Health and Sport Committee

Meeting date: Tuesday, March 9, 2021

Official Report 664KB pdf

---

Subordinate Legislation

---

Health Protection (Coronavirus) (International Travel) (Managed Accommodation and Testing) (Scotland) Regulations 2021 (SSI 2021/74)

---

Health Protection (Coronavirus) (International Travel) (Scotland) Amendment (No 6) Regulations 2021 (SSI 2021/81)

---

Health Protection (Coronavirus) (International Travel) (Managed Accommodation and Testing etc) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2021 (SSI 2021/107)

---

Health Protection (Coronavirus) (International Travel) (Scotland) Amendment (No 7) Regulations 2021 (SSI 2021/111)

Agenda item 4 is consideration of further subordinate legislation. We have before us four made affirmative instruments on coronavirus and international travel, which have been laid under section 94(1) of the Public Health etc (Scotland) Act 2008, which is on international travel. The 2008 act states that such regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure, except that that procedure will not apply if ministers consider that the regulations need to be made urgently. In such circumstances, they will be emergency regulations and will cease to have effect on the expiry of the period of 28 days, beginning with the date on which they were made, unless, before the expiry of that period, they have been approved by Parliament.

It is for the Health and Sport Committee to consider the instruments and report to Parliament accordingly. In other words, the instruments before us are of the same family as many of the instruments that we have considered over recent months. Last week, we took evidence on Covid health protection travel regulations from travel, hospitality and public health representatives. Today, we will hear from the Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Infrastructure and Connectivity on the same issues.

The regulations impose new requirements for self-isolation and mandatory testing for travellers who arrive directly into Scotland from outwith the common travel area, having departed from or transited through an acute risk country. They also make requirements for a managed self-isolation package to be applied to persons who travel to Scotland from England, where they would otherwise be required to comply with equivalent regulations in England. Finally, they remove the Falkland Islands from the list of acute risk countries and territories in schedule A2 of the international travel regulations.

Those are the matters before us. In order to assist our scrutiny, I welcome to the committee Michael Matheson, Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Infrastructure and Connectivity, who is accompanied by, from the Scottish Government, Craig Thomson, border measures review team leader; David Pratt, policy lead for the health performance and delivery team; and Peter Brown from the police enforcement, liaison and performance team.

We intend to ask questions on all four instruments together. Questions might therefore be more general in nature, although some might relate more specifically to individual instruments.

I invite the cabinet secretary to make a brief opening statement.

11:30  

Good morning. I made a statement to the chamber on 9 February, in which I set out the Scottish Government’s intention to introduce a comprehensive approach to managed isolation of international arrivals. The regulations that we are discussing today give effect to the policy that I announced in my statement.

The principal managed accommodation regulations—SSI 2021/74—make it a requirement for non-exempt passengers who arrive in Scotland to enter at specific airports and to have booked accommodation in a managed isolation facility to undertake their 10-day isolation period. That applies to all direct arrivals and not just those from red list countries. The managed isolation package includes a requirement to take two polymerase chain reaction tests, on day 2 and day 8 of isolation. Positive test results are prioritised for genomic sequencing to give us an enhanced surveillance regime to monitor importation of variants of concern. Most exemptions from isolation for essential workers also require passengers to have booked and undertaken a testing package.

The Health Protection (Coronavirus) (International Travel) (Scotland) Amendment (No 6) Regulations 2021 make additional technical changes to clarify the application of the rules on travel within the common travel area. That includes the need to take account of red list country arrivals to Scotland who have not been correctly identified at the point of entry into the UK. That instrument was supplemented by the third instrument, SSI 2021/107, which makes further technical changes to definitions of testing and offences, and introduces an exemption for managed isolation for offshore workers in the North Sea who have transited through other countries. Those workers must now self-isolate at home when they return to Scotland.

The final instrument, SSI 2021/111, removes the Falkland Islands from the list of acute risk countries and territories. That decision was taken on the basis of a revised risk assessment from the joint biosecurity centre.

I am happy to respond to any questions that members might have.

Members will have questions, but I want to begin by returning to some of the evidence that we heard last week when we discussed the different approaches across the UK. As you highlighted, there are different requirements in relation to red list countries and the overall approach for Scotland, where regulations apply to everyone who enters the country from all over the world.

There will have been discussions with other Administrations about the correct approach to take. Will you summarise the arguments for and against the red list approach and explain why the UK Government has favoured that approach? What are the reasons for the Scottish Government’s preferred approach?

Please bear with me, convener—this might be rather a long answer, because I think that it is important to give you the background.

When we suspended the travel corridor system, which was operated on a four-nations basis across the UK, we did so because the joint biosecurity centre, which had been advising us on the travel corridor system, informed us that, given the emergence of new variants, especially the variants of concern in South Africa and Brazil, the methodology that it had been using for assessing the travel corridor system was no longer fit for purpose—it said that it was no longer suitable for the purpose for which it was intended. As a result, the travel corridors were suspended, as the committee is aware.

The joint biosecurity centre was then asked to develop a methodology that would allow it to identify countries that were at risk of having the new, emerging variants of concern. After carrying out that process and producing a methodology that was considered by the four chief medical officers of the UK, the joint biosecurity centre advised the four home nations that it was unable to develop a methodology that would have a level of confidence that would enable us to use it for the application of a red list system. As a consequence, the chief medical officers in Scotland and the other UK nations were unable to recommend proceeding with a red list based system. There was very low confidence in the use of that method.

