A split has opened up between the UK and Scottish Governments over Nicola Sturgeon ’s nationwide house visiting ban.
Alister Jack, who is Boris Johnson ’s Scottish Secretary, said he would have preferred England-style local lockdowns north of the border to a national approach.
He said he felt sorry for the parts of Scotland that are witnessing low levels of covid-19 infections.
Addressing MSPs yesterday, Sturgeon announced a national ban on visiting other people’s homes in a bid to stem the rise of coronavirus infections.
She extended a restriction that has been in place in the west of Scotland to the rest of the country. Exemptions also apply.
However, a similar curb applies in some parts of England, rather than across the entire county.
In an interview with the BBC, Tory MP Jack said:
“Most of the north of England is in a household ban lockdown at the moment...we are not taking a one size fits all. We are doing local lockdowns where they are necessary.”
“The R number is very high in certain parts of Scotland, very low in other parts of Scotland. I would feel sorry for the Western Isles, Orkney and Shetland, for instance, on this household ban because there is very little prevalence of the virus up there.”
Asked if it had gone too far in Scotland, he said: ”I don’t think it has gone too far...this is a devolved matter under health, it’s a decision for the First Minister. But it is, as I have said, it’s the only part of the restrictions [from] yesterday which we havn’t agreed across the UK. Pretty much everything else, we are all on the same page and aligned.”
He added: “I would have preferred, myself, a process that we’ve taken in England, which is the local lockdown measures.”
He also defended earlier comments where he accused the First Minister of doing things differently on coronavirus “for the sake of it.
He said: “We have a lot of meetings between governments over the summer, and I felt that occasionally that things - and I made it very clear at the Scottish Affairs Select Committee - that things were done differently and not necessarily for the benefit of people.”
