National Assembly for Wales

Welcome to this Plenary session. Before we begin, I want to note a few points. 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 Senedd proceedings, wherever they may be, will be treated equitably. 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 your agenda. 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. 

Before I call on the First Minister to answer questions, I'm sure all Members would want to join me today in sending our condolences to the Deputy Presiding Officer, Ann Jones, on the death of her husband, Adrian. Ann, Victoria, Vincent and their families are all in our thoughts this afternoon. 

The first item on our agenda is questions to the First Minister, and the first question is from Suzy Davies.

Llywydd, we have provided more than £213 million to the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales during this financial year. That includes an additional £27 million to establish a higher education investment and recovery fund in recognition of the impact of the pandemic on our universities.

Thank you, First Minister. With those figures, I think we can see that universities are operating against a background where they don't get the full benefits of the full Barnett consequential for research and innovation. So, I'd be grateful to know how much of the £27 million COVID response payment you refer to has been used to support and retain postgraduate research students during this time, particularly as the number of overseas students who cross-subsidise some of that work will be lower this year? And, in particular, what, in practice, are they being given towards living costs and mental health support from this fund, and is this being replicated amongst undergraduates, who are obviously supposed to get support from this money as well?

Well, Llywydd, the employment of postgraduates is a matter for the universities, not for me. On the mental health point that the Member raises, of course, that is a very important part of what we need to attend to as young people come back to their studies, or begin their studies, here in Wales. We've provided £10 million, over and above the initial allocations provided to HEFCW, specifically for mental health and well-being amongst students. I'm very grateful to the National Union of Students for everything they are doing with us and with higher education institutions to make sure that that money is spent in the way that has the maximum impact upon the well-being and the mental well-being of those young people. I know that HEFCW is adding money to the £10 million that we have provided and that universities right across Wales will benefit from that fund. 

I'm sure the First Minister will agree with me that, for the medium-term future of our universities, it's vital that they get sufficient access to funding for research. Does the First Minister share my concerns that at no time during the whole of devolution, over the last 20 years, have our universities ever got what would have been their Barnett consequential from the research councils? And does the First Minister agree with me that it may be time to look at devolving that funding and that responsibility so that we can be making decisions here in Wales about what research we should be prioritising and how we can support our universities to further develop their research excellence?

Llywydd, I thank Helen Mary Jones for that. She's right, of course, to say that Welsh universities have not received a Barnett share of UK-wide research council income, and we are in continuous conversations with those research councils to make sure that applications from Welsh institutions are properly considered and are not overlooked in historic patterns of funding institutions elsewhere in the United Kingdom. I'm sure, as well, Llywydd, that Helen Mary Jones will agree with me that the loss of Horizon 2020 funding to Welsh universities is a particular threat to our research base here. Welsh universities, in contrast to their ability to draw down money from research councils, have punched far above their weight in getting Horizon 2020 money into Wales. We do far better than our population share there. The failure of the UK Government to guarantee that the United Kingdom and Welsh institutions will be able to go on participating in successor programmes to Horizon, and to be able to benefit from them in the way that we have, poses another threat to the research base of our higher education institutions.

First Minister, you've just picked on an area I was going to ask you about—Wales's European funding. Now, our universities have benefited from European funding—not just Horizon 2020, but other streams of European funding. What assurances have you had from the UK Government that any funding stream that universities would have benefited from for research—for example, the coal and steel research funding projects—will be actually reallocated to Welsh universities and not into a central pot and spread into other areas, so that our universities can still continue to benefit from the funding that would have been available under the European Union?

There's no guarantee of any sort, Llywydd. I bitterly regret the fact that the UK Government has refused to put inter-territorial co-operation programmes on the table for post-EU-membership funding. Our universities in Bangor, Aberystwyth, Swansea have benefited enormously from inter-territorial co-operation funding; over €100 million in that programme with southern Ireland. And that has been a real catalyst for really important research in the marine environment, in renewable energy—20 years' worth of investment between our higher education institutions and higher education institutions elsewhere that now will not be able to be taken forward. And we've made the case, Llywydd, repeatedly and repeatedly, and with other parts of the United Kingdom, that we should continue to be members of those co-operation programmes, and the UK Government has simply been deaf to all the arguments that have been made to them.

Caroline Jones. No, I'm sorry—

—question 2, Russell George.

Llywydd, I thank Russell George for that question. Our response to the COVID-19 pandemic has meant implementing considerable changes to general medical services. Further investment in the GMS contract has supported GPs to prepare and adopt new ways of working, including a national video consultation service in all GP practices in Wales.

Thank you, First Minister, for your reply. I know you'll agree with me that GPs have reacted quickly and flexibly during the pandemic, which we all thank them for. Now, in spite of that, what I'm told by GPs in my constituency is that, despite a number of requests via the appropriate channels, GPs have stood alone—this is what they're telling me—in planning and organising this year's flu campaign. And they're telling me that Welsh Government have raised the expectations amongst patients by their promotion of the flu vaccination this year, with no detail about how this will be delivered. Can you, First Minister, reassure me today that GPs will have adequate funding to weather the winter pressures, and that they will have rapid testing and results to ensure that they and their teams on the ground have as little disruption as possible, and that there will be the suspension of any unnecessary administration burdens, so that they're able to continue delivering the high quality of care that, of course, they provide to patients?

Llywydd, I do agree with what Russell George has said about the way in which primary care—GPs, but other contractors as well—have worked so hard during this pandemic. And they've been assisted by the Welsh Government in that, despite the fact that, in the first six months of the pandemic, GP practices were unable to provide the enhanced services for which they are paid through the contract, but Welsh Government paid them as though those enhanced services were being provided. And that was in order to provide financial stability for those practices during that difficult time. And I really do want to pay tribute to the way in which our GP practices have embraced the new technological possibilities that have come with the pandemic: the Attend Anywhere system, the video consultation service—over 10,000 video consultations now carried out in GP practices across Wales, and that is being supported by funding to practices to make sure that they are able to sustain that level of provision.

As to flu vaccination, Llywydd, I think it's great that people want to come forward for vaccination. But, vaccine is released from the UK pandemic stock in tranches, and we have concentrated, in the early stages, on those who are over 65 and vulnerable in other ways. We've enhanced the payment we give to GPs—they're getting an extra £1.75 for ever flu vaccine that they carry out. I think that now means they're paid more than £12 for every vaccination, and the Welsh Government pays for the cost of the vaccination itself as well, and we'll continue to do that. Further guidance to GPs on how to access the additional stocks coming to the UK was issued on 14 October, and I hope that that will have been of help to those who have been in touch with the Member. 

First Minister, this pandemic has had a severe impact on primary care, placing additional obligations and burdens on an already struggling workforce. We know we need to recruit more GPs to cope with workloads in normal times, but, as we enter cold and flu season with COVID-19 still running rampant, the pressures will be immense. First Minister, we know technology can play, and does play, a role in reducing these pressures, so what plans does the Welsh Government have to expand the availability of telemedicine in primary care in Wales? Diolch.

Well, thank you, Caroline Jones. That is a very important question, and I think, in desperately difficult times, the way in which GP practices have been able to adapt to telephone consultations, to video consultations, has been a real hallmark of that response. And I've been talking to a number of people recently who have said to me just how easy those services have been to use, and how they wouldn't want to go back to the way that things were previously provided, when they would have had to have left their homes, made difficult journeys, struggled to park, sat in a waiting room with other people who are unwell, in order to do something that now they can do equally satisfactorily from their own homes.

Another aspect, Llywydd, of the way in which technology is coming to the assistance of our GP community is through the availability now of the Consultant Connect service, which means that GPs can connect directly to a consultant in secondary care if they have a patient in front of them where they need that extra expertise, which a consultant in a speciality is able to bring. That's been very important in a number of our GP practices and I know is appreciated by those GP colleagues who now have that additional back-up to the expertise that they themselves are able to apply. 

First Minister, can I place on record my congratulations to the GP services in the Pontypridd and Taff-Ely area for the way in which they've been administering the flu vaccine service? I had two text messages, I had a phone call, and I attended the Tonyrefail leisure centre for my flu vaccine, which was delivered in almost conveyor-belt style. It took about two minutes for the whole process to be operated, with a continual flow of local persons, particularly the first batch of the over-65s. Can I, though, raise the point that I think a number of Senedd Members will have had mentioned and that is that there have been some hiccups in terms of supplies? I heard your answer earlier, and I'm just wondering what assurances can be given that there will be sufficient supplies of the vaccine for all those who would actually benefit from the flu vaccine at the present time, bearing in mind it's importance in terms of the comorbidity issue with regard to COVID.  

Well, Llywydd, Mick Antoniw's opening remarks do remind me of a conversation that I had only yesterday with a young person in Cardiff, who told me that she had telephoned her general practitioner surgery in the morning, she had a reply back from the GP before 9.30 a.m., the GP sent her a text message by 9.45 a.m. for a video consultation, the video consultation had been completed by 10 o'clock in the morning, and everything that that young person needed from her GP service had been concluded within 90 minutes of her making the original phone call. I think that is a remarkable service, and that young person was just full of praise for the way it had all been conducted on her phone, in the way that young people are able to do, and she certainly wouldn't want to go back to the way things were before.

In relation to the additional stocks, we will have over 400,000 additional vaccines here in Wales, compared to the supplies we had last year. They don't all arrive at once and it's inevitable that there is some prioritisation, in which those patients who are most at risk get it first. We're very lucky that flu is in very low circulation in Wales at this point, very early on, of course, in the flu season. We publish a weekly data monitor of the circulation of flu through Public Health Wales. In the first week, which I think was just two weeks ago, there were two reported cases of influenza in the whole of Wales. So, the prioritisation programme is working, it's working in line with clinical risk, and over this winter and into December, there will be significantly additional vaccines available—enough to vaccinate an additional 40 to 50 per cent of adults in Wales, who are able to get a vaccination free of charge in the NHS this year, compared to those age cohorts we were able to provide a service of that sort to last year.

Questions now from the party leaders. Plaid Cymru leader, Adam Price.

Diolch, Llywydd. No responsible Government or opposition, First Minister, could fail to support radical action in response to the national emergency that we're currently facing. Of course it's important that the mistakes by both Governments that have led us to this point are acknowledged so that we can learn the lessons to prevent successive waves of infection. But as the technical advisory committee report says, doing nothing new now would mean 2,500 extra deaths by the end of the year. A two-week firebreak would save almost 1,000 lives; a three-week firebreak, 300 more.

It's incomprehensible, under those circumstances, indeed, even reprehensible, that the Chancellor has refused to bring the job support scheme forward or to top up the furlough to the level of the first wave. It's difficult to believe that the purse strings would be shut quite so tight if there were a circuit breaker in Surrey.

To what extent was the UK Government's intransigence on financial support a factor in determining the optimal length of the firebreak in Wales? Is progressive public health policy in Wales being hamstrung by Westminster's Tory economics?

Llywydd, let me thank Adam Price for that and for the support that I've heard him give over recent days to the idea of a firebreak as a way to deal with the very, very sobering position set out, as he said, in the TAC report.

The sequence of decision making, Llywydd, was that the Cabinet makes its decisions on public health grounds, we take our advice from the chief medical officer, our chief scientific adviser and others and come to the conclusion that the actions we propose taking are the best ones to deal with the spiralling cases of coronavirus. We then look to the UK Government to play a part in dealing with the consequences of those public health actions in the lives of individuals. That's why I wrote to the Chancellor asking him to bring forward the date of the JSS scheme to 23 October. And, Llywydd, it cannot be that it was financial reasons that prevented him from agreeing to that, because we agreed as a Welsh Government to pay the additional £11 million it would've cost the Treasury from our own resources, if that was the sticking point. So, it can't have been turned down on cost grounds, and it is difficult to see why the Chancellor didn't feel he was able to play his part.

I've written again to him today offering him a different solution—a solution in which the qualifying terms for the last week of the furlough scheme could be brought into line with the JSS scheme that will begin from 1 November, and thus make it more available to more citizens here in Wales. We keep offering solutions; so far, the UK Government keeps turning them down. I do hope the Chancellor will find a different answer in his repertoire in response to my letter of today.

First Minister, another defining issue where the people of Wales are at the mercy of Westminster is planning for the end of the Brexit transition period and the proposed UK internal market. I agree with the Counsel General when he said that a UK Government seeking the power to spend in devolved areas and to control that spending is one which seeks to neuter and negate the devolution settlement. I agree with you, First Minister, that this will hasten the break-up of the United Kingdom. For Wales, the Bill is damaging without precedent, emerging fully-fledged as the single biggest sustained assault yet to threaten democratic devolution. The Bill conjures up the spectre of a no trade deal and the UK breaking international law, which has been condemned by just about everyone from the Confederation of British Industry to the Anglican Church. Given the Counsel General's and your well-founded concerns about the attitude and behaviour of the Westminster Government, what legal advice has the Welsh Government received on a potential challenge to the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill in the Supreme Court?

Well, Llywydd, the leader of Plaid Cymru is absolutely right to point to the threats posed to Welsh businesses, to Welsh livelihoods and, indeed, to the powers of the Senedd by this Bill. And Members who don't agree with that don't need to listen to the leader of Plaid Cymru or, indeed, to me; they could take note of, as Adam Price said, the letter published yesterday in the Financial Times, signed by the Archbishop of Wales, the Most Reverend John Davies, which points to the damage to the United Kingdom's reputation of that Bill, the moral hazard that is involved in breaking international law, and the threat that it poses to the United Kingdom through the way in which it rides roughshod over the settled devolution arrangements, endorsed, in Wales's case, in two successive referendums. And if there are Members who don't wish to take their advice from those with spiritual credentials, they simply need to read the report of the House of Lords Constitution Committee, which once again urges the Government to withdraw the clauses that are are an assault on devolution, to rely, as we urge the Government to rely, on the work that has gone on between us all to develop common frameworks. We believe in resolving the problems, we believe in a level playing field, but we believe that those problems should be agreed in their solution rather than imposed on the rest of us.

Our legal advice, Llywydd, at this point, is focused on crafting amendments, which we have published and hope to see laid in the House of Lords, because we think that there are still parliamentary opportunities to right the wrongs that this Bill brings about, both to the devolution settlement and to the way in which the United Kingdom's standing would be damaged in the world.

Whether it's COVID or Brexit, being wedded to Westminster is having disastrous consequences for Wales. The health Secretary in England is overseeing a calamitous lighthouse lab system hampering the Welsh COVID response, while the Chancellor turns a blind eye to the struggle of Welsh businesses, workers and the self-employed. Compare our situation with that of New Zealand. I'm sure, First Minister, you will want to join me in congratulating Jacinda Ardern on her stunning victory. Here is a Labour politician, in a country not much bigger than Wales in its population, who has presided over one of the most successful COVID responses anywhere in the world. Not only is New Zealand COVID free, it is also free from the British state, its blustering Prime Minister and his Cabinet of calamities. The Prime Minister is 'utterly shambolic', whose 'indifference to Wales borders on contempt'. Your words, First Minister, not mine, but with which I nevertheless agree. Given how Westminster is wreaking havoc on Wales, are you not remotely tempted by the notion of Wales joining New Zealand as an independent nation—small, successful and progressive?

Llywydd, of course I congratulate the leader of the New Zealand Labour Party on her fantastic victory in their general election, and I very much look forward to the day when the present Prime Minister is no longer in office. Does that amount to a belief that Wales's future is better off being ripped out of the United Kingdom? I don't think it does. We have a double advantage here in Wales: we have strong, assertive devolution, using all the powers we have to defend people here in Wales, but working people in Wales have very important interests in common with working people in Scotland, England and Northern Ireland. And removing ourselves from those alliances, taking ourselves out of the insurance policy that the United Kingdom provides to working people here in Wales is not the answer to making a success of our future. An assertive devolution in a successful United Kingdom—that is the recipe that defends the interests of Welsh people.

The leader of the Welsh Conservatives, Paul Davies.

Diolch, Llywydd. First Minister, the Wales-wide lockdown announcement yesterday has left many people across Wales frustrated and disappointed that their freedoms will be curtailed, their ability to see their loved ones restricted and their businesses told to close. Whilst I'm open-minded about further restrictions, regardless of what others may say, the full picture of data that is available to us simply doesn't justify a national lockdown, and I think the Welsh Government's national lockdown will disproportionately harm communities and businesses where cases are already low, such as the whole of mid and west Wales.

First Minister, according to Public Health Wales's latest data, in 20 of the 22 local authority areas, cases of COVID-19 per 100,000 have gone down from week 41 to week 42. How can you justify a national lockdown when figures in all but two areas are actually coming down?

Well, it's very easy indeed to justify it, Llywydd, because while the efforts that have been made by people in those local lockdown areas are succeeding, they cannot succeed far and fast enough to turn back the tide of coronavirus as it is currently accelerating across Wales. So, I very much want to thank those people in those areas for all the efforts they have already made, and the two-week firebreak period that we are introducing will build on the success that those measures have had. But the sober truth is, Llywydd, as the TAC report that we published yesterday says, that unless we take these actions, cases and hospital admissions will rise across Wales, that there is compelling evidence for further interventions and that unless we do so, 6,000 additional deaths will take place due to coronavirus over this winter. What more data does the Member need before he is prepared to do what his duty should tell him he should do and to support the actions being taken to save the NHS and to save lives in Wales?

Well, First Minister, you say that there is compelling evidence, you say you publish all the data, but information on a community-to-community basis is still not available in all parts of Wales, and data on a transmission basis and on a demographic basis is certainly not available. So, I would urge you to publish that level of information as a matter of urgency.

Now, First Minister, to my mind and to thousands of people living right across Wales, the Welsh Government's decision to implement a nationwide lockdown in response to the figures I've just mentioned is unjustified, and it'll take more than a one-size-fits-all approach to tackling this virus in our communities. We have to see a much more targeted intervention approach, and yet, from Friday, everyone living in Wales will be under the same restrictions, regardless of whether the data shows further intervention is needed. In your press briefing yesterday, you made it clear that you don't expect to see any results at the end of the two-week period and that it'll be a little while later before cases will fall. Therefore, can you tell us exactly what criteria the Welsh Government will use to measure the success of a national lockdown, and, should the Government not get the results it wants in all 22 local authority areas, then can the people of Wales expect a further lockdown in the very near future?

Well, Llywydd, the reason that we ask people in all parts of Wales to take part in the two-week firebreak period is because we need a national effort—a national effort that would be much enhanced if his party were prepared to support it, rather than attempting all the time to undermine it. I'm hugely grateful to those people from his constituency and other parts of west Wales who've contacted my office to express their support for the actions we are taking. They understand that they are not immune from the way in which coronavirus is spreading elsewhere in Wales. They understand that, unless they are protected too, their local services will come under huge pressure. Unlike the Member, they want to make their contribution to saving lives and saving the NHS here in Wales, and that's what this period will do. That is what the SAGE committee tells us, that is what the chief medical officer tells us, that is what our own technical advisory group tells us. I don't know what the Member thinks he needs that will allow him to believe that his ability to analyse would trump the ability of our scientists or clinicians to do exactly that.

He was right about one thing—that it is impossible that—[Interruption.]

I can't hear the First Minister at this point, because there's a debate going on within the Chamber. If we can have some silence so that at least I can hear the First Minister. Carry on, please, First Minister.

Diolch, Llywydd. The leader of the opposition was right in one thing— that we will not see the impact of the measures we are having to take during the time that the measures themselves will be in place. It will take longer than that for them to feed through into the key figures, and, if he wants to know what the key figures are—for a man so interested in data I would have thought he'd have spotted them for himself—it will be to reduce R from where it is today, between 1.2 and 1.4, to below 1; to stem the flow of people into our hospital beds suffering from coronavirus; to see a fall in the positivity rate amongst those people being tested in Wales; and the range of other measures that are set out for the Member's perusal in the TAC summary report that we have published.

Well, First Minister, I've already told you the data that your Government should be publishing—you should be publishing data on a community-to-community basis in all parts of Wales, you should be publishing data on a transmission basis, you should be publishing data on a demographic basis. That information is not available—it's not being made available by your Government, and it is being made available by other Governments across the United Kingdom.

On your point about constituents contacting us as Members, I can tell you I've had many constituents contact me very concerned about the temporary national lockdown that you intend to impose. A second national lockdown could have a huge impact on the sustainability of businesses right across Wales, and could be devastating for businesses in west Wales, in mid Wales, and some parts of north Wales.

Now, the Welsh Government has announced a package of support to cover some businesses over the 17 days of a Wales-wide lockdown, but there really needs to be more detail by way of how the Welsh Government will protect the sustainability of businesses for the future, particularly if the Welsh Government is considering further lockdowns, as suggested by you yesterday in a tv interview. The Welsh Retail Consortium has said that, and I quote:

'This revenue-crushing firebreaker alone will put thousands of jobs and hundreds of shops at risk—but if it extends into November it could be a disaster for high streets across Wales.'

Unquote. Therefore, can you tell us where the £300 million enhanced economic resilience fund support will come from within your current budgets? And can you confirm that the Welsh Government has undertaken an economic assessment of the costs incurred, as well as the number of jobs that may be lost as a result of a Wales-wide lockdown, and that, as a result, the Welsh Government is fully prepared to reimburse businesses who are directly affected by the latest announcement?

Llywydd, Welsh Government has drawn together over £294 million from a range of sources within our own existing budgets, and we have drawn on some additional consequentials that have come through the UK Government as a result of support to businesses in level 3 lockdown areas in England. All of that will be used to support those businesses that are affected by this temporary firebreak period. 

Let's be clear: the choice is not between doing what we are doing and simply carrying on as things are, because to do that will undermine businesses even more—businesses that find that workers can't come into work, because they are infected with this disease; people who are required to self-isolate because they've been in contact with a growing number of people infected by coronavirus; businesses who find that people are fearful of coming into their premises because coronavirus is escalating away from our ability to control it here in Wales. So, the actions we are taking will be to the benefit of business beyond the firebreak period. It will stabilise the numbers, it will bring things back under control, it will create the conditions in which business can go on trading up until Christmas. I would have thought the Member would have welcomed that. I haven't heard a single word from him this afternoon that suggests that he's doing anything other than continuing to undermine the efforts that are being made here in Wales to do the things that are necessary to protect our health service, to save lives, to invest in those businesses that have a future beyond coronavirus. It's a dereliction of responsibility, Llywydd, for a party in this Senedd not to put their support behind the measures that are necessary at this crucial point, this emergency point in a pandemic, to do the right thing by the people of Wales. 

Llywydd, I thank Jenny Rathbone for that. We have published a set of model amendments to demonstrate how to safeguard the UK internal market without the unnecessary restrictions on devolved competence that this Bill would introduce. We will work intensively to gain cross-party support in the House of Lords and to persuade the UK Government to think again.

I heed the words of Baroness Ilora Finlay, a cross-party Member of the House of Lords and a very eminent clinician, that the internal market Bill would allow our country to be overrun by chlorinated chicken and other adulterated food manufactured in the United States, and that is a recipe for obesity and shortened lives. But, having been told we wouldn't get a penny less for Wales if we voted to leave the EU, would this Bill also enable the UK Government to divert the money Wales previously received from EU structural funds for universities, for businesses and strengthening communities through our voluntary sector, in order to spend it on something else altogether, depriving Wales of vital investment funds? What is to stop the so-called shared prosperity fund becoming more largesse for Serco and the Boston Consulting Group, those geniuses who run the English test and trace system?

Well, Llywydd, I'm afraid the sad answer is that there's nothing to stop that from happening. In fact, this Bill opens the door to exactly that. I'm very grateful indeed to Baroness Finlay—as Jenny Rathbone said, a really distinguished cross-bencher in the House of Lords—for her assistance to us in getting our amendments, amendments supported by Plaid Cymru peers, by Liberal Democrat peers, by cross-bench peers and others in the House of Lords—to make sure that those amendments are being laid for debate. The points that Baroness Finlay makes are the ones that Jenny Rathbone has echoed here. This is a Bill that means that this Senedd couldn't prevent food being sold in Wales that is produced to below the standards that people in Wales enjoy today; couldn't even allow us to require that food to be labelled so that Welsh citizens would know what it is that they are being offered; couldn't prevent that food from being produced to lower animal health standards; wouldn't allow us to carry out our plan to ban nine different types of single-use plastics; couldn't allow us to require headteachers, as we do today, to have the level of professional qualification we currently require them to have in Wales. And over and above all of that, it takes away the ability of this Senedd and our partners in Wales to make the decisions about where money for economic development, which has made such a difference—those decisions will not be made in Wales, where they ought to be made, but behind a desk in Whitehall. It really is a dog's breakfast of a Bill. We are working hard, alongside others, to try to put those problems right, and I'm grateful for the support we're getting in the House of Lords, right across the spectrum there, to do exactly that.

First Minister, obviously, in many debates in the House of Commons, it's been identified that not one single power will be removed from the Assembly because of this Bill—or shall I say the Welsh Parliament. You said in an earlier response to another question that powers would be being removed. Could you list the powers that you believe this Bill will remove?

Well, I just did, Llywydd. I don't know whether the Member was listening at all. I've just explained to him that the powers we have today to prevent food being sold in Wales at a standard below that which we, the Senedd, have deemed right for Wales—that power is being taken away from us. The power that we have to require food to be properly labelled—that power is being taken away from us. The power to sustain animal health standards in Wales—that power is being taken away from us. The power to ban single-use plastics in Wales—that power is being taken away from us. The power to set professional qualification standards for teachers in our schools and headteachers—that's being taken away from us. What more powers does he want me to list?

