Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): Members, the next batch of SRs relate to restrictions. I refer members to tabs 18 to 23 of the pack and the Clerk's memo at tab 18.1. I advise members that departmental officials are here to brief the Committee on these SRs and are joining us by videoconference today so that we can maintain social distancing in the room.

I welcome Mr Nigel McMahon, Chief Environmental Health Officer, and Miss Liz Redmond, director of population health. Nigel and Liz, please go head and brief the meeting.

Mr Nigel McMahon (Department of Health): Hello Chair and members, I will lead with a brief introduction, if that is ok? We are hearing some noisy feedback at our end.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): There is no feedback on this end. We are hearing you clearly, Nigel.

Mr McMahon: Thank you. The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (No. 2) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2020 were made and brought into operation on 28 March. The need for the restrictions and the requirements imposed by the regulations are required to be reviewed at least every 21 days. The Committee will be aware that it is a requirement of the principal regulations that, as soon as the Department of Health considers that any restrictions or requirements set out in the regulations are no longer required to prevent, protect against, control or provide a public health response to the incidence of the spread of coronavirus in Northern Ireland, they should be withdrawn.

Just to remind the Committee of the process, proposals for change to the regulations are brought forward by Departments and are considered as part of an agreed Executive decision-making framework. That included guiding principles, a risk-and-benefit assessment model and a structured process for assessing and implementing, modifying or withdrawing specific restrictions and requirements. The decisions to introduce, withdraw or amend existing restrictions or requirements have been implemented through amendments to the regulations, public messaging and guidance.

Today, the Committee is considering the Coronavirus, Restrictions (No. 2) Regulations, as amended, and the Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings Regulations, as amended. If the Chair is content, I propose to summarise each of the statutory rules before the Committee today, after which I will be happy to take any questions that the Committee may have.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): Yes, we are content with that, Nigel. Go ahead, please.

Mr McMahon: I will begin with SR 2020/150, the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (No. 2) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2020. The No. 2 regulations were made on 23 July and were commenced at 11.00 pm on 23 July. The No. 2 regulations revoke and replace the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2020, including all the previous amendments that were made to them. The restructured regulations require the closure of certain businesses, services and premises, which are listed in the schedule, except for limited permitted uses.

The regulations impose restrictions on gatherings, both indoor and outdoor, of more than 30 people, which are not permitted to take place, except for gatherings organised or operated for a cultural, entertainment, recreational, outdoor sports, social, community, educational, work, legal, religious or political purposes, where the organiser or operator of the gathering undertakes a risk assessment and complies with relevant guidance to limit virus transmission.

The regulations also impose restrictions on gatherings in private dwellings, which, outdoors, were to be of no more than 30 people, and, indoors, were to be of no more than 10 people from no more than four different households. Any restriction on people staying overnight in a dwelling other than their own was discontinued. The regulations were required to be reviewed every 28 days, with the first review taking place by 21 August. The regulations are due to expire after six months, which would take us to January 2021.

SR 2020/151, the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2020 were made on 23 July and were commenced at 11.00 pm on 23 July. They require members of the public, subject to limited exceptions, to wear a face covering on public transport. The regulations are required to be reviewed within six months, which is by January 2021, and are due to expire after 12 months, which brings us to July 2021.

SR 2020/164, the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2020 were made on 31 July and were commenced on 10 August by way of a commencement order made on 7 August. The face coverings amendment regulations require members of the public, subject to limited exceptions, to wear a face covering whilst in an inside relevant place, including in a shop or shopping centre.

SR 2020/170, the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (No. 2) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2020 were made on 7 August. The changes that they introduce have different commencement dates. The two main changes that were introduced are to allow a theatre or concert hall to be used solely for a rehearsal or live recording, in both cases without an audience, from 8 August and to permit sports in indoor arenas not capable of seating 5,000 or more spectators from 10 August.

