Safer Travel Guidelines Review Panel Interim Report - 24 July 2020

Safer Travel Guidelines Review: Interim Report

Safer Travel Guidelines Review Panel

24 July 2020 S.R.2/2020

Contents

1. Chair's Foreword ................................................................................................................................ 3
2. Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................ 4
3. Key Findings and Recommendations ................................................................................................. 5 Key Findings .................................................................................................................................... 5 Recommendations .......................................................................................................................... 6

5. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 8
6. Government's justification for opening borders............................................................................... 9 Assembly Debate ............................................................................................................................ 9 Justifications Used to Open the Border ........................................................................................ 11
7. Other evidence considered .............................................................................................................. 16 Direct Correspondence with the Minister for Health and Social Services on the Guidelines ...... 16 Red, Amber, Green Rating System ................................................................................................ 20 Summary of public responses ....................................................................................................... 21 Analysis of border policies in selected island jurisdictions ........................................................... 23

10. Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................... 34 Appendix 1 – The Panel ........................................................................................................................ 35 Appendix 2 – Safer Travel Guidelines Review: Terms of Reference ................................................... 36 Appendix 3 – Evidence Gathered ......................................................................................................... 37

1. Chair's Foreword

Deputy Rob Ward – Chair

The Panel was set up as an urgent scrutiny response to the States approval of P.89/2020 (as amended) and the wider opening of borders for air and sea travel. It followed concerns raised over the rapid nature of changes and possible impact for Jersey. The clear aim is to scrutinise the workings and suitability of the Safer Travel  Guidelines  including  testing,  tracing,  and  rules  for  isolation  for  those arriving at our air and seaports.

We will be engaging as fully as possible with the views of the public. Our aim is to produce interim reports at speed in recognition of the rapidly changing situation regarding Covid-19 and related travel rules. As such, any recommendations will be timely and targeted to address issues that arise. Our underlying aim is to provide constructive scrutiny that informs future decision making in this vital area of the Island's policy making.

2. Executive Summary

The Safer Travel Guidelines Review Panel was launched on 6th July 2020 to undertake a review into the Safer Travel Guidelines.

Jersey opened its borders to widespread, non-essential, travel on 3rd July 2020, following the States Assembly voting in favour of P.84/2020 – A Safer Travel Period: States Assembly Approval on 2nd July 2020.

Several amendments were proposed, including the requirement to quarantine whilst awaiting test results. However, this amendment was rejected. Another amendment, which requested the Council of Ministers to publish and maintain a list of countries designated as safe for travel, was accepted.

P.89/2020 – Open Border Arrangements' was passed, as amended, by the Assembly on 14th July 2020. This proposition went some way to improving P.84/2020 but the Panel still considers there to be significant gaps in the Guidelines that need to be addressed.

Once the borders opened, 2 cases of COVID-19 from asymptomatic passengers were detected in the first 2 days. Within 10 days of reopening, there had been 4 cases detected (1 of these subsequently was found to be a false-positive).

Communication from the Government has been problematic throughout the development of the Guidelines. For instance, passengers who travelled to Jersey on the Commodore Clipper were given confusing and conflicting information by being told that they would be tested on arrival when they should have been informed that they had to book a test at the airport drive-in facility within 24 hours.

Furthermore, the Panel believes that some of the information flow processes undertaken in relation to the advisory function between Government and the Scientific and Technical Advisory Cell appeared confusing and has reached findings and recommendations that reflect this point of view.

The Panel received an excellent response to its call for evidence, with 39 individuals submitting their views. Of these, 24 are of the view that incoming passengers should be required to isolate whilst awaiting their test results. Only 2 were firmly in favour of the current policy.

Analysis by the Panel of other island jurisdictions around the world also shows a stark difference between Jersey and most others, with the majority either requiring 2 weeks quarantine or self- isolation whilst awaiting test results.

The Panel does not disagree with the need to reopen the border. However, the Panel does believe that this decision was rushed, may have been made for economic reasons, and that States Members were not provided adequate time or information to make an informed decision.

3. Key Findings and Recommendations

Key Findings

KEY FINDING 1: Members were not afforded adequate time to properly consider P.84/2020 and the information contained within the report was conflicting and inadequate.

KEY FINDING 2: The Council of Ministers had already decided on the format and content of the Guidelines without any input from the Assembly (including its Scrutiny Panels).

KEY  FINDING  3:  Although  P.89/2020  (as  amended)  improved  the  Council  of  Ministers'  original proposition, it still relies heavily on guidelines that are outside of the direct influence of the Assembly (including its Scrutiny Panels) and on the goodwill of arriving passengers to follow self-isolation rules rather than compulsion of law.

KEY FINDING 4: While the integrity of STAC is not in question, until recently its composition was not clear. It is perceived by the public as a medical advisory body whereas in reality it could also have other policy advisors as part of its membership depending upon the advice being sought. It is also unclear whether STAC can offer Government unsolicited advice or whether it can only respond to government proposals.

KEY FINDING 5: The balance of evidence from public hearings and STAC advice can be interpreted as the Government placing economic interests (e.g. flight connection) above the health of Islanders when considering whether or not to open the borders and issue the current guidelines.

KEY FINDING 6:  The potential number of COVID-19 cases that will be detected from incoming passengers appears to be incorrect, casting doubt on the risk assessment used to justify the guidelines. This evidence was also used in the debate regarding safer travel propositions.

