National Assembly for Wales

Welcome to this Plenary session. Before we begin, a few points from me. This meeting will be held in hybrid format, with some Members in the Senedd Chamber and others joining by video-conference. All Members participating in proceedings of the Senedd, wherever they may be, will be treated equally. A Plenary meeting held using video-conference, in accordance with the Standing Orders of the Welsh Parliament, constitute Senedd proceedings for the purposes of the Government of Wales Act 2006. Some of the provisions of Standing Order 34 will apply for today's Plenary meeting, and these are noted on the agenda. And I would also remind Members that Standing Orders relating to order in Plenary meetings apply to this meeting, and apply equally to Members in the Chamber as to those joining virtually. 

The first item on our agenda this afternoon is questions to the First Minister, and the first question is from Dawn Bowden. 

Llywydd, I thank Dawn Bowden for her question. Courts in Wales must operate safely during the pandemic. To that end, officials maintain regular dialogue with the Ministry of Justice and with HMCTS. I have written to the chief executive seeking further assurances that all necessary steps are being taken to ensure the safety of those attending court premises in Wales.

Thank you for that answer, First Minister. Following concerns that were raised with me, I've also recently written to the courts and tribunal service seeking assurance that their operational practices remain in line with Welsh COVID rules. I do, of course, understand that the courts service is under considerable pressure at the moment, but I was disturbed to hear that people appearing before the courts in Cardiff at weekends may have been transferred from areas like Merthyr Tydfil and mid and west Wales, and held in conditions that are not compliant with Welsh COVID regulations. I further understand that some 16 solicitors working in the courts in Cardiff have also made representations to the courts service with their concerns about safe working practices. So, can you please seek two assurances: one, that the treatment of people on remand, and appearing before the courts in Wales, as well as those people working in the courts, is in compliance with Welsh COVID regulations, and to ask that her Majesty's Courts and Tribunal Service make full use of their estate, including the restoration of weekend courts in places like Merthyr Tydfil, if needed, to help us all keep safe from the spread of infection?

Llywydd, I thank Dawn Bowden for her supplementary question. I'm very happy to take up the issues that she has identified. I thank her for letting me have sight of the letter that she herself has written to the courts and tribunal service, and I did indeed see the letter from legal practitioners—their open letter of 18 September. I want to just assure Members that the Welsh Government has remained in regular dialogue with senior people in the courts service throughout the pandemic—both myself and the Counsel General. I had an exchange of letters with the Lord Chief Justice earlier in August, in which he said to me that Wales had been at the forefront of the efforts made by the service for safe reopening of Crown Courts and magistrates' courts. And I last had an exchange of letters with the Lord Chancellor, which culminated in a reply from him on 21 September. 

So, I want to give Members an assurance that we have pursued issues throughout the pandemic, making sure that Public Health Wales advice is directly available to the courts service, and that its advice is properly known to them. It is then for them to make sure that they minimise risks both to the defendants and to other people who are working in the courts system, and we will continue to make representations to the UK Government to ensure that court premises in Wales are safe for all of those who need to use them. 

COVID-19, of course, is impacting on our courts and enforcement authorities from two directions: the actual virus and the burden of the regulations. Now, here in Cardiff, the jury in the trial of a man alleged to have been involved in a shooting incident has been discharged after one of their number reported coronavirus symptoms. Enforcement officers can recommend prosecution in a magistrates' court should local lockdown restrictions be breached, but they are simply overwhelmed.

Now, South Wales Police is responding to an average of 40 reports of potential breaches daily, and Arfon Jones, the north Wales police and crime commissioner, has stated publicly that now we're back to normal with traditional crime, plus we've still got to enforce these coronavirus regulations. So, what steps, First Minister, are you taking to assist with tackling the two major issues being caused to enforcement authorities by COVID-19?

Llywydd, I would not myself describe the regulations that are there to keep us all safe as a burden. They are a necessary protection, which means that people's lives in Wales are safer than they would be without the regulations. I recognise what the police and crime commissioner for north Wales has said, that levels of general crime were suppressed back in March and April, but they have recovered—if that's the right word—to the sorts of levels that were being seen earlier in the year. And now our police forces are working very hard indeed to make sure both that they deal with those matters, and that they also are able to assist in the vital business of enforcing coronavirus restrictions and regulations here in Wales. I fully support the approach that our police forces have taken throughout the pandemic—that you begin always by making sure that people are aware of the rules, that you educate, you advise, you encourage, but, when that runs out and people deliberately and knowingly break the laws that are there to protect us all, then enforcement action must be taken. And that is the approach that our police forces are taking, and they have the full support of the Welsh Government in doing so.

Llywydd, I thank Lynne Neagle for that. Although babies and young children are unlikely either to contract or be seriously affected by COVID-19, the Welsh Government remains focused on the long-term physical, mental and emotional well-being of all of those growing up during the coronavirus crisis.

First Minister, the evidence is unequivocal that the first 1,000 days of a child's life, from pregnancy to age two, lays foundations for a healthy and happy life. The recent 'Babies in Lockdown' report from the Parent—Infant Foundation highlighted the stark impact that COVID has had on families and babies, and also that families already at risk of poor outcomes have suffered the most, coronavirus entrenching disadvantage yet again. We know that, in Wales, concerns have been raised about restrictions on the involvement of partners in pregnancy and labour, as well as the impact of reduced health visiting services on perinatal mental health and breastfeeding rates. Given that we face a prolonged period of restrictions this winter, what steps will the First Minister take to ensure that the first 1,000 days of a baby's life is really a fundamental opportunity to build good physical and mental health for life? Thank you.

Thank you, Llywydd. Of course, I agree with Lynne Neagle about the importance of those first 1,000 days, when children's brains are growing faster than they will at any other time in their lives, and when those very important attachments are being laid down that will form the basis of emotional well-being over the rest of their lifetime. As Lynne Neagle will know, in the early days of coronavirus there were disruptions to the sorts of services families and children could rely upon, both because staff themselves were falling ill as a result of coronavirus and because health visitors, for example, had to be redirected to helping even more urgent parts of the health service. The good news is that all health visitors have now been repatriated, and those services that matter so much in the lives of those young children are being restored. They're not 100 per cent back to where they were before, because coronavirus hasn't gone away. But nevertheless, the efforts that are needed, in the way that Lynne Neagle has set out, I know are well understood and are being acted upon in our social services and in our health services. And, Llywydd, there are still some remarkable success stories, considering the pressures that everybody has been under. Immunisation rates in Wales, during the first three months of this financial year—so, the three months when the coronavirus crisis was at its greatest—the three-dose, six-in-one vaccine for infants went above 95 per cent during that quarter and the MMR first dose for two-year-olds increased to above 95 per cent. So, despite all the difficulties that people were facing, and we know that people were reluctant sometimes to come forward for treatments in that very difficult period, there is evidence of the continuing success of services for young people in those first 1,000 days. 

First Minister, those first 1,000 days are so important and I'd like to back up what Lynne has said with her concerns she's raised with you today, and also thank you and the Government for listening to some of those concerns. Having a one-and-a-half-year-old myself, who turned one during lockdown—our first in the national lockdown—I can say that I was really worried for his development process because of the lack of interaction with others, particularly those of his own age. Interaction and play is so important for those stages of life but, if we're not careful, centres that encourage you to have that interaction, like soft-play centres—. There won't be any left in Monmouthshire soon due to their businesses being so badly hit by footfall and income due to the surrounding areas being in lockdown. So, please, First Minister, can I ask you today to somehow incorporate within that new round of funding that's coming forward soon a way of financially helping out those businesses who are losing out so badly on footfall at the moment because of the surrounding areas being in lockdown? Thank you. 

Well, Llywydd, I thank Laura Anne Jones for that. I very much recognise her starting point. Young children learn so much from other young children of their own age, and the opportunity to play and to socialise with children in that way is fundamental to them, and many families have found that those opportunities have been cut back as a result of anxiety about coronavirus and services not being able to operate in the way they previously did.

The issue of businesses just across the border from local lockdown areas is a matter that the Member raised with me, I know, last week. I promised, then, I would talk to my colleague Ken Skates about the points that she raised and I have had an opportunity to do that. And I am pleased to be able to report to her that the Minister for Economy, Transport and North Wales is ensuring that the sums of money we have set aside during phase 3 of the economic resilience fund, which were designed to help businesses in lockdown areas, that there will be flexibility to allow businesses just across the border who are affected by those lockdown measures to take advantage of that fund as well, and I thank her again for raising that point with me. 

Questions now from the party leaders. First of all this week, the leader of the Welsh Conservatives, Paul Davies. 

Diolch, Llywydd. First Minister, yesterday, one of your health Ministers warned that a second national lockdown could be introduced here in Wales. Does this mean that the Welsh Government's current approach to implementing the current lockdowns has been a failure?

Llywydd, no more than the Prime Minister's announcement of a new three-tier system in England was a measure of failure in England. It's a facile point to make. What the Minister for Health and Social Services was warning of yesterday is that coronavirus numbers are growing right across Wales, that the gap between those parts of Wales which are not in local lockdown measures and those who are is shrinking, and that we have to be prepared for the fact that the measures we have taken so far may not be enough to meet the onslaught of the virus during the autumn and winter. The Prime Minister moved to change arrangements in England yesterday because of the upswing in virus there. We will do the same in Wales if we need to do it here. 

Llywydd, of course, the First Minister wants to talk about England, so let's talk about England. Let's talk about the fact that the latest evidence from the Office for National Statistics shows that the number of COVID-related deaths is proportionately higher here in Wales than in England. Let's talk about the fact that two thirds of tests carried out in Wales are done by UK lighthouse labs and so Public Health Wales's capacity clearly isn't being used effectively in Wales. And let's talk about the massive investment the UK Government is delivering into Wales to support our businesses and public services right across the country—over £4 billion to date. I have to say, Llywydd, I'd want to talk about England if I was responsible for this Welsh Government's record.

Now, the Welsh Government's approach has been to implement a mix of county-wide lockdowns and hyperlocal lockdowns, like in the case of Llanelli and Bangor. And in order to better judge the effectiveness, or indeed ineffectiveness, of the Welsh Government's current lockdown approach, it is vital that it publishes data at a community level. The Welsh Government must also publish data by demographic, so we can follow trends and better use our resources to protect our people. And the Welsh Government must openly publish transmission data, so that we see how the virus is being transmitted, for example, by household, hospitality setting, workplace or by travel. And the people of Wales must be able to judge for themselves whether the measures being taken by the Welsh Government so far have been proportionate or not.

Now, some counties, of course, have chosen to publish community data themselves, such as Rhondda Cynon Taf, Bridgend, Merthyr Tydfil and Monmouthshire, and that transparency is absolutely crucial. And it's only fair that everyone in Wales should have access to data about their own local community. So, First Minister, will you now commit to leading on this, by publishing data on a community basis, on a demographic basis and on a transmission basis, so that the people of Wales can be confident that the current lockdown measures are proportionate to the threat of the virus in their own areas?

Well, Llywydd, indeed the policy of the Member's party is that for Wales we should see England, so nobody should be surprised at his introduction to this next series of questions.

I agree with him that local level data published by some local authorities in Wales has been a very useful guide for those local populations, and will encourage other local authorities, who are in a position to do so, to do the same. The Welsh Government publishes a huge amount of data every day in relation to coronavirus, both directly ourselves and through Public Health Wales and through other aspects of services for which we are responsible. What I won't do is to publish data that is so volatile that it's impossible to draw sensible and reliable conclusions from it. The data we publish needs to be data that can be sensibly used, and where it can be, then we do.

Well, First Minister, you say that you, as a Government, publish the data, but that's not the case though, is it? Because Vaughan Gething has already made it clear that the Welsh Government won't publish more localised data to keep people in Wales more informed. Because on 25 September, he said he doesn't want to provide a running commentary. You're saying one thing and Vaughan Gething is saying something else. Clearly, you are not singing from the hymn sheet as a Government, First Minister.

Wales needs a balance between protecting lives and livelihoods, and we're yet to see enough valuable data to judge the proportionality of the Welsh Government's measures. Instead, what we have seen is the Welsh Government push for a travel ban, despite providing no evidence that one is actually needed. And First Minister, before you push ahead with a travel ban, you should publish the evidence that you have that proves the case for one.

And in the meantime, the Welsh Government has had plenty of opportunities to bring in mandatory testing at Cardiff Airport. Four weeks ago you said you were in discussions with the managers of the airport you own, and yet there's still been no progress. First Minister, passenger numbers are down by 93 per cent, so do you have any intention to introduce mandatory testing—the same testing your party colleagues in London keep calling for—or, as is the case with your proposed travel ban, are you just waiting for England to do it first?

Well, Llywydd, I'm afraid the leader of the opposition really is all over the place this afternoon: he hops from one remote contingency to another. There is no difference between the health Minister and myself. I said we would not publish data at a localised level that is not reliable and cannot help people to make informed and proper decisions; that is what the health Minister says, and that is what the Member needs to understand.

Let me deal with the travel issue, one on which he and his party are so much on the wrong side of the argument, refusing to take a simple measure that would help to keep Wales safe, and which is bitterly resented, by the way, in the part of Wales that he comes to the Senedd to represent. A part of Wales in which the current rate of coronavirus is below 30 per 100,000 of the population, but where his Government, in England, allows people from Liverpool, where there are 800 cases per 100,000, to travel from Liverpool to Tenby and to the west of Wales to stay. Now, that is unacceptable to people in that locality and it's unacceptable to me too.

I put these points to the Prime Minister again yesterday. Once again, he refused to do the simple and the right thing. I have written to him again today. I have set out the evidence for him, which is plain for anybody to see. The Member was very interested in data earlier in this session. I commend to him the data that I refer to in that letter, which will demonstrate why allowing people from high-circulation areas to move to low-circulation areas simply carries the virus with them. We prevent that from happening in Wales and the Prime Minister needs to prevent it as well. And he ought to be speaking up for the people of Wales, not for his own narrow party perspective.

As for the airport, we continue in discussions. When it is possible to have a system that does not lead to long, long delays, with people at the airport waiting for tests to be carried out—. He may think that that's easy to bring about. I can tell you, having read all of the information, that it's not. There are ways in which we can tackle that problem. We're very close to agreeing it. Once we do, we will make sure that people arriving in Cardiff Airport are able to be tested—and tested rapidly—so that where they are able to, they can resume their daily lives.

Now, the Plaid Cymru leader—Adam Price.

Diolch, Llywydd. Three weeks ago, the Strategic Advisory Group for Emergencies, SAGE, advised that a combination of interventions would likely be necessary to bring R for coronavirus below 1. Among the measures that it said should be considered for immediate introduction were a circuit-breaker, a short period of lockdown, to return incidence to low levels; the closure of all bars, restaurants, cafes, indoor gyms and personal services; and for all university and college teaching to be online unless face-to-face teaching is essential.

Can you confirm, First Minister, that you were privy to this information three weeks ago? And, with R in Wales currently at 1.37, and with the number of new cases reported today at 764, why have you decided not to implement the SAGE recommendations when you have said consistently that you would be guided by the science?

Well, Llywydd, SAGE advice comes to the Welsh Government via the technical advisory cell committee. It doesn't come unmediated because SAGE advice is dominated by the need to provide advice to the largest of the four UK nations. That's why we have our own technical advisory cell, and SAGE advice comes to me via that cell, and we've not yet been advised by TAC to implement a circuit-breaker system.

But, I do take the arguments in favour of a circuit-breaker period seriously, and in the COBRA meeting yesterday, I asked the Prime Minister for an extra special COBRA meeting specifically to discuss the circuit-breaker idea. I think that it's an idea that will need further examination, and needs to be shared in perspectives between the four UK nations. I repeat that call to the Prime Minister in the letter that I have written to him today.

Let's look at the evidence from the technical advisory cell that you referred to, First Minister. On 18 September, it said:

'A package of non-pharmaceutical interventions...on local and national scale may be needed to bring R back below 1…an earlier and more comprehensive response is likely to reduce the length of time for which they are required.'

It repeated that in its next report on 25 September, in which it said:

'If the current measures do not bring R below 1 then further restrictions will be needed to control the epidemic in Wales. The earlier additional measures are introduced, the more effective they will be.'

Your Labour colleague at Westminster, Jonathan Ashworth, has said today that the inaction of the Government, in light of the SAGE papers, is alarming, and that the Labour opposition would have followed the scientific advice and implemented a circuit-breaker weeks ago. Keir Starmer said yesterday that the Prime Minister, in these circumstances, has to act quickly and decisively, but doesn't the same also apply to you, First Minister?

Well, Llywydd, I believe we have acted quickly and decisively. The local restrictions that we have in health protection areas in Wales go beyond what is required in England, even in the tier 3 measures that the Prime Minister has published. And over the weekend, we had to move again to impose such local restrictions in another area of Wales, in Bangor in north Wales. So, I believe that we do act quickly and we do act decisively.

I want to be clear with Members, as with people who live in Wales, that if the position we face continues to deteriorate, if the number of cases of coronavirus continues to go up, if we continue to see an additional flow of people into our health service, as we have over the last week—. Llywydd, four weeks ago, the number of beds occupied by people with suspected or confirmed coronavirus in our hospitals was around 200; this week, it's around 500. If we continue to see those numbers rise in that way, then further measures will be needed.

One area where we do need quick and decisive action is in relation to travel from areas of high infection that you've already referred to. This is the fourth week running that I've highlighted the absurdity of people in areas of high COVID rates in England being allowed to travel into parts of Wales. Yesterday, the health Minister, for the first time, confirmed that there had been importation of coronavirus cases from contact with some of those high-prevalence areas in England. Perhaps, First Minister, you could give us a little bit more detail about that evidence.

Clearly, the UK Government should act to close this travel loophole. But waiting for BoJo is proving a pretty futile exercise. So, rather than writing another unanswered letter or waiting for a four-nation COBRA, why not act independently now in the interests of the people of Wales? If you need extra parliamentary time this week, First Minister, to get this legislation through, then we as an opposition party will support you. Can we really afford to wait another day, let alone another week?

Well, Llywydd, the Member asked where the evidence comes from. It comes from the waste water surveillance survey that demonstrates that, when people come into Wales from other parts of the United Kingdom, then the rate of coronavirus found in waste water goes up and it is found in genomic evidence—important new genomic evidence. I referred to that in the letter that I've sent to the Prime Minister.

You see, where I differ from the leader of Plaid Cymru is this: he uses the language all the time of people from England coming into Wales, as though this was some sort of contest between Wales and England, and I've been absolutely clear that that is never the point that I have made to the Prime Minister. The point I make to him is that people from high-prevalence areas should not be allowed to travel to low-prevalence areas—wherever the high-prevalence areas are in the United Kingdom, wherever the low-prevalence areas are in the United Kingdom. So, this is not about stopping people from England coming to Wales, nor should we ever fall into that sort of way of talking. It is simply about preventing people, whether they live in Wales in a high-prevalence area going to a low-prevalence area in Wales or England or Scotland, or people anywhere else in the United Kingdom where the virus is in high circulation going to places where the virus doesn't exist in the same way, because when they do that, the risk of bringing the virus with them is inevitably and obviously increased.

Leader of the Brexit Party, Mark Reckless.

First Minister, there's been no difference between how you and Adam Price are speaking about this issue. Indeed, there now seems to be little difference between your Government and Plaid Cymru. Many fear we are sleepwalking towards independence. 

Yesterday, you sought to lay down an ultimatum to the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. Today, you were across nearly every news outlet saying that you want to enforce a border between Wales and England. Meanwhile, top travel writer, Simon Calder, who encouraged people to holiday in Wales whilst observing COVID restrictions, was subject to a torrent of abuse. He said:

'The intensity of negative comments were of a magnitude I've not experienced'.

After being called 'scum' and told to 'eff off and stay in England', he says he won't visit Wales again. When questioned, your Government spokesperson just replied that Boris Johnson had refused to put in travel restrictions, despite your calls. First Minister, will you condemn the abuse Simon Calder received for encouraging people to visit Wales in a COVID-compliant way, or are you taking over Plaid Cymru's anti-English stance now that they've taken over your party's antisemitism?

Well, Llywydd, the Member could not have got it more wrong. I have done my very best throughout the discussion about travel to make it clear that, for me, it is not a matter of the border. It is the Prime Minister who is forcing it to become a border matter by his refusal to act to prevent people inside England travelling from high-incidence to low-incidence areas and travelling beyond England. So, my position is that I believe in the United Kingdom; I believe in a successful United Kingdom. I regret bitterly that the Prime Minister acts in ways that cast a doubt on that in the minds of others. And I repeat, Llywydd, as I've said already: for me, this is absolutely not to do with preventing people from England coming to Wales; it is a matter of preventing anybody, anywhere in the United Kingdom, who lives in a high-prevalence area travelling to a low-prevalence area, anywhere in the United Kingdom. For that to happen, we've all got to play our part. We have those arrangements here in Wales. I want the Prime Minister to do the same for England, because I think that supports a successful United Kingdom, and I think not to do so undermines those of us who want to make that case. As for Simon Calder, I think his advice to people was naïve, but I absolutely do not believe that people who speak on any subject should be subject to abuse, and I regret the fact that that was the result of what he had said. I may not agree with him, but he has every right to say it and he has every right to be respected.

First Minister, you talk about respecting devolution and wanting a strong United Kingdom but then demand that England must do what you do in Wales, or else. Now, you have this policy of preventing anyone from crossing a council area, as you define, you have it with force of law, but the reality is that after lockdown fatigue, because of how long you kept it going before, consent for your policy is breaking down. The official opposition opposed your policy of preventing people crossing those council borders. Because you locked down harder and longer in Wales to postpone infections from the summer into autumn and winter, our economy, as well as our health, has suffered.

The Centre for Cities think tank found that Cardiff had seen the weakest post-lockdown recovery outside of London, with only 51 per cent of pre-COVID footfall returning to Cardiff, yet infections in Wales are shooting back up, as they are in England. In my region, the areas with least infection are on the English border, whilst Cardiff, Swansea and the Valleys have higher rates than nearby parts of England, yet you imply that our problems here reflect policy in England and seek to blame COVID spread on people coming over the border from England. First Minister, isn't the real reason you are threatening to enforce a border to distract from your own Government's and this institution's mismanagement of the pandemic?

I entirely disagree with those points. The way that coronavirus has been managed in Wales, I think, has secured the agreement and the consent of people in Wales. They certainly don't agree with the sort of fringe ideas that the Member peddles in the Chamber, during the time he still has left with us. Nor do I accept that the point of our travel request to the Prime Minister is anything other than a sensible, straightforward course of action, designed to protect people and to keep Wales safe. That is the object of this Government; it may not be shared by him.

Question 3, Rhianon Passmore.

You're not unmuted. Rhianon Passmore can't be heard. Carry on.

I thank Rhianon Passmore, Llywydd. Capacity issues at the UK lighthouse laboratory network have impacted upon the Welsh testing system. The situation is improving and needs to do so further. In the meantime we have increased capacity and use of Welsh laboratories.

Diolch, First Minister. Thank you for that. Wales's first specialist COVID-19 lab in Gwent is due to open this month, and I would like him to join with me in thanking all of our dedicated staff working across Wales flat out within them. The hope is that the new lighthouse facility will process 20,000 tests a day, and as the First Minister has already alluded to, these lighthouse labs are managed by the UK Government and run by private firms. Will the Welsh Government ensure that this site and Public Health Wales are dedicated to working together to increase to a faster volume and turnover of testing for the Welsh populace? Furthermore, the announcement last week that the Welsh Government would create local testing sites at Wales's universities in Cardiff, Swansea, Pontypridd, Bangor and Aberystwyth is also to be welcomed. So, First Minister, what further possibilities are there for the Welsh Government to increase that testing capacity and what possibility is there of locating a testing facility within my constituency of Islwyn? Thank you.

I thank Rhianon Passmore for that. She is right to say that the new centre at Imperial Park 5 became operational on 5 October. It's already able to process 10,000 tests a day and will be able to process 20,000 tests a day when fully operational in the next couple of weeks. So, that will further boost our lab capacity, the resilience of our system and will help us to go on improving turnaround times. So, I'm very pleased to be able to give that reassurance to the Member that we are using that opportunity, as we are using the £32 million that the Minister for health was able to make available to Public Health Wales to provide 24-hour working in regional labs in Swansea, Cardiff and in Rhyl and six new hot labs, situated in acute general hospitals.

The local test sites at universities—the one in Treforest opened on 25 September, the one in Swansea opened earlier this week, the one in Bangor will open on 16 October, in Cardiff on 16 October, in Aberystwyth on 19 October. So, once again, we are moving rapidly to make sure that those local testing facilities are available. I want to give the Member an assurance that we would use our mobile testing unit as well, so that if there were a need for additional specific-site facilities in her constituency—were that to become necessary, then we have the facilities and we have the experience of moving them rapidly to those places where they are most needed.

Thank you, First Minister, for that answer. If I wanted a more detailed response in relation to your letter to the Prime Minister, I could now go to the media, because I see they're actively tweeting out that letter, and we as Assembly Members haven't seen the scientific evidence that you attach to it, which is highly regrettable and disrespectful, I'd suggest to you. Also, when it comes to SAGE's advice when it comes to travel restrictions, it says that they would have a low impact and they have moderate confidence that they would be successful. They go on to say that exemptions and enforcement are likely to be very complicated. So, given that is SAGE's advice back in September, and I assume you as a Government have seen that, what confidence have you got that the testing analysis that you have passed over to the Prime Minister overrides the advice that SAGE has given on travel restrictions?

Llywydd, I'm not certain that question has anything to do with Wales's testing capabilities. And if he wants to talk about being disrespectful, I wrote to the Prime Minister over two weeks ago with a detailed request for travel restrictions. I've not even had a reply to that letter. That's disrespectful. That's disrespectful to this Senedd and disrespectful to the people of Wales. I provided the Prime Minister with the very latest information—information and research that have come in after the date to which the Member referred. Let's hope that this time he will be prepared to consider it with the seriousness it deserves.

If we could return to testing, it's come to my attention that there have been serious problems arising with general testing in one of the south Wales health board areas, and I'd like to know what the link is between that and COVID testing. I understand that day-to-day blood testing in GP surgeries has been cancelled, and it's only emergency testing that can happen. It sounds like the kind of thing that we were being warned about when the Roche supply chain came into difficulties, but I note that the health Minister told us a week ago that that wouldn't affect Wales. Can the First Minister tell us what's going on here?

Well, Llywydd, I would have to have more details about the problems that Rhun ap Iorwerth has alluded to. I have seen a written statement from Vaughan Gething that explained the impact that the problems that Roche is facing at the moment could have here in Wales, not on the coronavirus side, but on other things that we're trying to combat every day in the health service. I don't yet quite understand the background to this specific question, but of course if Rhun ap Iorwerth wishes to write to me with the details, I'll be more than happy to look into these issues.

I thank David Rowlands for that question. Last week we published our COVID-19 reconstruction plan. It sets out our assessment of the profound economic, health and social impacts of the virus and how we will work with partners to build a safe, healthy future for Welsh people that is fairer, more equal, greener and prosperous.

