Source · Select Committees · Home Affairs Committee
Fifth Report: Home Office preparedness for COVID-19 (coronavirus): management of the borders
Home Affairs Committee
HC 563
Published 5 August 2020
Government response
Sixth Special Report: Home Office preparedness for COVID-19 (coronavirus): management of the borders: Government Response to the Committee’s Fifth Report · published 13 Nov 2020
Recommendations & Conclusions
1
Conclusion
Rejected
Para 4
In conducting this inquiry, we recognise that the COVID-19 pandemic brought unprecedented challenges and that...
Conclusion
In conducting this inquiry, we recognise that the COVID-19 pandemic brought unprecedented challenges and that the Government had to respond swiftly in circumstances of great uncertainty. We also recognise and are grateful for the hard work of all those responding …
Read more
Government Response Summary
The Government rejects the committee's assertions, stating that isolation guidance was superseded by national 'stay at home' guidance and that all decisions were informed by science and appropriate measures were introduced at the right time.
Home Office
View Details →
2
Conclusion
Rejected
While it is not possible to determine the precise impact that borders policy has on...
Conclusion
While it is not possible to determine the precise impact that borders policy has on the trajectory of the pandemic, almost every country in the world including the UK has used border measures at some point to try to control …
Read more
Government Response Summary
The Government rejects the committee's assertions, stating that isolation guidance was superseded by national 'stay at home' guidance and that all decisions were informed by science and appropriate measures were introduced at the right time.
Home Office
View Details →
3
Conclusion
Rejected
Para 32
The Government and its scientific advisers faced a huge challenge in early 2020 from a...
Conclusion
The Government and its scientific advisers faced a huge challenge in early 2020 from a fast-moving virus in circumstances where information was changing constantly and decisions about borders had to be made at pace. Inevitably those decisions were difficult, and …
Read more
Government Response Summary
The Government rejects the committee's assertions, stating that isolation guidance was superseded by national 'stay at home' guidance and that all decisions were informed by science and appropriate measures were introduced at the right time.
Home Office
View Details →
4
Conclusion
Rejected
Para 33
The incremental introduction of international travel measures during the period from late January to early...
Conclusion
The incremental introduction of international travel measures during the period from late January to early March corresponded to the practice in other countries during this time and reflects the great uncertainty with which governments were grappling. It was right to …
Read more
Government Response Summary
The government rejects the committee's assertions, defending its past decisions regarding border measures in March. They state that isolation guidance was superseded, decisions were science-led, and that imported cases made a marginal impact when domestic transmission was high, while maintaining open borders was crucial.
Home Office
View Details →
5
Conclusion
Rejected
Para 34
It is also clear that, overall, the border measures in the UK and many other...
Conclusion
It is also clear that, overall, the border measures in the UK and many other European countries in early March were not sufficient to contain the cross-border spread of the virus. Had stronger early measures been taken—such as requiring legally-enforceable …
Read more
Government Response Summary
The government rejects the committee's assertion that border measures were insufficient and that they did not recognise the risk from Europe. They maintain that isolation guidance was superseded by national guidance, decisions were science-led, and enhanced monitoring was in place for high-risk areas during the contain phase.
Home Office
View Details →
6
Conclusion
Rejected
Para 35
However, the failure to advise people travelling or returning from Spain in particular to self-isolate...
Conclusion
However, the failure to advise people travelling or returning from Spain in particular to self-isolate for 14 days (in line with category 1) or, at the very least, to monitor symptoms and call NHS 111 (in line with category 2) …
Read more
Government Response Summary
The Government rejects the committee's assertions, stating that isolation guidance was superseded by national 'stay at home' guidance and that all decisions were informed by science and appropriate measures were introduced at the right time.
Home Office
View Details →
9
Conclusion
Rejected
Para 40
Overall, in the epidemic phase of COVID-19, insufficient emphasis was placed on the importance of...
Conclusion
Overall, in the epidemic phase of COVID-19, insufficient emphasis was placed on the importance of controlling importation from overseas as a method for containing the virus or delaying its spread. The decision by SAGE only to consider measures that could …
Read more
Government Response Summary
The government rejects the Committee's assertions, stating its isolation guidance was superseded by national stay-at-home guidance and that all decisions were informed by science and SAGE advice, including enhanced border monitoring during the contain phase.
