Contents
- Attendance
- Subordinate Legislation
- Forensic Medical Services (Victims of Sexual Offences) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1
Subordinate Legislation
Health Protection (Coronavirus) (International Travel) (Scotland) Regulations 2020 (SSI 2020/169)
Health Protection (Coronavirus, Public Health Information for Passengers Travelling to Scotland) Regulations 2020 (SSI 2020/170)
Health Protection (Coronavirus) (International Travel) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2020 (SSI 2020/171)
Good morning, and welcome to the 18th meeting in 2020 of the Health and Sport Committee. We have received apologies from Alex Cole-Hamilton.
The first item on the agenda is consideration of affirmative instruments on emergency public health measures to prevent the spread of infection or contamination with coronavirus. The regulations impose requirements on people arriving in Scotland and on operational commercial services for international passengers who are travelling to Scotland, by sea or air, from outside the open borders area.
We will have an evidence session with the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and his officials on all three instruments, and then we will move directly to questions. Once we have concluded our questions, we will have the formal debates on the motion for each instrument.
I welcome to the committee Humza Yousaf, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice. He is accompanied by John Nicholson, from the community surveillance division for health, and Anita Popplestone, from the police division for enforcement, both of the Scottish Government; and Gary Cox, head of aviation at Transport Scotland. Welcome to all.
As with previous virtual meetings, we will take questions in an agreed order. I will begin, then I will invite members to ask other questions, and then I will come back with one or two more. I remind everyone to keep questions and answers succinct. Please give broadcasting staff a few moments to switch your microphone on before you begin to ask your question or provide an answer.
Cabinet secretary, can you start by telling us how many people are quarantined in Scotland under the regulations, and how many have arrived for whom exemptions to quarantine apply?
Good morning, and thanks for the opportunity to speak to the committee about the regulations.
As a direct answer to your question, the figures that I have this morning are that roughly 3,200 people have arrived since the beginning of the regulations. With regard to the figures for exemptions, you will be aware that Border Force does what we might colloquially term “spot checks”, as opposed to checking every single person who comes through, on whether they are exempt. Based on that spot-checking analysis by Border Force, approximately 18 per cent of those travellers have applied for some kind of exemption.
Can you tell us how much monitoring and enforcement has taken place in relation to those who have already been subject to the regulations?
As I expect that that will be a regular theme of questioning with regard to some of the regulations, let us bear in mind that two potential offences can be committed.
One offence is not providing information as per the regulations. That is enforced, and in some respects monitored, by Border Force. It does spot checks to see whether people have filled out a passenger locator form. According to the work that Border Force has done in Scotland so far, there has been no need to issue any fixed-penalty notices. That suggests a high level of compliance, and in fact Border Forces tells us that compliance levels among people who are coming off flights in Scotland has been very high, which is good to hear.
The other offence relates to breach of the self-isolation requirements, and Police Scotland would enforce that. As I have said from the beginning, Police Scotland will—very much in line with police forces across the United Kingdom—take a reactive approach. If Police Scotland has intelligence to suggest, or has been told by a third party, that somebody is not self-isolating, it will take action.
Again, the message from Police Scotland is that compliance with the self-isolation requirements has been very high, and it has not issued any fixed-penalty notices for any breach in that regard.
In addition to what I have described, public health officials are carrying out spot checks—“dip sampling” may be a better term. They are contacting approximately 20 per cent of travellers to give them public health guidance in relation to quarantine and self-isolation.
It sounds from what you have said that the evidence so far shows that the arrangements in place are effective. Some other countries, and territories such as Hong Kong, have used tagging for those who are required to be in quarantine in order to ensure compliance. Is that an approach that you have considered, or would consider, in the current circumstances?
If I heard you correctly—I might have misheard you; forgive me—I think that you asked about tagging.
Yes, indeed.
That is not something that I, or we, have considered here in Scotland. First, compliance is high, so I am not sure that there is a need to go there. Secondly, given the connotations of electronic monitoring in Scotland, I am not sure that people would take well to being tagged and monitored in that regard. It is not necessary or proportionate at this time. We obviously keep such measures under review, but we are certainly not currently looking at tagging.
According to our briefing papers, the regulations were brought into force without any consultation with carriers, who are required to ensure that travellers are made aware of quarantine on three occasions during their journey: when they book, when they check in and when they are in transit. I am interested to know what impact the regulations have had on carriers. To be clear, the term “carriers” include not just our planes but our seafaring vessels and ferries, such as the ones coming from Larne and Belfast to the port of Cairnryan.
