National Assembly for Wales

Welcome to this Plenary session. Before we begin, I want to set out 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 proceedings of the Senedd, 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, constitutes 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. And I would remind Members that Standing Orders relating to order in Plenary meetings apply to this meeting, and apply equally to Members in the Chamber as to those joining virtually. 

The first item is questions to the First Minister, and the first question is from Mark Reckless. 

Llywydd, tests of public opinion continue to indicate strong majority support for the actions being taken by the Welsh Government to keep Wales safe. 

Well, First Minister, the YouGov poll published this morning showed support falling from 66 per cent to 45 per cent, with 47 per cent now opposed. And I just wonder whether you might find more support for your policy if you worked with the opposition rather than calling them disgraceful, and welcomed a royal visit to thank key workers rather than calling them divisive. Instead you, and I quote from your statement:

'set out how and when Wales will move between alert levels with all-Wales measures. We must do the same in Swansea as in Anglesey so long as it's different from England.'

First Minister, wouldn't we be better with a united UK approach?

Llywydd, as far as I'm aware, neither Swansea nor Anglesey are in England. I've looked at the poll to which the Member refers. Voters in Wales were asked whether they preferred the approach taken by the Welsh Government or the approach taken by the English Government. Fifty-three per cent of people said they preferred the approach taken in Wales, 15 per cent preferred the approach that the Member continuously advocates here. 

First Minister, one of the big calls that has been made in recent weeks is obviously the changing restrictions over the Christmas period by the four nations of the United Kingdom. The situation here in Wales has moved on since that call was made, and I respect the climate in which that call was made by your good self as the First Minister. What do you think the public's reaction is to, and perception of, those changes that will happen over Christmas, given the circumstances that the Welsh Government obviously outline Wales is facing at the moment, both in its health service, the national health service here in Wales, but also the community transmission rates?

I thank Andrew R.T. Davies for that question, Llywydd. He will know that the four-nation agreement over Christmas was hammered out in detail over four different meetings between the four nations. It was a hard-won agreement; I will not lightly put it aside. I have a meeting later today with the First Minister of Scotland, First and Deputy First Ministers of Northern Ireland, and Michael Gove, as the Minister in charge of the Cabinet Office, and no doubt this issue will be discussed again there. The choice is a grim one, Llywydd, isn't it? I have read in my own e-mail account over the last couple of days heartrending pleas from people not to reverse what we have agreed for Christmas—people who live entirely alone and who have made their arrangements to be with people for the first time in many months, and who say to me that this is the only thing that they have been able to look forward to in recent weeks. And yet we know that if people do not use the modest amount of additional freedom available to them over the Christmas period responsibly, then we will see an impact of that on our already hugely hard-pressed health service.

So, I think the choice is an incredibly difficult one. At the moment, we have a four-nation agreement. I will discuss that later today. We will look at the figures again together. I still think that the arguments for having a rule-based approach to Christmas, modestly increased amounts of freedom for people, but where they know where the rules lie, is preferable to a free-for-all in which we have a situation where people simply aren't willing to go along with what is proposed and therefore make the rules up for themselves. So, as I said, Llywydd, in whichever way the Governments of the United Kingdom resolve this issue, it will be a very, very finely balanced set of judgments between different sorts of harms that are caused, whichever course of action you embark on. 

First Minister, I see on the 1 o'clock news today that Michael Gove is going to be writing to you shortly, to see whether there's going to be any development of the four-nation approach to Christmas. At the same time, we see across the UK and across Europe, and indeed in other parts of the world, significant actions being taken by Governments there, who are affected in exactly the same way as we are now, with increasing infection rates, but also the increasing public anxiety that actually exists. I'm wondering, First Minister, what you might be saying to Michael Gove in terms of how we might co-operate, but also what lessons are there that we can learn from what is happening in the rest of the world at the moment, where they're facing an almost identical, very similar situation to ourselves.

Well, the lesson, Llywydd, that I draw from the rest of the world is exactly the point that Mick Antoniw made, that Governments across Europe and more widely are having to take action in the face of the resurgence of this virus during winter conditions, with a virulence that was not predicted in the modelling that was carried out in many parts of the world. And, of course, we watched very carefully what happened yesterday in Germany, in Holland, in Italy. And I will be discussing with Michael Gove, directly, later today whether the four-nation agreement that we struck continues to have marginally more advantages than disadvantages, or whether there is a different balance that we ought to strike. In either direction, Llywydd, harm is done. Harm is done whether people get together over Christmas in a way that isn't responsible and doesn't observe all the advice we have given to people, or, if we seek to prevent people from meeting over Christmas, a different sort of harm will be done—to people's sense of mental health, to people's sense of how they can survive through this incredibly difficult year together. It is not at all a choice between one course of action that has clearly all the advantages and none of the disadvantages, and another course of action where all the disadvantages are to be found. In any direction, it is a very careful and difficult balance, with pluses and minuses on both sides of the ledger.

I thank the Member for the question, Llywydd. The technical advisory cell provides co-ordination of the latest scientific and technical advice to support the Welsh Government decision making. This includes regular reviews of the evidence, analysis and advice from the UK’s Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies and a wide range of other national and international sources.

Thank you, First Minister. Throughout the pandemic, you have followed the advice provided to you by the technical advisory cell, yet the pandemic is raging out of control in Wales. Therefore, many people are concluding that there is a problem either with the advice or with its implementation. And as we cannot see the advice given to Ministers, just summaries, we can only conclude that the advice given could be suspect. First Minister, science doesn't operate in secret, it relies on rigorous peer review. So, will you commit to fully publishing all scientific advice given to Ministers, and establish a scientific review board to red-team all COVID-19 control measures before they're introduced? Thank you. Diolch.

Well, Llywydd, the problem is not with the advice or with its implementation. The problem is the virus. If the advice was wrong uniquely here in Wales, then how is it that, as we heard in the last question, Governments in other parts of the world are facing exactly the same dilemmas? We are dealing with a virus that doesn't behave in the way that models always predict, doesn't respond to some of the measures that were expected to be efficacious, where we saw yesterday evidence of a new variant emerging, which will potentially pose new challenges to us. The problem is not the advice; the advice is as good advice as you can get. The problem is dealing with a virus that is full of unexpected and difficult surprises, and where there is no single, simple approach to be found anywhere in the world that can be picked up from one part of the globe and dropped down in another with a guarantee of success. 

First Minister, recent correspondence from my constituents shows that this period has, understandably, taken a negative toll on the mental health of the population's most vulnerable. This correspondence, of course, is indicative of a larger scale and immediate problem that is facing the Welsh public as a whole. In fact, the results of a recent survey by Swansea and Cardiff universities revealed that approximately half of its 13,000 participants reported clinically significant psychological distress, with about 20 per cent saying they were suffering severe effects. However, there is very little mention or acknowledgement noted in the technical advisory cell briefings. So, I believe that it's crucial now, as we're moving towards more stringent measures, that this Welsh Government does all it can to ensure that access to loneliness support groups and mental health support services is ensured. So, is it possible that, when you are working with your scientific advisers and you are publishing the TACs, you could possibly give acknowledgement to those suffering with the mental health impacts to ensure that these briefings consider the impact—and the severe impact, I should say—of restrictions on loneliness, social isolation and mental health issues? Thank you.   

Llywydd, well, I do think that the technical advisory group does, very regularly, provide advice to us on the wider harms. Our chief medical officer has from the very beginning pointed to the four different sort of harms that come from coronavirus, and the impact on people's sense of mental health and mental well-being is absolutely part of what we always weigh up. I was trying to do it in my answer to Andrew R.T. Davies's question—the advice we are seeing today from people about taking more stringent measures over Christmas to reduce the ability of people to get together. But that will have an impact on all the issues that Janet Finch-Saunders has just raised with me. Those were the e-mails that I was referring to , from people pleading that we should allow them to be able to get together over Christmas because of the impact on their mental health and well-being.

I took part myself, yesterday, Llywydd, in an initiative that is simply asking people to phone somebody else over Christmas who lives alone, and I had a very striking conversation with somebody living in the Rhondda Cynon Taf area, who has been three months without being able to see anybody else because of his own health and the impact that has on other people. And the Christmas period matters a lot to people, doesn't it? So, I just want to say to the Member that, of course, we weigh those things up, and, of course, we try and make judgments that attend to the impact on people's physical health and on our services, on the current state of coronavirus, while never losing sight of the fact that, when restrictions are placed on people's ability to meet others, which may be entirely necessary to control the virus, there are other effects that we must weigh up and try and mitigate. 

First Minister, could I ask what efforts you have made to reach out to the main party leaders in order to keep them informed of the medical and scientific advice and the data and the difficult choices to be made? At this time of a continuing national crisis, facing a continuing pandemic, the people of Wales would hope that all political leaders and spokespeople would seek every opportunity to be well informed and would also expect the First Minister to make those opportunities available to the opposition. So, can I ask, have you had that good and timely engagement with the main opposition party leaders so that they can themselves engage as fully as possible in the challenges we face in Wales, and so that their public pronouncements can be well informed and promote this message of saving lives, protecting our precious NHS and the people who at this very moment are working on the front line in dangerous and difficult circumstances? 