As a result of that, the Scottish Government received the advice—in line with what the scientific advisory group for emergencies highlighted—that the only suitable mechanism for minimising the risk of introducing variants of concern would be the introduction of a comprehensive managed isolation programme. On the basis of the advice that we received directly from our chief medical officer, we proceeded with the approach of introducing a comprehensive managed isolation programme.

We raised concerns about the UK Government’s approach—given that the joint biosecurity centre had already advised that it could not develop a methodology that would have a significant level of confidence with regard to minimising new variants of concern—of introducing a geographically specific red list system. However, the UK Government has chosen to take that approach.

The approach that we have taken in Scotland is in line with the advice that has been provided by SAGE and by our chief medical officer, and with the advice that has been promoted by the directors of public health in Scotland. In our view, it is the most effective way in which to reduce the risk of the introduction of new variants in Scotland and the UK as a whole.

In brief, would it be fair to say that your approach is based on the advice of the joint biosecurity centre and of SAGE, and that the UK Government’s decision has been taken in spite of that advice?

That would be a fair reflection of the situation at the moment.

If a red list approach continues to be operated for people travelling to England, what impact will that have on the comprehensive managed isolation programme approach that has been taken in Scotland?

Given that the UK Government chose to pursue the red list system, we made representations to it to ask that anyone who enters a port of entry in England and will travel on to Scotland be required to use a managed isolation facility in England for the purpose of their quarantine period. The UK Government has refused to take that forward. That presents the challenge that individuals who have been overseas, but who are not coming from red-list countries or have not transited through red-list countries, are able to arrive at airports or ports in England and then transit on to Scotland.

However, when they do so, they are required to self-isolate at home and to purchase a testing package for when they return home. To reduce further the associated risk, we have also increased the level of contact that is being made by the national contact tracing centre with those who return to Scotland following international travel where they are self-isolating at home. Over the past couple of weeks, we have reached approximately 96 per cent to 97 per cent of all those who return to Scotland following international travel being directly contacted by the national contact tracing service.

However, we continue to press the UK Government to introduce a more comprehensive system of managed isolation, given the risks that its existing system poses, not just for Scotland but for other parts of the UK, in light of the advice that we have received from our clinical advisers and the joint biosecurity centre.

In practice, therefore, there are two classes of people who have returned from international travel to Scotland, one of which is people in managed isolation after landing at a Scottish airport; and the other being people self-isolating at home because they have come into Scotland by a different route.

There are actually three classes. There are those who arrive directly into airports in Scotland and go into managed isolation, and those who arrive at airports in England but not from a red list country and who then transit on to Scotland. There are also those who arrive at airports in England who have come from or transited through a red list country. They should be identified at their point of entry in England and be required to use managed isolation in England. The red list system operates on the basis of the point of arrival into the country rather than someone’s destination after arriving in the UK. There are technically three layers here: those who come from red list countries intending to come to Scotland, who have to self-isolate when they come into England; and the other two categories that we just touched on.

That is a helpful clarification.

I have another question before I pass over to colleagues. Given that different parts of the world have different quarantine periods, have you and your advisers considered the length of stay in quarantine or isolation for travellers arriving in Scotland?

The 10-day period is based on the clinical advice that we received towards the end of last year that the risk of moving the self-isolation period from 14 days to 10 days was significantly lower than had originally been understood when the 14-day period was introduced. The advice from clinical advisers was therefore that a period of managed isolation should be 10 days, or 11 nights, which is in line with the period of self-isolation for anyone who is identified as being positive with Covid-19.

I will raise a big-picture issue that I have to confess I have been working on heavily for the past six months, which is about having an internationally recognised vaccination passport to open up international travel. The cabinet secretary will know that tourism is the most important asset and product of my Highlands and Islands region, so I am looking to a future of tourists coming safely to our area and Scots travelling all over the world safely.

You might know that I have raised the issue with the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport and Professor Jason Leitch at the COVID-19 Committee, and with Professor Linda Bauld and the First Minister. I am interested in the project, but I am realistic, because I understand that ethical and practical issues are involved. There is the issue of vaccination apartheid, by which I mean the poorest developing countries not having access to vaccinations. However, as you will know, we have a track record on issues such as yellow fever vaccination, and the World Health Organization is vital in that regard.

I am sorry for the long lead-in, but I think that a vaccine passport is vital to redevelop the economy and tourism, not just here but across the world. I have shown my bias to you strongly at the start, but what are the Government’s thoughts on a vaccine passport, where we are with the issue and how we can develop it?

I recognise Mr Stewart’s interest in the matter of vaccine passports, which could play an important part in re-establishing international travel. As you rightly highlight, there are a number of ethical issues with the idea of vaccine certification or, as it is often referred to, vaccine passports. However, I think that they will have a part to play at a later stage in the months ahead.

11:45  

We are already engaged with the UK Government on the matter, and I have indicated through the regular Covid operations, or Covid-O, committee meetings that we are looking to work on a four-nations basis on the development of any vaccine certification process. Our officials in the Scottish Government are also engaged with the World Health Organization on the matter. The WHO is looking to develop a set of data-specific regulations that could be applied universally across the world to a vaccine certification programme, similar to that for yellow fever. The WHO is trying to create a system that could work globally, and we are engaged in that process.