Emma Harper is right to make those points. On her latter point, I know that she has an interest in those ferry routes in particular. She will be aware of the exemptions that apply to the common travel area, which are important and provide a clear mechanism for those who wish to travel from the Republic of Ireland into Northern Ireland and to stay there or come over to the mainland UK.
The regulations also ensure that there are safeguards in place for those who use Dublin as a hub airport. They still require those people to self-isolate, minus the amount of time that they have spent in the Republic of Ireland. I want to be clear about the common travel area.
With regard to Emma Harper’s more substantial point, I suppose that it depends on the definition of “consultation”. We would love to undertake a three-month consultation, as per the usual Government guidelines, for any such policy. However, for emergency legislation or regulations, that is clearly not possible. Has there been a formal consultation in the way that we would normally undertake consultation? Of course that has not been possible, but we have had discussions and engaged with not only the carriers but the airports and—as Emma Harper rightly highlights—other transport providers.
We will need to continue that work. As the committee will be aware, there is a review every three weeks, and we are already considering the data to inform us on the next review. The feedback from carriers, transport providers, airports and hubs will be hugely important to that work.
What role will the carriers have in the three-weekly review of the regulations? Will they be consulted on proposals and asked to provide data on use?
I have touched on that briefly. Discussions and engagement with the carriers and other transport providers will of course be important. I must mention that, as Emma Harper said, we are not just talking about the carriers and aviation. There will be a conversation across the board with those that have been impacted as regards collecting some data.
When it comes to the review, we will always be driven by the public health imperative. We do not doubt that there has been an impact on the transport sector as a whole, particularly the aviation industry. That is not typically down to regulations such as those before you; there has been a worldwide impact on aviation due to coronavirus. The sector will clearly be part of the consideration when it comes to the three-week review. However, it will always be driven by the public health imperative and the data that comes before us.
In light of your answers thus far, are you satisfied that the appropriate mechanisms are in place to ensure that all visitors to Scotland complete and submit the appropriate documentation and to ensure that carriers are indeed providing passengers with the required notification at each of the three stages that Emma Harper described?
The short answer is yes. I am quite satisfied with the data that we have before us. There is ample opportunity for travellers to be reminded of the quarantine rules that exist, and they are directed to the UK Government’s Home Office website in relation to the form. Hard copies can be made available if necessary. Based on what has happened thus far, however, the short answer to your question is yes: I am satisfied.
Should a fixed-penalty notice be required for a temporary visitor to the United Kingdom, how would that be enforced in Scotland?
I think you have asked about enforcement for temporary visitors coming into Scotland. Remember that a fixed-penalty notice will only ever be the last resort when it comes to encouraging people to comply or to provide data. If such steps need to be taken, there are measures in place to ensure that the fixed-penalty notice is paid when the person concerned is in the country; if the matter has to be followed up when the person leaves the country, processes are in place for that. That would only be a last resort and, thus far, that has obviously not been needed.
Thank you—that is understood and appreciated.
There are no further questions from other committee members, so we will now move on to agenda items 2, 3 and 4, which are the formal debates on the affirmative Scottish statutory instruments on which we have just taken evidence from the Cabinet Secretary for Justice.
I remind members that we are now in a debate process. I ask the cabinet secretary to speak to and move S5M-22031, in the name of his colleague Jeane Freeman.
Motion moved,
That the Health and Sport Committee recommends that the Health Protection (Coronavirus) (International Travel) (Scotland) Regulations 2020 (SSI 2020/169) be approved.—[Humza Yousaf]
Thank you. No member has indicated that they wish to debate the motion. The question is, therefore, that the motion be agreed to.
Motion agreed to.
Under agenda item 3, we will debate the second affirmative instrument. I invite the cabinet secretary to speak to and move S5M-22017, in the name of Jeane Freeman.
Motion moved,
That the Health and Sport Committee recommends that the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Public Health Information for Passengers Travelling to Scotland) Regulations 2020 (SSI 2020/170) be approved.—[Humza Yousaf]
Thank you. No member has indicated that they wish to debate the motion. The question is, therefore, that the motion be agreed to.
Motion agreed to.
09:15
Under agenda item 4, we come to the third and final affirmative instrument before us. The same rules and procedures apply. I invite the cabinet secretary to move S5M-22018, in the name of Jeane Freeman.
Motion moved,
That the Health and Sport Committee recommends that the Health Protection (Coronavirus) (International Travel) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2020 (SSI 2020/171) be approved.—[Humza Yousaf]
Thank you. No member has indicated that they wish to debate the motion. The question is, therefore, that the motion be agreed to.
Motion agreed to.
That concludes consideration of the affirmative instruments. I thank the cabinet secretary and his officials for their attendance.
09:16 Meeting suspended.09:38 On resuming—
Previous
Attendance