SR 2020/187, the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (No. 2) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2020 were made at 5.45 pm on 25 August and came into operation immediately on being made. In summary, the main changes introduced are to reduce the maximum number who can participate in an indoor or outdoor gathering, not in a private dwelling, from 30 people to 15 people, with some exceptions; to reduce the maximum number who can participate in an outdoor gathering at a private dwelling from 30 people to 15 people; to reduce the maximum number who can participate in an indoor gathering in a private dwelling from 10 people from four households to six people from two households; and to permit up to 10 people to attend a wedding or civil partnership ceremony indoors in a private dwelling where one of the participants is terminally ill. The restrictions on gatherings and those in relation to private dwellings are not to apply to a funeral or wake, but those involved must comply with the guidance issued by the Department of Health.

Thank you for listening, members, and agreeing to take these statutory rules at your meeting today. Liz and I are happy to try to answer any questions that members may have.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): OK, thank you, Nigel. I will start out with one question that I asked Elaine earlier but that is more relevant to you with regard to SR 2020/150, which is the more general one. There is a wide list — you read out the list to us of cultural, entertainment, recreational, outdoor sports etc, and that was a very wide list — so what types of activities fall outside of that list, given its extent?

Mr McMahon: As we have said, the No. 2 regulations revoke and replace the existing regulations. In bringing forward the No. 2 regulations, which are structured in a different way, we needed to be very careful to make sure that all the relaxations and previous decisions of the Executive were properly reflected in the new, restructured regulations. The list is an attempt to organise and simplify the types and categories of events and gatherings that could — and indeed, arguably should — be allowed to continue and that were permitted as a result of previous Executive decisions. Therefore, it is a series of categories.

You will recall that, in the original regulations, we had a growing and long list of types of events and gatherings that were allowed to go ahead, so it is an attempt to capture all those that were permitted by way of previous decisions. Probably what is more key with regard to the types of events that should now not go ahead is the second part of that section, which requires that, if the gathering is to be more than 15 people, there should be a responsible person or an organiser, and that person should be responsible for carrying out a risk assessment and, if the risk assessment identifies that suitable measures are required, putting those measures in place. Therefore, with regard to things that should not go ahead, it is really those that would involve more than 15 people, where those requirements have not been met.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): OK. The second one from me is about the general frustration that is out there around keeping up with all the different things. I recognise that that is a difficult area, with all the various changes that are being brought in one after another that, while necessary, can be confusing. To give a couple of examples, people would say to me, "How come I can go for a restaurant for a meal at particular times? How come I can go to a restaurant for a meal, but not to my parents' house?", when that was the case. I understand that the rationale to that is that you touch many more surfaces when you are in that type of home setting than you would in a restaurant. However, do you recognise that there is a need to communicate better with the public on the rationale around these various decisions, so that the public can understand why they are being taken?

Another issue that has arisen quite widely is around soft play and how some soft play areas can be deemed not able to be opened, but there are other activities such as trampolining, which are very similar and are allowed to open. Is there an issue with clearly communicating what the restrictions are, and also very clearly and openly communicating the rationale for the restrictions?

Mr McMahon: You will know that there is a requirement to keep restrictions under constant review, and the Executive do that almost on a daily basis. You will also be aware that that is very much informed by the scientific advice from the Chief Scientific Adviser (CSA) and Chief Medical Officer (CMO). So, while I accept that there have been a lot of changes — there may yet be a lot more — that is obviously an attempt to respond to the situation we find ourselves in at any moment in time.

Following any changes, there are press releases and announcements that are made to communicate what those are. When Departments bring forward proposed changes in their particular sector that might require engagement with that sector or guidance, typically that happens in parallel so that guidance is made available. The communications element is challenging because of the pace and range of change. However, there have been some moves to try and improve that. For example, the Executive Office has done a piece of work in trying to pull all the guidance from all the various Departments, including our own, together onto one page on the nidirect website so that all the guidance is available in one place.

In respect of your question on soft play areas, soft play facilities are, obviously, one of a relatively small number now of premises that are required to stay closed, and the Executive Ministers are very conscious of the need not to have any restrictions in place any longer than is necessary. They are all subject to review, and there are ongoing discussions with the various sectors, including soft play. We have discussed before, I think, that making specific changes does create, or potentially appears to create, some anomalies across the piece, but, in restructuring the regulations in the way that we have, hopefully changes will be more easily made in the future.