I thank the First Minister for his answer. Whilst it is prudent to make such arrangements for the post-pandemic environment, it is also true that it is incumbent upon the Government to mitigate the economic consequences of lockdowns whilst the virus is still with us. The recent lockdown arrangements are of course having a devastating effect on businesses across Wales. However, First Minister, I do not want to question the merits or otherwise of the overall lockdown measures, but the absurdity of the recent restrictions where we are not allowed to travel from one local authority to another. There are parts of south Wales where you cannot, quite literally, cross the road or go to the end of the street, because in so doing you would be passing from one authority into the next. How can the Minister and his Government justify such ridiculous restrictions? Why is it necessary to prevent people travelling from one authority to the next when both are in lockdown and have similar COVID figures, yet for work purposes, people can travel into Wales from COVID-wracked cities like Liverpool? First Minister, it's important that we bring the people of Wales along with us in these very troubled times. Is it not true that such nonsensical restrictions will not help us to achieve this?

Llywydd, I've already said several times this afternoon that the answer to people being able to travel into Wales from higher coronavirus areas beyond Wales is to stop it from happening. It's not a nonsensical restraint to say to people that they shouldn't travel outside their own local authority area, because the more people we see, and the more travelling we do, the more the virus spreads. The restrictions are designed to try to bear down on the fact that coronavirus is rising in so many parts of Wales. Now, if we are able to do things in those parts of Wales where the measures we have taken so far are having an effect, then I want to offer people in those parts of Wales hope that their actions are bearing fruit. If we can do anything in the area of travel, that, I think, is one of the first things we would be likely to be able to offer. But the context that we are all operating in is one where the skies are darkening, and I'm afraid that everything we do has to be tested against that basic fact of contemporary life in Wales. Coronavirus is on the march again. It is reaching deeper and further into communities, it is driving more people into hospital, it will lead to greater use of our ICU beds, and very sadly, because this is a deadly disease, more people will die. And the restrictions we're asking people to live with are all designed to try to keep them, their families and their communities safe. And there's nothing nonsensical about that.

First Minister, your aim of having 30 per cent of people working from home is very laudable; however, to work from home, you almost certainly need to have a decent broadband connection. I have constituents who want to work from home but can't as they don't have adequate broadband, meaning they have no other option but to travel to work. How are you going to achieve your aim, First Minister, of homeworking when you have failed to deliver your 2011 manifesto commitment of delivering superfast broadband to all premises by 2015?

Well, Llywydd, thanks to the Welsh Government and its investment, thousands and thousands of households in Wales now do have access to superfast broadband and they certainly would not have had it without the intervention of the Welsh Government in this non-devolved area. Now, it's only a week ago that the leader of the Member's party was telling the people in Wales that he would prevent a future Government led by himself from spending money on non-devolved responsibilities. So, those families who've had the advantage of superfast broadband because of the way in which the Welsh Government has had to spend money on an area where his Government is responsible will find that those advantages are no longer available to them, in the remote possibility that his party might be in government here in Wales.

So, we will continue to invest, we will continue to ignore the advice of the leader of the Welsh Conservatives, we will put money into this non-devolved area, and more families in all parts of Wales, particularly those who are the hardest and the most expensive to reach, can know that, in Wales, they have a Government that is prepared to act on their behalf. 

Llywydd, fraud is a matter for the police and trading standards departments of local authorities. Reports of fraud in fire safety matters are currently being investigated by them.

Okay. Nice sidestep there. Thousands of people in Wales are now living in unsafe flats that are worth nothing. They can't sell them and they live there knowing that, if there is a fire then we'll be looking at a Welsh Grenfell. They're being absolutely rinsed at every opportunity: insurance is through the roof, the service charges are rising, and some are even having to pay for fire safety inspectors to be onsite at all times. This is a situation that really needs to be resolved, but when the residents of Victoria Wharf wrote to you about their block, they did not even receive a response from you.

In Glasgow, Glasgow Harbour, the developer Taylor Wimpey is paying the £30 million needed to replace the dangerous cladding there, but at Victoria Wharf, the residents are expected to pay the £30 million themselves, and there's one veteran I spoke to, David Murphy, who is now worried about being made homeless because of these costs. So, why is it that in Scotland the developer pays to fix the problem, but in Wales residents are expected to pay themselves? Taylor Wimpey actually advises your Government on building regulations, so could you not advise them to cough up the money like they have in Scotland, or is it actually the conflict of interest that is driving Government inaction in this area?

Llywydd, the Member's instinctive reach for a conspiracy explanation is on evidence again today. If residents have written to me, they will have had a response. Builders and owners are responsible for the buildings that they have constructed and which they own, and they should pay. They should pay to make good the deficit in those buildings. It is neither right nor fair, nor moral that the leaseholders should be left carrying the can. I can't be clearer on that. Those companies should do the right thing by those people who have been affected by their failures. That is the position of the Welsh Government; I repeat it again today. And whether it's fraud, as I said in my original answer, Llywydd, it is not for a moment to sidestep something to be clear that the authorities who have the responsibility to investigate fraud are doing so. In this case, Gwent Police and the Caerphilly trading standards department are carrying out an active investigation into the matters that this question began with, and they must be allowed to complete that investigation.

First Minister, I think what you say about the need for the private sector to accept responsibility is important, but there's been real public failure here. Public regulation has not been fit for purpose; it was not fit for purpose in Governments you've said served here in Wales when it was being developed, and it's also been a failure in England, under Labour and Conservative Governments—I do not avoid recognising the responsibility my party has here. Leaseholders have to be served now by the public sector coming and at least giving some guarantee like a fire safety fund, and then pursuing those private interests that have been grossly deficient, and we need a proper regulatory system. I agree with you on one thing—this bill shouldn't be left at the doorstep of the leaseholders. 

Llywydd, I'd agree with a number of the points that the Member has made, and if my party is returned to Government after next May's elections, then we will bring forward legislation to deal with regulatory matters and gaps that have emerged in this sector. We are looking within the Welsh Government at the possibility of a building safety fund to support leaseholders while not creating the moral hazard of paying the bills of failed building firms and landlords. To do that would simply be to remove the responsibility from them and to encourage irresponsible behaviour in the future. But we are looking at ways in which leaseholders themselves could be supported, and I know that my colleague, the Minister with responsibility for this, has a meeting on Thursday of this week to continue to find a way in which we can meet their needs, while not creating, as I say, the moral hazard of bailing out people with public money from the private responsibilities that they ought to discharge. 

I thank Angela Burns, Llywydd, for that question. Amongst the measures taken are mandatory finance training for all staff within the Welsh Government and additional intensive training for all senior staff. Securing best value for public money underpins the comprehensive guide, 'Managing Welsh Public Money', which deals with all aspects of our financial management.

An interesting response, and I ask this question because there are a number of areas where there does not seem to be value for money for the Welsh taxpayer. The sustainable management scheme clearly states its aim is to support collaborative action that improves natural resources. The scheme has just received a further allocation of £3 million, despite the fact that only £6 million of its previous £25 million allocation has been spent to date, and the £3 million has been awarded despite the fact that the scheme has not been evaluated. Another example is the enabling natural resources and well-being scheme. It has a budget allocation of £26 million. In September a further £16.5 million was given to that scheme, and yet not a single penny has been spent and there has been no evaluation of the scheme.

First Minister, can you explain to me how these kinds of awards, with this lack of oversight or intent to actually use the money as per the awarding requirement, show and demonstrate value for money for the Welsh taxpayer?

Llywydd, I don't see how the Member draws the conclusion in the second part of what she said from the evidence that she provided in the first part. This Government provides 11,000 grant award letters every year to over 400 grant schemes. All grant schemes have evaluation built into them, and many of our grant schemes in this extraordinary year have not been able to spend money in the way that they had originally intended. The Member will know that it was a key priority of this Government in last year's budget-making round to make biodiversity schemes across the Welsh Government properly funded. We funded another £140 million for the sort of sustainable and enabling schemes in the environment to which she referred. Quite a lot of that money has not been capable of being spent during the pandemic, but we are looking, wherever we can, to restore those schemes, alongside the third sector organisations that we rely upon so much in this field, and who will have had their own ability to raise their own funds and to put staff into the field made far more difficult by the pandemic.

So, I want to give her an assurance that those are very important schemes to this Welsh Government. We are looking to find ways of continuing to fund activity that is safe and that can be carried out by people in a coronavirus environment. A number of those schemes were sadly set back over recent months, but where there are new opportunities in the remainder of this financial year to recover some of that ground, that is exactly what I am encouraging my ministerial colleagues to do, and to find ways of working with our partners in the field in order to achieve that.

Thank you very much, Llywydd. The number of confirmed cases of COVID-19 on Ynys Môn has been low for a number months, but in the last week case numbers have increased. A local surveillance and response group is co-ordinating action on the ground and reporting regularly to the Welsh Government.

Thank you for that response. When Bangor went into a higher state of restrictions, one business contacted me immediately asking whether they could go into the same restrictions because of the support available to businesses with higher restrictions. But on so many levels, businesses in my constituency are suffering in the same way without those restrictions. I'm worried about the effect of the troubles of Edinburgh Woollen Mill on the Pringle shop in Llanfairpwll and on Peacocks in Holyhead. The MAD sound company and Always Aim High, who can't carry out any business activity at the moment, are suffering terribly. There are hospitality businesses suffering, there are businesses and the self-employed who haven't been able to access support under stages 1 or 2 of the economic resilience fund and are desperate for support. Business Wales, which is an agency of Welsh Government, has referred at least two businesses to my office to seek support and help.

So, First Minister, can we have a commitment (1) that there will be a renewed attempt to identify what's required for those facing the gravest economic problems because of a failure to access help to date, and (2) that the Welsh Government will seek to ensure that support is extended to all areas, not just those who are facing higher levels of restrictions?

Before the First Minister answers that question, I'm aware that there is some difficulty with the translation at the moment that's related to our ongoing broadband connection problems. I'm assuming that the First Minister did understand the question without the need for translation, but we will be looking into this matter further. So, the First Minister to respond.

Well, Llywydd, I'll respond in English to the questions in that case. I want to just give an assurance to Rhun ap Iorwerth that when, over the weekend, we were taking the difficult decision to impose local restrictions in the Bangor area, we had around that table many local services and bodies able to reflect on the impact that that would have on Ynys Môn in particular. We followed that up yesterday with a meeting involving the leader of Ynys Môn local authority, to make sure that we could hear directly from her of the likely impact of those Bangor restrictions on the island. So, we were aware of it from the very beginning as an issue, and have followed it up since. I think Rhun ap Iorwerth will have heard my answer to Laura Anne Jones earlier in the afternoon about flexibility in the funds that we are providing to local lockdown areas and to neighbouring areas where the impact of that spills over into those localities. That will certainly be the case in Ynys Môn. And, once again, I'll make sure that, in discussions that I will have with my colleague Ken Skates, we find ways of making sure that the necessary help to firms directly affected on the island because of the Bangor restrictions—that that is taken properly into account. 

Finally, question 8, Leanne Wood.

I thank Leanne Wood, Llywydd, for that.

As we set out in our reconstruction plan, we are committed to a reconstruction that works for the people of Wales, including the Rhondda, by addressing the issues that matter most to them: unemployment, entrenched inequalities, affordable housing, revitalising our town centres and supporting the foundational economy.

Research from Save the Children has shown that more than half of the families in Wales on universal credit, or child tax credit, have had to cut back on essentials, and I'm seeing this at a community level, with demand for the anti-poverty food project that is run from my office, with the help of local councillors and fantastic volunteers. Will you provide more support for struggling businesses and families? I'm sure you support the calls on the UK Government today from the Trades Union Congress, and I'm sure that you will also share my pessimism about those basic demands for workers' rights being met.

So, will you therefore tell us what your Government can do to ensure that, if people are to be made unemployed and lose their income, they can claim some sort of universal basic income, so that they don't lose their income if they do lose their livelihood? Because we all know that when people lose their incomes there are a lot of other problems that can follow on from that. So, what can you do to introduce a universal basic income to overcome the problems that we know that the UK Government are not going to solve?

Llywydd, while I myself have long seen the attractions of a universal basic income, it's simply not an idea that is capable of being introduced unilaterally in Wales, just as the Member's sister party in Scotland has not been able to introduce a universal basic income in Scotland either. I am interested to see whether it is possible to run some experimental pilots here in Wales, because I think the idea is definitely one that has merit and ought to be explored in that way. 

I absolutely agree the calls today through the TUC, both that the £20 additional to universal credit that has been a feature of the pandemic ought to be continued beyond April of next year—that seems absolutely fundamental. And we use our Welsh Government budgets to supplement the social wage of families by paying through the public purse for things that they themselves would have to pay for otherwise. And I know that Leanne Wood will have welcomed the additional £11 million that the Welsh Government has found to continue free school meals during school holiday periods for the rest of this Senedd term as a practical example of what we can do with the powers that we have already to make life for those families to which she referred a little easier than would otherwise be the case. 

I thank the First Minister.  

The next item is questions to the Deputy Minister and Chief Whip, and the first question is from Lynne Neagle.

Our commitment to promoting and upholding the rights of older people in Wales remains strong. It is central to the approach Ministers have taken to implement the wider policy response to the coronavirus in Wales. 

Thank you, Minister. As you know, I'm particularly concerned about the impact of restrictions on visiting in care homes on people living with dementia. There's growing evidence that the first lockdown led to people living with dementia dying from dementia, not from COVID, because they were cut off from loved ones. Now, as we face a prolonged winter of restrictions, I think that Welsh Government needs to do everything possible to mitigate the risk of something like that happening again. And I don't believe it should be left to local government and care homes. Will you discuss this with the Deputy Minister and with the First Minister to try and develop a plan that ensures that people living with dementia are kept in touch with their loved ones during this winter? Thank you.

Thank you very much, Lynne Neagle, and in recognition of your stalwart work chairing the cross-party group on dementia and raising these issues with Ministers. And you will be aware that my colleague the Deputy Minister for Health and Social Services, Julie Morgan, has been working with sector representatives, including Care Forum Wales and the Older People's Commissioner for Wales, to look at that whole issue of providing guidance for care home providers on how they can support people to reconnect safely with families, friends and professionals—so crucial for those suffering dementia. And of course, care homes have worked hard to enable safe visiting for friends and families. This is vital, as you say, to the well-being of people living in care homes, as well as those who are visiting them. And I think it's very clear that we don't want—and the Deputy Minister has stressed—an unnecessarily restrictive blanket approach, but support visits to care homes have to be recognised—there has to be safety in terms of whether it's possible.

But your particular focus on dementia is crucial. And I think this is a question where, of course, if there is, unfortunately, an active incident or outbreak of COVID-19 at a care home, visits have to be restricted to exceptional circumstances, compassionate reasons, such as end-of-life. But I know the Ministers will want to look at this as we approach the coming winter months, and the stress that that can bring forward for those suffering dementia and their carers and family and friends.

The Well-being of Future Generations Act continues to provide a uniquely Welsh way of tackling the long-term challenges that our people and our planet face, and it's guided our approach to reconstruction, ensuring a values-based recovery.

Thank you for that response. Some would say that it's a uniquely Welsh approach because we have created a very substantial structure of committees around it. But what I wanted to ask was whether you thought that there are too many public services boards that have emerged from the legislation, and indeed who holds them to account—to whom are they accountable to ensure that they are delivering the differences that they are expected to deliver?

Well, I think the opportunities that the public services boards provide to ensure that there is local cross-sectoral working are very important, because that does actually bring together those public sector bodies who actually have to demonstrate delivery of the well-being of future generations Act. I think the PSBs are increasingly demonstrating that delivery, they're targeting their efforts in delivering where collective action can make a real impact on improving well-being. I think there's some excellent work being done by PSBs. I think the work that's being done also by PSBs collaborating, such as in Gwent—collaborating over tackling climate change—is key. But the public services boards clearly have to demonstrate, and we learn across Wales, that cross-sectoral working—local government, health, police, all those who have a responsibility to deliver on the objectives of the well-being of future generations legislation—that they are making a difference to citizens' lives.

Thank you very much, Paul Davies, for that question. And it is quite clear in terms of the response to the voluntary sector contribution that it has been crucial to our efforts in fighting the pandemic, co-ordinating local support, helping to support our dedicated, compassionate volunteers. In fact, I'm sure Paul Davies would join me in saying a huge 'thank you' to all our volunteers and voluntary sector organisations.

Absolutely, Deputy First Minister. I think the voluntary sector throughout Wales, and indeed in Pembrokeshire, has worked incredibly hard over the past few months to support vulnerable people in our communities. And to give you just an example, the Milford Haven Community Covid Care project has been working with the Big Lottery community fund to deliver meal packs, children's craft packs, reading books and resources for care home residents. I'm sure you'll therefore agree with me that it's heartening to see such community spirit shown by so many local groups in response to this pandemic, and so can you tell us what the Welsh Government is doing to build on that good voluntary work for the future, and to make sure that the good and efficient practices we have seen in the last few months are actually carried forward in the future? 

Well, I'm grateful for that question, Paul Davies, because, just looking at Pembrokeshire, a total of £140,000 was awarded to eight organisations across Pembrokeshire through the support made available to the third sector due to the effects of the pandemic. Of course, that's come from the sources of funding that we've provided: the voluntary services emergency fund, recovery fund and the resilience fund.

But your question is important in terms of how can we take this forward. They have a key role to play in terms of the recovery and reconstruction. That's reflected in the reconstruction plan that was published last week. Because I think also it reflects the importance of the infrastructure that we have here in Wales, not just with the Wales Council for Voluntary Action, but the 19 county voluntary councils in Wales. And one of the clear outcomes, one of the more positive outcomes, that has emerged out of the challenging and difficult months of the pandemic is that partnership has been strengthened, particularly partnership between the third sector, the voluntary sector, and local government and the health service and the Welsh Government, but also that we can see that the impact of the investment that we've made has actually helped beneficiaries, supported jobs and also underpinned the importance of the third sector's contribution in local service delivery. They have faced challenges, of course, and we need to keep that volunteering base both supported and resilient and sustained. 

Minister—Deputy Minister—I've been pleased and deeply humbled to work alongside many of the volunteers in our own community working through the pandemic and it really shows the generosity of spirit and time that they put in. But that's happening throughout our communities: people like the Drive Cardiff Taxis co-operative, Paul and his colleagues there, who have been distributing free prescriptions and food deliveries to people who couldn't otherwise get out; Andrew Pearson of the Unite Ford Bridgend plant workers who, through furlough, produced free masks for care workers; and, I have to say as well my friend, the incredible Elizabeth Buffy Williams, up in Pentre in the Rhondda—the work that she's been doing for a team that was recognised, I have to say, as she said, for the whole of the community and what they've done, in the Queen's honours list. Could I ask the Minister: would she join me in paying tribute to the work that's gone on throughout these communities in every street throughout Wales? And what more can we do to ensure that these community self-helpers actually go through beyond the pandemic into the long-term future for the resilience of our communities? 

Thank you very much, Huw Irranca-Davies. I've had the pleasure of meeting with the Drive taxis, in fact, when we were able to meet with them, last year, outside the Senedd, and I recognise the contribution that they've made during the pandemic, and I think that is a great recognition of the mutual support and self-help particularly supported by the co-operative movement. But also I have met Elizabeth Buffy Williams and I congratulate her on her recent award, and say that these examples—and indeed of Unite, providing the free face masks—are all contributing to our community contribution over these past difficult months. But I think we need to—. Following up on the previous question, we need to see how this takes us forward. We've seen the real benefits of volunteering and partnership working. We've seen local action, self-help and mutual aid bring real benefits to the medium and long terms, and we now have a third sector partnership council COVID recovery group, which will be reporting to me next month, and I will want to report on their findings and their conclusions about embedding this. I will want to report back to the Senedd.

Good afternoon, Angela Burns. The plan to advance gender equality in Wales, published in March, sets out our ambition and practical steps to advance equality for women and girls. Actions to remove barriers include providing childcare support, creating training opportunities, tackling low pay, discrimination and racial inequalities.

As you will know, Sunday was the International Day of the Girl, and in many places in the world girls are still a commodity, to be used, to be abused and to be trafficked. In many places, Minister, you will know that girls have little education, become pregnant too young, feel abusive relationships are their only route, are pressured to marry, suffer genital mutilation, and are treated as sex objects, and, in this toxic day of ours, suffer disproportionately the effects of negative social media. I know that you're really committed to this agenda, but when I say 'many places', it also is many places in Wales and many girls that feel this. What I was wanting to know was what you are doing to learn from best practice within other countries—some of the poorer countries in the world, who actually have made astonishing strides in being able to better educate not just young girls, but young boys, young men, in how women and men have equality and parity of esteem. What can we do to learn from those kinds of areas and bring that learning into Wales because—and I speak as somebody who was in that wave of feminism in the 1970s and 1980s—I have to say that I'm deeply saddened because I think that women's rights have taken a bit of a battering just recently?

Well, thank you very much, Angela Burns, for drawing attention to and making sure that we remember the International Day of the Girl. It is also very welcome that you're looking at this from a global perspective, going back to our well-being of future generations legislation—that we seek to be a globally responsible country as well as a fairer and more equal country as well. That, of course, does bring with it some responsibilities that we need to drive through as a Welsh Government in terms of our powers in relation to delivering the Equality Act. Indeed, I think that the work that we're doing particularly in terms of taking forward the opportunities through our work with violence against women, domestic abuse and sexual violence legislation and plans is crucial to this. But I do very much welcome your recognition that this is about not just looking at this from a global perspective, but that we can learn globally and act locally and act nationally here in Wales to promote those opportunities for girls and young women in every aspect of their lives.

In 2020-21, we're investing over £4 million of new money to tackle violence against women, domestic abuse and sexual violence, 18,800 members of the public have accessed our e-learning, we’ve published guidance on working with perpetrators, and worked with Hafan Cymru to deliver its Spectrum project for schools remotely.

Thank you for that answer, Minister, and thank you for your ongoing commitment to ending male violence against women. As you will know, I'm a White Ribbon ambassador, and I'm very proud to follow in my dad's footsteps in supporting the White Ribbon campaign. This year's White Ribbon Day is going to be very different but no less important. Now, I've spoken to a number of survivors who are fearful that lockdown is putting women in danger. Minister, I will be encouraging as many men as possible to make the pledge to draw attention to the importance of tackling violence against women, but what plans does the Welsh Government have to mark White Ribbon Day and the 16 days of action that follow?

Thank you very much indeed, Jack Sargeant, for this question, and for your inspiring and courageous work in this campaign as a White Ribbon ambassador—as a White Ribbon ambassador who has, year on year, taken this forward in terms of promoting the White Ribbon campaign. I think, this year, it will be difficult in terms of our activities, in terms of the impact of the pandemic; that is going to mean that we'll have to have many virtual activities. But we're looking, for example, to reinvigorate our commitment as a Welsh Government to this important cause and to mark the White Ribbon Day on 25 November. I'm sure Joyce Watson will be finding ways in which we can do that as well, remembering our annual vigils. It means we have to look at it in terms of our work as a Welsh Government to encourage more men to engage from Welsh Government—our officials, our civil servants involved in spreading the White Ribbon campaign. I'm also grateful that you've acknowledged the difficulties of the lockdown on women. 'Home is not always a safe place', which is our campaign—our bystander campaign, 'Wales won't stand by'—has to be taken forward. We need to link that to the White Ribbon campaign message. And we do have four local authorities, two fire and rescue services, two police forces and one town council in Wales accredited, as well as the older people's commissioner, to the White Ribbon campaign, so we hope we can spread that accreditation across Wales this year. Diolch yn fawr, Jack Sargeant.

Thank you, Laura Anne Jones. I have regular discussions with the Minister for Housing and Local Government and Cabinet members about increasing diversity across all sectors. Action does include the pilot of the access-to-elected-office fund to support disabled candidates with the additional expenses incurred as a result of their access or communication requirements.

Wonderful, Deputy Minister; that was exactly what I was going to ask you, because, like the fund already established in England—the EnAble fund—I was hoping that Wales would follow suit, so I thank you very much for that.

Excellent. Thank you to the—.

Did you want to say anything? Sorry, I cut across you there, Deputy Minister. That seemed such a collegiate way of asking your question, Laura Anne, I was sidetracked into thinking that no response was necessary, but do you want to respond, Deputy Minister? I shouldn't have cut you off. I'm sure you'll take the opportunity to say something, if I know you, Jane Hutt. 

Yes, I'm trying to unmute myself. Can you hear me now? I'm really glad that I've actually delivered on my answer to the question from Laura Anne Jones, but this is a very serious issue for us, not just in terms of Government and what the Minister for Housing and Local Government is doing to promote the opportunities for diversity, particularly, I would say, in local government, but also in the fact that all our political parties have a role to play in this as well, particularly in making sure that we have more diverse candidates standing in the future elections that lie ahead of us. I'm really pleased that the Minister for Housing and Local Government has developed a diversity and democracy campaign that's led to this access-fund pilot, and that she's also set out actions for phase 2 of her diversity and democracy programme.

This is very crucial in terms of the local government Bill. As the Minister has said, she is reviewing a range of guidance available to local authorities where equality and diversity aspects can be strengthened. But I do think it's those political parties that need to get on with this, and we've asked the UK Government—and perhaps Laura Anne and others can support from across the political representation—for section 106 of the Equality Act to be commenced. This would require the collection and publication of diversity data by political parties in relation, in the future, to Senedd elections, and then it would also correspond to local government elections. Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd.

I knew you'd have an answer, Jane Hutt, even though there wasn't a question to answer. Thank you very much for that.

The business statement and announcement is next. So, the Minister for Finance—or Trefnydd more specifically—will move. Rebecca Evans will now ask—. I'll get this right in the end. Rebecca Evans to make the business statement.

Diolch, Llywydd. There are two changes to this week's agenda. The statement by the Minister for Health and Social Services on Cwm Taf has been moved to item 6 on the agenda, with the other business renumbered accordingly. And, secondly, the Business Committee has agreed that last week's postponed short debate will take place tomorrow. Draft business for the next three weeks is set out on the business statement and announcement, which can be found amongst the meeting papers available to Members electronically. 

Business Minister, may I ask for two statements, please? Firstly, following on from the First Minister's response earlier, please could I ask for a statement from the Minister for Economy, Transport and North Wales to outline exactly how now phase 3 of the economic resilience fund will provide the flexibility to provide already established businesses in non-lockdown areas being adversely effected by surrounding areas being in lockdown? I welcome the First Minister's support on this, as these are worrying times for businesses in Monmouthshire, who have been severely impacted by the lack of footfall.

Secondly, could I ask the health Minister for a statement outlining a national position on birthing partners being present throughout the birthing process, please? Currently, restrictions, in my view, are too rigid, and there's some sort of a lottery between health boards going on at the moment, outlining how long, or how little in this case, birthing partners can be present with their loved ones? It doesn't take into account undetected complications. My first birthing experience—my first time—was absolutely fine; my second, very early on and very quickly I dilated and had birthing problems, where the main vein grew into my placenta and there was an explosion and we both nearly died. I'm not going to go into too much detail on that one, but that was a very quick process, and it would have been severely distressing to me if I hadn't had someone present with me at that time. And, with the current restrictions, there wouldn't have been someone with me at that time. So, please can you just allow a bit of flexibility there, because births aren't predictable, as I've just outlined? Thank you.

I'm grateful to Laura Anne Jones for raising both of those issues. On the first, which relates to phase 3 of the economic resilience fund, I know that if there are any changes to the eligibility criteria, then, obviously, Business Wales would be the first place for constituents to go in terms of understanding any particular changes. But, of course, I will ensure that, as I say, if there are changes, then the Minister for economy and transport alerts colleagues to that. 