The Welsh Government has recently said it will be joining the Wellbeing Economy Alliance—a move that we've welcomed—and this is meant to place well-being at the centre of economic decisions. With this in mind, what can the Welsh Government do if spending decisions taken by the UK Government as a result of this Bill have an adverse impact on well-being indicators in Wales, such as health, the environment and sustainability? Does being part of the Wellbeing Economy Alliance take a backwards step if the UK Government determines that they don't like what we're doing? And if that's the case, First Minister, what discussions will the Welsh Government be having with other partners in the alliance to explain that Westminster can trample over our good intentions?

I thank Delyth Jewell for that, Llywydd. Wales is a relatively recent member of the Wellbeing Economy Alliance. I'm very glad indeed to have been invited to do so. Of course, Delyth Jewell is right—other members of the alliance are also adversely affected by this Bill. Our efforts at this point are concentrated on turning the Bill back, rather than dealing with its adverse consequences, because that is the better way to solve this problem—to convince the UK Government, through the actions we will take, working with others, not to inflict that harm on us in the first place. Because that harm will be felt not just directly in Wales in terms of the things that we would want to do, but it will affect our ability to work with others to advance those simple but progressive causes that have done so much to protect people here in Wales—to protect them from adulterated food, to protect animal health standards, to advance a genuinely environmental agenda here in Wales. We don't want to see that, people in Wales don't want to see that, and we will work with others, as I've said, not just in Wales, but in the alliance as well, to go on making that case.

Llywydd, I thank Joyce Watson for that. Between February and September of this year, a rise of over 120,000 claimants of universal credit took place in Wales, and that was an increase of 80 per cent. The September claimant count stood at 271,186 people, compared to 150,527 back in February.

I thank you for your answer, First Minister. In April, UK Government increased universal credit payments by £20 a week, and that indeed did serve as a lifeline for many families during the pandemic. But this increase is only temporary and it's due to end in April 2021. There have been many, many calls from many, many charities right across the UK to request continuation of that extra £20 a week, but despite that, the UK Government have so far not committed to making that increase permanent, and therefore it's estimated that if the additional payment is stopped as planned, over 4 million families will lose an equivalent income of £1,000 a year overnight, and that's plunging thousands into poverty. First Minister, what discussions have you had with UK Ministers regarding making this temporary uplift permanent?

Well, Llywydd, I want to agree absolutely with Joyce Watson. That £20 a week is a real lifeline for so many families here in Wales, families out of work and in work, who work in low-paid occupations. It was very disappointing that the Chancellor, when he had an opportunity only a couple of weeks ago in announcing other ongoing support, that he did not commit to continuing that £20 a week lifeline for so many families across the United Kingdom. I can assure Joyce Watson that this is raised directly with UK Ministers when I have an opportunity; our finance Minister will be meeting again with UK Ministers this week, it's on the agenda for her to raise it with them as well.

I think the Member will know that I had the privilege of sharing a platform with the former Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, at the weekend, speaking on behalf of the Alliance for Full Employment. I was very pleased to see the Archbishop of Canterbury writing to Gordon Brown yesterday, setting out his support for the alliance and focusing, in what he said, on child poverty and on the £20 that is currently available to families through that additional sum in universal credit. And absolutely, any government that is serious about sustaining families through these difficult times wouldn't hesitate to make that £20 a permanent addition to the incomes of some of the poorest people in our country.

Llywydd, I thank Alun Davies for that. The advantages and the limitations of the UK Government support to workers affected by the impact of coronavirus were extensively rehearsed between all four nations of the UK at the last COBRA meeting. I have since, as Members have heard, exchanged correspondence with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this matter.

Thank you very much, First Minister. Of course, the question precedes the announcement yesterday on the approach being taken over the next few weeks. I'm sure you share my disappointment that the United Kingdom Government is not stepping into the breach and providing seamless support for people who are affected by that. But it would be useful, I think, First Minister, if you could outline to us this afternoon how you see support for both workers and for businesses over the two-week national lockdown, and how you see the different schemes meshing together to ensure that we have seamless support for people throughout this period and how you see any gaps in that support being addressed as we move forward.

Llywydd, I want to thank Alun Davies for that question. He repeated the word 'seamless' in his supplementary, and that's the word I want to focus on in this reply. So, in the help that we will provide through our £294 million, a great part of that will be provided automatically to businesses in Wales. So, they will not need to apply for it; it will come through the mechanisms we developed with our local government colleagues earlier in the pandemic: £1,000 for all businesses with a rateable value of under £12,000; £5,000 for businesses with a rateable value above £12,000 and they'll get that automatically—seamlessly, to use the term that Alun Davies used.

My problem with the Chancellor's reply to my letter is that I was asking for something similar in relation to the help that the UK Government provides, and I've tried, whenever I've had the opportunity, to recognise the value of the help that the UK Government has provided to workers affected by coronavirus. All I wanted was to have one scheme of help in Wales, rather than businesses having to apply twice for help: once up until 30 October, and a different scheme beyond that. And as I say, I offered—I thought—the Chancellor a very straightforward way of helping businesses in Wales so that the help they got from the UK Government was as seamless as the help we want to offer them through the Welsh Government. It is disappointing that the Chancellor couldn't find a way simply of allowing the scheme that he will introduce on 1 November to apply here in Wales a week earlier than that. I've offered him today a different solution—not as good as that—but it would help to iron out some of the difficulties otherwise that businesses will face and it would go some way at least to answering the call that Alun Davies has made with for the seamless support that businesses in Wales need.

I thank Dawn Bowden for that, Llywydd. Welsh Government housing support for care leavers includes investment in both physical infrastructure and the services needed to help young people become successfully established in this phase of their lives. Direct help is provided by local authorities and third sector organisations in all parts of Wales.

Thank you for that answer, First Minister, and I thank you for your personal commitment to this issue. The recent report by End Youth Homelessness Cymru highlighted a number of housing issues for young people in and leaving care, including the impact of the local connection rules on their choice of home. Will the Welsh Government look in detail at this report and consider what further action can be taken to assist this group of young people who need and deserve the most effective support we can provide?

I thank Dawn Bowden for that question and for drawing attention to this important report. The End Youth Homelessness coalition, of course, is led by Llamau, an organisation of which I had the privilege of being one of the first three founder members over 30 years ago now. I've read the report; it makes compelling reading, because it speaks in the voice of those young people in Wales who have found themselves threatened with homelessness, or actually experiencing homelessness. I think the reason why I find the report compelling is that those views are translated by the authors of the report into some very straightforward actions, which I think can still be made to improve the system. The simple idea, for example, that if a young person threatened with homelessness—or having experienced homelessness—who's been in care, presents themselves to a local authority, there should be a multidisciplinary case conference called, chaired at a senior level, to make sure that all the things that are needed for that young person are mobilised across the boundaries of services and organisations as fast as possible. The report says that if a local authority places a young person in a different local authority, that when that young person comes to the age of 18, they should not be turned down by that second local authority for help on the grounds that they have no local connection. It's for the young person to decide whether they feel most settled in their new local authority or in their original local authority. It's just that level of translating experiences into practical policy proposals that I think makes this report so valuable, and I know that my ministerial colleagues, both in social services and in housing, will be studying it very carefully to take those lessons and to apply them in the lives of those young people.

Llywydd, I thank Dr Lloyd for that question. The current COVID-19 pandemic has created significant financial pressures for carers. The Welsh Government has therefore created a new £1 million hardship fund, as proposed by national carers organisations. This was announced earlier today alongside our consultation on a new national carers plan.

Can I thank the First Minister very much for that answer? And, in addition, an Alzheimer's Society Cymru investigation released earlier this month—the First Minister will be aware—showed that family carers across Wales are feeling burnt out, and Carers Wales have said something similar this week. The regional survey found that 95 per cent of family carers surveyed said that extra caring hours over this COVID period had negatively impacted their physical or mental health, with 69 per cent feeling constantly exhausted, 49 per cent feeling depressed and 50 per cent developing problems sleeping. Now, I hear what you say about the financial situation, and I thank you for that, First Minister. Could I you ask you what additional support the Welsh Government is putting towards addressing these findings in terms of the physical and mental well-being of informal carers, and do you agree that providing additional counselling and respite support is going to be vital to carers over the winter months?

Llywydd, can I thank Dr Lloyd for those additional questions? It'll be a year next month since his committee published their report 'Caring for our future', and that report goes on being very influential in the thinking of the Welsh Government. I had an opportunity earlier in the year, together with Julie Morgan, the Deputy Minister for Health and Social Services, to meet with a group of informal carers. They were tired then, Llywydd; they were already living with the challenges of caring for other people during the pandemic. And it was deeply moving in that meeting to hear from them, both about the challenges that they face, but also about their astonishing commitment to those people for whom they have caring responsibilities, and the rewards that they reported that they get, even in those most challenging times, from having that relationship and carrying out those responsibilities. It was partially in recognition of everything we were told then that my colleague Julie Morgan was able to announce £50,000 earlier in the summer to Carers Wales, for them to provide additional psychological support for unpaid carers here in Wales. It goes some way to answering the points that Dai Lloyd raised in his supplementary question about the ongoing wear and tear that is felt in the lives of unpaid carers at this most difficult time. And I hope that the £1 million fund, which we've been able to announce today, will go further still to help them with the sheer practical impact that caring for others has on them during such a challenging time.

Llywydd, thank you. The Welsh Government is committed to ensuring people in our communities are safe and feel safe. We continue to work with our four police forces, local authorities and the UK Government as well as other agencies, to help ensure our people and our communities are protected from anti-social behaviour.

Thank you for that answer, First Minister. Just under a year ago, the Prime Minister came to my constituency of Alyn and Deeside and promised significantly more police and safer streets. Now, this promise has been broken. I recently asked my residents for their experiences of crime and anti-social behaviour, and they told me straight: there are fewer police on the streets than they can ever remember. I have written to the Home Secretary to ask for an explanation and an apology, and, First Minister, none have been forthcoming. Will you come and speak to my residents, hear their anger with the UK Conservative Government and take this message directly to Boris Johnson that he has let the residents in Alyn and Deeside down?

Well, Llywydd, I've been following the conversations that Jack Sargeant has been having with his local communities on this matter, and I absolutely commend the work that he is doing to hear directly from those local residents and to relay the stories that they are telling about the failure of the Prime Minister to honour the promises that he was making this time last year. Last year, he was acting as though the fall in the number of police officers on our streets was nothing to do with the 10 years of cuts that his Conservative colleagues had made in police budgets. He was acting as though in restoring some of those cuts, he was offering some great leap forward, when all he was doing was making good on the damage that his colleagues had already done. A year on, they've not made good the damage at all. I know that Jack's constituents will still value the 500 extra police community support officers that this Welsh Government funds from our resources. The leader of the Conservative Party here in Wales was telling people in Wales, only a week or two ago, that he would stop all expenditure by a Conservative Government here in the Senedd on non-devolved responsibilities. I wonder if he was willing to point out to them that that would mean the end of the 500 extra officers that people in Wales see on their streets today. Not only is there no fulfilling of promises made to Jack Sargeant's constituents, but a Conservative Party here in Wales would take away the help that is being provided through this Senedd. 

Thank you, First Minister. 

The next item is questions to the Counsel General and Minister for European Transition, in respect of his law officer responsibilities. The first question is from Helen Mary Jones. 

There is ongoing engagement with the UK Government to discuss our concerns with the internal market Bill. The Bill as currently drafted has significant legal implications for Wales and represents a fundamental attack on devolution. I am seeking support in the House of Lords for amendments to the Bill.

I'm grateful to the Counsel General for his reply, which, of course, builds on an earlier reply from the First Minister to Adam Price. The Counsel General will be aware of the new academic report from Cardiff University's Wales Governance Centre, and other partners, on the impact on regulations, particularly after Brexit, and the potential effect on the territorial scope of devolved legislation. Now, the Counsel General mentions potential amendments, and the First Minister mentioned those to Adam Price, but isn't it the case that, given the size of the Conservative majority, the amendments could pass in the House of Lords, but they are likely to fail, are they not, when they get back to the House of Commons? And can I ask the Counsel General: will he consider having discussions with other devolved administrations about a legal challenge to this pernicious piece of legislation, if the amendment process isn't successful? I would suggest to him that these are processes that need to go on in parallel, because once the amendments have fallen, a lot of time will have passed, and it may be more difficult then to mount a formal legal challenge, if such a thing is possible. 

I take the point that the Member raises in relation to the size of the UK Government's majority in the House of Commons. Notwithstanding that, I would suggest that it would be a wise Government in Westminster that would listen to such broadly based concerns about the pernicious elements in this Bill that extend very significantly more widely than political parties, to civic society at large. I would urge them to respond to any changes made in the House of Lords with an open mind. 

To her point about other challenges to the Bill, I will reassure her, I hope, in saying that we have been exploring absolutely every legal avenue in relation to this legislation, and I know that colleagues in devolved administrations share many of the points of concern that we have here in Wales. She will be very familiar with the particular challenges in relation to legal challenges to primary legislation going through Parliament, but I would like to reassure her that the full scope of, as a Government in Wales, our legal options has been, and continues to be, under live consideration. 

The most offensive part of this Bill, of course, is the way in which it steamrollers our constitutional settlement, and does so without consent. The Counsel General will be aware, of course, of the Statute of Westminster, enacted in December 1931, which gave independence to the then Dominions. Is it not time, Counsel General, for a new statute of Westminster, that gives us the legal guarantees that our constitutions cannot be amended at will and on a whim by a UK Government that cares not a damn either about our democracy or our constitution?

I thank the Member for raising that very important and novel contribution to the debate on this Bill. He is right to say that this Bill, as well as being an attack on standards that consumers and producers in Wales have been able to rely upon for many, many years, it is also in effect a piece of constitutional legislation in that it does seek to reverse the devolution settlement in a number of critical ways. I think we can identify that by virtue of the fact the UK Government wishes to make the whole Bill a protected enactment, which is typically a mechanism that is limited to constitutional legislation. I think the scale, therefore, of the reach of this Bill is illustrated even if only by that provision.

In relation to the Statute of Westminster, I think the Member raises an interesting question. We are taught, as constitutional lawyers in the UK, that Parliament is sovereign, and therefore no Parliament can bind its successor. But that statute is an example where, in effect, it would be unthinkable for Parliament to seek to act in breach of it. Now, in those cases, that was to establish the independence of those territories. But we have ourselves argued as a Government for a statutory basis for some of the reforms that we seek, and I also think we are very clear that we have reached the limits of the Sewel convention, which talks about the UK Parliament 'not normally' legislating in this area. I think there is a case for us to explore a formulation that effectively says that it would never legislate in breach of the devolution settlement. Such a provision would mean that the financial assistance provisions in the internal market Bill, for example, would then not be acceptable. My suspicion is that mechanisms like the Statute of Westminster work best when the devolved settlement itself is broader than ours, and I think that adds to the case for a fuller set of powers to be exercised here in Wales.

Counsel General, I quite agree with Alun Davies when he expressed his concerns on the internal market Bill, as you did in your interpretation in your answers as well. But is it also not true that this Bill will drive a coach and horses through issues such as the common frameworks, which have been negotiated and discussed, the inter-governmental agreement review, which is being at the moment discussed, and possibly even the shared prosperity fund, so that, in effect, this is actually demolishing devolution, in a sense, and not enhancing it?

Llywydd, the Member is right to say that this is an attempt to neuter devolution in relation to these areas. Certainly with regard to the common frameworks mechanism, the proposed amendments that we have put forward, which we hope to see tabled in the House of Lords, would put common frameworks where they should be, which is at the very heart of the internal market, and not pushed to the margins, which is what this Bill in effect does. It effectively removes any incentive on the part of the UK Government to continue engaging with those. I think he is right to say that the financial assistance provisions in particular are probably expressly designed to deliver a shared prosperity fund without reference to the Welsh Government and the vast range of Welsh stakeholders that support the position that those decisions should continue to be taken by the elected Government of Wales, accountable to the elected Parliament of Wales.

Counsel General, clause 47 of the internal market Bill enables the UK Government to not only spend in devolved areas but then to send the bill to the Welsh Government. Now, this seems to me a total contradiction to what we were promised the shared prosperity fund might be. In your discussions with the UK Government, have you discussed what their understanding is of the term 'shared' and the term 'prosperity'? And I wonder if you could inform us what your understanding is of the UK Government's understanding of that term.

Llywydd, the point I've made in my discussions with UK Government Ministers in relation to this is that, if the intention of those provisions is to enable the Governments to work together to level up the prosperity of Wales, then we as a Government will always wish to work together with other Governments, where that is for the benefit of Wales, and we will welcome additional money for Wales. But there is already a Government that has the powers that are set out in that clause in the Bill, and that Government is the Government of Wales—the Welsh Government. And so if the intention is—and I hope it very much is—that the UK Government wants to work in partnership with us in relation to the future prosperity of Wales, it is an odd way to go about that to seek powers that we already have and are capable of exercising in Wales. 

The Welsh Government is currently taking forward an access reform programme, as set out in the Deputy Minister for Housing and Local Government’s written statement in April 2019.

You'll be aware, Minister, that in recent weeks, two walkers have been killed on public rights of way after coming into contact with livestock. Since March 2000, 98 people have lost their lives similarly, and many others have been injured when using these rights of way. Now, four groups—the Country Land and Business Association, the Tenant Farmers Association, the National Farmers Union and the Countryside Alliance—have written to Lord Gardiner, Minister for Rural Affairs and Biosecurity, highlighting the fact that the existing process for permanently diverting public rights of way does not provide sufficient flexibility to allow for temporary route changes. The Minister is actually being encouraged to amend the Highways Act 1980. According to the guidance for local authorities on public rights of way published by the Welsh Government, a number of provisions in the Highways Act do still apply here in Wales. So, will you be liaising with Lord Gardiner, or indeed any other relevant legal officer in the UK Government, to establish if the Welsh Government can work to implement changes to ease the process for farmers and landowners that need to implement temporary diversions here in Wales? 

I thank the Member for that important question. As she will know, as part of the access reform advisory group work stream, which my colleague has established, there are three expert working groups that represent a range of stakeholders in relation to the management of land, and those groups are, and will continue, examining the legal and financial ramifications of some of the proposals that we have been considering. The intention is to receive a report from that group, which looks at these matters in the round, by March of next year. But the UK Government's legislation provides for the introduction of more flexibility, if you like, for landowners in relation to the question of diversion or indeed extinguishment of some rights of way, and we in the Welsh Government are looking at similar proposals for reform as part of our current work stream. 

There are already measures in place in Wales, both legislative and non-legislative, which affect the use of second homes. Any further steps would have implications across communities, housing, tourism, the economy, the Welsh Treasury and local government. We must take an evidence-based approach to deciding whether further legislation is required.

At the moment, there is no legal mechanism to prevent homes to be sold at very high prices and used as second homes. Plaid Cymru has published an action plan outlining the changes required to the law in planning and in finance to control the situation. Now, you may have heard of the establishment of the Hawl i Fyw Adra campaign by a group of young people on the Llŷn peninsula who can't buy homes in their own areas because of the unfair situation that exists. Now, playing on the words of Cynan about Aberdaron, the message that was shared over the weekend was, 'Cynan, there is no hope to buy a lonely cottage or any home near the wild waves of the sea', referring quite cleverly to the poet's famous ode. Do you believe, and agree, that urgent changes are required to the law to give young people the right to live in their communities? If so, what plans are you working on and when will we see those?

Well, may I thank Siân Gwenllian? I don't believe there are enough allusions to the work of such a famous bard here, and so I thank her for reminding us about Cynan's poem there. Of course, questions about changing the planning regime in this field are exceptionally complex; that is, the purpose of the planning legislation is to manage use rather than ownership. In my view, looking at the planning system without broader reform is not likely to achieve the aim the Member refers to.

From the point of view of funding, there are more funding powers available to local authorities than are actually being used by them. There are 25,000 second homes, more or less, that come within the local council tax regime, and only about 14,000 of those are charged the highest premium. So, we have greater scope to control this issue within the regulations that we have currently, and far more than is utilised at present. So, in looking at the specific legal challenges, there are a number of steps that need to be taken before we consider the broader platform of legislative reform, I would suggest.

Currently, we are still considering the precise basis of the application to intervene. The Welsh Government’s interest is in the way Welsh and English texts of the law are interpreted by the courts, which is a matter of great importance to Ministers as both have equal status for all purposes.  

As you mentioned, that is one important issue arising from the administrative court's judgment, namely on the equality of English and Welsh text in law in Wales, but the other, which is, perhaps, of more interest, is the right of every citizen in Wales to have easy access to Welsh-medium education. According to the court's judgment, only 10 per cent of the language impact assessment on the decision to close Ysgol Pont Siôn Norton in Cilfynydd focused on the impact on the Welsh language. The council, in seeking to challenge judgment 2(g), still fails to accept that increasing the number of places in Welsh-medium education doesn't put right withdrawing provision from one community, as it means that those pupils would have been lost forever to Welsh-medium education, and it's the court that made that point. I would emphasise once again that it's a disgrace for any public authority to be challenging the judgment on this basis, and I invite you to tell us unambiguously that you, as a Government, will not challenge the judgment on that basis.

As regards the principle that the Member outlined in the question—that is, the principle of access and augmenting access to Welsh-medium education—the Welsh Government is completely supportive of that, for reasons, I believe, the Member would accept and agree with. But, from the point of view of the policy, as we are still looking at the legal analysis, I will avoid going into detail on that in this discussion. But I would be happy in the future, when that discussion has actually come to a conclusion, as it were, internally, to answer further questions, once the matter has been concluded. But, in the interim I would say, by virtue of my role as Government law officer, that it's important to ensure that we take the opportunity to make the case on how to interpret the Welsh text in legislation and in laws, and also to ensure that that principle of equality is emphasised.

Also, perhaps more broadly—not to enter the policy field but to give you slightly more detail—the question of the interpretation of whether a statutory clause shows a full schedule or list of the circumstances and the criteria that need to be taken into consideration is an important question, with a broader impact, perhaps, than this specific clause. But, as I was saying, in due course, when these decisions are taken internally, and when the legal advice has been assessed, I will be happy to take and answer further questions on those details at that point. 

The Welsh Government has made, and continues to make, representations to the UK Government on issues relating to the justice system, including, importantly, the devolution of justice to Wales.

Thank you. The Lord Chancellor was very clear at the recent Legal Wales conference that a united Wales and England is best for the law. The current arrangements mean that we can share resources and efficiencies across the justice system, courts can learn from one another, and legal professionals have the freedom to practice from Cardiff to Carlisle, and Caernarfon to Canterbury. Even the Commission on Justice in Wales advised that the present system, where legal practitioners can practise in England and Wales, and the legal professions are jointly regulated, should be continued. Now, I believe that you have advised the same Legal Wales conference that the Welsh Government will be pursuing a course of devolution of justice, however, once in a position able to do so. So, Counsel General, will you tell our Senedd what is your vision for the future of justice in Wales? What is holding you back at present? And, do you acknowledge the benefits of the current arrangements, as highlighted by the Lord Chancellor?

Well, I'm very grateful to the Member for giving me the opportunity of spelling out my vision for the devolution of justice in Wales—we may be some time. But, just to give a summary of the position, I think that the work of the Thomas commission, established by the former First Minister, is an exemplary analysis. It's hard to imagine a weightier set of contributions to the debate than that report represents. It is genuinely important in the history of devolution in Wales. It makes the case very elegantly and in a way that anybody with a mind to evidence will find it a challenge to contradict.

I'm encouraged that the Lord Chancellor has emphasised, at every opportunity, that what matters to him is outcomes and not process. So, I would be very keen to continue the discussions that we've begun to have with the UK Government, which will focus on improving outcomes for people in Wales, which I know is her concern, as is mine. I heard the remarks of the Lord Chancellor, and he talked about sharing efficiencies. Of course, what that has meant in Wales is the decimation of the funding for the justice system. That's what the sharing of efficiencies has meant in practice.

I would also take the opportunity, which she kindly gives me, to make it quite clear that the Welsh Government's position on the devolution of justice to Wales poses no threat at all to the ability of lawyers qualified in the currently conjoined jurisdiction of England and Wales to continue practising in the other into the future. There is no reason whatsoever why there should be any restriction on practitioners in either jurisdiction operating fully in the other. Certainly, that is the position that we would advocate here and have advocated to the commission itself. The only point that I was making about coming back to this topic in future is to recognise the realities, which I know that she will herself recognise, that the focus of the Government in Westminster, as in Wales, has in recent months obviously been on the response to COVID. And, with the best will in the world, the discussions we would have liked to have been able to have in relation to advancing the devolution of justice in Wales have not been able to be progressed at the pace that, certainly, I would like to see happening. But I hope, very soon, that we will be able to return to those discussions constructively.

I'm grateful to the Counsel General for his clear explanation of that vision. It's one, he won't be surprised to know, that I share. I hope, in the conversations that he's having with the United Kingdom Government and with the Lord Chancellor, that they will emphasise the outcomes that we've seen during this last year in the way that the coronavirus has affected Welsh prisons, that we've not seen the ability to provide a holistic approach to the treatment of people, both in terms of their time in the secure estate and also of how people are released back into the community. The failure of probation services is, of course, the obvious example of that. In coming to his conclusions, I hope that the Lord Chancellor will recognise that what is important is what is important for the people of Wales and not what is important for the Lord Chancellor.