I agree that vaccine certification will have a role to play in the recovery of international travel, and we are engaged in the process. However, the benefits of such a programme do not remove some of the risks that are still associated with variants of concern, and they are dependent on the scale and nature of vaccination that is taking place in other countries across the world. As you rightly say, there is a danger that some countries are significantly behind others with the roll-out of vaccination, which could have a significant impact on people’s ability to travel in other parts of the world.

We are already looking to develop our thinking around how vaccine certification would operate through the data system that we have in NHS Scotland. We must also be mindful of the associated ethical issues, and recognise that it is not a replacement for measures such as self-isolation in helping to reduce the risk of introducing new variants into the country.

The cabinet secretary has been very open and honest on the subject. My comments generally are not made in a party-political way. I am enthusiastic about the matter, but my eyes are open to some of the downsides.

I will give my honest view. I have been watching carefully what has been happening in Europe, particularly with the Greek Prime Minister pushing the EU ahead on vaccination certificates. I also believe that industry will go ahead with them, almost irrespective of what is happening. My real worry is that the Scottish Government is at the station, but the train is already leaving. I am worried that we are falling behind on the issue. Notwithstanding some of the practical concerns, I am concerned about the issue in terms of travel. I do not want a vaccination certificate in relation to access to services—there are different arguments for that. Does the cabinet secretary recognise my frustration on the issue?

I would recognise your frustration if we were not already progressing the issue, but we are. We are already engaging and looking to take forward the matter on a four-nations basis.

My only note of caution is that it is far too early to say that it will be possible for Greece to welcome people from the UK this summer if they have a vaccine certificate, as ministers in Greece say they are looking to do. We do not know what the state of the pandemic will be at that point, either domestically or in Greece. We also do not know what stage the vaccination programme in Greece will be at. Therefore, there are a number of factors that will influence matters.

I reassure Mr Stewart that we are already engaged in a detailed way on the potential role of vaccine certificates and how we could use our existing data system in NHS Scotland to operate on a four-nations basis. Engagement among officials is already taking place. However, in my view, the practical operation of such a programme requires a level of international agreement to ensure that it operates effectively and adheres to the necessary data standards. There is still a considerable amount of work to be done at international and domestic levels to take forward the concept and the practical operation of such a system.

I turn to my final question, although the cabinet secretary might not have the relevant information to hand. I know from my experience in politics, for what it is worth, that we can all talk a good game—I am not saying that the cabinet secretary is doing that—but essentially we require two main things: funding and staffing. I have asked the chief executive of the health service about staffing, and to date I have not had an answer.

How many staff are allocated to the project, and what funding has been allocated to it? When I asked the Scottish Parliament information centre about that, it could not find any specific funding for vaccination passports, if my memory serves me correctly. The cabinet secretary will understand my frustration in that regard. Can he say something about that? Is anything more than a generalised discussion going on?

I can pick up the specific points that Mr Stewart has raised with the chief executive of NHS Scotland and ask for more specific information. I do not have such information to hand.

On funding specifically for staff in taking forward the project, I expect that that will be part of the wider Scottish Government funding arrangements for resourcing different parts of Government and taking forward policy. For example, there is no specific funding for the project team that has been put together for the managed isolation programme; the wider Scottish Government funding budget is being used for that. There may not be a ring-fenced budget for staffing, but we may have to provide a level of funding for the roll-out of a certification programme at a future stage, although we are probably still too far away to know exactly what that might be. I will take away Mr Stewart’s points in order to see whether the chief executive of NHS Scotland can provide further details on the work that is being done.

Thank you.

As you said, cabinet secretary, it is impossible to predict where things will be at any point during the coming summer. However, in your view, what circumstances would need to be in place at some point in the future before managed isolation and quarantine were no longer required?

First, I emphasise that we do not want to have managed isolation in place for any longer than it is needed. The trigger for ministers to start to move away from the use of managed isolation will be based on the clinical advice that we receive from our chief medical officer and our border health review group, which considers those matters in detail.

A number of factors will be important in determining that advice. One will be the roll-out of our own vaccination programme, and our understanding of the protection that the vaccine provides in respect of the transmissibility of the virus and its effectiveness against the new variants of concern.

Alongside that, we need to consider the prevalence of the virus in other parts of the world. We know that, based on the WHO’s assessment, the pandemic continues to be out of control in a significant number of European countries. Opening up international travel will involve looking at prevalence levels in other parts of the world; where other countries are with their vaccination programmes; and, as Mr Stewart highlighted, the introduction of a vaccination certification programme.

All those factors will play a part in the assessment that the chief medical officer will use to advise Scottish Government ministers on the type of border health restrictions that we need to have in place in the months ahead.

Following on from the convener’s question, what are the latest numbers for inward flights to Scotland from red list and non-red list countries? How many people are staying in managed isolation? What are the quarantine hotel occupancy rates?

At present, there are no direct flights into Scotland from red list countries. Those flights are banned, on the basis that they would be coming from a red list country. However, flights are still coming into other parts of the UK carrying individuals who have transited through red list countries, and who are being identified at their point of entry.