And on the second issue, of birthing partners, I know that Lynne Neagle raised this particular issue just a couple of weeks ago in the business statement, and the Minister for Health and Social Services has prepared a written response to her, so I'll ensure that you also receive that response, which sets out his consideration of this issue. Thank you.

Following on from the last point, Minister, this week is Baby Loss Awareness Week, and I'd like to ask the Government to bring forward a statement letting us know what is being done to help families and mothers cope with the trauma and psychological difficulties that can arise as a result of baby loss. There have been specific challenges, as we've just heard, that have arisen as a result of the COVID pandemic, and the Baby Loss Awareness Alliance are asking that lessons are learned from the first wave of the virus. Many people have raised with me and, I'm sure, many other Members too, this issue of partners' exclusion from key scans and appointments. If, at the very least, video consultation could include partners, then that would help everyone, especially if there is bad news to be received. So, can we have a statement to address the question of partners attending pregnancy, maternity and neonatal services, especially when they've already experienced baby loss, and also how services more generally in this field can be improved?

I thank Leanne Wood for raising this issue and, given the evidence and interest that there is among colleagues, I will ensure that the health Minister writes to all Members so that they can be updated on this important issue.

As Leanne Wood recognises, it is Baby Loss Awareness Week. The First Minister has, in his role as Member of the Senedd for Cardiff West, for many years supported an event, and sponsored an event, normally at the Pierhead. This year, obviously, arrangements will be different, but the organisers have made alternative arrangements to mark the week, and that will take place on Thursday 15 October, from 6.45 p.m. to 7.15 p.m. The First Minister invites us all to participate if we can, either by tuning in for the live-stream service, or by joining him in lighting a candle and sharing a photo on social media. So, I'd obviously encourage colleagues to become involved in that important commemoration as well.

Some in the Chamber may be aware that Wales is on the verge of gaining a world championship crown in rally driving. Can you hear me, Llywydd?

No. Can you just repeat what you've just said? We can hear you now, I think.

Thank you. I thought that something had gone wrong by the thing on the computer.

Some in the Chamber may be aware that Wales is on the verge of gaining a world championship crown in rally driving. Whatever the outcome in November, our own Elfyn Evans of Dolgellau has demonstrated world-class driving skills and, once again, will put our clever and resolute country on the map. I'm sure that we will all want to wish him well for the next few rounds.

This has me wondering, however, about the Wales Rally GB. North Wales enjoys one of the phases and I know that it's an exciting time for communities, especially when they go through my own Clocaenog forest near Ruthin. Competitors, volunteers and everybody thinks that it is absolutely fantastic, and it brings in much needed revenue to the area. I would be grateful, therefore, to hear from you or the relevant Minister what ongoing support from the Welsh Government will be given to Wales Rally GB. To my mind, it would be a massive missed opportunity to showcase the very real talent that we have in Wales, as well as, hopefully, a world champion in the making, if we do not continue to support it. Will the rally be taking place in Wales next year, Minister?

Thank you for that. I'm afraid I don't know the answer to that question, but I'll ensure that the Minister with responsibility for major events does write to you with an answer. Of course, we all extend our best wishes to Elfyn Evans in terms of his endeavours in rally driving, and keeping all our fingers crossed.

Could we have a statement, Minister, on any discussions between Welsh Government Ministers and the Welsh Rugby Union and the Football Association of Wales on the support for club rugby and football in Wales? This is not simply a matter for professional governing bodies, but a matter of community cohesion and active sports participation, as well as sports heritage, particularly where these clubs have been part of the backbone of local towns and villages for generations, and where many have shown through COVID that they are far more than sports clubs, by providing support such as meals, food distribution, and even phone calls to isolated members during the crisis.

We were dismayed to hear recently that Maesteg RFC and Aberavon Quins are among 30 iconic rugby clubs that are struggling through week by week, and even football clubs like Penybont FC face the same worrying predicament. So, Minister, surely this is something that Welsh Government could raise with the WRU and the FAW to see how the financial clout at the top of the game can be used to help the club game through to the future. Otherwise, we will not only lose the reservoir of talent supplying our premier clubs and national game; we will lose valuable community assets that go well beyond sport itself.

Huw Irranca-Davies is absolutely right to recognise that our clubs go well beyond sport and are very much at the heart of our communities right across Wales. I know that discussion that you describe will be something that the Minister with responsibility for sport will be interested in considering. But, certainly from the Welsh Government's part, we've put in place funding through our new £14 million sport and leisure recovery fund. Now, that fund is being distributed through Sport Wales and I know that they intend to give further detail on the eligibility criteria and the application process within a week or so now. So, that further detail should be there for clubs very, very shortly.

I call for a statement on support for bed-and-breakfast businesses in Wales. Many small bed-and-breakfast businesses have contacted me after the Welsh Government again excluded them from financial support to help them survive the pandemic; this time barred from the third round of the economic resilience fund. They were also deemed ineligible in previous rounds and have been denied small business grants, unlike their counterparts in England and Scotland.

Their comments over very recent days include: 'This fund, once again, leaves us, as thousands of small businesses, out in the cold'; 'Once again, we seem to have slipped through the net with this new economic resilience fund'; 'Cancellations have decimated our bookings. Can I ask you to bring this up at the Senedd?'; 'Having a turnover last year of £65,000 to just £5,000, there's no way we can keep our business afloat'; 'The eligibility checker for the latest phase of the economic resilience fund states that microbusinesses will be able to apply for up to £10,000 on condition that they match this with their own investment of at least 10 per cent, and for tourism and hospitality microbusinesses, there'll be discretion for grant awards of 100 per cent. I started to work my way through the checker only to find that, as a microbusiness, we do not quality. I believe that the same will be true for many, if not most, microbusinesses. Are you able to bring your input to bear on the Welsh Government to change their criteria and please, please look into this loophole that we fall into? We're absolutely desperate and do not understand why the Welsh Government has denied support to this vital part of local tourism economies across Wales.'

I therefore call for a statement that addresses the reality and urgency of this situation.

Thank you to Mark Isherwood for raising this issue on behalf of his constituents. I know that it is an issue that he has raised with me previously.

The Minister for Economy, Transport and North Wales will obviously have been here to hear your comments this afternoon and I know that he is interested in exploring the economic resilience fund in terms of how it supports businesses, but also what further support can be provided elsewhere. I know that, in the first instance, you'll also be advising your constituents to speak to Business Wales advisers to explore whether they can point those businesses in the direction of other forms of support, such as the UK Government's bounce-back loans, for example.

May I ask for a statement from the Deputy Minister for sport on the serious challenges facing the highest levels of football in Wales? Welsh premiership games are, of course, played behind closed doors these days, and that places huge financial strain on these clubs. That's not sustainable without either allowing a proportion of supporters to attend those games or providing financial support. And I hear what the Minister said on funds from Sport Wales, but there are no assurances, as yet, on that front.

More importantly on policy, it's an entirely absurd situation. Government policy says at the moment that you can't go into a stadium to watch a game, standing in the open air, socially distanced, but you can go to the pub to watch the same game, or in some circumstances, you can go to the clubhouse in the stadium, where the game is being played, and watch the game through the window. That is the situation that the Welsh Government policy leaves us in at the moment. It's a complete farce. It would be far safer to allow some supporters to attend those games in a responsible and managed way.

Simultaneously, tier 2 clubs, the Cymru North and Cymru South league clubs, can't play at all, of course, although a number of the players are semi-professional, as they are in the higher league, although the clubs have to meet the FAW's criteria to get a tier 2 licence, and although many tier 2 clubs, which can't play, meet the same criteria as the tier 1 grounds, which are allowed to play, and some of those tier 2 grounds are being used for Welsh premiership women's football games, which are allowed to be played. This policy is all over the place and I want the Deputy Minister to come here to explain the rationale, because in my view, and the view of many others, this is entirely absurd.

Well, the Deputy Minister will have heard your request for further information on the rationale behind the decisions in relation to people being able to watch sport live. You'll be aware that the Welsh Government was in the process of piloting some of those larger events in order to learn from them, in terms of advising us and helping our thinking in terms of how we go about holding larger events in future, with a particular focus on sport and the arts, but, unfortunately, the resurgence of the virus has made it impossible to continue with that just at the moment. But, of course, the Minister will have heard your request for further information, and as you heard in my response to a previous speaker, the Sport Wales recovery fund will be announcing its criteria and application process very shortly.

Minister, I'm seeking a statement from the Minister for health on cross-border health services, and, in particular, concerns that residents have raised with me over elective surgeries. Residents are seeking assurances that they will still be able to access services in England throughout the pandemic, particularly at the Countess of Chester Hospital. Will you seek a written statement or an oral statement to the Chamber from the Minister for health?

Thank you for raising this important issue, because it's, of course, the responsibility of the health boards to secure the necessary activity for their local populations, and we know that things are difficult across the border, as they are here in Wales, in terms of elective surgery at the moment. But, I mean, it is absolutely the case that where those contracts are in place, and were in place before COVID with English providers, then we absolutely expect those English providers to meet their obligations to Welsh patients and treat patients in order of clinical priority. So, I would hope that you're able to provide your constituents with that reassurance. But, as I say, capacity across the border has been affected, just as it has in Wales, because over the border, as we have to in Wales, we have to put in additional measures to ensure that the environment is safe to treat those patients. But where those contracts exist, absolutely, they should be being met, and Welsh patients should not experience any detriment in that.

Can I firstly concur with Leanne Wood's earlier comments supporting Baby Loss Awareness Week? My own son will turn two next month—I can't quite believe it—but I can't imagine the heartbreak that parents and families go through when things don't go according to plan, both during pregnancy and afterwards. I think those families do need support, and I for one will certainly be supporting the First Minister's online Baby Loss Awareness event this year.

Trefnydd, will you join me in welcoming Monmouthshire's first Community Fridge, which recently opened at Monmouth's Bridges Centre? I'm sure you will. Established by Food Sense, the food has been donated by local supermarkets and also by Monmouthshire County Council, which helped get it going, to set it up. Could we have an update from the Welsh Government on how these types of anti-waste initiatives are being supported across Wales? Maybe the Welsh Government, maybe the Senedd itself could support this sort of initiative in the future.

And finally, Llywydd, we are now less than a month away from Remembrance Sunday, a date particularly poignant this year with the seventy-fifth anniversary of VJ Day and the powerful memories that survivors still have of that time. Clearly the pandemic and the requisite social distancing make traditional services impossible this year, so what discussions have the Welsh Government had with the Royal British Legion and other interested parties on how Remembrance Sunday is going to be commemorated next month? Because I think this is a subject that is very close to people's hearts, and they would want to see some sort of commemoration, even if not in the traditional sense.

Thank you to Nick Ramsay for highlighting the importance of Remembrance Sunday and ensuring that this year we mark it in an appropriate way and that we put all of the plans in place to do that. I can confirm that the Deputy Minister for Housing and Local Government will be making a statement on marking remembrance and our continued support for the armed forces to the Chamber, and you'll see that on the business statement that was laid today.

And, of course, it's the same Minister who has responsibility for tackling waste, and I know that she will have heard your request for a statement on how we can support and promote excellent initiatives such as the community fridge at the Bridges Centre in Monmouth. I'm sure it'll be an absolutely wonderful resource in the community for people who need it and, of course, helping us to tackle food waste as well. So, congratulations to everybody who's been involved in making that happen.

I'd like to ask for a statement on the effect that ongoing restrictions are having on people with caring responsibilities, particularly people who would usually rely on day-care centre facilities as respite and who have been unable to have that support for many months. Families who are live-in carers for their loved ones have seen their routines turned upside down over the pandemic, and many councils are still saying that day-care centres are unable to open. This is having a really severe negative impact on the mental health and well-being of those families. Now, I understand, of course, that councils need to find a difficult balance between protecting public health and the well-being of residents, but this group of people has been left without support now for a long period, and there's no end in sight. I'm increasingly concerned about the toll it's taking on these people. So, I'd like a statement, please, from the Deputy Minister for health and social care that would set out the circumstances under which these facilities could reopen and any guidance and support that could be made available to councils to help them provide individual day facilities or individual support for as long as those centres are not able to open. It's a hidden harm of COVID, and many people are in desperate need of support.

Secondly, Trefnydd, and finally, the BBC has just reported that the Prime Minister has rejected the First Minister's latest letter calling for a ban on people travelling out of areas with high COVID infection rates. Now, the letter-writing strategy has clearly not worked, so we need a legislative one. If the Government were to require extra parliamentary time this week in order to pass that, then we would support it. So, could the Trefnydd confirm, please, that it is the Welsh Government's intention now to legislate in order to protect our communities, and could you outline what legislative timetable you expect that to follow?

Thank you to Delyth Jewell for raising both of these important issues. In terms of support for carers, it has been a tremendously difficult time for carers, and I know that the Minister with responsibility for social services and carers will want to provide that update to you. I'll ask her, in the first instance, to write to you regarding the guidance and support for local authorities, and I know she'll be considering how best to provide a wider update on support for carers themselves.FootnoteLink

In terms of the rejection of the request in the letter from the FM, obviously that's very, very disappointing, but I will leave it to the FM to set out the next steps. But I'm grateful to Plaid Cymru for their offer of support should additional parliamentary time be needed. Thank you. 

John Griffiths. You need to be unmuted, John Griffiths.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. Minister, I very much welcome Welsh Government's recent signature to the Edinburgh declaration on the post-2020 global biodiversity framework. The declaration critically recognises that healthy biodiversity and the ecosystem services that it provides are key for human well-being and to build the resilience of our cities and regions—that's both during and after the pandemic—and that it should be central to our recovery. We know that our ecosystems are degraded and rare species are not faring well in Wales, and, indeed, that's the case across the whole world. So, I welcome governments and regions signing the declaration and showing ambition in this area and on these matters, and I would further welcome, Minister, a full ministerial statement in the Chamber on the Edinburgh declaration, the commitments within it and how Welsh Government will meet those commitments.

Thank you, John Griffiths, for raising this issue. I know that the Minister will have heard your request for a statement. But in the meantime, I would say that a key output from the Edinburgh declaration has really been to outline the important role that devolved nations play in development and delivery of the post-2020 framework via a renewed plan of action, and I'm really pleased to say that the Minister for Energy, Environment and Rural Affairs has signed up to that. Through our policy initiatives, we're taking action to really embed biodiversity consideration across Government, and we're doing that through our natural resources policy, our nature recovery action plan, also our section 6 biodiversity and resilience of ecosystems duty, and of course most notably, I would say, through our budget preparations as well. The refreshed nature recovery action plan identifies some priority themes that are to be taken forward by the Welsh Government, by Natural Resources Wales, by the environmental non-governmental organisations, local authorities and of course our local nature partnerships as well, as well as landowners and farmers across Wales. But really importantly, that piece of work has identified some important gaps, and it's there that we should be looking to further our efforts. 

Thank you, Trefnydd.

I apologise to all Members who I wasn't able to call. We are way out of time already on that statement. We'll take a break now, a short break, and we'll reconvene in a few minutes. 

Order. Order. The Senedd is back in session. 

We move to item 3, which is a statement by the Deputy Minister for Housing and Local Government on recycling and the green recovery. I call Hannah Blythyn. 

Thank you, deputy acting Presiding Officer. I am pleased to be able to make this statement today on recycling and the green recovery. Over the last 20 years, we have invested £1 billion in recycling infrastructure. Approaches like our universal household food waste collection are the envy of others and mean we have the ability to collect and recycle much more.

Last month I launched the Be Mighty, Recycle campaign, aimed at helping everyone become more aware of the wide range of materials that can be recycled in Wales, from eggshells to shampoo bottles. The ambition is not just to increase recycling for its own sake, but to make sure that we can use the valuable material collected. Our food waste is turned into renewable energy that powers homes and businesses, and our recycling can be turned into new products. Working in partnership with local authorities to develop the Be Mighty campaign, which rightly recognises the work of our collection crews—a reflection of the heartfelt thanks from communities across Wales, as they work tirelessly to maintain collections through challenging times. The resilience of our collection systems during the pandemic has been a considerable achievement. Not only did they absorb increases in household materials, but also increases in streams such as clinical waste.

The pandemic highlighted the growing importance of recycling to our economy. The collection of the bags and boxes of recycling from our kerbsides has been vital in supplying businesses in Wales with the materials they need to produce the goods we use. Businesses like Smile Plastics in the Gower, and Capital Valley Plastics in Torfaen, who are using recycled plastics to make products like damp-proof membranes and worktops, show how Welsh companies are innovating to bring forward greener solutions. It also means that maintaining the collection of recycling is not just important for our environment and for our communities, but it is increasingly vital for our economy.

The disruption caused by COVID-19 and the uncertainty surrounding Brexit means that we have a window of opportunity to rethink ways of working and make the changes now to support a green and just recovery. The circular economy is key to that recovery. By shortening supply chains, we can boost economic resilience, and by keeping resources in use, we can realise more of their value and take advantage of the new economic opportunities.

This means looking to green skills, including those in repair and remanufacture. This is already happening across Wales. One example of this is the new RemakerSpace Centre at Cardiff University, which we have funded, and will support businesses with the skills, equipment and advice to rethink the design of products. We will also support the foundational economy in Wales by focusing future investment in the regional infrastructure needed for a circular, low carbon economy. We are already seeing the clustering of businesses and enterprises at recycling centres, like the Bryn Pica eco-park in Rhondda Cynon Taf, where products previously seen as waste, such as paint and mattresses, are remanufactured or reprocessed rather than burned or buried.

A green and just recovery cannot simply focus on the economy, but must align environmental and social action. We know that 45 per cent of carbon emissions come from the goods and products that we make and consume. So, recycling, reusing, repairing and reprocessing—a new approach to resources—is central to rising to the challenge of the climate crisis.

Last year I launched our circular economy fund, aimed at supporting publicly funded bodies to take steps to innovate and move to more circular approaches. We ran a second funding round earlier this year, which was yet again hugely oversubscribed. Our commitment to a green recovery means that further funding has now been secured so that we can support an additional 74 circular economy projects across Wales, putting the green recovery into action. 

A circular economy works for communities too. At the height of the pandemic, we awarded funding to FareShare Cymru to expand their redistribution provision into new parts of Wales, ensuring that people that needed it were able to access food that would otherwise go to waste. We have enabled Repair Cafe Wales to set up more cafes and offer online guidance on repairing essential items. Our support is not simply addressing immediate issues, but, importantly, also shaping more sustainable long-term solutions that empower communities. So, we are creating an additional fund of over £13 million to support repair and reuse activities in our town centres, creating community infrastructure to stimulate innovation and skills development on our high streets and helping to transform towns.

Our 'Beyond Recycling' consultation was launched last year in Llangollen. It was a consultation with a difference—a conversation that went around the country setting out our aim to reach zero waste by 2050, to reduce emissions and to grow the circular economy, and asking people for their ideas on how we could achieve this. One thousand citizens and stakeholders came along to 40 events or submitted responses. The messages were clear and consistent. There is a strong sense of pride in what we have achieved and a sense that we have achieved this together, alongside a real appetite for Wales to continue to lead the way. Last month we issued a summary of responses and we will be publishing a new circular economy strategy for Wales by the end of the year.

I made clear that our approach to the circular economy should be about taking action and that's what we are doing—from funding to support organisations, businesses and communities to innovate change, to taking forward a consultation to ban the nine most commonly littered single-use plastic items in Wales, and working with other Governments in the UK to bring in both a deposit-return scheme and extended producer responsibility for packaging. Twenty years ago we started on an ambitious recycling journey. We've come a long way and together we have shown that recycling is what we do in Wales, building on our proud record, going beyond recycling in a way that brings benefits for our environment, our economy and our communities.

I would like to thank the Deputy Minister for her statement and to join with her in acknowledging the excellent work that our local authorities have carried out during the collection systems, of course, through this pandemic. In your 'Beyond Recycling' strategy, you state that to enable a zero-waste and low carbon Wales,

'regional and accessible infrastructure and community hubs are needed to deal with priority materials.'

For this to become reality, of course, easy access must be ensured to both domestic and non-domestic recycling premises. It is clear from the replies to me, in a recent FOI, that fly-tipping still continues to remain a very modern menace. Indeed, between July 2019 and June 2020, there were 675 instances of fly-tipping across Neath Port Talbot, 968 across Denbighshire, 1,034 across Monmouthshire, and 2,281 across Caerphilly. That is individuals—very selfish individuals, I might add—who blight our countryside and our environment and instead of taking it to a centre that the local authority provides, deem to decide to just go and empty their vehicle, often vans, trailers. And to be honest, it's an absolute disgrace and shame on them. Most concerning, however, was Rhondda Cynon Taf, where in spite of 2,816 cases recorded between 2019 and June 2020, zero fixed-penalty notices were issued. So, to me, we need a deterrent, and the local authorities, I believe, are duty-bound to put the detective work in to find out who is doing this, and make sure those fines are hefty, because we definitely, definitely need a deterrent.

So, the figures suggest that councils, whilst having the power, are not able, then, to do the enforcement. So, with these statistics in mind, and I have raised this—I've been an Assembly Member, a Member of the Senedd, for nine years now—on so many occasions, I would ask, will you take the mantle forward now, to ensure that local authorities, COVID aside now, actually start to look upon the duties they have, and the powers, and actually start to enforce more robustly? Will you commit to increasing local authority funding, to ensure that recycling centres are a lot more easy to access? Your 'Beyond Recycling' strategy states that the Welsh Government will commit to increasing financial support for the sector to increase operations in rural areas. Will the £13 million target be targeted at towns as well as in rural areas? And can you offer clarity on your plans for resource-efficient waste transportation for rural communities, especially your plans for electrification of these vehicles, and plans to optimise rural routes by serving dual purposes? The document appears to suggest combining postal delivery with waste recovery, which I consider to be problematic. Can you also confirm whether lamp-post charging points and vehicle-to-grid technology has been considered as part of these electric waste transport plans, so that Wales can embrace bold and innovative business-first ideas to support our nation's efforts to curb emissions?

As I've stated before, a recent report from WRAP Cymru found that 75 per cent of commercial and industrial waste sent to incineration or landfill in Wales was actually recyclable. So, this is incompatible with much of the legislation—the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 and other Acts—that we've passed here. A good start would be for a moratorium to be introduced on all planning consultations related to new incinerators during the pandemic. I've raised that. You have stated that 45 per cent of carbon emissions come from the goods and products that we make and consume and, as such, that recycling, reusing, repairing and reprocessing, and a new approach to resources are central to the challenge of the climate crisis. So, with this in mind, will you outline what steps you will take to see publicly funded schemes in Wales use natural and environmentally friendly materials in the first place, like Welsh wool? [Interruption.] Thanks. Wales has the potential to be even greener and greater at recycling, so I implore you to be even more ambitious in this climate crisis.

And I have one more plea, Deputy Minister. Will you, please, work with Dŵr Cymru, and let's get some education out there about the damage that wipes are doing to our planet, climate change and, indeed, our water supply? Because, whenever I do a beach clean, whenever I go to our local sewage works and things, it's an absolute issue the number of wet wipes and things that people are putting into the systems, and they are causing a lot of pollution across Wales, so education is key. But I believe you have a duty to work with Dŵr Cymru and let's stop this once and for all. Thank you.

Can I firstly thank the Member for her warm words and joining me in recognising the work that our collection crews have played and the role they played the length and breadth of the country and in communities in our constituencies, not just during the pandemic, but throughout the year as well, and the role that they play there? 

The Member asked some questions around the challenge of fly-tipping in our communities, and I absolutely agree with her that this is—we should be clear—absolutely unacceptable anti-social behaviour, and it is not and will not be tolerated. We're working closely with our local authority partners to look at the work we can do around enforcement, but also the Member raises important points around the role of raising education. 

She talks about access to facilities. Now, within my statement and within our 'Beyond Recycling' consultation, we've invested £1 billion in the last 20 years in infrastructure—regional infrastructure and infrastructure that means we're able to deal with our recycling and reprocess it. But what we want to do is take that further, and invest in that community infrastructure, so people are able to access facilities on their doorstep without having to drive out of town, to make it as easy as possible for people to do the right thing, but also that brings benefits for local towns and communities as well, whether that be through creating hubs for repair and reuse, or coupling them with zero-waste shops. And that's why I hope the funding that we've announced recently will help contribute, alongside the recent tranche of circular economy funding for public bodies and organisations that town and community councils are also able to bid for on this occasion. So, we could see more projects in towns and communities across the country, which I hope, then, others can see and then we can spread them at scale right across the nation.

The Member raises—this is the point around incineration. Let's be clear: our aim is to be a zero-waste nation with a more circular economy that keeps resources in use and avoids waste in the first place. We need to get to the position we want to get to, but, in the interim, we need a way to deal effectively with our non-recyclable waste in a way that prevents if from polluting the environment or sees the problem being exported elsewhere. And we have the facilities that can use this waste to recover energy, and heat provides an important transitional way of dealing with waste in line with the waste hierarchy. But within the 'Beyond Recycling consultation we talked about taking full responsibility on waste, and that's from grass roots to Government and everything in between, and the document was clear on incineration that it's a transitional measure and our long-term plan is to keep resources for use for as long as is possible and avoid waste being burned or buried. 

I'd like to pay tribute as well to those working in the waste sector, particularly local authority staff who've kept the waste collection wheels turning throughout this pandemic. I notice, Minister, in your statement, obviously there's a laudable focus on recycling and the circular economy, but, of course, the key thing here is that we have to stop producing that waste in the first place, and I don't hear much in your statement about that. And I would like you to elaborate around what you are actually doing on that front, because statistics from WRAP Cymru tell us that we produce 400,000 tonnes of plastic waste in Wales every year. Sixty seven per cent of that is packaging waste and we only recycle 33 per cent of household waste. So, whilst you're proud of the Welsh record on recycling, it's been suggested to me that what we have, actually, is a decent record on collecting recyclable material as opposed to necessarily getting the recycling bit right. We've seen how some of that material ends up in places that it shouldn't, and WRAP Cymru stats as well remind us that we have a long, long way to go. 

Your statement tells us, and I quote, that

'I made clear that our approach to the circular economy should be about taking action and that's what we are doing'.

Well, I've been a Member of this Senedd for nine and a half years, nearly 10 years. Ten years ago, we were talking about the need for a deposit-return scheme. We're still talking about the need for a deposit-return scheme. Ten years ago, this place was talking about extended producer responsibility. Ten years later, we're still talking about it. Ten years ago, we were talking about banning single-use plastics, and do you know what? We're still talking about banning single-use plastics. If this is your definition of taking action, Minister, I think we have much deeper problems than I ever imagined we did have. So, can you tell us when exactly will these initiatives be introduced? Because they're long, long overdue, and people like myself have had a gutsful of waiting for this so-called action.

I'm looking forward to your new circular economy strategy, to be published at at the end of this year. I'd be interested maybe if you could elaborate a little bit about how that will take account, of course, of the whole COVID pandemic situation that we find ourselves in, and the new waste epidemic that stems from that in relation to face masks and gloves and single-use items, which are a scourge now—and I imagine that there will be some sort of bespoke initiatives to try and tackle those particular issues—but also Brexit. One of the big risks stemming from Brexit will be a huge increase in food waste, because what we'll see, potentially, is a huge disruption of supply chains, invariably leading to surplus food being produced in certain sectors, and one of those being lamb. There were reports in the media last week that we could be facing up to 2 million lamb carcasses going to waste in the UK alone, so I'm just wondering what contingency planning you might have as a Government to ready yourself for that. Thank you. 