KEY FINDING 7: Faster and higher-capacity testing is due in August. Definite dates are not yet available.

KEY FINDING 8: The border may have been opened too soon, as the risk of an incoming passenger spreading COVID-19 would be reduced through faster and higher-capacity testing and the Monitoring and Enforcement Team was not yet in place.

KEY FINDING 9: The level of accessibility of the Guidelines is mixed. While information is available in other languages, the pre-departure registration and declaration form is only available online making it difficult for those without access to, or unfamiliar with, computer technology to access.

KEY FINDING 11: The Government has put a flexible set of guidelines in place with systems that can easily adapt to changes in Ministerial direction, such as decreasing the time between follow-up text messages or requiring quarantine for passengers awaiting test results.

KEY FINDING 12: The Government's rating system relies on UK data, rather than Jersey-specific data. This leads to a favourable rating for the UK which may endanger Islanders.

KEY FINDING 13: The majority of the 39 responses received by the Panel's call for evidence are of the opinion that incoming passengers should be required to self-isolate whilst awaiting test results, with many also citing fear of a second wave and the mental health implications that this would bring. A minority of respondents are supportive of the Government's Guidelines.

KEY FINDING 14: Island nations are approaching entry and quarantine requirements differently the world over and there is no one size fits all policy. However, it is clear that Jersey is in the minority in this sample in allowing incoming passengers into the community without a negative test result.  

Recommendations

RECOMMENDATION 1: Any proposition coming to the Assembly must not be taken as a fait accompli and all relevant consequential information should be provided to the Assembly (including its relevant Scrutiny Panels) accurately and with an appropriate amount of time for review.

RECOMMENDATION  2:  The  Government  should  monitor  and  report  on  compliance  with  the Guidelines to Scrutiny and the wider Assembly and, if passengers are not complying, change the wording from should to must.

RECOMMENDATION  3:  The  independent  role  of  STAC,  its  composition  and  its  relationship  to Government must be clear and transparent to avoid any perception of undue influence. Consideration should be given to having a separate medical advisory body to that of policy advisers so that their views are separately recorded and the Government should publish how all decisions have been reached, what part all groups involved have played and the reasons the Government has either agreed or disagreed with the expert advice. The medical advisers should also be able to give the Government unsolicited advice on medical matters in addition to responding to policy proposals from policy advisers.

RECOMMENDATION 4: The Guidelines should require all incoming passengers to Jersey to isolate in Government-provided facilities until they have received a negative test result.

RECOMMENDATION 5: If the Government is to continue with its position of not requiring isolation whilst awaiting test results under the Guidelines, then every resource should be put into increasing on-Island testing capacity and reducing test turn-around times.

RECOMMENDATION 6: The Government should make the pre-departure registration and declaration forms available in a non-computerised format.

RECOMMENDATION 7: The Government should reduce the time between follow-up text messages for those that do not respond from 3 days to 1 day.

RECOMMENDATION 8: The Government's rating system should be independent of UK data.

5. Introduction

The Review

The Safer Travel Guidelines Review Panel was formed on 6th July 2020 as a direct response to the States Assembly approval of P.84/2020 – A Safer Travel Period: States Assembly Approval.

P.84/2020 – Vote for a Safer Travel Period: States Assembly Approval was adopted by the States Assembly 37 votes to 12 on 1st July 2020, with one amendment also passed to require the Government to maintain a list of countries designated as safe for travel.[1]

As a result, the Government has now published the Safer Travel Guidelines online, with all passengers travelling to Jersey required to adhere to them for travel from 3rd July 2020.

P.89/2020 – Open Border Arrangements was passed, as amended, almost unanimously by the Assembly on 14th July 2020.This proposition went some way to improving P.84/2020, but the Panel believes that this review is still required to monitor developments during the summer recess until the States resumes in September.

Key Issues:

The Panel is primarily concerned with the Government's Safer Travel Guidelines and will consider:

• Are the Guidelines fit for purpose?

• Are the Guidelines accessible?

• Are the Guidelines in the best interest of Jersey?

• What are the broader implications of the Guidelines for Jersey, for example, in terms of budget, public health and emergency services?

Methodology

Due to the immediacy of the issues at hand, the Panel has worked rapidly to develop this report. Evidence has been collected from public hearings held by both the Corporate Services and Health and Social Services Scrutiny Panels, public responses, briefings to the Panel, and available online resources.

This report is intended to provide the initial views of the Panel and does not address all of the key issues identified above. A second, final report may be required if the Panel feels that there are significant issues that still need to be addressed following the issuing of this interim report.

The Panel will also consider whether a public hearing of its own is required depending on the response to its findings and recommendations.

6. Government's justification for opening borders

Assembly Debate

The Government sought the endorsement of the Assembly prior to reopening the border through P.84/2020 – A Safer Travel Period: States Assembly Approval, which was adopted on 1st July 2020.

The report to P.84/2020 – A Safer Travel Period: States Assembly Approval[2] outlines the high-level policy for border testing.

The report contained a significant amount of information and Members were only given a 5-day period in which to review it and reach an informed opinion, as against the usual 6-week period.

Government communication regarding passengers arriving by some means was not as clear as it needed to be. While the report to P.84/2020 did detail the testing arrangements for passengers arriving by private craft or by other points', it was not clear that passengers arriving on the Commodore Clipper were included in this by other points' category and would not be tested until the following day. This needed to be clarified during the debate and also created confusion for Condor staff and ferry passengers.