On the specific comment about the apparent anomaly that you can meet family members in a restaurant, for example, but not necessarily at home, depending on numbers, those sorts of changes try to acknowledge that, in certain types of business premises that are still allowed to open, they can only open and conduct their business if they follow the departmental guidance and if they have measures in place to ensure social distancing and to ensure that people can visit those premises and avail themselves of the services safely. The same is not necessarily true in the home setting, and I understand that the scientific advice suggests that the epidemiology around the increased number of cases is certainly in part being driven to a large extent by gatherings in personal homes rather than by people being outside of the home. I think that the different treatment of those two settings in the regulations reflects that position.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): The piece that I am trying to get to is that communicating that out is a key part of building the understanding and getting public support so that the public understand that that is not arbitrary and is based on a rationale. I think that it is important that that rationale is communicated.

Finally from me, before we go to other members, I notice that, in article 8, there is a reference to being liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, and there is also the fixed-penalty notice. In what circumstances are each of those used? What is the difference in those two approaches?

Mr McMahon: That is largely an enforcement matter for the PSNI. It essentially gives the police a number of options, depending on the nature of the offence and the context in the situation. In most cases, you would imagine that issuing a fixed-penalty notice on the spot to an individual, for example, might be the appropriate way forward. I should also say, of course, that the police approach is to encourage and advise in the first instance rather than to revert to penalties, but, should they feel the need to do that, a fixed penalty is an option. The fine is available on summary conviction, so that would be if the offence appeared to be serious enough at the time that the police felt that they wished to go straight away to prosecution. Indeed, if a fixed-penalty notice were not to be paid within the timescale, they could revert to prosecution through the Magistrates' Court for that, and the fine would come into play at that stage.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): Have court proceedings been issued?

Mr McMahon: I am not aware that they have, Chair. If you want an answer on that, we will have to go back and check with the PSNI. I am not aware that there have been any court proceedings thus far.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): Do you know how many on-the-spot-fines have been issued at this point?

Mr McMahon: We can certainly get that for the Committee. The PSNI does update on that from time to time, but I do not have the most recent number available to me at the moment.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): Thank you, Nigel. I will go to our Deputy Chair, Pam Cameron, first, then to Colin McGrath on the phone and then to members in the room.

Mrs Cameron: Thank you, Nigel, for your attendance today. Why is it deemed appropriate to allow exemptions for funerals and wakes above the 15-person limit when, a few months ago, all gatherings were treated on the same basis? What I am getting at is whether this is about bowing to political pressure on the back of the Storey funeral, or does the departmental guidance still place a reasonable limit on the number of people attending, or does the departmental guidance actually prescribe a limit on these events at all?

Mr McMahon: Thank you. We are all very well aware of the sensitivities with funerals. There is a need for dignity and respect when dealing with the deceased, the family and all the different aspects of it. There is no doubt that it has been a very challenging issue. We have, in effect, lifted funerals out of the regulations because of the most recent changes that have occurred as a result of the increasing cases. We mentioned the amendment to the No. 2 regulations that has reduced the numbers that are allowed to gather to six people from two households indoors, and from 30 to 15 outdoors. In parallel to that, the Department had engaged with the various stakeholders, primarily funeral directors, councils and others, to revise the funeral guidance. A lot of hard work had gone on to agree a position with all the stakeholders about the guidance, which includes numbers for the various aspects of funerals that are, at this point in time, deemed to be acceptable to be permitted.

There was a danger that, as the Executive attempted to respond to the rise in the number of cases and changed the numbers that applied to gatherings in other settings, either in family homes or outdoors, there might be an unintended consequence in that they then might conflict with the agreement that had been reached amongst the stakeholders about how funerals might best be conducted. The policy decision was about separating out what had been agreed over quite a long and intensive period of discussions with the stakeholders around funerals from what is happening and other changes that might come in the coming days and weeks for other types of gatherings. We have, in effect, said that the other restrictions do not apply to funerals. However, those involved must comply with the departmental guidance, in effect making that statutory guidance. However, yes, whilst I am not familiar with the full detail of the guidance, I am aware that it does include numbers that are now different from those in the No. 2 regulations.