The Member says we're still talking about taking action on a DRS scheme, we're talking about EPR and we're talking about action on single-use plastics. Well, to be clear, I'm not just talking about it—I'm taking action on it, and this Government is taking action on it. This is why we are not only going further than elsewhere in the UK in taking action on reducing single-use plastics, we're looking at nine of the most commonly-littered single-use plastics, the ones that blight our communities and blight our streets and blight our seas, and the ones that we know that are the biggest problem. But it's not just—. This is the first phase of not just taking action to phase out single-use plastics; one of the things that came back in our 'Beyond Recycling' consultation was the need to look more holistically at, actually, how we phase out single-use, full stop, so we don't move the problem elsewhere. 

And we're taking action by working with the UK Government on an EPR scheme and a deposit-return scheme. The extended producer responsibility scheme is the one that will be a game changer in terms of tackling those issues that the Member raised in reducing waste in the first place, and driving that change in terms of the packaging that products come in by placing the polluter-pays principle on those who produce the packaging in the first place. Where we currently see now that they're covering around 10 per cent of the cost of this packaging, the EPR will mean that the responsibility goes up to covering 100 per cent of the cost of that packaging. 

On a deposit-return scheme, we're keen to make sure that works in a way that works for us in Wales, recognising that we're in a different position perhaps from our colleagues elsewhere in both Scotland and in England in terms of where we are in terms of how we recycle at kerbside in the first place, working with Welsh businesses and other businesses to look at, actually, how we innovate and choose technology so that, again, we don't have unintended consequences. So, we will work with those households and Welsh citizens who have played their part over the years to actually play their part and to do their recycling at kerbside, and to see how digital technology can enable them to also be able to return deposit-return scheme items at households, so that they don't necessarily have to return to a return vending machine or to a collection hub—so, working right across the piece. 

We are—. This Government is taking action and we are committed to continuing to lead the way, and making sure that Wales is a global leader when it comes to not just recycling, but to tackling reducing waste in the first place.

Deputy Minister, can I firstly thank you for your statement? Can I thank you also for the fact that you will, in fact, be attending a single-use plastics session in Pontypridd online later this week, where you will also have the opportunity to meet not only with young people in the constituency, but also from the Friends of the Earth youth forum in Pontypridd, who we meet with regularly to talk about different options and schemes that there may be for recycling?

Can I also say—? You referred in your statement to how much progress we've made. I think we have to start from the point of view—and maybe it's a generational thing—of how far backwards we actually went after the 1950s and 1960s, because I as a child did a lot of recycling, picking up glass bottles from building sites, getting the 4p back on the bottles, taking them back to be recycled. And, of course, when you went into a shop, it would all be paper bags, it would be paper wrapping and so on. So, many of the things that we're talking about doing now are the things that we used to do, and we just have to reorientate much of our business and the way in which we do things to achieve that.

But can I say—one of my constituents has sent to me what is a really interesting deposit-return scheme that's being introduced in America? And that is that bottles, whether they be glass, whether they be plastic and so on, are barcoded. There is a levy on all those bottles, and the individual who purchases them pays a slight premium on them, but, when they've finished with them, they take them to one of these big recycling bins, they post them through, the barcode is read, and they get their money back on them. Now, this is a rather more sophisticated adult version of what we used to do when I was a kid and collected these bottles. But it seems to me that there are systems and technologies in place that can really actually deliver a lot of this, and it seems to me pilots of technology like this in an area with perhaps a number of supermarkets and so on would really be a way of kicking off recycling, as a pilot, without the need for complex legislation. I wonder if that's something you'd be interested in looking at. Thank you.

May I start by thanking the Member for his very thoughtful and reflective contribution there? I think you're absolutely right in terms of how we feel like we've almost gone full circle in terms of that consumer journey, where it was about convenience, and then we've realised, actually, convenience comes at a cost in a different sense as well—so, looking and thinking more now about actually how we use and the way in which we consume things and needing to, actually, not just as a Government take responsibility and use our leverage and our legislation to drive that change, but we also have to—as individuals ourselves, we have to think about, actually, how we do things and how we can change our own behaviours as well.

The Member says about the ideas out there in terms of the use of innovative technology and the way digital can potentially be a game changer here, and that's exactly what I was referring to in my previous answer to the previous question in respect to actually exploring in Wales actually how we actively explore in Wales how we can bring a different dimension to, perhaps, those traditional methods of deposit-return scheme collections in the way in which the Member talks about, in terms of the use of smartphone technology. We are working with businesses to see actually how we can take that forward in a pilot within Wales, and I'm happy to update the Member on that, and other Members should they so wish.

Finally, I'm very much looking forward to the event this week. I've done a few recently, and they're always very attended and with some fantastic ideas from those contributing, all of which help shape the future direction of this area, which I know people, and particularly young people, are incredibly passionate about in communities right across the country.

And finally, Jenny Rathbone.

Thank you very much. I share Janet Finch-Saunders's rant about wet wipes, which are a good example of how manufacturers simply invent something new that they think they can make money out of, and that's where extended producer responsibility comes in. So, it would be useful to know how well your conversations are going with the UK Government to try and get that sort of thing extended throughout the UK. And also I just wanted to have a minor rant about black plastic trays, because they are completely unnecessary; there are plenty of other plastic trays available that can be recycled, whereas these things can't. Why has it not been possible to reach an agreement with the UK Government that we simply ban black plastic, on the grounds that it cannot be recycled? I appreciate that water bottles have had a revival as a result of COVID, but wouldn't it be nice if we could be picking up leaves at this time of year, rather than plastic bottles? So, are you able to just tell us quickly which are the nine most commonly-littered single-use plastic items and how quickly we can see them eliminated from our society?

I thank the Member for her questions. If I first touch on the issue of wet wipes, it was remiss of me not to pick that up in my response to Janet Finch-Saunders as well. The single-use plastics consultation here is perhaps a first phase in a phased approach at tackling problematic single-use plastics, and, within that consultation, we invite people to suggest perhaps things that they think should be included in it and that aren't or that we should consider as a second phase, and one of the things that is highlighted in there as something that we should potentially address is the issue of wet wipes, and particularly wet wipes that may contain harmful plastics that are harmful for the environment. And like you say, you find them where they shouldn't be, on beaches. Welsh Government does work and has worked very closely with Welsh Water on this in terms of actually—and will continue to do so in the short to medium term in terms of the messaging to the public on actually how these can be properly disposed of in the current circumstances as well. 

With an extended producer responsibility, the current work we're doing is around, obviously, specifically packaging, and that will also help address things like the problematic black plastic as well, because the idea of actually increasing the modular fees for something that does greater damage to the environment acts as an incentive or a driver for companies or for producers to actually produce things that do less damage to the environment and are actually able to be repossessed and reused in some form or another so as to fulfil the ambitions and the principles of a circular economy.

Within the UK Environment Bill, there are enabling powers for Wales, which would include EPR and, in the future, you could look at actually how extended producer responsibility could be applied to a range of areas, not just packaging—you could look at things like textiles and other problematic materials. So, that piece of legislation could be significant to us in Wales in terms of actually how we could build on what we're already doing and take that further. But I would issue almost a warning and a word of encouragement for Members from across the Chamber to help us to make representations with regard to the internal market Bill, particularly concerns around the principle of mutual recognition within the internal market Bill if enacted, which allow any good that meets relevant regulatory requirements relating to sale in the part of the UK it is produced in or imported to to be sold in any other part of the UK without having to adhere to relevant regulatory requirements in that other part, which, in essence, could mean, in reality, that the Bill as it currently stands could prevent us from taking action as we've done previously and as we would want to do in the future.

So, the ambition is there and the commitment and the drive to build on our record in Wales and to go beyond recycling in terms of actually how we reduce waste in the first place and phase out all these problematic materials, but we really do need to make sure that we don't have our hands tied in doing that.

Thank you, Minister.

We now move to item 4, which is a statement by the Deputy Minister and Chief Whip on Hate Crime Awareness Week. I call Jane Hutt. 

Thank you very much, acting Presiding Officer. Today we mark Hate Crime Awareness Week, a national event that aims to increase knowledge and understanding of hate crime, encourage its reporting, and promote the importance of communities standing together against intolerance and prejudice.

This, of course, is a very different Hate Crime Awareness Week to usual. A cornerstone of the annual week of awareness raising involves organisations going out to public places and engaging directly with communities about hate crime. Current circumstances have required organisations to move online to reach people this year. And this year also follows the societal momentum behind the Black Lives Matter movement, which has highlighted pressing inequalities that Wales needs to urgently address, including hate and prejudice.

As well as engagement on social media, there will be a number of online events and launches taking place during this the week. For example, Race Equality First is holding a virtual launch of its discrimination and hate crime project today, which will be providing assistance to victims of hate crime and discrimination across Wales over the next three years.

Victim Support Cymru will be launching its hate crime charter on Saturday, which brings the rights of victims of hate crime to the forefront. It will encourage organisations to adopt the charter to show their commitment to playing a part in tackling hate crime, from providing support and information to victims to raising awareness. The Welsh Government will be signing up to the charter and I encourage organisations to sign up and show their support too.

In March, I led a debate on our progress with tackling hate crime in Wales, where I gave an update on the ongoing and upcoming work of the Welsh Government. Since that time, our focus has rightly turned to tackling the COVID-19 pandemic. We've had to adapt the work we'd planned, for example, the delivery of hate crime projects has moved online and we hope to restart hate crime in schools activity by the end of the year. However, we have also seen clear evidence of cohesive communities across Wales, as people came together to support one another through this challenging period. The unprecedented commitment to volunteer, to support neighbours and those most vulnerable is something we must continue to celebrate and cherish. I hope we can continue to build on these relationships going forward.

We have revised the timeline of our pan-Wales hate crime communications campaign, with a launch early next year. This will be a major campaign aiming to highlight the isolating effect of hate crime on victims and encouraging public support.

Our community cohesion teams have been instrumental to our work to support communities and mitigate tensions across Wales during the pandemic. The versatility demonstrated by the teams in their joint response to the unexpected challenge of COVID-19 has once again highlighted the great value of the programme.

But there are those who seek to divide our communities with hateful and divisive narratives. Opportunistic individuals have recently tried to capitalise on the unacceptable way the Home Office communicated its decision to use the Penally army training camp to accommodate asylum seekers without consultation and engagement with the local community and local public services. We aim to be a nation of sanctuary in Wales, and this means supporting those who arrive to integrate effectively for the benefit of surrounding communities, providing support and assistance to achieve this.

Through our regular meetings with police and Victim Support, we have seen hate crime reporting, on average, remain generally lower throughout the pandemic. While we can't be certain why, it is possible that it is a result of social distancing and a lack of interaction, or alternatively through reluctance to report hate crime due to not wanting to bother the police during this busy period.

We know through our conversations with all four police forces in Wales that hate crime remains a priority, and I want to use this opportunity to reinforce this message. We encourage victims to continue to come forward and report incidents during the COVID-19 pandemic, whether to the police or via the Welsh Government-funded National Hate Crime Report and Support Centre, run by Victim Support Cymru.

I would like to thank the police, local authorities, the third sector, and all of our partners for their flexibility and resourcefulness over the last few months. We remain grateful for their support and expertise.

Previously, I've highlighted the Law Commission’s review of the adequacy and parity of protection offered by hate crime legislation. It published its consultation paper on 23 September. The Law Commission would like to hear from as many stakeholders as possible, including victims of hate crime and the service providers who support them. I strongly encourage people to participate, as it is important that the consultation benefits from Welsh views and experiences.

In the remainder of this Senedd term, we intend to lay down the foundations for future work in this area. As well as responding to the Law Commission's consultation, we will work with partners to develop community cohesion principles to identify common goals by which we foster and promote community cohesion in Wales. And as part of this work, we will produce an update on actions in the hate crime framework. We're also working on an exciting new partnership with Cardiff University's HateLab dashboard, to increase our capacity to monitor and respond to online hate.

The 2019-2020 national hate crime statistics for England and Wales were published by the Home Office today. They showed an overall 2 per cent increase in recorded hate crime for Wales, compared to an 8 per cent increase across England and Wales as a whole. The statistics included a 10 per cent increase in transgender hate crime, a 2 per cent rise in disability hate crime, and a 2 per cent rise in hate crime where sexual orientation is the motivating factor. There was a 2 per cent decrease in race hate crime and a 3 per cent decrease in religious hate crime. We have not seen the same increases across all strands of hate crime as we did in the previous year. However, the statistics show that the rises we saw in 2018-19 have been sustained.

In addition, we know that there are still around half of self-reported hate incidents not being recorded as hate crime across the UK. This might range—the reasons for this—from a lack of faith in the criminal justice system or due to people not knowing how to report hate crime. Our work to raise awareness of hate crime and encourage victims to report is as vital as ever, as is our effort to better understand the experiences of victims and the reasons for not wanting to come forward to report.

Across Wales, organisations are using Hate Crime Awareness Week as an opportunity to remind people that they do not have to tolerate hate and prejudice. It's not acceptable for people to live in fear just because of who they are. I hope that all Members will join me today in supporting this very clear message that there is no home for hate in Wales. Diolch yn fawr.

I thank the Deputy Minister for her statement today. I fully support the National Hate Crime Awareness Week, although I deeply regret that in this day and age that we need to have one.

Hate crime is an increasing problem in our country, and sadly, Wales is no exception. Police forces in England and Wales recorded a 10 per cent increase in recorded hate crime incidents in 2018-19, as you outlined. These increases were across the board: religious hate crime up 3 per cent, disability hate crime up 14 per cent, a 25 per cent increase in hate crime due to sexual orientation, and transgender hate crime up 37 per cent.

While it's likely that the increase in hate crime has been driven by the improvements in recording by the police, and there is a growing awareness of hate crime now, there is no doubt that the problem is escalating. Do you agree, Deputy Minister, that we need further measures to crack down on hate crime in Wales?

Although the vast majority of these crimes were based on race or religion—

Order. I'm afraid we've got a technological gremlin, and I think we've lost Zoom. So, I will just suspend proceedings momentarily whilst the technicians try to re-establish contact, and then we will come back to you, Laura.

Order. Welcome back. I'm pleased to say that we've resolved the technical issues, and I call Laura Anne Jones.

Thank you, acting Presiding Officer. I thank the Deputy Minister for her statement today, and I thank her for the work that she's done so far, as well, on this. I fully support National Hate Crime Awareness Week, although I deeply regret that, in this day and age, we still need to have one. Hate crime is an increasing problem in our country, and sadly, Wales is no exception. Police forces in England and Wales recorded a 10 per cent increase in recorded hate crime incidents in 2018-19, and these increases were across the board: religious hate crime up 3 per cent, disability hate crime up 14 per cent, a 25 per cent increase in hate crime due to sexual orientation, and transgender hate crime up 37 per cent.

While it's likely that these increases in hate crime have been driven by improvements in recording by police and a growing awareness of crime, there is no doubt that the problem is escalating. Do you agree, Deputy Minister, that we need further measures to crack down on hate crime in Wales? Although the vast majority of these crimes were based on race or religion, there are disturbing increases in offences against LGBT and disabled people. Nancy Kelley, chief executive of Stonewall, said that she didn't think the rise was just down to better reporting. She added that 80 per cent of LGBT people still don't report hate crimes. So, this is really just the tip of the iceberg. How can we convince people that they need to come forward and report incidents of hate crime?

One of the key steps to take is to reassure victims that reporting hate crime is worthwhile. However, fewer people are being prosecuted for homophobic hate crimes, despite rising numbers of potential victims coming forward. Recorded reports of homophobic abuse in the UK increased from just under 6,000 in 2014-15 to over 13,000 in 2018-19, but during the same period, the number of prosecutions fell from 1,500 to just over 1,000—from 20 per cent.

Similarly, figures show that only four people were charged with a hate crime against disabled people in Wales last year, despite 268 complaints. I know that police forces in Wales take this matter very seriously. Gwent Police, for example, have a team of hate crime support officers who have received additional training to support victims, offer advice and signpost victims to other organisations that may be able to offer further support. Can you advise what discussions you've actually had with the police forces, the commissioners and others to tackle this problem of the low conviction rate for these crimes?

What is disturbing, also, as you've outlined, Minister, is the increase in online hate crime. There has been a particularly steep increase in disabled hate crime online. The COVID-19 pandemic means that disabled people have been confined to their homes with only digital technology to keep them connected to the outside world. So, it is worrying that disabled people should be victims of online hate crime. What measures will you take to tackle this online abuse, Minister? I welcome the fact that you're in joint working with Cardiff University on this and I would like to hear a bit more about it, if possible.

No person in Wales should have to tolerate prejudice or hate crime. I welcome the statement today and Welsh Government's commitment to making sure that all victims of hate crime are supported and that perpetrators are held to account. I urge people, also, to get involved with this week's online events. Thank you.

Thank you very much indeed, Laura Anne Jones. Thank you for your support for today's statement, reminding us of the hate crime, again, that blights so many people's lives. There's no doubt that we need this further measure and this endorsement that you've given today, particularly to addressing this in terms of our hate crime awareness week.

I'm particularly pleased, and will comment on the points that you've made, in terms of the evidence from Stonewall Cymru and the impact on LGBT people and also disabled people. And just to say that last year, I wrote to the Home Secretary to urge the UK Government to recognise hate crime motivated by sexual orientation, transgender identity or disability as aggravated offences, bringing them into line with the manner in which racially and religiously motivated hate crimes are prosecuted. So, we are awaiting the outcome of the Law Commission review, as I said in my statement. The consultation paper is out now and I do encourage you to participate and to respond to that review.

I think also your issues around disabled people are very pertinent today and I'm glad to have the opportunity to acknowledge that this is also an issue where we can look to the Law Commission's response. So, I think that it's particularly important, again, that we look at attrition rates for disability hate crime. We are committed to making sure that victims of hate crime are supported and that perpetrators are held to account in terms of disability hate crime. We're working, for example, with All Wales People First to raise awareness of hate crime. The hate crime legislation is reserved to the UK Government, but we're working very closely with the hate crime criminal justice board to increase reporting of hate crime and improve the rate of prosecutions. As you say, Laura Anne, that's so critically important, and our engagement with the police is key to that.

I would like to just say, finally, a word about online hate. The HateLab in Cardiff University is very important for us. We're going to be a client for the HateLab dashboard pilot—it's working in partnership with Cardiff University. It actually helps to identify trends in online hate speech, using mapping of hashtags, key words and social media influences, and it's going to help explore the origins behind tensions within a community. We hope it will enable us to create more targeted communications. And, indeed, due the fact that we have this at Cardiff University, we can marry it with our own work and foster cohesive communities in Wales. So, I thank you very much, Laura Anne, for those very constructive contributions to the statement this afternoon.

It's interesting how different statistics can tell different stories. The Minister uses police figures, but caseload data from Victim Support's National Hate Crime Report and Support Centre Wales shows that cases of hate crime have increased by 70 per cent between April and September of this year. Now, I'm sure this won't come as a major surprise to many, especially those in minority groups. Many people are saying that they can feel it and you can see online exactly how it can escalate. And it won't be a surprise, either, for those of us who have observed the way in which immigration, for example, is whipped up by some, and most notably, events in Penally in recent weeks. The far right are weaponising the Penally issue, and they're supported and spurred on by far-right elements that sit within this Senedd. So, will the Minister join me in strongly condemning those who seek to gain politically from the awful situation that refugees find themselves in? Will you also join me in saying 'well done' to Councillor Joshua Beynon and others who have stood up in defence of the refugees in Penally and received abuse for doing so? Will you tell us what you can do to prevent refugees in Penally from being attacked, and what steps you can take to stop the far right from gathering there? And, finally, what resources can you provide to schools and community groups to enable them to challenge the relatively low-level behaviours that can morph into hate crime? We're clearly not doing enough to tackle this at source, otherwise we wouldn't need a hate crime day every year and a debate in this Senedd on it. So, Minister, I'm sure you would agree with that point too.

Thank you very much indeed, Leanne Wood. It's very important that you draw attention to the actual lived experience of victims of hate crime and that you draw attention to the evidence and the statistics of those who are actually supporting victims of hate crime. We need to acknowledge that and recognise that as well, indeed, as the Home Office statistics.

I mentioned the inappropriate way in which the Home Office inappropriately imposed the Penally army camp and then designated it as a centre to accommodate asylum seekers in the way that they did, without consultation or engagement with the local community and local services. And I'd also join you to acknowledge the courage of local people and, indeed, of elected representatives like Councillor Josh Beynon and others. But I have raised the issue of the Penally camp, and not only myself, but the First Minister, who's written three times to the Home Secretary and wrote again to Chris Philp on 9 October. In his letter, he said, 'I'm writing urgently about the continuing and deeply concerning state of affairs at Penally training camp in Pembrokeshire'. I think one of the things about this and the way that it's happened is it has enabled far-right extremist views to come through and blight the lives of those asylum seekers and the local community. We know that far-right extremism exists in the UK; it is our shared duty to combat it.

But I would say that, actually, there's a lot of support being rallied to support the asylum seekers who've been transferred to the Penally army training camp in Pembrokeshire. Migrant Help is co-ordinating offers of support, I've met with the faith communities forum and the local churches, the imam is engaged, there's the Oasis centre providing English language tuition, Victim Support is engaging with individuals relating to hate crime, and many other organisations, as well as the local community, are seeking to understand and plug gaps in services where they are able.

So, I'm glad that Leanne Wood has brought this to me in questions on this statement, but I would also say that, as she said, it's vital that we do reach out to our children and young people. We had already awarded funding to a range of organisations to tackle hate crime, particularly with schools and with young people. We have a £350,000 hate crime in schools project; that's been funded with EU transition funding. The whole purpose is to create a school climate in which prejudice and hate-motivated behaviour are not acceptable, but that allows children to develop diverse viewpoints and opinions. It was paused by COVID-19, but, in fact, that project is going to move forward in terms of staff training, classroom activity, resource packs, engaging with children and young people at key stage 2 and early key stage 3, often excluded from conversations relating to hate crime, and that work is going to now progress.

I thank very much the Deputy Minister and Chief Whip for her statement on Hate Crime Awareness Week, and I do agree that there are different statistics that will offer different measures, but the prescience of this statement can be seen by the 2019-20 national hate crime statistics for England and Wales that were published by the Home Office today. They show that overall 2 per cent increase in recorded hate crime for Wales, compared to an 8 per cent increase across England and Wales as a whole. This smaller increase, though, is an increase that we in Wales will do everything to counter.

As the Minister stated, the statistics included a 10 per cent increase in transgender hate crime, a 2 per cent rise in disability hate crime and a 2 per cent rise in hate crime where sexual orientation is that motivating factor. This is additional to the recent strategic rise, as has been alluded to by Leanne Wood, in hate crime over the last two years, contrary to the earlier trend. Too often, I think we can fall into this trap of believing that we are dealing with an abstract, with theoretical data and issues within the Chamber of this Senedd, this Welsh Parliament, but behind each one of these figures are real lives, individual human stories, mothers and fathers, grandparents, sisters and brothers, and their lives are blighted in society, sometimes feeling diminished, different and ostracised. So, these, Deputy Minister, as has been alluded to, are the tip of the iceberg of reported crimes; underneath that, lies an iceberg.

Minister, following recent measure announcements and the 'Nation of Sanctuary' and the Welsh Government signing the Victim Support Cymru hate crime charter, how can the Welsh Government continue in its real and active effort to further eradicate the scourge of hate crime and how can Welsh Government aid the work of important, critical partner agencies, such as Gwent Police in my constituency, who are actively working to protect all of the citizens that they represent? And to conclude, I also wish to echo the Deputy Minister: if you have suffered from any hate crime, please come forward and report, because Wales will listen and Wales will act. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Rhianon Passmore. As you say, the statistics that we have today demonstrate the tip of the iceberg in terms of unreported crimes, and evidence of that is quite clear from those partners who are working to meet the needs of victims of hate crime. I think the additional funding that we provided for the national hate crime report and support centre is important to acknowledge—run by Victim Support Cymru—£360,000 over two years, additional money on top of their annual funding, particularly investing in work to tackle hate crime in Wales, and also the fact that we have a £480,000 hate crime minority communities grant funding projects across Wales, and we're also launching an anti-hate crime communications campaign early next year. With that campaign we're looking at how we can highlight the isolating effect of hate crime on individuals, highlighting the support available, encouraging witnesses and potential perpetrators to think differently about their behaviour.

I think it's important when we look at the Victim Support Cymru grant, and the contract that we have with them, which we have enhanced—the current service supported 2,017 clients, and 23 per cent of all referrals received are in terms of hate crime, with 334 supported in the current financial year to date. Also to recognise that clients are usually referred on to support by the police—90 per cent by the police—which I think shows their commitment to this, but also self-referral is way down to 7.2 per cent, so we're very dependent on the police.

I thank Rhianon Passmore—

Order. I'm going to suspend proceedings until we unfreeze the Deputy Minister. It's been more than a moment now, I fear.

Order. I regret to inform Members that we've not been able to re-establish a connection to the Deputy Minister's broadband. We were near the end of that item and I'm afraid I'm going to have to apologise to Joyce Watson, who I was going to call as the final speaker to put a question, but my apologies, Joyce, I'm afraid the technology has defeated us. We've done well with the technology overall, but I'm afraid today there are a couple of challenges.

So, we will now move, then, to item 5, which is a statement by the Deputy Minister for Economy and Transport on tackling pavement parking. Lee Waters. 

Thank you. For parents with pushchairs or people in wheelchairs, pavement parking can be not just a nuisance, but a danger. I have accompanied a blind person on a journey around their housing estate and when faced with a car taking up most of the pavement, their guide dog did as it was trained to do—it led them onto the road, rather than try and squeeze through the small gap. This is an everyday occurrence for many vulnerable people. When faced with cars parked on the space meant for them, they are forced onto the road. And it's no surprise that some report that the fear of facing this danger causes them to stay indoors—the anti-social behaviour of a few causing harm for the many.

We want more people to walk for short journeys and yet we tolerate an environment that is often not pedestrian friendly—too many routes are cluttered or blocked. A recent survey found that 83 per cent of people in Wales view it as a common, large or very large problem. The current law on parking on pavements is not as clear or as helpful as it could be. There is no specific offence of parking on pavements. The police can enforce the existing criminal law of causing unnecessary obstruction of any part of the highway, but this offence is rarely enforced.

I'm glad that the Government in England have launched a consultation on what they might do to strengthen the law. The Welsh Government are further ahead, though. Last summer I convened an expert taskforce to come up with practical recommendations for tackling the problem. I was very pleased that Phil Jones took on the task of chairing the group, in parallel with the panel he chaired on 20 mph speed limits. I am very grateful to him and his panelists for all the work that they have done. Taken together, these two initiatives have real potential to save lives and to rebalance the environment in favour of pedestrians to create communities that put people before cars.

My brief to the group was clear: find a way forward that will work in practice. I don't want to create even more problems for local authorities or the police. I want something that's going to help on the ground. The expert group included the police, the fire service, the Welsh Local Government Association, the Federation of Small Businesses, the Road Haulage Association, the British Parking Association and the Freight Transport Association, alongside campaigning groups like Disability Wales, Guide Dogs, Living Streets and Sustrans.