I thank Alun Davies for that supplementary and for his long-standing support for the cause of devolution of justice in Wales. I will say that, in the last few months, I do think that people's understanding in Wales of how the justice system operates and how the Welsh Government and Senedd legislate, and how those laws are policed by a reserved police force, if you like—. I think people have gained a deeper and broader understanding of the potential for justice decisions to be taken here in Wales and I think that, in very dark circumstances, that has been a positive development in terms of people's understanding. I would also like to say that in the ability of the Welsh Government to work with the police, obviously, but also the prison service, the court service and a number of other, as it were, reserved authorities within the justice system, there has been an incredible amount of joint working in a very joined-up way in the course of the last few weeks and months, but that has happened despite the justice arrangements that we have, not because of them. It has happened because of the efforts that individuals have made to make that set of relationships work, and I think it is, in a sense, an indication to us of how much more we could achieve in terms of that joined-up thinking if we had a devolution settlement that made it easier, rather than harder.

There is ongoing engagement with the UK Government at both ministerial and official level to discuss our concerns with the Bill. I have also made a written statement to the Senedd, publishing proposed amendments to the Bill, to demonstrate how our concerns could be addressed.

Diolch. A recent Welsh Governance Centre report made clear that the UK internal market Bill will forever blunt the policy-making tools of the devolved Governments, prioritises removing potential barriers to trade at the expense of all other public policy goals, fatally undermines co-operation between the nations of the UK, and even creates the implication that the UK Government may use new spending powers against the will of our Government and Senedd. I don't see what this has to do with Brexit. When Boris Johnson talked about taking back control, removing powers from Wales that were secured through democratic referenda wasn't on the agenda; it wasn't talked about. The Bill power grabs, and with regard to Wales's own powers on goods and services, which were never actually under the EU's control, it will make all laws and regulations made in Wales—future and past—potentially erasable by the UK Government. The Bill is undemocratic and ignores the settled will of the people of Wales. It may even lead us into unwillingly breaking international law. So, what I'm asking—. I'm sure you would agree with all that, actually. What I'm asking is what concrete steps will your Government be taking to ensure a solid and unified resistance to this outrageous power grab?

I thank the Member for that question. I agree with the analysis of the Wales Governance Centre in the report, which the Member has described, and I agree with the way in which the Member has described it—as a power grab. I think he makes an important point, amongst a number of observations, that the extent of this Bill goes beyond retained EU law, for example. So, it extends beyond the scope of powers that were currently exercised at a European Union level, and it has a narrower set of exceptions than would've been the case under EU legislation. So, it goes significantly beyond what even the UK Government would put as its rationale, which is to replace the EU internal market in the UK.

In terms of the concrete steps that the Government can take, this is legislation going through the UK Parliament, so we can seek, as we have with some success, to create, with the support of other parties, a coalition of resistance in Parliament. We have brought forward drafted amendments that can deliver the outcomes that we would like to see for the Bill, which is a fundamental overhaul of it, and we would urge parties in Parliament to support those amendments so the Bill can be transformed.

Now, you will have heard my response to questions earlier about exploring a full range of legal avenues. Once the Bill becomes law, if it becomes law, then there are a range of powers that UK Government Ministers take themselves, through regulation, to give effect to various parts of the Bill. It seems to me very clear that some of those powers are going to be contested and contested heavily, and we will certainly do everything we can to make sure that Welsh regulation and the rights of Welsh consumers and businesses are protected. We have also made sure that the Senedd is very clear in the advice that we offer about the approach to consent for this Bill. We do not believe that the Senedd can or should consent to this Bill as it's currently drafted.

You may well ask me what happens next if the Senedd proceeds to withhold its consent. Well, UK Government would struggle to justify proceeding in the absence of consent, given what it has said previously about how the Sewel convention should operate. So, I hope that the Senedd will give a very clear signal to the UK Government that it does not consent to this outrageous attack on devolution in Wales.

Surely, Minister, the internal market Bill simply aims to maintain the joined-up market of the UK. It ensures that all four of the UK nations are not limited by regulations determined by each devolved Government, which would, of course, be very damaging to trade within the UK. It also aims to guarantee that the international community has access to the UK as a whole, knowing the standards and rules are the same throughout the devolved nations.

The devolved Governments seek to portray this Bill as a power grab that is designed to roll back devolution. There is no evidence whatsoever that these powers will be used in the way you are determined to portray. Rather than a power grab, it is a pragmatic, sensible approach that most of the people of the devolved nations would see as sensible and constructive. I would hope that you, as a committed unionist, Minister, would agree that it is right to have UK-wide policies and regulations wherever possible.

Well, I think anyone who is interested in the success and future of the union should be very alarmed by the contents of this Bill, because I think it does, as much as anything does, strengthen the cause of independence in all parts of the UK, and that is not an outcome I wish to see. So, I think his reading of the Bill is, bluntly, fundamentally naive.

We as a Government believe in the internal market; we think an internal market is an effective way of protecting the Welsh public, Welsh consumers, Welsh businesses and the economy. So, we think that that is an endeavour in which we should all engage, as four Governments, to make sure that there aren't unnecessary barriers to trade in the way that the Member's question suggests, but we already have a mechanism for doing that, which is the common frameworks mechanism that enables Governments to have different policies in different parts of the UK, consistent with delivering the internal market. It's worked very effectively until now. There is no reason to destroy it by giving a very heavy-handed legislative way of circumventing it.

I think that this Bill will do more damage to the UK and more damage to the internal market of the UK than the constructive, moderate, reasonable and deliverable proposals that the devolved Governments have put forward in replacing it.

And the final question is question 7—Helen Mary Jones.

As a responsible Government, we are planning for all scenarios, including a 'no trade deal' scenario. As part of these plans, work has intensified on the subordinate legislation programme, for example, to ensure that all necessary amendments to Welsh legislation will be made before the end of the transition period.

I thank the Counsel General very much for his answer. The clock is, of course, ticking, and the Counsel General's action plan identifies a large number of areas where there will be legal uncertainty if this isn't resolved.

Can you tell us, Counsel General, how confident you are that Wales will have a functioning statute book if we reach the point where there is a 'no deal', fully taking on board, of course, the pressures on your Government resulting from the coronavirus crisis, which must have pulled energy and work away from this field? Are you confident that we will have a functioning statute book if the worst comes to the worst?

Well, I mean, that is a very important question, if I may say. I think there are two parts to the answer. The first part is to say that there is a programme of work that is already under way, as she will know, which deals with the corrections required and so on for the end of the transition period, and that's a very substantial body of work. I think we are expecting, between now and the end of the transition period, a further 22 UK Government-made statutory instruments that will require consent here in Wales, and a further 10 of those in the new year. Our current estimate, for example, in relation to SIs made in Wales, by Ministers here, will be around a further 22 of those. Those numbers may increase a little, and there's a very significant body of work that's already happened, as I know the Member will appreciate. She will know that in some of these areas we have been working with the UK Government, so the UK Government has made some of these amendments, just because of the sheer scale of the endeavour, but that has never been in an area other than in areas that are technical or, certainly, without political controversy, for reasons that she will appreciate.

What I would say is this, though: we don't yet know what the end of the transitional period will look like in terms of the outcome of these negotiations, and the work that I've just described to her—none of that is intended to deal with the outcome of negotiations for reasons that are obvious. So, there is potentially a significant body of work that'll come forward as a consequence of whatever the outcome is of those negotiations, and that may well happen in very short order. So, in relation to the work already under way, I am confident that that work can continue and be achieved on time, providing current commitments in terms of timescales and timetables are adhered to. But at this point, I'm not able to give an assurance in relation to the outcome of that larger body of work, potentially, because we don't yet know what the outcome of the negotiations looks like.

I thank the Counsel General.

The next item is the business statement and announcement, and I call on the Trefnydd to make that statement—Rebecca Evans.

Diolch, Llywydd. I have several changes to report to today's agenda. Later this afternoon the Government will move a motion to suspend Standing Orders so that we can debate the coronavirus firebreak. To accommodate this, the statements on the current state of inter-governmental relations and the draft plan to tackle fuel poverty in Wales will issue as written statements. 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.

Thank you, Trefnydd. Trefnydd, can I call for a statement on the evidence on which the Welsh Government took the decision to close places of worship during the firebreak lockdown that will soon be upon us? Many church leaders have been in touch with me to express concerns that they're going to be required to close for a further period from this Friday, and, of course, this follows a period where churches, chapels, mosques, temples were closed for a significant period earlier in the year, a period, which I hasten to add, was longer than in any other part of the UK. There's an ongoing ban, of course, on congregational singing, a ban on church and cathedral choirs, unlike other parts of the UK, and we recently, of course, will have seen reports in the media that people were being chastised for reciting the Lord's prayer at a funeral.

In the absence of any evidence that suggests that churches and chapels in Wales pose a significant threat of transmission of the coronavirus, closure does not seem to be a proportionate or necessary act. I'm sure that you would agree with me, Trefnydd, that spiritual health is just as important as people's physical and mental health and well-being, and houses of God should be a place of refuge in times of crisis and, therefore, there is a very good case to keep them open. Can we have a statement on this important issue as soon as possible, please?

I thank Darren Millar for raising this issue, and Darren Millar will know that I appreciate just as well as he does the importance of churches and other places of worship in terms of supporting people's mental health, as well as their ability to access parts of their community as well during this difficult period.

We do have a statement on the firebreak this afternoon, which is an opportunity for Darren to set out his concerns further, but I will say that the evidence has been published. You'll have seen the evidence published by the Government that was received from the TAC group, for example, and this sets out the importance of minimising the contacts that we have. We can't look to every single type of setting, because we're looking at people's contacts in the round and trying to minimise the number of contacts that we have. But I do appreciate the difficulties that it will cause people, but, as I say, there is a statement on the firebreak more widely that will be an opportunity to explore it in more depth this afternoon.

Leanne Wood. There you go.

Diolch, Llywydd. On 22 September, the First Minister said that a payment of £500 would be made available for those people on low incomes who have to self-isolate. Since the announcement of the firebreak, many people in the Rhondda have asked me how they can claim this payment and if it has been made available for those people who'll lose income as a result of the firebreak during the next two weeks.

People need that money now; they can't afford to wait like the carers had to wait for their payment. Can we have a statement outlining the eligibility and claim information of this payment, as well as a statement about what emergency support can be made available for those smaller businesses, self-employed people and many others who lost out on support and fell through all of the gaps last time? Many people are very anxious about this firebreak and not having this information about their income. They need this information very quickly, so can we have a statement for both of those areas as a matter of urgency, please?

Yes, I'll certainly ensure that as soon we are in a position to say more about the self-isolation payment of £500, we will share that detail about eligibility and how to go about claiming and receiving that funding. I can reassure colleagues that work is being completed at pace on that, and we will have more details to share on that very shortly. You will have heard my colleague Ken Skates during the briefing earlier on today talking about the support that we are making available to business and the discretionary element of that in order to allow local authorities to support those important businesses who might fall outside of the categories, such as being in receipt of small business rate relief, for example. But on both of those issues, there will be further detail provided to colleagues very shortly.

I'm sure the Minister would want to join me in welcoming the news that Prescoed prison football team has been now allowed to play in the Sunday league in the Gwent Central League. It was a real tragedy that they were told, after 20 years, that they weren't able to re-enter the league for the coming season. But doesn't this reflect poorly on how we manage rehabilitation in Wales and how we manage people who are leaving the secure estate in Wales? A number of people who have played for this football team have spoken very eloquently about how this gave them the opportunity to start to rebuild their lives again, and it's important that we are able to work towards rehabilitation and to ensure that people who have served sentences in Wales are able to be supported as they leave the secure estate. So, I'd like to ask for a debate in Government time on the future of rehabilitation in Wales, and how the Welsh Government intends to address that issue.

I'd also like to ask for a statement or a debate on our Standing Orders as a Parliament. We've seen again over the last week that our processes, our privileges and our resources are being abused by people who have no electoral mandate at all in this place to play their musical chairs with their politics whilst we pay for it as taxpayers and as Members of this place. It brings this place into disrepute to see these charlatans and chancers moving across and around the Chamber at will. The people of Wales have a right to a democracy, and all of us in this place must respect that democracy. It is clear that some Members have no respect for that democracy, and, until the people of Wales have the opportunity to kick them out next May, it is important that our Standing Orders reflect that and respect that democracy.

I thank Alun Davies for raising both of those issues, and I share his concern about the respect for democracy and the respect for the people who allow us the privilege of representing them here in the Senedd. I suppose this is a matter for the Business Committee, rather than the Government, but I do want to provide reassurance to colleagues that the work that was going on ahead of COVID in terms of looking again at our Standing Orders does intend to be resumed, and I'm sure that the Llywydd will be in touch with colleagues with more information about that in due course.

But, on the other matter of the football team, we're really supportive of using sport within the context of rehabilitation, as well as really focusing the attention on improving the health and well-being of men in prison and, of course, after they leave the prison estate as well. We have a partnership agreement for prison health, and that sets out our agreed priorities between Welsh Government, Public Health Wales, the prison service in Wales and the health boards, and that does include a specific focus on the use of the wider prison environment to promote health and well-being, with a focus on exercise and sport and being involved in teams and so on. I know that the Deputy Minister and Chief Whip is planning to provide a written statement to Members in the coming weeks updating us on justice issues, but I will obviously ensure that she's aware of your request for that debate in Government time as well.

Just before I call the next speaker, just to—. For the record, Members who change political groups or parties in this Chamber—that is not an abuse of Standing Orders. Members have done so throughout the term of this Senedd, and not only last week. That's a matter just for the record. Andrew R.T. Davies.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. Organiser, could I seek two statements, or certainly a letter in the first instance, explaining why—from the health Minister—dentists aren't classed as key workers, and if there could be possible Government reconsideration of this? I find it remarkable that dentists aren't categorised as key workers, but there might be a perfectly logical reason why that it is the case. It escapes me at this moment in time, but I have been lobbied by dentists locally about this anomaly, and so if I could seek a letter or some form of explanation as to why this is the case, I'd be most grateful, and, in the best outcome possible, actually get them added to the list of key workers, given the imminent lockdown that is going to occur from Friday.

Secondly, the Government brought forward money for the vaginal mesh campaign and addressing the concerns that many people had brought to Senedd Members and also the Government around their experiences with the Welsh NHS in this particular area. One million pounds was allocated in 2018. I'd be grateful if we could seek a statement from the health Minister to actually explain what the outcomes are from that money that was allocated to address these very serious concerns that patients brought before the Senedd. I know this issue enjoys cross-party support, but, to date, in my meetings over the last week when I've met campaigners in this particular area, they seem unsure as to what exactly has been achieved by this money that was allocated from the Welsh Government back in 2018, and a clear explanation laid out in a statement I think would benefit many people. Thank you.

[Inaudible.]—for raising both of those issues, and I'll certainly endeavour to get an explanation for you in terms of the classification of dentists as key workers, as we move into the firebreak period. I do know that dentistry did continue throughout the lockdown earlier in the year, although it was focused very much on the more urgent end of the spectrum. But, as I say, I will get that explanation for the Member. 

And I know that several Members will also be interested in an update on the issue of vaginal mesh, so I will ensure that I speak to the health Minister to relay that particular request. 

I'd like to ask for a statement from the Minister for the environment on the running of the Bryn site in Gelligaer. This site is run by the Bryn Group and is involved, amongst other things, in waste management and recycling. The group has had to apologise publicly in the past few days because of plastic contamination in the soil. I've seen it myself, and it is devastating. Plastic waste is littered right through the compost that's been used on the site, contaminating the land, including in pasture that will be used for silage. Trefnydd, I fear there's a risk that the plastic will enter our food chain.

Now, we're not talking about the odd bit of plastic; this is shredded right through the bund. It is contamination on a shattering scale. I've written to the Minister, asking if she could call for an investigation into complaints by residents about this waste, as well as dust caused by the works in the quarry and intrusive smells that affect residents in Gelligaer and Penybryn. Residents are concerned for their own health, understandably, but also the effect that this industrial pollution could have on residents of the area for years to come. I haven't had a response to my letter yet, and so I'm asking for an oral statement from the Minister, at her earliest convenience, to address this issue, which has now received coverage in the Western Mail. This can't be allowed to go on. Concerns have been raised with me that grass seed is being scattered liberally across the bund to try to cover up the plastic that's been exposed in the soil, and I've seen evidence that contradicts the management's claim that the plastic was removed last week. It's clear that we need that investigation, so, Trefnydd, I implore your Government to make this happen as soon as possible.

Well, Delyth Jewell has raised some very serious concerns there. I do note that she has written to the Minister, drawing the Minister's attention to these concerns, and I will ensure that a response to you is forthcoming as soon as possible.

I wish to request two statements to the Senedd—firstly, a comprehensive statement outlining the support measures put in place across Wales during the COVID-19 pandemic to support musicians, freelance and otherwise, and their livelihoods, and the measures to support community music—the very heart and soul of Welsh communities—such as choirs, choral societies, brass bands and community orchestras. 

And, second, can I call upon the Welsh Government to also provide a statement to urgently implement the measures that have been called for by the Senedd cross-party group on music and outstanding from the correspondence of August and September and my ministerial meeting, namely (1) the provision of specific guidance for the teaching of instrumental music in schools; (2) the private teaching practice guidance across Wales; an outline specification for the operation in future of ensembles, bands and orchestras and the return strategy for public performance, a premise vital for the sector; and, finally, within that, an updated report to this place on the future of music support services and the conclusive feasibility study and progress on the development of a national music strategy for Wales and an underpinning music education plan—never more critical for creative Wales?

Thank you to Rhianon for raising this issue, and I know that she is a huge champion within the Senedd for music and for everything that it can do to improve our lives at this very difficult time. I'd be happy to seek an update from the Welsh Government on all of those issues in terms of how we're seeking to update our operational guidance for schools and also the guidance for a phased return of performance at culture and heritage venues and destinations, and also the concerns that I know Rhianon Passmore has about music services and the music feasibility study and funding for music education more widely. 

Beyond providing a written response to the Member, I do know that there's a debate on the Culture, Welsh Language and Communications Committee's report on the impact of COVID-19 on the creative industries. That's due to take place on 11 November, and I think that will be another useful opportunity to hear the latest from the Minister on this particular aspect.

Trefnydd, I would like to call for a statement from the Minister for health regarding the treatment of elderly persons during the current pandemic. Yesterday, I was asked to attend a meeting with a small group of assisted living residents to discuss the issues they were facing in recent months, only for them to be told by Coastal Housing that they had to meet outdoors. Some of these residents were vulnerable, with a wide variety of health issues, some needing supplemental oxygen, yet they were being asked to sit outside in temperatures that barely hit double digits. Coastal Housing were being overzealous in interpreting the COVID regulations, and half a dozen or so people sitting meters apart and wearing masks poses no great transmission risk, and yet they were told that such a meeting could not be held indoors. Despite there being prior notice of the meeting, they were only told five minutes before. Residents are also concerned that new residents are not being tested, prior to entry to live there, for COVID-19.

I'd like the Welsh Government to ensure that guidance that goes out to housing associations and local authorities takes account of the risks to both the physical and mental health of vulnerable elderly people. So, such guidance needs to balance the harms of COVID-19 against the harms of measures to tackle the disease. And following conversations with staff—whom I had every sympathy for—regarding assisted living, too much was left open to interpretation, which was then inconsistent in delivery, and much clearer guidelines are needed in order to promote a healthy relationship for staff and residents alike.

My second point is—

No, no, no, no—there's no time for a second point. 

It was in relation to Alun Davies's hypocritical contribution about—

You've exceeded your time by some considerable amount, Caroline Jones. The Trefnydd to respond.

Thank you, Llywydd. This is a really difficult issue, isn't it, in terms of balancing the needs and the risks in regard to emotional and mental health and well-being and the risks posed by COVID. I do hope that the Welsh Government's guidance does seek to sensitively and sensibly address those risks, but I will ask the Member in the first instance to write to the Deputy Minister for Social Services, outlining those concerns in more detail, so we can consider whether or not the guidance does fully provide the providers with the information that they need in order to take the right decisions to protect the health and well-being of the people that they provide services for.

Mark Isherwood.

Hello. 

Hello.

I call for an oral statement, or preferably a debate, in Welsh Government time on the Welsh Government's draft plan to tackle fuel poverty in Wales after the Welsh Government today withdrew its key oral statement on this and replaced it with only a written statement, which didn't allow questioning.

The Welsh Government's plan to tackle fuel poverty in Wales included new non-statutory targets to 2035 and no interim milestones to get there, despite the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000, amended by the Energy Act 2013, stating the requirement that a fuel poverty strategy in Wales must

'specify interim objectives to be achieved and target dates for achieving them'.

The Minister accepted the statement in National Energy Action's UK fuel poverty monitor last year that:

'The Welsh Government should publish and make available a Cold Weather Plan for Wales to address the burden of excess winter deaths and cold-related ill health in the country.'

However, the Welsh Government consultation on its new plan seemingly includes nothing new or additional now to address the urgent needs of fuel-poor households this winter, particularly in light of COVID-19. We therefore need to know what additional actions the Welsh Government is taking to support fuel-poor households this winter. The Older People's Commissioner for Wales refers to figures showing around 67,000 older households living in fuel poverty in Wales, despite a statutory duty to eradicate fuel poverty. We therefore need to know how the Welsh Government responds to the commissioner's call for the Welsh Government to establish an emergency grant fund to make improvements to older people's home environments to support those most at risk of fuel poverty this winter, and to invest—[Inaudible.]—campaigns and assistance to increase take-up of pension credit.

And, finally, we need to know how the Welsh Government responds to the Community Housing Cymru research, which estimated that the cost of decarbonising all 230,000 units in the Welsh social housing sector exceeds £4.2 billion. A written statement will not do the job. I call on the Welsh Government therefore to find the time to bring this to this Chamber. Thank you.

Before the Trefnydd responds, I'm assuming that enough of that was heard by the Trefnydd to respond, but if I can ask you, Mark Isherwood, to have a discussion with some of our technicians, just to make sure that the quality of your sound is improved. If you want to take part in any other contribution this afternoon, I think some work needs to be done to improve the quality of your sound. But that can be done, I'm sure.

Rebecca Evans to respond.

Well, withdrawing items from the agenda for Plenary is never done lightly, and, obviously, this is something that we wanted to bring forward for colleagues to be able to discuss and question the Minister on today. But, unfortunately, we have had to change it to a written statement due to the additional coronavirus firebreak debate, which will be taking place later this afternoon. I think most people will understand that that was, under the circumstances, a reasonable thing to do. 

But I do think that Mark Isherwood has had the opportunity during the business statement to put on record the contribution that he might have sought to make later in the day, in terms of the questions and concerns he has about the draft plan to tackle fuel poverty. And I know that the Minister would welcome any further queries or contributions in writing as she continues to put in place the plan to tackle fuel poverty.

Can I also ask, Trefnydd, for further clarification from the Welsh Government on the firebreak lockdown? And perhaps the debate later on this afternoon is an opportunity for the Minister to respond. I've been contacted by the owners of Raglan Garden Centre, who are very concerned about the closure of garden centres over the next few weeks. I know that my colleague the Member for South Wales East, Laura Anne-Jones, has also told me that the owners of Usk garden centre are very concerned about the upcoming closure. I appreciate that cafes and restaurants in garden centres probably should be closing as part of that lockdown, if that's going ahead, but garden centres are big places; there are other areas, mainly outdoor areas; there are areas for Christmas tree purchase, for food, et cetera. If social distancing can be maintained in places like this, then why are we having this total closure of garden centres at this time? As I say, perhaps the Minister can come back to this in the debate later.

Trefnydd.

Thank you, Llywydd. Yes, so as I said to Darren Millar at the start of the business statement earlier on, we do have the statement on the coronavirus firebreak just a few more items down the agenda this afternoon, and perhaps that would be the best opportunity to raise this issue further. 

I thank the Trefnydd. We will now take a short break.

Order, order. The Senedd is back in session.

Item 4 will be issued as a written statement. 

We therefore move to item 5, which is a statement by the Deputy Minister for Economy and Transport on funding for buses, and I call the Deputy Minister, Lee Waters. 

Thank you. I would like update Members on the arrangements for public transport during the firebreak lockdown that the First Minister announced yesterday and to answer questions on the implications for our overall approach.

From Friday, we're asking people to stay at home. Non-essential retail will be closed, people will be expected to work from home where possible, and visits to other households will be prohibited, except in limited circumstances. Unless we have an essential reason for going out, we all need to play our part in disrupting the coronavirus chains of transmission.

The Welsh Government will make sure that buses and trains continue to operate in peak hours to enable key workers to do their jobs, but outside of the main commuting times, we have asked Transport for Wales and bus operators to reduce services for the lockdown period. This is not straightforward due to de-registering routes, rostering staff and interlinking services. This was why we briefed operators last Friday that we were considering introducing measures. We did so in good faith, and I'm disappointed that was breached.

For the lockdown period, services will be similar to those in August. Passengers need to know that late cancellations and changes to timetabled services are likely, and those who must use public transport should check directly with operators before travelling.

Across the world, fewer people are using mass transport. In Wales, we have seen an unprecedented, sharp and severe drop in bus passenger numbers, causing the loss of almost all ticket revenue. Although demand had gradually returned, revenues are likely to remain low for the foreseeable future as a result of social distancing requirements limiting capacity. This clearly has significant implications for the viability of bus companies, especially as the UK Government brings the furlough scheme to a premature end.

Following the First Minister’s announcement of a short firebreak, the economic resilience fund is being enhanced. It will have £300 million available to provide financial support to businesses. Both bus and coach companies are eligible for the economic resilience fund. Indeed, many have already benefited from previous phases of the ERF. We are also working with several operators on decarbonising and modernising their fleets, and this is something I want to see more of in the future.

