Contents
- Attendance
- Pre-Budget Scrutiny 2021-22
- Subordinate Legislation
Subordinate Legislation
Health Protection (Coronavirus) (International Travel) (Scotland) Amendment (No 9) Regulations 2020 (SSI 2020/242)
We will move first to agenda item 3, which is consideration of a made affirmative instrument. After considering that instrument, we will go back to agenda item 2, which is consideration of two negative instruments.
Agenda item 3 is consideration of SSI 2020/242. Colleagues will recall that the regulations are laid under section 94(1), on international travel, of the Public Health etc (Scotland) Act 2008. That act states that such regulations should be subject to the affirmative procedure, but that the affirmative procedure will not apply
“if the Scottish Ministers consider that the regulations need to be made urgently”.
In such situations, section 122(7) applies. It sets out that
“emergency regulations ... must be laid before the Scottish Parliament”
and that they will
“cease to have effect at the expiry of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the regulations were made unless, before the expiry of that period, the regulations have been approved by a resolution of the Parliament.”
It is for the Health and Sport Committee to consider such instruments and to report to Parliament accordingly.
We are joined by Humza Yousaf, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, and his officials. I welcome the cabinet secretary, who is accompanied by Rachel Sunderland, who is deputy director in the population and migration division; Jamie MacDougall, who is deputy director in the test and protect portfolio; and Anita Popplestone, who is head of police complaints and scrutiny.
We had a full evidence session with you last week, cabinet secretary, and I know that you will be preparing a response to the questions that we put to you then, so I do not intend to rehearse those questions in any detail. However, it would be good if you could outline the impact of the regulations and tell us why they are being laid at this time.
Good morning. I hope that everybody is in good health.
On the back of last week’s lengthy session, I received your letter, and I intend to give you a detailed response. If you need further clarification on anything that is in that response, I will be more than happy to provide it, in writing or by appearing in front of the committee. I expect that such appearances will be a fairly regular occurrence, given the nature of the virus and the speed at which cases of it are, unfortunately, progressing in a number of countries.
In relation to the regulations in front of us, the committee will remember that we receive data from two sources to help us to make our assessment of whether a country should be removed from or added to the list of exemptions from quarantine: an analysis from the joint biosecurity centre—the JBC—which looks at a range of data; and a risk analysis by Public Health England. We have got into the pattern of receiving that data generally on a Wednesday, and on Thursday having a conversation among the four nations and coming to an agreement on which countries should or should not be removed from the list.
In the case of the regulations in front of us, what we saw in France in particular was a challenging situation, in which the number of cases rose in the space of a few days to a worrying level. We faced a challenge in that we were reliant on the French Government producing that data, which it did quite late in the evening. We had to make a decision. We had a four-nations call at about half past 9 that night, if I remember correctly, and we made an announcement at about 10 o’clock or just thereafter. That was because we were so reliant on that data.
In short, particularly for France and the Netherlands, the rise in the number of cases per week was worrying, the increase in the number of positive tests was deeply alarming, and the general trajectory in those countries gave us enough cause for concern to remove them, as well as the other countries that are mentioned in the regulations, from the list of exemptions.
Thank you. If colleagues have questions, I ask them to indicate that to me.
Cabinet secretary, I presume that you will continue to monitor the numbers from France and the other countries that you referred to. I am sure that we will come to this during a later meeting but, in recent days, we have seen countries being added to the list of exemptions and then quickly being removed from it. Is that simply a function of the process that we are engaged in? What is your view of the countries that we are dealing with today? Will you continue to monitor them in the same way, with a view to reintroducing exemption when it is safe to do so?
That is a good question, convener. My honest answer—I hope that I have been very clear about this publicly—is that, even if a country is added to the exemption list, so that people who come back from it do not have to quarantine, that situation can change rapidly. We have seen that with a number of countries.
Of course, there have been clusters in our own country—including in the region that you represent, convener, so you know that well. Situations within a country can change within a matter of days, let alone the space of a week. The very strong caveat from all four nations around any country being added to, or even removed from, the list of exemptions is that there is always a risk. When you are travelling internationally in the midst of a global pandemic, the situation might change in a matter of days, let alone in a week.
We continue to watch and monitor the countries that are mentioned in the regulations, and we also get risk analyses and data on a number of countries about which we have some concerns.