Furthermore, Sates Members were provided with conflicting information within the same package of information regarding the requirement to test on arrival.

Safer Travel Policy Statement:

Measure 3 – Active Border Management

The default requirement to self-isolate on arrival will remain in place with regular monitoring, spot checks and enforcement as necessary.

Self-isolation will be waived for all passengers that opt-in to the border testing programme, the provisions of which may change over time. In addition to other requirements set out in the detailed guidance, the border testing programme will require all people arriving in Jersey to:

1. Provide acceptable evidence of a negative PCR test for which a tested sample was taken no more than 72 hours before departure
2. Or undergo a PCR test on arrival in Jersey, or within their first 24 hours on island in certain defined circumstances
3. Be in receipt of an exemption to the above criteria[3]

Draft Safer Travel guidance for people arriving in Jersey:

Arriving Passengers

To reduce the risk of COVID-19 transmission into Jersey and to manage the risk of community transmission on the island all arriving passengers are required to:

• Complete a pre-departure registration form to opt into the Safer Travel testing programme;

• Self-Isolate for 14 days on arrival or:

1. Prior  to  departure  present  documentary  evidence  of  a  negative Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) COVID-19 test conducted within 72 hours of arrival in Jersey or:
2. Undergo a PCR test on arrival in Jersey.[4]

KEY FINDING 1: Members were not afforded adequate time to properly consider P.84/2020 and the information contained within the report was conflicting and inadequate.

The Panel is also seriously concerned about the timing of the debate and publication of the Safer Travel Guidelines  (the  Guidelines),  as  they  were  available online  almost  instantly  following  the Assembly's decision.

KEY FINDING 2: The Council of Ministers had already decided on the format and content of the Guidelines without any input from the Assembly (including its Scrutiny Panels).

RECOMMENDATION 1: Any proposition coming to the Assembly must not be taken as a fait accompli and all relevant consequential information should be provided to the Assembly (including its relevant Scrutiny Panels) accurately and with an appropriate amount of time for review.

P.89/2020 – Open Border Arrangements was lodged by Deputy John Young on 7th July 2020 and debated and adopted, as amended, on 14th July 2020. The intent of this proposition was to strengthen the border arrangements by putting in additional measures for arriving passengers relating to self- isolation.

As originally drafted, P.89/2020 stated that all arriving passengers should be isolated whilst awaiting test results.[5] However, the original proposition was amended by the Chief Minister  to refer to guidelines for isolation requirements for those from amber or red countries (see page 18 below), rather than a blanket requirement to isolate.

The amended proposition also carries over the use of the term should isolate for both passengers that were not able to be tested on arrival until they have been tested and for arrivals from amber or red countries that they should be required to self-isolate.[6] This provides no legal requirement to isolate. So, while this is an improvement to P.84/2020, the Panel believes it is still flawed.

The biggest improvement of the amended proposition is the notion that incoming passengers to Jersey:

"should not visit any hospital, residential care home, nursing home, domiciliary care setting  or  the  prison,  or  visit  anyone  at  high  risk  of  Covid-19,  until  they  have completed their required period of self-isolation and/or received a negative PCR test result."[7]

KEY  FINDING  3:  Although  P.89/2020  (as  amended)  improved  the  Council  of  Ministers'  original proposition, it still relies heavily on guidelines that are outside of the direct influence of the Assembly (including its Scrutiny Panels) and on the goodwill of arriving passengers to follow self-isolation rules rather than compulsion of law.

RECOMMENDATION  2:  The  Government  should  monitor  and  report  on  compliance  with  the Guidelines to Scrutiny and the wider Assembly and, if passengers are not complying, change the wording from should to must.

Justifications Used to Open the Border

The Scientific and Technical Advisory Cell (STAC) is an independent advisory body made up of key experts within the public sector. The membership of the Cell varies depending on the advice required at the time.[8]

The Panel is concerned about how, and why, the advice from STAC was delivered, especially whether the advice was offered by STAC in a bottom up, proactive manner, or whether STAC was requested by the Government to justify its new border policy.

The following is an excerpt from STAC's briefing paper to Government of 23rd June 2020:

STAC were asked to offer their advice to Ministers in relation to:

A. How well the safer travel proposal addresses the balance of harms, in line with the COVID-19 Strategy

In addition and drawing on the interim review of the border testing trial, STAC were asked to discuss and offer advice on:

D. the safer travel proposal to move immediately to replace the current border testing regime...[9]

Of key concern to the Panel in this advice is the appearance that STAC were asked to provide advice on  a  policy  that  had  already  been  developed,  rather  than  their  advice  being  an  input  to  the development of the policy. The Panel believes that STAC should proactively offer the advice rather than being asked to justify a position.

In a briefing involving the Minister for Health and Social Services and members of STAC on 20th July 2020, the Panel questioned the Chair of STAC, Patrick Armstrong, directly on the level of independence of STAC and whether or not there was any undue influence on its decision-making.

The Chair categorically assured the Panel that all advice from STAC was free from any influence and fiercely independent.

The development process of the Safer Travel Guidelines was also outlined to the Panel at this briefing:

• Issues and options papers were put to STAC in relation to a Pilot programme that was run for essential travellers from May.

• STAC offered feedback on these papers then provided advice on final proposal.

• The same process was undertaken for the Safer Travel Guidelines through June.