Mrs Cameron: OK. On the back of that question, Nigel, we are coming up to Halloween and Christmas. There is going to be a huge desire for families to get together in some way at those times. Do you think that discretion may be given, on the back of risk assessments, for gatherings of those sorts to take place?

Mr McMahon: All I can really say to that is that it is something that we are cognisant of and that falls to the Executive to consider. The upcoming holidays and events will be very much in the forefront of the mind when Executive members are asked to consider any future changes in the numbers at gatherings.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): I am going to Colin McGrath on the phone. Are you there, Colin?

Mr McGrath: Thank you, Chair. Thank you for the update, Nigel. I have a question about the wearing of masks and what we define as an indoor space. It is always listed as including shops and shopping centres. Is there a definition of what inside space is? People are asking whether they have to wear a mask to visit people in their homes or if they are in churches, where I think it is accepted. Is "inside" defined as everywhere that is indoors, unless it is in a home?

Ms Liz Redmond (Department of Health): I will take that one. We need to distinguish between what is in the regulations and what is strong advice. The regulations mandate the use of face coverings only in very specific situations. They are mandatory on public transport. That came into effect on 10 July. On 10 August, we added to that the wearing of face coverings in shops, shopping centres and things that you would think of as retail of goods or services. Exemptions to that are listed in the schedule.

The issue around any other indoor space is discretionary but covered by strong advice and guidance. It says that, if you are in any indoor space and cannot maintain social distancing from people who are not from your household, you are strongly advised to wear a face covering. I hope that that makes the distinction clear.

Mr McGrath: Yes. I advocate that everyone should be wearing them at all opportunities. I just wanted the regulation clarified. That is great. Thank you very much indeed.

Ms Bradshaw: I am looking at the regulation on indoor gatherings of up to six, and I think specifically of the students returning to the Holylands. Apologies if I sound like a broken record on this area. A lot of the HMOs in that area have up to eight or nine bedrooms in each unit. Young people are arriving — many have already settled in — from eight or nine different households across the country and moving into one household. I wonder whether there will be any specific regulations in relation to that. If not, will specific departmental guidance be produced? There is still a lot of confusion about that out there, particularly among local residents, as well as the universities in how they should manage the situation. I pay tribute to the police who, this week, are going in to enforce the regulations on house parties. That is most welcome.

Mr McMahon: The police are part of a working group set up by the Executive Office to look at the university issue. That group of interested parties is involved in discussions on that. At present, there are no proposals to do anything in particular to the regulations or make any changes specifically in relation to university accommodation. As things stand with the numbers of households, the regulations refer to the address at which you are resident. Student accommodation is not really treated any differently. If you had, for example, a house that was rented by six students, once they take up residence for the period that they are studying or on their course, that, effectively, becomes their household. Collectively, they become a household. In a house that has been converted into three or four flats, each flat will have a different address, and therefore each flat is treated as a household. As to gatherings and allowing people into the house, student accommodation should not be treated any differently from any other residential-type accommodation or any main residence.

Ms Bradshaw: I will come back on that: with all due respect, they should be treated differently. We know that, at weekends, students go home, play sport, mingle in their communities and come back again. That is my point. There are particular circumstances in this area, Stranmillis and other areas. There is a potential for wider community transmission across the country. I would like you to reflect on that.

My second point is about the working group that is looking at the student accommodation and working the universities. I encourage you to engage with some of the residents and groups in those areas. They will be able to provide you with a lot of very specific feedback on what is happening. I would appreciate your keeping me updated on the work of that working group.

Mr Easton: We were talking about the wearing of face masks by the public when going into shops. Does that include staff?

My second question is about the exemptions to the face mask rule. What exactly are the exemptions? Obviously, they extend to people with chest conditions and so on. May we have a list of the exceptions or be told exactly what they all are? The PSNI seems to be the enforcer. When going into a shop, like the garage that I was in today, at least half the people there were not wearing face masks. When are we likely to see that being robustly enforced? It is really not fair on those who are making the effort.

Ms Redmond: Staff in shops are not required by law to wear a face covering. Employers might do their own health and safety assessment and decide that staff should do so, but it is not required in law.

