Seòmar agus comataidhean

Good morning. I am pleased to give evidence to support the draft affirmative instrument to amend the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme Order 2020.

The UK emissions trading scheme is a key policy for meeting Scotland’s ambitious emissions targets. The scheme is a cap and trade system that is designed to limit overall emissions in the covered sectors and incentivise cost-effective decarbonisation.

When the scheme was established in January 2021, the legislation dealt exclusively with issues essential to its initiation and continued operation. At the time, ministers from the four Governments agreed to defer implementing some technical and operational aspects that were not immediately essential, with the intention of adding further provisions during the first year of operation. That is the purpose of the affirmative instrument and the negative instrument, which were laid simultaneously in Parliament.

To be clear, the provisions in the affirmative instrument are designed to support the continued smooth operation of the UK ETS and to deliver the existing policy intentions rather than to fundamentally change the way in which it functions or applies in Scotland. In broad terms, the instrument aims to clarify the powers of enforcement that are granted to the regulators—the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, in Scotland’s case—and some of the enforcement actions that are available to them. It also extends enforcement powers to the registry administrator—that is, the Environment Agency.

The instrument makes it an offence to intentionally obstruct a regulator in exercising powers of entry; prevents double counting of excess emissions penalties that apply for some operators; and gives the regulator powers to impose civil penalties on operators that fail to return allowances to which they are not entitled.

Finally, although I am unable to go into specifics today, given the on-going discussions with the other Administrations, I am confident that, in the coming months, we will be in a position to publish a joint consultation to explore further policy reforms to the UK ETS as well as the common framework agreement. At that point, I would be more than happy to return to the committee, should it wish me to, in order to discuss the matter in greater detail.

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.

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.

There is close engagement. Our officials are engaged almost daily on some of the issues. Would I say to you that the relationship across the four nations on dealing with some of the issues is satisfactory? My answer to that is no. There have been times when the UK Government has indicated to us a desire to change things at very short notice without meaningful dialogue with not just the Scottish Government but our counterparts in Northern Ireland and Wales. That has led to a difficult situation in trying to address some of the issues and concerns that we have about the very sudden changes that it intends to make.

By and large, the system works okay, but I would not say that it is a good system. There has been a tendency at times for the UK Government to seek to make changes at very short notice, without engagement with the other devolved nations. That issue has been raised with it regularly.

Has that adequately been addressed yet? No, it has not. I know that the Deputy First Minister has raised the matter with Michael Gove on many occasions, but despite assurances, ministerial meetings have continued to be called at extremely short notice—sometimes quite literally with only hours’ notice that there is to be a meeting to discuss, for example, issues around international travel.

I have tried to make the system work, as best I can. Sometimes, that means dropping things, with perhaps only an hour’s notice, to take part in meetings to engage with UK ministers on changes that they have decided to introduce without giving us forewarning. A lot of work needs to be done to ensure that we have a relationship that takes into account the distinctive role that the devolved nations have in those policy areas, and to ensure that any planned changes allow them an opportunity to consider those matters in detail and to provide feedback before final decisions are made on changes to, for example, international travel regulations.

The principal restrictions that we have in place are based on public health needs, rather than on environmental needs. The restrictions on international travel were put in place to minimise the risk of variants of concern, as I mentioned.

The role that aviation can play in helping to tackle climate change is important. The aviation industry has started to address that, but it still has a lot to do in helping to reduce the impact that aviation has on our climate. We are doing some work at Scottish Government level to support the industry in that. There is no doubt in my mind that we want to reduce the impact that aviation has on our climate, but I do not think that the way to do that is through public health regulations, which are specifically to manage risk from the pandemic.

Will people’s behaviour change in the future? Will folk choose to stay at home more for their holidays? I suppose that the answer to that is unknown. We do not know yet whether there will be significant change in people’s domestic and international travel patterns. Will more people choose to make use of trains rather than domestic aviation? Again, there is a lot of uncertainty around that. Research has been carried out into it, but it is difficult to know whether some of the behaviour changes that we have seen will be sustained. Globally, will people’s travel behaviour change so that there is less international travel for leisure? That is a bit of an unknown. I suspect that there will be some changes, but their scale and nature are not yet clear, and it is not known whether they will be permanent.