Home Office
View Details →
10
Conclusion
Rejected
Para 41
Dismissing strict border measures as “draconian” on 3 February was erroneous, as it was their...
Conclusion
Dismissing strict border measures as “draconian” on 3 February was erroneous, as it was their strength that could have made a significant contribution and potentially mitigated the scale of domestic restrictions that were later needed. SAGE papers suggest that prioritising …
Read more
Government Response Summary
The government rejects the Committee's assertions, maintaining that isolation guidance was replaced by national stay-at-home rules and that its decisions were consistently informed by scientific advice from SAGE during the pandemic.
Home Office
View Details →
11
Conclusion
Rejected
Para 59
We are concerned that the UK’s approach to border measures in the period from 13...
Conclusion
We are concerned that the UK’s approach to border measures in the period from 13 March to 8 June was very different from countries in similar circumstances. This should have raised serious questions within the Government about whether it was …
Read more
Government Response Summary
The government rejects the committee's concerns about the UK's border approach differing from other countries and their lack of evidence for evaluating those approaches. They reiterate that their decisions were science-led and appropriate for the time.
Home Office
View Details →
12
Conclusion
Rejected
Para 72
It is now apparent that many more COVID-19 cases were imported to the UK from...
Conclusion
It is now apparent that many more COVID-19 cases were imported to the UK from Europe in mid-March than was estimated at the time, when, with the exception of Italy, the focus remained largely on potential importations of the virus …
Read more
Government Response Summary
The government rejects the committee's assertion that uncontrolled importations significantly contributed to the rapid spread of the virus in mid-March. They maintain that isolation guidance was superseded by national 'stay at home' guidance and that decisions were science-led and appropriate for the time.
Home Office
View Details →
13
Conclusion
Rejected
Para 73
Not having any special border measures applicable to people arriving from Spain and France during...
Conclusion
Not having any special border measures applicable to people arriving from Spain and France during March, and only having time-limited self-isolation measures for arrivals from Italy, therefore had a material effect on the number of cases circulating within the UK. …
Read more
Government Response Summary
The government rejects the Committee's assertions, clarifying that isolation guidance was superseded by national stay-at-home guidance and that all pandemic decisions were scientifically informed by SAGE advice, including enhanced border monitoring.
Home Office
View Details →
14
Conclusion
Rejected
Para 74
Although the full scale of the epidemic in Spain and later in France was not...
Conclusion
Although the full scale of the epidemic in Spain and later in France was not properly known in mid-March, that is not a justification for the lifting of border measures. Evidence of the epidemic escalating, especially in Spain, was already …
Read more
Government Response Summary
The government rejects the committee's assertion that its approach to border measures in mid-March was wrong. They maintain that isolation guidance was superseded by national stay-at-home guidance and that decisions were informed by science and appropriate for the time.
Home Office
View Details →
17
Recommendation
Rejected
Para 99
The Home Office—and other departments of Government if necessary—must either publish or provide to the...
Recommendation
The Home Office—and other departments of Government if necessary—must either publish or provide to the Committee immediately a full account of the scientific evidence and advice leading to its decision to withdraw guidance for international arrivals on 13 March. If …
Read more
Government Response Summary
The government refutes the committee's assertion that isolation guidance was dropped, explaining it was superseded by national guidance and decisions were based on scientific advice. It implicitly rejects the request to publish specific evidence by explaining its reasoning without committing to provide the requested account.
Home Office
View Details →
18
Conclusion
Rejected
The decision to lift all COVID-19-related guidance for international arrivals on 13 March, just as...
Conclusion
The decision to lift all COVID-19-related guidance for international arrivals on 13 March, just as other countries were expanding their border measures, is inexplicable. The Committee does not accept the argument that the introduction of voluntary ‘stay at home’ guidance …
Read more
Government Response Summary
The government rejects the committee's claim that lifting guidance for international arrivals on 13 March was inexplicable. They reiterate that isolation guidance was superseded by national 'stay at home' guidance and that decisions were science-led and appropriate for the time.
