Chamber and committees

Do you mean in relation to aviation and climate change?

I will answer that in two parts. First, no system will be able to prevent all variants, or variants of concern, from entering the country. What we can do is minimise the risk of that happening. The purpose behind a managed quarantine system is that, when an individual tests positive, the case is prioritised for genomic sequencing, which allows us to identify quickly whether they have a variant of concern. The process acts to minimise the risk.

You are right to say that no system, other than stopping international travel altogether, can avoid all the risk. However, it is about taking a proportionate approach to try to minimise the risk. We believe that the system that we have in place is a proportionate response to try to minimise the potential risk and to identify variants of concern as quickly as possible when they enter the country.

The RAG ratings system—the process that is gone through by the joint biosecurity centre—involves looking at data in different countries to identify where variants of concern may be circulating. Where they are circulating and there is community transmission, the likelihood is that the country will find itself higher up the RAG ratings and in the red category because it presents a potential risk to us. The response is a proportionate one that helps to minimise the risk, but I accept that unless we stop all forms of international travel, we are not going to be able to stop variants completely.

Your second point is absolutely right. While the virus continues to circulate not just here in Scotland and the UK but in other parts of the world, the risk of new variants developing remains high, and it remains even greater in countries where vaccination levels or access to vaccination have remained low. From my and the Scottish Government’s perspective, the outcome that we want is to make sure that countries around the world have fair access to vaccines in order to reduce the risk to individuals in those countries and to reduce the potential risk of new variants of concern emerging.

There is no point in looking at the situation with the perspective of “As long as we’re all right here, Jack, everything’s fine.” The way to deal with it is on a global basis. It is essential that all countries play their part in trying to make sure that countries across the world have access to vaccines and a vaccination programme, in order to make sure that we minimise not only the risk to those countries but the possibility of the emergence of new variants of concern.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to appear before the COVID-19 Recovery Committee for the first time to discuss the international travel regulations. Since I was at the Health and Sport Committee in March, a lot has changed in both the overall state of the pandemic and the regulations on international travel. As well as giving evidence on the regulations that the committee is considering, I thought that it might be helpful to briefly say something about the context in which they are made.

The restrictions on international travel combine a mixture of devolved and reserved responsibilities and this is an area where effective four-nations working is essential. The regulations are made under the health protection powers in the Public Health etc (Scotland) Act 2008 and are therefore devolved, but some elements are reserved, including aspects of immigration, and aviation policy. Border Force, which is the main enforcement agency for the regulations, is part of the Home Office.

There is regular engagement and dialogue on policy at official level, and independent analysis and advice on the risk of travel from individual countries is provided by the joint biosecurity centre. The methodology that is used for the process is endorsed by the four United Kingdom chief medical officers. That leads through to a regular four-nations ministerial forum, which is the Covid operations committee, where decisions on alignment or divergence can be agreed and managed.

The system is designed to limit the importation of variants of concern and cases from high-risk countries while allowing us to reduce restrictions on travellers where it is safe to do so. The Scottish Government’s first priority remains to limit the risk of the importation of high-risk variants of concern through international travel, especially variants with the potential to undermine the success of our vaccination programme. At the same time, we want to support a safe restart of international travel. That is in recognition of the fact that the restrictions, although we consider them necessary and proportionate to the risk, have a significant impact on people’s ability to see their family and loved ones overseas or to travel for work, study or holidays.

Members will be aware of the UK Government’s global travel task force report, which was published in April. The final review milestone in that report is 1 October, and we are in discussions with the UK Government and the other devolved Administrations about future policy developments in the area.

The nature of the global pandemic means that international travel is not without risk, even for people who are fully vaccinated or who are going to a green-list country. Everyone should continue to think very carefully about whether they need to travel and should make sure that they know the rules that apply in the country that they are visiting and on their return to Scotland.

I hope that that overview is helpful. I am happy to respond to any questions that members might have.

I do not have direct control over that; as I said, the UK Government, as the host nation, does. However, my understanding is that its vaccination offer was made specifically to address the risk of those who are due to travel from poorer nations and who have no access to their own vaccination programme by getting them that access in advance of their travelling. That was what it was targeted at, but, as I said, I do not know the full details of which countries have taken up the offer, as the programme is being run by the UK Government as host nation.