The report, which we are publishing today, has been tested by these key groups. The Welsh pavement parking taskforce makes 10 recommendations, and the Welsh Government accepts all of them. The taskforce does not favour an outright ban on pavement parking. They looked at the experience in Scotland where a prohibition has been created in primary legislation and concluded that that is an overly complex process and could take up to five years to introduce. A quicker and better way of tackling pavement parking is to give extra powers to local authorities to tackle the problem. The taskforce report recommends that Welsh Ministers should make subordinate legislation to add 'parking on a footway' to the list of parking contraventions in the Traffic Management Act 2004. This will enable councils to carry out civil enforcement of pavement parking.

We recognise that in some streets there are too many cars for the space available. We'll be setting out in our new Wales transport strategy how we want to encourage modal shift to make it easier for people to rely less on cars for everyday journeys. But in the meantime, we don't want to penalise people who have no alternative. By giving local authorities civil enforcement powers they can make judgments of where to clamp down. They can target hotspots like schools and respond to local circumstances. We intend for these new powers of 'civil enforcement of unnecessary obstruction' to commence by July 2022.

We will now set up an implementation group with local government representatives and stakeholders to develop enforcement guidance to help ensure a consistent approach is taken across Wales. This work will sit alongside the work we are doing to introduce a 20 mph default speed limit in residential areas from April 2023. And as I previously highlighted to the Senedd in July, this is as much about changing hearts and minds as it is about hard enforcement, and we will be developing a communications campaign rooted in values to make the case for change.

Over time, Dirprwy Lywydd, this will become the norm. Just as with smoking in restaurants, organ donation, and recycling our waste, I'm convinced this will quickly become seen as a commonsense measure. And I appreciate the cross-party support that there is for taking this forward. Diolch.

I'd like to thank the Deputy Minister for his statement this afternoon, and also add my own thanks to Phil Jones and the task and finish group for their work also. I should say that the issue of pavement parking is an issue that the Economy, Infrastructure and Skills Committee has previously looked at, and we've particularly looked at it as part of our inquiry into active travel.

Pavement parking clearly has negative consequences on many pedestrians, including older people, disabled people and children, so I do welcome the task and finish group's recommendations, and I also welcome the Welsh Government's response. I don't think that we're in a great deal of disagreement this afternoon on this issue. I should say that I'm sure other Members have had constituency issues raised with them, and I agree with the Deputy Minister, when I looked into this myself as a constituency Member, that there is no clear guidance in law on this particular area.

I suspect you will agree with me, Minister, that the challenge that we have is that, in many areas, pavement parking is considered essential, not only because people living in those areas have nowhere else to park, but because emergency vehicles and recycling vehicles et cetera would not be able to get through on certain streets if people did not park on the pavement. So, any legislation, whether primary or secondary, would, of course, generate considerable anxiety amongst some communities where it was the only way for residents to park near their home. So, in that vein, how would the Welsh Government give due consideration to this during any national public awareness campaign on the issue in an effort to increase public understanding and gain public feedback? And how much funding will your department dedicate towards the public education campaign?

In implementing this policy, it seems that every local authority, if I've understood this right, would have to do an audit of the many hundreds of roads in their respective areas. And it would then have to make transport regulation orders for any exemption that needs to be made. So, it would be, I think, irresponsible not to consider the pressure on local authorities of having to exempt hundreds of streets in many cases. So, I wonder what discussions you've had with your colleague the Deputy Minister for local government and with local authority leaders to gain their views on this, what I think is a very likely a difficult task.

Urban areas such as Cardiff and Swansea are clearly very different in terms of population distribution to that of rural authorities such as Powys or Ceredigion, and there could be considerable unintended consequences of a blanket ban, if brought in, so I think we've got to be careful that, in alleviating a problem, which we all agree that there is, we don't create another problem in another area. So, I wonder what the risk of any ban would cause in terms of unintended consequences. I'm sure, Minister, that you and your officials have considered that, so it would be useful to have your thinking on that. And if you could also—. You could easily envisage a circumstance whereby some local authorities might need to exempt hundreds of roads from a ban because of the way the roads are laid out. Each road could cost at least £1,000 to exempt, and the cost of preparing a pavement parking ban could fall disproportionately on authorities that have denser populations of potentially poorer communities, because of the nature of streets and the larger stocks of terraced houses. I would be grateful if you could outline what considerations the Welsh Government has given to this.

Finally, it is important that enforcement sits with the body most able to enforce it, and the evidence points to local authorities being the most appropriate body. However, given that local authority budgets and policing budgets are stretched, I would be grateful if you could perhaps give some thoughts on how the regulations would tailor with appropriate enforcement activity appropriately as well.

Thank you. I think I can give some reassurance to Russell George's anxieties there, because he has set out the process of traffic regulation orders and exempting streets across a large area that would apply if there was a blanket ban, but, as I've made clear, it's not the proposal of the taskforce to create a blanket ban, nor the Welsh Government's proposal. So, all of those things he's described won't be necessary under this proposal. This is a much smarter and simpler way of doing it. The approach he sets out is the approach they're going to be doing in Scotland and we think that would be complex and cumbersome.

The approach that the taskforce has come up with is rather simpler than that, really: it's to say to local authorities, 'You know your communities best. We accept that not in every street is everybody able to avoid a pavement'—which I think is something we all need to reflect on; we've created an environment like that and we do need to come back to that, but, for now, what we can do in the meantime is to give powers to issue fines in those areas where it's been reported that anti-social parking is causing particular problems. So, for example, if it would be outside of a school or a particular setting, then they could blitz that area, if you like, with fines to avoid that anti-social behaviour. It would be a smart intervention, not a blanket approach. So, that's why I think the Welsh approach is better than the Scottish approach, in that it is more flexible; it allows the problem to be targeted where it is most manifested. As Russell George said, were we to have a blanket ban, every time we did think pavement parking was appropriate, we'd have to introduce individual traffic regulation orders for that particular street, which would be a very expensive and time-consuming process. So, I think there's a misunderstanding there, so I hope that my reassurance has given some comfort.

In terms of the funding, he's right, of course, there will be an implication from this for local authorities to be able to decide how they allocate their resources, and that's a conversation we'll be having with them in the run-up to this coming in.

I'm grateful to the Minister for his statement today and very pleased to be able to say that we can maintain the cross-party support to which he refers. I'd echo what he says about the work of the taskforce: they've done an excellent piece of work and it seems to me that this pragmatic approach is a very sensible one.

I'd echo too what the Deputy Minister has said about the seriousness of the problem. It's the sort of thing that, if you've never been affected by it, it could seem trivial, but, as the Deputy Minister says, for people, predominately mums, with pushchairs, for people with mobility issues, for people just going about their ordinary everyday lives—. In some of the casework that I've had, where people have suffered from persistent discourtesy in this regard from neighbours, it actually becomes a blight on their house, a blight on their property and a blight on their life. So, for people who are immediately affected, this is a really serious issue, and, as the Deputy Minister says, if we want to create environments where it is easy for people to walk, where you feel safe to walk along the road with your children, with your family, if you're an older person you feel safe and comfortable, then this is an issue that has to be addressed.

I'd like to ask the Deputy Minister to assure us that he will look at the particular issues that get created by commercial vehicles, whether those are commercial vehicles picking up and dropping off in some of our town centres, whether those are vehicles where people are perhaps doing building work on a house and you end up with inappropriate parking over a period of days—I guess those would be the sorts of issues where a local authority could decide that was a problem and that they would need to take action.

Russell George has already referred to the issue of those communities where there really isn't anything else that can be done apart from some parking on roads, and I wonder—and I'm thinking particularly of Valleys communities here—if the implementation group could take a look at whether there's a capacity to create small amounts of community parking spaces. I think of lots of places in the Valleys where there are the odd bits of waste ground that nobody seems to know who they own or what they're doing with them, and it could be possible for a local authority to help reduce the problem of parking on pavements if some of those opportunities could be taken up flexibly.

You've touched, with Russell George, on the cost of enforcement. I wonder if it is the case, and if the Deputy Minister can tell us today—is the intention to allow local authorities to retain the fines that they levy, because, if that is the case, then it could eventually become a cost-neutral operation for them, as many of them, for example, run parking enforcement these days.

So, with those few specific questions to raise, I offer the Deputy Minister our support once again. I did a little bit of work on social media about this debate that's happening today, this statement today, and had responses from far apart in my own region, from Pontyberem to Blaenau Ffestiniog, with people telling me that this was a real issue for them and that they were glad that the Senedd was addressing it—so, very happy to offer the Deputy Minister Plaid Cymru's support in this regard.

Thank you very much and I appreciate that support. I think this is an issue that does cross party lines and will take a number of years to bring into force, and I think, as it's being enforced by all local authorities of all colours, it's important that that consensus is maintained, and I'm pleased that I have been in discussions with local authority leaders and with the police and crime commissioners, who are supportive too.

To answer the specific points in reverse order: yes, these are local authority powers, therefore it'll be for local authorities to decide how to deploy them and they, of course, will get any revenue that is raised. We do not see this as a revenue-raising measure; this is something for local authorities, their judgment about how to use it best to respond to local representations, as I think that's right.

In terms of creating parking spaces, I've had this debate myself today on social media. The purpose of this, alongside the 20 mph speed limit, alongside the approach we have towards modal shift in the forthcoming Wales transport strategy, is to change our culture and to change the local environment, putting people before cars. I don't think creating extra parking spaces is the medium- or long-term answer to this. We need to be—. One of the reasons why there are parking problems is because there are too many cars for the spaces available. Many families now have four cars—or more, in some cases—on streets that clearly weren't designed for that.

So, putting aside scarce public space towards car parking—and bearing in mind that would cost money—we know that a quarter of all households don't have a car, so money would be diverted from services that would benefit them to benefiting car owners, so it would be a socially unjust move. I think we need to be very careful that we don't just perpetuate the problem in creating extra space; this needs to be part of a basket of measures, and this is just one, as part of a range of interventions, to encourage people to use cars less, and also to think to futureproof this, because, as we know, as self-driving cars come in—. We know most cars are idle for 23 hours a day, with a very significant investment by people in cars that are sitting not doing anything for most of the time. What self-driving cars will be able to allow us, of course—and they'll be so expensive, it's unlikely most people will be able to buy them—is that we'll able to call on them as we need them, and, when they're not being used, rather than sitting idle, they can go off and be of use to someone else.

So, I'm expecting—and this is what the experts are suggesting—that, as these come in over the next 20 years or so, we'll need fewer cars, because the current fleet of cars will be able to be used more efficiently. So, I don't think we should be, in responding to people's concerns about this, looking to divert money to create extra car parking spaces. We need to see this as a suite of measures to shift the balance in society away from private car ownership to giving people genuine alternatives for getting around for local journeys.

And finally, on the initial point on commercial vehicles, I mentioned that the Federation of Small Businesses was among those who were on the pavement parking taskforce and who will now be continuing to work with stakeholders on implementing this, and I think that is an important point that I'll make sure that that group considers.

Thank you, Deputy Minister, for your statement today. I welcome the work of the pavement parking taskforce and I recognise the impact that parking on pavements has on pedestrians, particularly those with mobility issues, pushchairs, and wheelchair users. But representing the Valleys, steeped with many beautiful but narrow terraced streets, I'm sure you won't be surprised to hear that I'm also pleased to see the pragmatic approach contained in recommendations 2 and 3 that, in some areas, it will be necessary to make exemptions and allow pavement parking.

With streets like that that have been built 150 or more years ago, we can understand the problems that arise there, but what I would like to ask you is: what discussions have you had with the Minister for Housing and Local Government about the way that the big builders build modern housing estates, in many cases with very narrow roads and a lack of parking for households, that mean that pavement parking is an issue there, in areas where, really, those developments should have been built to allow for proper parking and the proper use of pavements? That is an area that I would like to see the Welsh Government focusing on in future.

You also mention your work with the FSB, and I wonder whether part of these discussions have touched on the number of people now who take work vans home and park them outside their houses. It's certainly an issue that very many constituents raise with me when they're unable to park outside their own homes, particularly in these narrow terraced streets. I'm not sure what can be done about it, but I would welcome your thoughts on that in reply. And—

Thank you, Vikki. That's two questions. You're at two minutes, now—a minute over. Minister.

Thank you. Yes, I'll try and be brief in response. We have, as part of the latest 'Planning Policy Wales' issued, about two years ago now, put the hierarchy of road use within that guidance, which puts pedestrians at the top and cars at the bottom, and making sure that is implemented in all new build, I think, is going to be crucial for making sure that this problem doesn't keep popping up. Because one of the problems we do have, as Vikki Howells correctly identified, is that new-build estates build in the problem and it is often impractical—. We've all walked these as part of our many happy weekends canvassing our constituencies, where, in many estates, it would be very difficult to implement a ban, which is one of the reasons why we favour the pragmatic approach. So, Vikki is right to highlight the problem.

And the commercial vehicles, in a sense, is another manifestation of the fact that we have developed a car-centric society, and that's—. We're trying, in a sense, to deal with the symptoms of the problem here, both with the 20 mph speed limit proposal and with pavement parking, but unless we deal with the problem at its root, then we're going to keep having these manifestations. And that's why, I think, the focus on modal shift in the forthcoming Wales transport strategy is essential, not just for tackling climate change, because it is a crucial part of that, but also in rebalancing our society away from the focus on car ownership as the be-all and end-all, and dominating the way our communities look and feel.

Thank you for your statement, Deputy Minister. Pavement parking is one of the biggest problems facing those with mobility issues, young mums with pushchairs and small children, and persons with sight loss. Deputy Minister, unless measures are strictly enforced, my constituents will continue to have to run the gauntlet whenever they leave their homes. How will measures be enforced, and what discussions have you had with local authorities and police forces about enforcement measures? Because, in a small village within my region, a commercial vehicle constantly parks where there are double yellow lines, forcing people out onto the road and repeatedly endangering lives.

Deputy Minister, that said, do you agree that we also have to address the other side of the coin, which is the lack of parking provision? What discussions have you had with the major house builders about ensuring that housing developments provide sufficient parking provision at the property or nearby? And do you agree that providing one or two parking spaces for a five-bedroomed home is completely inadequate nowadays? Some households have two or three cars—often four. Deputy Minister, what actions is the Welsh Government taking to reduce reliance on personal cars? And will you be making additional investment in public transport? What consideration have you given to promoting or even subsidising car-sharing schemes as an alternative? Finally, Deputy Minister, what impact do you think working from home will have on car ownership and the problem of pavement parking? Diolch yn fawr.

I'm not sure I'm going to be able to do justice to all of those questions in the time available. A number of them have already been covered in the statement. So, perhaps Caroline Jones will forgive me if I just focus on those that haven't been covered.

The issue of car sharing, I think, is a crucial one, and encouraging people to make what are called 'smarter choices'—car sharing and travel planning being among them—will be an important part of the measures that we set out to tackle climate change as part of the Wales transport strategy. Crucially, the example she said about people having five cars in a five-bedroomed home, I think that we need to ask ourselves as a society: is that what we want to continue seeing? Do we want a situation where people feel that the only choice they have is to have multiple cars that, as I say, sit idle for most of the time? Surely, we need to be moving towards a position, if we are serious about implementing our climate change commitments, of reducing people's reliance on cars.

Of course, people will still have cars. I happily drive a car. But, you shouldn't need to have a car to make every journey. You should have a choice, and it should be easier and more convenient to use public transport for many of our everyday journeys. That's what we need to be moving towards. We have put significant investment in, especially in the wake of COVID, to shore up the public transport sector, which otherwise would have gone out of business in many cases. But all of us need to think about the share of spend on transport of different modes, reflecting where we want to get to.   

Minister, can I genuinely say that I really welcome this and the actions that flow from it? In the nearly 20 years that I have been a representative here in Ogmore, this has grown and grown year after year in my constituency. I think that you are right in focusing on two aspects. One is a pragmatic way forward that works with local authorities, works with local communities and, I have to say, with organisations on the ground as well, like the Bridgend coalition of disabled people, in order to find solutions. But, the other thing is this massive need for behavioural change as well, and that, I have to say, is a mountain to do. When you look at, as has been mentioned, terraced houses in communities in my valley, which were not designed to have a car outside and now have possibly one or two cars, or possibly a trailer and a works van as well, that's the scale of the challenge that we have. It's for you and me and others to stand with people and explain that we can do this in a different way.

So, can I ask him to expand on how he sees this working in engagement with local communities, local residents, local interest groups, including those groups of visually impaired and people who have mobility issues, local parents and children and toddlers, as well as residents and the local authority, to make sure that it's a bespoke arrangement for every street and every community, and not simply a hammer to crack the same nut on every street?

There were two points there, really. First, I agree with Huw Irranca when he paints the picture that Vikki Howells also presented us with, of narrow streets with multiple cars and sometimes work vehicles, and I would reiterate: we can't build our way out of this problem. This is a problem that has emerged over the last 20 to 30 years as car dependency has grown. Even if we had the money and the land available, I think that there would be serious questions to be asked as to whether or not this was the right priority for us, because it simply perpetuates the problem and doesn't address the problem at source.

In terms of implementing this now, and working with local communities, this is why, in both the 20 mph hour work and this work, I have sought to make sure that local authorities are the key partners in delivering this, and getting them, in the spirit of co-production, around the table as we come up with these rules and recommendations, to come up with something that will work for them.

Just look at the timetable. We are saying that, in July 2022, the pavement parking powers will come in for local authorities. Then, the following April, the 20 mph speed limits will come into force right across Wales. In both of those cases, it will be up to the local authorities to decide how those powers are implemented in their local areas, which they will know best. We'll be working alongside them, up to that point, in developing a public communications campaign, much like we did on organ donation, that tries to bring people along with us, not as a way of penalising them or making life difficult, but as a way of saying to them, 'We have a shared sense of values here with the way we want society to be and how our local communities want to work.' We know from repeated opinion surveys that these are considered real, everyday nuisance problems for people in their communities, and that's why we want to work, both with the public, to bring them along with a sense of shared spirit and understanding and common purpose, and with local authorities to make sure that the implementation is right and is malleable and flexible enough at a local level so that they can decide how and where to apply it.

Well, this is a problem that's blighted my community in Aberconwy right from when I was a town councillor, to county councillor, to where I am now, and I've been here—as Llyr corrected me earlier—nearly 10 years. So, I really welcome your statement. It's quite sad to see people—. We have an older demographic in Aberconwy and it really is sad when—. You tend to think kerb parking, parking on the kerb—no. You see whole cars, very often, half a car's width, and I have to say, sometimes, when bushes are overgrown as well, there has been absolutely no consideration whatsoever for the person struggling to access that pavement. I notice that across Wales, 80 per cent have little confidence that the local authority or the police can do anything.

I know, in my own situation, I've got a brilliant local authority, but there does become this buck-passing, so a definitive—. But, what I would say to you is that our local authorities are very, very stretched at the moment, so I will be looking for additional resources to back this up, because statements are all well and good, Deputy Minister, but I do believe that, if you're going to give them the job to do to enforce the fines—I like the idea of Helen Mary where it could actually become a stream of revenue, but to begin with, there are the actual setting-up costs. So, I'd like to see some considerations there.

And finally, what I would like to ask—. Dropped pavements are a huge concern as well in my constituency, so whilst you're putting guidance out there and instructions to local authorities, will you please have some concern for those who are in buggies or wheelchairs or zimmers—you know, the little roll-along zimmers—and make sure that we can have more dropped kerbs, as well? So, let's get this right.

And finally, my final—

No, there's no 'finally', Janet Finch-Saunders.

Oh, okay.

Minister.

Thank you very much. I very warmly welcome Janet Finch-Saunders's comments. On the two specific points, local authorities already have civil enforcement powers over a number of things. What we are simply doing here is adding a tool to the armoury. So, from a minimalist point of view, we're not creating any extra work or extra responsibilities for them; we're giving them an extra tool to deploy if they choose to deploy it, and if pavement parking is a problem that they're getting in their area and they want to tackle it and they want to issue fines, we will be letting them do that. So, there's no inherent need for additional funding for that. But, obviously we'll be working with local authorities, as we have done, to fully understand if there are any extra demands that will be created to implement this properly and we'll be discussing that in the normal way.

On dropped kerbs, as I say, this is part of shifting the local environment to make it more pedestrian friendly. We have created, over the last 50 years, a hostile environment for pedestrians and for cyclists on our roads and in our communities, and this is part of the movement to change that. Because unless we do change that, we're going to continue to have the problem of obesity, of air quality and of rising carbon emissions—all the things that all of us say we want to tackle—and this is an important part of, on the ground, changing that.

Local authorities already have access to funding through the active travel funds, and let's remember, active travel is about walking and about cycling; it's about pedestrians. And we have money for continuous improvement under the Active Travel (Wales) Act 2013 for local authorities, ring fenced every year from the allocations that we make to them, where they are able to access money for improving the environment for small changes like dropped kerbs, just as they have money for taking away cycle lane barriers, for example, that no longer suit the purpose that they were badly designed for in the first place. So, there is funding there already for local authorities to do that, but I would agree with her that this has got to be seen within the context of making our communities more pedestrian friendly, and that's going to require a range of interventions, and this is just one of them.

And David Rees.

Thank you, acting Presiding Officer. Can I thank the Deputy Minister for his statement? I fully endorse what he has been saying relating to the need to take action. Only last weekend I actually came across a parked van in a nasty section of road up the Afan valley, and I was forced onto the road, and that situation should never arise. I accept everything he has said about looking, for the future, at a modal change in people's behaviour and the reduction in vehicles, but we're not there yet, and we still have a lot of work to be done to get there while we get our public transport in place. Therefore, will he look very carefully at some of the temporary actions that can be taken to support people, to make sure that people come with us? I don't like talking about this as a cash revenue for local authorities, because people will see it merely as a means of them getting cash, not actually understanding the purpose of it; and the purpose of it is to actually ensure safe pedestrianisation for everybody. So, will you look at temporary measures in the meantime until we get to the position where we have an effective public transport system and we are then able to actually see the reduction in vehicles? Because there are many people in many communities for whom, at this point in time and maybe for the foreseeable future, the vehicle is the only way they can get to work or the only way they can get to their essential places. But we do need to view both: movement in one direction, but, at the same time, support that movement by offering alternatives temporarily.

I agree with that. This is clearly going to be—you know, it's taken decades for us to get this position and it's going to take time to change the culture and to put in place the investment and to rebalance the investment towards measures that discourage car use and encourage more modal shift. So, this isn't going to happen with a click of the fingers.

Let's be clear about what this power is about. Not everybody who parks on the pavement does so because they don't have an alternative. Some people park on the pavement because they're inconsiderate, because they haven't thought about what it's like to be a mother with a pushchair or a partially sighted person who can't get around. And as we become more car dependent, fewer people know what it's like to be without a car to get around under their own steam.

And this is also a poverty issue. We know that in the poorest 20 per cent of households, a quarter of people are overdependent on car transport. Sorry, I've got that wrong, Presiding Officer. In the bottom 20 per cent of households, people spend something like a quarter of their income on running cars. And, increasingly, we are forcing people who can't afford it to get cars, because we have created an environment where that's the only way they can get about. This has got to be seen as part of a broader movement of shifting that, through addressing this transport poverty, addressing the inequalities. We're essentially saying to people on lower incomes, 'You can stick with substandard bus services' or, 'You can walk on cluttered streets'.

Part of our intervention is for creating a fairer society as well as a society that tackles the blights of air pollution, obesity and climate change. So, to David Rees's point: it's really important that we do this right and sensitively and bring people with us. This is not a measure designed to penalise people. We've got to help people to make the change, and that requires multiple interventions. But, also, we need to remind people that if they do things that are antisocial and disadvantage people who are vulnerable, then there's a penalty to be paid.

Thank you, Minister. We will now take a short break to permit a change-over in the Chamber.

Welcome back. 

The next item is a statement by the Minister for Health and Social Services on maternity services and governance improvements at Cwm Taf Morgannwg University Health Board. I call on the health Minister to make his statement—Vaughan Gething.

Thank you, Llywydd. I wanted to take the opportunity today to update Members on the progress in improving maternity services and wider quality governance arrangements at Cwm Taf Morgannwg University Health Board. I thought it particularly important that I assure everyone that, while we necessarily have to pay so much attention to managing the unfinished COVID pandemic, we have also retained a focus in important areas such as this one. I especially wanted to reassure women and families affected that this is the case, and that the actions that I put in train last year to secure the required and sustained improvements in maternity services have continued over this difficult period.

On 28 September, I published the fourth update report from the independent maternity services oversight panel. The panel has continued to play an essential role in providing the necessary external assurance that sustainable improvements are being made in a timely and transparent manner. I was therefore very encouraged to see the panel confirm that further progress has been achieved over the past six months, and in particular their assessment that the health board has done remarkably well to sustain momentum against the background of COVID-19. I do not underestimate what an achievement this has been, and I want to thank all the staff involved in doing so.

I accept and recognise that the panel’s assurance process has had some constraints, as they themselves have pointed out, whilst the COVID restrictions remain in place—notably their being being unable to have face-to-face contact with women and families as well as staff to hear first-hand from them about their experiences. The panel will be revisiting key areas once restrictions can be relaxed to ensure that the changes are embedded and sustainable. 

Clearly, some other aspects of improvement have also had to be put on hold during this time, such as leadership and cultural development programmes. These will need to be resumed at the earliest possible opportunity, but clearly, given the current pressures, we have to be realistic about when that might be. It is also unfortunate that the Tirion birth centre at the Royal Glamorgan had to close temporarily due to staffing constraints during the initial COVID peak. Sadly, plans to reopen the centre last week have had to be further delayed given the current outbreak. However, the health board will be keeping this under regular review and are determined to reopen the centre as soon as it is safe to do so.

Today I also wanted to update Members on the progress with the clinical review programme. This currently involves the review of care provided to women and babies in three defined categories from January 2016 to September 2018. This includes the care of women, particularly those who needed an admission to intensive care, babies who were sadly stillborn or died in the neonatal period, as well as other aspects of neonatal care. There are now around 160 cases undergoing a review, with the number having increased largely due to self-referrals from women requesting a review of their care. My commitment to women to have their care reviewed if they have a concern remains, and there is a well-established process in place for considering such self-referral requests.

The clinical review programme is therefore extensive and the work has continued without any delay during the COVID outbreak. That in itself is a testament to the commitment of all involved. The panel is near to concluding the maternity category of reviews, and in the coming weeks will be writing to the women affected to share their findings with them. Following this, they will then produce a thematic analysis of their findings and recommendations, with the aim of doing so by the end of this calendar year. Once I receive it, I will of course publish it, as with all panel reports.

The panel has emphasised the need for the health board to ensure that the necessary mechanisms are in place to support women, families and staff as the findings from the clinical reviews begin to emerge. I also want to thank those women and families involved for their patience and understanding as the work continues to progress. I can appreciate that it must be difficult waiting for the outcome of the review and the anxiety this may generate. It is important that this process is expert, thorough and centred on the experiences of those people using the services. Unfortunately, this does mean that it will take some time for all women and families to receive their individual feedback.

The health board has continued to make progress with its wider quality and governance arrangements as part of the targeted intervention requirements. They have implemented a new clinically led, locality-based operating model. I am pleased to see that later this week they will be launching their new values and behaviours framework. That follows extensive engagement with staff, patients and stakeholders.

These are important steps in demonstrating that they are a truly quality driven, open and learning organisation. The open and transparent way in which they have responded to the current and serious COVID outbreak at the Royal Glamorgan Hospital is a further example of this. I do not think any of us will underestimate the impact that this has had on our staff, or their commitment to doing their very best for the communities they serve.