Llywydd, I thank Huw Irranca-Davies for that. For many months now, we have had a pattern on a Wednesday morning of a meeting involving both the leader of the opposition and the leader of Plaid Cymru to make sure that we are able to share with them, sometimes on a reasonably confidential—necessarily confidential—basis the advice that comes to Welsh Government, and I'm very grateful to both of them for the time that they've taken and the efforts they've made to be available and to participate in those meetings. I don't think the leader of Plaid Cymru has missed a single one of them. And I have done my best, when we are coming to major decisions and major announcements, to make a telephone call to the leaders of the Conservative Party and Plaid Cymru in advance of that, so that they are at least sighted on what it is that we are trying to achieve. And I agree with what Huw Irranca-Davies said, that the more those opportunities are taken, the better able we are to try and, where we are able to do so, send common messages out to people in Wales about the nature of the public health emergency we continue to be gripped by and the actions that we can take in our own lives as well as the action that the Government can take to make a difference to it. 

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

Diolch, Llywydd. First Minister, as you know, unfortunately, Wales has the highest COVID-19 infection rate in the UK, and eight of the UK's top-10 worst infected areas are currently in Wales, with Merthyr Tydfil, Neath Port Talbot and Bridgend all in the top three. Naturally, speculation still remains over whether further measures will be introduced and how those restrictions could affect people's lives and livelihoods. First Minister, with cases so high in Wales, can you tell us when you intend to make a decision on any further restrictions in Wales? And given that the Welsh Government's own coronavirus control plan confirms that a case rate of more than 300 cases per 100,000 people is under alert level 4, can you tell us whether you are now looking to escalate Wales to the next level?

Llywydd, I thank Paul Davies for that question. We will be looking every single day this week at the way that the figures in Wales are moving. I said at my press conference on Friday that unless we see signs that the current rise is being arrested and reversed, then it is inevitable that further measures will be needed. Now, we took an important set of measures a week ago last Friday in relation to attractions and hospitality. We took further measures last week in relation to schools and outdoor attractions. We have to be able to allow those interventions an opportunity to work. If we do not see them working, as I said on Friday, then it is I think inevitable that further actions will be necessary in order to stem the flow of coronavirus as we see it in Wales today. And I'll be doing that every day this week.

I'm grateful for that answer, First Minister, and I know that the health Minister confirmed yesterday that nothing, of course, is off the table when it comes to more COVID restrictions over Christmas, and I very much accept and understand that, and I appreciate that you'll be having further discussions with other UK Governments later on this afternoon about the Christmas restrictions as well.

Now, of course, Wales has more than twice as many COVID-19 cases compared to other parts of the UK, and two health boards have now confirmed that they will suspend some non-urgent treatment, and so we're also looking at a crisis perhaps actually taking place as well in the new year. You will have seen the concerns of the Welsh Intensive Care Society, which has warned that critical care services will not be able to cope over the winter period without intervention at the highest level, and with the relaxation of rules for a few days over Christmas there will be even more pressure, as you've just said, on NHS services in the coming weeks and months. I'm pleased that the UK Government has today offered to treat non-COVID patients in England to help ease the pressures on Welsh hospitals and to do all it can to help.

Given the seriousness of the issue, can you tell us what assessment the Welsh Government has made of the rise in cases on hospital capacity across Wales? Secondly, in light of the calls for intervention from some in the medical profession, can you tell us what discussions you've had with the local health boards about their plans for delivering elective surgery and routine care over the coming weeks? And can you also tell us whether you will be taking up the UK Government's offer of enabling non-COVID Welsh patients to be treated in English hospitals if necessary?

Llywydd, I think it's fair for me to point out that Wales is, as the leader of the opposition says, at the highest level of coronavirus in the United Kingdom today. At various points, all four nations have been in that position. England was in it earlier in the summer, Northern Ireland was in that position a few weeks ago, Scotland have had the same experience in relation to the central belt. So, this is an evolving pattern in which spikes occur in different places.

As far as capacity in the health service is concerned, there are two sorts of capacity that we're talking about. There's physical capacity in terms of bed numbers: 16 per cent of acute beds in the Welsh NHS are not occupied today. So, physical capacity is stretched, but not stretched to breaking point. The other capacity we're talking about is staff, and that's where the current difficulties I think are at their most acute. We have the highest number of staff at any point during this year who are self-isolating and for other reasons not available to be in work; 1,500 more people last week than was the case in September. And the problem that has been faced in some parts of the NHS, and the reason why some non-urgent treatments are being suspended, is because we simply don't have staff in place to keep everything that the health service wants to do going, and we're having to concentrate the staff resources we have on those most urgent things, including providing for the rising number of people suffering from coronavirus. So, we rely on a regular engagement with all our health boards, to look at the capacity of the system to continue to do things other than coronavirus, and that varies from health board to health board at the moment, but it is a daily engagement that we have with them in order to make sure that, as far as possible, the health service does all the things we would all want it to do.

As to the letter on mutual aid, of course, I will reply to it, once again endorsing the principle of mutual aid that has been there through coronavirus. Wales has supplied 11 million items of PPE to the English NHS during this crisis as part of our mutual aid, and the letter that I've received today restates that, and I'm very happy to once again endorse it.

First Minister, whilst the COVID pandemic continues to escalate in most parts of Wales, there are still some valid concerns from many across the country about the negative consequences of further restrictions, in particular, as you said earlier, the effect on people's mental health. As my colleague the Member for Aberconwy said earlier, last month, Mind Cymru teamed up with researchers at Cardiff and Swansea universities to speak to more than 13,000 people about the impact of the pandemic on mental health in Wales, and their research showed that around half of the participants showed clinically significant psychological distress, with around 20 per cent reporting severe effects. Therefore, we can't be under any illusions that further restrictions could make life difficult for a lot of people, and it's crucial that the Welsh Government signposts support and ensures that mental health services are accessible to those who actually need them.

As the Welsh Government makes its decision on the next steps for Wales, can you tell us what mental health impact assessment has been carried out in relation to any further restrictions? Could you tell us what additional support will be made available to people who need it, and how will the Welsh Government signpost services and encourage people to ask for help should they feel that their mental health is suffering as a result of any further restrictions?

Well, I thank the Member. It's an absolutely important area, of course. It comes up in all the conversations that I have when I'm talking to people beyond the Senedd. It comes up in conversations with our health workers, who've gone through a year not simply torrid in terms of the physical strain of the job that they do, but the emotional wear and tear that it has of seeing people who would otherwise be fit and well suffering from this awful disease. It comes up very regularly in the discussions that I have with young people, who are very alert to the impact that this year will have had on their sense of resilience and looking to the future.

I think what we have learnt through the many different impact assessments that we have done is that mental health services have to be provided in a range of different ways, because the sort of help that any one person might wish will vary from the way that other people will wish to access it. It's why we have the range of services that we do: a 24-hour, seven days a week telephone helpline for people who want to talk to somebody who they don't need to meet again, and for some people that is the best way of dealing with it. They don't want to have a conversation continuously; they want to be able to speak to somebody knowing that that person is skilled and able to help them, and knowing that, when they put the phone down, that's the end of the conversation. Our young people are often inclined to prefer online types of help with mental health and well-being issues. They like to use the exercises and help that is available in that way, and other people would prefer to sit down face-to-face with somebody and know that, if they need to speak to that person again next week, that person will be available to them. We have strengthened all of those strands in the response that we have made over the past months, to try to respond to the impact on people's sense of well-being.

The signposting to those services relies not simply on what the Welsh Government does, but on our partners in the third sector, such as Mind Cymru, and in our public services as well. As we go into next year, where we hope very much that there will be some more reasons for being optimistic that this experience will come to an end, we will still need to attend not just to the immediate impacts of the virus, but the long impact that coronavirus can have on people's physical, but also their mental well-being.

Plaid Cymru leader, Adam Price.

Diolch, Llywydd. The UK Prime Minister has repeatedly scored own goals by only partially and belatedly heeding Marcus Rashford's call to provide free schools meals in England. While the Conservative Government has an ideological objection to helping the most vulnerable in society, in Wales, we have a moral obligation. Providing free school meals is one of the best ways of mitigating the worst effects of a second wave of Tory austerity, which will hit the poorest hardest, as the Marmot review, published today, has shown. In its own report in June last year, the Bevan Foundation found a number of shortcomings with the current free school meal system in Wales. The value from the support, they say, is not sufficient to lift enough children out of food poverty. With 180,000 children living in poverty in Wales, do you regret dropping the long-standing target to eradicate child poverty by this year, and does that place a greater responsibility on you now to act?