The Welsh Government has stepped in to help bus operators meet the challenges of coronavirus. During the first peak of the virus, we were subsidising every bus passenger to the tune of £30 per head. Had we not done so, commercial bus operators would have gone out of business and people left stranded. Our support has been vital in ensuring that key workers can get to work, schools could re-open, and people who rely on our bus networks have been able to access shops and key services.

Transport for Wales's surveys of bus users show that 78 per cent of people who travel by bus do not have access to a private car. This includes disproportionately high numbers of younger, older, disabled, ethnic minorities, women, and those on low incomes. Our support for buses is a matter of social justice.

We recently announced a package of £84.6 million of funding to help maintain and develop service levels for the rest of this financial year. This year, in total, our support for bus services will stand at £140 million. This is a significant investment at a time when public funding is under unprecedented pressure, and this is going to be difficult to maintain, so we have to have reform.

The existing ecosystem within which bus services are funded, delivered and managed is complicated by a deregulated, fragmented and commercially motivated market. Our funding is paid to around 80 bus operators through 22 local authorities via a number of funding streams and contracting mechanisms, which have grown in scale and complexity over the last 30 years. Despite the majority of their income coming from the public sector, individual operators determine routes, frequencies and fares, while customers are faced with services that often don't integrate with other modes, timetables that don't connect with other routes, and tickets that won't work with other operators. This can't go on.

In return for this funding, we want a new deal for passengers. We'd like to do this in co-operation with the operators and we are working with them to build a partnership that delivers our wider objectives—one that gives taxpayers more influence over routes and standards, and allows management and integration across transport modes, including smart ticketing, co-ordinated routing, and integrated timetabling. It needs to be a fair deal for passengers. For our investment, we want to be able to secure a multimodal network that is better able to match supply to demand. We want to be able to flex services based on passenger need and driven by data. We want this to be delivered regionally, and shaped by our decarbonisation and equality priorities.

It is the most radical intervention in the bus network since deregulation over 30 years ago. We are still living with the legacy of this misconceived privatisation project. The legislative framework that remains continues to be a barrier to achieving a joined-up transport system. As Members know, we had intended to bring forward a Bill to the Senedd to modernise it, but the impact of coronavirus means that is no longer possible. We hope the next Welsh Government is able to take that forward, and in the meantime, we are looking to maximise our other levers to achieve our objectives. Members across the Senedd are committed to ensuring social justice and tackling climate change. Buses are a key part of delivering on these goals, and I will keep Members updated on the work we are doing to give our constituents the public transport system they deserve. Diolch.

Can I thank the Deputy Minister for his statement this afternoon and also for his advance copy of the statement as well, which I'm grateful for? Deputy Minister, I have to say, I am disappointed by the statement this afternoon, only because I was expecting more detail this afternoon. There isn't much concrete detail in what you've outlined this afternoon. This is an area where you've been talking about this since the summer. It just seems that the statement this afternoon—it's talking about aspirations, and you've reiterated what they are and they're all well and good, but it doesn't really have any particular flesh on the bones of what we would expect this afternoon. So, can I ask when you do expect the kind of detail that we would expect to be announced on a statement like this to come forward, so that can be scrutinised appropriately? The kind of detail that I would have liked to have seen this afternoon—and I will ask you about it now—is in terms of when we'll find out what the new approach you will take is, how it will be administrated, and details on the structures and approaches to planning and funding bus services.

You talked about funding this afternoon, Deputy Minister, and you talked about funding available through the economic resilience fund, but can you detail any specific funding that's going to the bus industry specifically in regard to the national Wales two-week lockdown? And also, at what level will payments to operators be maintained for school contracts in particular? Also, perhaps if I could add to this another aspiration that I know you have talked about previously, in terms of 30 per cent homeworking. I wonder if you could, Deputy Minister, this afternoon, talk about the consequences of that aspiration on the bus industry in terms of how that is influencing the development and the new approach to planning and funding bus services. And also how those new arrangements in terms of 30 per cent working from home aspirations—how the bus service industry will be supported, either through a potential loss or a change in demand, whichever you think is relevant. And finally, Deputy Minister, if I could ask how the crisis affected the decarbonisation of bus services, and the target of all buses to be zero emissions by 2028. Do operators have funds available to invest in new buses? How is the Welsh Government's approach to funding buses and decarbonising transport considering that in particular? 

Thank you. I'm not entirely clear what additional detail Russell George feels that I'm denying the Senedd. I do have a two-hour session coming up in front of the economy committee, which I'm greatly looking forward to, so there'll be plenty of opportunity to go through any detailed questions that he has then. Certainly, there's no attempt, on my part, to conceal anything. Some of this, by definition, we are working through in partnership with the bus industry as we speak. So, it's not an attempt to hide anything, it's simply that we are working in partnership, as I said we want to do to be able to reach the details. But the outline, I think, we've made very clear, and we've also made clear the funding we've provided, namely £140 million this year to do that, and we want to deliver it through Transport for Wales on a regional basis. And I think I did set out in the statement, which Russell George mentioned he'd had advance sight of, the principles that would guide that approach. So, perhaps we can continue this conversation in committee, or if you'd like to write—I'd be happy to try and help him as far as I can.

In terms of the funding to operators during the lockdown, we are continuing the funding that we have in place. Even though we are expecting and requesting services to be wound down, we're not going to be reducing the funding that we are making available to them. We simply think that it sends all the wrong signals to be requiring people to stay at home, whilst continuing to run the same frequency of buses as we did before. We knew from the first lockdown that the sight of empty buses rattling around the streets sent a contradictory signal, and we didn't want to see that repeated. 

He asked about the consequences of homeworking, and the 30 per cent aspirational target that we've set for that being a permanent fixture. As I mentioned in the statement, across the world passengers are voting with their feet by staying away from mass transport because of concern about the virus. That's not a consequence of any Government decision, but, obviously, the Government requirements around social distancing and indeed the lockdown compound that. We would expect, under the homeworking regime that we've talked about, flexibility to be the new norm. And flexibility will involve, in some cases, working from home, and in other cases, working from co-working hubs in nearby town centres. So, there may well still be a requirement for people to use public transport to get to those town centres, rather than taking a long commute into Cardiff or Swansea or nearby cities.

So, we still think there is a role for a strong public transport system, and it's certainly our intention to continue the development of the metro and with other investments that we've set out. But, in the spirit of flexibility, we do need to change the way that the public transport system works, and our demand-responsive bus programme through the Fflecsi initiative, which is now being piloted in several parts of Wales, including at scale, increasingly, in Newport, does show very promising early signs that a bus service that is more nimble and able to respond to more granular demand, rather than just the timetabled service, does meet the needs of the times. 

I think his final question was will the bus industry be supported through that change in demand. Well, this is one of these paradoxes, really, that I alluded to in my statement. We often hear from the bus industry how they are commercial operators, but now we're hearing the demands for further public funding, and it's difficult to square the two. They're commercial when it suits them, and they want more of our money when it suits them too. I think we need the new deal I talked about, which is recognising they provide a key public service and that will require ongoing subsidy, but in return for that ongoing subsidy, we need to have a greater strategic partnership with them, to make sure that our key priorities are delivered. And that's the conversation that we're having with them now. So, yes, there will be ongoing support, but it comes at a price.

I thank the Deputy Minister very much for his statement. I just want to begin by saying that we, in this part of the Chamber, believe that the response to the two-week firebreak is completely appropriate; it seems entirely the right thing to do and we're very happy to offer the Minister our support on that. In that context—and we don't know, of course, whether such actions may be necessary in future—can the Deputy Minister confirm that bus providers will be eligible to apply for the new round of ERF, even if they have already received payments from previous rounds? I take it from his statement that that is the case, but there seems to be some confusion out there in the sector.

I was pleased to hear the Deputy Minister refer to the work on decarbonisation. Following up a little bit, perhaps, on Russell George's question, can he tell us a little bit more about the nature of this work, specifically how the Welsh Government is supporting it? Obviously, actions like completely repurchasing fleets are very expensive, and I'd be interested to know what support might be available to the sector, fully taking on board the point the Minister makes, of course, about 'something for something' in this case, and that if the Government is supporting the sector, the sector needs to deliver for the public.

I want to agree very much with the Deputy Minister's comments that the support for bus services is a matter of social justice; it is often the people who can least afford other modes of transport who depend on our bus services. I'd also agree that the current mode isn't sustainable, that the current system doesn't deliver well and that we can't continue in a situation with individual operators determining routes based on what suits them, rather than what suits the public. I'm sure we will have many examples from our own constituencies and regions. Just this week, I've had correspondence that I think the Deputy Minister will be very familiar with about the withdrawal of a direct bus from Trimsaran to Kidwelly, for example, which is very difficult for people when they're getting their medical care in that community. Things like many communities not having bus services at all on a Sunday—Llangennech is one of those, and I could give numerous examples that have come into my inbox from Powys and Pembrokeshire over the last two years.

So, it is clear that we will support the Minister's desire to change this. I'm obviously very supportive of the Deputy Minister working with providers on this in a collaborative manner. But, I wonder whether the Deputy Minister can tell us today, if that collaborative approach isn't successful, and given what he's already said about our living with the legacy of a seriously misconceived privatisation, and I'd concur with his comments in that regard—will he consider alternative models like shared ownership, not-for-profit companies, looking at where local government have been able to maintain bus services that they own or part own? Will he, potentially, consider renationalisation, if that proves to be necessary, seeking any additional powers from the UK Government if that was required?

Thank you very much. Clearly, there's a great deal of shared interest and agreement in the comments that Helen Mary just outlined, which I welcomed. In terms of her questions, yes, the new round of ERF will be available, as in previous rounds, which did help bus and coach companies, subject, of course, to the eligibility criteria. But, in principle, that is our expectation: that bus companies can and will be helped through that.

In terms of the decarb, we are working with operators that have electric bus grants from the Department for Transport, and we've certainly helped local authorities with those bids, and we've been providing, I think, Cardiff Bus with some support for electric buses. That is, I think, one of the areas where we are keen to do more, recognising that one of the challenges we have within Government in supporting the bus industry is that in the transport department capital funding has historically been easier to get our hands on than revenue funding. So, obviously, a way that we can help to improve the transport offer through capital—helping to buy buses, rather than funding to run services—is easier to do. 

The Member mentions some services in my own constituency—Llangennech and Trimsaran. This will be a familiar tale to Members across the country: that the ramping back up of bus services has, obviously, been problematic, with bus drivers still on furlough, with the impact that the social distancing requirement has on the viability of services and the whole range of practical barriers that have been put in place that local authorities have, in terms of their own officer time, to make the changes necessary. So, that is obviously a familiar picture. When we've been in half measures over the summer, it has not been possible—nor, indeed, viable—because the ticket revenue collapsed, for a full return to services. Obviously, as we move out of winter into spring and summer, we would hope to re-ramp that back up, so that as many services are able to be returned as possible.

She asked about different ownership models—shared ownership and not-for-profit. Certainly, one of the things that we'd hoped to bring forward in the Bill that we've had to postpone would be to allow local authorities to run their own bus companies, which is something we were very keen on. So, as I say, I am hoping that the next Welsh Government will be able to pick that back up, because that, I think, is a shared aspiration.

In the meantime, we are looking at the role that Transport for Wales could have potentially as a direct provider. There's no reason why, in principle—. We have there a model, an arm's-length body, that could directly run services if that was necessary, and that's something that we are looking at in partnership with local authorities on a regional footing. So, I hope that I've covered the questions that were posed there.

I'm grateful to the Deputy Minister as well for the statement he's made to us this afternoon. I was especially grateful to hear him state so clearly that support for buses is a matter of social justice for this Government, and I think that that is absolutely essential, particularly when you're considering some of the communities that many of us will represent. Many of the communities I represent in Blaenau Gwent are, for parts of the day at least, cut off from services—from public services, from shopping opportunities, for example. We need to ensure that we have a robust public transport system, which is going to be rooted in buses for almost everybody and is able to link people, their communities and public services and shopping and the rest of it.

The Minister will be aware that the Grange hospital in Gwent next month. Again, this is something that we very much welcome, but we need to ensure that there is public transport available for people to access the Grange, and to do so not only during the day, but also at visiting times during the evening as well.

Can I say this to the Minister? In taking forward these issues, I welcome the money that's been spent—I think that it's £140 million that is being spent to support services. I agree with your analysis that 80 operators in 22 local authority areas is too complex a policy environment to actually make a difference, and we do need to see radical reform of that—both reform in terms of local government and in terms of how we ensure that we have the bus services that we require. I very much agree with what the Minister said about that.

But also, can we ensure that we have a public transport network serving all of our communities, which includes buses but also taxis as well? In some places, the numbers that we are talking about are not great, but we do need to have frequency of services as well. So, I think there is a whole range of issues there that affect places like Blaenau Gwent, but that he will also recognise in Llanelli, and Members will also recognise in Deeside and elsewhere as well.

So, I hope that the approach he's taking through managing these matters in the next few months, as we run to an election, will ensure that we're able to say to people that this Welsh Government regards the right to public transport, the right to connectivity, the right to connection with services and retail as things that we will not only invest in, but will ensure works for everybody.

I think that buses have been a neglected part of our transport system, and they do carry a huge number of journeys. The figure I mentioned, to reiterate the social justice point, which I think is wort repeating—. The Transport for Wales surveys of bus users show that 78 per cent of people who travel by bus do not have access to a private car. I think that that is a staggering figure, which shows how important the bus network is for people who do not have an alternative. Too often we make assumptions when we're planning services—and Alun Davies mentioned the new hospital, the Grange, there—that people will simply hop into a car to get to it, but we know there are significant parts of our communities that that is not a realistic option for. We need to make sure that there is a quality alternative for people, which is desirable and entices people out of cars to use public transport. It's not something that's left just for people who don't have an alternative, but becomes the mode of choice for people for the majority of journeys that they make. That's entirely normal in other parts of Europe and it needs to become normal in our country, but we are some way from that at the moment.

Just specifically on the issue of the question of the Grange, which Alun Davies has mentioned to me previously: I'm pleased to be able to confirm that the health board have now confirmed that there will be a public bus service to the site upon the hospital opening in November. Buses will drop off at a dedicated point at the new hospital. There will be a bus service between Newport via Caerleon, Ponthir and Cwmbran, which is also scheduled to stop in Newport and Cwmbran. And also, as I mentioned the demand-responsive service earlier, the Fflecsi, which we are looking to start in Blaenau Gwent, first of all with two service areas in Ebbw Fawr and Ebbw Fach—that also will be able to respond to people's flexible demands to be able to go to the hospital. So, I think there's more to do there, but I think that at least puts in the bones of a service to make sure that, when the hospital opens in November, there will be a bus route.

Finally, the point on taxis is an important one, because I think I mentioned in the statement that one of the things we want to get to is a multimodal, strategic, planned network. Clearly, taxis are one of the modes—a public transport option that we need to see alongside buses, trains and active travel, to make sure they link up. That's something that's been hard to do, and that's something that we want to make sure that Transport for Wales has very firmly on its to-do list. Clearly, again, the aspiration to bring in legislation to reform taxis has also had to be delayed because of COVID, but that is also something that we're continuing to work on, should the next Welsh Government want to bring that forward.

Can I thank the Deputy Minister for his statement this afternoon? I believe the Welsh Government more than adequately funds bus companies in normal times. COVID, of course, may need extra funding in very targeted scenarios. However, I feel there is considerable waste in the resources allocated to the bus industry, where we see multiple buses, perhaps just minutes apart, on identical or near-identical routes, each carrying a tiny number of passengers. Perhaps we should go further than this statement envisages.

I know the Deputy Minister and indeed the Minister keep an open mind as to how the whole provision of public transport is delivered, and I share their deep concerns on the whole subject of deregulation, and would wholeheartedly support the implementation of a local authority or other public body-run bus network, but I also believe that we should seriously explore the possibility of a dial-up public transport option. All too often, even in normal times, we witness 50 to 60-seater buses running with just one or two passengers. Would it not be far more economical to introduce fleets of specially adapted minibuses, carrying just four to six passengers on a dial-up basis? These buses could be all electric, given their size and relatively short distances travelled. The community bus operation could work as a blueprint for this innovative transport system.

Would the Minister, and indeed the Deputy Minister, not agree with me that we cannot go on subsiding the present bus regime, which is uneconomical, costly and environmentally damaging? I know the Deputy Minister is deeply committed to getting people out of cars and onto public transport—or, he would probably say, better still onto bicycles. However, given the fact that most people do not completely share his enthusiasm for this particular mode of transport, I'm sure all of us would favour a public transport system based on the electric vehicle. So, would the Minister and, of course, the Deputy Minister, explore this green, cheap and practical option to the public transport system we run today?

I heard David Rowlands talking about multiple buses turning up in quick succession carrying a small number of passengers. It's rather reminiscent of all the little parties he's been a member of. But there is, of course—. The situation he talks of is a symptom of the problem we have with our public transport system. In a non-regulated environment, of course, anyone can set up a bus company and they can run the routes that they think are most profitable. So, you tend to have, on a small number of routes, a lot of competition on a lot of services because there's profit to be made, but not being able to cross-subsidise other routes to form a coherent network, and that's precisely why we wanted to bring the legislation forward, and that's precisely why we're now using the opportunity presented to us to try and use our funding to get maximum leverage to try and achieve that objective through other means. So, I completely agree with him on that.

Similarly, on the dial-up buses, as he talks of them, the terms may be different, but it's the same thing. We talk about demand-responsive transport, which is the same thing. And we are trialling, across five areas now, in Newport, Cardiff, Rhondda, Prestatyn and Denbigh, our Fflecsi service, run through Transport for Wales with local operators, which is supported by a website, an app and a telephone line, which replaces some scheduled local bus services with more flexible services that can pick up and drop off in an area by request, rather than at fixed bus stops at fixed times, and the feedback has been very positive where this has been trialled. As I say, in Newport we are looking now to increase that, and in Blaenau Gwent as well. And that is dipping our toe in the water of that particular model that David Rowlands talks about, and I think the aspiration for having a network of small, electric minibuses effectively, whizzing around picking up people at times that suit them to take them to places they want to go, is exactly what we are working towards. So, I hope I can give him some reassurance that we are, at least on that, in agreement.

Can I thank you, Deputy Minister, and express my appreciation for the support given by Welsh Government over recent months to maintain an essential network of bus services in our communities?

The decision to impose a firebreak—we all know that these challenges are going to continue for many months to come, and, of course, as you've outlined, in the short term, we'll be returning to public transport for essential workers and journeys only. But even before the firebreak, the pandemic had already impacted, as you've outlined, on many aspects of the bus network, including reducing the number of services. And like others, I've had similar situations in my constituency in Abercanaid and Aberfan, and the fact that you can get a bus to Prince Charles Hospital at the start of visiting time, but you can't get a bus at the end of visiting time—those kinds of things; the revenue streams and financial assumptions of local authorities and bus companies, including departure charges from bus stations, for example. In the bigger picture, post firebreak, we shouldn't lose sight, either, of what that means to the most vulnerable in our communities, particularly older people, for whom I know buses are often a lifeline, and I know that you're very alert to that. The reality is, however, that however much Government subsidises the bus companies—you have alluded to this in your statement—they are first and foremost private companies operating for profit, and if profit can't be made, they'll walk away leaving those in need of those services high and dry, and that remains the legacy of the privatisation of the 1980s.

So, while I very much welcome what you have announced today, are you confident that the measures outlined will be enough to sustain these essential services and that bus companies, more to the point, will co-operate? And I guess in line with the question that Helen Mary Jones asked earlier, if not, what is the alternative to ensure that bus services are maintained as public services for the benefit of the community and not for the profit of a private company?

I was going to ask you whether there was, for example, any scope for Transport for Wales to provide a more sustainable future out of the current uncertainties, but I think—

Dawn—

—you answered that in your answer to Helen Mary. Thank you. 

Before I call the Minister to reply, I'm being as kind as possible to the Labour Members, because it's important that backbenchers do get called, but these questions are turning into fireside chats, rather than precise questions, and we don't need the whole history of how you formed your views—just get to the question. Minister.

Well, in that spirit, Mr Melding, I shall put my pipe away; we'll have no more fireside chats here.

Just to answer the nub of Dawn Bowden's point—. I must pay tribute to her for the work she has done as a member of the Valleys taskforce, chairing the transport sub-group of the taskforce, in helping us to develop the demand-responsive model, and the challenge that she has brought to the Government in that role has been instrumental in allowing us to bring that forward. But she is right that the current system has been dysfunctional. It requires a significant amount of public investment without the full return on investment that we'd expect for our public values and for serving our communities, and that's why we're determined to bring about change. As I say, our first route has been denied to us, but there are other ways around it. And I think the option, if that doesn't work, of a greater role for Transport for Wales as a direct provider of buses, as an embryonic national bus company for Wales, certainly is there. But we'll try the partnership route first and see where that gets us.

Thank you, acting Llywydd. Some short questions, Minister, in the light of the acting Llywydd's comments on time. Firstly, I welcome this opportunity now for a much greater regulation and planning of the bus service, which we very much want. I, for example, cannot travel from Tonyrefail to Pontypridd without having to change buses. That makes absolutely no sense. If I want to go into Cardiff, I have to take a bus that takes an hour and a half to get there—so, at peak times, the need for direct buses, fast buses that don't, basically, go around every single potential stop there could be, to get you to work on time as efficiently as possible.

And the other issue is, of course, as I'm sure many of the Senedd Members have had, representations from people going to work who have difficulties accessing buses at the right time, going early enough, able to get them back, to fit in with the nature of a lot of work—a lot of hospitality work, for example—that works at very awkward hours. I'm just wondering what the mechanism will be to feed in those examples and those representations from communities where we know something better can actually be dealt with with an integrated bus service than what exists at the moment. What would be the mechanism for ensuring communities have a real voice in the types of bus service that they want?

Well, just on that last point, we are developing sophisticated forecasting and scenario-testing modelling to allow data-based judgments to be made about where to put investments and where there are gaps in provision. That is something Transport for Wales has been working on, and this is why we want to move on to a regional footing for the delivery of these services, because that gives us the greatest opportunity to have a joined-up approach and to make the most of the limited resource that we have. And involving communities in that, clearly, is important and Transport for Wales do have a cadre of community outreach professionals whose job it is to make those connections. And that's certainly something we've been hearing, through the Valleys taskforce—the need for people to feel that the system works for them. And, in too many cases, it doesn't.

I think there is—. There's a question for all Members here, because I think all of us want more—more of everything—and the public finance situation we face is grave and it's not likely to improve any time soon. We're working on a Wales transport strategy, which we're hoping to publish within the next six months, and that needs to deliver on the decarbonisation agenda that we've set out. But it also is a question for us all about where we put the resources we have between road, rail, bus and active travel. Where is the right split of spend, based on the mode that we have? Now, at the moment, the amount we spend on bus is smaller than the modal share. That is to say, if you were to divide the pie into slices of how many passengers use particular bits, and then what percentage of that pie is put to each mode, then bus is currently underserved, but rail is dramatically overserved. You know, rail is something—we all have an enthusiasm for having a modern railway system. Rail is very, very expensive and carries relatively few passengers, compared to the amount of money we put into it. Similarly, we've been spending generously on roads for many years, which has denuded other forms of transport of the investment they need to give a realistic alternative to it.

So, I think all of us, as we come to developing that transport strategy and then making budget decisions based on it, need to confront the fact that, if we want the sort of public transport system Mick Antoniw talks about, then we need to prepare to make the choices of where the resources go.

And finally, Jack Sargeant.

Thank you, acting Presiding Officer, and thank you, Minister. Minister, as you know, I'm very passionate about the Welsh Government delivering on a north-east Wales metro, and buses are going to play an integral part in that. My communities want buses for people, not for profit. So, Minister, how will your new rules overturn those set by the Tories, which devastated our rural communities, and ensure that places like Treuddyn and Penyffordd and Caergwrle get the buses and bus routes residents need to go about their daily lives?

Well, briefly, these are the discussions we're having with the industry now. I think, from the tone of the statement this afternoon, we are sending a strong signal to them that it's no longer good enough simply to be asking for more money and, every time we ask for something in return, to tell us to jump in a lake, which has been a little bit of the conversations we had with some of the operators. That's a relationship that has changed and needs to continue changing. We expect our objectives to be delivered for the resources that we put in. There still remain legislative complications, because these still are, by law, commercial and market-driven issues, and, while that remains on the statute book, it does constrain our ability to deliver everything we want to deliver. But we're determined to use the leverage we do have to get the maximum return for the objectives that we share.

Thank you, Minister.

Item 6 will be issued as a written statement.

We move to items 7 and 8, and, in accordance with Standing Order 12.24, unless a Member objects, the two motions under these items, the health protection regulations 2020, will be grouped for debate but with separate votes.

I can see there are no objections, and I call the Minister for Health and Social Services, Vaughan Gething.

Thank you, acting Deputy Presiding Officer. I formally move the two sets of regulations before us today and ask Members to support them. Once again, these regulations were introduced under the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 through emergency procedures to support our ongoing action to deal with the real and continuing threat posed by coronavirus.

The Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (Functions of Local Authorities etc.) (Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 were made on 9 October and came into force on 12 October. These regulations amend the Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (Functions of Local Authorities etc.) (Wales) Regulations 2020. They provide local authorities with powers to close premises, impose restrictions or requirements in respect of the use of, access to or the number of people on the premises, or to prohibit certain events or types of event from taking place, or to impose restrictions or requirements in respect of the holding of, access to, or number of people attending the events, and restrict access to or close public outdoor places by issuing public place directions.