I am sure that what you describe is correct, but the process has tended to be that when a country is to be removed from the list of exemptions, one, two or three days’ notice is usually given—for example, people who are travelling from the end of the week will be subject to the regulations. That is clearly convenient for people who are making return journeys within that timeframe. From a public health perspective, are you satisfied that that is the correct approach when countries are removed from the list of exemptions?
Again, that is a good question. We have got to a process now whereby, generally speaking, things can change because we will always act in the best interests of public health. Generally, we tend to have the four-nations call at midday on Thursday, and we will make a decision and an announcement at 5 o’clock on Thursday. Usually, the regulations will come into force on the following Saturday at 4 in the morning. That is the pattern of what has happened in the past couple of weeks.
However—this is a really important caveat—that will not always necessarily be the pattern. If data shows from a Scottish perspective that the importation of cases from a certain country is causing us alarm, we reserve the right to move quickly because of our public health imperative. There is a fine balance to be struck between ensuring that we bring in such regulations as quickly as possible once we are alerted to a possible dangerous situation in another country, and ensuring, at the same time, that there is at least a little bit of time for Border Force, for example, to be able to put that decision into operation. That is why the window between making an announcement on the Thursday at 5 o’clock and the regulations coming into force on the Saturday at 4 in the morning is quite narrow.
We will tend to keep that gap between announcement and implementation as narrow as we possibly can because, again, we would not be making these decisions if there was not a public health risk.
No other member has indicated that they wish to ask questions of the cabinet secretary or his officials, so we will move on to agenda item 4, which is the formal debate on the made affirmative SSI on which we have just taken evidence. I remind members and others that this is no longer a question session, so it is not for officials to take part or for members to put questions to the minister; it is simply a formal debate, to which members may or may not wish to contribute.
I invite the cabinet secretary to move motion S5M-22436, in his name.
Motion moved,
That the Health and Sport Committee recommends that the Health Protection (Coronavirus) (International Travel) (Scotland) Amendment (No 9) Regulations 2020 (SSI 2020/242) be approved.—[Humza Yousaf]
Motion agreed to.
I thank the cabinet secretary and his officials for their attendance.
Scotland Act 1998 (Agency Arrangements) (Specification) (Coronavirus) Order 2020 (SSI 2020/776)
Scotland Act 1998 (Agency Arrangements) (Specification) (Coronavirus) (No 2) Order 2020 (SSI 2020/777)
We now move to agenda item 2, which we skipped over earlier but which remains before us for consideration. It is on subordinate legislation, and is consideration of two negative instruments.
In July, Jeane Freeman, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport, wrote to the committee and provided a series of updates on the digital response to Covid-19. That included working with the UK Government on the potential for an app to be developed by the UK Government and to be used throughout the UK. The instruments put in place the formal arrangements to allow that to happen by enabling an agreement to be reached between the Scottish Government and UK ministers on the operation of such an app within Scotland by UK ministers. They are not of course the agreement itself; they are simply the legislative framework to allow that to happen.
Do members wish to comment on the instruments?
I note the letter and that the cabinet secretary has recently agreed in principle to such an approach. I am not against the SSIs, but I want to ask for clarification. We are told that
“The app is intended to further extend the speed and reach of contact tracing in England and, should Scottish Ministers so choose, within Scotland as part of NHS Test and Protect.”
There have been newspaper reports stating that people in England who have used the app have been asked for their bank details. I am concerned about that, so I would like some clarification on the issue, perhaps in a letter.
I believe that, in July, a question was asked of the First Minister with regard to Scotland having its own track and trace app, which would be similar to or the same as that in the Republic of Ireland. I also wonder where we are on that.
I seek clarification on those two points with regard to the SSIs.
Like Sandra White, I do not oppose the SSIs, but I am interested in the language around impact assessments. We are told:
“A full impact assessment has not been produced for this instrument as no, or no significant, impact on the private, voluntary or public sector is foreseen.”
I would like clarification on that language.
Sandra White and Emma Harper have asked us to seek further information, but I think that they both said that they are happy to make no recommendations in relation to the instruments. Clearly, we can write to Jeane Freeman to seek clarification in any case. We could delay our consideration of the instruments pending a response, but I think that the members have indicated that they do not want to do that and are simply seeking information. I see that Emma Harper agrees.
Therefore, given the agreement to write a letter covering those points and the other comments from members, does the committee agree to make no recommendations on the instruments?
Members indicated agreement.
We will inform Parliament accordingly. We now move into private session.
11:30 Meeting continued in private until 11:58.Previous
Pre-Budget Scrutiny 2021-22