Llywydd, I think the Welsh Government's record in relation to free school meals during this pandemic will stand up to very close examination. We were the first part of the United Kingdom to guarantee free school meals during the early part of the pandemic, and we were the first part of the United Kingdom to guarantee that we would continue to provide free school meals right through the autumn and into the spring of next year. The allowance that we provide for free school meals per pupil is higher than England, higher than Scotland—in fact, the highest in the United Kingdom.

Of course child poverty matters hugely to us, and there are more things that we would wish to do. It's why, during this term, we have doubled and then doubled again the number of times during a child's school career that they're able to take advantage of what was once called the school uniform grant. As from next calendar year, we will begin to roll out an additional sum of money available to pupils in year 7, the first year of secondary school—an additional sum of money to their free school meal allowance every day to make sure that those children do not have to choose between eating breakfast or eating lunch.

First Minister, as you are aware, the Scottish Government has recently committed to universal free school meals for all primary school children. In 1943, Finland introduced a law clearly requiring free school meals to be served to all children, a policy that is in place still today. And as the Finnish experience has shown—we've modelled much of our education system on them, and actually this commitment is right at the heart of the model, because it's food education in schools, it's a holistic tool that they use to deliver far-reaching benefits beyond the school canteen. Figures from the Child Poverty Action Group show that over 70,000 children living below the poverty line in Wales are not currently eligible for free school meals. To right this wrong, a Plaid Cymru Government would raise the eligibility threshold so that children in every household in receipt of universal credit would receive free school meals, and we'd set a clear timetable to extend free-school-meal provision to every pupil, on the Finnish model, beginning with universal free school meals for infants. First Minister, would you support this endeavour? 

I will want to see the detail of what Plaid Cymru is proposing. In particular, Llywydd, I will want to see where the money is to be taken from in order to pay for such a commitment, because when you are in Government that is the choice you face—that money spent on one purpose cannot be spent on something else. We spend our budget every year right up to the maximum, and this year and next year we will be drawing additional money out of reserves in order to be able to continue to defend our public services here in Wales. So, I will look at the detail of what the Member is proposing, not simply the headline that he's offered us this afternoon, but how much this will cost and where he thinks the money will come from in order to pay for it. And if I can see the detail of that, I'll be happy to consider it. 

Let me agree with what Adam Price said, though, in opening, because, of course, a meal in school is far more than just food. The campaign for free school meals was launched here in Cardiff in 1906 in City Hall here in Cardiff, where the Fabian Society published a pamphlet that has one of my favourite titles of all political pamphlets, because the title of the pamphlet was, 'And they shall have flowers on the table'. It is a beautiful title and what it tells you is that the case for free school meals was not simply feeding children, but it was valuing children. It was telling children who came to school that they were people that their society invested in and wanted to do the best by—'They shall have flowers on the table'. And in the sense of the Finnish experiment and the things that Adam Price said, I absolutely share the view that providing a meal for a child in school is more than just putting food in their stomachs; it is about the value that we place on that child, and the clear signal that we give to them about an investment that society makes in their future. 

I don't need to tell you about the value of progressive universalism; the point of universality is that you ensure then that everyone who needs it gets it. In relation to your point about finite resources, we need to be smart, so we need policies that deliver more than one objective. And so you can see, with universal free school meals, if you link it, for example, with the foundational economy—a square meal produced within the square mile, the foundation phase and the foundational economy, ensuring local procurement, children learning where their food comes from at the same time as helping the local food-producing businesses that were really hammered hard by the pandemic and, who knows, maybe by a 'no deal' Brexit—surely that's the kind of smart policy that we need, First Minister, that delivers to a preventative model savings even in financial terms because of the better health and educational outcomes for the children concerned and, indeed, their economic life chances, but also does it in a holistic way for the economy, for a better environment, for better health at the same time.   

Llywydd, all those arguments were arguments that led a Labour Government to introduce universal free meals in primary schools, because we have free breakfasts in primary schools that are free to all children. And it was exactly that sort of multiple objective that led the Cabinet at the time to find the money to invest in it. Free breakfasts provide food for children who otherwise would go without, they make their learning more effective because they have food in their stomachs and are able to concentrate on their learning, it provides particularly for those families who are on the edge of working, because if you don't have to pay for the child to be looked after or the child to be fed, then your ability to take up a job or to carry out more hours in that work are improved as well. So, the smart bringing together of multiple objectives is exactly what any Government would wish to do and, as I say, you can see it every single day in that progressive and universal service that free breakfasts in our primary schools represent.

I thank the Member for that question, Llywydd. Immediately following regulatory approval of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine, NHS Wales mobilised and administered over 4,000 doses within the first 48 hours of its availability. Detailed workforce modelling is under way, ahead of regulatory approval of subsequent vaccines. NHS Wales is prepared and ready for the task that lies ahead.

Thank you, First Minister. I'm pleased to hear that progress is being made, even at this early stage, on the rolling out of the vaccine. I understand that health boards have been asking some former nurses to return to work to help with the roll-out of the vaccine. I wonder if you could confirm that that is the situation, and also, is there any capacity within other organisations across Wales that might be able to help out with that vaccination programme? I think the sooner it can happen the better.

And also, if I could just add, in terms of the wider capacity issue, I know that in the news recently there have been some concerns about the number of COVID-19 cases at the new Grange University Hospital in Cwmbran, which is obviously being used as a centre for that. But there are concerns about that, with other patients being told to stay away. I wonder if you've had any discussions about any additional resourcing that could be made available to the Aneurin Bevan health board at this time, to make sure that that hospital, whilst bedding in—if you pardon the pun—in its early days, is able to cope with the number of cases there.

Well, Llywydd, I can give Nick Ramsay an assurance on that final point that discussions are, of course, ongoing with Aneurin Bevan about any mutual aid that can be provided or any further measures that can be taken to support the hospitals in that part of Wales, which are under some of the greatest strains, given the numbers of people in that part of Wales who are suffering from coronavirus. 

In relation to vaccination, I say to Nick Ramsay that the approach we have taken in Wales is to contact all four contractor professions—so, not simply GPs, but also pharmacists, optometrists and dentists—to see what contribution they may able to make to a mass vaccination programme, because all of those are professions where people carry out injections and other forms of clinical intervention every single day. I was very heartened yesterday to see the very positive responses we have had from all four of those professions—all of them offering to be part of a mass vaccination programme. I think that will give us an extra resilience here in Wales, as well as being able to draw in a wider range of experienced clinical professionals who can safely administer the vaccination. That will sometimes involve asking people who have recently retired to come back and be part of that effort, and I think that's very sensible as well. But I think, in Wales, we're drawing on the range of primary care professionals we have who are willing to make a contribution. We know that pharmacists carry out flu vaccinations in increasing numbers every year in Wales, and optometrists and dentists have skills, experiences and abilities that they, too, are willing to contribute to that effort, and that is how we are planning the future of our vaccination programme in Wales.

The Welsh Government, through Visit Wales and Cadw, promotes the unique character and value of our heritage to the people of Wales and the world, and that includes, of course, the rich heritage of mid Wales.

Thank you, First Minister. There is indeed a rich heritage in mid Wales. We are here in the Senedd this afternoon, but of course the first Senedd in Wales was believed to have been in Machynlleth, in my own constituency. I'm keen that we have an exciting and meaningful future for the Senedd-dy in Machynlleth. I would certainly like to see the Owain Glyndŵr Centre used by this Senedd and the Welsh Government, perhaps to a greater extent than it has been since devolution. So, can I ask you, First Minister, to commit to liaising with your officials to explore how the Senedd-dy in Machynlleth can be used by the Welsh Government, particularly when it's hosting events and promoting Wales around the world to emphasise the heritage and culture that we have here in Wales, and in doing so, reach out to the trustees of the centre to support them in their ambitions for the Senedd-dy?

I thank Russell George for that. Of course, Machynlleth has a very particular place in Welsh history and the Llywydd will have heard what Russell George said about the Senedd itself making use of that historic location. When the Welsh Government is in a position to welcome visitors to Wales, we often try and make sure that we hold those meetings in parts of Wales that showcase everything that Wales has to offer, and that certainly includes mid Wales, Llywydd. When I saw this question at the weekend, I was reminded that it is a year ago almost exactly—it will be a year to next week—when I was making a journey to north Wales, just personally, and took the opportunity to call in at two of the great mid Wales heritage sites of Abbeycwmhir, which I was visiting, I'm ashamed to say, for the very first time, and Gregynog, which I've been to many times, and those are just two examples of what we have in mid Wales.

I know that Russell George will be interested to know, because he's been a strong supporter of the Montgomery canal, that the Welsh Government has just awarded £250,000 to the Canal and River Trust to allow that fantastic work that's going on in restoring the canal to be taken forward. And, Llywydd, a week ago, I participated in a rare event these days outside the Senedd and Government buildings at the St Fagans museum in Cardiff, together with the Japanese ambassador, planting cherry trees there to mark the friendship between Japan and Wales. Mid Wales is to have a very significant share of the 1,000 cherry trees that will be planted this year to mark that friendship. So, just as we celebrate and mark the long history that we have, so we make history ourselves every day. Those cherry trees, which will be planted in mid Wales and in all other parts of Wales this year, will be there long after probably many of us will be there to see them and they will become part of the rich heritage of Wales for the future.