You asked about the list of exemptions. That is deliberately not specific because there are a large number of reasons why somebody may not be able to wear a face covering. We did not think it appropriate to draw up that list because we could never make it exhaustive. Regulation 5 sets out the general categories where an exemption could apply. It is very much a self-declaration. We are not requiring people to have medical certificates or any other evidence about why they are unable to wear a face covering.

Your last point was about enforcement. You are correct: it is the PSNI that can enforce the wearing of face coverings in shops. At this time, my understanding is that no fixed-penalty notices have been issued. The approach being taken is very much one of encouragement. I do not think that there is an appetite for getting out there, going into shops and slapping fixed-penalty notices on people. Clearly, it is a concern if there are certain parts of the retail sector where compliance is low. That will be monitored carefully, and further action will be taken if it does not improve. I understand that it is not across the sector, and the situation that you described at a garage is one of the areas that has been highlighted as having a lower level of compliance. We are aware of that.

Mr Easton: Am I reading you right that there is no list because it is felt that it could be quite substantial? Does that not give somebody a get-out clause that they do not have to wear a face mask because they suffer from diabetes or something like that but maybe should still have to wear one? Is that not giving people the excuse that, because of some condition they may have, they should not have to wear a mask? Is that not leaving it like a free-for-all and a get-out of having to wear one?

Ms Redmond: I see the point that you are making. However, if we adopted a very prescriptive approach, we would end up with a greater difficulty. We have to give people a little benefit of the doubt that they are making a judgement about their circumstances. In certain retail settings, compliance is very high. The advice that we have received is that, ideally, we need 80% of people in those settings to wear face coverings in order to limit the transmission significantly. That is what we are aiming for. It is a difficult area. I accept the point that you are making, but we feel that being prescriptive would be more difficult than not being prescriptive.

Mr Easton: I feel that anyone can make an excuse and not have to wear a face mask. That is, basically, what you are saying. Anyone can make an excuse. If I did not wear a face mask and was pulled for that, I could make the excuse that I am short-sighted. That is not on the list because there is no list, but it could be a genuine reason. There is nothing that anyone could do to enforce it. You need to rethink what you are saying, because, from what I am hearing, if somebody thinks that they have an excuse, they can get away with not wearing a face mask. That is what I am reading from what you are saying. I think that you need to look at it again.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): Thank you, Alex.

Mr Carroll: Thanks, Nigel. I have a couple of questions, and I will be as quick as I can. I think that SR 2020/150 is about risk assessments. Can you give a bit more detail about how that process works? Is it done in tandem with the Public Health Agency or the Department? Some of the stuff seems sensible, such as reducing the number of people gathering from 30 to 15, but, to me, the glaring issue is schools, where, in a lot of cases, up to 30 people can be crammed into a class. We have some of the biggest classes in Europe, and at least 67 schools here have had cases. There has been a sensible move to reduce the number of people at indoor gatherings, but there is a big, gaping hole in how we deal with schools. I would like a comment on that, please.

What assurances can we get on the opening of events, given the Minister's comments, I believe, yesterday on the need to maintain essential contact only? Restrictions are being lifted on cinemas, bingo halls and other extracurricular activity that people, in normal times, should be able to engage in. How is that weighed against what is inessential contact? What is the assessment of that? I am concerned that we are being asked to support these restrictions being lifted at a time when the Department, the Minister or, possibly, the Executive may be moving to a perspective on limiting people to essential contact.

Finally, masks are essential, and I support the regulation, but it would be remiss of me not to mention — others referred to this last week — the big increase in, to be frank, anti-mask nonsense and conspiracies, and that needs to be tackled. It did not help that there was a slowness in issuing guidance on masks. There was backtracking, and there was confusion from, if not the Department, elements of the Executive. There needs to be, from the Department's perspective, a public health message campaign to tackle and dispel the myths in an accessible way so that we can protect people and save lives. It is worrying to see that increase in the anti-mask point. I will leave it there.

Mr McMahon: Gerry, I will kick off with the first couple of points, and Liz can come back on the masks question at the end.

