Javid wants to ditch PCR tests for travellers ‘as soon as possible’ – as vaccine passports axed
Sajid Javid has told Sky News he wants to remove the PCR test requirement for travellers returning from some foreign countries “as soon as I possibly can”.
The health secretary said he was aware of the cost for families holidaying abroad and that the measure should not be in place “for a second longer than is absolutely necessary”.
Mr Javid said he had asked officials to remove the rule “at the moment we can”.
Sajid Javid said PCR tests are costly for families looking to holiday abroad
Meanwhile, the health secretary also told Sky News he did not “like the idea” of vaccine passports and hoped to “avoid” introducing them.
“We have got a huge number of defences; of course we still want to remain very cautious, and there are some things that – when it comes to travel for example – there are some rules that are going to have to remain in place,” Mr Javid told Sky News’ Trevor Phillips on Sunday.
“But the PCR test that is required upon your return to the UK from certain countries, look, I want to try and get rid of that as soon as I possibly can.
“I am not going to make that decision right now, but I have already asked officials that at the moment we can, let’s get rid of these kind of intrusions, the costs that generates for families, particularly families just trying to go out and holiday.
“We shouldn’t be keeping anything like that in place for a second longer than is absolutely necessary.”
Last month, the government announced the cost of NHS coronavirus tests for international travel were being reduced from £88 to £68 each
At present, passengers returning from green list countries, or amber list destinations if they are fully vaccinated, must take PCR tests on or before day two after they arrive in England.
Last month, the government announced the cost of NHS coronavirus tests for international travel were being reduced from £88 to £68 each, with the sum for two rests reducing from £170 to £136.
The travel industry, which has been hammered by the pandemic, has long complained that the costs of tests are too high.
In August, Mr Javid announced a “rapid internal review” of prices charged by government-approved companies after claims holidaymakers were being exploited over private testing.
Asked on Sky News whether Labour would support scrapping the need for PCR tests to be taken by those travelling internationally, shadow health secretary Jonathan Ashworth said his party “will have to see what the proposal is when it comes before Parliament”.
Mr Ashworth added that, “at first sight”, reports of the government plans “looks like a reasonable approach”.
International travellers returning to Wales will be offered a wider choice of COVID test providers from 21 September
The debate comes as the Welsh government announced that international travellers returning to Wales will be offered a wider choice of COVID test providers from 21 September.
The Welsh government said in a statement it would make the change from September 21 as “new standards and spot checks are being introduced, which will help to address long-standing concerns and issues about the market for PCR tests” for those returning to the UK.
Meanwhile, on the use of vaccine passports, Mr Javid said the government would not introduce the measure unless there is “no alternative”.
“I think if we went down the road of vaccine passports or vaccine certification as it is sometimes called, that is a big decision for any government to make,” the health secretary told Sky’s Trevor Phillips on Sunday.
The travel industry has long complained that the costs of tests are too high
“We have been looking at that, we have been open about that, instinctively I do not like the idea at all of people having to, let’s say, present papers to do basic things.
“So if we do that, it has to be something that is looked at very carefully and something that we believe has to be done with no alternative.”
The health secretary said “rising” vaccination rates should be taken into account when making “a final decision” on whether vaccine passports should be used, adding: “But I hope we can avoid it.”
He continued: “I am not here today to rule that out, we haven’t made a final decision as a government.
“We have been looking at it, we have been very open about that, but as I have said, I think that if we did something like that it has to be supported by the evidence and it has to be something that is absolutely, absolutely necessary with no alternative.
“So as I say, I hope we can avoid it.”
Sajid Javid told Sky News he does not like the idea of vaccine passports and that they would only be brought in if there is ‘no alternative’
Earlier this week, Culture Secretary Oliver Dowden said an extension to use of vaccine passports will be looked at if there is a “public health need”.
Mr Dowden told Sky News the government “want as few restrictions for as short a period as possible”, but that if the situation with coronavirus worsens, ministers will consider requiring vaccine certification to attend more venues to “protect” the public.
The culture secretary did, however, emphasise that the government is “always reluctant to impose further burdens on businesses unless we really have to”.
It came a day after Scotland’s First Minister Nicola Sturgeon announced that vaccine passports will be introduced in Scotland for entry into venues with large crowds from 1 October.