In making these regulations, the Welsh Government has responded to concerns expressed by a range of local authorities about the powers available to them. The regulations broaden local authorities' powers to make public place directions to enable them to impose prohibitions, requirements or restrictions in relation to activities carried on in a public place, including the consumption of alcohol. This broadened public place direction power complements the restrictions on the sale of alcohol that were introduced in Wales on 24 September. It will help local authorities to stop gatherings of people consuming alcohol in designated areas as a result of the earlier closure of licensed premises. We know such behaviours increase the risk of coronavirus transmission, as the consumption of alcohol leads to decreasing observance of social distancing and makes enforcement more difficult.

Members will be aware that, when a local authority issues a direction, they are required to notify Welsh Ministers as soon as possible. This must include a copy of the direction, the reason for issuing the direction, the location or area that the direction relates to, the organisations and groups of people expected to be directly and indirectly affected by that direction, the stakeholders consulted on the decision on the direction, the date and time on which the restriction comes into effect, and the date and time on which it will end.

The Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (No. 2) (Wales) (Amendment) (No. 18) (Bangor) Regulations 2020 were made on 9 October, and came into force on 10 October. These regulations amend the principal regulations, which are now the Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (No. 2) (Wales) Regulations 2020. The principal regulations were amended with effect from 8 September 2020 to introduce restrictions in respect of a local health protection area. There are now 16 local health protection areas in Wales. These regulations extend restrictions to a further local health protection area, comprising eight electoral wards in the Bangor area of Gwynedd. The restrictions introduced are the same as those that apply in other health protection areas. In particular, the regulations provide that no household within that area may be treated as forming part of an extended household, and prohibit the formation of an extended household by such a household; they prohibit persons living in that area from leaving or remaining away from that area without reasonable excuse; they require residents of that area to work from home unless it is not reasonably practicable for them to do so; and they prohibit people from outside that area from entering the area without reasonable excuse.

The Welsh Government takes a careful and evidence-based approach to dealing with coronavirus, including our formal requirement to review the need for relevant restrictions and their proportionality every 21 days. Each of the regulations relating to local health protection areas is subject to review two weeks after their introduction, and every week thereafter if the restrictions remain in place for longer than that.

It is evident just how serious the coronavirus pandemic is that the First Minister yesterday announced our decision to introduce a two-week firebreak starting at 6 p.m. this Friday and ending on Monday 9 November. I hope we will have an opportunity to debate that in more detail later today. I do, though, ask Members, for the purpose of the regulations before us today, to do our part in helping to keep Wales safe. I believe these regulations are necessary in our continued efforts to tackle the pandemic. I now ask the Senedd to support them.

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

Thank you, acting Llywydd. In respect of item 7 and item 8 together, we considered both sets of regulations at our meeting yesterday morning, and our reports have been laid before the Senedd to assist today's debate.

If I may, I'll deal with the Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (No. 2) (Wales) (Amendment) (No. 18) (Bangor) Regulations 2020 first. Our report on these regulations contained one technical reporting point and five merits reporting points. The technical reporting point highlights a potential issue regarding the clarity of the law. Regulation 2(2) refers to the electoral division of 'Menai'. The County of Gwynedd (Electoral Changes) Order 2002 states that there are in fact two electoral divisions of Menai, Menai Bangor and Menai Caernarfon, and whilst it may appear obvious from reading the standalone amending regulations that the electoral division to be taken into account here is Menai Bangor, as the name Bangor is included in the title of the amending regulations, it may be less obvious when considering the principal regulations in isolation. There is also the potential for future confusion and duplication should the Menai Caernarfon electoral division be subject to restrictions in the future. The same issue arises in the Welsh version of the regulations. The Welsh Government has acknowledged our concerns, and the irregularity has been rectified in the Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (No. 2) (Wales) (Amendment) (No. 19) Regulations 2020, made on 16 October 2020.

Our first merits point relates to the Welsh Government's justification for any potential interference with human rights. We've reported an error in the description of article 11 of the European convention on human rights in the explanatory memorandum. The Welsh Government response to our report indicates that the error will be corrected. As with a number of regulations the Senedd has considered in recent months, our second merits point notes that there's been no formal consultation on these regulations. Furthermore, our third merits point noted that there is no equality impact assessment for these regulations. We asked the Welsh Government to explain what arrangements it has made to publish reports of equality impact assessments in accordance with regulation 8(1)(d) of the Equality Act 2010 (Statutory Duties) (Wales) Regulations 2011. We note that the Welsh Government intends to publish an integrated impact assessment of social gathering restrictions in due course. In our fourth merits point we reiterated our view that, where coronavirus restrictions are being tightened in any significant way, explanatory memoranda should set out the evidence on which the Welsh Government relies in deciding that such tightening is necessary and proportionate. 

The Welsh Government's response to our report does set out more evidence, and we welcome that. It states that, when the Bangor area local health protection area was established, there was a rising trend in rolling seven-day incidence rates of COVID-19 in Gwynedd; Gwynedd was continuing to exceed 50 cases per 100,000; however, Public Health Wales figures indicated that the incidence rate in Bangor was much higher, at 318 cases per 100,000 of the population. The Welsh Government highlight the incident management team's biggest concern that, in student communities in Bangor, there was an incidence rate of around 390 cases per 100,000. The clear recommendation from the IMT was to establish a local health protection zone for Bangor only. We believe that providing this evidence will aid transparency and assist the Senedd's scrutiny of coronavirus regulations. 

Our final merits point highlights to the Senedd that these regulations came into effect before they were laid before the Senedd. We have noted, as per the requirements of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946, the First Minister's letter to the Llywydd, dated 9 October 2020, confirmed this fact and included an explanation that this was considered necessary and justifiable in view of the changing evidence on risk in relation to coronavirus. We asked the Welsh Government to provide further details of this evidence in its response to our report. The Welsh Government has said that it considers that the increase in cases described in its response to our fourth reporting point demonstrates and justifies the need for the regulations to come into force as quickly as possible. 

Turning now to the Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (Functions of Local Authorities etc.) (Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2020, our report on these regulations contains two merits points. The first point noted the Welsh Government's justification for any potential interference with human rights and draws attention to relevant paragraphs within the accompanying explanatory memorandum. Our second reporting point again highlights that there has been no formal consultation on these regulations. Diolch, acting Llywydd. 

The Welsh Conservatives will be supporting both sets of regulations this afternoon. Agenda item No. 7 seems a sensible course of action, if you're giving this authority to local authorities to shut places down but also offer people who come under these regulations the ability to appeal to a magistrates' court, as I understand it, and also if the rules and regulations need to lapse after seven days, then the provision for those regulations to be taken away seems a sensible course of action. 

The second point about Bangor, the second regulations we'll be voting on this afternoon, is something we've been calling on the Welsh Government to do. They've deployed it in Llanelli and we believe it's a sensible course of action in relation to Bangor, given the incidence of infection in Bangor. And so, therefore, the Welsh Conservatives will be supporting both sets of regulations that are before the Assembly this afternoon. 

Plaid Cymru will be abstaining on the regulations relating to Bangor in my constituency. We didn't oppose their introduction, but we were dissatisfied with communication issues and the lack of local communication around the process of introducing the regulations. We need far clearer communication with local communities, such as those in Bangor, if local lockdowns will be required again in future. Circumstances have now changed, but there are important lessons to be learned, I believe. 

I would like to draw attention to point 5 in the explanatory memorandum, which mentions consultation and says that there was no formal consultation on the regulations for the eight Bangor wards. Now, I accept that there isn't time for formal consultation in a time of crisis, but I do think that there are lessons to be learned from the way in which these restrictions and the need for these restrictions were communicated to the local population. And I do believe that we need to introduce new protocols in order to ensure improved communications with community leaders at a local level.

In the case of Bangor, there was no communication between the Welsh Government and county councillors in the eight wards, or the city councillors, and the only thing I received as a Member of the Senedd—and the same was true for the Member of Parliament—was a phone call a quarter of an hour before a Government Minister stated on television that those restrictions were to come into place in less than 24 hours’ time. That led to all sorts of problems for constituents who were naturally turning to their community leaders for information, but that information wasn’t available to us. Had we been briefed beforehand, even eight hours beforehand, we could have helped to avoid much of the confusion that arose.

In the case of Bangor, many were questioning why one whole ward, which includes a large part of the city, was left out from the local health protection zone. I assume that there is a rationale behind that, but I received no explanation as to what that was and, to this day, I’ve received no explanation on that point. Including the Pentir ward would have made sense, because it would have included the whole city within the local health protection zone and would have also included a rural part, which includes a section of the coastal path as well as other rural areas, which would then have been available to constituents within the city who have had to be restricted to an urban geographical area with very few green spaces. I assume that there is a scientific explanation why the Pentir ward wasn’t included, but without knowing that, how can local leaders convey that information to local people? Without that information you get confusion and doubt, and ultimately that leads to less compliance, and compliance is what we are looking for of course.

So, I would draw the Government’s attention to this issue in the Senedd today so that you can take action to secure better communication and clear communication as we move forward. I hope that you will listen to these comments. My purpose is to assist Government to improve communications protocols as we move to the next phase, in order to secure better compliance ultimately.

And the Minister to reply.

Thank you, acting Deputy Presiding Officer, and thank you to Members for their comments. I'm pleased to note the comments from the Chair of the scrutiny committee about improvements in the provision of information and data that underpin the choices that Ministers are making.

I'm pleased to see that the Welsh Conservatives will be supporting both sets of regulations. And in an entirely constructive way to answer the points raised by Siân Gwenllian, and in particular the point about local communication, because we do always look for ways to improve the way that we not just make decisions, but then communicate them as well. In coming to these decisions, in every single choice we've made, we've spoken with the local authority leader and their chief executive. We did the same in all of the areas in south Wales, we did the same in all those in north Wales, and indeed in Carmarthenshire as well. So, Ministers have direct engagement with the leader of the local authority, and it's fair to say that every local authority, including Gwynedd, have a senior officer—in the case of Gwynedd, the corporate director, I understand—who participates in the incident management team, and they make recommendations over whether to take action and the spread and the nature of that action as well. So, the council, actually, were part of that pre-decision-making process.

Now, I don't think it's actually for Welsh Ministers to then to try to direct the engagement with either the town council or individual members of the council, but it's how we work with each of our local authorities in understanding how that communication needs to take place, and how information is drawn and then disseminated. We've taken it upon ourselves to try to make sure that Ministers and officials do then speak with constituency representatives before decisions are made so that people don't find out directly from the media about the choices that are being made.

I take on board why it would be useful for the local Member to have received a briefing—I think that eight hours in advance was the suggestion—but I'm afraid it doesn't reflect the reality of the speed of either the recommendation or the need to make decisions. And it's also the case that we have to test each of the recommendations, then understand whether Ministers will go ahead and act on recommendations or not, or whether we feel we need to test them and send them back. That includes both the size and the area of where to introduce restrictions or not. So, I'm afraid, in all of the uncertainty we're living with, I don't think we're going to be able to provide the sort of advanced briefing that the Member's requesting with the timescale that's available. If we were able to make decisions earlier in each day, it would give us more time to speak with local representatives, because, as I say, we do want to find ways to improve the way we make decisions and the way we then communicate them.

We're going into a period now where we're going to have a different set of national regulations with the firebreak. It is, of course, entirely possible that in the future, though, in the world beyond a firebreak, that we will need to have particular local restrictions. It's entirely possible; there could be a hyperlocal outbreak that would require that particular local action. So, it is certainly something that we will need to return to and I do recognise that her comments are provided in a constructive spirit and my response is meant to be so as well.

As ever, our approach continues to be guided by the advice of the chief medical officer, our scientific officers, our technical advisory cell, the technical advisory group, and the study they make of evidence within Wales, across the UK and the rest of the world. We again believe that these regulations are specific and proportionate actions to be taken in response to the rise in the number of cases that we see within specific parts of our country.

Each one of us has a responsibility to make choices, to follow the measures, the law and the guidance to help keep us, our loved ones and our communities safe from this infectious and harmful virus. A final reminder to keep our distance from each other when we're out and about and certainly to avoid contact within our own homes, to follow the rules about who isn't allowed in your own home, to wash our hands often, to work from home if we can, to wear a face covering in indoor public places, and we need to stay at home if we've got symptoms and wait for a result, and, as I say, to follow the restrictions in place locally. I ask the Senedd to support the regulations before us this afternoon.

Thank you, Minister. The proposal is to agree the motion under item 7. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I do see a Member objecting, and I will therefore defer voting under this item until voting time.

The proposal is to agree the motion under item 8. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Again, I see Members objecting, and I defer voting under this item also until voting time.

Item 9 is the Senedd Cymru (Disqualification) Order 2020, and I call on the First Minister to move the motion. Mark Drakeford.

Diolch yn fawr, Dirprwy Lywydd dros dro. Members will have heard Government Ministers say in the Senedd that we will do everything we can to ensure that the Senedd elections can take place in May of next year despite the challenges that may arise from the pandemic. Today, in front of the Senedd, there is enabling legislation to allow the elections to take place. The purpose of the Senedd Cymru (Disqualification) Order 2020 is to list offices that, if held by an individual, would disqualify that individual from becoming a Member of the Senedd.

The proposals come in front of Members as a result of consultation, held for 10 weeks and which closed on 1 September. That consultation was rooted in the work on this matter by the then Constitutional and Legislative Affairs committee, which undertook an inquiry into this area of disqualification in 2014, and the current committee quite rightly draws attention to that work. The disqualification Order continues to build on the recommendations set out in that 2014 report and the criteria used for determining offices and membership of bodies for inclusion in the Order are based on the principles set out in the first recommendation of that report. As a result of the consultation, a number of offices have been added to the disqualification Order list. There were no objections on the part of those bodies to their inclusion. One body, which had since ceased to exist, has been removed from the Order.

The basis of the proposal in front of the Senedd this afternoon therefore allows for May's elections to be conducted in this area. The criteria uphold the principles of democratic participation and the right to stand as a Member of the Senedd. Only such offices and posts that are of a nature that needs to be politically impartial or would give rise to a significant conflict of interest are listed in the disqualification Order before Members this afternoon. I invite the Senedd to endorse the proposals.

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

Diolch, acting Llywydd. We considered the draft Order at our meeting last week. As always, our report is available to Members via today's agenda, and Members will see that our report contains two merits points. The first merits point highlights the work of our predecessor committee, as the First Minister has already mentioned—a fact that is also acknowledged in the explanatory memorandum that accompanies the draft Order. The memorandum highlights that in 2014, the fourth Assembly's Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee carried out an inquiry into the rules regarding disqualification from membership of the Senedd. That report made 21 recommendations to the Welsh Government and proposed an overhaul of the legislative framework surrounding disqualifications from membership of the Senedd. In response to that report, the Welsh Government made a commitment to consult on the National Assembly for Wales (Disqualification) Order 2015, and by consulting on this draft Order, 2020, we noted that it is continuing to honour that commitment. The criteria for determining which offices were to be included in the National Assembly for Wales (Disqualification) Order 2015 were based on the principles set out in the fourth Assembly Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee's report, with some additional considerations by the Welsh Government. We have noted that this same criteria has continued to be used for the draft Order. Our second merits point notes the Welsh Government consultation that was carried out on the draft Order during the summer and the subsequent new offices that have been added to the draft Order as disqualified offices. These new disqualified offices include the secretary of the Boundary Commission for Wales, the Information Commissioner, the commissioners and non-executive board members of the Law Commission, commissioners of the Judicial Appointments Commission, and the Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman. Diolch, acting Llywydd.

Thank you. I don't have any Members indicating they wish to speak. First Minister, I don't know if you've got anything further to add, given what the Chair of the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee has reported on.

Simply to thank the Chair of the committee and all those who responded to the consultation, and to inform the Senedd that if today's motion is agreed, the Order can be submitted to be made bilingually at the November meeting of the Privy Council, with a proposed coming-into-force date of 12 November.

Thank you, First Minister. The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? I see no Member objecting. The motion is therefore agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Item 10 is the Smoke-free Premises and Vehicles (Wales) Regulations 2020. I call on the Minister for Mental Health, Well-Being and Welsh Language to move the motion—Eluned Morgan.

Thank you, Llywydd. I formally move the regulations before us today. I recommend that the Senedd supports the Smoke-Free Premises and Vehicles (Wales) Regulations 2020, and I formally ask Members to support the regulations before us today.

The Public Health (Wales) Act 2017 places restrictions on smoking on school grounds, hospital grounds, in public playgrounds, and in open-air care settings for children. These regulations will reinforce those provisions as noted in Part 3 of that Act, and will also replace the Smoke-Free Premises etc. (Wales) Regulations 2007. So, taken together, the provisions of the 2017 Act and the 2020 regulations will introduce a new smoke-free regime in Wales with the aim of protecting public health from second-hand smoke, which hopefully will help to denormalise smoking yet further. As a Government, we are committed to taking steps against smoking and to make ongoing and positive changes with the aim of improving the health of the people of Wales. The 2017 regulations have shown the efficiency of smoke-free policies in denormalising smoking.

The aim of this legislation is to build upon our current tobacco control measures, by making more public places smoke free, and reducing the prominence of smoking in Wales further. The purpose of the requirements under these regulations for smoke-free hospital grounds is to promote behavioural change, and to help smokers using our hospital services to quit. Limiting smoking in these areas and reducing smoking are seen as setting a positive example, and it's crucial in terms of discouraging people from starting to smoke. So, these regulations do assist with our ambition to deliver a smoke-free Wales.

Since laying the regulations, we have been informed of two minor corrections that need to be made to the draft regulations. Whilst assuming that the regulations will be passed, these minor amendments will be made before the regulations are made. Thank you, Llywydd.

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

Thank you, acting Llywydd. We considered these regulations at our meeting last week, and we considered the Welsh Government's response to our reporting points during our meeting yesterday morning. Our report contains three merits reporting points.

The first merits point notes a concern that the Welsh Government has not set out its justification for interference with article 8 of the European convention on human rights. We believe that the regulations do engage article 8 of the convention, which is the right to private life. This is a qualified right, and the Welsh Government should set out its justification for any potential interference with that right. Section 7 of the Public Health (Wales) Act 2017 provides that premises in Wales are smoke free if they are workplaces, which includes certain dwellings. The regulations remove exclusions for certain types of work activities from the assessment of whether a dwelling is a workplace for the purpose of section 7. The effect of removing these exclusions is that all types of work activities will be included in the assessment of whether a dwelling is a workplace, and therefore more of these dwellings will be required to be smoke free.

Similarly, the regulations also provide that privately owned vehicles are to be smoke free when a child is in the vehicle, and in both of these situations, the regulations affect how people conduct themselves in their privately owned property. Our report asks the Welsh Government to set out how it considers that these regulations are compliant with article 8 of the European convention on human rights. In response, the explanatory memorandum has been amended to say that a very thorough assessment of the provisions contained within these regulations has taken place to ensure that they are compatible with the European convention on human rights and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. However, we do make the point that it would be more helpful if the explanatory memorandum had been updated to include the actual details of this thorough assessment.

Our second merits point highlights that there are cross-references in the regulations to provisions of the 2017 Act that are not yet in force. The Welsh Government's response to us indicates that, subject to the outcome of today's debate, a second commencement Order will be made that will commence the remaining provisions in Chapter 1 and Part 3, and related Schedules of the 2017 Act, on 1 March 2021. This would mean that the provisions around the new smoke-free regime within the 2017 Act could operate substantively from 1 March 2021 alongside the regulations. 

Our third reporting point noted that the regulations require notification to the EU in line with the requirement of the technical standards and regulations directive 2015/1535/EC, and that no objections were made by member states to the draft 2020 regulations. Thank you, acting Llywydd. 

If I could seek a point of clarity from the Minister when she responds to this debate. On the Welsh Conservative benches, we have a free vote on this issue. As someone who's lost two individuals to lung cancer—two very dear individuals to lung cancer—I cannot see a coherent argument when it comes to smoking, but I accept a certain percentage of people in society do choose to smoke, and if they do choose to smoke in their own space in their private dwellings or their private space, without inflicting that on someone else, then I think that's their right to do that. And this is the difficulty I have with these regulations. I'd grateful for an explanation—and I'm sure other Members on the Conservative benches and hopefully other Members of the Senedd would be grateful for an explanation—as to how far these regulations reach into that private space. We heard the Chair of the constitutional and legal affairs committee touch on dwellings and workplaces in his remarks, in particular the impact on human rights. So, I'm not coming at this as someone who's a denier of the effects of smoking, because I believe passionately that we need to stamp smoking out, but I do believe passionately in the right of individuals to exercise their own discretion in their own space—their private space. I noticed that the Minister didn't allude to that in her opening remarks. She referred mainly to hospitals and other public spaces where we all subscribe to trying to seek a ban to stop smoking in those public spaces. So, if we could get that clarity from the Minister, I'd be most grateful, in her responding remarks.

Before I call John Griffiths, can he just assure me that he's been present for the duration of this debate, if he wants to be called? Because your video was not on.

Dirprwy Lywydd, yes.

Therefore, you may speak. I call John Griffiths.

Thank you very much. The introduction of legislation banning smoking in the grounds of hospitals in Wales does have the potential to play a major role in reducing smoking prevalence by denormalising smoking and encouraging smokers to quit, and I believe the same is true for the possibilities of banning smoking in school grounds and park playgrounds, and, indeed, many other places. I hope that we will build on the progress made to date.

But, I do believe that if, as a country, we are to make the most of this opportunity, it is very important to ensure that smoking cessation support is readily available within those hospitals for patients who want to quit. We know that several thousand people die from a smoking-related disease in Wales every year, and it causes around one in six of all deaths in people aged 35 and over. So, you know, it really is a major cause of ill health, and we need to prevent this and help our overstretched NHS. Of course, we have COVID-19 now, and we know that smoking is another risk factor for people if they get that condition.

So, there's already a strong need to provide smoking cessation support to smokers who are admitted to hospital, providing medical professionals with a golden opportunity to target those smokers who need smoking cessation support the most. I know the research from ASH Wales has shown that there is overwhelming public support for such a measure, with, I think, something like 75 per cent of Welsh adults in support of offering smokers staying in hospital help to stop smoking. In places like Manchester, it's worked very well, of course—there's the CURE project in secondary care treatment. In Canada, known as the Ottawa model for smoking cessation—under that project, all active smokers admitted to secondary care are immediately offered nicotine replacement and other cessation services alongside the treatment that they need, and, also, after discharge.

So, I do believe that as part of these measures that we're taking forward, and, hopefully, the progress that we'll make, it's important to consider these possibilities, these approaches, because they are proven to work elsewhere. When people are in hospital, you know, they're obviously readily accessible; it does provide an opportunity and, hopefully, they're amenable to these very important messages.

Thank you. I do remind Members who Zoom in that you must have your video on if you want to ensure that you'll be called; you can't just presume on the kindness of the Chair, though it will be exercised, no doubt, when appropriate. I call on the Minister to reply.

I just want to reply briefly to those who have contributed. I first of all thank the Chair of the legislation committee, and thank him for recognising that we have shown in our explanation that we are complying with international law. It's important to highlight that smoking is not a human right, and it's important that people understand that. We do know that smoking is very damaging to people's health. It is one of the main causes of illness and early death, and is particularly prominent in terms of health inequalities in our communities.

Just to respond briefly to Mr Davies: just for clarity, the measures that we are bringing forward today do not impact private spaces. What we're talking about here are hospitals and public spaces such as public playing fields, for example, and that doesn't affect private spaces. Just to add to what Mr Griffiths said on the assistance that we need to give people who do want to quite smoking, we do need to focus on ensuring that people are aware of the fact that we do have a service in place, Help Me Quit, that has been active throughout the pandemic. We are aware that many people do want to quit smoking during this pandemic.

We have seen a general reduction in the prevalence of smoking in Wales, but we are aware that more needs to be done. These regulations are part of our ongoing efforts to make Wales a smoke-free area, where smoking isn't seen as being normal, and where people will be supported in making positive choices for the benefit of their own health. So, I ask the Senedd to support these regulations, and I do agree that it is vital that we do improve the health and lives of the people of Wales. Thank you.

The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? Did we get—? [Objection.] Yes, I have seen an objection. So, I will defer voting under this item until voting time.

There's now a motion to suspend Standing Orders, and I call on the Minister for Finance and Trefnydd to move the motion—Rebecca Evans.

Formally moved.

I don't have any speakers. So, the proposal is to suspend Standing Orders. Does any Member object? No Member objects. 

So, the Standing Orders will be suspended to enable the debate, which will take place after a short break to allow a changeover in the Chamber. 

The next item on our agenda is the debate on coronavirus. I call on the Minister for Health and Social Services to move the motion—Vaughan Gething.

Thank you, Llywydd. I move the motion before us today. I'm grateful to Members for voting to allow today's debate to take place, and to Plaid Cymru for the talks that led to the text of the Government motion before us.

The First Minister announced yesterday that a firebreak will be introduced across Wales from 6.00 p.m. this Friday. We face an incredibly serious situation. The virus is spreading rapidly in every part of Wales. The seven-day rolling incidence rate for Wales now stands at more than 130 confirmed cases per every 100,000 people. Our positivity rate is nearly 12 per cent across Wales, and there is sadly a high confidence that the virus is seeded across the country in both urban and rural Wales. This firebreak intervention is necessary to help bring coronavirus back under control. If we do not act, there is a very real risk that our NHS will be overwhelmed. The number of people being taken to hospital with coronavirus symptoms grows every day. Our critical care units are already over their normal capacity. Normal capacity in Wales is 152 critical care beds. Yesterday we had 167 critical care beds occupied. More than one in four of those beds were caring for COVID patients. Without action, our NHS will not be able to look after the increasing number of people who fall seriously ill. Many more people in Wales will die from this disease.