The change from 30 to 15 has, effectively, reduced the threshold for the requirement for a risk assessment. Obviously, more types of event will now require a risk assessment as a result of that change. The regulations refer to risk assessments in line with the management of health and safety at work regulations. That is primarily because, ordinarily, risk assessments are associated more with risks in the workplace, where there is established guidance and process. It does not require you to comply with those regulations as such. Basically, it is pointing you in their direction, along with the associated guidance, to assist you in doing that. Our departmental guidance on the regulations attempts to give some guidance on the main elements of what is involved in a risk assessment. In basic terms, it is fairly logical. It is about looking at the nature of the event or gathering, which could be anything from a church service to a much larger outdoor gathering, trying to identify where the risks of virus transmission might occur and then putting in place reasonable measures to address those. We all know that there is a whole range of measures from handwashing to one-way systems and signage. A whole range of things can be done.

The Health and Safety Executive Northern Ireland website also publishes a template for risk assessments for COVID-19 that could be used by any business or the organiser of any event, so, hopefully, there is support and guidance out there, but the lengths that you have to go to and the detail required will depend on the nature of the event.

Let us take, for example, your Committee room. Presumably somebody has had a look at it and has determined that the main risk is social distancing in the room, and you will have been given advice about how the room is set up and that sort of thing. Although you are meeting regularly, that risk assessment had, presumably, to be done only once, at the beginning, and any future meetings that you have in your room, and indeed in our premises, would not require that to be revisited, unless there was some material change in the way that you were conducting your meetings.

We are not attempting to place a large burden on people having to do these things, unless, of course, it is larger, more complex event. The value is that it causes people at least to think about these things and it requires them to think about what the risks are and to ask whether they can safely carry on with an event and whether there are arrangements that can be put in place to mitigate the risks.

The regulations do not currently require that risk assessment be signed off in any way by any other organisation, and that is simply down to the fact that I do not think that any of the organisations that would have expertise here, whether the councils or the Health and Safety Executive, could be expected to assess and sign off risk assessments for every individual event. I accept that there are some limitations to that, but it is probably a step in the right direction in making people think about doing the right thing and putting measures in place.

In relation to events going ahead and the potential conflict in messaging with essential gatherings and essential events, in some ways that links back to the point on risk assessments. Larger events and those things that are now permitted can happen only where a risk assessment has been carried out and where there is a recognised organiser and where measures have been put in place. Earlier, we made a comparison between that and the home or a private setting, where such requirements do not apply. The logic behind keeping society open and keeping controlled social contact happening in the context of risk assessment and measures still fits with the message of not doing things that are unnecessary or which are outside the requirements of the regulations.

I do not really feel that I can say very much on the schools issue. Obviously, schools policy is for the Department of Education, and you will be aware that there has been development of guidance for schools on that, which has involved advice from the Chief Scientific Adviser and the Chief Medical Officer from this Department. Therefore, I am not really in a position to comment on the details of measures that have been put in place in schools, other than to say that it has been done in conjunction with, and in discussion with, this Department.

I am happy to take any follow-up on that, or do you want Liz to finish up on the masks issues first?

Mr Carroll: I appreciate the answer, but I do not think that it grapples with the discrepancy in the regulations, to be frank, but I would be happy to take an answer on wearing masks from Liz.

Ms Redmond: I greatly appreciate the point being made, and it is a constant struggle to get our message across, loud and clear. It also links with the Chair's earlier comments about needing to be clear about the rationale. There is an ongoing campaign on face coverings, and we note your points to counter some of the anti-masks movement, and we will take those away.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): Thank you. I want to make a quick point that is related to the one that Gerry made about schools. There are growing concerns about school transport. I know that transport is more a question for Education and Infrastructure, potentially, but do you continue to keep an eye on that and engage with them if concerns are continuing in that area?

Ms Redmond: Well, again, it is probably not our lead, but we would always make ourselves available to engage in conversations about topics such as that. We take it very seriously. Neither Nigel nor I are directly involved in conversations on that subject, but I am aware that they are ongoing.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): All three Departments are relevant because that issue needs to be addressed fairly quickly. I am hearing a lot of issues arising from school transport.