COVID-19 certification will be required to enter events such as nightclubs, music festivals and some football grounds, Ms Sturgeon said.
MSPs in Holyrood voted by 68 to 55 in favour of the measure which will be introduced from 1 October after all Scottish adults have had the opportunity to receive both COVID-19 vaccines, with two weeks having passed to allow the vaccine to take effect.
Speaking on Sky’s Trevor Phillips on Sunday, Ms Sturgeon said the measure “is part of a package of measures, it has a part to play”.
“Anybody who thinks there is one single magic wand solution to this virus probably haven’t learned a lot over the last 18 months, and secondly, any measure we take has upsides and it has downsides.”
She added: “This is a very limited scheme, it is in fact similar to what is being proposed in England as well, and it has a part to play.”
Downing Street has indicated Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would be arrested if he arrived on British soil following an international arrest warrant being issued for him.
On Thursday, the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and former Israeli defence secretary Yoav Gallant for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity related to the war in Gaza.
The UK government was reluctant to commit to saying Netanyahu would be arrested if he came to the UK but Sir Keir Starmer’s spokesman said the government would “fulfil its legal obligations” in relation to the arrest warrant.
“The UK will always comply with its legal obligations as set out by domestic law, and indeed international law,” he said.
He added the domestic process linked to ICC arrest warrants has never been used to date by the UK because the country has never been visited by anyone wanted by the international court.
Earlier on Friday, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper said it “wouldn’t be appropriate for me to comment” on the processes involved as the ICC is independent, although the UK is a member.
She told Sky News: “We’ve always respected the importance of international law, but in the majority of the cases that they pursue, they don’t become part of the British legal process.
“What I can say is that obviously, the UK government’s position remains that we believe the focus should be on getting a ceasefire in Gaza.”
However, Emily Thornberry, Labour chair of the foreign affairs committee in parliament, told Sky News: “If Netanyahu comes to Britain, our obligation under the Rome Convention would be to arrest him under the warrant from the ICC.
“Not really a question of should, we are required to because we are members of the ICC.”
After winning July’s election the government said it would not oppose the ICC’s right to issue the warrants.
Netanyahu and Gallant (right) have arrest warrants against them. File pic: Reuters
Ireland, France and Italy have signalled they would arrest Netanyahu if he came to their countries.
Asked if police would arrest the Israeli leader in Ireland, Irish Taoiseach Simon Harris said: “Yes, absolutely. We support international courts and we apply their warrants.”
Germany said it would make a decision if Netanyahu came to Germany but said it is one of the “biggest supporters of the ICC”, partly as a result of history.
A German government spokesman said: “At the same time, it is a consequence of German history that we share unique relations and a great responsibility with Israel.”
An ICC arrest warrant was also issued for Hamas leader Mohammed Diab Ibrahim al Masri, the mastermind behind the 7 October attacks in Israel, for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Israel claims Al Masri was killed earlier this year but the ICC said that has not been confirmed, so it was issuing the arrest warrant.
Netanyahu’s office said the warrants against him and Gallant were “antisemitic” and said Israel “rejects with disgust the absurd and false actions”.
Neither Israel nor the US are members of the ICC. Israel has rejected the court’s jurisdiction and denies committing war crimes in Gaza.
Read more:
What satellite images tell us about North Gaza
Hamas ready for Gaza ceasefire ‘immediately’
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Why have arrest warrants been issued?
US President Joe Biden described the warrants against Israeli leaders as “outrageous”, adding: “Whatever the ICC might imply, there is no equivalence – none – between Israel and Hamas.”
Former Israeli prime minister Naftali Bennett said the warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant were a “mark of shame” for the ICC.
The Board of Deputies of British Jews said the ICC’s decision sent a “terrible message”.
Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban said on Friday he would invite Netanyahu to visit Hungary and he would guarantee the arrest warrant would “not be observed”.
The ICC originally said it was seeking arrest warrants for the three men in May for the alleged crimes and on Thursday announced that it had rejected challenges by Israel and issued warrants of arrest.
In its update, the ICC said it found “reasonable grounds to believe” that Netanyahu and Gallant “bear criminal responsibility” for alleged crimes.