Business support for the region includes £137.6 million for over 10,000 business via the COVID-19 non-domestic business rates grant scheme and over £66 million through the first three phases of the economic resilience fund.

Thanks for that response. I’ve been contacted by various constituents who are community pharmacists and I’m asking what point the Welsh Government has reached in its negotiations with Community Pharmacy Wales—negotiations that have been going on for some months now—over compensating this sector for the financial costs that it incurred when pharmacists had to pay for their own PPE equipment at the start of the pandemic. The community pharmacists in Wales have done us proud in how they’ve responded to this pandemic and we’re now the only region in the UK where this sector hasn’t been compensated for the costs it incurred. We were promised a statement on this by the Trefnydd as soon as the outcome was known, so I’m just asking for an update on the situation.

I thank the Member for that supplementary question. He’s right that negotiations with community pharmacy have been proceeding over recent months. There was a further offer made by the Welsh Government some weeks ago. The health Minister has a meeting with Community Pharmacy Wales on Thursday of this week, when those negotiations will continue.

First Minister, the Business Wales barriers grant scheme is to prioritise those most affected by COVID-19, such as women, disabled people, people from black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds, and young people not in education or training, and it's to give some financial support to those people who will want to set up a business in the next few months. I wonder when this scheme will be evaluated, because I do think that promoting enterprise in groups that perhaps have traditionally found it difficult to access is a really worthy initiative.

I thank David Melding for the way he described the initiative, and it is exactly to do what he has described. It is to try and make sure that the talent, commitment and sense of enterprise that is absolutely to be found in those communities, and among those young people, does not become suppressed by the impact of the virus. That means we have to work harder to make sure that the help is available to them—help both in terms of the advice that they need and the mentoring that they may need, but sometimes in hard cash that they need in order to be able to move their ideas for new businesses forward.

I think it will be important to allow the scheme to have a run and to evaluate partly as we go along, but not to hold up the ambitions we have from it by trying to pause it too soon in order to assess its effectiveness. In the current, extraordinary circumstances, I wanted to see that scheme push ahead. I wanted to even take a few risks, in a way that Governments sometimes find difficult. Because if you are dealing with people who have new ideas and who want to try something that hasn't been tried before, if you are not prepared sometimes to back a young person or back somebody who has got that idea, recognising that not all those ideas will succeed, then you don't get the scheme off the ground. That's the spirit in which I would like the scheme to be taken forward.  

First Minister, businesses in my constituency are very thankful that the Welsh Government has supported them throughout the coronavirus pandemic, with the most generous package of business support anywhere in the UK, including the latest injection of £340 million to support hospitality, tourism and other businesses that have been affected by the most recent restrictions. What assessment have you made of how the business support in Wales compares to that on offer in other parts of the UK?

Llywydd, I thank Vikki Howells for that. She is right to say that our scheme of business support in Wales, we believe, is the most generous available to any business in any part of the United Kingdom. I'm pleased to report this afternoon, Llywydd, following questions on the floor over the last couple of weeks, that the help that we are offering to hospitality businesses affected by the restrictions that had to be introduced about 10 days ago—that that money has now begun to make its way into the pockets of those businesses.

Hundreds of businesses have now received that help. Millions of pounds have been paid out to them. That is at a point where 14 of our 22 local authorities have yet to make returns on the help that has been provided. So, not only is the help generous, but the help is getting to where we needed it to go. Vikki Howells pointed to the £340 million that we are making available to support those businesses, and I cannot help but contrast it with the fact that the UK Government has provided £40 million for the whole of wet pubs in England affected by the restrictions that they have had to introduce there.  

Llywydd, an analysis by the Bank of England and the Office for Budget Responsibility demonstrates the damaging impact of coronavirus on our economy, including that of south-east Wales. Both bodies suggest a relatively rapid rebound in the second quarter of 2021, provided that that is not undone by the catastrophe of a 'no deal' Brexit. 

I thank the Minister for that answer. First Minister, the Welsh Government were highly successful in bringing the Spanish train manufacturing company CAF to South Wales East, with the potential to bring 300-plus skilled engineering jobs to the area. CAF secured a contract to supply 77 state-of-the-art diesel multiple units to Transport for Wales. Delivery was scheduled for 2022. Could the Minister update us as to whether the COVID crisis has delayed supply of these units?

Well, Llywydd, first of all, let me say that I think the fact that CAF are now operating out of south-east Wales is a huge benefit to Wales. I was lucky enough to be able to meet the whole of the board of CAF when they visited Wales. They'd come from a visit to one of their investments in the United States of America, and they said to me that the thing that they were most struck by, visiting Wales, was the strong sense of attachment to the company that the workforce here demonstrated during their visit. That sense of a loyal, committed highly skilled workforce, and they were hugely complimentary of it.

Coronavirus has had an enormous impact on the rail sector. The Welsh Government is providing over £100 million simply to sustain that part of our public transport network during these extraordinarily difficult days. We do look forward to the point where the delivery of new rolling stock to Wales will allow us to get back to the plan that we had originally set out, which, as the Member knows, is to improve services, to create a new metro system here in south Wales and to provide the travelling public with the sort of experience that they look for and deserve. Whether the plans are capable of being implemented to the original timetable is something that we continue to discuss very regularly with Transport for Wales. I had a meeting with them myself only this week, and that can only really be finally determined as we see, as we hope we will, a recovery in the economy next year, allowing passengers to return to the railway safely and the revenues that they bring with them to flow into the industry.

I thank Rhun ap Iorwerth for the question, Llywydd. The Welsh Government grant support to businesses in Ynys Mon during the pandemic now totals almost £30 million, not including the latest phase of the economic resilience fund. The difficulties faced by businesses on the island, as a result of COVID-19, will be far exceeded by the economic damage of a 'no deal' Brexit.

I would certainly agree with those forecasts, unfortunately. In terms of COVID, one sector that's suffered greatly is tourism and hospitality, which are being hit hard once again by the latest restrictions. Many have decided to close entirely. First of all, can the First Minister tell us when they can expect to receive the latest grant payments? Because although the customers have to stay away, the bills still have to be paid.

There other businesses who haven't been able to operate at all, virtually, since March, and they have no idea when they'll be able to recommence—businesses in events, weddings, outdoor pursuit centres; others are having to remain dormant for the winter. The speedboat company on the Menai, which had sold a great many tickets for Christmas, are now having to repay that money. So, what special consideration is given to such businesses who more or less will have to go into hibernation now, as far as we can see?

And can I also make an appeal on behalf of those businesses who still fall between the cracks in terms of financial support? Not paying salaries through PAYE or not being registered for VAT is still a problem for many. Another failed to show the scale of his losses, although income had collapsed almost entirely this year—that was a boat trip company. So, can I ask how the Government has, or is, going to do more to identify those gaps that businesses are still falling into, and how can we as Senedd Members help to pass information on about those difficulties faced by those businesses?

Well, Llywydd, may I thank Rhun ap Iorwerth for that series of supplementary questions? Just to say, in the first place, that support under the most recent scheme has already started to be issued by the local authorities directly to businesses. And as I said in response to other questions this afternoon: hundreds of businesses have received that support already, and millions of pounds have gone directly to them, and the hope is that the sum will increase over this week.

And, of course, we are aware of the challenging times that the hospitality and tourism sectors are facing, and we continue to speak to them; the Minister responsible for them speaks to them every week to try and plan ahead for the future and for the new year. And the hope is that, if we can—we are not in that position today, as we've already been discussing—but in the future, the hope is to reopen those sectors and to support them to work as they would wish to work—not be dependant on Government grants, but to generate income through their own businesses.

And on that final point, we have endeavoured already to be more flexible in the way in which we take information or the evidence of their balance sheets, so that we can help them. Ultimately, Llywydd, the funding is public money, and we as a Government have to be certain, when we do give these businesses financial support, that we must ensure that they are genuine businesses. That is why, sometimes, we ask for evidence from them to demonstrate that they are who they say they are, and that we can then give them the funding in the knowledge that we can explain in the future that we did so in a way that is cautious on one side, but flexible at the same time.

And finally, question 8, Hefin David.

Llywydd, can I thank Hefin David? Progress on containing cases in Caerphilly has been reinforced by Welsh Government action in relation to indoor attractions, hospitality, education, the health service and, as of yesterday, closure of outdoor attractions as well. I thank, as ever, Llywydd, the residents of Caerphilly for everything they do to help contain this deadly virus.