Mr Chambers: I have been thinking about enforcement. It is really unfair to expect the PSNI to enforce the face mask rules. The police have their hands full with ordinary law and order. If you are going to walk into a shop and there is somebody not wearing a mask, you are going to have to have a conversation with them as to why they are not wearing a mask. They might be exempt and they are going to have to explain it, and the police officer has to listen to that. I am not sure that it is practical to expect the police to do that. I know that some of the enforcement issues with other regulations have been filtered down to, say, local government, which might have more manpower to have those conversations in shops and shopping centres.

My family is in retail, and my experience at the moment is that there is probably about 90% compliance with the requirement to use a face mask. Alex talked about exemptions and about people being clever. I think that one of the exemptions applies where wearing a mask makes a person anxious. How do you argue with somebody about that if they say that wearing a mask makes them anxious?

If suddenly, for whatever reason, somebody announced that MLAs did not have to wear seatbelts, I doubt whether anybody in this room would start not wearing their seatbelt because we know that it makes sense and that it saves our lives. It is the same with exemptions. My experience in my family business is that the people whom I know would fall into one of the exempt categories — people who are recovering from serious illnesses or who have had breathing difficulties, and I have witnessed that over the years — are the people who are wearing masks. They are forgoing their exemption because they know that they are the most vulnerable. They do not want to catch the virus, so, in fact, they are complying.

I find that the people who are not complying — this is just going to take a change of habit — are, for example, workmen who come off a work site to go into a shop to get a quick bite to eat at lunchtime but who forget to bring a mask. As Alex said, there are people who go into a petrol station to pay for their petrol and, on more than one occasion, I have had to run from the door back to my car to retrieve my mask because you just forget it. We are all on a learning curve, but it will become second nature.

The same thing applies to all the regulations that have come through the system over the last number of months: you have the letter of the law and the spirit of the law, and we are depending on the public to respect the spirit of the law. Most people get that, and everybody who wears a mask has to be made to realise that they are making a contribution to curtailing the spread of coronavirus. We just need to continue to advertise and put the message forward. Petrol stations could, maybe, put notices on their pumps to remind you, when you are going in to pay for your petrol, that you should wear a mask. Different things like that could assist in educating the public.

Ms Flynn: Most members have touched on it, so I just want to follow up briefly on the issue of face coverings in the regulations.

Does that incorporate face shields and visors as well? Do they come under the regulations? I am certainly starting to see more of them being worn, particularly by staff in shops and restaurants. I have heard different perspectives that, perhaps, the shields are not as protective as face masks if you cough or sneeze. Do they fall under that regulation within the bracket of face coverings?

Ms Redmond: They do not, in fact. They are not covered. Some of what you are seeing in shops is, I guess, a pragmatic middle ground that the owners of those premises and employers are taking because their staff are not required to wear face coverings, as I mentioned earlier. Strictly speaking, they are not covered. They are not considered to be a face covering in the context of these regulations.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): Thank you, Liz and Nigel. We have addressed a lot of the issues. I agree with a lot of what has been said. We ask the Department to communicate clearly on all these issues. However, I want to endorse what members have said here: we all have individual responsibility, particularly at this time, as there are worrying signs out there of an increase in the spread of the virus. I appeal to everyone out there to do everything that they can, right through all those simple steps of washing hands, socially distancing where possible and wearing a mask.

Thank you very much for coming to the Committee. We will now give the SRs further consideration.

Mr McMahon: Thank you.

Ms Redmond: Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): Members, thank you for that. We now need to consider each of these SRs individually. I advise members that the Examiner of Statutory Rules has reported on SRs 139, 150, 151 and 187, and had no issues to raise. All those SRs are subject to the confirmatory procedure.

SR 2020/150 revokes and replaces the original regulations and amendments, providing a more streamlined set of restrictions rather than exceptions. It requires the closure of certain businesses, services and premises that are listed in the schedule and sets out restrictions on indoor and outdoor gatherings, as well as providing for offences and penalties.

If members have no further issues that they wish to raise in connection with this statutory rule, I ask them to agree formally that the Committee for Health has considered SR 2020/150, the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (No. 2) Regulations 2020, and recommends that it be confirmed by the Assembly?