I would expect local authorities to have a good understanding of their housing stock, as should social housing providers in general. They will have knowledge of which housing has had retrofit energy improvements, whether through the area-based heating schemes or other schemes. Therefore, they should have a certain level of data. The issue might be that there is data that some of the private sector investors are unable to access or get an understanding of, rather than that there are no data there. I will take that point away to check for you, convener.

The second issue is about scale. I have discussed that issue with potential private investors, who have said that they need scale in order to make the capital investment that they believe is necessary to make delivering a programme financially viable.

Alongside the finance task force that I mentioned earlier, we are looking at what we need to put in place in order to lever in some of that private sector investment. That might involve bringing together some of our cities to form alliances or partnerships to put forward joint proposals that would give the sector the scale that it is looking for. In my previous portfolio, when I was the minister who was responsible for cities, we discussed that possibility. For example, we could have an Edinburgh and Dundee partnership or a Glasgow and Aberdeen partnership, which could take a shared prospectus to the private sector to see whether the proposal was of a scale that the sector could deliver on.

That is a reasonable challenge from the private sector. The issue has been raised with us, and the finance task force can consider it. We then need to think about how we can create the right partnerships to assist with that.

My final point is that some social housing providers might have only a couple of hundred houses, so they do not have the scale to get the level of private sector investment that they are looking for. They might get public sector investment, but not necessarily private sector investment. Therefore, we need to bring some of those providers together, so that we can offer proposals on a scale that will attract private sector investment. Given the scale of what we have to achieve, the public energy agency can support us in that role in the years ahead.

I do not think that we need the agency for the purpose of getting the data—local authorities should be able to draw that data together. However, if there is a lack of data, I will take that away and consider why that is the case, what needs to be put in place in order to improve the quality of that data, and whether resource needs to be provided to allow local authorities and social housing providers to deliver that.

I might be wrong, but I would like to think that social housing providers, such as housing associations, will be in a different situation compared with local authorities, because their housing stock is often at a smaller level. Therefore, they will have a much more detailed understanding of the improvements that they have already carried out.

I will take those points away and try to find out why there is a lack of data and what can be done to improve the situation.

I agree with your point. The danger is that we wait for the public energy agency to get up to full tilt so that it can co-ordinate some of that work, and we lose time while investors are looking to make an investment just now, provided that they can get access to the right data. We need to take on that challenge. I am happy to take the point away to get more of a detailed understanding of the issue and consider what we can do to address it.

We have taken that forward through negotiations with the UK Government, the Scottish Government and the UN, to create a pathway for registered delegates to COP26 or the world leaders summit to attend in-person negotiations and meetings. From the regulations, you will be aware that those who are travelling from high-risk countries—which are classed as red-list countries—still have much more stringent restrictions. Those who are unvaccinated will have to go into managed quarantine for 10 days, just as any other individual would have to, and then, as part of that, go through the normal testing regime on days 2 and 8. If those who have travelled from or have been in a red-list country in the past 10 days are vaccinated, they will be able to reduce their managed quarantine period to five days but will be required to have PCR tests over that period.

For those travelling from non-red-list countries, there is still a requirement for pre-departure testing, the completion of a passenger locator form, and day 2 testing, as well as daily lateral flow tests as part of the code of practice that has been put in place by the UN to try to minimise risk. The two Governments and the UN have tried to collaborate on finding a mechanism that manages the high-risk elements as best we can through managed quarantine and testing while also managing the broader risk through pre-departure, day 2 and daily lateral flow testing for delegates attending COP26.

Moreover, those arrangements are restricted to registered COP26 delegates. If you are not a registered delegate or if you have not been invited by the UK Government to attend the conference, the measures will not apply. Where things have been relaxed, it is only for registered delegates or invited participants. We have to try and strike a balance.

It is difficult for me to easily give you information on the balance of risks; all I can say is that we are trying to manage the whole thing in a planned way that helps minimise those risks. We know that, for example, vaccination, regular testing, early identification of positive cases and managed quarantine help to reduce risk, and we have put in place a range of measures to mitigate the risk of people having the virus while reducing the potential importation of the virus.

Last week, some changes were made that extend the number of countries that will qualify for the vaccination programme and for people’s entry into Scotland and the UK. I am aware that there are issues relating to vaccines that are provided in other countries for which there are travel restrictions. However, I suspect that Professor Jason Leitch is better placed to give members a more detailed clinical understanding of why that is the case and what action is being taken to address the issue.

The G7 event was much smaller in scale than COP26, and it involved a much smaller number of individuals. Some aspects of what we have agreed to put in place for COP26, such as the testing regime and restrictions, are there so that we can facilitate an in-person COP to take place—because we recognise the significance of the event—while trying to mitigate some of the risks. I would not say that we have drawn directly on the lessons from the G7, because it was very different in nature and scale, as COP26 is significantly larger. I assure you that we have tried to strike a balance in allowing COP26 to take place in person while mitigating the risks that are associated with such a large number of people coming together over a relatively limited period.

Good morning. I will briefly address in order the instruments that the committee will consider today.

The Scottish international travel regulations had provided that, following arrival in Scotland, day 2 and day 8 Covid-19 tests must be carried out by public providers—that is, by the NHS in Scotland. The Health Protection (Coronavirus) (International Travel) (Scotland) Amendment (No 17) Regulations 2021 allow those tests to also be supplied by private sector test providers, provided that they are on the United Kingdom Government’s published list of test providers. To get on to the list, providers must self-declare compliance with relevant regulations and Department of Health and Social Care guidance. All providers must work towards and complete full United Kingdom Accreditation Service accreditation. The DHSC removes from the list those who fail to follow the necessary stages of accreditation, those who fail to achieve the required turnaround times for test results, those who are not clear in their pricing, and those who act unethically.

