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.

I am familiar with that issue. There have been many discussions about that point. Much of that is driven by the systems of which we are a part, through operating on a UK-wide basis. The ability to have some flexibility is being assessed as part of addressing the concerns raised by the airline industry.

I will have to look in detail at the point that Murdo Fraser has raised. The regulations will have been framed in an attempt to provide the greatest degree of clarity and certainty about their policy purpose. The intention will have been to draft on that basis. Elizabeth Blair may want to add to my comments.