The technical advisory cell report published yesterday sets out that currently we're tracking the reasonable worst case, projecting 18,000 hospitalisations and 6,000 deaths due to COVID this winter. The advice from TAC is compelling, and I hope Members have had a chance to read their report. The evidence supporting that report is not weak, as some have claimed. The evidence is clear, and Ministers have acted in the face of the growing harm from coronavirus to help keep Wales safe. The firebreak will provide a short, sharp shock to help turn back the clock, slow down the virus, and to buy us more time. It will provide an invaluable opportunity to reinforce our already effective test, trace and protect system. So, we're acting now, through the half-term holiday, to minimise the impact on education, with an effective lockdown of two working weeks and three weekends.

We've decided that a short and deep firebreak is the best option for minimising harm. The longer the restrictions are in place, the greater the economic, social and well-being impacts. The restrictions are as stringent as possible to ensure the maximum public health impact. Between Friday, 23 October and 9 November, everyone in Wales will be required to stay at home. This means working from home wherever possible. The only exceptions will be critical workers and jobs where working from home is not possible. All non-essential retail, leisure, hospitality and tourism businesses will close. So, too, will community centres, libraries and recycling centres. Places of worship will be closed except for funerals or wedding ceremonies.

We have prioritised children and young people in our choices. In doing so, we've taken account of the TAC advice that keeping schools open will reduce short and long-term harm. However, that means that Ministers have had to act to close most other workplaces and restrict social visiting to reduce contact and break the chains of transmission. We have sought to minimise the disruption to children and young people's education. So, primary and special schools will return as normal after the first week of half term and childcare will stay open throughout. Secondary schools will reopen after half term for pupils in years 7 and 8 and those who need to take exams. Pupils in years 9 and above will continue their learning from home for an extra week, as will students in further education colleges. Universities will continue to provide a blend of in-person and online learning. Like everyone else in Wales, however, students will need to stay at home in their university accommodation.

As we know, coronavirus spreads when people are in close contact with each other, especially indoors. Because of this, we will not be allowed to meet people indoors that we do not live with during the two-week period. Adults living alone and single parents will still be able to join with one other household from across Wales for support. Outdoor gatherings will not be allowed; this, sadly, also applies to gatherings for bonfire night or Halloween. Prearranged events to commemorate the armistice can go ahead following the socially distanced plans that are already in place.

As you'll have heard in more detail today from the economy Minister, Ken Skates, we are providing a new nearly £300 million package of financial support to help businesses through this very challenging period. The funds will open in the first week of the firebreak and we'll work to get the money allocated as quickly as we can. All businesses required to close should also be able to access the support available from the UK Government, through the existing job retention scheme and the new job support scheme. We recognise that it will not be easy for businesses in Wales to juggle both of those schemes, and as we heard earlier today, the First Minister has written to the Chancellor to ask him to give Welsh businesses early access to the new and expanded job support scheme from Friday, and we've offered to provide finance to make that possible.

I can, though, reassure Members that our NHS and social care services will continue to treat and care for people with other conditions and needs during the firebreak. The advice of our chief medical officer is that it is not necessary for those who are clinically vulnerable to again adopt strict shielding measures during this period. The regulations themselves act to reduce the circulation of the virus, and by sticking strictly to the rules, people who are vulnerable will reduce their risk of exposure. I am aware that some argue that we could reintroduce shielding as part of a package to protect people from harm and avoid whole-community measures. That does not reflect the reality of where we are, how the virus spreads, or how we interrupt the chains of transmission. As yesterday's TAC report makes clear, no country has managed to contain their epidemic within lower risk age groups; we do not think a shielding-first approach would be as effective as a firebreak and meet the needs that we currently face.

The firebreak will end on 9 November. It's important to be clear that the positive impact in reducing transmission is not likely to be seen immediately at the end of the firebreak. The reduction in transmission that this firebreak will achieve is expected to be evident two to three weeks later. I know that we have already asked a great deal of the people of Wales. The TAC report published yesterday confirmed that the local restrictions in place have led to a significant slowdown in the current wave of the pandemic, but we still need to do more. If people, though, had not made the contribution they already have, we would be in a far worse position today. And I want to thank every person across Wales who has followed the local measures in place to protect friends, families, loved ones and their community.

Across the Government we are now looking to work to agree arrangements that will be needed in the future to secure the gains made from the firebreak, and we will set those out in the coming days. This firebreak is our best chance of regaining control of the virus and avoiding a much longer and more damaging national lockdown. We all must now play our part to keep Wales safe. I ask Members to support the motion before us today.

I have selected four of the eight amendments tabled to the motion. In accordance with Standing Order 12.23(iii), I have not selected amendment 1, tabled in the name of Caroline Jones, amendment 2, tabled in the name of Neil Hamilton, or amendments 6 and 7, tabled in the name of Siân Gwenllian. I now call on Paul Davies to move amendment 3, tabled in the name of Darren Millar. Paul Davies.

Diolch, Llywydd, and I move the amendment tabled in the name of my colleague Darren Millar. Can I say, from the outset, that we on this side of the Chamber continue to remain open-minded about any further lockdown measures? But, before a nationwide lockdown is implemented, there needs to be an honest appraisal of the current measures, a full picture of all the data that justifies why a lockdown is needed, and there needs to be stronger support packages in place for businesses, organisations and individuals.

Now, we supported the previous national lockdown, and, where we think the Welsh Government has been proportionate and justified, we have supported its coronavirus regulations. We would do so again if the evidence was there and it was necessary. Now, as I said earlier in this Chamber to the First Minister, in many of the 22 local authority areas cases per 100,000 are coming down. For that reason, and because we still don't have the full picture of data available, I believe we need more than a one-size-fits-all approach to tackling this virus in our communities. We need a much more targeted approach and intervention. Now, I understand that Public Health Wales has finally decided to publish community data for all parts of Wales this afternoon, which I very much welcome. As I also said earlier today, specific demographic data and transmission data should also be published, and I sincerely hope that that information will also be published.

Now, I accept the Welsh Government has referred to the modelling paper written by Professor Graham Medley and colleagues, which sets out the worst-case scenario, but the paper perhaps doesn't consider crucial factors such as levels of public support, and actually states that a circuit breaker is, and I quote,

'not a lasting control measure, but effectively buys more time to put other controls in place; it takes us "back to a time when cases were lower"'.

Unquote. Therefore, it's vital that, if this lockdown is to be effective, the Welsh Government must put in place serious measures during the lockdown period and tell us what those measures will be. Now, the First Minister has indicated that the Welsh Government would be using the lockdown period to strengthen the contact tracing system, though we've yet to hear any further details on what further steps will be taken in the lockdown period to result in any meaningful change. Recent statistics show that less than one and a half days' worth of NHS Wales capacity was used in a whole week, with just over 20,000 tests being carried out, and Members are already aware that Welsh testing is overly reliant on UK lighthouse laboratories, with just 31 per cent of tests being analysed in Welsh labs. Therefore, it's abundantly clear that nowhere near enough tests are being conducted for an effective track and trace system, with figures suggesting that Wales would need to increase testing to 36,000 per day to track infections. There's also been talk of recruiting more staff and accelerating the activation of field hospitals, but, again, with very little detail. So, I hope the First Minister, in his response, will provide some of those details this afternoon. Perhaps the First Minister can also tell us what assessment has also been made of the impact of some targeted interventions that have taken place so far in Wales.

Llywydd, Members are all aware of the significant impact that the Welsh Government's lockdown will have on all sections of society. The impact of the first lockdown is still being felt by many, and Members from all political parties in this Chamber have raised the impact of lockdown measures on people's mental health and well-being, and it's important that those voices are heard. Therefore, perhaps, in responding to this afternoon's debate, the First Minister will outline what new support measures will be put in place from Friday to ensure that anyone who needs support can access it.

Of course, the Wales-wide lockdown would have a specifically detrimental impact on livelihoods and jobs across Wales. With around 250,000 employees, Wales and Scotland have a higher proportion of workers employed in industries most affected by lockdown measures, compared to both England and Northern Ireland. Therefore, if just one in four of these workers lost their jobs, it would mean that unemployment in Wales could increase to a higher level than seen under the last recession.

Whilst the Welsh Government has committed to giving every business that receives small business rate relief a £1,000 payment, and small and medium-sized retail, leisure and hospitality firms that are forced to close will receive a one-off payment of up to £5,000, that's simply not going to be enough to help protect the sustainability of so many businesses across Wales for the future. Therefore, I hope the Government provides assurances to businesses across Wales that it will provide the support they need to protect their sustainability going forward.

Llywydd, I have tried to be as constructive as I can in my contribution this afternoon. As I said at the start, whilst we on this side of the Chamber remain open-minded to the idea of a lockdown, we cannot support this one, at least not until we see the full picture of data and we can persuade the people that it's not only justified, but proportionate too. But I also want to make it clear today that, given this is the Welsh Government's position, on Friday, these temporary lockdown measures will be introduced and, therefore, even though we disagree with them, we will naturally be adhering to the law and we will ensure that the people of Wales do so as well. I urge Members to support our amendment.

I call on Adam Price to move amendments 4, 5 and 8, tabled in the name of Siân Gwenllian—Adam Price.

Diolch, Llywydd. We are clearly of the view that, given the grave seriousness of the situation that now we face, the Government has no option but to introduce the measures that were announced yesterday. Time is a luxury that we don't have, quite frankly, because the report by the technical advisory cell is about as unequivocal as it's—. Well, I've yet ever—. The leader of the Conservatives shakes his head, but I, in 20 years in public life, cannot remember an advisory report to Government that has been as clear and unequivocal as this. Let me just read the last paragraph:

'TAC recommends urgent consideration and execution of a hard national fire break to massively reduce transmission for a period of weeks'.

And in the report—. Let's be absolutely clear what it says: if the Government were not to do what it has announced, then between 960 and 1,300 people would die in Wales, according to the estimates, by the end of the year. That's the price, potentially, of delaying any action; we would have liked to have seen it sooner.

Of course, it is true that we do not have perfect information. We do not have randomised control trials in relation to the detailed interventions, but what does SAGE say? I've seen a quotation. Let's read what SAGE says on the evidence in full:

'The evidence base into the effectiveness and harms of these interventions is generally weak. However, the urgency of the situation is such that we cannot wait for better quality evidence before making decisions.'

We have to make a decision based on the evidence in front of us, and TAC is absolutely clear—we have an exponential rise in cases, an average of 4 per cent, according to the TAC report, and that is continuing and it's leading to seeding across Wales, and that's why they've come to the conclusion that it's necessary, as an urgent measure, to introduce the firebreak.

Now, of course, continual lockdowns are not the answer. We then absolutely have to have a reset of the strategy and of the policies, and that's what's at the heart of our amendment, and it's consistent with what we have said throughout. We should not be in this position. We have to use this time and reflect on what has gone wrong and what can be put right.

And when we look across the world, of course—and we saw in the study in The Lancet a month ago—we have lessons from across the world that we can put into place in order to prevent us from being in this position again, and, particularly, as one of the other amendments stresses, of course, the importance, the central importance, as the World Health Organization said right from the beginning, of a test, trace, isolate and support system. We have to put that right, and there are lessons from around the world in terms of how we can strengthen that system and make sure that it's adequately resourced.

We need to adopt a zero-COVID or elimination strategy, because, when we look across the world, of course—. Look at the situation in many countries across the world—Vietnam, 97 million people. How many deaths in Vietnam? To date, 35. Taiwan, 23 million people. How many deaths to date? Seven. New Zealand, which we are very familiar with—33 deaths in a population of 5 million. Compare that—125 million in those three countries together, 75 deaths overall— compare that to the 1,700 deaths in Wales. There are countries out there that we can learn from, and we need to use this period across the next few weeks to have a debate, yes, and put in place a different system, a different policy, a different framework, which means that we are not having to consider successive lockdowns.

We should not be in this position, but we have to act now, otherwise people will die unnecessarily. But let's, absolutely, look across the world at what Germany's doing on ventilation, on the masks policy that's been introduced in many countries, extending its use, on the three-tier contact tracing that Vietnam is using, on the importance of financial and practical support to help people isolate, on preventing superspreading events, on testing asymptomatic contacts—there are a whole host of lessons out there, and clear and consistent communication is absolutely central. Let's learn those lessons now, so that we can use the next few weeks and have a sense of a national mission, so that we can all come together, Government and opposition working constructively, working with communities right across Wales, so that we can save lives not just over the next three months, but prevent us from being in this position again.

Llywydd, when we first went into lockdown in March and passed emergency legislation against so many of our natural, democratic instincts, I said then—and I'll say it again now—I didn't come to this place to make decisions like that, but, in times of crisis, the most difficult decisions have to be made. That's our duty. That means that we can't hide or shirk those difficult decisions. We can't ride populist bandwagons that might give us some short-term popularity with people who will not listen to or be guided by the science. We have to take tough decisions for the greater good—that is the right and proper thing to do. That is what we were elected to do, and that is what our Welsh Government has been doing.

Our First Minister has shown a calm, measured and intelligent approach to the handling of this crisis. He's on top of the issues, he understands the impact on us all, and he's shown everyone who is prepared to listen the value of devolution and good governance. Compare that, if you will, with the bumbling, Trumpist lack of detail and grasp of a crisis shown by the UK Prime Minister, and I thank goodness that we are in Wales.

So now, having been through the most difficult period that any of us can remember, at this time I ask myself: what is the most important? And the answer has to be supporting those actions that help reduce the rates of infection and help to save lives in my constituency and across Wales, and to do what we can to ensure that our NHS can not only manage the rise in COVID cases, but can also maintain the increase in non-COVID activity that has been brought back in recent months.

Having read the background advice to this decision, I will support the Government today in its decision to introduce a firebreak. It's based on science, it's based on medical advice, it's based on information from the technical advisory cell. It's not running away from what has to be done—it is doing the right thing. And the Government's populist opponents in the ranks of the Welsh Tories, UKIP, Brexit, Abolish the Welsh Assembly, independent reform group, or any other incarnation of the flat-earthers and COVID deniers, should reflect on that.

But Ministers will also know—and I've been very clear in my view—that any health restrictions have to be accompanied by economic support. So, I'm very pleased to see that measures have been announced that will help to support those businesses that will be required to close again for the next two weeks. Welsh Government is doing all it can here within the resources available to it. They're taking responsibility for their decisions, but we also need to see the UK Government and the Chancellor do the same. They too carry a huge responsibility, and have to step up with additional support for those employees who find themselves on short-term lay-offs or redundancy as we try to get control of the spread of this virus. 

In truth, a summer of half-priced pizzas was not the best response to this pandemic. Continuing economic support is the only bridge we can provide between now and an unknown future. But it is clear that the economic model of recent decades faces a profound challenge in the face of this pandemic. The public health crisis cannot drift into a long economic and social crisis, and I believe that that is now the real dividing line of contemporary politics. As Members of the Senedd, we must act to protect the health of our constituents, but I expect our political system to protect the social and economic interests of our communities too. We may be struggling to deal with this virus, but we can give people the support they need.

Just to be clear: Plaid Cymru supports this firebreak, because it's been apparent for some time, I think, that the route we were on hadn't been working. We've been asking for a reset, and the data that the Government has shared with us over the past few days has confirmed that we were right in saying that, and I'm grateful for that data, which has been shared with us. But, even then, our support in taking this step, which will have a far reaching impact on people, does depend on a number of elements. 

Helen Mary Jones will discuss the economic issues, that we need substantial and swift support for the businesses and individuals who will feel the impact of this—the tourism and hospitality sector is an obvious one in my constituency and elsewhere, but there are many other businesses that are suffering, so we will continue to press for that.

May I appeal particularly here, please, please do urgently publish the list of businesses and sectors that will be expected to close immediately? M&G Windows in Holyhead is one of the businesses that have been in touch today to say that they have read and re-read the explanatory notes, but they are still none the wiser. So, businesses need to know, but they also need to know, as soon as possible, not only what will happen from this Friday, but what will happen after this lockdown, which brings me to the main theme of my contribution this afternoon. 

We can't view these restrictions in isolation. And Plaid Cymru's call for a national firebreak was made because we could see that we need a reset, but it can't be a resetting of a circuit where you then end up going back round and round again. We can't commit to a cyclical process, which makes similar lockdowns inevitable in the future, and that's the basis for our amendment 4. What happens after 9 November is as important, or arguably is more important, than what happens in those 17 days of renewed lockdown.

We've put forward a number of ideas this week. We dubbed it '14 ideas for 14 days', but I can assure you that, if tidy communication is important, we can make it '17 ideas for 17 days' of lockdown, if you'd like. The point being that we need urgently to look at all the ideas, from our party and others, and from within Government, that can help put a new national framework in place for the next stage—a more sustainable stage, hopefully, in the fight against this virus.

So, we have to sort out the testing regime; it's crucial. You know my thoughts on the over-reliance on lighthouse. We should have built up our own capacity—capacity we could control. Despite promises, those problems persist: people waiting five days for results; people being told, as part of the process actually, that they should expect their results within 72 hours, and it's not good enough. We have to have robust systems and that means results back within 24 hours, so that tracing teams can get to work. We need testing of asymptomatic contacts. I have plenty of people I know taking that into their own hands, and going for a test having been in contact with somebody who's positive, but that has to be the norm, and there has to be testing of international visitors to Wales too.

And, of course, those who are positive, and those who have to self-isolate, have to know that they'll be supported to do so. We can't have a situation where people have an incentive to break the rules to go to work because they can't afford to put food on the table otherwise. To do this—and this is what we refer to in amendment 4—we have to be able to use the capacity we have in Wales in our own labs. We've heard Ministers talking about what our theoretical capacity is, but theoretical tests are no use; we need actual tests taking place and being reported back on quickly.

What else? Let's get a ventilation plan in place. Opening a window sounds so, so easy. Fresh air makes it less likely for infection to take place. But that's got to be communicated well as part of a strategy. And communication has to be sharpened right across the board. It's got to be the kind of communication that people consume and relate to, that cuts across the realities of human behaviour. I made the case to the health Minister this morning: explain what the firebreak is about; what the data tells us; what the scenarios are that we're trying to avoid; and, crucially, what people can do to help themselves and to avoid coming back here time and time again.

Let's extend face covering guidance. There are workplace settings, for example, where things could be tightened up. I have figures showing that, UK wide, workplace settings are responsible for perhaps a fifth or more of transmission still, so let's see if we can bring those numbers down. Numbers also show, sadly, that care homes are still vulnerable. We need a further tightening there. And as we refer to in amendment 8, there has to be a fresh approach to infection control in hospitals. There's a non-COVID emergency going on now in untreated illnesses that has to be resolved.

So, to conclude, the correct step is being taken in bringing in this firebreak, but the embers of this virus will still be burning after this firebreak. This will be a virus that will be ready to burn again, so let's not waste this opportunity.

I speak briefly in support of the main motion put forward in the names of Rebecca Evans and Siân Gwenllian. This is a moment when decisive leadership really matters: leadership at the top of Government, leadership in political parties, and leadership from us in the communities that we represent. And I commend the leadership that is being shown by the First Minister and by Welsh Government, represented by my own party of Welsh Labour, of course, but also with representation from the Welsh Liberal Democrats and an independent member of the Government, who have come to a difficult but collective decision on the best way forward for Wales and the people of Wales, based on the evidence and the data showing the rise in the virus. I commend also the leadership shown by the support of Plaid Cymru, with this motion jointly laid in their name too, recognising, as we've just heard, the urgency of the situation.

Moreover, I commend the leadership of front-line nurses and doctors, and allied professionals and unions, who have supported the measures proposed because they know first-hand directly the rising threat to our NHS unless we turn this virus back on its heels. I also commend the individual leadership in their homes and their workplaces, their families and their communities of the vast majority of the people of Wales—in my area of Ogmore, but throughout Wales—who've led by example. By complying with the rules and the guidance so far, they've helped to slow the rise and the spread of the virus below that which we see in other parts of the United Kingdom.

So, First Minister, health Minister and others, I support the measures proposed and the firebreak encompassed in the motion before us today, but in doing so, I would also ask you to consider some important questions. The additional economic measures and financial measures are hugely welcome, but I wonder if you could outline how the discretionary fund that's available to local authorities will work. Will it be available to especially those smaller self-employed businesses that have fallen outside the criteria of support for business rate relief and related support because they have no premises or they're below the turnover threshold for the ERF, set at £50,000, or they're not VAT registered, or they're relatively new start-up businesses that, over the last two or three years, have sunk their costs into the start-up and cannot therefore demonstrate high profit or turnover? So, will this discretionary fund, which I really welcome, be able to consider any of these small entrepreneurs who have slipped between the current stools of business and job support? And if so, how do they go about it and how easy is it to apply?

And also, in respect of business and job support, can he continue to make, as First Minister, representations to the UK Government to work with us in Wales by ensuring that job support is in place in time for our timely firebreak measures? It's not our fault, after all, that the Prime Minister is delaying and dithering on wider measures in England. But can I also urge him to press them to rethink the level of support for job retention, which will drop, as we know, from the furloughed level of 80 per cent to just over 67 per cent? It seems like Cabinet Ministers in the UK Government don't understand that a landlord will not accept 67 per cent of the rent, the supermarket will not accept 67 per cent of the food trolley bill, the electric and gas supplier is not going to accept 67 per cent of the energy bill, or the mortgage company 67 per cent of that month's payment.

And finally and crucially, could he lay out, straightforwardly, honestly, clearly today for the people of Wales what confidence he and the Government have that if we all do our bit, if we all comply with the rules for 17 days from this Friday at 6.00 p.m., this will indeed knock the virus back on its heels again, get us to Christmas and within sight of the new year, and what more we may then need to do to get us to Easter and to the summer, and the realistic hope of medical interventions, including vaccines, which may help us live with COVID-19 going forward? Thank you, Presiding Officer.

I rise primarily to speak to point three of the motion, and to make some additional points with regard to the impact on the economy. But before I do that, I want to emphasise that nobody thinks this is easy, and nobody wants us to be here. We will all be thinking today of people that we will miss in the next 17 days, and for some of our fellow citizens, that's much, much more serious. But the points that have been made by Adam Price and others about what is the consequence to some of our most vulnerable fellow citizens if we don't do this: are we prepared to say that we are prepared to sacrifice those people's lives, their actual lives? Well, I don't know about other Members in this place, but I'm sure I'm not the only one who has written many letters in the past few months that I never wanted to write, to people in my region who have lost their loved ones, and that's what we're talking about today. We're talking about making hard decisions for reasons that must be made to protect those most vulnerable people.

So, I want to, as I said, speak to point three, which is about the Welsh Government's financial support for business and individuals at this time. Of course, I want to very warmly welcome the additional funding for the economic resilience fund—that's very important—and I'm very pleased to see that the Minister has agreed, in response to representations from both main opposition parties, to repurpose the fund to focus more on emergency support and less on development. We look to the day when our businesses can be developing, but many of them are just desperate at the moment—they can't do that. And we very much welcome the emergency support that's there for businesses in the 17 days that many of them must be closed.

We must, as Huw Irranca-Davies has said, ensure that that support reaches all types of businesses, including microbusinesses and including some that have previously been excluded. Hopefully, that is what the discretionary fund will be for when we see the detail. Longer term, of course, we must see longer term support for certain sectors, like hospitality, like cultural businesses, that won't be able to make a profit for many months to come.

People will find it very hard to comply with this lockdown if they are choosing between putting food on their table and keeping their community safe. I already have received representations from individuals whose companies are asking staff to travel from Wales to England to undertake work in people's homes. And they'll have to go if there's no support. They'll have to go, because, as Huw Irranca-Davies says, they have to take their wage home.

I cannot understand why the Chancellor will not bring his job support scheme for local lockdowns forward by eight days—just eight days—to enable Welsh businesses to start getting support for staff costs as soon as we need to enter this closed period. Well, it shows where Wales is on the UK Government's priorities, and I'm sure if this was a local lockdown in Berkshire or Surrey, he would find the key to the cabinet.

There are real issues too, of course, about the level of support. Two thirds of the minimum wage is not enough to manage on, not even for a couple of weeks, and I would invite any Member on the benches opposite who thinks that it is to try it. The Chancellor must lift back up to the 80 per cent provided under the previous furlough scheme. For some, that was not enough. And if the Chancellor won't act, then the Welsh Government will have to consider how they can support people's incomes, especially at the lowest level.

And my final point, Llywydd—and it's a point that I keep making—is that I don't know how much more evidence the Welsh Government needs to show that we cannot rely on Westminster to prioritise Wales's needs. The Welsh Government must be much more vocal in demanding borrowing powers to enable us here to set our priorities to support our people and businesses that need it most. It is pointless to bemoan the fact that the Welsh Government doesn't have the firepower without demanding the firepower. It will be interesting to see, when we look back, how long Labour Members cling to the myth of UK-wide solidarity despite the overwhelming evidence adding up to the contrary.

But that said, I do want to put again on record my thanks to the economy Minister for the way in which he has worked with me and other opposition spokespeople in this crisis and in the build-up to the decision that we have had to make today. I commend this motion and amendments 4, 5 and 8 to this Senedd.

The idea that this two-week lockdown is going to make the slightest difference to the long-term infection and mortality rates of this disease is self-evidently absurd. There is nothing in what we know of the epidemiology of this disease in the last six months that could possibly justify the absurd Armageddon predictions of the mathematical modellers—not scientists, mathematical modellers—who are advising the Government to introduce these draconian measures.

