Chamber and committees

In what respect?

It is a critical issue. The Government has recently changed the regulatory environment around self-isolation, specifically in the educational context, and that move has been based on a risk assessment of the effectiveness—or necessity, I should say—of self-isolation in the context of a more highly vaccinated at-risk population. We now have less onerous self-isolation requirements than we had at previous stages of the pandemic, and our justification for that is the higher levels of vaccination in the population.

That said, I acknowledge the point that Mr Whittle fairly makes that having a number of cases in a school or early learning centre is clearly disruptive to a range of children and young people. We are trying to minimise the disruption to their education, but if they are required to self-isolate, it will have knock-on effects at home and among those who might ordinarily expect to be at their place of employment.

It is a difficult circle to square. We believe that we have taken pragmatic and risk-assessed judgments about the approach to self-isolation, but that does not insulate us entirely from the impact of the virus. What will do that is having compliance with the baseline measures, reducing our contact with people and seeing a fall in the number of cases. It is the high number of cases that is the problem in driving this process, not the requirements on self-isolation—they are a consequence of the high number of cases. If we concentrate on the steps that will reduce the number of cases, apply the baseline measures and pursue other factors, such as vaccination, we can contribute significantly to addressing the issue.

Professor Leitch might want to add something on the self-isolation requirements.

Obviously, we can consider the issues and questions that Murdo Fraser’s constituents have raised on that particular point. It is important that we try to ensure that we have the widest possible consent to, and endorsement of, the policy measures that we take forward and that any exemptions that are applied to such an approach are properly founded. However, it is very important to put in place clear parameters around the proposal that the Government has advanced. This is about the application of a proposal to a certain limited number of events in the country, all of which are entirely voluntary for individuals who wish to participate in them. There is absolutely no question that the Government would apply any such approach to accessing public services, such as those that are based on entitlement, because that would of itself raise significant and additional civil liberties questions.

We will certainly consider the issues that Murdo Fraser and other members raise as we formulate the specific nature of the proposal that Parliament will consider.

The timescale that we are looking at is for the proposal to be implemented around the end of September. The technology that would underpin it would be a QR code, which is now a reasonably routine way in which individuals interact with some aspects of ticketing for events. In all circumstances—such as large football or rugby games, for example—ticketing arrangements will already be in place and ticketing checks will be undertaken. I have seen commentary overnight from some of the football authorities on this question, and we will of course engage constructively with them on the practical issues that need to be considered in taking forward the policy.

I stress that, as I said in my opening remarks, given the nature of the proposal, it will be the subject of a parliamentary vote. Parliamentary approval will be required.

Mr Rowley should never say never in relation to the crowds that might appear at Kelty Hearts.

The Government has looked at the evidence base and the wider issues around participation in events. I accept that, on all these questions, there will be different opinions and contested opinions. We have looked at the information in the round to satisfy ourselves that the approach has the potential to provide us with greater levels of participation in the vaccination programme and to further incentivise individuals, particularly those in younger groups, to take up vaccination. We have to balance that against the likelihood that, if we do not take action to further improve vaccination levels, we might have to take action at a later stage that could lead to the application of further restrictions. The Government is keen to enlist the support and participation of members of the public in helping us to avoid getting to that position. Having looked at the balance of evidence on the question, we have concluded that this would be an effective way of strengthening population-wide resistance to the virus through maximising the uptake of the vaccination.

In the immediate term, we have to ensure that we take the necessary steps in relation to international travel that are appropriate to tackling Covid. These issues are the subject of controversy; I have read a lot of commentary from people who tell us that we have been far too restrictive on international travel at different stages of the pandemic. I do not think that the United Kingdom has been strict enough, but these are difficult issues to wrestle with.

We will have to address the whole question of the scale and nature of air travel and the environmental issues that come with it as part of the measures to tackle climate change. That will be a wider policy process in which Government is involved, and it will be at the heart of the decisions around COP26 in Glasgow later this year.

All societies will have to wrestle with that question, but the immediate challenge that we face is to ensure that we take the correct approach on international travel in a way that is commensurate with the steps that we need to take to suppress Covid within the population as effectively as we can.

I expect that to be the case, convener, although we are in a period where I would hope that we are not in the position of applying any further restrictions. I hope that, in the future, there will be fewer occasions when it will be necessary to come to the committee for regulatory change of that type. However, I want to maintain the protocols that were in place before. Dominic Munro, who is online with me, might want to add to that.

The difference and distinction are in the greater degree of physical participation beyond what would be considered routine elements of everyday human function, such as walking.

No, convener.

There are discussions under way with the United Kingdom Government and the United Nations about the arrangements for accessing COP26. Many of these issues are the subject of active discussion with the authorities who are running COP26 to ensure that we have the appropriate arrangements in place.