As of midnight last night, we had 254 people in managed isolation in Scotland. In the past couple of weeks, the numbers have been gradually edging upwards. Overall, however, international travel directly into Scotland is at a very low level, as it has been for a number of weeks, in comparison with the levels of international travel that we had back in January. The numbers remain very low, but the number of individuals who end up in managed isolation has increased slightly in the past two weeks. As I said, we currently have no direct arrivals into Scotland from red list countries.

There is great concern among the public that people could potentially come into Scotland having gone through red list countries at some point. What communication have you had with the UK Government on that, and how have you made the case with regard to how we try to keep the populace in Scotland safe?

That is being taken forward in two ways, through my direct representations to the Covid-O committee and my written correspondence with Michael Gove at the Cabinet Office on the need to take a more comprehensive approach. We have some on-going issues with the UK Government. For example, at times, individuals transit through a red list country and arrive at an airport in England before transferring to a domestic flight and arriving in Scotland.

There has been some media noise around why we are bothering to have managed isolation at Glasgow airport when there are no international flights coming in, other than from the Republic of Ireland. It is for three reasons. First, individuals may be missed when they arrive at airports in London or in other parts of England, and then arrive at Glasgow airport. We have had several such cases. A number of individuals have transited from a red list country through Dublin and into Glasgow, and they have had to self-isolate at Glasgow airport. The third category covers those who cross into Scotland via the Cairnryan border point, on the ferry from Northern Ireland. We have identified a couple of individuals who have taken that route, and they have had to self-isolate.

There are still individuals arriving in Scotland from red list countries, and we have measures in place to identify them as quickly as possible and ensure that they go into managed isolation. However, as yet, we have not been able to persuade the UK Government to take a more robust approach to the managed isolation system in a way that is comparable to how we are operating in Scotland.

That is all very concerning and worrying.

We had representatives of the airports and the hospitality sector before the committee last week. You had to create and put in place the managed isolation policy at speed. However, those witnesses complained that there was not enough consultation from the Scottish Government. What challenges did you face in developing and implementing the policy at pace? Are discussions now under way with the aviation and hospitality sectors in order to draw on lessons learned as a result of the haste with which you had to get the policy up and running?

I very much appreciate the concerns that were raised by the aviation sector, and in particular the airports, about the speed at which the policy had to be introduced. There are two parts to my answer. Some representatives of those sectors have challenged the Scottish Government on a lack of consultation in taking forward the policy. Given the clinical advice that we received, it was clear that the Scottish Government had to move quickly on the issue, and we sought to co-ordinate our approach with that of the UK Government.

12:00  

From the time when it was highlighted to us that we needed to take action, to the implementation of the policy, there was no time for us to undertake a consultation on whether we should introduce it. The advice was clear. There were challenges that prevented us from being able to engage with our airports in a more detailed way—that was not the UK Government’s fault. We agreed to take forward the managed isolation policy on a four-nations basis, under one single contract for the whole of the UK. That meant that the standards, the policy approach and the implementation would be consistent across all the airports in the UK.

Some of the process of managing that contract was taken forward by the Department of Health and Social Care, controlled by the UK Government, which limited the scope of our control over the roll-out of the policy implementation. Alongside that, parts of the enforcement of the policy were dependent on Border Force and had to be taken forward through the Home Office.

We did our very best to engage with our airports in the lead-up to the policy decision and when the policy was implemented, but there were constraints, because of the speed at which the policy had to be introduced and the fact that UK Government departments were taking forward key parts of it. As a result of that process, the level of information that we had at certain key points was limited.

I accept that the situation was far from ideal, but we sought to manage it as effectively as we could, to engage with the airports as much as possible and to provide as much information as possible when we had it to hand.

Good afternoon, cabinet secretary. Why has it been necessary to bring in a series of different regulations on a short timescale? Can you explain how they will all fit together?

We have introduced some of the regulations to close down potential anomalies in the system. As I mentioned earlier, individuals who arrive from red list countries into ports or airports in England and intend to travel on to Scotland should be identified by Border Force at their point of entry. The regulations were originally drafted on that basis. However, it then became apparent that some individuals were getting through the system, and the regulations had to be amended to ensure that individuals who arrive from red list countries on a flight from within the common travel area could be required to go into managed isolation when they arrived in Scotland. As I mentioned, that is one of the reasons why we have a facility at Glasgow airport.

Another reason that some of the regulations have changed is to accommodate some of the issues that the oil and gas sector raised. For example, individuals who work in the Norwegian sector often go from their platform straight to the airport, from which they then transit back into Scotland. On the basis of the clinical advice that we received, which was that the risks associated with that were very low, we sought to provide an exemption to accommodate those individuals and to allow them to self-isolate at home rather than in a facility.

Finally, we amended the regulations to take into account the change in the risk assessment for the Falkland Islands.

Can you indicate the degree to which there is now an understanding of the new rules? What is the plan to communicate those rules to the aviation and hospitality sectors, and to the wider public, in a simple and comprehensible way?

There is now information available on the Scottish Government’s website, which provides details of the policy on managed isolation and the exemptions that are provided in the regulations.

The project team that is managing the managed isolation programme is in regular contact and dialogue with airports, hotel providers, transport providers and the security services that are providing support. It is ensuring that, where there are any issues of concern to the airlines, we pick those up through Border Force. In order to ensure that that happens, the Civil Aviation Authority is providing the correct information to airlines that have direct flights into Scotland.