KEY FINDING 4: While the integrity of STAC is not in question, until recently its composition was not clear. It is perceived by the public as a medical advisory body whereas in reality it could also have other policy advisors as part of its membership depending upon the advice being sought. It is also unclear whether STAC can offer Government unsolicited advice or whether it can only respond to government proposals.

RECOMMENDATION  3:  The  independent  role  of  STAC,  its  composition  and  its  relationship  to Government must be clear and transparent to avoid any perception of undue influence. Consideration should be given to having a separate medical advisory body to that of policy advisers so that their views are separately recorded and the Government should publish how all decisions have been reached, what part all groups involved have played and the reasons the Government has either agreed or disagreed with the expert advice. The medical advisers should also be able to give the Government unsolicited advice on medical matters in addition to responding to policy proposals from policy advisers.

In a public hearing with the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel on 29th June 2020, the Chief Minister noted:

The Chief Minister:

On all of these things it is a balance of risk, as has been alluded to in a number of briefings  to  States  Members  but  perhaps  not  necessarily  publicly  other  than occasionally in the press conferences we have done. The balancing of the risk is balancing the impact of COVID-19 on the health of individual Islanders and obviously we consider we are in a very good place given the very low rates that we have achieved. Then the wider health impacts, which is mental health, et cetera, and then in terms of the well-being of the Island, which can include economic impacts because obviously if economic impacts are severe and people lose their jobs as a result, that in  turn  generates  health  consequences  .   So  S.T.A.C.  (Scientific  and  Technical Advisory Committee) take account of all of that and as we said all the way through this crisis, we have been taking account of the S.T.A.C. advice and the S.T.A.C. advice, taking all these into account and the overall well-being, in fact, is that we can open up the borders safely with effect from Friday, if the States so agree. Now, obviously to directly answer your question, the advice we are receiving to date is that if there was a delay to that there is a probable risk that we might not get the connectivity resuming that we used to have pre-COVID. From not only an Islander perspective but an economic perspective, we are incredibly lucky with the connections we had so to lose those then does have an economic consequence which then goes through to the other consequences I have already outlined.[10]

STAC, in their advice to Government on 23rd June, stated:

Testing on arrival along with a period of quarantine is not supportive in facilitating an increased capacity of travellers and should not be the continued regime

STAC have taken into consideration the scientific evidence along with local and National metrics. STAC have, in particular, taken note of the very significant potential impact on the economy of not opening borders for Jersey as described to them and the relationship between flight availability that has developed because of both the finance  and  tourism  sector.  In  other  words,  in  order  to  secure  increased  flight availability for the finance sector the tourism sector would also have to open up.[11]

KEY FINDING 5: The balance of evidence from public hearings and STAC advice can be interpreted as the Government placing economic interests (e.g. flight connection) above the health of Islanders when considering whether or not to open the borders and issue the current guidelines.

The Government also noted that it only expected 1 or 2 cases per month as a result of opening the border. However, 4 cases were detected in the first 10 days of the border being reopened (with 1 subsequently proving to be a false-positive).

Medical Officer of Health:

Thank  you,  Chief  Minister.  It  is  about  proportionality.  So  we  are  talking  about preventing and dealing with a case every one month, 2 months set against the restrictions of imposing strict quarantine on potentially many hundreds of people as against that one case.[12]

KEY FINDING 6:  The potential number of COVID-19 cases that will be detected from incoming passengers appears to be incorrect, casting doubt on the risk assessment used to justify the guidelines. This evidence was also used in the debate regarding safer travel propositions.

The importance of this potentially incorrect risk assessment to the health of Islanders is exemplified by a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention research letter, which states:

An  asymptomatic  person  infected  with  severe  acute  respiratory  syndrome coronavirus 2 returned to Heilongjiang Province, China, after international travel. The traveler's neighbor became infected and generated a cluster of >71 cases, including cases in 2 hospitals. Genome sequences of the virus were distinct from viral genomes previously circulating in China.[13]

In the Panel's opinion, this indicates that an asymptomatic traveller returning to Jersey is, potentially, highly infectious and could lead to an outbreak of COVID-19 in Jersey whilst they await their test results for an average of 24-48 hours[14]. With the larger than expected number of positive test results, this risk begins to grow substantially.

RECOMMENDATION 4: The Guidelines should require all incoming passengers to Jersey to isolate in Government-provided facilities until they have received a negative test result.

The Panel thinks that medical advice and advice from policy officers should be separated and that two distinct bodies should be set up to advise the Government. It is the role of advisers to advise and for the government to make decisions based on that advice, explaining to the public why they have accepted or disregarded the advice they have been given.

The Panel believes that due to the nature of the novel Coronavirus and with medical knowledge being published almost on a daily basis and the need for policy to change rapidly if circumstances demand it that the medical advisers should be able to give the Government unsolicited advice in addition to responding to proposed changes in Government policy.

Given the finding above, that the border is likely to have been opened for commercial reasons, the Panel was concerned about the time lag for test results and whether the border should have reopened when it did, or whether there was a case for waiting a few weeks until a faster and higher-capacity testing regime could be put in place to reduce the risk of asymptomatic incoming passengers spreading COVID-19.

The Panel is particularly concerned about the risks posed by day trippers and very short stay visitors who may have left the Island before their test results are available. These people are very unlikely to be cognisant of where they have been and who they have been in contact with and therefore pose a considerable risk that anyone they infect will be traced quickly or at all.