I also understand that Healthcare Inspectorate Wales and Audit Wales will be undertaking follow-up work in the coming months to assess progress against the recommendations that they made in the quality governance review last year. This will be an important piece of work to provide us with external assurance about the extent of the progress that is being made.

There is clearly still significant work to be done. I am, though, optimistic that progress will continue to be made, particularly given the commitment that the health board and its staff have demonstrated, against the background of the exceptionally challenging times that we are all living through. Thank you, Llywydd. 

Thank you, Minister, for your statement, and how appropriate it is that this statement's being taken this week, given that it is national Baby Loss Awareness Week, as was described and touched on in the business statement and, I believe, some questions that the First Minister took as well. I'm also pleased to see the progress that is being made by the review panel and I'm grateful for the briefing that Members were able to receive some two weeks ago now with that panel. 

If I could ask a series of questions of the Minister in relation to his statement: he touched on, obviously, the current outbreak at the Royal Glamorgan Hospital of COVID-19, but also the other two hospitals that are in the Cwm Taf health board area are affected by outbreaks. I'd be grateful to understand whether maternity services have been affected at all, and are expectant mothers and families receiving a different level of service because of these outbreaks, because special restrictions have been put in place for other services at the hospitals? So, if you could clarify that. I'd also like to understand, when he touched on the staffing constraints at the birthing centre because of the earlier actions that were taken because of the COVID outbreak—can he give an assurance that those staffing constraints are now no longer in place and, once normal circumstances resume, there's no reason why the birthing centre couldn't fulfil its full role in supporting expectant mothers?

I'd also like to understand as well, if possible, please, what level of support he understands the health board are putting in place for families that have been affected by this terrible episode in maternity care in the Cwm Taf area, along with the support for staff, in particular when it comes around to, obviously, the maternal category reviews, which he highlighted would be made available before Christmas. It is vital that, obviously, the families, as well as the staff, are supported when those reviews come out and some of their conclusions become public.

Likewise, when he talks of the clinical review starting to emerge—and I fully understand, obviously, the current situation and that there will be delays in some of this information coming forward, but could he elaborate more on how long he thinks the feedback process might take? He did say it will take a little longer than desirable in his statement, but I think if he could clarify the length of time that we're working to, certainly from a Member of the Senedd's perspective who represents this area, it would be helpful when engaging with constituents if we could understand the length of time that he envisages or the review panel envisage.

And, finally, when it comes to maternity services more generally across Wales, can he give an assurance that the issues were in the Cwm Taf area—and I know that he's given this assurance previously, but obviously some time has now elapsed—can he give us the assurance that maternity services in other parts of Wales are not suffering the same dilemma that Cwm Taf found itself in, which was a lack of governance, a lack of oversight that led to such tragic consequences for many expectant families on what should have been one of the most joyful occasions that anyone should experience in their lives? Thank you, Presiding Officer. 

Thank you for the questions. In terms of the broad picture of maternity services across Wales, the regular assurance that the chief nurse's department undertakes in terms of midwifery services demonstrates that concerns are being dealt with across the service appropriately, and that maternity services are safe. And I hope that's helpful in terms of providing that assurance from the regular engagement that we receive through the chief nursing officer with midwifery services. 

In terms of the time for clinical audit reviews, I can't and I won't give a definitive time period, because part of the challenge, as I said in my statement, is that we've seen an increase and expected about 140 reviews up to 160 to be reviewed, and it is possible that more women and their families will come forward. And I think it would be unhelpful for me to set what would inevitably be seen as a target for those reviews to end, when actually the most important thing is for the reviews to be concluded. We'll learn more as we go through this first stage of the three categories and, as I say, I was able to say today that that first category should report by the end of this calendar year. But my experience is that, once you start to set time frames for work that should be led by the evidence, and should be led by taking proper account and a person-centred way, then the time pressure itself leads to a very unhelpful impact for families and for staff. 

That goes back to the point about support for families, which I'm glad you've raised, because we do have a dedicated helpline. We have also been able to have some support from Sands who, as you know, are a charity dealing with baby loss, and that support is for families who will need to be supported. For many families, unfortunately, whilst they are on the one hand looking forward to receiving an independent review of the care that they and their families have received—and it's important to recognise that not every family in the 160 reviews had lost a child—in understanding that, for many of them, they will be reliving difficult experiences. So, it is important for them to be supported, and that's why we do have that specific support in place. 

We'll also need to support staff who, again, will find this a potentially difficult period of time. And as you'll recall from previous reports, there has been intervention by the health board in looking again at the workplace cultures, and an understanding of how some of the behaviours that were set out in very difficult detail in the first report of the panel, and how those have been addressed and moved on in a positive manner.

You asked a question about the impacts on maternity services with COVID and, in particular, in this health board with activity, bearing in mind that there are a number of hospital-acquired infections and also COVID that's come in from the community. In the Royal Glamorgan Hospital, the Tirion centre is still closed, as I said in my statement, so I don't expect that midwifery-led unit to be opening until it is safe to do so. It was due to open in early October and, as I say, it will be open when it's safe to do so. Maternity services on the other two sites are continuing and, of course, the community midwifery team continues to provide care within communities for women and their families.

So, that's the current position, but if any of that picture changes, then either myself or the health board will make that clear to the public and, indeed, all Senedd Members who represent this part of Wales. 

Leanne Wood. Leanne Wood seems to have lost the connection. Can you confirm that you're there, Leanne Wood? I know you've had problems. 

I'm here. 

Okay. Carry on. 

Okay. Diolch, Llywydd. Minister, this update will be welcomed by the women who raised concerns all those years ago, and who were patronised at that time and ignored. Now, I'm pleased that the review panel has concluded that improvements have been made to maternity services, but there will be understandable concern in the community about whether lessons have been learned. There will, of course, be questions about whether the current COVID outbreak that has claimed the lives of many people in the Royal Glamorgan Hospital could have been prevented, and whether infection control procedures have been as good as they should have been. I know that the Minister in his statement said that the board has been honest about this and that this is a sign of progress, and I wonder if that implies that the previous board may not have been honest. But can the Minister today give us an assurance that there will, in the future, be an investigation into this outbreak and give us assurances that the board and the Welsh Government will be fully open and transparent here, because, of course, that will be vital in ensuring that the community has confidence in local services?

The Minister's statement also praises the board for making improvements against the backdrop of COVID. It is, of course, the case that the staff in our NHS need to be thanked every day for the unprecedented work that has gone on this past year. But I do fear that the Minister has omitted another significant pressure that staff in the Royal Glamorgan Hospital have had to deal with, and that has been the uncertainty over its future role and question marks over the services there. It has been an entirely unnecessary distraction. So, can the Minister confirm today that staff will not have this distraction placed over their heads again in the future, and that accident and emergency services will be part of the Royal Glamorgan in the future post pandemic?

Moving on to other staffing issues, we know that the birthing unit has had staffing problems and is now under temporary closure. So, can the Minister commit to increasing staff so that the unit has more resilience through the winter?

Finally, I wanted to ask a more general question about maternity services that will be of wider interest, and that is relating to the general rules about access to maternity, birthing and neonatal services during this pandemic. We know that the ban on visitors to accompany women to appointments and scans or when in hospital, sometimes necessarily, has harmed those women. So, will you commit to a review of the rules and consider measures that can enable both parents to participate in all aspects of the pregnancy and birth, and the conditions that need to be put in place in order that everyone can do that safely?

Thank you for the variety of questions. I hope that this update is welcomed by women who were previously ignored and did not have their concerns taken seriously. I ordered the independent review by the joint royal colleges on the basis that there was plainly a problem that had not been resolved and could not be satisfactorily resolved if the health board themselves were commissioning a review, because I do not think that would have commanded the confidence of the public, which is essential.

In terms of the concern about if lessons are really being learned, that's exactly why we have an independent panel and an independent assurance process. So, it is not simply the health board marking their own homework. That self-assessment is the sign of a mature and confident organisation that is doing the right thing. But we still need to build confidence and need to have independent oversight, so the work of the independent panel is certainly not completed, and I recognise that in both my written statement and in my statement to the Senedd Chamber today.

Now, in terms of the issues around the Tirion Birth Centre, and the ability to recruit staff to it—it will be re-established on the basis of Birthrate Plus, which is a recognised workforce tool, to make sure it does have adequate staff and it does have sustainability built in to be able to operate safely and to the standard that I would want for any woman going to give birth in any part of Wales. And in committing to establish to Birthrate Plus, that's a national commitment that we have been proud to make in the past, and we have actually done relatively well in terms of recruiting people into the Cwm Taf Morgannwg health board. There was some concern that we would struggle to recruit because of the challenge given the problems in maternity services that led to this report and to the need to have an independent improvement process. And, again, I think it's one of the positive aspects of the panel's oversight. They recognise that progress is being made and it's actually helped them to change the culture positively within units where the recruitment is taking place.

Now, on your point about the learning from the outbreak, I don't think that there is any link to draw between practices identified in this report and the outbreak itself. There will undoubtedly be learning, and, in fact, the chief medical officer has already asked for a lessons learned report to be shared here about the outbreak in the Royal Glamorgan, about the two smaller outbreaks at present in the Prince Charles and Princess of Wales hospitals, and to look back about learning from Wrexham Maelor earlier in the year. But, given the risks that exist with a rising tide of COVID that we will see community transmission coming into a range of our hospitals, I'm afraid that, given the increasing levels of COVID in the community, it is inevitable that we'll see more people testing positive in our hospitals as opposed to those people who are being admitted with confirmed or suspected COVID as well.

In terms of the guidance that we've given to the health service on partners being able to accompany women at various stages in their pregnancy journey, then we've actually recently republicised guidance that's been endorsed by the chief nurse and also a number of the royal colleges. So, I'll make sure that is reprovided to Members so that we can be clear again about the guidance that is in place, because there is no blanket ban on partners accompanying women at various stages of pregnancy, or indeed in the after support, with home visits by midwives in the very, very early days post birth, and indeed health visitors thereafter. There are some challenges in the estate that we have, where there's a challenge about social distancing, and that needs to be worked through between the hospital providing care and, indeed, the woman and her family, but we do have, I think, a pretty clear position that I'll happily remake available to Members.

On your point about the future of emergency medicine, you started off by saying that you were concerned about women who had been previously ignored and had their needs rolled into other issues. I don't think it sits very well for a significant and important statement on maternity services and the improvements made and the improvements still required to try to link in a wholly unrelated area. The questions about emergency medicine have been resolved by the health board because of the successful recruitment that has been made, and I just don't think it's appropriate or does the women that we're supposed to be talking about today any favours to try to relive long-finished arguments.

Thank you for the update, Minister. Firstly, can I thank the oversight panel for their continuing work over recent months and note that the review says that the health board have kept to their commitment to review maternity services in Cwm Taf, and that is to be welcomed? Like you, I'd like to thank all of those involved in delivering those improvements. Secondly, to place on record again my sincere condolences to all those who suffered loss and to sympathise with those who had an experience during their pregnancy and birth that fell well below that which we would expect our NHS to deliver.

Minister, the women, families and others affected by the identified failings are shortly to enter a very difficult phase, when they receive the outcomes of their case reviews and of their experience, and that may well be the most difficult period that they have had to face to date. So, you will understand that my question at this stage is entirely focused on them. And you have talked about support for the families in your statement, but can you please assure me that, as far as possible, any support arrangements that are put in place will be in line with the wishes of the families, the women and the families, and that, given that all the experiences will have been different, the support available to them will be tailored to the needs of each individual involved in these reviews? 

Yes, thank you for the question, and I'm very happy to reiterate that we do need to provide support to women and their families. It will be, as I say, a very difficult experience, and it's not one that I can say that I understand, because I haven't lived through that experience, and it's important to understand that it will be different for different people. People who have suffered loss will experience that differently, people who have suffered poor care will experience that differently, and it's important to understand their individual circumstances in providing them with support. I can honestly say that in my direct interaction with families on previous occasions—I know you were able to attend some of the events that were held—there's been a real variety of experience, where some people attended but didn't want to talk to anybody, were visibly upset but couldn't speak to people; others who appreciated the fact that panel members were there, that I was there; and other people who were still incredibly angry and upset. And that variety of emotions is one that we can expect to see again when the reviews are published. But it is a necessary part of improvement to honestly provide the reports of the independent panel. And as I say, we've got support from a range of groups, including the local Snowdrop group, including Sands, and including the local committee health council as well, and all of the different things that they're able to do in terms of supporting people, and the direct advice line and the contact route that families have to the panel are there to make sure that we understand and we can actually respond to the individual needs of families. Because, as I say, I don't underestimate how difficult the experience will be, but, speaking honestly, it won't be an experience that I can understand or share with them, because I am fortunate not to have had the same experience as them with our maternity services here in Wales.

Minister, firstly, let me thank you for the statement and for the work that's going on, and I think we must all—and I think it's implicit in what everyone has had—recognise the important role that all our NHS staff in these hospitals in Cwm Taf are actually undertaking in the most difficult circumstances, month after month, and I think we still welcome very much what their contribution is to us all.

Many of the things I wanted to ask have been answered, but, with regard to the issue of family support, just the issue as to how that is going to be evaluated. The second thing I'd like to ask about is in respect of the community: as you know, there is a tremendous community spirit of support for the hospitals in the Rhondda Cynon Taf and in the Merthyr area, and that was witnessed recently. But how do we reassure and rebuild confidence? Because all the right building blocks are in place, all the right steps are being taken; pre-COVID, I was able to visit the hospital, and to see for myself the progress, the steps, the new initiatives, the new leadership that was under way, but there is still an area where we have to convince the community and to reassure them that that progress is genuine and that it's long lasting, et cetera.

And then, finally, can you just update us on the steps that have actually been taken now in terms of communicating the situation with the Tirion birth centre at the Royal Glamorgan Hospital, which is in my constituency, and how that is being communicated to those families that would need to traditionally access that service? Thank you, Minister.

I'll deal with the last point first. So, every woman should have a community midwife who can give them direct access to support and guidance for their pregnancy, if they would otherwise have been giving birth in the Tirion birth centre, to explain to them the variety of alternatives that are available. And that's potentially not just within the health board, because I do know that Cwm Taf Morgannwg in particular have been working with Cardiff and Vale to make sure that they can support each other, given the outbreak in the Royal Glamorgan and given the impact that the inability to fully staff and safely staff the Tirion birth centre has actually put back the opening of that midwife-led unit.

In terms of your two other points, on support, every health board has a lead for both bereavement support, but more generally support in any event, and we are looking for every health board—including Cwm Taf—to have support in line with both the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance, and the bereavement midwives in Cwm Taf will have had contact with a range of people around the family. Some of this is actually about going through historic issues, though, as opposed to the more usual experience of support nearer the time of bereavement, and that's why we've engaged with a range of external partners to offer that support. But any family who is concerned, upon receiving their report, or even in advance of receiving their report—all families have direct contact lines to go into the panel itself and to ask for that support, and they also have had the opportunity to have contact with the community health counsellor, who, to be fair, I think have done a good job in supporting women and their families to understand the options open to them and to support them, and again to understand what matters to them and to support them in finding that appropriate support and route forward.

On your point about community confidence that improvement is being made, that is a substantial part of the reason we're having this independent panel process: to openly and transparently set out what progress is being made, not by people who are employed by the health board, but people who have been engaged directly by the Welsh Government who don't provide a service in Wales. And part of that is the really important direct engaging of one of the panel members and a group of women in terms of re-understanding how maternity services should work and be improved within the area. So, there's a direct link, there's access and understanding, and it's about being very open and transparent. So, with all of the reports that we've had with the quarterly improvement reports, I've made sure that families receive that report first, before it goes into the public domain, so families do not read in the news what the reports say, and we've arranged previously direct access in terms of the opportunity to have a question and answer with panel members when the reports have been published. So, we're making sure that there are direct links and routes for those families, and indeed the wider communities they live in. And we need to continue that approach, as we hope that Cwm Taf will continue, in its new form as Cwm Taf Morgannwg, on this improvement journey to deliver the high-quality services that I want for my constituents, and I believe that every part of Wales should be able to enjoy as well.

There are many really positive findings in your panel's progress report that maternity services have weathered the worst of COVID-19 and a senior team at the university health board are maintaining their high level of commitment. And of course, I welcome those very much on behalf of my constituents. In terms of looking to the future and making sure that maternity services are of the highest possible standard for all of our families, the 'make safe' actions contained in the report are key. And I note that issues around the long-term cultural change are still outstanding, as is work around strengthening leadership. So, Minister, would you be able to say any more on these matters, as they constituted some of the most distressing parts of the original complaints?

I think that's very important, because I said in my statement that some elements of that had to be paused, but they're really important in terms of giving that reassurance that other Members have looked for as well. And part of this—if we're going to have an honest assessment of it, we can't simply say that, six months in, or 12 months in, we can tick it off the list. Because, actually, the long-term cultural change and the embedding of high-quality and compassionate leadership, both for staff and for the public that they serve, is not something that I think you can set that sort of timeframe on. It's one of the things where you know if it's there and you also know if it isn't there as well, and to know that the change is being sustained as well.

So, we will look to have a range of different methods. That's why it's important for the panel to be able to have conversations with women and families using the services now in a form—they'll be able to do so face to face when conditions allow, when it's safe to do so, but also have interaction with staff and their representatives. I think it's very important that trade union representatives representing staff are able to interact with the panel to set out honestly their view on the service as it is now and the progress that's being made. I do think it's fair to say that the executive director of nursing and midwifery, Greg Dix, has made a difference, and he is seen as someone who's come in after events, and so is seen in a role of being an honest leader without a tie to the past—that's been very helpful, I think. But it's important to make sure that, as we go through this improvement process, we don't try to rush and want to be able to tick off all of the issues that are a concern. We have a much more sustained answer for improvement. Because the idea is that we, at the end of this process, have a service that is high quality, self-sustaining and people have confidence in, rather than we've led to—we've worked to an artificial deadline that might suit a politician like myself, rather than, actually, the staff working in the service and the women and their families who rely upon it.

Thank you, Minister.

The next items are items 7 and 8, the regulations under those two items. And in accordance with Standing Order 12.24, unless a Member objects, the two motions under items 7 and 8, the health protection coronavirus Wales amendment regulations, will be grouped for debate, but with votes taken separately. If there is no objection to that grouping, we will move on.

And I call on the Minister for health to introduce the regulations. I can't see the health Minister at the moment. The Minister for health.

Llywydd, apologies. Could I just have one moment before starting the debate? There's just something that I need to deal with where I am. I apologise, but could I have just 30 seconds?

I'm going to have to ask the health Minister to come to the microphone.

I don't think the health Minister is ready for this item and, therefore, I'm going to postpone the item until later on this afternoon, and I will, in the meantime, if possible, call the Minister for Housing and Local Government. Is the Minister for local government there? Again, she doesn't seem to be there.

Health Minister, can I ask you if you're now ready to introduce the regulations?

Unfortunately not. If you could just give me 10 more seconds and I will be able to start. Apologies, Llywydd, it's very—[Interruption.]

We're being very patient with you. Do you want to explain to us what the problem is, health Minister? Are you in a position, now, to be able to introduce the regulations?

Apologies, Llywydd. I am now in a position to introduce the regulations, and thank you for the opportunity to reset and to be able to start, Llywydd. I apologise for the interruption in proceedings.

The regulations before us today that I formally move and ask the Senedd to support are the Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (No. 2) (Wales) (Amendment) (No. 16) (Conwy, Denbighshire, Flintshire and Wrexham) Regulations 2020. I'll now refer to them as the relevant amendment regulations. The No. 16 regulations refer to Conwy, Denbighshire, Flintshire and Wrexham. And I move the Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (No. 2) (Wales) (Amendment) (No. 17) Regulations 2020.

As we've seen through the course of the coronavirus pandemic, we have taken an evidence-based approach, taking account of the latest advice from the chief medical officer's department and our own scientific advisers within the Welsh Government. We continue to see a rise in coronavirus across the country. We took the decision to introduce additional measures across four authorities in north Wales on the basis of a continued rise and an expected rise from our professional and public health advisers in the four relevant areas. We use not only metrics around the data in cases per 100,000, but we also use information from our test, trace and protect service about the likely rises in cases, and also our consultants in communicable diseases.

On that basis, we acted to implement the regulations on a consistent pattern that Members will now be familiar with. These introduced requirements to stay within county unless there was a reasonable excuse not to do so, and we have been before through the list of reasonable excuses. We introduced a range of measures, including the ending of extended households. As Members will recall, we have now introduced regulations that mean that single adult households can still group together with another household, but it is a maximum of two in any event, in an exclusive arrangement.

The local travel regulations are the ones that have gathered the most attention, and, again, the current evidence has been that restrictions on travel do have an impact in reducing incidence of the virus. You'll see that, today, the First Minister has written again to the Prime Minister seeking reciprocal arrangements to make sure that people from high-incidence areas can't travel into and through Wales. We've also provided information that sets out again the evidence before us, that travel into and out of areas does make a difference in terms of the virus transmission.

These are difficult and balanced choices that we have to make about how we keep Wales safe. I recognise there is a variety of views on all of the measures that we seek to take, but I do ask Members to support them, in particular as, since introducing these regulations, we have seen the expected rise in cases in these four authorities. But we also now face many more significant and difficult choices to make as we seek to keep Wales safe and, in particular, as we seek to do so ahead of a very, very challenging winter and autumn. I look forward to hearing Members' contributions and responding to the debate. Thank you, Llywydd.

The Chair of the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee, Mick Antoniw.

Thank you, Llywydd. Both sets of regulations amend the principal Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (No. 2) (Wales) Regulations 2020. Now, the No. 16 amending regulations came into force on 1 October and, as the title suggests, designate Conwy, Denbighshire, Flintshire and Wrexham as local health protection areas, placing certain restrictions on them. The regulations include the same restrictions that have been put in place for other areas designated as local health protection areas. Our report raised three merits points. Last week, I indicated we would consider the extent to which explanatory memoranda included evidence about why areas are being placed in lockdown. That consideration informs our first merits point. The explanatory memorandum states that the No. 16 amending regulations are a response to the threat to human health from coronavirus and to the threat posed by the increasing incidence and spread of coronavirus both in these areas and more widely. Where coronavirus restrictions are being tightened in any significant way, we believe the explanatory memoranda should set out the evidence that the Welsh Government relies on in deciding that such tightening is necessary and proportionate. Therefore, with regard to the No. 16 amending regulations, our report asks the Welsh Government to set out the evidence that showed, first, that Conwy, Denbighshire, Flintshire and Wrexham should go into local lockdown in the way they did; secondly, that the need for local lockdown in those areas was so urgent that there was no time for the Senedd to approve a draft of the regulations in advance; and thirdly, that areas of Wales did not need to go into local lockdown.

After our committee meeting yesterday, we received the Welsh Government response to our report, and the response is provided with today's Plenary agenda. In our view, the inclusion of such evidence in the explanatory memoranda in future will aid transparency as well as the committee scrutiny of coronavirus restrictions. This will be particularly important in the event that areas of Wales go into a series of rolling lockdowns in the coming months. Our second and third merits points draw attention to the Welsh Government's justification for any potential interference with human rights and the absence of consultation on the regulations.

I now turn to the No. 17 amending regulations, which came into force on 3 October. The amendments to the principal regulations in particular allow a household made up of no more than one adult living in a local health protection area and another household that also lives in the area to temporarily form an extended household. They also permit skating rinks to open, and they make minor consequential amendments. Our reporting points again draw attention to the Welsh Government's justification for any potential interference with human rights and the absence of consultation on the regulations. Diolch, Llywydd.

Minister, thank you for your opening remarks. I appreciate there's been a Government reshuffle, but it does look as if you're requiring more help to keep to your timings on these statements. It was deeply unfortunate, to say the least, the start of these very important regulations being debated and discussed this afternoon.

As Welsh Conservatives, we will be voting against the amendment regulations No. 16, which refer to Conwy, Denbighshire, Flintshire and Wrexham, but we will be supporting the regulations No. 2, which is agenda item number 8, which refer to extended households, which we think is an important addition to, obviously, assisting people who live on they own.

If I could just touch on a few reasons for our objections, which basically mirror the same objections we put forward last week, in voting against the restrictions that were tabled last week: we do not believe that the county-wide restrictions that the Government have put in place are ultimately necessary in all the areas that are identified by these regulations and a far more targeted approach would have been far more suitable in this instance. The Government proved that they can do this twice now—once in Llanelli and, obviously, once in Bangor. Many people in north Wales who are suffering under a county-wide restrictive practice will be thinking, 'Well, why at Bangor with an infection rate of 400 per 100,000, while there a far lower infection rates in other parts of north Wales?' There could have been a far more targeted approach delivered with better outcomes, I would suggest, and so I'd be grateful if the Minister could highlight why the other four counties were identified as needing county-wide lockdowns when Gwynedd only had a town/city-wide lockdown in Bangor, with a far higher infection rate.

I'd also like to understand when the two-weekly review of the effectiveness of previous regulations that we've seen for the Vale, Cardiff, Torfaen, Neath Port Talbot will be made available, because, again, to keep public confidence, it is really important that the public at large understand the effectiveness of these measures and, actually, whether they are having an effect in suppressing the virus.

The Minister, in his opening remarks, did touch on the letter that the First Minister has sent today to the Prime Minister asking for more travel restrictions, and I did ask the First Minister, but I didn't get an answer from him, about the SAGE advice that was given in September about the effectiveness of travel restrictions, and they said—this is the SAGE document I'm reading from—they would have a low impact and they had moderate confidence in the outcomes. They also said exemptions and enforcement are likely to be very complicated to be delivered. I'd be grateful if the Minister could identify whether he is actually working from this advice that SAGE have provided to the Government when he does talk about travel exemptions, especially when they talk about low impact and only moderate confidence. It does seem there's a lot of headline chasing rather than following the science with some of the regulations that are coming forward from the Government at the moment. In particular, when it comes to the letter that has been sent by the First Minister today and the talk about the briefing document that's gone with it—and that briefing document has not been peer reviewed—it does not constitute definitive proof. These are the words that have been leaked to the press today, because the press have seen this document but we as Assembly Members haven't seen this document. So, again, from these benches, we will be very sceptical of the way the Government is proposing (a) a circuit breaker and (b) further travel restrictions, because from what we're seeing in the evidence that's been presented, the evidence doesn't stack up for that road. I'd also point out that the World Health Organization's European representative today is on record as saying that a circuit-breaker lockdown would not be effective and have far higher detrimental impacts on mental health and physical health and well-being, and I think that's something the Government need to reflect on, rather than following Keir Starmer's request at 5 o'clock today for a lockdown.

As with last week, we will abstain on one of the regulations today, for the same reason as we did last week. Last week, we were discussing restrictions across a number of counties in south Wales. I said, as did many other Members, including the Chair of the legislation committee, that the situation is unacceptable, where we're asked to approve regulations that place restrictions without having seen the data that would provide a sufficiently comprehensive picture for us to come to a decision as to the appropriateness of those regulations. And although the Government had almost a week to respond to those comments, unfortunately that detailed data wasn't provided to the legislation committee once again or to us as lawmakers for the next set of regulations that we are discussing today relating to four north Wales counties.

