Recommendations & Conclusions
5 items
1
Conclusion
Sixteenth Report - Managing cross-borde…
Acknowledged
On the basis of a report by the Comptroller and Auditor General, we took evidence from the Cabinet Office, the Home Office, the Department for Transport (DfT), and the Department of Health & Social Care (DHSC), about the latest phase of government’s cross-border travel measures.1
Read more
On the basis of a report by the Comptroller and Auditor General, we took evidence from the Cabinet Office, the Home Office, the Department for Transport (DfT), and the Department of Health & Social Care (DHSC), about the latest phase of government’s cross-border travel measures.1
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government acknowledges the report and provides administrative details about the evidence taken and publication date.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
13
Conclusion
Sixteenth Report - Managing cross-borde…
Acknowledged
We asked the Department about the support it had provided the aviation industry during the pandemic. DfT told us that government had provided up to £8 billion of support to the aviation industry during the pandemic, but recognised that this was mostly the take-up of general support, from the furlough …
Read more
We asked the Department about the support it had provided the aviation industry during the pandemic. DfT told us that government had provided up to £8 billion of support to the aviation industry during the pandemic, but recognised that this was mostly the take-up of general support, from the furlough scheme, which was available to all industries. We also asked about the Department’s expectations for future demand for aviation, and of recent reports of long queues at airports. DfT told us that the industry had been surprised at the speed of recovery, and that on some estimates demand is 25% higher than what was expected, returning to 80% of 2019 levels. It explained that a large 16 Q 136; C&AG’s Report para 2.9 17 C&AG’s Report, para 2, Figure 1, para 2.9 18 MCP0001, Manchester-Airports-Group, 2022 19 Qq 139–140 20 C&AG’s Report para 3.16–3.18 21 Q 76 22 Q 115; C&AG’s report para 3.18 Managing cross-border travel during the COVID-19 pandemic 13 number of staff had been put on furlough and it had taken time for airports and airlines to rehire when demand returned, which had contributed to the disruption seen over the Easter 2022 period.23 23 Qq 117–123; C&AG’s report para 3.21 14 Managing cross-border travel during the COVID-19 pandemic 2 Protecting taxpayers’ money Managing the portfolio of programmes for implementing the measures
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government references its response to the Transport Select Committee, stating that the default approach will be to use the least stringent measures to minimize the impact on travel as far as possible when responding to COVID-19 variants.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
26
Conclusion
Sixteenth Report - Managing cross-borde…
Acknowledged
In addition to not tracking costs, government did not formally set out what it regarded as successful implementation of the cross-border travel measures, nor its measurement of success.45 We therefore asked the Cabinet Office how it knew whether measures were effective and how it would determine whether they had been …
Read more
In addition to not tracking costs, government did not formally set out what it regarded as successful implementation of the cross-border travel measures, nor its measurement of success.45 We therefore asked the Cabinet Office how it knew whether measures were effective and how it would determine whether they had been a success. The Cabinet Office recognised that measuring effectiveness was “one of the challenges of the overall covid response … [as] it is difficult to isolate the effects of one of a number of interventions from the other ones”. It told us that it had attempted to measure the impact of the controls and had identified 12,000 cases of people who tested positive in the MQS who had come from red-listed countries, which it asserted was “a lot of people who would have been going out across the UK, inflecting other people and spreading these variants of concern, which the public was protected from”. When asked if it considered this a success, the Cabinet Office told us that it was not possible to say that whether this was a unique impact of the cross-border travel measures, but that from the point at which restrictions were introduced, the additional impact of people travelling and spreading covid “seems to have been controlled”. It explained that the general view from health authorities was that the measures had been important in trying to slow down the spread of infections.46
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government agrees with the recommendation and states that throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, departments considered the efficacy of policies implemented, and those lessons learned continue to inform contingency planning.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
28
Conclusion
Sixteenth Report - Managing cross-borde…
Acknowledged
The NAO reported that the circumstances in which government had to implement the traffic light system had often been a crisis response requiring government to move at pace.49 The Cabinet Office explained that the system was a response to the then concern about vaccine-evading variants of COVID-19. We observed that …
Read more
The NAO reported that the circumstances in which government had to implement the traffic light system had often been a crisis response requiring government to move at pace.49 The Cabinet Office explained that the system was a response to the then concern about vaccine-evading variants of COVID-19. We observed that COVID-19 had been in the UK for a year by the time most of the travel measures were introduced from February 2021 onwards. Given this, we asked why the MQS had been set up hurriedly. DHSC recognised that there had been a short amount of time between the decision to set up the system and it being launched. It explained that a range of potential measures and controls at the border had been discussed in advance, and MQS was announced in January 2021 and had to go live by 15 February 2021.50 We asked why there had been a 48-hour delay in re-opening quarantine hotels when government decided that they were needed during the omicron wave in late 2021, during which time potentially infectious people from red-list countries self-isolated at home. DHSC told us that 48 hours was the best it could achieve, as it took longer to set up a quarantine hotel than a standard hotel as the MQS had additional requirements such as security guards. We asked whether DHSC could reopen the quarantine hotels very quickly if needed again. DHSC explained that, unlike during the omicron wave, it no longer had specific hotels available as contingency and quarantine people in hotels was “an extreme measure … something you would do only in real need”. It told us that it was confident, that if it did find itself in similar circumstances, the playbook of options that it had developed would serve it well, but accepted that setting up quarantine hotels would definitely take it longer than 48 hours.51
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government agrees with the committee's observation, stating that lessons learned inform contingency planning, COVID-19 surveillance is retained, and future responses will focus on pharmaceutical interventions, while wider pandemic scenarios are being developed.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
29
Conclusion
Sixteenth Report - Managing cross-borde…
Acknowledged
We found in our report on Government preparedness for the COVID-19 pandemic: lessons for government on risk that government would have been better prepared for COVID-19 if it had applied learning from previous incidents and exercises.52 The NAO reported that, following the removal of travel restrictions in March 2022, government …
Read more
We found in our report on Government preparedness for the COVID-19 pandemic: lessons for government on risk that government would have been better prepared for COVID-19 if it had applied learning from previous incidents and exercises.52 The NAO reported that, following the removal of travel restrictions in March 2022, government had an opportunity to stand back and put its overall system for implementing travel measures on a more sustainable footing.53 We asked if the Cabinet Office was developing toolkits for responding to future situations, noting that this was particularly important given the ongoing threat of other diseases, such as monkeypox, and the possibility of new COVID-19 variants emerging. The Cabinet Office told us that each Department, and the COVID-19 taskforce, was following good practice by writing up its conclusions and lessons learned, and that this was partly to ensure they were ready for the public inquiry.54 The Cabinet Office also told us that it was undertaking scenario planning for possible future crisis scenarios through the Civil Contingencies Secretariat. It recognised that many of the COVID-19 taskforce had now moved on to other roles, leaving residual capacity.55
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government agrees with the committee and states that lessons learned continue to inform contingency planning across government, including for future public health threats. They retained COVID-19 surveillance and set out an overarching contingency strategy based on pharmaceutical interventions.
Read full response →
HM Treasury