In a public hearing with the Minister for Health and Social Services by the Health and Social Security Scrutiny Panel on 9th July, the Deputy Medical Officer of Health, Dr Ivan Muscat, noted:

Deputy Medical Officer of Health:

We currently ration ourselves to 65 tests on-Island per day, which obviously some days we do more and some days we do less, but that is the average, because that is the number we can knowingly replace going forward. We use those on-Island tests, which give you a result within one, maximum 2 hours, for emergency admissions, emergency transfers and acute medical care, rather than for simple screening purposes. In terms of where we are going next, we want very much to have a more large-scale, on-Island P.C.R. (polymerase chain reaction) testing and we are in the throes of bringing in a self-contained laboratory that will be annexed to the hospital laboratory to undertake P.C.R. tests at a rate of about 1,376 tests every 8 hours if everything goes swimmingly, which would be about 2,600 every 16 hours, which would be a reasonable work day. We are hoping if all goes to plan to receive that self-contained laboratory early in August, have results starting to come out later in August and have full capacity in September and most definitely ahead of the winter season.[15]

The Panel contends that faster and higher-capacity testing would be of benefit under either a scenario where incoming passengers are asked to quarantine whilst awaiting test results (as they would not have to wait as long for results) or under a scenario where they are free to roam whilst awaiting test results (as the risk contact and exposure is reduced commensurate with the time taken to receive test results).

The Panel was also informed that the Monitoring and Enforcement Team was not in place at the time the borders reopened, meaning that the capacity was not available to properly follow up with incoming passengers and ensure enforcement measures could be properly pursued.[16]

KEY FINDING 7: Faster and higher-capacity testing is due in August. Definite dates are not yet available.

KEY FINDING 8: The border may have been opened too soon, as the risk of an incoming passenger spreading COVID-19 would be reduced through faster and higher-capacity testing and the Monitoring and Enforcement Team was not yet in place.

RECOMMENDATION 5: If the Government is to continue with its position of not requiring isolation whilst awaiting test results under the Guidelines, then every resource should be put into increasing on-Island testing capacity and reducing test turn-around times.

7. Other evidence considered

Direct Correspondence with the Minister for Health and Social Services on the Guidelines

The Panel wrote to the Minister on 3rd July 2020 with the questions (in bold) below and received the following responses on 8th July 2020:

What format/s is the Safer Travel Guidance available in? I.e. is the website the only place this information can be accessed?

The Safer Travel Guidance can be found here:

https://www.gov.je/Health/Coronavirus/Travel/Pages/CoronavirusTravelAdvice.asp x  

Is the guidance available in multiple languages and in other accessible formats?

A simple flow chart describing what is required of travellers is also available on the site; this flowchart is also available in other European languages.

How many testing centres are there on the Island and where are they located?

There are testing centres for travellers based at the airport arrival and the harbour arrival buildings. In additional there is a drive through testing facility which is based at St Peter adjacent to the Airport perimeter.

Should an arriving passenger not be able to be tested at the port of arrival, will transport be arranged to an alternative testing facility?

Arrangements are in place for private aviation and maritime arrivals to undergo their test at the drive through facility. Mainstream arrivals by sea and air are tested at point of arrival.

What are the hours and capacity of the helpline?

The COVID-19 Helpline is open from 08.00 – 20.00 Monday to Friday. On the weekend it is open from 10.00 – 16.00. Currently there are 10 people working on the helpline. Previously the capacity has been flexed according to demand and this will be the approach going forward.

Does the form ask for a home address for visitors to Jersey or only a Jersey address?

The pre-registration form requires each visitor to the Island to give contact details and a local address/s for the duration of their stay. A PDF copy of the form is attached.

How will travellers coming for short stays be treated given that they may not have test results before leaving Jersey?

The safer travel policy applies to all visits to Jersey regardless of duration.

If visitors are staying for less than 24 hours, it is possible that their test results will not be available before you leave the island. Nevertheless, if their test is positive, they will be notified by the Contact Tracing Team in the usual way, asked for information and given guidance.

The result of the test and details may be shared with the authorities in other relevant jurisdictions for contact tracing purposes.

How will travellers arriving by private craft (air or sea) be treated?

The safer travel policy applies to all visits to Jersey regardless of duration and mode of travel to the Island. Separate notices have been developed for private mariners and aircraft which have been distributed through Ports of Jersey. The private leisure vessel guidance has been translated into French and issued as a Notice to Mariners (No. 20 of 2020) and available online:  

https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcdn.ports.je% 2Fweb%2FNtM-20-Leisure-vessels-arriving-in-and-returning-to-the-Bailiwick-of- Jersey-COVID- 19.pdf&data=02%7C01%7C%7C949f648bae5049365d3008d822449f2b%7C2b5 615117ddf495c8164f56ae776c54a%7C0%7C0%7C637297025425957115&sdat a=YhIJnIueN19DDebsek9n5PvNj%2BsGUGKow9TW6tN4wt8%3D&reserved=0

It has also been shared through contacts within the marine leisure industry in Brittany and Normandy as well as the Bureau des Iles Anglo-Normandes.

How many passengers are expected to arrive in Jersey by plane a ferry over the next 6 weeks?

The below table shows the estimated inbound passengers through the airport and the harbour  for  July  and  August.  Please  note  there  are  some  assumptions  in these projections as described below, particularly for the airport.