I'm pleased to say that throughout this whole crisis I've been consistent, right from the very start, when I quoted Dr Johan Giesecke, a very distinguished, world-class epidemiologist who wrote in The Lancet on 5 May that this disease,

'Almost always spreads from younger people with no or weak symptoms to other people who will also have mild symptoms...There is very little we can do to prevent this spread: a lockdown might delay severe cases for a while, but once restrictions are eased, cases will reappear. I expect that when we count the number of deaths from COVID-19 in each country in 1 year from now, the figures will be similar, regardless of measures taken.'

Well, we're not a year on yet; we're only six months, but so far, he's been proved absolutely right. I think this message has got through to some parts of the Labour party, if not in Wales, because Sir Richard Leese, the leader of the Labour Party on greater Manchester city council said yesterday,

'Most people who test positive for the virus are not getting particularly ill. They are not the problem'.

So, the number of infections is not the right statistic to concentrate on if we are looking to reduce the impact of this disease upon the country. Sir Richard Leese said yesterday that,

'If the Government spent £14 million a month shielding the most vulnerable it could avoid the need for a Tier-3 lockdown',

and he claimed that this would be less than a fifth of the cost of business closures, enabling them to stay open and for most people to avoid tougher restrictions. That is a mature and sensible attitude based upon reality, not upon absurd predictions in worst-case scenarios that have never been seen anywhere in the world, as far as I can see. It is a relic of the days when the great Professor Ferguson of Imperial college was forecasting half a million deaths from COVID in the United Kingdom, a prediction that was very quickly exploded in somewhat embarrassing circumstances for him, as we might all remember.

This set of measures is not a firebreak; it's actually an incinerator for the businesses and jobs that will be lost as a result of these draconian changes. In some areas in Wales, there are only 20 new cases. During the summer break when we had an invasion of holidaymakers from other parts of the country, there was no spike in the incidence of the disease. There were 600 new cases in Wales yesterday and one death. It's on that basis that we're introducing these extraordinary measures, which have never been seen in peacetime on previous occasions.

I had a meeting, along with other Members, with the Hywel Dda health board last Friday, and in the counties of Ceredigion, Pembrokeshire and Carmarthen, there were six people in hospital with COVID: three in Llanelli, three in Bronglais at Aberystwyth, and one of the three at Aberystwyth was actually transferred there from Swansea. And there are 16 people suspected of having COVID. That doesn't seem to me to be a health crisis of the proportions that the health Minister was setting out at the beginning of his speech today. Meanwhile in Hywel Dda, 15,800 people have been waiting for more than 36 weeks for treatment for a variety of serious conditions, and the health board is 650 registered nurses short of what it needs to look after people in hospital. We are destroying the very basis of wealth creation in the economy upon which the health service is funded, and if it's so urgent, why do we have to wait till Friday for these measures to be introduced?

The problem that we've got is that this is a massive exercise in Governments and health advisers covering their own backsides by putting forward the worst possible case scenario, however unlikely it is to occur, so that they can't say, 'We were responsible for x number of deaths at the end of it all.' But what we need, actually, is a sense of proportion in all this, and that's the one thing that the Welsh Government lacks.

Oh, well, Neil, it won't matter to you; we're not in Wiltshire anyway. This is a matter for us who actually seek to represent the people who thought they were electing us.

Let me say this: when I looked at this proposal from the First Minister, I quite honestly was unsure. I asked myself three questions. The first question was, 'Is there any alternative?', secondly, 'Is it proportionate?' and finally, 'What happens next?' I read the evidence provided by the Welsh Government. I read and listened to the evidence from the expert advisers. I listened to what the chief medical officer had to say. I read through the technical advice report, and I came to the same conclusion not only as the first Minister, but Adam Price as well. As a Minister, I've read a number of decision folders provided by advisers, and I've wished that we had the clear advice that was provided in this document. I've often wished for less equivocation, I've often wished for more direction, and when I read this document, I was clear, absolutely crystal clear in my mind, that the responsible thing that I have to do is to support the Government in what it's doing.

I say that as somebody who would also speak out if I thought they were wrong, and I say that because I represent the people in this community in Blaenau Gwent. I have to do what is right and proper for the people in this community in Blaenau Gwent. And when I walk up and down the streets here, I have to look people in the eye; not disappear once an election has been fought, send them a message on Facebook and forget about them, but look them in the eye—look them in the eye in the supermarket, in the shops, and talk to people, and talk to members of my own family, and talk to people I was in school with about the impact it's going to have on their lives. It would be the wrong thing to do to do the easier thing and say, 'I'm less sure, I'm not sure.' Because I know that I am sure that we have to do the right thing and move in this direction.

All too often, Presiding Officer, in this debate, we've seen people who call themselves public representatives—although the public wouldn't recognise them—playing with false information, playing with fake news, putting things on social media, not only not knowing if it's true, but they can be pretty sure it's not true. Two and a half thousand people today retweeted a lie about Nevill Hall Hospital, saying it's empty, with doctors playing golf. The sort of information that's going round our communities and our societies at the moment is really dangerous and it's going to cost people their lives. So, there was no alternative, and I would invite all Members of this place today to support the Welsh Government in what it's doing.

Is it proportionate? I've spoken to the First Minister about some of my concerns around the impact on mental health, around the impact on physical health, around closure of gyms, and around closure of leisure centres, because I do have concerns about the impact that this is going to have on people. I have concerns about the impact it's going to have on young men, who won't be phoning helplines, who won't be speaking to people about the impact it's having on their mental health. I recognise the force of his argument that a shorter, harder lockdown is the best approach to take, and I hope the First Minister will also acknowledge the force of my point on issues around physical and mental health that we'll need to address as we go through this period.

And finally, what comes next? I do not believe that we can continue to lock down then relax, lock down then relax into the distant future, providing people with no sense of where we're going. I think we need to use the tools that we have at our disposal. We, in Wales, I think, can be proud of the way that the Welsh Government has faced this pandemic and this huge crisis. We haven't had the corrupt contracts that they've had in London. We haven't had the failures when they've given their mates jobs rather than somebody who knows how to do the job. We have a testing regime that works. We have a trace and track process that works, and we have the means of protecting our population. And we do that because we work together, and we marshal and work the whole of the public sector together—local government, Welsh Government, the national health service working together to serve the people, not to serve themselves and not to fill their pockets. That moral difference of values, I believe, also provides us with a platform moving forward and looking forward, using the facilities that we have at our disposal, using the mechanisms and the structures that we've created in these last few months, to paint a different future as we move forward, so that we can say to people, 'Yes, not only will you have Christmas, but you will have more hope in the new year', that we have a means of tracking and tracing the virus, ensuring that we have the means of enforcement to ensure that we can, then, have a very different future.

So, I hope that Members on all sides of the Chamber this afternoon will vote in support of this motion. And I know it's difficult, as well, for Members of the opposition parties to sometimes do that, but we've seen examples in these last few days of responsible opposition, and I pay tribute to Adam Price in the way that he's approached that. And then we've seen examples of irresponsible popularism and irresponsible opposition, and we all know what is meant by that. The people of Wales come first. The people I represent in Blaenau Gwent come first, and we should all put everything else to one side.

I support this motion for many of the reasons already outlined. It's disappointing, of course, that we have to do this, but this is a necessary step, it's urgent, and I truly believe that those people who intend to not support this should reconsider their priorities. We should never consider any death of COVID-19 as something that is inevitable, and I think it's quite insulting that people have been making such comments here this evening. 

In my contribution, I want to raise some well-being issues, so that that they're at the forefront of the Government's thinking. I welcome the fact that the motion mentions well-being, but it would be good to set out a few specifics that are required. The important principle here is that we can't expect people's mental health and well-being to cope in this firebreak, and for support only to be available at the end of the period. That would not only lead to a backlog, it would also neglect the people at the very point where they most need support.

I welcome the fact that people living alone will be able to continue with their support bubbles during this firebreak, and I'm pleased that this option will also be available for single-parent households, but neither can we ignore the impact that this will have on the well-being of people, and we must provide support for people as a matter of urgency. This will include resources to help people with mental health issues. This should include a purposeful helpline and online resources, taking into account what Alun Davies had said about some people being less willing than others to actually look for that support that should be available.

Resources should also be available to assist those people who are parents to young children and who will be working from home during this time. Parents are under so much stress and pressure because they either have to juggle their parental responsibilities and, perhaps, can't work as much as they would want to, or they have to choose to work and then feel guilty for not spending that time with their children. This will, inevitably, have an impact on people's mood and their ability to cope. We should be targeting resources to help this group of people, because we're asking them to do something that may appear impossible. We should also be asking businesses to develop guidance so that staff members who don't have caring responsibilities can understand the additional pressures that their colleagues may be facing.

That brings me on to those with caring responsibilities; those who are carers for family members and live with those family members. This group of people has already gone for months without a break, and it's bound to have an impact on their well-being. While the day-care facilities are closed, we should ensure that there is individual support available for those families, and this should certainly continue during this lockdown. The 'Caring Behind Closed Doors' report published today highlights the grave impact the past few months have had on carers. My colleague Dr Dai Lloyd said earlier today that 95 per cent of people say that the past few months have had a negative impact on their health, be that physical or mental—that's 95 per cent of carers, I should say. Sixty-six per cent said that they were constantly tired. We need additional respite care and advisory services.

Llywydd, this period will be difficult for everyone, but for some groups of people the period will be even more challenging. We must build a contract of trust with the public in order to ensure that they feel that the sacrifice we're asking people to make—and I do welcome the fact that we are doing that as I do think it's necessary—that they can see that it's delivering something and that they feel part of that decision. We need clear communication, as that will be crucial for this to work. We must communicate as a matter of urgency as to what financial support will be available, as Helen Mary Jones has set out, and when, so that those who do have to self-isolate, or those who have had to close their businesses, do feel that support is always available to them. Thank you.

I just wanted to quickly address amendment 5, because I think it's very ambitious to want to eliminate COVID in the context of being part of the island of Britain. We're not like New Zealand, which is an island all on its own. We have a completely porous border with England, and, at the moment, we have a Government in England that is absolutely not on top of the situation. Unlike Neil Hamilton and some of the Members of the Conservative Party, I completely recognise the need for us to have this firebreak in order to prevent the resurgence of COVID from completely overwhelming our hospitals. I've got several constituents who are due to have non-COVID operations this week; they haven't got COVID, but they've got serious conditions that require medical interventions that need them to be in a hospital. So, are they to be turned away, in Neil Hamilton's world, or is it that Neil Hamilton simply doesn't recognise that all of our critical care beds are full now and some operations are so serious it's simply not possible to operate on that individual unless there's a critical care bed waiting for them when they come out of the operating theatre? I want to see a health service that's able to cope with COVID but is also able to continue with other medical services that people need. People don't go to hospital because they can't think of anything better to do; they go to hospital because they need to have something serious addressed to enable them to continue to have a quality life.

I just now want to address a particular section of my constituency, which is students, because there are more students living in Cardiff Central than in any other constituency in the United Kingdom. It's true that students are unlikely to be ill with COVID because of their age, but it's really important that they don't spread it into the communities that their universities are situated in, and it's even more important that they don't take it home with them to their families because, inevitably, their parents are going to be a good deal older than they are and they are going to be much more vulnerable to the serious consequences of COVID. So, students really need to think about the importance of knowing whether they've got COVID and then self-isolating until such time as they are no longer a danger to anybody else.

Today, I went to the Cyncoed campus of Cardiff Metropolitan University, and I was delighted to see the testing service that's been set up there, which has moved from the Talybont campus of Cardiff University. That's a really important service to have, to ensure that all of those students are going to be able to get tested, to ensure that when they are going about and about, they are not spreading the disease. Even if they don't feel unwell, they could still be carrying the disease asymptomatically.

For me, the most important students to worry about are those first-year students who have only just arrived here and who won't have formed friendships, in the main. They will have been thrown together with other first-year students who have been randomly selected, rather than the second- and third-year students, who are all living with people they have chosen to live with and, so, they have already got a bubble of support that enables them to come through the isolation that the first-year students may be suffering. But, I'm very impressed at the support mechanisms that both Cardiff Metropolitan University and Cardiff University have set up to ensure that students are able to get food delivered—either by a catering service, in the Cardiff Met case, or through the supermarkets, in the case of Cardiff University. We are not having a repeat of the problems that other university students had, where they were absolutely being ripped off, being forced to pay terrible prices for really rubbish food. So, that's absolutely not happening in my universities, and at Cardiff University they actually get a £20 credit if they are forced to self-isolate. Then, whatever they choose to order over and above that, they have a safe mechanism for paying for it without them being ripped off financially.

So, I just want to make sure that students realise that they are not the most vulnerable group. If they are in a good position, and if they can help others who are much more vulnerable in our community—the self-employed, the people in the gig economy, who are going to need our help in getting food to them, because they are simply not going to get paid during this two-week period because universal credit doesn't kick in for five weeks—if students are in a position to volunteer, I hope that they will come forward and join in with some of the voluntary groups that are supporting people.

The Welsh Government's obsession with making us different to England even extends to what it calls its latest lockdown. After weeks of discussion across the merits or otherwise of a circuit-breaker, the Welsh Government decides that it supports such a lockdown, but because we're Wales, we have to call it something different. So, instead of a circuit-breaker, we have a firebreak. Of course, it might have been more natural to call it a firewall, but that might have reminded people of the Welsh Government's border policy.

What is the purpose of this lockdown? In the First Minister's own words, to get us through to Christmas. Where is the strategy in that? Having locked Wales down at huge economic and social cost through spring and early summer, just to postpone infections into the autumn, the Welsh Government will now lock us down again, so as to postpone infections into the winter, when the NHS has least capacity. And, who is going to pay for this? As so often under devolution, we are told that it's the UK Government that should pick up the tab as we exercise power without responsibility. There are difficult trade-offs to be made in this coronavirus pandemic, one of them being the economic cost of lockdown versus any health benefit. That trade-off cannot be made rationally or effectively when one Government controls the economic lever and another controls the health lever, but that is what we suffer with devolution. The First Minister said yesterday,

'It is only the UK Government that has the financial power to guarantee the levels of income support workers need, and we need more generous payments to help workers through this crisis.'

A logical corollary of that is that it is the UK Government that should decide whether to lock down our economy or not. But no, we have to do things differently in Wales: lock down even low-infection areas, enforce a border with England, and then, incredibly, demand the UK Government pay for it. They may instead remind us that a key economic lever has just been devolved: the power to raise income tax rates by as much as Welsh Government and this institution desire. Next week, we will have a Wales-only lockdown; next year, a Wales-only tax rise to pay for it. Thank you.

In Wales, the situation is stark. In just six very short weeks, we have moved from having very low levels of coronavirus to high levels of infection spreading rapidly within our nation, and this is despite the knowledge and understanding that without localised health protection areas, the situation and virus prevalence would have been even worse, with more deaths, and not just of the very elderly.

As the Member of this Senedd representing the communities of Islwyn, I support fully the Welsh Government's time-limited firebreak. We know that this pandemic is entering another serious phase and, colleagues, it is above party politics, but that does not mean that, where the UK Government is failing, I will not call this out, because policies matter and can either save lives or end them. Just a look around the world shows rapid rises, as has been acknowledged, in cases, hospitalisations and deaths across this globe. Cases are soaring once again, and how Governments and public health agencies react determines death rates. Doing nothing is not an option. 

The Welsh Government's technical advisory group's published report explains in detail why the Welsh Government are following the science, the medical and science professionals, TAC, and SAGE—the UK Government's own technical advisory group. According to the latest figures, the growth rate of positive cases is around 4 per cent a day in Wales, and TAC's worst-case scenario projections predict 18,000 hospitalisations and 6,000 deaths due to COVID-19 over the winter period. So, the question really to be put is: do you want to wait for that scenario? And as Welsh doctor, Matt Morgan, stated publicly, I urge the people of Islwyn and Wales to,

'Follow the advice now so that when we meet again, no one will be missing.'

Those are very serious words. This firebreak will save significant numbers of lives—COVID and others. But moreover, experts state we must be prepared for the rate to rise after the firebreak, due to the nature of the incubation period, the length of stay in critical care beds, and the actual nature of this virus. But it will help to stop the NHS from being overwhelmed, and the firebreak will therefore ease capacity for cardiac, stroke and all other non-COVID care. It is important to state that this firebreak is not just about COVID; it is about an available NHS for the many, of all ages and conditions. I want to thank sincerely my constituents in Islwyn who have made such strong and determined continued sacrifices, and observed the recent localised rules in the Caerphilly county borough area. Thank you so much, everyone, because you are saving lives, and as the TAC report states,

'local restrictions currently in place across many local authorities in Wales has led to a significant slowdown in the current wave of the pandemic.'

We have collectively slowed that spread, but we need to slow that spread even faster, because this is not just health and medical specialists who say this, or those who have come through the disease. In fact, the First Minister spoke for us all, cross-party, I believe, when he said,

'We all want to see an end to this pandemic and our lives returned to us.'

However, until that day comes, I greatly welcome the Welsh Labour Government's creation today of a £300 million extra economic resilience fund, and it's further adding £150 million to its existing ERF. In Islwyn every business covered by the small business rate relief will now receive a £1,000 payment and any small retail, hospitality and leisure business will get a one-off payment of up to £5,000. But it is only the UK Government, as has been said, who have the financial firepower to guarantee the income support that workers need. Llywydd, this is, in one way, simple. It is about the United Kingdom working as it should, that Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak act decisively, in co-ordination with the Welsh Government, to save Welsh workers and the Welsh economy, and ultimately do all they can to protect citizens—the primary and overriding first duty of any Government.

Dai Lloyd. Dai Lloyd, are you able to unmute yourself? Yes—Dai Lloyd.

Thank you very much, Llywydd. It's always worth waiting for my contribution.

Clearly we're at a crucial time, as many have already said. Can I start at the outset here by congratulating some excellent speeches that I've heard in this debate so far? Of course, to be fair, Vaughan Gething gave us a wonderful opening, and Adam Price, Helen Mary Jones, Rhun, Delyth and Alun Davies all made wonderful contributions. I would like to mention some of the Conservative contributions, but I'm not sure if any of their ranks have yet contributed, apart from their leader.

But essentially, this is a critical time and we are facing a national crisis, and everyone needs to pull together—this is over and above party politics. And in looking at the significant increase in the number of COVID cases today—yes, we heard of some 600 COVID cases yesterday; today there are 1,148 new cases diagnosed in our country. With the increase in the number of people who have to be sent to our hospitals because of COVID, because of the scale of their illness, and the recent increase in the number of patients in ICU, we are at capacity already. That's why I support this firebreak lockdown over the next fortnight.

I don't know if I've mentioned in the past that I've been a GP and have taken some interest in these issues. But we need to use this lockdown to prepare and strengthen our systems. As we have heard, we need to improve test, trace and protect—we must get test results back within 24 hours. Our public system of testing and tracing is working wonderfully well and we need more of that. Using our health service, laboratories in our universities and hospitals and Public Health Wales, that public system is delivering miracles on a daily basis. We need to redirect additional resources in that direction in our health service and in our local authorities in order to tackle the trace element, which then influences isolation. This would all reduce our reliance on the UK system of lighthouse labs, Serco and so on and so forth, which have been underperforming recently, and that also don't accord with our public system in seeking results.

At the end of the day, self-isolation is crucial to the success of all of this and we're all responsible for this. But also, self-isolation is very difficult when you're living in poverty. It's impossible, I would say, as others have said. We must get that £500 available to those who qualify to receive it and that has already been announced.

Back to testing—we need to extend testing to all NHS staff and consider testing asymptomatic staff regularly, as the BMA has requested, and extend testing to others, such as essential drivers and security officers. This isn't just a matter for health and care. We also need to tackle the spread of coronavirus within our hospitals too. We need to do more to safeguard workplaces in increasing testing and tracing, not just in our hospitals, but also in care homes, universities, meat processing plants, our prisons, and so on and so forth. We must make our workplaces safe.

And we must ensure that the COVID work in our hospitals increases, yes, but not at the expense of the non-COVID work. We can't close everything down and just deal with emergencies as we did in the past.

So, to conclude, in the next lockdown fortnight we need to ensure the resilience of our PPE stock, masks and so on. I still receive reports about concerns about a shortage of PPE and now is the time to resolve this.

Staff in our health service—and I know very many of them; I'm related to some of them, in fact—have delivered a great deal. Our nurses and doctors have also suffered a great deal and they're ready for the fight, but they do expect support in that fight, that their workplaces are safe and that the PPE is in place for them, and that the NHS should be open to other non-coronavirus-related cases, as the Minister has already said.

After this lockdown, everyone needs to continue to socially distance, to wash their hands regularly, to wear face coverings and reduce their contacts with others. The fundamental advice will not change and in adhering to that advice we will come through all of this.

Finally, Joyce Watson.

Diolch, Llywydd. And I'm going to speak in support of this firebreak that will be introduced on Friday. I do recognise that it's absolutely necessary. I have listened to the debate and there have been some excellent statements, and, unfortunately, not such excellent statements that have been made here today.

I want to also make it very clear that it isn't just the Labour Party who are supporting this, but also to make sure that others understand that Plaid Cymru and other Members of the Cabinet who don't belong to Labour—Lord Dafydd Elis-Thomas and Kirsty Williams—will also be supporting it, because I think that's important. But what is also important here is that it is very clear that we need to act quickly to protect people and to protect services.

I cover rural Wales—I'm sitting here in Pembrokeshire today—and I've heard Paul Davies, who also represents Pembrokeshire, and I've heard Russell George, who represents Powys, who are claiming that there is very little support in low areas of infection for this type of action. Well, I can tell those that the people—. I haven't even had to speak to people—they have come up to me and asked for action, because they recognise, quite rightly, that in a rural area the services can go from coping to being vulnerable in a very short time. We don't have very large-scale hospitals, so we don't need very large-scale outbreaks to overwhelm those services.

I've also listened, quite rightly, to those same individuals asking for us to reopen the healthcare sector to non-COVID cases. That is exactly what has started to happen. They've been at meetings, with me and Neil Hamilton, where that has been said. We can't do two things with the system in rural areas, and that is to allow the COVID infection rate to go up and, at the same time, to keep the non-COVID services open. I'm also going to take issue with the fact that when, last week, the First Minister quite rightly asked the UK Government to put in some action that prevented people from, wherever they lived, and, of course, England, because they were in charge of that—they made it an English-Welsh issue. I think that that was really bad form. And what I think is bad form here is they're trying to make it a rural/urban issue today, and that, again, doesn't take forward what we are all trying to do here, which is to ask everybody who has already acted responsibly to carry on acting responsibly, that it's a one-nation approach. I'm sure we've heard 'a one-nation approach' somewhere else before. Well, it would be rather nice if we had a one-nation approach now. That is what I ask of my colleagues to do here today.

I also recognise that there will be a need for those people who will feel the isolation more than others, and I'm really pleased to hear that single households will be able to have the support that they need, and that was in recognition of what happened before. So, we have learnt some lessons from what we put in place before.

I'm also very pleased that Armistice Day remembrance services will be able to take place, albeit in a limited form. I think that what is clearly going to happen is that those businesses who do keep open, and particularly supermarkets—what I request is that people treat the staff with the dignity and respect that they will deserve, because there's an awful lot of evidence that has come out already where that hasn't been the case. So, I put that in there now.

But I think that it's time to recognise that being in Government does mean taking the right action. It means taking it at the right time, and I respectfully ask the Tories to recognise that now is the right time, that we have clarity not calamity in Wales, that we're putting public health at the forefront and not politics. I did hear last week with some dismay where David Rowlands did say, and it's been repeated here again today by others, that there are very few people who will suffer the consequence should they catch or be unlucky enough to contract COVID and that they are the vulnerable, and they are the elderly, and that, somehow, if we isolated those two groups, the rest could carry on. I think that that—

I am sorry to cut across—

—is a foolhardy statement. I will finish, thank you, Presiding Officer, but I want to thank the people—

You don't need to—

—who have acted. Thank you very much.

Thank you. All the thanks are gratefully received.

Mark Drakeford, the First Minister, to reply to the debate.

Llywydd, diolch yn fawr. Thank you to everyone who has taken part in the debate. I want to return us to where this debate began. What we are talking about here this afternoon is nothing less than a public health emergency in Wales, and we're talking about the most effective way in which we can respond to it. In opening the debate, the health Minister set out the seriousness of the position, the latest information on incidence rates, positivity levels and hospital admissions, and he also rehearsed the advice that Ministers have received from the most senior clinical and scientific advisers available to us.

We've heard, Llywydd, that there are Members here who take a different view. Well, I profoundly disagree with them. But at least some Members here are explicit in that opposition. Neil Hamilton dismissed the seriousness of coronavirus—a mild illness, he said. He claimed that scientists—that mathematicians are not scientists. He waved his hand away at the 2,500 people who have died in Wales from coronavirus, while urging the Government to have a sense of proportion. Alun Davies said that there is a lot of nonsense talked by some about coronavirus, but it's not just nonsense—it's dangerous nonsense. We heard it again, sadly, here in the Senedd this afternoon.

Others, Llywydd, are less straightforward but no less misguided.

As Dr Dai Lloyd said, we've only heard one voice from the Conservative benches in the debate this afternoon.

It's a dereliction in itself that, at a moment when we are discussing these profoundly serious issues, the Conservative Party could only mobilise a single contribution to this, the most serious decision we are facing as a nation. The leader of the opposition said that we should be taking local measures. As Joyce Watson said, today it's an attempt to stir up division between rural and urban Wales—a couple of weeks ago, when his Members of Parliament were writing to me with his Senedd Members opposing local measures, it was an attempt to divide north and south.