We now have a range of measures in place to ensure that people can access the relevant information, and we maintain on-going engagement with the airlines and airports with regard to any issues that may emerge as we go forward.

You mentioned that provision has been made to enable those who work offshore in the Norwegian sector to self-isolate at home on returning to Scotland, albeit that they are transiting through airports in Norway. I know from constituents of mine that there are also quite a number of Scottish oil and gas workers who work onshore in Norway. They have raised the question of why they face different requirements from their offshore colleagues, given the very tough border controls and very low prevalence of Covid in Norway. Have you considered that matter in the same context as the offshore workers in the Norwegian sector?

That was considered, and the clinical advice was that we should not make an exemption. As I mentioned, we currently exempt individuals who, when they arrive in Norway, have to go into a period of self-isolation. They then go on to their platform or vessel for their period of offshore working, and they will often transit back through the airport in Norway, from which they fly directly to Scotland. They are effectively only transiting through that airport for the purposes of returning to Scotland. That is different from the situation with individuals who are staying and working in Norway. The clinical advice that we received said that only those who are transiting through airports in Norway on their way back to Scotland should be exempt.

I am sure that you will appreciate that if we started to introduce what would effectively be a corridor system specifically for one group of employees in one country, we would then face demands for similar arrangements to be introduced for other groups of employees in other parts of the world. That would undermine the intention of our managed quarantine programme. We have taken forward an exemption system that is based on the clinical advice that we have received on the matter.

I simply note that workers who are travelling from Scotland to Norway to work onshore are also required to isolate on arrival in Norway before they begin to work, even though their work is onshore. I am sure that your clinical advisers will be aware of that.

Good afternoon, cabinet secretary. I begin by asking about the governance of this work within the Scottish Government, in the light of the fact that it cuts across portfolios. For example, there is a division of responsibility between health and transport. How is that working internally?

The governance process that we have in place for these matters is led through the border health review group. It is made up of officials from health, justice, transport and external affairs, who consider all the different component parts of our border health restrictions. The restrictions are reviewed every 28 days, in line with the regulations that we introduced earlier this year. The review group brings together all the different disciplines in order to advise us on the issues, and we have the 28-day review period in which to determine whether restrictions need to be maintained as we move forward.

I will move on to the four-nations approach. Last week, we heard powerful evidence from Mark Johnston of AGS Airports, who said that he is looking for a system that is “simple and consistent”. What have been the logistical challenges of a four-nations approach? I ask that in the context of the fact that Wales and Northern Ireland have taken an approach that is more similar to that of England than Scotland has. Have you had discussions with the Administrations in Wales and Northern Ireland in trying to overcome the logistical challenges?

Wales and Northern Ireland do not have any international flights coming into their airports at present, so they do not require to have a managed isolation programme in place, although my officials have been engaging with them, because they have asked for advice from us on our experience of introducing the managed isolation programme.

On your specific point about the logistics of introducing the measures, those have been significant. The practical operation has involved putting in place hotel, transport and security arrangements; ensuring that Border Force staff were appropriately trained and informed of the way in which the regulations operate; and introducing a booking portal system so that individuals, prior to their departure, can book their period of managed isolation or their testing package. All of that had to be put in place at very short notice. All those arrangements have presented significant practical and operational challenges but, by and large, staff have introduced them very well.

As a transport secretary and as an infrastructure secretary, I am well aware of the types of challenges that can arise with such operational issues. However, by and large, the system has operated very well since it was introduced, although some changes still need to be made to the operational arrangements, particularly around the welfare fund arrangements, on which we are continuing to work with the UK Government.

We sought to work on a four-nations basis to try to minimise the operational risks of different parts of the UK having different standards and charges for the introduction of managed isolation packages and testing packages.

If the other three nations of the United Kingdom maintain their current approach, what will be the options for the Scottish Government? I am thinking particularly of the issue that we all acknowledge about someone flying into, say, Newcastle or Manchester—or Belfast when that is allowed—and then travelling on to Scotland, and being required to isolate only at home rather than in managed accommodation. Are you considering any legislative option in that respect?

It is worth keeping in mind that, as I pointed out, the Northern Irish and Welsh do not have any international flights at present, so they are not dealing with individuals who travel into the country from overseas. I know that the First Minister of Wales has indicated that he would prefer a green list system rather than a red list system. I think that there is some merit in that for managing our exit from use of managed isolation.

The important thing, however, particularly for a committee such as this one, is that the lessons that we need to learn from the pandemic are about the need to move early and to do so decisively. If the clinical advice is clear and strong that we need to have in place a comprehensive programme of managed isolation, particularly during the roll-out of a vaccination programme and given the risks associated with variants of concern, it is incumbent on ministers to respond to that. That is exactly the approach that we have taken in Scotland—we have tried to effectively implement the clinical advice that we have received. I have no doubt that, had I been invited to speak to the committee and said that I was ignoring that clinical advice, the committee would have significant concerns about that.

12:15  

In general, the key issue will be how we manage our exit from the use of managed isolation and start to ease the restrictions, and ensure that the approach that we take in Scotland and the approach that is taken in England are as aligned as possible, and based on the clinical advice and data around where the pandemic is at any given time. We are probably still some way away from that.