1. The projections are based on the planned flights from airlines, as advised to Ports of Jersey via their independent airport coordinator', ACL. All commercial operators must advise ACL of their planned operations. However, this is only what they are planning at any given point in time. In a volatile market, such as this, airlines are inclined to maintain provisional plans based on maximum planned capacity. They will, from time to time, make changes to these plans – though in normal times these plans are quite reliable, in the current climate, they should only be regarded as fairly accurate for near-term dates. The airlines themselves do not yet know how these flights, that are on sale, will actually perform over time. They are therefore likely to cut back their plans as they learn more about this. So the projections are far more likely reduce than increase from this point onward.
2. The other important component is the assumed load factor applied to capacity in these forecasts. The 75% load factor used below is pretty optimistic and it is likely load factors will fall somewhere between perhaps 50% and 70%, with the lower number probably applying to the nearer dates.

In terms of the harbour arrivals, the actual passenger numbers observed and pre- booked in the advanced figures until the end of July indicates around 60% of the estimated arriving passenger projections defined in the below table. So, in the same way as the airport arrivals, these projections are more likely to be lower than indicated below.

Is the policy no form, no travel?

All travellers planning to visit the Island must complete the pre-registration travel form. A legal declaration sets out the legislative framework for this and the penalties for not adhering to the legal requirements.

How will you ensure daily contact with all arriving passengers in Jersey, especially if their phone network does not allow access in Jersey?

The Contact Tracing team will lead the process of daily contact with visitors during their stay in Jersey. This contact will for the majority of travellers who sign up testing programme will be through a two-way SMS text messaging. Travellers will be asked on a daily basis to text either Well' or Covid' to indicate if they remain symptom free. Those texting the latter message are followed up by the Health and Community Service Helpline.

Any visitors not responding to the daily SMS for three days will be followed up by the Contact  Tracing  Team  via  the  information  the  visitor  declared  on  their  pre- registration form.

How many sampling phone calls do you expect the team to make?

At present the Contact Tracing Team is not using a sampling approach to any aspect of its process's.

Phone calls to individuals are being progressed on a risk-based approach. This means that all those visitors to Jersey who decline a test preferring instead to self-isolate for 14 days are contacted in person.

Those people who are not engaging with the SMS texting will also receive a in person call for further advise and support.

How and when will updates to the guidance be reviewed and reflected?

Changes to the Safer Travel Policy will be reviewed by STAC and Ministers will receive advise accordingly.  

Published guidance on the risk assessment of countries which require a different regime of testing and quarantine will be published on Gov.Je. The CCDC will lead the daily operational monitoring of controls applied to passengers traveling to Jersey from higher risk countries.

Published guidance of high-risk countries will be monitored routinely by the daily data and  information  cell  and  updated  in  accordance  to  national  and  international information about COVID-19 cases.[17]

The Panel also received a private briefing from the Minister for Health and Social Services and his team on 9th July. At this briefing, the Panel expressed concern over the potential for non-Jersey mobile numbers to fail to work in Jersey and sought clarification on what would happen if visitors failed to reply to an SMS.

The Panel was advised that if no reply to the SMS sent to a visitor was received after three days the individual would be called; if necessary, an individual would be checked on in person at the address entered on the registration form. In the case of a positive result, all efforts to contact the individual immediately would be made, and the Panel was told that there had been no instances in which a positive case had not been contacted.

The Panel was informed that IT systems and procedures were flexible. As such the time to contact individuals who failed to reply to messages could be easily reduced. However, the Panel heard that decreasing contact time could strain physical resources, especially as the number of travellers rose.

It was highlighted that the point of highest risk was a failure of individuals to disclose their travel history, however so far individuals had been truthful and there had been one case of self-isolation based on a registration form.[18]

Following this briefing, the Panel was concerned about the risk of a visitor contracting COVID-19, even after a negative test result, and being at large in the community with no requirement to isolate and not being contacted for a period of 3 days.

KEY FINDING 9: The level of accessibility of the Guidelines is mixed. While information is available in other languages, the pre-departure registration and declaration form is only available online making it difficult for those without access to, or unfamiliar with, computer technology to access.

KEY FINDING 11: The Government has put a flexible set of guidelines in place with systems that can easily adapt to changes in Ministerial direction, such as decreasing the time between follow-up text messages or requiring quarantine for passengers awaiting test results.

RECOMMENDATION 6: The Government should make the pre-departure registration and declaration forms available in a non-computerised format.

RECOMMENDATION 7: The Government should reduce the time between follow-up text messages for those that do not respond from 3 days to 1 day.

Red, Amber, Green Rating System

The Panel expressed concern over the initial ratings issued for countries on the Declaring Your Travel History (list of countries) page.[19] The Panel is especially concerned at the Green rating for the United Kingdom (UK), given the prevalence of COVID-19 there.

At a meeting with the Minister for Health and Social Services, the Panel was told that the relationship with the countries in the Common Travel Area was taken into account in establishing ratings, and that those allocated Green were based on those in the UK standard.[20]

Direct correspondence between a member of the public and a government officer (on behalf of the Chief Minister) between the 8th and 9th July 2020 was forwarded to Scrutiny by the member of the public on 14th July 2020 and is provided below:

Dear Chief Minister, Senators and Deputies

I am sorry to trouble you again, I know you are busy.

Could the Chief Minister request that someone in the right department explains how countries were assigned to each arrival category of Green, Amber and Red arrivals list.

I note that India is Amber with statistics of positive 25,000 cases a day and 500 deaths a day.