We do recognise that this situation is exceptional and that there are circumstances where the Government does need to act by placing restrictions or introducing other urgent changes in a way that moves more swiftly than the normal scrutiny process provides for. That's why we as a Senedd agreed to this general approach, but, first of all, the Government must try to ensure that that scrutiny can happen as swiftly as possible—a point we have made previously. But, secondly, they must enable us as those doing the scrutiny work by providing the data that they use to come to their decisions. In this case, we are simply asking for detailed data as to where the COVID cases are, where there are clusters, what the patterns are, where the higher risk areas are, so that we can decide whether we agree that the targeting is happening as effectively as it could. So, we will abstain on the No. 16 amendment.

And whilst I am discussing the need to share data and communicate with us as a Senedd, may I emphasise the frustration that I hear from local representatives—not just Senedd Members, but also at a local government level—that the Welsh Government needs to communicate more effectively on the rationale behind restrictions, the data, the background, the implications, and not just for our sake, to facilitate our work, but so that we can better communicate and answer questions from our own constituents? Yes, there have been phone calls coming from the Minister at the last minute, but I am asking now for the development of protocols as to how information should be shared, what information should be shared, and when, because communication is a hugely important part of the battle against the virus.

Moving to the second set of regulations, we will be voting in favour of this. The Minister will be aware that I have raised my concerns many times about the impact of the pandemic in terms of people's well-being, mental health and isolation. I hear anecdotal evidence from health workers who are concerned about an increase in self-harm, mental health problems and even suicide. What we have in these regulations is the ability for people living alone in high-restriction areas to come together, and that is a positive thing, but I would ask the Government to bring a very clear strategy to show us that well-being is a central factor to the Government's steps in tackling the virus, because there are threats here to the well-being of people from the virus itself, and there is a threat to broader well-being and health.

Finally, in terms of other legislation and other regulations we would like to see, I know that the First Minister has written on a number of occasions now to the UK Prime Minister, and I think the time for correspondence has come to an end and that the time for action is now. Although the First Minister decided to play a strange unionist game in responding to Adam Price this afternoon, our point as a party is very clear: whether it's within Wales or between different nations, there is a risk, and I know that the First Minister agrees with us on this, in people travelling from high-risk areas to lower risk areas. We believe that there should be restrictions on travel. The restriction does exist in Wales. It doesn't exist from England to Wales, so I'm asking you to square that particular circle and to ensure that there is consistency. Use the powers that you have.

Rhun ap Iorwerth there talks about squaring a particular circle, but as I understand it, the demand is that England do for high-risk areas in England as the legislation is in Wales, yet Plaid are abstaining on the legislation to put these four counties in north Wales into lockdown. They demand that the UK Government should, by force of law, vote to have those lockdowns around county areas or local authority areas in England that they refuse to support for Wales. I'm delighted to see that the Conservatives are again voting against these lockdown measures for the four north Wales counties, as they did for south Wales, except for Llanelli.

The lack of clarity here: why a county border? Why is it going across the county border? In an affected area where you've got four together, why is it so dangerous to go from one of those four counties to the others when they have similar levels of infections? Why is it safe to go within your council area, or in the case of Ministers, to go from their home to Cathays Park but not here, yet going beyond them is suddenly dangerous? How can you demand that the UK Government does for England what even your general supporters in Plaid here refuse to do for Wales?

You added to this, or the First Minister did, to the letter to the Prime Minister, apparently a scientific study, or so it was described. I think it's been ably described, at least as much as possible on the limited information, by Andrew R.T. Davies, but if even the authors don't consider that it demonstrates anything, and if it's not peer reviewed, of what value is this, and how on earth is it going to persuade the Prime Minister to do to England what you have done to Wales? Now, the First Minister, in questions earlier, I think made a number of comments about this paper, and I'm not wholly sure whether I understood him or not, but I think there was a reference to having them investigate the sewers and test various human waste in different concentrations and how much coronavirus there was, and then somehow that was mapped onto the human genome and it was determined that an increasing amount of it was from people with genomes who must be from England rather than from Wales. Now, I'm hoping I misunderstood what the First Minister said, but can you confirm that and can you publish this study so that Members of the Senedd as well as the Prime Minister can see the validity or otherwise of something that, from what we've seen, sounds pretty unpersuasive?

We'll be voting against these regulations, No. 16, for the further lockdown. Regulations No. 17, on balance we've decided to support. I think they reopen ice rinks, and we do think it's a good idea to at least allow single-person households to mix with another household. Could you, though, Minister, clear up ambiguity in what you said earlier, because you said that the maximum number must be two, but you didn't specify whether it was two individuals or two households? So, one of the households has to be a single individual; can they mix with another household with more than one individual in it, or only with another single-member household? Thank you. 

It would be grossly irresponsible of any Member of this Senedd to support the imposition of significant restrictions on our constituents when we have not been provided with sufficient evidence to be able to justify them. The Welsh Government has a legal duty, as we heard earlier, to demonstrate that any restrictions that it imposes on the people of Wales are proportionate and necessary, and yet they have failed to provide the data to support their position. 

Now, as a person representing a constituency that straddles two local authority areas, Conwy and Denbighshire, I regret that in spite of asking repeatedly for this information and this data from Ministers and, indeed, from Public Health Wales and, indeed, from my own local health board, the Welsh Government and all of those other bodies have failed to provide it. The publicly available data does not show me the coronavirus case rates on a community-by-community basis. It may actually put communities in very low-risk parts of Conwy and Denbighshire at higher risk because we're encouraging people from high-risk parts of the counties to travel to those lower risk parts of the counties, if the Welsh Government's line on travel is to be believed. So, on that basis, it's absolutely impossible for me to be able to justify a county-wide approach to these local restrictions. There's no data being published on the likely place of transmission or the activity to which transmission is likely to have been associated, so how on earth can we determine whether the restrictions on matters such as travel can be justified?

Now, I will say this sort of data is available in other parts of the UK, so why is the Welsh Government choosing not to publish it or share it with Members of this Senedd? We can only draw the conclusion that it's because the data doesn't support your position, it doesn't support your policy and it doesn't support the restrictions that you are seeking and already have imposed. And it's these travel restrictions in particular that are hitting people hard in the Conwy and Denbighshire areas.

In fact, First Minister, I heard what you had to say during the debate, or the exchange in FMQs earlier on, yet it's completely at odds with what you've previously told this Chamber. You said in response to a question from me on 23 September, on the issue of tourism, which I presume we can use as a proxy for travel, that the good news is, and I quote:

'The good news is that we've had tourists coming to Wales from other parts of the United Kingdom since the first part of July now, and there isn't evidence that that has led to spikes of infection in those parts of Wales that people most often visit. Indeed, the coronavirus continues to be at its lowest ebb in those places that tourists most often visit.'

That sort of undermines completely the argument that you're making on introducing these draconian travel restrictions on my constituents and other people across Wales. You know, it was absolutely heartbreaking to watch the tv over this weekend to see people being interviewed in the tourism queen of resorts, Llandudno, on the north Wales coast. We had a shopkeeper there telling reporters that, on one day last week, they took just £6.50 over the counter in takings. A local restaurateur said that usually on a Saturday, the previous week before the restrictions, they had 184 diners; that was down to 18 on the Saturday following the restrictions being introduced. And unless you act quickly, I can tell you that these businesses will be going down the pan. And when they go down the pan, all of those people who rely on their livelihoods from those businesses will see a significant impact on their quality of life, because it's not just those businesses, it's every single person they employ, every single family that relies on the pay packets that come in through that employment, and every single supplier that these businesses buy their goods from. The ripple effects will be absolutely huge.

And, of course, these travel restrictions pay absolutely no regard to the regular patterns of travel that people enjoy, particularly for those living in those border parts of these local authority areas. My constituents, for example, in Kinmel Bay can't nip a few hundred yards into Rhyl to their local supermarket. Instead, they can, of course, travel an hour in the opposite direction all the way down into the Snowdonia national park where, no doubt, there are very low levels of coronavirus infection, yet they can't go a few hundred yards to their nearest supermarket. It's absolutely bonkers.

The evidence is lacking. I will not be voting for the restrictions in terms of regulations No. 16 on coronavirus. There's very little evidence as well to suggest that these restrictions are actually working. Where they have been imposed, the reality is that the rates have actually been going up in some cases. So, Rhondda Cynon Taf went into lockdown a month ago. Now, remember the incubation period is 14 days, okay? So, they should have had an impact by now. It went into lockdown a month ago when it had 82.1 cases per 100,000 over seven days. Today, that figure is 178.2, almost double what it was. Caerphilly's been in lockdown since 8 September. On 26 September, it had 36.4 cases—it had been travelling in the right direction—per 100,000, but as of today that figure is 92.2. So, if the evidence suggests that these may not be working, if there's no information on a community-by-community basis, if there's insufficient data and evidence to demonstrate that the travel restrictions work, why on earth should anybody in this Chamber vote for this particular set of restrictions? I urge everybody to vote against them.

The Minister for health to reply to the debate—Vaughan Gething. 

You need to be unmuted, Minister. We can't hear you.

Thank you, Llywydd. I'll deal at the start with the one point of clarification that Mark Reckless raised about the No. 17 amendment regulations, where we've introduced a general exemption to the restrictions that apply. This means that a single person or a single-parent household can visit one other household within the same county. The point I was making was that it can't be any more than two households in an exclusive bubble. It can't be that people can move between one household and another.

I'll deal with the points that Rhun ap Iorwerth makes about data and the approach that we're taking with local authorities. It's important to recognise that on each of the choices that we have made, we have taken evidence from local stakeholders, the incident management teams that involve people from a variety of local organisations, including the health service, Public Health Wales, consultants in communicable disease and the local authority. They are a partner around each of those incident management team tables. So, the local authority is involved at an early stage in providing evidence, information and recommendations to Ministers.

We receive recommendations from each of those teams about the possible choices and about whether they recommend that Ministers should act, and we receive those recommendations before coming to each of the decisions points, including in the No. 16 regulations that we are debating today. Before making any decision, Ministers meet directly with local authority leaders and their chief executives. And so, we do discuss the data that's available to them. We discuss the TTP data as well, the patterns of infection as they are, and that has been the case with every and any local authority where we have considered these additional local restrictions. 

It's also fair to note some of the crossover with Andrew R.T. Davies's comments, where the IMT advice was for a county-wide set of restrictions in each instance, and in each of those areas, whilst the leader of Conwy did argue for not having the travel restrictions, that wasn't the position supported by the great majority of other north Wales leaders. It's also the case that no local authority leader in that meeting argued for a sub-regional approach within the four counties for which we're debating the No. 16 regulations.

The reason why, turning to comments made by Andrew R.T. Davies, we were able to take a different approach within Bangor within the county of Gwynedd is because the data was there, as it was in Llanelli, to allow us to take a more targeted approach. We are though now seeing a rise within rural Gwynedd that we need to consider as well. But, at the decision point, the case was made out to have restrictions in place in Bangor, not solely driven by the student community, it's important to recognise. The challenge in the four authorities we're debating today in the No. 16 regulations is that we didn't have a distinctive area to carve out of each of the counties, and as I say, the recommendation from the local incident management team was to introduce these local restrictions on a whole-county basis. 

I'm also happy to confirm to Mark Reckless that, yes, we do take account of wastewater monitoring, and I'm sure we can publish the paper that Members may not have had access to today. That does set out the current evidence, as it's developing, on the reality that travel is part of the spread of coronavirus within the United Kingdom, just as it has been between countries in the world. That's the whole rationale that underpins our quarantine regulations. They are public health measures to protect lower-incidence areas from the importation of coronavirus. I don't think this is particularly difficult or novel in terms of argument. It's consistent with that approach that is being taken. And with respect, the demand for a peer-reviewed paper at this point in time is not one I think should be taken seriously. With the developing evidence we're getting, to get to the point of having a peer-reviewed paper, we would have to wait a very long period of time before taking any action on the evidence that we do have before us.

And that takes us to the point about speed. We know that we have to make choices within a limited period of time. You will have heard directly from the chief medical officer in public, from myself, and the First Minister, about the reality that the rates we see are rising, just as they have done within the four counties that we're discussing today. Conwy now has a rate of 122.9 per 100,000, Denbigh 113.9, Flintshire 168.5, and Wrexham 181.7. The positivity rates in counties in north Wales that we're discussing today range from 6.6 per cent to 11.5 per cent. These are increasing rates of coronavirus, and we can be confident that without the restrictions we have introduced, then the pattern of infection would have risen even further, and even faster. 

The challenge before us is whether we're prepared to act on that evidence, and to act to prevent further harm from taking place, or whether this Senedd does take the view that we should not act, and we should allow the restrictions to fall, and for further transmission to inevitably take place at a faster rate, with more harm to our constituents. I do not believe that is the right approach to take. In terms of what Darren Millar has said, I do believe it would be grossly irresponsible for any legislator within this place to act to refuse to provide protections for the communities that we serve. 

I ask people in terms of the choices ahead of us, with the circuit break or otherwise, to again be guided by the evidence that we provide, the evidence that our scientific community provide. We'll continue to openly and transparently publish a summary of the advice received from our own technical advisory group. That, together with the chief medical officer's advice, guides the choices that we make—the evidence from within Wales, and the wider UK. And, as I set out, I believe this is specific and proportionate action to be taken in response to the rising tide that we see within the four relevant authorities. But the measures around the easing for single-adult households and single-parent households—I do welcome the fact that people from across the Chamber have been prepared to support those measures. We all have a responsibility, we all need to make choices, and I commend these regulations to the Senedd and ask Members to support them. 

The proposal is to agree the motion under item 7. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I will defer voting on item 7 until voting time. 

The proposal is to agree the motion under item 8. Does any Member object? No. Therefore, the motion under item 8 is agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

The next items are items 9 and 10. In accordance with Standing Order 12.24, unless a Member objects, the two motions under these items will be grouped for debate, but with votes taken separately.

As there is no objection to that grouping, I call on the Minister for Housing and Local Government to move the motion. Julie James.

Diolch, Llywydd. In opening, I would like to begin by thanking the various Senedd committees, Members and staff, who have pulled out all the stops to ensure that this Bill has been able to progress to today's debate, through what has been an extremely turbulent and challenging seven months. I should also like to thank my officials for the sterling work they have done in keeping the show on the road, despite the constant pressures the pandemic has placed on our resources during that time. It is a demonstration of our maturity and professionalism as a legislature and a Government that we have been able to push ahead with our key legislative ambitions at the same time as navigating our way through a crisis of unparalleled proportions, as well as managing the complex preparations for the end of EU transition. I do not underestimate the effort that has gone into getting us this far with the Bill, and I hope I am not tempting fate when I say that. Having read the Stage 1 reports from the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee and the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee, I am optimistic that, with the continued support of Members, we will be able to get this Bill through the remainder of the scrutiny stages and onto the statute book before the end of this Senedd term.

I would now like to turn to the recommendations of the ELGC and LJC committees, but before doing so, I should note that the Finance Committee has not published a report of its own in relation to the Bill. I take this as a positive sign that the committee was satisfied by the written and oral evidence I provided, and that it accepts my assertions that this legislation will not have negative financial consequences for good landlords in Wales, and will not lead to the courts service in Wales becoming overburdened. I look forward to hearing from Llyr later in the debate. Now to take each of the nine recommendations in the ELGC committee report in turn.

I welcome the first recommendation, that the Senedd should support the general principles of the Bill. I am happy to accept the second recommendation in principle. We will of course keep a close eye on the effects of the legislation over time, once it has been brought into force, and we'll undertake a review of its impact and effectiveness once sufficient time has elapsed. I completely agree that this is of fundamental importance, and I can tell you that work on how best to monitor the effects of the legislation is already under way. We will also consider how best to report on the impacts of the legislation, in ways that are helpful to the sector and to the development of future policy and practice. And should any unintended consequences come to light, we will of course take steps to address those, either through guidance or, if necessary, further legislative change. My only reservation with the recommendation, and the reason why I've accepted it in principle rather than unconditionally, is that some of the areas the committee have included in the proposed scope for such a review are matters that are not directly related to the Bill, and that would not be affected by its implementation—for example, the consolidation of housing law, or matters that will be addressed through other work, such as the number of intentionally homeless people, which will be picked up as part of wider work within Welsh Government, including our response to the various reports and recommendations of the homelessness action group.

Turning to recommendation 3, I am happy to accept this, and I will discuss with my Cabinet colleagues and officials whether the Wales Centre for Public Policy would be the body best able to undertake such an exercise. And if there is agreement, we will look to commission that work accordingly.

The next recommendation I am also happy to accept. Whilst engagement with private rented sector tenants has long been recognised as challenging due to the nature of the sector and the diversity of people who rent their homes from a private landlord, we have been able to make significant improvements through the pandemic, through innovative communication techniques. I should point out as well that the Welsh Government already funds the Tenant Participation Advisory Service Cymru, whose remit includes engaging with PRS tenants. It may well be that there is some merit in reviewing the effectiveness of those arrangements, especially in the context of the lessons we continue to learn from the experience of COVID. I have therefore asked for that to be taken forward, and I will report back to the Senedd on this at a future date. I hope that this will satisfy the committee on this point.

Recommendation 5 asks the Government to bring forward amendments at Stage 2 to ensure properties occupied by ministers of religion are exempted from the requirements of this legislation. I am happy to accept this recommendation in principle. In doing so, I should explain firstly that discussions are continuing between my officials and representatives of the sector in Wales on this matter, and that secondly we do already have a regulation-making power in the Bill that allows for such an exemption to be inserted into Schedule 1. So a specific amendment to this effect is not required. Therefore, rather than bringing forward an amendment at Stage 2, I give you a commitment instead that we will make regulations to provide this exemption prior to implementation of the amended Act if we conclude that this is necessary. I trust this will satisfy the committee in this respect.

Recommendation 6 asks that we bring forward an amendment to extend the period within which a landlord's notice can be withdrawn and resubmitted, for example to correct an error, from 14 days to 28 days. Having listened to the arguments put forward on this matter by landlords' representatives, and having taken the committee's conclusions on this into account, I'm happy to accept this recommendation on the basis it will be helpful to good landlords who have made an honest mistake. Furthermore, it will not impact negatively on contract holders, as the reissued notice will still be required to run for a minimum of six months. So, yes, we will bring forward an amendment to make that change.

Recommendation 7 asks that we undertake a detailed feasibility study into how a housing tribunal or court could work in Wales, with a view to establishing such a body as a priority in the next Senedd if the study were to conclude that this was likely to lead to improvements in the sector and would be deliverable. I accept this recommendation in principle. Committee members will know from my evidence that I personally am supportive of a housing court or tribunal for Wales, as are other political parties in the Senedd. Whilst I appreciate that the recommendation relates only to the setting up of a feasibility study at this time, that would still be a significant undertaking at a time when all our available resources are stretched to the limit in managing the impact of the coronavirus outbreak and indeed on this Bill. Furthermore, we only have a very limited time remaining in the current Senedd term. Therefore, it would be unrealistic for me to commit to beginning work on a feasibility study at this time. It is for these reasons that the Government is only able to support this recommendation in principle for now, but I do hope that once we are over the current difficulties and some sort of normality has returned, this is something that a future administration would wish to take forward as soon as resources permit.

Recommendation 8 asks us to issue new guidance to local authorities when the amended 2016 Act comes into force, requiring them to consider any persons served with a notice that is due to expire within 84 days as threatened with homelessness and as such eligible for support under the Housing (Wales) Act 2014. I am happy to accept this recommendation in principle, as I strongly support the principle of engaging households at an early stage to work to prevent homelessness. It would not however be possible to amend the statutory definition of 'threatened with homelessness' as set out in the Housing (Wales) Act 2014 by issuing guidance. We will therefore consider how best to achieve the principle of earlier intervention and support contained in this recommendation as part of our wider homelessness prevention work.

The final recommendation from the ELGC committee asks that we amend the 2014 Act so that those same homelessness duties are only considered discharged if an individual or family are provided with accommodation for 12 months, rather than the current six months. Whilst I understand the rationale behind this recommendation, it is not, I'm afraid, one that the Government can support. Any potential legislative changes could not be made in isolation and would need to be considered as part of the wider policy and legislative considerations in taking forward the transformational agenda set out in our strategy for ending homelessness, published in October 2019. The work to deliver the strategy is being informed by the expert homelessness action group and has moved forward at pace this year, with significant investment in the COVID-19 phase 2 homelessness response. The homelessness action group specifically examined the policy framework and measures required to end homelessness in Wales and their report will inform the wider considerations as to any potential policy and legislative changes required. It is for these reasons that I reject recommendation 9. 

Turning now to the four recommendations from the LJC committee. In relation to the first of those recommendations, a thorough assessment of provisions contained in the Bill has taken place to ensure that they are compatible with human rights. 

The second recommendation is that we should increase engagement and develop more formal links with contract holders in the private rented sector in Wales. This mirrors the ELGC committee's recommendations 3 and 4, which I indicated earlier I am happy to accept, noting that we already support TPAS Cymru in this regard. I trust that the LJC committee will be satisfied with my offer to review the effectiveness of those arrangements with a view to bolstering them where necessary. 

The third of the LJC committee's recommendations asks that, as part of our planned evaluation of the 2016 Act, as amended by this Bill, we should give consideration to the necessity and potential urgency for the full consolidation of housing law as it is applicable in Wales. This is certainly something that the Government can accept in principle, although, by its nature, is a commitment that would be for a future administration to take forward. As I mentioned earlier, though, reviewing the potential consolidation of housing law in Wales is not an exercise that we could conduct as part of any review of the 2016 Act in operation. It would be a separate exercise and it is for that reason I am inclined to accept this recommendation in principle rather then unconditionally.

And finally, recommendation 4 relates to the potential for establishing a housing tribunal in Wales. As I indicated in my response to the ELGC's similar recommendation on this matter, whilst I am personally supportive, this is really now a matter for a future government, rather than this one, so I accept the recommendation in principle on that basis. 

This brings me to the end of my formal responses to each of the committees recommendations. I would like to reiterate my serious thanks to the committee Chairs, members and staff who have worked so hard in exceptionally difficult circumstances to complete the Stage 1 scrutiny process and deliver these reports. I think it is a mark of the effort that has gone into developing this particular legislative approach to improving security of tenure that these reports have generally been favourable, with only limited recommendations for amendments to the Bill itself. 

We have worked hard to develop a Bill that strikes a fair balance between the interests of contract holders to allow them to feel secure and settled in the accommodation that they call home, whilst also respecting the interests of landlords, allowing them to regain possession of their property when there is good reason for them needing to do so.

In closing, I would also like to mention that, following detailed discussions with my Cabinet colleagues over the past weeks, it has become clear to me that we no longer have sufficient legislative time or capacity to complete all of the work necessary to bring the provisions of the amended 2016 Act into force next year, as we had hoped to do prior to the COVID outbreak. We will instead look to complete all of the necessary subordinate legislation guidance and awareness-raising work required in time for a spring 2022 implementation date. I am very disappointed that we have had to take this step, but that is the reality of the situation that we're currently finding ourselves in, with so much of our resource having been focused on the pandemic in recent months, and with little sign of that pressure abating in the foreseeable future. 

I look forward to hearing now from the Chairs of the scrutiny committees and from other Members who wish to speak on the Bill, and I will respond to any further points that I have not already covered in my closing remarks. Diolch, Llywydd. 

I call on the Chair of the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee, John Griffiths. 

Diolch, Llywydd. I'm pleased to contribute to today's debate, as Chair of the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee. I'd like to thank all those who provided evidence to help inform our work, in particular tenants who attended our focus groups held right across Wales and landlords and letting agents who responded to our survey. As a committee, we continue to place a great value on lived-in experience to help inform our scrutiny. That scrutiny was paused by the pandemic, a pandemic that is shining a spotlight on the importance of having a safe and secure place to call home.

The Welsh Government has said that the heart of this Bill is the aim to improve security of tenure. Not everybody agrees this Bill will—[Inaudible.]—but, as a committee, we were convinced of the merits of this approach. We heard a range of evidence suggesting that strengthening security of tenure would have a positive impact on the well-being of those living in the private rented sector. It was also suggested that this would bring wider economic and social benefits to the community.

But, of course, not everybody agreed that this Bill was needed. Landlords and letting agents were concerned that the Bill would make letting in the private rented sector less attractive, therefore causing landlords to leave the sector and potentially place more pressure on social housing. Landlords told us they were worried they would not be able to regain possession of their property, if either their personal circumstances changed or because of contract breaches. I will come back to this point later in my remarks.

The Minister told us that she had tried to find a balance between the differing views. We believe that the correct balance has been struck, although we do call for some minor amendments, which we feel will strengthen the Bill. We therefore recommend that the Senedd supports the general principles of the Bill.

Before moving on to some of the detail from our scrutiny, it is worth noting that this is the second Bill that we have considered that seeks to amend the Renting Homes (Wales) Act 2016, an Act that was passed five years ago by the previous Assembly but has not yet been commenced. We understand the reasons behind the delay, which were further compounded by the pandemic. The 2016 Act is a significant piece of housing law, which will change the legal framework for renting properties, and it is a change that will affect around a third of people in Wales.

We were pleased that the Minister confirmed that she intended the 2016 Act, as amended by this Bill, if this Bill is passed, would be implemented by the autumn of next year, and, obviously, the fact that there is now further slippage in that time frame is of concern, but I hear what the Minister said in that regard.

I will then move on to some specific issues within the report. In recommendation 2 we highlight a number of areas that we believe the post-implementation review of the 2016 Act must cover—all issues that came to light during our scrutiny and that arise from the implementation of the provisions with this Bill before us, rather than the broader changes in the 2016 Act—and I'm pleased to hear what the Minister had to say on that.

A common theme throughout all of our work on housing legislation in this Senedd has been a lack of data on the private rented sector, compounded by a lack of organised groups representing tenants. This makes it difficult to ensure that policy and legislation is fully informed by accurate data and lived experience. That's why we made recommendations 3 and 4, which we believe will help address both these issues and hopefully lead to improvements in policy development and implementation, and I know the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee have also made a similar recommendation around engagement with tenants. And, again, I'm pleased that the Minister has taken these matters on board.

During our scrutiny, we considered the impacts on some specific areas of the rental market, such as students and the social housing sector. One of the areas where we have recommended changes is in relation to accommodation provided as part of a minister of religion's role. We received representations from Cytûn and the Church in Wales, highlighting some very specific issues around this type of accommodation. We agreed that the Bill should be amended to ensure that properties that are housing ministers of religion in this capacity should be exempted from the provisions within the Bill, and that led to us making recommendation 5. And I'm again pleased that the Minister will be considering these matters and working to see how they can be best addressed.

The Bill does provide for a possession notice to be withdrawn within 14 days of it being issued without the landlord then having to wait a further six months before reissuing the notice. That cooling-off period is to ensure that any administrative errors in the notice do not unduly delay matters and unduly delay repossession. We heard from landlords that 14 days is not very long in terms of identifying issues on mistakes with a notice, and that's why we agreed with them and called for the period to be extended to 28 days, and, again, I'm very pleased with the Minister's response.

As far as the courts are concerned, most of our respondents highlighted the delays within the court system, which currently cause difficulties for both landlords and tenants. We accept there is not sufficient time in the current Senedd term for substantive work to be done on seeking to address these issues, but we do believe there is merit in the Welsh Government undertaking further exploratory work on the establishment of a housing court or tribunal to identify whether this will seek to address some of these issues. As the Minister reiterated today, we know that she is personally sympathetic to theses calls, but, again, I heard her remarks and explanation today, and we'll be keeping a close eye on progress on those matters.