We are continuing to press the UK Government to introduce a more comprehensive system, which would be safer for Scotland and other parts of the UK, based on the expert clinical advice that we have all received.

When you talk about the potential for a green list and how it might apply to countries with low prevalence and secure travel, I am bound to come back to my constituency interest in the situation in Norway.

You mentioned that the Joint Biosecurity Centre and SAGE have found no basis for a red list. Have they been consulted, or have they given advice, on the potential of having a green list as a way out of the current situation?

They have not. It is important that the committee is aware that the Joint Biosecurity Centre has already carried out a review of the existing red list countries and submitted to the UK Government a report on that review. However, to date, the UK Government has withheld that report from us. I have made representations to the UK Government on the matter, and I know that colleagues from the other devolved nations have also done so. The Joint Biosecurity Centre works on a four-nations basis, but the report was submitted to the UK Government.

The most recent review of the red list countries by the Joint Biosecurity Centre has been withheld from us, and we continue to press for the advice to be provided. At this stage, it has not been commissioned to consider the creation of a green list system. I am suggesting it only on the basis that the Welsh First Minister has also suggested it, and I think that there is some merit in exploring it. However, I am concerned that the expert advice from the Joint Biosecurity Centre on the existing red list system is being withheld, and that needs to be addressed urgently. At the Covid-O meeting just last week, I made representations to the UK Government and asked for the advice to be made available to us. However, to date, it has still not been provided.

Could advice on a green list be commissioned by the Scottish Government alone, or would there have to be agreement among all four nations?

It would be best taken forward as a potential route out of the use of managed quarantine—alongside vaccination, prevalence rates and vaccine certificates—on a four-nations basis. The green list has a potential role to play. It may be that through the work that we are taking forward with the aviation sector through our aviation working group, and our engagement through the global travel task force, the issue will be explored further. However, at this stage, it is probably too early to say whether that is the route out—it might be one of a number of different options that could be considered.

That is helpful. Emma Harper has a supplementary question.

What does the cabinet secretary have in his toolbox to manage the practicalities of the Scottish and English border? Just before Christmas, the Kent variant spiked in Stranraer, and there were other wee outbreaks in Gretna and Annan. People have spoken about cross-border travel requirements for essential working or services.

Is there anything that the Scottish Government can do to manage the border in a way that supports keeping the virus suppressed on the Scottish side of the border, given that, previously, the UK Government released lockdown perhaps a bit faster than we would have liked?

I recognise Emma Harper’s concern about that issue. One of the challenges in introducing specific checks at the border between Scotland and England is the volume of traffic that crosses the border daily, for a variety of purposes.

A key factor that can play a part is having a consistent message that people should travel only for essential purposes. I have raised concerns with the UK Government about some of the mixed messages about the possibility of people being able to travel for leisure purposes at various points. At this stage, it is important that all Governments in the UK continue to emphasise to individuals that they should travel only for essential purposes. If people comply with and adhere to that message, that will minimise the risk of transportation of the virus not only from England into Scotland but from Scotland into England.

All four nations need to be as consistent as possible in getting that message across to the public. We regularly discuss with our counterparts in other parts of the UK the need to ensure that we provide that consistent message, and it has been quite frustrating on the occasions when that has not happened. It is key that we maintain that message in order to reduce the risk of people travelling unnecessarily between Scotland and England and between Emma Harper’s region of Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Good afternoon, cabinet secretary. I have a couple of questions about the testing regime. In answer to Donald Cameron, you mentioned the operational challenges relating to managed isolation and the “testing package”, as you called it. PCR tests are conducted on the second and eighth days of people’s isolation, and the tests are self-administered. Will people who are in quarantine be supervised when they undertake the tests themselves to ensure that they are conducted properly? Who gives them the tests, and who receives them? Basically, who is responsible for looking after the tests and the results?

The test is self-administered, so people are not supervised when the test is carried out, either in managed isolation or at home. In a managed isolation facility, the test is returned to security staff at the hotel, who pass it on to a lab where tests are carried out. I am afraid that I do not know, off the top of my head, which lab tests go to directly, but I could check, if that information would be helpful to Sandra White.

If the result of the test is negative, that information is shared with Public Health Scotland. If the result of the test is positive, Public Health Scotland will require genomic sequencing to be done in order to see whether it is a variant of concern. If it is, there is a standard process for dealing with that through the local health board, its incident management team and the security providers at the airport. The results are collated by Public Health Scotland.

If the result is positive, the individual concerned will be notified, genomic sequencing will take place, and the local health board will be engaged in any management issues associated with that individual, whether they are in managed isolation or self-isolating at home.

Sandra White: Basically, people take the tests themselves—although in Glasgow, for example, people would go to NHS Louisa Jordan. People are handed the test by security staff from private firm G4S—that is a UK four-nations approach. I take it that the tests are stored in the hotels to be handed to people in their rooms and that people then give the tests back to the security staff from G4S, before the tests are sent somewhere. We do not know—I would really like to know—which testing centre they are sent to. How quickly can these results be processed? If the result is negative, that is not necessarily fine, but it goes through Public Health Scotland, and if the result is positive, Public Health Scotland is responsible, but it must go through the four-nations process again. Is that correct? Is that what happens? We do not know whether people are taking the tests properly, if there is no one there to supervise them.

Craig Thomson might want to come in, as he has indicated knowledge of those issues.