Aneurin Bevan University Health Board put out an unprecedented call to citizens of Caerphilly and beyond in their area to not attend health services where they don't need to, and to recognise that they need to make the right choices. And I have to say to the people of Caerphilly who have been in touch with me, on the whole—almost the entire number of people who have been in touch with me via my Facebook page, Facebook live sessions—have been supportive and have recognised what they need to do. However, and I'm almost reluctant to do this, there have been a small number of people who have said some extraordinary things. I'll give you an example: one person said to me last week, 'This is no different, this winter, to any other.' Someone else said: 'Most of those dying from COVID are elderly or vulnerable, and would probably have died of cold, flu or pneumonia instead.' These are some of the statements that were made last week by a very small minority of people, but, nonetheless, those people have a huge impact. Will the First Minister explain, again, how this is an unprecedented crisis, how it's having a huge effect on our NHS, and that the rules that are in place are the very maximum people should do, and should not be an invitation to do anything further? We need to take this seriously. 

Well, Llywydd, I couldn't agree more with that. We have lived through unprecedented times this year, and the impact on all our lives and all our public services is absolutely profound. Those people who have somehow become convinced or convinced themselves that this is all a got-up job, and there's nothing that they need to worry about, I'm afraid coronavirus is no respecter of them either. All of us will have seen accounts from people who thought that, somehow, coronavirus was a mild illness that had no impact, only to find that when they themselves contracted it, or someone who is dear to them contracted it, it turned out to be very different indeed. That is why we make the appeal that we do to people in Wales not to lean on the rules, not to try and find ways of stretching the rules, but to think in each one of our daily lives what we should do, rather than what we can do. And if we do what we should do, then we will avoid contact with other people when we don't need it, we'll travel only when we must, we will work from home wherever possible, and we will certainly observe the advice that comes from the health service as to how only those who need to be in a hospital should be in a hospital. And that advice that people in Caerphilly and the Gwent area have had from the Aneurin Bevan health board, I'm sure, as Hefin David said, will be very carefully observed by the vast majority of people. The sad thing about coronavirus, Llywydd, is that it only takes a small minority to believe that they are somehow beyond the rules to have a far disproportionate impact on the spread of the virus to everybody else. 

Thank you, First Minister.

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

This year, we have invested over £4 million of additional funding in the violence against women, domestic abuse and sexual violence sector. This includes £1.3 million of new money for disbursed community-based accommodation, which will free up refuge space. And during the pandemic, I've repurposed funding to support refuges and published guidance for providers.

Thank you, Deputy Minister, and I acknowledge that support and welcome it greatly. I've recently spoken to Rhondda Cynon Taf Women's Aid, who tell me that they can't get onsite COVID-19 testing for staff or residents of refuges, which is causing them problems and impacting on their ability to help people in need. Can you raise this with colleagues in Welsh Government, so that women's refuges can perhaps be treated in the same way as care homes for the purpose of COVID testing?

I thank Vikki Howells for that important question, and I have raised this with the violence against women, domestic abuse and sexual violence strategic group. That meets regularly with all the service providers, and they invited the test, trace and protect officials to attend the meeting to discuss this with the strategic group, to answer questions and address concerns. So, Welsh Government is currently considering access to testing for asymptomatic underrepresented groups. This would include both workers and clients in hospitals, as well as refuges, because they are being considered as part of this work. And I think test, trace and protect protocols would apply, of course. If anyone living or working in a refuge is able to access testing, they obviously have to show symptoms of coronavirus. But, those in refuges who have vulnerabilities and receive support services, we need to ensure that we can access this, and I believe the discussions ongoing with the providers, and Women's Aid, of course, will lead us to the right outcome. 

Deputy Minister, a report from the National Rural Crime Network last year, highlighted by Welsh Women's Aid, found that, for victims of domestic violence in rural areas, and I'm going to quote directly here, 'barriers to action' are 

'far more complicated and inhibiting'

in rural areas than in urban areas;

'in rural areas it seems likely victims do not know where to go to for the type of support required; it is harder to coordinate or access and the fear of any approaches becoming known is higher.'

Given that fewer survivors in rural settings disclose, services obviously will need to be based on need rather than demand, and it requires a deliberate strategy to ensure research, data and analysis are not skewed towards the urban demands and are fully inclusive of our rural communities. So, I just wondered, Deputy Minister, if you could outline what actions your Government has taken to redress this urban bias, and to ensure that the needs of rural victims of domestic violence are also fully addressed. 

Thank you to Angela Burns for that important question. And the issues of rurality are being addressed. In fact, I thank Joyce Watson, who convened and hosted a meeting on the White Ribbon Week that specifically focused, with the National Federation of Women's Institutes, on issues of domestic violence in rural areas. And issues—. For example, the ways in which we can support and help have been made available. We've got six video-conferencing suites across Dyfed-Powys, in your region, to make it easier to hold those all-important, cross-sector case conferences, the multi-agency risk assessment conferences. We've provided additional funding for disbursed community-based accommodation, provided funding to enable witnesses to give evidence remotely, with support from service providers. And indeed, in terms of that extra money for community-based accommodation, £427,543 has been allocated directly to Mid and West Wales. But training is crucially important—around 30,000 professionals trained through our national training framework in Mid and West Wales last year. So, it has to be an all-Wales response. But rurality, I can assure the Member, is crucial in terms of reaching out and providing that support.

We've invested an additional £1.52 million since April in our community cohesion programme. The regional cohesion teams in north Wales work closely with key partners, including local government, the police, third sector, fostering cohesive communities, providing support and information, and monitoring and mitigating community tensions.

Thank you, Minister. I read the report of the task and finish group led by Gaynor Legall with interest. Now that relevant monuments have been identified, I'm interested to hear your plans for the next steps, and your assessment as to how those steps will impact community cohesion in my region, and indeed in the rest of Wales. Thank you.

Thank you to the Member for that question. And I'm sure she would have welcomed the audit that was undertaken, led by Gaynor Legall, looking at those monuments and also street names, and recognising also not only have we got to address these issues, but also we have got to look at how we can celebrate those who have played such an important role—particularly in terms of black, Asian and minority ethnic members of the community, and indeed in terms of historical perspectives. But I'm also very pleased that our own culture committee is going to be undertaking their own inquiry and following up that review.

Deputy Minister, the pandemic has had a profound impact on the way our constituents meet their loved ones, their support networks, and indeed how they conduct their business on a daily basis. A stable digital broadband connection is now more important than ever, so that people can feel part of an inclusive and cohesive community. You'll be aware of the recent Red Cross report, calling for strategic investment in tackling digital isolation, so that people can stay connected throughout future restrictions. And according to a recent update from Openreach Cymru, 39,000 of the hardest-to-reach properties will be connected under the fibre roll-out scheme by June 2022. Now, we have heard this before, and some of those ambitions have never been fulfilled. However, if they are, for many, that is still too long to wait. So, can you explain whether you as a Government, and as Deputy Minister—whether you're going to look at a more ambitious target to implement, in light of the need for more people now to work from home, and also outline how this will be approached strategically to combat such digital exclusion? Thank you.

Combating digital exclusion is crucial in terms of enhancing and supporting community cohesion, but particularly reaching out to the most vulnerable people in our communities, as you say, Janet Finch-Saunders, affected by coronavirus. And I think what we have been able to do over the last nine months—and certainly through my budget, through the third sector and equality budget—is repurpose some of our funding to ensure that we can provide not just equipment, but training and support to many of those who have been excluded and disadvantaged because they haven't had that access. And indeed, this is very much a cross-Government initiative, led by the Deputy Minister for economy and transport, in terms of not only addressing digital exclusion, but actually focusing on how we can include those communities as we move to more remote working, but also not exclusively addressing those issues where people have not got access in a digital way. 

During these difficult times, I've engaged as widely as possible on the work we are undertaking to strengthen and advance equality and human rights in Wales. This has included online meetings with young people to hear their lived experiences and what changes they want to see, but, particularly, I would say, recently, in terms of reaching out to young people, to help inform our new Wales race equality action plan. 

Deputy Minister, that's really good to hear, and can I draw attention to our local Bridgend Youth Council, which has got some excellent representatives, including the recently elected youth mayor Megan Stone, and the deputy youth mayor Tino Kaseke, whose three main priorities for this term this year are youth mental health awareness and supporting schools, ending racism and injustice through education, and supporting LGBTQ+ rights? And, of course, there are also the equalities officers, Cameron Richards and Megan Lambert. So, clearly there's a read-across with your responsibilities as Deputy Minister. So, can I ask how do you engage with these young people on the equalities and human rights issues, which are important to them, and, specifically, whether she can engage with members of the Bridgend Youth Council on these shared priorities? 

I thank Huw Irranca-Davies for that important question, because the pandemic has led to an unprecedented level of engagement with all our stakeholders, including reaching out to young people, but also to many of our equality fora and groups. I mentioned the race equality action plan, and that has enabled me to meet with many young people through the Ethnic Youth Support Team, Race Council Cymru and the wonderful Privilege Cafe. I think we need to link members of the Bridgend Youth Council to many of those fora to enable them to have their say.

I have met with young people from Bridgend recently, and they are formidable in terms of their commitment, particularly around those issues relating to equality and LGBTQI+ rights. So, I hope that they will also be able to inform the research and consultation that we're undertaking with the race equality action plan, but also on the LGBT+ action plan, and the work that we're doing in strengthening equality and advancing human rights in Wales, where we are, obviously, moving forward with not just research, but looking at legislative models, which I would hope they could engage with. But I would very much like to meet with the Bridgend Youth Council. 