Finally, on homelessness—I would like to touch on the impact of this Bill on homelessness. The provisions will interact with requirements on local authorities to support those who are threatened with homelessness, and that's why we made recommendations 8 and 9, to try to ensure that in the discharge of these duties local authorities are complying with the spirit of the legislation as well as the requirements in the legislation. I heard the Minister's remarks. I know that the Minister is very committed to tackling homelessness and rough-sleeping, and I think we've all been very grateful to see the progress made during the pandemic, and indeed the announcements that sustained those improvements. And I'm sure the Minister, as she said, will address these matters in that spirit, and hopefully make sure that none of that progress is lost. Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd.

I call on the Chair of the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee, Mick Antoniw.

Thank you, Llywydd. Our report on the Bill contains only four recommendations for the Minister, and I'll briefly outline each one. Firstly, within the legislative competence of the Senedd, the Government of Wales Act 2006 requires all provisions of a Bill to be compatible with the European convention on human rights. We asked the Minister what assessment she has made regarding the Bill's impact on human rights of both tenants and landlords. The Minister told us that there will be an impact and that ECHR rights are engaged, and she also said that any interference with those rights is justified and proportionate to the public interest. We acknowledge that the explanatory memorandum provides some further detail about the impact of the Bill on article 1, protocol 1 and article 8 of the European convention on human rights, but we have some concerns that the Minister has not provided us with the sufficient detail that we would have wanted.

Our recommendation 1 asks the Minister to publish a full analysis of the impact of the Bill's provision on human rights. Before moving on, I'd like to briefly mention recent regulations made by the Welsh Ministers in response to coronavirus to the temporarily altered existing legislative framework for the possession process and landlords' notice periods. The Coronavirus Act 2020 temporarily increased to three months the notice period a landlord in England or Wales had to give before they could ask a court for a possession order. The Minister then made the Coronavirus Act 2020 (Assured Tenancies and Assured Shorthold Tenancies, Extension of Notice Periods) (Amendment) (Wales) Regulations 2020. They temporarily extended the notice period from three months to six months, and subsequently, on 25 September 2020, the Minister made the Coronavirus Act 2020 (Residential Tenancies: Protection from Eviction) (Wales) Regulations 2020. These regulations extend until 31 March 2021 the period during which increased notice must be given to tenants. I mention these regulations, and they have been referred to, to emphasise the importance of human rights considerations when making primary and secondary legislation. Both sets of regulations came into force less than 21 days after they were laid before the Senedd, meaning limited notice to both landlords and tenants. Our scrutiny of these regulations has drawn to the Welsh Government's attention what we consider to be an insufficient analysis regarding the competing human rights of landlords and tenants.

As regards the need for the Bill, we noted that the Welsh Government's own consultation on the proposed reforms to notice periods did not provide evidence of strong favourable support. We also noticed the Minister's suggestion there's been some reliance on using anecdotal evidence. We do acknowledge that there may be a more widespread issue about engaging with the private rented sector in Wales, however, on a general point of principle, the Minister's evidence base is weakened by the informality of the data and the committee did not consider it good practice to rely on such evidence as grounds for changing primary legislation.

Our recommendation 2 asks that the Welsh Government increases its engagement and develops more formal links with contract holders in the private rented sector in Wales. This should facilitate more robust data gathering from this sector to better inform legislative proposals. And I welcome the Minister's acceptance of this particular recommendation.

Recommendation 3 in our report was linked to the limitations of the evidence base. We have welcomed the Minister's intention to review the implementation of the Bill as part of the planned evaluation of the 2016 Act. As a committee, we have general concerns about the proliferation of the statute book as it applies in Wales. As such, we recommended that the planned evaluation of the 2016 Act should consider the potential urgency for the full consolidation of Welsh housing law. Again, I welcome the acceptance of this in principle by the Minister and also recognise that, clearly, this is a matter now for a future Assembly.

Moving to our final recommendation, we noted that the Ministry of Justice agrees with the Welsh Government that the overall impact of the Bill on case load for the courts system in Wales is likely to be negligible over time. Nonetheless, the Minister accepts that the Bill is also to cause an increase in the number of claims requiring hearings from private landlords. Potential delays to court proceedings must be avoided. The courts system should not result in high costs being incurred and timely resolution is important to mitigate the impact the Bill will have on the landlord's right to access their own property. So, our fourth recommendation—and we consider this to be a particularly important recommendation, again for a future Assembly—and that is to investigate the need for a dedicated housing tribunal in Wales. Such a tribunal could, amongst other things, consider possession claims made by landlords. We recommend that the result of this investigation should be reported to the Senedd and that this should be a matter that carries over certainly into the next Assembly as well. Diolch, Llywydd.

I call on the Chair of the Finance Committee, Llyr Gruffydd.

Thank you very much, Llywydd. I'm very pleased to contribute to this debate as Chair of the Finance Committee. We had expected to hear evidence from the Minister back in March on this issue but, of course, we had to postpone that session as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Instead, we wrote to the Minister, seeking information about the financial implications of the Bill in case we were unable to reschedule an evidence session before the reporting deadline for Stage 1. But, as that deadline was extended, we were able to hear from the Minister and we are grateful to her for that.

The committee notes that the Bill will amend the Renting Homes (Wales) Act 2016 to provide greater security of tenure for contract holders who rent, particularly those in the private rented sector, by extending the period of notice the landlord must give from two to six months, when the contract holder is not at fault.

We note that reforms are also being made in the rest of the UK in this area. In the Queen's Speech in December of last year, the UK Government included a proposed Renters' Reform Bill, which will abolish the use of no-fault evictions. In Scotland, the Private Housing (Tenancies) (Scotland) Act 2016 created a new type of private rental tenancy in Scotland, which ended no-fault evictions and created 18 grounds under which a landlord can end a tenancy.

The overall net cost of the Bill, as reported in the regulatory impact assessment, falls within the range of £9.5 million and £13 million. We are broadly content with the evidence provided by the Minister, and therefore we have no issues to report on the financial implications of the Bill.

I speak as the Member who represented the Conservative group on the Stage 1 proceedings, and subbed on to the equality and local government committee for that purpose, but I'm no longer the housing spokesperson, and my colleague Mark Isherwood will speak officially for the group later.

Can I say that I'm very pleased to agree the general principles of this Bill? I think, with other measures that have been referred to, it should provide a stronger and more efficient market for the private rented sector in particular, and it seeks to strike a balance between tenants—who are now often called 'generation rent'—and landlords. And generation rent, if I can take that to mean people in the private rented sector, is now something like 20 per cent of the population in housing terms, which is really quite a remarkable shift from the 1980s, when much of the law that we have sought to reform during this Senedd was first enacted to revive, really, the rental sector, which had gone into the doldrums through over-control at the time. So, it is a rebalancing; it's happening in England, it's happening in Scotland, and that's why, when I was the Conservative spokesperson—and a policy that continues—the Conservative group was pleased to broadly support these reforms to the rental sector. And can I say what a pleasure it was to work with the equality and local government committee and the Members—it was very constructive—and, more recently, I've also been on the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee, and, again, I'm pleased with the diligence that's been applied to this Bill. And I indeed note, as others have, the similar recommendations in some respects between those two committees.

I do want to make some specific points, but let me just say first of all that I think the consolidation of housing law is something much to be desired. We know the Welsh Government is committed to consolidating law. It has been one of the things we thought that the Senedd could do, or start to do, when it acquired primary lawmaking powers, and ensure that we didn't have the sort of cluttered statute book that exists in other jurisdictions, and that housing was a really good area of public law to start with, because it's so important in terms of people's lives, but also it was law that needed reforming and it is very systematic; they relate to each other. This Bill actually amends a 2016 Act, so An act of the fourth Assembly, as we've heard, which will not actually be commenced until the sixth Senedd. I do think it's a bit of a record for something to be passed in a fourth Parliament and not to be enacted—commenced, rather—until a sixth Parliament, and it is really not very good practice, even—. I mean, there are some reasons in COVID to explain the extension to this inordinate delay, but most of the inordinate delay has been caused by other factors, which I think the Welsh Government should have been more attentive about. But, anyway, that's a sour note and I want to be mostly positive in my remarks. 

If I can turn to the Stage 1 committee report, I would highlight the following: the need for better data of the private rented sector again has already been referred to, and I'm pleased the Minister has accepted that recommendation. As I said, it's 20 per cent of housing now, and we do just need better data and we need better liaison with private sector tenants. We have excellent connections over many decades with those in the social sector, and it's a harder sector—it's more fragmented, the private sector tenants—but we need to get better evidence from them. The Bill does need to have certain improvements made, and I'm sure my colleague Mark Isherwood might speak to some of this as well, but we would have pushed very strongly for the extension of the withdrawal and then reissue notice that landlords have to apply from 14 to 28 days, but I'm delighted the Minister's actually accepted that recommendation and so, presumably, there won't be a need for our own amendment on that. 

So, I do think, finally, as this completes a series of reforms to the private rented sector, that, as we've moved from no-fault evictions, in effect, to evictions for a cause, the landlord's right to an effective process is really important. And that's why the two committees have made this point about the need for landlords to be able to access efficient and low-cost procedure, and possibly that would best be done via housing tribunal. And I do hope that will be seriously looked at in the sixth Senedd, which I will not be a Member of, but I would urge Members who are elected to that to look at that particular part, because it is part of the balancing, and landlords do have a right to reclaim their property and there must be a process that's efficient for them to do so when there is cause. 

It's a pleasure to follow David Melding in this debate. Plaid Cymru supports the general principles of this Bill, but we don't believe that the Government has gone far enough. We of course endorse the recommendations of the committee reports, and thank the Chair and the committee clerks for their support in the evidence gathering that led to our recommendations in that report. It's worth highlighting, as David Melding has just done, that the Bill amends an Act that hasn't yet been implemented, the Renting Homes (Wales) Act 2016. And as the committee has noted as well, having this significant gap between a Bill becoming law and being implemented is rare and regrettable. If we've learnt anything this year, it's that inaction and lethargy by Government isn't conducive to good public service, and I hope that that lesson has been learned from the experience. But that is a sour note and I hope to be more positive in some of these remarks. 

It's clear that although the Bill extends the period before no-fault evictions are allowed, it does represent a climb-down by the Government, as the current First Minister, of course, pledged a complete ban during his leadership campaign. Now, that's something that we, as Plaid Cymru, will want to return to in later stages. The extended notice period is a start, and the Government has justified extending the period to six months because the previous two months' notice was not enough time for tenants to secure alternative accommodation in the same community or area as their child attends a school. It's not enough time to arrange changes to care packages, to save up to cover the costs of the move and plan for a move around tenants' everyday lives, including employment and family commitments. 

Now, I think the first point there is possibly the most persuasive: why should the education and personal development of any child be sacrificed? Because, too often in this country, we regard property as an investment and privilege the rights of landlords over the rights of children to enjoy a stable childhood. Six months is an improvement—it, in effect, guarantees a tenancy for a year—but I'd still question whether it would always be enough time. In rural areas, or in Valleys communities, there's often a shortage of suitable accommodation. So, even six months' notice may not be enough time for a family to find another property that enables their child to stay in the same school.

Llywydd, we really do need to put this legislation in context. If it passes unamended, tenants in Wales will continue to have fewer protections against no-fault evictions than in Scotland and, indeed, in England, where the proposed legislation is for a complete ban on no-fault evictions. The question really has to be: why the rollback? The Government has said that a complete ban would breach human rights, but, if that is the case, why haven't any wealthy landlord associations taken the Scottish Government to court? 

Now, the Government has also said that landlords should be able to get their property back, for example, if they only own one property and face homelessness themselves. Now, in those circumstances, of course we'd want protection, but there will still be a range of other reasons where a landlord could take this course of action. All we want to see is that a good tenant who pays rent and looks after the property has their right to a stable family life protected, and an extra four months of protection from no-fault evictions simply doesn't go far enough for that. We should end no-fault evictions, like the First Minister promised. We should have a policy of supporting tenants to become home owners by establishing mechanisms where they can buy the home from landlords who want to leave the market, and also fund housing associations to take over properties from landlords who want to leave the market. Because even the landlord associations agree that we should be driving poor landlords out, and the past 20 years have simply seen too many poor landlords. And the perception, encouraged by the media, that property is a get-rich-quick scheme—that has to end. A house is someone's home first and foremost; it shouldn't be seen as an asset, a means of accumulating wealth, especially not on the back of other people's poverty.

So, there's much in this Bill that we do welcome, but there's a lot more that we'd like to see the Government doing and we will be pushing this at later stages. Diolch.

I'm grateful to the Minister for her statement today and for consideration of the general principles of this Bill. I'd like to place on record my thanks to the committees that reported on this Bill. The reports are balanced and interesting.

Once again, I'll declare an interest. I am what I call an accidental landlord—I inherited my father's house and I now rent the property out to a local family. By doing so, I am partly providing for my old age and topping up my pension. I know that others rent out inherited properties solely to pay back care home fees owed to councils. I've registered with Rent Smart Wales, the property is managed by an agent, the fees went up by 1 per cent when the Renting Homes (Fees etc.) (Wales) Act 2019 came in. I have to fill in a tax return. It's a real responsibility and it feels too often like a millstone. I'm telling you this, because I get the feeling that policy makers and some in this Chamber have a view of landlords that is stuck somewhere in the 1970s and 1980s—rich, uncaring people who are happy to count their money while their tenants live in squalor. That's definitely not the case in a lot of circumstances.

But, over a couple of decades now, ordinary people have been told to save for their old age and many have seen fit to invest their money in property. And then austerity arrives and landlords are taxed and regulated, they pay more and have to jump through more hoops than ever. So, for the owners of just one buy-to-let property, it's really quite onerous and becoming less and less attractive as an option. It may be different for, you know, portfolio holders.

I won't labour here now how messy this suite of legislation is, with amendments being made to the housing Act that is yet to come into effect; both committees have raised this point with you. I do think it's worth making the point, though, that people need to have confidence in the legislation being developed here in this Senedd and in its intention and effect. I've got no difficulty in taking steps to enable tenants to feel more secure and to be more secure in their rented homes. As Delyth said, you know, they are their homes. They pay for the privilege of living in that property; they ought to have some security of tenure. And I understand how difficult it can be when a landlord needs the property back and there are family ties to the areas and schools to take into account. I have to admit, though, that I read with some consternation that any human rights infringement of the landlords' rights is deemed okay and their needs and rights are deemed subservient to those of the tenant. I'll give you two examples: constituent A forms a new relationship and moves in with her new partner. She rents out her house. Her relationship breaks up, she cannot gain access to her own home because of this law. She's homeless until she has served the relevant notices. Example: constituent B is diagnosed with a terminal illness. He wants to liquidate all of his assets to do all of the things on his now very urgent bucket list. He can't because he needs to serve relevant notices. That poor man may die while he's waiting. How is this fair?

You mention in your evidence to a committee that the majority of landlords are good landlords, so what are you trying to fix here? Also, the premise of the Bill seems to be biased on anecdotal evidence, as previously said, largely through constituency casework. I do find that very worrying. The Bill appears predicated on a model tenant paying their rent and looking after the property, when we all know that this is not always the case. I've seen quite a few cases like that, thankfully not on my own property but through my agents. Many landlords have had to deal with rogue tenants who pay nothing or wreck the property, or refuse to leave when they are supposed to. This sort of thing can ruin people's lives. So, I'm glad that consideration of court processes has taken place. Renting out property is looking more and more like one-way traffic, with all the rights with the tenants and all of the liabilities with the landlord. This does not make for a vibrant private rented sector, so I think it's imperative that some goodwill is shown and that where court or tribunal processes are needed, that this is quick and efficient. So, I think a better balance can and could be struck, Minister. If not, private landlords, as also said before, will vote with their feet, and more pressure will be brought to bear on an already struggling housing market if they leave that market. Thank you.

Huw Irranca-Davies. Huw Irranca-Davies, we can't hear you at the moment. You seem to know that we do want to hear you.

Sorry, Presiding Officer, the little button just came through to allow me to speak.

Okay. Carry on.

Thank you very much. Could I first of all, as a member of the committee, just thank my colleagues on the committee and the Chair, and also the witnesses, for what has been some really, really interesting and thorough, as this committee always does, evidence that we've taken, trying to get this balance right on the security of tenure for tenants and, also, the balance of rights for landlords as well? And, in speaking on this debate, strongly, I have to say, in support not only of the general principles, but of getting on with this for reasons I'll come to in a moment, I also declare an interest because I am a landlord myself. I've been a tenant many times as I've moved around the country. I'm a landlord, a bit like Mandy was saying, by accident—it's family circumstance. I think there'll be lots of my constituents who are in the same boat, who, perhaps through bereavement, perhaps through a bequest or whatever, have a single property.

But where I would disagree with Mandy is I actually think the proposals within the Bill are broadly correct. I look forward to further debate on this, but I think they're broadly correct, because what we've had for a long, long time is an undue balance towards the power of the landlord, and there are lots of good landlords out there, but tenants have been powerless and, on this secure tenancy, we've made such great strides in Wales, not least with the rent smart approach, which I think has really caused a lot of landlords to step up to the mark and take seriously the responsibilities. But this Bill, I have to say, takes it further as well, but I look forward to the wider debates coming forward on it.

But, Minister, I'm going to give you a slight curve ball, because whilst I agree entirely with what the committee has brought forward and many of David Melding's remarks and others here today and the Chair of the committee, I want to take to a slightly left-field issue, and it's to do with what else this Bill will do. And the reason I say this is because I just want to thank Electrical Safety First for sitting down with me virtually and going through some of their big support for this Bill, I have to say, because they want to see this taken through at a rate of knots and being put in place, but also what they see this doing in terms of the fitness for human habitation measures that were found in the original Renting Homes (Wales) Act and what this could now do, actually, for electrical safety if we get on with it and if we do it right. The background to this, of course—by the way, Minister, I have to say I'm hoping for a positive response from you, because the key external affairs person for Electrical Safety First in Wales happens to live in my own town, so they've been knocking on my door—is because, of course, we know that 62 per cent of domestic fires are caused by electricity, and this Bill carries significance in the human habitation measures not only for social landlords and for private landlords, but also for what it does in terms of that wider issue of safety. So, the asks in terms of electrical safety are, one, from the ESF that Members of the Senedd support this Bill and that any delays, frankly, to ensuring that electrical safety checks, which are part of these human habitation measures, are not delayed any further, that they're implemented as soon as possible. They do ask as well, Minister, that the Welsh Government actually produces some clear timeline on implementation for the mandatory electrical safety checks that we're still waiting for, and I think this progressing fast will allow us to do this. I wonder if the Minister would be able to respond to that issue around the timeline for those safety checks, as well, but, of course, not waiting to do this, because meanwhile, actually getting on with vulnerable home owners having home safety visits by the established mechanisms of fire and rescue services, and that they provide references to care and repair services, for example, where there are electrical hazards identified, needs to be resolved as well.

So, Minister, I'm fully supportive in speaking in the general principles debate on this Bill. I don't see the difficulty in bringing forward these measures before the whole Bill that we've put in place has been enacted. It's very unusual, I have to say, but I think it's right, because we've spotted things that do need to be dealt with, but, in doing so, can we also look at those issues around the fitness for human habitation measures, and particularly those within electrical safety, because we know it leads to deaths? If we can get this right, we will be saving lives as well as dealing with this issue of the balance of security of tenure for tenants and with landlords. Thank you very much.

As the Welsh Government's explanatory memorandum to this Bill states,

'The private rented sector (“PRS”) plays an important part in meeting the housing needs of the people of Wales'

and

'the Welsh Government wishes to ensure there is the right balance of support and regulation in the PRS'.

However, given the increasing dependency of people on the private rented sector for housing, a fine balance must be struck to protect both parties in these arrangements and avoid unintended consequences that run counter to this goal. Tenants, of course, need the security of a good home and a responsible landlord, but landlords also need the security of responsible tenants. The majority of landlords are individuals who let out one or two properties. Many of these rely on that income for their day-to-day living expenses, or to provide pensions. Any actions that drive decent landlords out of the sector and reduce the housing stock available for rent would be detrimental to tenants in the long run.

Whilst the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee recommends the general principles of this Bill should be agreed, it also acknowledges that there was a clear split in opinion as to whether the legislation was required. The Bill's explanatory memorandum states that the overarching aim of the Bill is to improve security of tenure for those who rent their homes in Wales. However, responses to the Welsh Government's consultation were mixed. Although 70 per cent of contract holders in this sector who responded were supportive of the main proposal to extend the notice period for section 173 evictions to six months, and 78 per cent were supportive of the proposal to prevent an eviction notice from being served within the first six months of a new occupation contract, 94 per cent of private landlords who responded were against the former, and 92 per cent of letting agents were against the latter. Notwithstanding this divergence in opinion, we will support the general principles of the Bill to provide greater security for people who rent their homes in Wales. However, we do also acknowledge the concerns of landlords about the impact that these reforms may have on their ability to protect their incomes, remove bad tenants as a last resort, and ensure that they can take possession of the property in exceptional circumstances, such as needing to move in themselves.

As the National Residential Landlords Association stated in written evidence to committee,

'Landlords do not go to court without good reason and prefer to keep good tenants in their homes.'

ARLA Propertymark, the professional and regulatory body for letting agents, states that letting property will become less viable for landlords under the Bill's current proposals, where there's no,

'straightforward means to regain the property quickly when things go wrong.'

They note in consequence that there will be fewer privately rented homes, ultimately leaving tenants with less choice of where to live, increasing rents and forcing landlords to become more risk averse and only choose to house the lowest risk tenants. In order to make the legislation workable, they state that the Bill must be amended to include four mandatory grounds for repossession: when the landlord intends to sell the property, intends to move into the property, intends to move a family member into the property, and where a mortgage lender needs to regain the property. It is noted that although the UK Government's proposed abolition of no-fault evictions in England went further than the Welsh Government's Bill, its Renters' Reform Bill gives landlords more rights to gain possession of their property through the courts, where there is a legitimate need for them to do so, by reforming current legislation. The UK Government have also said that they will work to improve the court process for landlords to make it quicker and easier for them to get their property back sooner.

In light of this Bill's unintended consequences, the NRLA have sought to develop constructive compromises that seek to balance the needs of both landlords and tenants, and I welcome the Minister's acceptance of one of those already. For example, in addition, allowing for a six-month section 173 no-fault eviction notice to be served after four months but take effect at the end of the six-month fixed term, giving tenants more notice and the landlord flexibility; and amending the minimum contract length to 12 months, but allowing a six-month tenant-only break if the landlord and tenant agree so at the outset of the contract.

I also, listening to the previous contribution, note the call by Electrical Safety First for the Welsh Government to implement as quickly as possible the requirements in the original legislation for landlords to ensure any dwellings let are fit for human habitation, including mandatory electrical safety checks. Diolch.

Caroline Jones.

No, Llywydd, I haven't put in to speak in this debate, diolch. Sorry.

Excellent. Don't take that personally; it's just that it's approaching 8 o'clock, and that's music to my ears—one fewer speaker. That brings us to the Minister to respond to the debate.

Diolch, Llywydd. Can I start once more by giving my thanks to John, Llyr and Mick for their constructive and helpful remarks this evening and also, once more, for the work of their respective committees, which we're very grateful for? And, as I said at the outset, I'm very appreciative of the enormous amount of hard work in very difficult circumstances that's gone on, and particularly grateful to Llyr, as he mentioned having gone through a relatively unusual procedure to get through the various stages of scrutiny. So I'm very grateful to people for having done that. I'm also very grateful to all the other Members who have spoken during today's debate.

I just want to make one or two remarks in response to various comments Members have made. I won't have time to go through all of them, Llywydd, but I just want to start by saying that it is important to isolate the COVID regulations from the amendment Bill in front of us today. I think a number of Members did conflate one or two of the issues. I'm very happy to do a briefing session later on for Members on the differences between the two.

In terms of some of the issues that a number of Members raised about the ability of the courts to cope, we are expecting a wide reduction in social landlord possession cases as a result of a number of agreements we've made with social landlords in Wales, and that will free up a number of court resources to accommodate any increase in hearings that's due to this Bill, although we are not expecting that to happen.

Just in terms of the Scottish situation, a number of people seem to be under the impression that Scotland has done something that we are not doing, but just to be clear, this amendment Bill guarantees six months' notice when the tenant is not at fault. This is not the case in Scotland, where a tenant not at fault can be evicted with as little as 28 days' notice, for example, where a landlord wants to sell the house that the tenant is occupying, and the tenant need not have committed any fault in their occupation of that house in order for that to be effective. So that is not the case, Llywydd, and I think it's very important for Members to understand that. 

There are a number of other things that Members have raised around the evidence, and so on, but all of the thrusts were the same. The evidence that we have is that only two months' notice is currently required to be given and, without the amendment Act, that will remain in place. That's clearly not sufficient to find a new home or new schools for your children, and so on, and so this will give tenants much longer to be able to do that and, of course, it's not able to be served in the first six months, so it gives everyone at least one year's security of tenure. So I think it is very important to say that.

I also want to assure Members that we continue to work closely with all our stakeholders, from the landlord sector and with those who represent the interests of contract holders in Wales, as we move into the next stage of the scrutiny process. And Llywydd, you can tell from the various contributions across the floor that we are being criticised by people who feel we are harsh on the landlords and criticised by people who feel we haven't taken tenants' rights into account, and therefore I feel very strongly that we seem to be hitting the balance that we talked about so much as part of this process.

I should add in closing that, in addition to the Government amendments that I've committed to bringing forward in response to committee recommendations today, there will also be a number of Government amendments at Stage 2 to correct some technical matters, both in this Bill and in the 2016 Act, which it amends. None of these are significant, by which I mean they will not change the scope of the legislation nor the overall policy it seeks to deliver, and I will ensure that Members are fully briefed in terms of the purpose and effect of those amendments when we bring them forward.

I mentioned in my opening remarks my disappointment in having to delay the implementation of the amended Act to early 2022, however, in an attempt to end on a more positive note, I can honestly say that I think that it will be some achievement on all our parts if we're able to complete the remaining work necessary to get this Bill onto the statute book before this term ends, and I very much look forward to continuing to engage with Members of all parties in the constructive spirit that has characterised our work on this important Bill thus far. Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd.

The proposal is to agree the motion under item 9. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, I see that there are objections to that and that motion under item 9 is deferred until voting time. 

As voting on the general principles of the Renting Homes (Amendment) Wales Bill has been deferred until voting time, I will also defer the vote on the financial resolution until voting time. 

And that brings us to voting time, and we will now take a break of five minutes before we move to the vote.

That brings us to voting time, and the first vote is on the Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions (No. 2) (Wales) (Amendment) (No. 16) (Conwy, Denbighshire, Flintshire and Wrexham) Regulations 2020. And I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Rebecca Evans. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 28, nine abstentions and 14 against, and therefore the motion is agreed. 

The next item would have been agenda item 8, but the motion on agenda item 8 was agreed at the time. But I understand that there was an objection that Gareth Bennett was seeking to make at that point. I apologise to Gareth Bennett that I didn't see that objection, but that is now a matter for the record.

The next vote, therefore, will be on the general principles of the Renting Homes (Amendment) (Wales) Bill, and I call for a vote on the motion—

—tabled in the name of Rebecca Evans. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 45, two abstentions, four against, and therefore the motion is agreed. 

The next vote is on the financial resolution in respect of the Renting Homes (Amendment) (Wales) Bill. I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Rebecca Evans. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 45, two abstentions, four against, and therefore the motion is agreed. 

That brings today's voting to a close. Thank you all.