I want to build on what the cabinet secretary said. Those are UK home testing kits, which are specially labelled so that they are prioritised when they go into the UK Lighthouse lab system. Once they go into that system, as the cabinet secretary said, the results are passed on to Public Health Scotland for contact tracing. The turnaround time is generally within two days. The purpose of the test on day 8 is largely to ensure that, when the person gets to the end of the isolation period of 10 days, we have an assurance that they have tested negative. These are the same standard PCR tests as the home testing kits that are used in the UK Lighthouse lab system.

Good afternoon, cabinet secretary. What involvement has the Scottish Government had in the procurement process for managed quarantine services—for transport, security and hotels? Is the Scottish Government satisfied that all aspects, including facilities and quality assurance protocols, are specified to a high enough standard?

The contract for the delivery of managed isolation in Scotland, from the provision of the hotels to transport and security, is a single contract at UK level. The standard specification and operating procedures being used in Scotland are the same as those in other parts of the UK. There are some slight variations. For example, the information that guests who arrive in hotels in Scotland receive is Scotland-specific, so the contact and support helplines and the phone numbers for Breathing Space are Scotland-specific. It is a UK-wide contract with standard operating procedures, with minor variations to how it operates in Scotland.

With regard to standards, the contract specifies that the hotels will be three-star or four-star hotels. The contract sets out what the hotel provider must provide, alongside the responsibilities of the security provider and the transport provider. Those are operating well and to the specified standards. As I mentioned, there are some slight variations to the Scottish element of the operating procedures, which reflect some of the specific circumstances in Scotland. For example, the arrangement for individuals who are collected from the port of Cairnryan and transported to a managed isolation facility at Glasgow airport is specific to Scotland, because of that potential point of entry.

12:30  

Thank you for that clarification. Who is monitoring the quarantine hotels to ensure that there is full compliance with the infection controls as stated?

Discussions take place between the project team, the Scottish Government, the UK Government and the hotel, security and transport providers several times a week. They cover any issues that have been highlighted to the project team, allow the UK Government to raise any issues with their project team and the operators and also allow any issues that operators have to be addressed. Engagement takes place every day to identify any operational issues or concerns that have been highlighted from our side or the operators’ point of view, so that they are addressed quickly.

Do you have any concerns about potential weak links in the chain of infection control? I am thinking specifically of lessons from the Australian experience that indicated that hotel transfers or the employment of private security staff might pose a risk.

Certain protocols are in place for security and hospitality staff. They are subject to daily testing prior to the start of their shift in order to identify early any risk of staff being infected. Alongside that, there are clear protocols for the hotels and security guards in managing individuals. For example, when hotel rooms are vacated by an individual they are left for three days before cleaning staff enter the room to clean it. Additionally, when individuals are being transported, appropriate levels of social distancing are required and masks must be worn on the coaches. Sometimes, more than one coach is used to take a small number of people to make sure that that is maintained.

The rules for hotels are clear. Individuals are not able to leave their room unless that is agreed with the security staff, in order to minimise the potential risk of them coming into contact with other guests and the staff. Meals are left at the door, rather than taken into the room. A range of different measures have been built in to minimise the risks as best we can, alongside the daily testing of staff to identify as early as possible any who become infected.

Can you confirm whether the managed quarantine programme comes at no cost to the Scottish Government budget or whether there are cost implications that we need to know about?

There will be a cost to the Scottish Government for the policy in the end. However, it has been taken forward in a single UK contract for the present. In the months ahead, the costs for the Scottish element of it will be disaggregated and met by the Scottish Government. At present, I cannot say what those finalised costs will be because the overall cost of the programme across the whole UK will emerge in the months ahead.

My questions, which I will try to make succinct, are on the health and wellbeing of staff at airports, and about travellers being put into managed quarantine. What concerns do you have about the wellbeing of airport staff? What is being done to support the human rights and welfare of travellers moving through airports?

Our airports and airlines have had in place arrangements for some time to manage people moving through airports and on to and off of aircraft in order to try to maintain social distancing. Their protocols apply currently.

Alongside that, there is a process for individuals moving through airports and on to a managed isolation facility. There is a requirement for security staff, transport providers, and airport and hotel staff at the point of arrival to be compliant with the need to maintain social distancing and minimise the potential risk of direct contact with guests or travellers. The operating procedure seeks to minimise that potential risk and helps to protect the staff.

I know that my officials leading the project had a discussion—I think that it was towards the end of last week—with the trade unions that represent staff, particularly those working in hotels, who provide that service. They discussed the arrangements that are in place to protect hotel staff. The feedback that officials provided me was that, broadly, the unions were content with that.

I can assure you that, if any issues emerge that would be a matter of concern for staff welfare, I would expect those issues to be addressed quickly in order to minimise that risk.

I note that the cost of the managed quarantine is £1,750 for the first traveller and £650 for an additional adult or child over 12. I am sure that part of the wellbeing and welfare concerns is that people have indicated that they might not be able to meet those costs. How do we support people who might need an additional welfare package or some support so that they are not burdened by the impact of an additional cost of £1,750?

There are two elements to that. The first is in relation to people who might not be able to afford the cost up front. If that is the case, they can choose a deferred payment programme in which they can pay the cost over an extended period. People who receive qualifying benefits, which would suggest that they are unable to meet the costs associated with managed quarantine, can also use that programme.