These, the court said, include “the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare; and the crimes against humanity of murder, persecution, and other inhumane acts”.
It is the first time a sitting leader of a major Western ally has been accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity by a global court of justice.
Hundreds of people affected by the Manchester Arena bombing cannot continue legal action against MI5, judges have ruled.
More than 300 people, including survivors and those bereaved by the 2017 attack at an Ariana Grande concert, brought a case to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT), claiming failures to take “appropriate measures” to prevent the incident infringed their human rights.
In a ruling on Friday, Lord Justice Singh and Mrs Justice Farbey said the cases could not proceed as they were brought too late.
Lord Justice Singh said: “We are particularly conscious of the importance of the rights concerned… We are also conscious of the horrendous impact of the atrocity on the claimants and their families.
“Any reasonable person would have sympathy for them.
“The grief and trauma which they have suffered, particularly where young children were killed, is almost unimaginable.
“Nevertheless, we have reached the conclusion that, in all the circumstances, it would not be equitable to permit the claims to proceed.”
File pic: AP
Lord Justice Singh acknowledged that while the tribunal “readily understand” why the legal claims were not filed until after the final report from the inquiry into the attack, “real expedition” was needed at that point.
The judge added: “We bear in mind the other matters that had to be investigated and arrangements which had to be put in place but, in our view, the filing of the proceedings was not given the priority which, assessed objectively, it should have been.”
Had the claims gone ahead, the judge noted the security services would have needed to “divert time and resources to defending these proceedings rather than their core responsibilities” – which includes preventing future attacks.
Salman Abedi killed 22 people and injured hundreds when he detonated a rucksack bomb at the end of an Ariana Grande show at Manchester Arena on 22 May 2017.
Manchester Arena bomber Salman Abedi
Hudgell Solicitors, Slater & Gordon and Broudie Jackson Canter, three of the law firms representing complainants affected, said the ruling was “extremely disappointing” for their clients.
In a statement, the firms said: “Ever since the attack in May 2017, our clients have had to endure continued delays but have done so with great patience and understanding in the hope that by allowing all legal processes to be fully explored, transparency and justice would be achieved.
“It took almost six years for the failings of MI5 to be revealed, confirmed when the inquiry chair published his volume three findings in March 2023, in which he said MI5 had missed a ‘significant opportunity’ to prevent the attack.
“This report concluded that within this six-year period, the security service corporate witnesses X and J gave evidence on oath that had presented an inaccurate picture, and the same inaccurate picture had been presented to Lord Anderson when he compiled his report in December 2017.”
Read more from Sky News:
‘Blood on their hands’: Could MI5 have prevented the Manchester attack?
Manchester attack survivors awarded £45k after suing man who claims it was a hoax
Police officers who went for kebab on night of terror attack given final warnings
The law firms said following these findings, their clients believed the IPT would “provide the route to the formal vindication of their human rights”.
The firms added: “We are disappointed that time is one of the reasons now being used against them to prevent their claims progressing. Seven years have now passed since the atrocity in May 2017 – six years of that seven-year delay was caused by MI5.
“This judgment certainly doesn’t exonerate MI5. There were failings by MI5 and multiple other parties leading up to and on the actual evening of 22 May 2017 and collectively we continue to support our clients in their fight for full accountability and justice.”
Police with members of the public after the attack. Pic: PA
The inquiry into the bombing found it might have been prevented if MI5 had acted on key intelligence received in the months before the attack.
The agency’s director-general, Ken McCallum, expressed deep regret that such intelligence was not obtained.
Two pieces of information about Abedi were assessed at the time by the security service to not relate to terrorism.
But inquiry chairman Sir John Saunders said, having heard from MI5 witnesses at the hearings, he considered that did not present an “accurate picture”.
Lawyers for those affected previously said the inquiry found there was a “real possibility” that one of the pieces of intelligence could have obtained information which may have led to actions preventing the attack.
And at the hearing earlier this month, Pete Weatherby KC, for those affected, described the IPT claims as “the next step” in vindication for his clients after the inquiry’s findings.
-
Sports2 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports8 months agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports1 year agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports3 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike
-
Business2 years agoBank of England’s extraordinary response to government policy is almost unthinkable | Ed Conway