Laura Anne Jones.

Sorry, I haven't got—. 

Okay, okay. Fine. 

Question 4, Paul Davies. 

The Welsh Government has already provided £24 million to support the third sector in Wales through the pandemic. This recognised the vital role the sector has played in the response to COVID-19. And I am now making an additional £2.5 million available to ensure this support continues until the end of March. 

I'm grateful to the Deputy Minister for that response. Now, as you know, the COVID-19 pandemic has hit many charities across Wales very, very hard and had a huge impact on their funding streams. Now, this is particularly important for medical research charities, and some estimates suggest that the pandemic may set medical research back by as much as 10 years. Can you tell us what the Welsh Government's latest assessment is of the impact of COVID-19 on medical charities in particular? And what further assistance can you offer the sector to ensure life-saving medical research will actually continue to be funded here in Wales? 

I thank Paul Davies for that important question, and, of course, the loss of fundraising has particularly hit those medical charities, indeed, we have to say all charities, but those where perhaps there has been a crucial response—Marie Curie. We look to so many of those medical charities that often come here in order to launch, for example, the daffodil campaign. The emergency fund has, of course, provided close to £7 million, enabling 156 organisations to support both volunteers and beneficiaries, and that, of course, has now been replaced by the voluntary services recovery fund, because we have to ensure that we sustain those organisations, even with their loss of income. But I will also look at the particular impact on medical charities and report back to the Senedd on that particular sector in our third sector and charity organisations.FootnoteLink

This year, the violence against women, domestic abuse and sexual violence sector has received over £4 million of new money, much of it to respond to the challenges posed by the pandemic. The mid and west Wales regional partnership received over £685,000 this year.

Thank you for that, and thank you for the support you give the victims of domestic violence. I know that this is a cause incredibly dear to your heart, and I'm grateful for everything that you do. Basically, I wanted to know if you would help me recognise the Royal Mail, because they've recently launched an online safe space portal, and, as we know, because of the COVID crisis, so many people aren't able to go out there and get help, there are so many people trapped in their own homes, not able to get away from an abusive or coercively controlling partner, but this safe space portal you can get to from any website, there's no record of internet trace history, and it does help and can help people. It's been developed in conjunction with Hestia. First of all, Deputy Minister, would you also welcome this amazing initiative? Secondly, perhaps you could just outline other ways in which the Welsh Government could work with organisations such as the Royal Mail to reach out and give that lifeline to people who are feeling utterly, utterly trapped at the moment.

I thank Angela Burns for that question and for her earlier questions this afternoon. I certainly endorse and welcome Royal Mail's initiative with their new portal. Indeed, I'm very impressed, across the public and private sectors, by the ways in which organisations are responding to this need. It's not just for the public sector; it is, indeed, for all those organisations who have a role to play and who are actually in touch with people on a daily basis.

I think it's important that we also just share today, as we move towards the Christmas period, recognising that is not an easy period for many in terms of how home is not always a safe place, that we're launching another phase of the 'Home shouldn't be a place of fear' campaign during Christmas and the new year. It'll be aired on tv, radio and digital platforms to reach the most vulnerable so that victims will know about the services that are operating, and it's back to encouraging bystanders and concerned others to access help and information, with the dial 999 plus 555, which is, of course, where you can get police support as well. So, I thank the Member very much for raising this, and hope that all Members across this Chamber will respond to our call in terms of making the Live Fear Free helpline widely understood and known across Wales.

Thank you, Deputy Minister.

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 this week's business. Immediately after this business statement, I will seek a suspension of Standing Orders in order for us to debate the Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (No. 4) (Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2020, the Public Health (Protection from Eviction) (Wales) (Coronavirus) Regulations 2020 and the Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (School Premises and Further Education Institution Premises) (Wales) Regulations 2020, and the new coronavirus restrictions. I've also added an oral statement on the end of the transition period. In order to accommodate these additions, the statement on the publication of the national policy on Welsh language transmission and use in families has been postponed. Finally, the motion to agree the legislative consent motion on the Trade Bill has also been postponed. 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.

On 3 December, crime and justice specialist Crest Advisory published a report on county lines and looked-after children. Based on that report, I called for a Welsh Government statement on support for looked-after children in north Wales. Using police data and stakeholder interviews in north Wales and Merseyside chosen to reflect exploitation at both ends of a county line, they found that almost all known county lines activity in north Wales originates in Merseyside, that the lines travel into north Wales firstly across the Welsh border into Flintshire and Wrexham local authorities, and secondly to coastal towns, including Rhyl, Colwyn Bay, Abergele, Llandudno and Bangor; that although looked-after children are taken into local authority care to improve their welfare, they are over-represented in child criminal county lines exploitation and are therefore far from being effectively safeguarded; that children placed in residential care homes and unregulated settings are at a higher risk of going missing, with 31 per cent of missing incidents in north Wales in the last two years reported from care; and that although looked-after children are disproportionately represented in county lines networks, they are not being systematically identified by police or local authorities. I think this is an urgent matter, a pressing matter, and one that must not be overlooked because of COVID, and I call for an urgent statement accordingly. 

I am grateful to Mark Isherwood for raising what is a really, really important issue. Any suggestion of looked-after children being exploited is clearly something that we must take very seriously, and the issue of county lines is one that is of huge concern and is a real challenge, both for social services locally and for the police. I know that Mark Isherwood will be taking this issue up with North Wales Police, but I will ask the Minister with responsibility for social services to also provide him with an update on what social services can do to ensure that looked-after children in their care are kept as safe as possible and are educated about the dangers of county lines and protected from individuals who would seek to exploit them. So, I'd be very happy to find an opportunity for him to be updated on that. 

I'd just like to say I share the concerns of Mark Isherwood, and it is not just looked-after children who are being targeted by county lines. I'm afraid it's a lot of other vulnerable young people as well. So, I would welcome very much a statement from the Government on that matter. 

I just wanted to raise another matter, which is that the people of Wales are very generous at giving to charities throughout the year, but they're especially generous at Christmas time. And I just need to raise the fact that, unfortunately, it also attracts the attention of criminals, who either pretend to be representing a charity or set themselves up as bogus charities. And £350,000 was lost in the last Christmas period to criminals, and so I just want to point out that it is really important that people do not give their personal details to any unsolicited calls over the phone, particularly their financial details, and that they need to look for the charity number on all bona fide registered charities and, if they're collecting on the street, where's the badge that shows that they are actually collecting for that charity. Given that even very small sums going astray causes huge distress to the individuals who are giving, even if they have very little money, I just wondered what the Welsh Government can do to highlight this problem as well as supporting the action by the Charity Commission in driving down this horrible, horrible crime. 

It is indeed the season of goodwill and, as Jenny Rathbone says, the people of Wales are an incredible group of people in terms of the generosity that they demonstrate to their neighbours and to strangers, and we've seen so much of that through the coronavirus pandemic. The Charity Commission is currently running a really important campaign that is providing people with advice as to how they can give safely this Christmas and to ensure that they're not being exploited by people who would wish to take their financial details, and so on, or to encourage them to donate to a charity that isn't a bona fide charity. As Jenny Rathbone said, one of the easiest things that people can do is to check out the registered number of the charity to ensure that the place where they are providing their charitable support is one that is legitimate and that will not abuse their generous nature. So, thank you to Jenny Rathbone for offering the opportunity to highlight that particularly important campaign by the Charity Commission.

In view of the apparent continuing impasse in three critical areas in the Brexit negotiations, could we have a statement on what concessions the Welsh Government would be willing to make in order to avoid a 'no deal' scenario? Would it be to concede on our fishing grounds—which, incidentally, at this moment are being plundered by giant trawlers dredging up 250 tonnes of fish a day, with disastrous environmental consequences—or would it be to give way on the so-called level playing fields, meaning of course that the UK Government would, amongst other crucial economic interventions, remain very restricted by state-aid rules, disallowing us to help our steel industries in the way that we would want to? Or would it be to keep the European Court of Justice supremacy over UK law, something that people who voted for Brexit were implacably against?

[Inaudible.]—the UK Government and the EU to come to that agreement amongst themselves. The Welsh Government has been very clear all along about the kind of Brexit that we would have liked to have seen—one that would have provided the best opportunity possible to protect people's jobs and their livelihoods. Unfortunately, the UK Government has taken a very different road and has provided us with a very difficult road ahead of us. So, clearly those are questions that the UK Government are going to have to answer as they seek to move forward, and we very much hope that they do strike a deal and that we aren't faced with a 'no deal' Brexit at the end of this month, which, as we all appreciate, will be catastrophic.

I very much hope that we do get some form of deal at the end of this, despite the eleventh hour, so any input that the Welsh Government can have into that process would, I'm sure, be beneficial.