More work needs to be done to ensure that the welfare provisions are operating effectively and on the basis of how we want to operate them in Scotland. There are points of difference between the UK and Scottish Governments. For example, on the welfare arrangements for those who may be on benefits that qualify for a deferred payment, the UK Government’s preferred approach is that the repayment will be deferred and deducted from their benefits. Our view is that individuals who may be on qualifying benefits will have the fee waived.

The UK Government’s booking portal is not currently able to accommodate both those options and we are engaged with it to amend the portal so that it reflects the approach in Scotland—that is, for those who qualify for welfare support, where they are on a qualifying benefit, the fee is waived rather than deducted from their benefits. My officials continue to press to get the system amended in that way. I hope that that will be progressed in the coming days. We have been trying to resolve the issue for a couple of weeks, as it is clearly a matter of concern for those who do not feel that they can meet the costs associated with managed isolation.

The engagement that we have had with the UK Government on that matter has been positive, but we have just not got to the point of making the changes to reflect the different approach that we want to take here around waiving fees for certain individuals.

I have a wee final question. I am sure that the numbers that such an amendment to the system would require are small, but do the constraints of the UK Government’s approach impact people who seek to come back to Scotland but have challenges around the fact that they might need that fee waived?

No, I do not think that they do. What will happen at present is that someone who is on a qualifying benefit will be able to indicate that they are looking for deferred payment, so the fee will not prohibit them. The issue is how we deal with that afterwards. The way in which the booking system operates now does not quite reflect how we want to deal with deferred payment, which is why we are looking to make some amendments to the system. I might be wrong, but I am not conscious of anyone who has been unable to return as a result of the existing arrangements.

If someone needs to get home, I am inclined for them to get home and deal with the finance issue later. The deferred payment system allows that to be happen; it is just about how we then follow that up. We need an amendment to the system to be able to waive the fees in certain circumstances for individuals who are on a limited number of qualifying benefits.

Does the managed isolation welfare fund that you referred to earlier go beyond the deferral or waiving of fees, or is there more to it than that?

The fund is limited to the benefit criteria, although there are a couple of other exemptions for welfare purposes, for individuals in situations that do not require the use of managed isolation—for example, an individual who is returning on a family reunion visa and will be able to self-isolate at home, or someone who is coming to Scotland as a refugee or asylum seeker and has a designated place of residence to go to, where they can self-isolate. There are welfare provisions associated with the reason why the person is coming to the country, and those are separate from the provisions around the financial costs of the managed isolation package. I hope that that is clear.

It is. You mention that you were not aware of cases in which people cannot return. I refer to the case of a student who has been in Germany for compassionate reasons and wishes to return to Scotland. She fears that she simply could not afford the fees for managed isolation in a hotel. Clearly, being a student does not of itself constitute being on a qualifying benefit, so what would the position be for somebody in her circumstances?

You are correct: being a student is not an automatic qualification for the scheme. I do not know what the person’s wider circumstances are and whether they are on other qualifying benefits. There might be circumstances in which they could benefit from a deferral scheme if they were on the right benefits, but it would depend on their individual circumstance. Being a student does not in itself give someone an automatic right to have the fee waived, because there is a benefit qualification for any deferral scheme.

Essentially, without a qualifying benefit, somebody in that position simply would not be able to travel.

If they were just travelling to the country for the purpose of returning home, they would not be automatically exempt from the cost.

This session has been comprehensive. Thank you for your evidence today and the attendance and contribution of your officials.

12:45  

I move to the next agenda item, which is the debate on the motions on the four made affirmative instruments on which we have just taken evidence. Members have previously agreed that we will take those instruments together. Are members content to hold a single debate covering all the instruments?

No member disagrees, so we move to the debate phase. Members and the cabinet secretary have an opportunity to speak, but not the officials.

Motions moved,

That the Health and Sport Committee recommends that the Health Protection (Coronavirus) (International Travel) (Managed Accommodation and Testing) (Scotland) Regulations 2021 (SSI 2021/74) be approved.

That the Health and Sport Committee recommends that the Health Protection (Coronavirus) (International Travel) (Scotland) Amendment (No. 6) Regulations 2021 (SSI 2021/81) be approved.

That the Health and Sport Committee recommends that the Health Protection (Coronavirus) (International Travel) (Managed Accommodation and Testing etc.) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2021 (SSI 2021/107) be approved.

That the Health and Sport Committee recommends that the Health Protection (Coronavirus) (International Travel) (Scotland) Amendment (No. 7) Regulations 2021 (SSI 2021/111) be approved—[Michael Matheson.]

I invite contributions to the debate on those four motions.

I just want to make the point that we are in danger of conflating a four-nations approach and the approach of the Westminster Government. When we talk about a four-nations approach, we have to be careful to talk about four devolved nations. That point is starting to rankle with me. A four-nations approach means that of four different nations, not just one.

Thank you. No other member wishes to contribute, so I ask the cabinet secretary to sum up and respond to the debate.

I do not have any further points to cover.

The question is that motions S5M-24146, S5M-24189, S5M-24262 and S5M-24253 be agreed to.

Motions agreed to.

We will report to Parliament accordingly. I thank the cabinet secretary and his officials for their attendance today.

12:47 Meeting continued in private until 12:55.