Brunei has had no cases for many weeks but is also Amber

Belgium is Green !!!!! Please see country number 30 below. Belgium is 30 on the list based on raw positive numbers, however, if filtered by deaths per million it is the second worst in the world (Number one is San Marino pop 34,000)

The UK is Green, however, it is one of the worst performing countries in the world for corvid, including number of cases, cases per million, total deaths and deaths per million. I've attached a list as of tonight. You can filter each column to see worst death per million, tests per million etc. on the link.

If you are just adding the UK to the Green section and not basing this on science, then please just say. Otherwise, all incoming from the UK should be included in Amber (it should probably be red, but...) This will only mean a 24 hour to 48 hour wait for a test result. That will not kill the economy.

Thank you for your time and if you could let us know the decision making process and science that would be excellent.

Kind regards.

[name retracted] _____________________

Good afternoon [name retracted],

Thankyou for your message. The Chief Minister has asked me to respond on his behalf.

Our current Safer Travel Policy position is informed by a number of factors. One of these is the UK Safer Travel Corridor. In addition we are also monitoring the published case notification reporting by the European Centre for Disease Control. The latter represents a regularly updated estimate of current risk within that country.

As a reassurance, I would also add that this is only one of the indicators to informing assessments of risk to each country. Other considerations will include but are not limited to;

• the number of cases on-island

• the impact of any previous inward travel

• public health measures currently in place on-island

• established trade and travel links

• volumes of arriving travellers

We do anticipate making changes to countries risk stratification as the we respond to variations in the profile of cases in different countries. The Scientific Technical and Advisory Committee will also continue to advise on the subsequent iterations of the policy going forward.

I hope this message is of assistance. Kind regards

[name retracted]

KEY FINDING 12: The Government's rating system relies on UK data, rather than Jersey-specific data. This leads to a favourable rating for the UK which may endanger Islanders.

RECOMMENDATION 8: The Government's rating system should be independent of UK data.

The Panel sees issues with the rating system but has not collected sufficient evidence to make any recommendation beyond that above at this stage. The final report of this review will look at this matter in greater detail.

Summary of public responses

As of 16th July, 39 submissions had been received. The key theme from these responses was that anyone entering Jersey should be required to isolate while they awaited their test results. Only 2 respondents specified that they were happy with the current guidelines.

In P.89/2020 – Open Border Arrangements, Deputy Young notes:

I personally received many angry comments from people who considered those entering our borders should be required to self-isolate until they receive a negative test result. People thought this simply "common sense". This has especially affected many people who only recently have started to gain confidence to re-engage within our  community  and  return  to  normal  life,  shopping,  restaurants  and  even staycations.[21]

KEY FINDING 13: The majority of the 39 responses received by the Panel's call for evidence are of the opinion that incoming passengers should be required to self-isolate whilst awaiting test results, with many also citing fear of a second wave and the mental health implications that this would bring. A minority of respondents are supportive of the Government's Guidelines.

Analysis of border policies in selected island jurisdictions

Information and references gathered 7th July 2020

REFERENCES: Active Covid-19 cases: https://worldometers.info/coronavirus/

KEY FINDING 14: Island nations are approaching entry and quarantine requirements differently the world over and there is no one size fits all policy. However, it is clear that Jersey is in the minority in this sample in allowing incoming passengers into the community without a negative test result.  

10. Conclusion

Based on the evidence collected for this interim report, the Panel believes that reopening the border was done in haste, was based on conflicting information to the Assembly and with economic interests as the main driver.

The Panel is concerned that STAC, unlike SAGE in the United Kingdom, does not consist purely of medical and health experts and there is an intermingling of medical and other policy advisers. The Panel believes there should be a separate medical/health board to give purely medical advice to the Government, and that advice should be solicited and unsolicited. It is accepted that the role of medical and other policy advisers is to advise and that it is the role of the Government, the elected representatives of the people to make decisions for which they can be held accountable.

Overall, the Panel does not agree with the Government's approach to risk management and believes that incoming passengers should be required to quarantine or self-isolate by compulsion of law until they receive their test results, at least until testing can be undertaken on-Island, rapidly and at scale. The Panel is especially concerned about the dangers of day travellers and very short stay visitors to the Island spreading the virus before leaving the island and being detected with it thus making track and trace almost impossible.

It is acknowledged that this is likely to lead to reduced passenger numbers under current testing timelines, but this is not a reason to place the health of the population of Jersey at greater risk. Instead, every effort should be put into providing test results within a timeframe that is acceptable to incoming passengers, rather than allowing these passengers into the community at large and risk an outbreak that could lead to increased restrictions on businesses and the community in Jersey in the future.

Appendix 1 – The Panel

The Safer Travel Guidelines Review Panel is made up of:

Deputy Rob Ward , Chair

Deputy Kevin Pamplin, Member

Deputy Trevor Pointon, Member

Deputy Inna Gardiner , Member

Connétable Sadie Le Sueur -Rennard, Member

Deputy Mike Higgins, Member

Appendix 2 – Safer Travel Guidelines Review: Terms of Reference

To review the Government's Safer Travel Guidance in relation to passengers arriving in Jersey during the COVID-19 pandemic, with a view to assessing their:

• Suitability to Jersey

• Clarity

• Accessibility

• Flexibility

• Responsiveness to changes in the pandemic, and

• Impact on Jersey

Appendix 3 – Evidence Gathered

Public Hearings

The Panel accessed information from public hearings held by the Corporate Service Scrutiny Panel and the Health and Social Services Scrutiny Panel:

• Public Hearing with the Chief Minister, 29th June 2020; and

• Public Hearing with the Minister for Health and Social Services, 9th July 2020.

