleur wins the entries count today. Agreed?
December 21, 2023
Thank you John. I know I’ve been on your case for a few things and this stance matches my own. Appreciate your input.