Two issues if I may raise with you, Trefnydd. Firstly, the issue I raised with the First Minister earlier: could we have a statement from the health Minister on addressing the capacity issues in the NHS, given the spiralling number of cases now of COVID-19? I refer the health Minister to the situation in the new Grange University Hospital in south-east Wales. That is already, I believe, at capacity in terms of COVID cases, and patients are being told not to go there unless they really have to with other conditions. That's obviously causing concern, so could we just have an update on what can be done to try and alleviate the situation there?

Secondly and finally is the issue that's been raised by Jenny Rathbone and my colleague Mark Isherwood on care-experienced children, and the specific issue he raised in north Wales. It reminded me as Chair of the Public Accounts Committee of the work we did earlier in this Assembly term on care-experienced children, and we took a fair amount of evidence from young people themselves who'd been through the care system, and there were issues raised particularly around placements. I wonder, as time has passed since the first part of that inquiry, whether we could have an update from the Welsh Government on what's been done to implement the recommendations that we came forward with at that time. Thank you. Diolch.

Thank you for raising both of those issues. I do believe the health Minister has provided a written statement that sets out some of the actions that the NHS organisations will be taking over the course of the winter in order to free up some of that capacity in order to respond to the challenges of the COVID pandemic—for example, not continuing with so many elective surgeries, and so on. Difficult choices of course for the NHS, because they will inevitably have a knock-on impact on individuals, which is why it's incumbent on all of us to follow the rules and to do as much as we possibly can to prevent the spread of the coronavirus.

And on the issue of looked-after children, I can see that there is a strong interest across parties for a statement on Welsh Government support for looked-after children, so I will speak to the Minister to explore whether an update can be forthcoming and which goes beyond just the county lines issue and looks more widely at the issues affecting looked-after children.

Can I ask for a Government debate on regional policy in Wales? And whilst the Welsh unionists are unable to identify the needs of the different parts of Wales, I would like a debate to discuss how we can improve the economy in the different regions of Wales, identified by the four economic deals in the national development framework. Can I ask for the following statements, which, due to lack of time, may need to be written: one on the progress of the enhanced Lucy's law that the Welsh Government has promised to deliver this term, and one on the enhanced use of the port in Swansea for trade with Ireland, linking across to Cork?

Thank you to Mike Hedges for raising those issues. I do know that the Minister for Environment, Energy and Rural Affairs has questions tomorrow, and there are a number of opportunities there to raise questions in relation to animal welfare, so that might be a chance to have a very quick update on the approach to Lucy's law.

In regard to regional economic development and a regional approach to supporting local economies, I know that the Minister for Economy, Transport and North Wales is very keen on that approach, and I know that he'll be keen to update colleagues on his thoughts on that in due course as well. Then the further issues, I think, were relating to the ports, and I think that I'll ask the Minister to provide you with a written update on that particular issue as well.

Minister, can I have a statement from the Welsh Government on a number of flood-related matters? Firstly, obviously, I'm very pleased with your success in securing £31 million from the UK Government as, certainly, a part payment towards some of the promised moneys for the extraordinary flood damages that we have. Of course, this was on the back of a strong campaign by Labour Members of the Senedd in the Rhondda Cynon Taf and Merthyr areas, slightly more broadly, and from local Members of Parliament as well. We had to drag the UK Government kicking and screaming to make this first payment. Can we have a statement to deal with the further negotiations that will now need to take place in respect of the remainder of the flood damage money that was promised, and in respect of the work that's needed with regard to coal tips? Secondly, can that statement also deal with the issue of support for domestic flood resilience measures in the Rhondda Cynon Taf area, particularly in the Pontypridd, Taff Ely area, which I understand Natural Resources Wales is currently discussing with Welsh Government?

Thank you to Mick Antoniw for that question. I was very pleased to be able to secure £31 million in-year from the UK Government reserve in order to help us respond to the impacts of flooding in Mick Antoniw's constituency and others. I'd like to take this opportunity to put on record my thanks to the Members of Parliament and also the Members of the Senedd, including Mick Antoniw, who have taken a leading role in campaigning for that additional funding to come forward to their constituencies. Unfortunately, the response on additional funding for next year was not positive, which means that Welsh Government has some difficult decisions to make in terms of allocating funding there.

But on the wider issue of Natural Resources Wales and the property flood resilience projects, I understand that they are likely to be delivered next year and we do await a bid now from Natural Resources Wales for these projects, following successful applications from local authorities. This year, the Minister for Environment, Energy and Rural Affairs has provided 100 per cent grant funding for emergency repairs to damaged flood assets across Wales, totalling £5 million, and the Minister's also promoted the use of property flood resilience, such as floodgates, for example, to help communities that have suffered from flooding. She's already provided over £1 million of support for such measures, which will benefit up to 594 different homes.

Minister, would it be possible to have a statement on the impact of the UK Government's awful decision to suspend tariffs on US aerospace imports in January 2021? This decision essentially discriminates against Airbus and every single business in their supply chain, and is against Welsh wings and in favour of US-produced wings. Can you also update the Chamber, Minister, on any conversations you have had in your role as finance Minister with the UK Treasury on the aerospace industry in Wales? Would you commit to meeting with myself and Airbus to help aid these conversations in the future?

Thank you to Jack Sargeant for raising this issue. On the Airbus-Boeing dispute, our understanding is that after the end of the transition period, the UK Government will suspend our retaliatory tariffs against the US, which were imposed in November as part of the EU-wide position. These tariffs were imposed in November as part of the award given to the EU by the World Trade Organization. We are concerned that the UK Government has made this offer without gaining any similar offer from the US to lower its tariffs against us, and we share the UK Government's ambition to reach a negotiated settlement as quickly as possible on this long-running dispute, but we will be seeking some clarification now on this approach from them. And clearly, as Jack Sargeant has said many, many times, a 'no deal' Brexit will be extremely damaging for the UK aerospace industry and for his constituents who are employed in that sector and, therefore, it's important that the UK Government does secure that comprehensive trade deal with the EU, with tariff-free access to EU markets. Of course, I'd be very, very happy to meet with Jack Sargeant to discuss this further. 

Trefnydd, I wonder if we could have a statement—and a written statement would do—giving clarity on what the arrangements are after the Christmas period for priority slots for people who were previously shielding, that have been made a priority by retailers, whether those are going to continue. Now, the reason I ask for this is that I know that the Minister for Environment, Energy and Rural Affairs meets regularly with the Welsh Retail Consortium and with the large supermarkets, and I have had some disturbing calls from constituents where the retailers have told them that, as from 2 January, those priority slots will be disappearing, that there's no need for them anymore. Well, actually, if we're going into perhaps more stringent measures after Christmas, as somebody who has had one constituent writing to me who has diabetes and asthma, and is very worried about going out physically shopping, they want to know that they can still have a priority shop. They pay for this shopping; they just want to make sure that they can get it as a priority vulnerable customer. So, could we have a statement on that as soon as possible, hopefully before we rise for the Christmas recess?

I thank Huw Irranca-Davies for raising this important issue, and I do think that we should put on record our thanks to all the retailers who have been maintaining priority slots for shielding people at what is a really difficult time and, of course, there's a lot of pressure on those delivery slots at this time of year, but to see those slots prioritised still for shielding people and vulnerable people, I think, is really important. The Minister, as Huw Irranca-Davies says, does meet regularly with the Welsh Retail Consortium and also with the supermarkets. I do know that there's been a discussion with one of the larger supermarkets just this morning, and they have no plans to end the priority slots for those people who have been advised to shield, or who are otherwise vulnerable. So, I think that's a positive sign and I would hope that all of the other supermarkets would follow their lead. 

I thank the Trefnydd. 

The next item is the motion to suspend Standing Orders, and to do that to allow items 7, 8 and 9 to be debated. I call on the Trefnydd to move that motion.

Yes, formally. 

The proposal is to suspend Standing Orders to allow items 7, 8 and 9 to be debated. Does any Member object? No, I see no objections, therefore the motion is agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Secondly, a motion to suspend Standing Orders to allow a debate on item 17. I call on the Trefnydd to formally move.

Formally.

The proposal is to suspend Standing Orders to allow item 17 to be debated. Does any Member object? I see no objections to that, and therefore that motion is agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Item 3 has been postponed and we will now take a short break whilst changeovers take place in the Siambr. A short break.

We reconvene with item 4 on our agenda, which is a statement by the Counsel General and Minister for European Transition. I call on the Counsel General to make the statement—Jeremy Miles.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. On Sunday, yet another milestone in the negotiations on the UK’s future relationship with the EU passed, again without a breakthrough. I was expecting to be able to update you today on the precise nature of our future relationship with the EU. I had hoped to mention the key actions that businesses, citizens and public services would now need to take to prepare for the changes that we will face in just 16 days’ time. Clearly, I'm not in a position to do that, which is completely unacceptable. How can businesses prepare effectively when they don't know what they are preparing for, and without knowing whether tariffs and additional bureaucracy will be in place? How can police and security services protect us next month if they don't know whether they will have access to crucial systems and data? How can anyone who needs to travel plan when they don't know which air services will be operating?