Transcripts for the public hearings can be accessed via the States Assembly website. Webcasts for the public hearings can be accessed via the States Assembly webcast site. Other Evidence Considered

The Panel received evidence from public submissions, Ministerial and officer briefings and available online resources.

States Greffe | Morier House | Halkett Place |St Helier | Jersey | JE1 1DD T: +44 (0) 1534 441 020 | E: statesgreffe@gov.je | W: Statesassembly.gov.je

[1] /Pages/Votes.aspx?VotingId=5857

[2] /AssemblyPropositions/2020/P.84-2020.pdf

[3] /AssemblyPropositions/2020/P.84-2020.pdf - P.11

[4] /AssemblyPropositions/2020/P.84-2020.pdf - P.16

[5] /assemblypropositions/2020/p.89-2020.pdf

[6] /assemblypropositions/2020/p.89-2020amd.pdf - P.2

[7] /assemblypropositions/2020/p.89-2020amd.pdf - P.3

[8] Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel Hearing Transcript- P.17

[9] /AssemblyPropositions/2020/P.84-2020.pdf - P.26

[10] Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel Hearing Transcript – P.3

[11] /AssemblyPropositions/2020/P.84-2020.pdf - P.27

[12] Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel Hearing Transcript – P.9

[13] https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/9/20-1798_article - accessed 16th July 2020

[14] Health and Social Services Panel Hearing Transcript – P.9

[15] Health and Social Services Panel Hearing Transcript – P.10

[16] Panel minutes

[17] Minister's Response

[18] Panel Minutes

[19] https://www.gov.je/Health/Coronavirus/Travel/Pages/DeclaringTravelHistory.aspx

[20] Panel Minutes

[21] /assemblypropositions/2020/p.89-2020.pdf - P.3

[22] https://www.gov.je/Health/Coronavirus/Travel/Pages/CoronavirusTravelAdvice.aspx

[23] https://www.gov.je/Health/Coronavirus/Pages/CoronavirusCases.aspx

[24] https://covid19.gov.gg/guidance/travel

[25] https://covid19.gov.gg/test-results

[26] https://covid19.gov.gg/sites/default/files/2020-07/7%20day%20pilot%20–%20Guidance.pdf

[27] https://covid19.gov.im/general-information/isle-of-man-repatriation/

[28] https://covid19.gov.im/general-information/travel-advice/borders-framework/

[29] https://www.visitisleofman.com/visitor-information/coronavirus-information

[30] https://covid19.gov.im/general-information/isle-of-man-repatriation/

31 https://www.radionewshub.com/articles/news-updates/Man-faces-jail-or-fine-for-coronavirus-self-isolation-rule-breach-on-Isle-of-Man

[31] https://deputyprimeminister.gov.mt/en/health-promotion/covid-19/Pages/travel.aspx

[32] https://www.visitmalta.com/en/covid-19

[33] https://deputyprimeminister.gov.mt/en/health-promotion/covid-19/Pages/quarantine.aspx 35 https://www.maltairport.com/covid19/

[34] https://www.covid.is/categories/tourists-travelling-to-iceland

[35] https://www.landlaeknir.is/um-embaettid/greinar/grein/item39194/Skilgreind-svaedi-med-smitahaettu---Defined-areas-with-risk-of-infection-(27-02-2020)

[36] https://www.covid.is/faq

[37] https://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/diseases-and-conditions/covid-19-novel-coronavirus/covid-19-current-situation/covid-19-border-controls

[38] https://www.japan.travel/en/coronavirus/

[39] https://www.gov.uk/foreign-travel-advice/japan/entry-requirements

[40] https://www.gov.uk/foreign-travel-advice/taiwan/coronavirus

[41] https://www.smartraveller.gov.au/destinations/asia/taiwan

[42] https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asia/taiwan-to-ease-covid-19-border-controls-to-let-in-some-business-12844328 45 https://www.china-airlines.com/us/en/discover/news/travel-advisory?travelAlert=39622-7030

46 https://www.cdc.gov.tw/En/Bulletin/Detail/TKfwilf9pWlMEbZC3b93xg?typeid=158

[43] https://www.visitsingapore.com/en_au/about-singapore/traveller-information/novel-coronavirus-pneumonia-advisory/

[44] https://www.mfa.gov.sg/Newsroom/Press-Statements-Transcripts-and-Photos/2020/06/20200603-SG-CHINA-Fast-Lane-Essential-Travel 49 https://www.ica.gov.sg/covid-19

50 https://guardian.ng/features/slowing-spread-of-covid-19-with-contact-tracing-apps-2/

51 https://www.gov.sg/article/whats-the-difference-between-a-leave-of-absence-and-a-quarantine-order

[45] https://gisbarbados.gov.bb/blog/protocols-for-air-travel-to-barbados-effective-july-12/

[46] https://www.visitbarbados.org/covid-19-travel-guidelines-2020

[47] https://gisbarbados.gov.bb/blog/barbados-launches-online-ed-form/

55 https://gisbarbados.gov.bb/blog/frequently-asked-questions-online-ed-form/

56 https://stlucianewsonline.com/barbados-penalties-for-breaching-self-quarantine/

[48] https://www.exploregov.ky/faqs/covid-19-travel-tourism