WHO do you think you are? MPs fear ‘unelected’ UN officials could dictate Britain’s lockdown policy in future pandemics under controversial new treaty

World Health Organization (WHO) chiefs could be given power over Britain’s future pandemic policies, MPs fear.

Under plans for a new global pandemic treaty, the UN agency is considering making dozens of amendments to its legally-binding rulebook. 

Critics worry member nations might be made to comply with advice in future health crises, such as enforcing lockdowns or vaccine passports.

A group of Conservative MPs have now warned the UK risks ‘signing away’ its powers to ‘unelected’ WHO bosses, complaining about mooted changes in a letter to Alicia Kearns, chair of the foreign affairs select committee.

The MPs, members of the all-party parliamentary group on pandemic response and recovery, have argued the treaty risks ‘undermining UK sovereignty’.

WHO director Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus has repeatedly warned nations that ‘everyone will have to give something, or no one will get anything.’ He told the final round of negotiations: ‘We all know there remain critical areas where you are yet to reach consensus. ‘You agree on what you are trying to achieve … now you need to agree on how to achieve these objectives’

They said it would allow ‘unaccountable individuals and supranational bodies tacit jurisdiction over national public health measures’.

Instead, there must be a greater level of ‘parliamentary scrutiny and oversight’ over the agreement. 

The letter was signed by the former Brexit minister and chief negotiator Lord Frost, The Telegraph reported. 

Other signatories included MPs Philip Davies, Philip Hollobone and Sir Christopher Chope.

Under one draft of the treaty, countries would ‘follow WHO’s recommendations in their international public health response’. 

It aims to prepare for the next global health emergency and prevent a repeat of what South Africa termed the ‘vaccine apartheid’ — where countries had vastly unequal access to Covid vaccines and drugs.

WHO chiefs say it will make the world safer from health threats, with another crisis feared to be lurking around the corner. 

Lord Frost told The Telegraph, however, that he was concerned the Government was ‘not really being that open about what it is doing’ in treaty negotiations. 

‘The other concern is about the practical impact this treaty could have on our domestic laws,’ he said. A UN convention doesn’t itself have direct legal force in the UK.

‘But as we discovered with the Rwanda plan, the doctrine of many government lawyers seems to be that international commitments are in practice just as legally binding as our own laws. 

‘So, getting the details of this treaty right is really quite important.

‘Ministers will claim that these new treaties involve no loss of sovereignty. 

‘But in practice, if another crisis comes, there will be lots of pressure to act within the WHO framework, and government lawyers will tell us we must.’ 

In response to the fears, the Government insisted it ‘would never agree to anything that fails to respect our national sovereignty’. 

A spokesperson for the Department of Health and Social Care said: ‘Ministers have been clear that that we will not sign up to any agreement which fails to respect our national sovereignty and would not agree to any measure that would cede sovereignty to the WHO in making domestic decisions concerning national public health, including vaccine programmes and lockdowns.’ 

The Government also previously said the treaty ‘does not have any provisions’ for granting the WHO powers to impose lockdowns, mandatory quarantines or vaccines.

The WHO International Health Regulations (IHR) group is set to agree on an amendments package to present to the World Health Assembly (WHA) in May at the 77th World Health Assembly.

The ninth and final round of negotiations between countries began on March 18. It will run until March 28. 

Under one draft of the treaty, countries would ‘follow WHO’s recommendations in their international public health response’. It aims to prepare for the next global health emergency and prevent a repeat of what South Africa termed the ‘vaccine apartheid’ — where countries had vastly unequal access to Covid vaccines and drugs. Pictured, Sir Christopher Chope, a signatory of the letter to Alicia Kearns

WHO chiefs say it will make the world safer from health threats, with another crisis feared to be lurking around the corner. Pictured, Phillip Hollobone, a signatory of the letter to Alicia Kearns

In response to the fears, the Government insisted it ‘would never agree to anything that fails to respect our national sovereignty’. Pictured, Philip Davies, a signatory of the letter to Alicia Kearns

The updated IHR would then come into force within a year for all member states, unless a country files a rejection.

WHO director Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus has repeatedly warned nations that ‘everyone will have to give something, or no one will get anything.’ 

He told the final round of negotiations: ‘We all know there remain critical areas where you are yet to reach consensus.

‘You agree on what you are trying to achieve… now you need to agree on how to achieve these objectives.

‘It’s mission-critical for humanity that you do. We cannot allow the cycle of panic and neglect to repeat.’

It comes as a coalition of African scientists earlier this month accused the WHO of being ‘colonialist’ in its treaty plans. 

The Pan-African Epidemic and Pandemic Working Group argued lockdowns were a ‘class-based and unscientific instrument’.

It said they caused ‘significant harm’ to low-income nations. 

Instead, African nations should be able to prioritise tackling their own major health needs, including diseases like cholera, yellow fever, malaria, the group said.   

Last year, six MPs also wrote to the Foreign Office demanding it blocks any new powers that could see the WHO dictate policy and budgets in the UK.

It comes as six MPs wrote to the Foreign Office in May last year demanding it blocks any new powers that could see the WHO dictate policy and budgets in the UK. Ex-Cabinet minister Esther McVey, (pictured) the wife of Philip Davies warned the powers would see the organisation, described as China’s puppet by critics, move from a ‘member-led advisory body to a health authority with powers of compulsion’ 

The initial investigation by the WHO in January 2021, which saw a group of scientists travel to Wuhan, concluded that ‘all hypotheses remain on the table’. In its March 2021 report, it ranked the likelihood of four theories, ruling the natural origins theory to be the most likely. But it placed the lab leak an ‘extremely unlikely pathway’ behind the frozen food origin story. The theory the virus has been introduced via ‘cold food chain products’ – pushed by the Chinese Government – was deemed a ‘possible pathway’ instead by the UN agency

Ex-Cabinet minister Esther McVey warned the powers would see the organisation, described as China’s puppet by critics, move from a ‘member-led advisory body to a health authority with powers of compulsion’.

The agency has long been criticised for praising China’s Covid response, for taking too long to call the outbreak an international emergency and for advising countries against imposing travel bans. 

In the earliest days of the outbreak, Dr Ghebreyesus even went as far as to praise Beijing’s ‘commitment to transparency’ which he called ‘beyond words’. 

The WHO’s probe into the origins of Covid, in January 2021, which saw a group of scientists travel to Wuhan, also concluded that ‘all hypotheses remain on the table’.

In its March 2021 report, it placed the lab leak as an ‘extremely unlikely pathway’ — behind the frozen food origin story.

But the lab leak theory, once dismissed as an outright conspiracy, has gained increasing traction in the years since the virus first caused a global pandemic. 

No concrete proof to support any origin argument, however, has ever been found, leaving experts fearing the truth will never be uncovered.