Now, I am profoundly grateful to those people who have helped us with the local restrictions that we have had to impose, and, if it wasn't for that, things would be a great deal worse than they are in Wales today, but when the leader of the opposition says that we should leave it to those local measures, what exactly does he mean? He's a man who has made a great play over many days now of his grasp of data. What does he make of the data, then, in the local area of Swansea, where, as he pointed out to us, numbers are down today—down to 155 people per 100,000 and a positivity rate of 15 per cent? What does he make of Wrexham, another area where figures are down today, down to 201 and a positivity rate of 12 per cent? What does he make of Rhondda Cynon Taf, down again today, again to over 200 per 100,000 in the population and a positivity rate of 17 per cent? Leave it to local measures—that is the Conservative prescription offered in the Senedd this afternoon. And while those measures have been successful in helping to arrest the flow of coronavirus, they are not enough. They are plainly and clearly not enough.

Now, the other pillar in the leader of the Conservative Party's argument was that he has not seen enough data. Llywydd, I looked again, following questions earlier today, at the TAC report that we published yesterday. It provides data on the rolling seven-day average of daily confirmed cases, of the seven-day rolling sum of deaths in Wales, of the average confirmed coronavirus cases per 100,000 of the population, of the positivity rate, of the doubling time, of the reproduction number, of the number of patients in hospital, the number of patients in ICU beds. It provides an analysis on age profile, on incidents by settings and incidents by geography. It provides data and analysis from the ONS, from Bangor University, from Swansea University and Imperial College. It cites seven different data sources on mobility of the population across Wales. Llywydd, just what is it that the Conservative Party in Wales thinks it needs? What more data does it need that has not been sufficient already to convince the chief medical officer, the scientific advisory group and our own technical advisory group? Data is not just an excuse for the Conservative Party, Llywydd, it's an evasion, and it simply doesn't wash.

The leader of the Conservative Party in the debate this afternoon ended by assuring us that his Members would obey the law. It was an astonishing moment, Llywydd; he said it to us as though this was something on which they were to be congratulated. It comes to something, I can tell you, when a major party like the Conservative Party thinks it needs to assure the rest of us that its members will obey the law here in Wales. 

Llywydd, if the Conservative Party does not vote for the motion in front of the Senedd today, they will place themselves in opposition to all the expert advice we have available to us. They will let down all those people who work at the front line of our health and social care services. And, most importantly, they will let down all those people right across Wales who do everything they can every single day to help us to keep Wales safe. 

Llywydd, in contrast, can I thank Plaid Cymru for their support in bringing this motion to the floor this afternoon?

I don't need to name all of the Plaid Cymru Members who have contributed to the debate, because Dr Lloyd did that on my behalf. I agree with what he said about the quality of the contributions from Members from Plaid Cymru and the Labour Party in this afternoon's debate.

Llywydd, the Government will not oppose the Plaid Cymru amendments laid to the debate, but, because each of those three amendments contains a mixture of measures, some of which we positively support but others over which we have more hesitation, we will abstain on them this afternoon. On the main issue, however, we are plainly agreed. Adam Price, quoting the TAC report, demonstrated the entirely unequivocal advice that we have received. And the points that Plaid Cymru Members have made in the debate—learn from elsewhere, use the firebreak period purposefully, communicate as clearly as we can, protect our businesses, build a national effort—all of those things are common ground between us.

Llywydd, I thank my Labour colleagues not only for their support during this debate, but for their support during the difficult days and the challenging decisions that we have had to make in those days—Dawn Bowden talking about front-line staff and about community representation; Huw Irranca-Davies on building that national effort, of using our discretionary funds, as we have done throughout the coronavirus crisis, to help fill the gaps that there are in other provision for businesses, urging the UK Government to work with us, not to be always trying to undermine what we are doing here in Wales. Steve Rotheram, the mayor of Liverpool, pleaded with the Chancellor last week to provide more help to those people whose wages are going to be reduced as a result of measures right across the United Kingdom to deal with the virus, but it fell on deaf ears. And I agreed so much with what Alun Davies said about the physical and mental health impact of a further period of restrictions. It's why we've gone for the shortest possible period that we could of an additional firebreak period.

I wanted to thank Jenny Rathbone for her recognition of the rapid advances that have been made in testing for our student population and for the measures being taken by Welsh higher education institutions to provide an education for those young people, to protect their well-being and their mental health and to regard them, as we do here in Wales, as full members of our community, with the same rights but the same responsibilities as well as every one of us to act in recognition of the seriousness of the position that we face. 

Rhianon Passmore referred to the way in which people in Wales are being asked to make another sacrifice, to manage on incomes that will be reduced, to think of the businesses that will struggle through this period and, of course, all of that was in the minds of the Cabinet as we wrestled with these matters. 

Llywydd, let me close by just saying this: of course we are all tired and fatigued of coronavirus. We all wish we could return our lives to where they were before this pandemic began. But Helen Mary Jones put it right when she said that, while none of this is easy, none of us can step away from the challenge that it poses to us. Rhianon Passmore said:

'Doing nothing is not an option.'

That is why we have made the decisions that we have made. That is why we look for the support of the Senedd in acting at this challenging time.

Coronavirus is circulating in every part of Wales. The speed at which it is circulating is getting greater every day. There are 800 people in hospital already suffering from it. The seriousness of the position cannot and should not be denied. A short but deep firebreak period will help us to turn back the tide. It will not eliminate coronavirus. It will not lead to a cure for it. But it will gain us the time we need to allow the health service to go on providing the services it does, not just in coronavirus, but in every other aspect that matters so much to people here in Wales. It will give us a path forward into the difficult days that still lie ahead in this autumn and in this winter, and it will draw on the reservoir of determination, solidarity and a willingness to act together that has been such a feature of the Welsh nation's response to this crisis. Let's see the same determination, let's see the same sense of solidarity amongst Members of the Senedd here this afternoon: support the Government's motion. 

The proposal is to agree amendment 3. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Therefore, there is an objection, and voting will be deferred until voting time. We will deal with all amendments and the motion at voting time. 

That brings us to our final debate this afternoon on the Children's Commissioner for Wales's annual report, and I call on the Deputy Minister for Health and Social Services to move the motion. Julie Morgan. 

Julie Morgan to be unmuted. Yes, there we go. 

Diolch, Llywydd. As a Government, we want all children in Wales to have the best start in life, to fulfil their potential and to realise their rights. And it's so important in the current context, in the situation that we've been just debating, that we keep that ambition fixed in our sights. It's also crucial that we have this meaningful debate each year to focus on our achievements so far in Wales regarding children's rights, and to take account of the children's commissioner calls for us to go further.

So, today, we discuss and debate the Children's Commissioner for Wales's annual report for 2019-20, which was published earlier this month. This report was written looking back at what has taken place during the previous financial year, but within the context of the pandemic. I value having an independent and impartial voice for children and young people in Wales—one that challenges the work of Government and others through the lens of children's rights, one that aims to promote and safeguard their interests.

In her annual report, the commissioner has highlighted many of her achievements over the last year. These include engaging with over 15,500 children and young people across Wales through various events, delivering training to 200 early years professionals, and managing 627 cases through her investigations and advice service.

While the rest of this session is likely to focus on her 18 recommendations for Government, I'd like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the importance of the work of the commissioner's office, and to thank her and her team for the services they provide to children and young people who need assistance and advice. And I'd also like to take this opportunity to thank the commissioner and her office for working with Welsh Government, Children in Wales, and the Youth Parliament on the 'Coronavirus and Me' survey. This provided an opportunity for children and young people across Wales to tell us about their experience of the coronavirus, the lockdown which was in place at the time, and the impact it was having on their lives. We are the only Government in the UK to have asked directly and consulted children and young people in this way. More than 23,700 children and young people, aged between three and 18, responded; it was a remarkable response. Their responses are being heard by politicians and policy makers alike, and my thanks goes out to all those who took part.

Before I turn to the recommendations, it's important to remind ourselves that the commissioner has corporate sole status, and is an independent human rights institution, who holds the Welsh Government to account through a number of routes. She has powers to review the effect on children of the exercise—or the proposed exercise—of any function of Welsh Ministers, the First Minister for Wales, or the Counsel General to the Welsh Government, including any subordinate legislation they make or propose to make. And you will be aware that the commissioner has decided to use her formal powers in relation to elective home education and safeguarding in independent schools. The Welsh Government will respond to that review when required, through the formal process, and I won't be discussing the review whilst it's ongoing.

In this year's annual report, the commissioner has set out 18 recommendations: five relate to care experienced children, including reforming corporate parenting, the criminalisation of children in care, safe accommodation of children with complex needs, access to personal advisors, and semi-independent supported living for care leavers. Other recommendations focus on youth justice services, health advocacy and health transitions and mental health, as well as child sexual exploitation statutory guidance for vulnerable children and young people, and publication of the child poverty review findings.

The commissioner has made three recommendations relating to schools, including investigations into allegations of child abuse against teaching staff, guidance for governing bodies on disciplinary and dismissal procedures, and independent schools registering with the Education Workforce Council, as well as a recommendation related to laying the additional learning needs code of practice.

It's important to note, and I know the children's commissioner understands, that a number of the recommendations she has put forward are linked to work that has been paused or reprioritised as a result of the coronavirus pandemic. Redeploying Welsh Government officials, or reprioritising some areas of work, have been necessary consequences of the pandemic, and have sadly but unavoidably meant that some activity has not been progressed to original timescales.

We do share substantial common ground with the commissioner. We have and will continue to work with her and others to enable children and young people to realise their rights. And I'd like to thank David Melding for chairing the corporate parenting task and finish group, which is developing a voluntary charter that organisations can sign up to, setting out their unique offer for care experienced children. And I'd like to use this opportunity to pay tribute to the work that David has done for children, and particularly for children who are looked after.

And of course, the mental health and well-being of children and young people remains a priority. Building on the work of the Children, Young People and Education Committee's report, 'Mind over matter', we've been determined to push ahead with a whole-school approach to the well-being framework. Coronavirus has delayed the consultation by a few months. However, initial findings are being considered by the task and finish group, ahead of finalising publication.

The commissioner published her 'No Wrong Door' report in March this year, which focused on bringing services together to meet children's needs and stop situations where different professionals cannot agree who is responsible for the care of children and young people with complex needs. The commissioner has called on the Welsh Government to respond to the recommendations outlined in her report, and we're keen to make progress on this issue.

The First Minister will publish the Welsh Government's response to the commissioner's annual report by 30 November, taking into account what Members say in this debate. The commissioner's approach, as stated in her report, has always been to respond to the Welsh Government as a critical friend, to challenge robustly where necessary, but to welcome and acknowledge positive developments. And I should like to take this opportunity to thank the children's commissioner for her role in being a critical friend to the Welsh Government. And this has been of particular value in the last eight months whilst we've responded to the pandemic in Wales and where we've strived to recognise and mitigate the impact of the pandemic on children and young people. The commissioner has been very supportive in challenging and advising the Welsh Government on our responses to the pandemic and how we've had to balance keeping children safe with respecting and protecting their rights. While some of those decisions have not been easy, I am proud of the way the Welsh Government has pulled together to keep children and young people and their rights at the forefront of decision making, and particularly the emphasis that's been given to vulnerable children during this time.

With all that's happened during 2020, we should remember that it was only a year ago that we were celebrating the thirtieth anniversary of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child—a major milestone for children's rights. And finally, I want to restate that the UNCRC continues to be the basis for all our policies for children: it's central to our work to improve children's outcomes by helping and supporting them to achieve their full potential. We want to build on our achievements so far to ensure that Wales is a place where children's rights are respected, protected and fulfilled. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Minister, and thank you for your kind words about me, which were nice to hear from the chair, though I can't participate in this debate today, otherwise I certainly would have and reciprocated my good wishes.

Can I just say that I have only two speakers for the debate, so if anyone does try to catch my eye, you might be lucky? Laura Anne Jones.

Thank you, acting Presiding Officer, and I too would like to start by thanking you for all the work that you and your task group have done in helping children. That sort of focus on them and their issues will do a power of good for them and I'm sure they are very, very thankful for all the work that you have done.

I too welcomed the publication of this report and would like to thank Sally Holland and her team for all the work that they have done to change lives for children and young people in Wales. The conversations that I've had with her to date, since arriving in the Senedd just a few months ago, have been open, honest and reassuring. This report acknowledges the effects the current pandemic is having on the children's commissioner's work and the need to respond to critical issues affecting the lives of our children under lockdown. Never has their work been so vital and it will be critical going forward now, due to the impact of this crisis. 

The report acknowledges that key new pieces of work will have to be undertaken in the next programme as the result of the changes experienced by children and the impacts that will be felt for years to come. It is some of these issues that I'd like to address in my remarks this afternoon.

The report states that public services in Wales still do not meet the needs of our children and young people effectively. Children and their families have to navigate complex systems and are often not helped because they do not fit neat categories or are not helped at all even though they are in crisis. This is a particular problem in our mental health services and disabled children's services. This was before the children's committee said that children's mental health had suffered the collateral damage of COVID-19.

More than two years ago, an inquiry called for the tackling of emotional and mental health issues in children to be made a national priority. There have been improvements in services since then, but they are happening too slowly and some young people still struggle to get the help that they need. The children's committee concluded that the Welsh Government's reassurances about out-of-hours and crisis care are disappointingly thin. There are too many reports of limited options for children who need help, but do not reach the threshold for specialist services. Although progress is happening in education, it was far less confident that the pace of change in health and local government, including social services, is sufficient.

I know that the mental health and well-being of children and young people is the key priority for our commissioner and I've had many conversations with her about that. The pandemic has put this into sharp focus for everybody. The Welsh Government has recognised this by appointing a Minister with specific responsibility for mental health and we welcome that. I look forward to seeing positive results in building a system that responds to the needs of the child rather than trying to fit them into existing services.

Even before the outbreak of coronavirus, young carers were all too often spending significant amounts of time caring for a relative—this, in addition to the time they need to spend on work, education and relaxation—but coronavirus has significantly increased those pressures. The Carers Trust recently carried out a survey that found that 58 per cent of young carers who are caring for longer since coronavirus are spending on average 10 hours a week more on their caring responsibilities. The survey shows how worries relating to coronavirus and increased isolation caused by the lockdown have affected the mental health and well-being of young people with caring responsibilities.

Young carers provide a huge amount of support to vulnerable people in Wales. The children's commissioner calls for greater prioritisation of mental health support for young carers and greater support from education providers and employers to help carers to juggle their caring roles alongside school, college, university or work. I look forward to the progress being made to reduce the unacceptable pressures young carers are under and to improve their well-being and life chances. We need to work with our young carers, working with them and involving them in formulating policy. I'm sure we all agree too that young carers should be encouraged and have support to go into higher education or find apprenticeships, if this is what they want to do.

And I'd like the commissioner and the Government to note that Monmouthshire County Council actively encourages apprenticeships for young carers leavers within its own organisation and those carers are included in any information going out with job vacancies, where appropriate. They also include them on their corporate parenting panel. Monmouthshire County Council are always setting the bar high when it comes to a local authority and an employer in its practices, and it's this sort of good practice that needs to be rolled out across Wales in all authorities.

This pandemic has highlighted just how important it is to support and protect our young people from the immense challenges they have faced and continue to face. As this report says, we know what the challenges are; it is time for decisive, brave actions.

Before I call Siân Gwenllian, I do apologise, I should have informed Members that the amendment had not been selected in accordance with Standing Order 12.23. Siân Gwenllian. 

Thank you, Chair, and thank you for the opportunity to discuss this report and thank you for the work that the children's commissioner does to try and improve the lives of children and young people in Wales. There is no doubt that the COVID-19 crisis has changed the lives of the children of Wales in a dramatic manner, with schools and childcare settings closed for long periods of time, lectures and lessons delivered online, playgrounds closed and major restrictions on opportunities to socialise. And it's no surprise that there's been more demand than ever before for the Childline service, and there are major concerns as to how the pandemic is impacting the mental health of children and young people in the present and in the longer term. 

Although COVID-19 may have changed the lives of the children of Wales forever, one could argue that many of the issues contained within this report—this latest annual report—tell the same old stories, unfortunately. The report includes a broad range of well-established concerns on the quality of mental health services for children, children continuing to live in poverty and children in care not receiving the specialist care that they need. These are some of the complex issues that impact the lives of children and young people and are likely to have been exacerbated by COVID-19. 

And one could argue that the need to ensure that the Welsh Government's policy approaches are successful is more important than ever before. We therefore need to implement the 18 detailed and sensible recommendations made by the commissioner across a range of specific areas: in terms of residential care for children with complex needs, in terms of personal advisers for young people leaving care, reforms to corporate parenting, support for young offenders and strengthening child protection measures. These are just a few examples. There are many very practical recommendations contained in this report that could make great differences to particular groups of children and young people. 

There is one area that is a cause of specific concern, namely elective home education, an issue the commissioner has made recommendations on in her past four annual reports—that's four annual reports. She has called for some legal changes in this area. Now, prior to COVID-19, the Welsh Government had consulted on statutory guidance and regulations to tackle the commissioner's concerns, but in June the education Minister announced that that work couldn't be completed within this Senedd term. In September the commissioner stated that she does intend to use her statutory powers for the very first time to review the actions of Welsh Government in this area. I support this and I believe that the commissioner has been very patient indeed on this issue—too patient, perhaps—and that swifter action and a swifter review from the commissioner would have led to the improvement that we need to see.

Unfortunately, another area that the Welsh Government has decided not to take action on is the need for teachers in independent schools to register with the Education Workforce Council. We will all recall the headteacher in a Ruthin school who was sacked from his post after a report discovered that pupils there were at risk of harm because of failings in child protection. Extending the law that places a duty on private schools as well as state schools to register their teachers is one way of seeking to avoid such serious failings for the future, but action on this too has been pushed on to the next Senedd, and once again, the commissioner has stated that she will use her statutory powers in order to review the actions of the Welsh Government in this area.

I know that this public health crisis means that we must shelve some legislative issues, but these would have been quite simple issues to deal with, and one has to question the wisdom of leaving both of these issues on the table when the well-being of the children of Wales is one of the main priorities of this Government and this Senedd. The commissioner will use her statutory powers on two issues, and they are two issues of concern for everyone in the Senedd, and it's a cause of concern that she has to use those statutory powers.

Before I conclude, I would just like to draw attention to the commissioner's report 'No Wrong Door' and the need for regional boards to ensure that no child or family will fall through the net in seeking support for mental health and behavioural issues. This is a very important report, and we need to maintain a focus on this work. The 'Happy, healthy and safe' manifesto is also of interest, with some of the ideas certainly corresponding to Plaid Cymru's priorities. There'll be an opportunity to discuss some of the issues contained within the children commissioner's manifesto in our debate on education tomorrow, so I won't expand on that.

The report before us today does include a period prior to the COVID period, from 1 April 2019 to the end of March 2020. Now, the next report will deal with a very difficult COVID period, and it's likely to have a very different flavour and will focus on issues that will have emerged anew during the COVID crisis, or that have been highlighted anew as issues that are of some importance. But it's important that we maintain a focus on those issues in this report too. I'd like to thank the commissioner and her team for the collaboration between us, and I look forward to further collaboration during the rest of this Senedd term.

And the Minister to reply to the debate. Can we unmute the Minister, please? There we are. Minister. 

Thank you, acting Deputy Presiding Officer and thank you very much for the contributions to the debate today and the support that has been shown for children's rights. As we know, children's rights are entitlements—entitlements that each and every child and young person in Wales should know about and should be supported in realising.

Thank you to Laura Anne Jones and to Siân Gwenllian for speaking so powerfully and sensitively about the needs of children and young people in Wales. Laura Anne Jones in particular drew attention to young carers, and I really think that this is an area that is of great concern to us all. I was very pleased that we were able to announce an extra £1 million today to help carers, including young carers, with some of the small items that they may need to help them manage, because as Laura Anne Jones said, we know that this pandemic, this period, has been a very difficult time for carers and particularly for young carers, and I know she referred to the survey that had recently been done. I was also pleased to be able to give £55,000 for psychological help for carers earlier on in the pandemic because I know that the strain on their mental health has been very extreme during this period.

I'm also pleased that we are pursuing the issue of identity cards for young carers. I think that that is something that will help enormously and we have a number of local authorities who are now using identity cards in order to make life easier for young carers. Because one of the things that young carers have told us is that they feel very strongly that they don't want to tell every new person the whole history of what has happened to them every time they meet somebody, and in school they need to be able to have a card that will help them. It will help them when they go to the chemist, when they go to get medicine for the people that they care for, and, in fact, there's so many ways that a card can help that I think that's another way that we will be able to help young carers.

I've met many groups of young carers, both while I've been doing this job and previously, and you had to pay a huge tribute to them in terms of what they do in order to keep families going, often. So, thank you very much, Laura Anne Jones, for highlighting that in your contribution and also drawing attention to the fact that this is an area that the children's commissioner also feels very strongly about. It's very impressive that Monmouthshire are encouraging particular young carers to apply for apprenticeships.

As well as young carers, I know that Laura Anne Jones mentioned mental health and the mental health of children during this period, and that's been mentioned in the debate a lot this afternoon. I think we're all aware of how mental health is one of the real areas that we've got huge concern about, and we certainly all welcome now the appointment of a Minister with responsibility for mental health, which does show the priority that the Government is giving to that area.

Siân Gwenllian really vividly described how coronavirus has changed the lives of children dramatically. She described all that has been lost, and we know that for many vulnerable children whose lives are held together by school, by outside activities, by the support they get from youth clubs, from youth workers and from many other services—that all that scaffolding has gone and this has been, I think, a very difficult experience. So, thank you, Siân, for describing that so vividly about what children are experiencing and reminding us about what we have to do and what we have to concentrate on to try to mitigate this as much as we possibly can. Certainly, the Government has had the rights of children high at the top of their agenda, and I think you will have seen in the steps that we've taken and that the First Minister has put before you today—you've seen that children have been right at the forefront in terms of keeping as many children in schools as we can, keeping childcare open, keeping playgrounds open, acknowledging the importance of play. All those things are there for children and they have been at the very top of our agenda.

Siân Gwenllian referred to the 18 recommendations that the children's commissioner has put forward, and the First Minister will respond to those by 30 November, but as I said in my opening remarks, we wanted to hear what Members said in this debate, so that we can then respond fully, taking into account what Members have said. Siân Gwenllian referred to elective home education and safeguarding in independent schools, and as I said in my opening remarks, because the Commissioner is using her statutory powers to review these areas, I won't be commenting on those until the Government responds to her review. But Siân Gwenllian has highlighted the issues very powerfully, I think, in her response. So, thank you very much for those contributions.

Just to conclude, while I am proud of the commitment the Welsh Government has made and is making to children's rights, I do know that we can and we must do more to ensure that children all know about their rights, how to access those rights, and how to challenge when they're not receiving those rights. So, we have a big job of awareness and of reaching out to children. The children's commissioner is an absolutely vital partner in this endeavour, and has a hugely important role in holding the Government to account. As we've said, this year has been a challenge for so many children and young people, and of course, this may continue for some time. That's why we have to have children's rights at the absolute forefront of everything we're doing. Children's rights and improving experiences for our children and young people has been at the heart of our responses to the pandemic, and I'd like to remind Members about the free school meals provision over the holiday period that we are providing, the improvements to the mental health services that we have carried out, and working with the commissioner to listen directly to the voices of children. So, thank you very much again for your contributions to this debate. It's a very important debate. It came after another very important debate, but I think the two debates are very closely linked, because children's rights must be at the heart of how we respond to this pandemic. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Minister. The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I do see a Member objecting, so I defer voting on this item until voting time.

In accordance with Standing Order 34.14D, there will be a break of at least five minutes before voting time commences. IT support will be on hand to help with any issues during this time.

That brings us to voting time. And the first vote is on the Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (Functions of Local Authorities etc.) (Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2020. 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 and four against. And, therefore, the motion is agreed.

The next vote is on the Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (No. 2) (Wales) (Amendment) (No. 18) (Bangor) Regulations 2020. I call for a vote on the motion, tabled in the name of Rebecca Evans. Open the vote. In favour 37, nine abstentions and six against. And, therefore, the regulations are agreed.

The next vote is on the Smoke-free Premises and Vehicles (Wales) Regulations 2020. I call for a vote on the motion, tabled in the name of Rebecca Evans. Open the vote. In favour 45, three abstentions and three against. In favour 46—I do apologise—three abstentions and three against. And, therefore, the regulations are agreed.

The next vote is on the debate on coronavirus, and we will vote on the amendments first. The first vote is on amendment 3, and that amendment was tabled in the name of Darren Millar. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 13, one abstention, 37 against. And, therefore, the amendment is not agreed.

Amendment 4 is our next amendment, and amendment 4 was tabled in the name of Siân Gwenllian. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 18, 30 abstentions, four against. And, therefore, the amendment is agreed.

Amendment 5 is the next amendment, and it was tabled in the name of Siân Gwenllian. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 10, 36 abstentions, seven against. And, therefore, the amendment is agreed.

Amendment 8 is the next amendment, tabled in the name of Siân Gwenllian. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 20, 29 abstentions, four against. Amendment 8 is agreed.

The next vote is on the motion as amended, tabled in the name of Rebecca Evans and Siân Gwenllian.

Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 37, no abstentions, 16 against. And, therefore, the motion as amended is agreed.

The final vote is on the debate on the children's commissioner's annual report. I call for a vote on the motion, tabled in the name of Rebecca Evans. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 49, three abstentions, one against. And, therefore, the motion is agreed.

That concludes voting for today, and that brings today's proceedings to a close.