The regulations also provide for a small but significant number of seasonal agricultural workers who are unable to isolate on a named farm due to insufficient accommodation. They allow them to isolate to the same standards as any other amber list arrival in off-farm accommodation organised by their employers.

The Health Protection (Coronavirus) (International Travel) (Scotland) Amendment (No 18) Regulations 2021 relate to the 26th UN climate change conference of the parties—COP26. I am sure that members are aware that COP26 will bring together countries to accelerate action towards the goals of the Paris agreement and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, in order to address climate change at an international level. COP26 and the world leaders summit are being held in person because of the complex nature of the negotiations and the need for secure discussions. That requires exemptions to travel restrictions.

The amendments provide for arrangements for and exemptions from self-isolation, managed quarantine, day 2 and day 8 testing requirements and completion of the passenger locator form for persons attending or facilitating COP26 and the COP26 world leaders summit. Exemptions vary for different categories of attendees. More limited exemptions apply for those attending or facilitating COP26 who have not been invited to attend both COP26 and the world leaders summit by the UK Government or who are not granted privileges and immunities in connection with COP26.

Those who have been in a country or a territory that is on the amber list in the 10 days before their arrival in Scotland will not be required to self-isolate. Fully vaccinated persons who have been in a red list country or territory in the 10 days before their arrival in Scotland will be required to undertake five days of managed quarantine rather than 10 days. If they are not vaccinated, they must quarantine for 10 days.

For delegates who must stay in managed isolation, the definition of “authorised vaccine” for these purposes is extended to include any vaccine that has been authorised for use in the country in which it was administered. There is no exemption to the pre-arrival testing requirement to possess a negative result from a qualifying test.

In order for the exemptions for COP26 and the world leaders summit to apply, individuals will be required to provide written confirmation that they will comply with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change code of conduct, which sets out rigorous measures for the events. The code will mitigate the additional public health risks arising from holding in-person events in the UK and the exemptions to travel restrictions.

The Health Protection (Coronavirus) (International Travel) (Scotland) Amendment (No 19) Regulations 2021 provide for an exemption from the requirement to enter managed self-isolation for participation in European professional football club fixtures in Scotland. They were made urgently because of players arriving in Glasgow from red list countries for a fixture taking place on Thursday 16 September. There was a risk that home fixtures would be moved abroad to a neutral venue to allow European club players who had played internationals in red list countries in the previous 10 days to participate. That would have caused significant disruption to Scottish clubs and home fans and generated a far higher risk of Covid transmission than the very small number of players travelling to Scotland.

I hope that that is a helpful overview of the regulations that the committee is considering. I would, of course, be happy to respond to any questions that committee members may have.

I will hand you over to Professor Leitch, because he is looking at resolutions to that issue.

Members should keep in mind that, aside from the testing arrangements that we are putting in place for COP26 delegates, the overlying system of restrictions in Scotland—appropriate social distancing, the wearing of masks, good hand hygiene and so on—will continue to apply to any venue holding a fringe event. The numbers of people in venues will be limited in view of the need to maintain social distancing. It is important to recognise that the present layer of restrictions will also apply to COP26 fringe events, and venues that would normally hold larger numbers of people will not be able to do so and will need to manage numbers in a way that supports social distancing, mask wearing and so on.

There are two aspects to that. The first relates to the UK Government’s intention to remove the requirement for pre-departure testing and the second relates to the requirement for day 2 PCR testing. It is important to understand and recognise the importance of both those tests.

The pre-departure test is intended to certify that a traveller is not positive when they get into an aircraft and that they do not have the potential to infect other people on that aircraft. It is an important element in trying to reduce the risk of infecting other individuals. I understand that contact tracing becomes complex when infection takes place in an aircraft.

The PCR testing at day 2 is an important element in our surveillance programme to identify potential variants of concern. If someone is infected, removing the requirement for a PCR test at day 2 potentially compromises significantly our ability to identify variants of concern that are coming into the country and to have them genome sequenced. If we simply go to a lateral flow test, we do not have the same ability to undertake the genomic sequencing as we have with a PCR test.

Given the UK Government’s decision, we have sought further advice, as the First Minister said in her statement to the Parliament on Tuesday. Officials are still providing that advice, and I expect that the First Minister will set out our approach as early as possible—in the next day or so, I hope—in response to the further advice that we have received from clinicians. I will be open with the committee: the clinical advice is that PCR testing pre-departure and at day 2 should remain in place. It plays an important role.

Mr Fraser will be aware that not only the Scottish Government but other devolved nations have raised significant concerns about the approach that the UK Government is taking to the issue. However, we need to recognise the potential impact of continuing with the existing regime, given the UK Government’s action, because people will simply choose to go to airports in England, and its impact on the aviation sector. We are taking those factors into account alongside the clinical advice on the value of pre-departure tests and day 2 PCR testing.

There have been discussions between the Scottish and UK Governments on plans for COP26, including the public health arrangements, and the CMOs have been involved in them. Those plans are advanced in their development, and the UK Government is expecting to announce them publicly in more detail next week and to set out the details of the arrangements for those delegates who are travelling from other countries and who have not been vaccinated or whose vaccine might not be recognised.

There have been on-going discussions between the UK Government and the United Nations on this matter, with the involvement of the Scottish Government and public health officials, and we are at the point of setting out bespoke arrangements for COP26 delegates. As I have said, my understanding is that the UK Government intends to set those out next week.

The UK Government has also made an offer to delegates intending to attend COP26 but who have not had access to vaccinations to access the vaccination programme in their own country. That offer, which has been facilitated through the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, has been taken up by a number of countries; I do not have the specific details of which countries have done so, but the UK Government will. As I said, it has offered to help delegates who are looking to attend the conference to get vaccinated in advance of travelling.