Home Office
View Details →
19
Conclusion
Rejected
Para 101
Nor do we accept that falling numbers of arrivals justified the lifting of border measures...
Conclusion
Nor do we accept that falling numbers of arrivals justified the lifting of border measures in mid-March. Although passenger numbers started to fall, a further one million people were to arrive between 13 March and lockdown on 23 March, and …
Read more
Government Response Summary
The government rejects the committee's assertion that falling arrival numbers did not justify lifting border measures, stating the committee is incorrect. It explains that isolation guidance was superseded by national stay-at-home guidance and that decisions were informed by scientific advice and the progression of the pandemic.
Home Office
View Details →
20
Conclusion
Rejected
Para 102
We also do not accept the Home Office’s suggestion that no measures were needed after...
Conclusion
We also do not accept the Home Office’s suggestion that no measures were needed after 13 March because imported cases made up only 0.5% of total UK infections. That figure was not calculated until 22 March by which time a …
Read more
Government Response Summary
The government rejects the committee's assertion that it was incorrect to argue no border measures were needed after 13 March. They maintain that isolation guidance was superseded by national stay-at-home guidance and that decisions were informed by science and appropriate for the given phase of the pandemic.
Home Office
View Details →
21
Conclusion
Rejected
Para 103
The Government does not seem to have examined the full range of possible measures affecting...
Conclusion
The Government does not seem to have examined the full range of possible measures affecting international travel and considered their additive effect. It is understandable that the Government did not consider it practical or effective to simply restrict flights, not …
Read more
Government Response Summary
The government rejects the committee's assertions, stating that isolation guidance was superseded by national stay-at-home guidance and that all decisions were informed by scientific advice and appropriate measures were introduced at the right time.
Home Office
View Details →
22
Conclusion
Rejected
Para 104
Firm border measures introduced in June were considerably stronger than both the ‘stay at home’...
Conclusion
Firm border measures introduced in June were considerably stronger than both the ‘stay at home’ guidance and lockdown restrictions imposed in mid-March. Indeed, they were exactly the “draconian” measures initially rejected by SAGE, enforceable in law. Justifying the decision to …
Read more
Government Response Summary
The government rejects the committee's assertion of inconsistency in its border strategy. They reiterate that isolation guidance was superseded by national guidance on 13 March and that decisions were informed by scientific advice and were appropriate for the phase of the pandemic.
Home Office
View Details →
27
Conclusion
Rejected
The Home Office has stated repeatedly that it followed scientific advice from SAGE and from...
Conclusion
The Home Office has stated repeatedly that it followed scientific advice from SAGE and from its own Scientific Adviser ahead of the Government’s decision to withdraw guidance for international arrivals on 13 March. By the same measure, the Government’s Chief …
Read more
Government Response Summary
The government rejects the committee's assertions, stating that isolation guidance was superseded by national stay-at-home guidance and that all decisions were informed by scientific advice and appropriate measures were introduced at the right time.
Home Office
View Details →
29
Recommendation
Rejected
Para 150
It was inevitable that the Government’s reintroduction of border measures was greeted with some scepticism...
Recommendation
It was inevitable that the Government’s reintroduction of border measures was greeted with some scepticism in June. Having removed country-specific guidance in March when other countries were imposing compulsory quarantine arrangements for arrivals, the Government then found itself increasing restrictions …
Read more
Government Response Summary
The government explicitly rejected the committee's assertions, stating that its decisions were consistently informed by scientific advice and SAGE, and detailed past measures without committing to publishing new analysis or explaining its relation to the wider pandemic strategy.
Home Office
View Details →
41
Conclusion
Rejected
Para 207
The Government’s historic inability to convince the Committee of the credibility of its calculations of...
Conclusion
The Government’s historic inability to convince the Committee of the credibility of its calculations of the numbers of people who have come into the UK carrying COVID-19 does not inspire us with confidence about its ability to assess the scale …
Read more
Government Response Summary
The Government rejects the committee's assertions, stating that isolation guidance was superseded by national 'stay at home' guidance and that all decisions were informed by science and appropriate measures were introduced at the right time.
Home Office
View Details →