A number of constituents have contacted me about Andrew Bridgen’s Parliamentary Sovereignty (Referendums) Bill.

As I understand it, the Bill would seek to prohibit Ministers of the Crown from making or implementing any legal instrument which is not consistent with the sovereignty of the UK Parliament, unless it has been approved by a referendum.

In putting forward his case, Mr Bridgen has referenced the International Health Regulations (2005) (IHR) as an example. Speculation, however, that somehow this instrument will undermine UK sovereignty and give the World Health Organisation (WHO) powers over national public health measures is simply not the case. The UK remains in control of any future domestic decisions about public health matters - such as domestic vaccination - that might be needed in any future pandemic that we may have to manage.

More broadly, the IHR are a key part of the global health security system to prevent, protect against, control and provide a public health response to the international spread of disease.

The original International Sanitary Regulations, which preceded the International Health Regulations, were adopted in 1969 and amended several times: in 1973, in 1981, and in 2005. The third edition (2005) has been amended twice – in 2014 and 2022. The revisions of the regulations illustrate their fluid nature, adapting to the health challenges that the world faces at that time. As medical knowledge changes, I believe it is only right that health regulations change too. 

The Government will not support any agreement which compromises the UK's sovereignty and, ultimately, I do not believe it is necessary to pass a bill which forces the UK to hold referendums whenever a Government engages with multilateral organisations as this would be an excessive restriction on the Government. 

I hope I have made my position on this issue clear.