Before I bring in Professor Leitch to address the clinical question of the vaccines, I would point out that a couple of European countries have made use of vaccines that have not been approved by the European Medicines Agency, and that has caused some issues in the European Union. However, as I said, Professor Leitch is probably better placed to advise you on the clinical aspects of the vaccines that are not on the World Health Organization’s list or which have not been approved by the European Medicines Agency or our own authorities.

The issue of vaccination certification is being taken forward by my colleagues in the Scottish Government health directorate. The introduction of the QR code this year was intended to make things easier for people who travel internationally. Some countries recognise only QR codes, so the provision of the codes has helped to overcome that particular problem.

There remains the option of getting a paper copy of the vaccination certificate. People can request one through NHS Scotland. Those who do not have access to a mobile device to use a QR code can have access to a paper version of their vaccination certificate. My understanding is that the certificate, which has a QR code on it, is printed off and the individual can then provide it to staff who are checking QR codes at the point when they enter a country. That is the principal way in which somebody who does not have access to a mobile device would do that.

I will bring in Professor Leitch on the recognition of vaccines but, before I do so, I will say that the approach that we have taken in Scotland and across the UK is to recognise vaccines that have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration in the United States and by the European Medicines Agency. We do that on the basis that the data on those vaccines is available to UK chief medical officers and to our regulatory bodies to allow them to assess it.

I do not know the specific details of the case relating to the individual who had vaccinations that are not recognised in the UK but, if you provide them to me, I am more than happy to ensure that health officials look into the issue and provide a detailed response.

Professor Leitch might be able to say a little more about the reasons why certain vaccines that are being used in other parts of the world are not recognised in our system. As I say, my understanding is that that is largely down to the ability to analyse the data associated with the vaccines.

The first thing to say is that nobody wants these international travel restrictions in place for any longer than is necessary. We want to bring them to an end as soon as it is safe to do so. Our traffic light system, which is operating across the UK, was proposed by people in the travel industry as a more effective approach and a means for opening up international travel to green-list countries, rather than a one-size-fits-all approach that does not allow any international travel. The system was designed to open up international travel, which it has achieved to some extent.

Going forward, we will see a greater focus on the importance of vaccination. That is being considered by the global task force, which is being taken forward at UK level. With the other UK nations, we are engaged in that work of looking at the options for the future. That will have a particular focus on the need for individuals to be vaccinated and to have certification of that. It will also consider what changes might be made to the traffic light system, and there will then be discussions at a four-nations level about the most appropriate route, based on the clinical advice that we receive and the advice from the joint biosecurity centre. On the timeline, the final milestone for the UK global task force report is 1 October. The work is to help inform what future changes could look like. I cannot tell you exactly what those will be, because we have not yet had those or the outcome of that process.

Be assured: nobody wants international travel restrictions for any longer than is necessary. However, the future will involve a significant focus on the need for vaccination—[Inaudible.]

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.

The primary purpose of the restrictions on international travel is to reduce the risk of importing the virus and variants of concern. We receive advice on that through the four CMOs across the UK, who consider evidence from the joint biosecurity centre. The centre assesses the risk of the virus in countries around the world based on the available data, and tracks variants of concern. The four CMOs in the UK have signed off a methodology that provides a risk matrix for different countries on the risk of importing the virus and variants of concern. That matrix then informs the decision-making process on countries that are viewed as being a higher risk and those that are a lower risk, and the traffic light system, from red to amber to green. Countries are RAG rated on the basis of the risk assessment that is carried out by the joint biosecurity centre using the evidence that it has gathered on the risk of importation of the virus and variants of concern.

The principal issue and risk around variants of concern is the danger that they can escape our vaccination programme. For example, there were particular concerns around the beta variant, which I think originated in South Africa, and its ability potentially to escape the immune or antibody response that we had from our vaccination programme in the UK and so disrupt that programme.

The risk-based approach is informed by the methodology that was developed by the joint biosecurity centre and approved by the four CMOs. That informs the decision making on the RAG rating and traffic light system for international travel.

I am sorry, but are you asking what safe international travel looks like without the existing restrictions in place?