We were told at the start of the negotiations that the Prime Minister had an oven-ready deal. Well, where is it? And we were told by the UK Government that by insisting, in the face of all logic, to push ahead with the 31 December deadline for the end of transition, despite the COVID pandemic, they would bring an end to the uncertainty that has dogged the UK for the last four years. Well, the reality is very different. We are 16 days from leaving the transition period, and we are no clearer in knowing whether we will be leaving with a deal or not.

Dirprwy Lywydd, it's clearly important that the UK Government and the European Commission have agreed to continue to talk. The absolute priority must be to avoid the outcome where we leave the transition period without an agreement. If that happens, we will see short-term chaos and long-term damage: disruption at our borders, posing risks to the supply of critical goods; higher costs of food and other basics; lower exports and more red tape for businesses, leading to less investment and ultimately to lost jobs and lower wages. That is not to mention the increased risks to the safety for our citizens, which is supposedly the first duty of a Government, from terrorists and organised crime.

Our position has been clear ever since the referendum. At every stage of negotiations, however far from our preferred outcome the UK Government has taken us, we have argued for maintaining the closest possible relationship with the European Union. Of the alternatives that we all face today, a deal, however thin, is the best way to achieve that. So, today I call again on the UK Government and on the EU to show the flexibility and the compromise that are needed to find an agreement. We live in a world of interdependence, not independence. The UK Government has to accept the fact that entering any trade deal necessarily limits sovereignty. This is the reality for ensuing the fullest access to markets for domestic goods and for services, and for avoiding higher prices for our consumers. And the European Union is by far our largest market.

The issues that remain unresolved are important, but they are not more important than the millions of jobs across the United Kingdom that rely on trade with the European Union, and they are not more important than the safety and security of our citizens. Although recent developments give some grounds for hope, as a responsible Government, we've been planning for the worst-case scenario of a 'no deal', and we will continue to do that. Over the coming weeks, our priorities are, as we set out in our end of transition plan published over a month ago: mitigating the disruption in the supply of critical goods; encouraging and supporting businesses to make the necessary preparations for the upheaval of leaving the single market and the customs union; and doing whatever we can to bolster the resilience of our citizens and public services.

We cannot wait for the clarity that we need. That is why we are already utilising our existing warehouse capacity to stockpile medical devices and consumables. We have contracted international trade advisers to support businesses to prepare for the changes in trading arrangements. And we are redeploying resources to stand up our civil contingencies response. There is no escaping the enormous challenges that lie ahead, and the fact that there is precious little time in which to prepare. But, we are working hard with our partners and our message is clear: we are here to support you. In the crucial final stages of the negotiations, we will continue to press the UK Government to set the dogma of sovereignty aside for the good of our jobs and livelihoods in Wales.

At this stage, with only 16 days to go, a deal—even as thin as this one would be—is better than no deal. The deal on the table should not be seen as a success. It lacks ambition and is far from the deal we would have wanted. However, it would avoid some of the worst effects of a disorderly 'no deal' end of transition and would give us something to build upon in the future. It will keep our relationship with the European Union from entirely breaking down and keeps open the prospect of building a set or arrangements in the future that can protect jobs, the economy and ensure the safety and well-being of our citizens.

Leaving the transition period without a deal would be a historic failure by the United Kingdom Government—failure that would be a product of poor negotiating tactics and of elevating political symbolism above the jobs of people. There are stark choices that lie ahead for the UK Government: prioritise the red lines and the soundbites or prioritise the jobs that give the citizens of the UK the livelihoods that they depend upon. 

Can I thank the Counsel General and Brexit Minister for a copy of his statement, which was circulated in advance? Although I have to say, it does remain apparent that the Welsh Government still has not come to terms with the referendum result in June 2016. It seems very clear to me that, as we near the end of this transition period, the UK Government has been working extremely hard to secure the best possible deal for the whole of the United Kingdom, and, of course, that includes all parts of the UK, including here in Wales. And the reality is that you will never get a good deal unless you're prepared to walk away without one. I don't want to see the UK, and Wales as a constituent part of the UK, tied into a deal in perpetuity that is a bad deal for Wales.

It's very disappointing, Minister, to hear the Welsh Government's position, articulated yet again, that they're prepared to accept any deal at all that might be on the table, even if that's a horrific deal that is bad for businesses in Wales and bad for the people in Wales. I happen to believe, and so do all Welsh Conservatives, that Wales will prosper outside of the EU, even if we don't have a deal. It would be far better, of course, to leave with a deal, and that is what I very much hope will be negotiated in the coming days. But if we don't, then so be it.

You made reference, in your statement, to an oven-ready deal: 'Where is it?', you cry. Well, of course, you know as well as I do that the oven-ready deal that the Prime Minister referred to in the general election period in 2019 was the withdrawal agreement deal, which was oven ready and ready to go, and was, in fact, delivered. That withdrawal deal is the deal that was done, that was on the table, and that people had the opportunity to express support for, or not, in the general election. And, of course, they expressed their support in very significant numbers. Can I ask you: do you accept that a bad deal is better than no deal at all? Because I think it would be good to get some clarity on that from the Welsh Government. If you think that getting a bad deal is the right thing to do—at any cost, we need a deal—then it would be good to have a very clear expression of that.

You make reference to the fact that the UK Government should have to set aside its ideological underpinning and attachment to sovereignty. Why should it? Why should it set aside its attachment to sovereignty? Canada didn't set aside its sovereignty in order to enter an EU trade agreement. Japan hasn't set aside its sovereignty in order to enter a trade agreement with the EU. And, in fact, the deals that we have signed now, which are ready to go from 1 January, with Canada, with Japan and with a whole host of other countries, have not set aside any of our sovereignty in order to be achieved. So, why should the UK Government cede some sovereignty to the EU in order to get a deal? Perhaps you can explain to me why that should be the case.

You seem to suggest, also, that you've got some insight into what the deal might look like. You actually said, I think, 'At this stage, with only 16 days to go, a deal—even a deal as thin as this one—would be better than no deal.' Well, how do you know? You haven't seen the deal. You haven't seen the deal that's being negotiated. You said the deal on the table should not be seen as a success. You haven't seen the deal on the table, because there isn't one yet that has been published. Now, either you're some sort of clairvoyant or you're just using rhetoric here because you're disappointed that some progress is being made.

I've been very pleased to hear the media reports over the past 24 hours that do seem to suggest that there's some movement on both sides. I accept that there's going to need to be some compromise from both the UK Government on behalf of the people of Wales and the rest of the UK, and on the side of the EU. I want to see a deal, but I don't think that any of us in this Senedd should dare to cross the wishes, and dare to try to frustrate the wishes of the people of Wales in leaving the EU, to take control of our own waters, our borders, our laws and our money, and that is the situation that we are in. 

Now, you made reference to some of the preparations that you as a Welsh Government have been undertaking. I think it's wise to prepare for all eventualities; I've said that in this Chamber in the past, and I reiterate that again today. I think it's right that you're preparing for a 'no deal' scenario, just in case that's the way things end up. Can you tell us what sort of investment you have had to make as a Welsh Government for the preparations that you have made to date? Obviously, we've had plenty of time to make those preparations; are there any that you are concerned about in terms of where things might end up? Can you tell us, also, what opportunities you foresee as a Welsh Government in terms of trade opportunities from the trade deals, which are set up and ready to go from 1 January? And how do you envisage people can plug in to the opportunities that that represents, particularly people in the business community and those exporters that might be able to take advantage? And do you also accept—

Can you wind up, please?

I will. And do you also accept that there are a whole host of powers? You asked me for a copy of the list of powers last week. I've got a copy of them in my hand, which I'll be happy to present to you outside of the Chamber. But there are scores of new powers—a big transfer of powers—coming to Wales as a result of our departure from the EU, and I would very much hope that you would welcome them. And just in case you—. This is the one thing that you don't seem to appear to have any knowledge of, but I've got a copy of them here. I'd be happy to relay that to you outside the Chamber later on. Thank you.

We'll just clarify a couple of things for the record, shall we? The oven-ready deal is absolutely not as the Member describes it, and I'm sure that the Prime Minister will be extremely grateful to him for reading out so faithfully the salvaged lines, which, clearly, have been circulated in Westminster to try and change the perceptions around that. And on the list of powers that he's brandishing in his hand, there's never been any dispute that powers returned to this place is a consequence of leaving the European Union. He knows full well that the point he was making in the debate when we last faced each other across the Chamber was around the internal market Bill, and I asked him to point me to the section in that Bill that provided any new powers to Wales, and I note from his last contribution that he didn't take the opportunity to do that.

He asked me whether I preferred the deal, which is apparently being negotiated, or no-deal; I think the entirety of my statement gives him the answer to that question. He is right to say that we don't have visibility of the deal on the table; I'm sure he would agree with me that we should, as a Government that will be significantly impacted, on behalf of the people of Wales. But he's right to say that we don't have the detail. We've been very clear: these have been the UK Government's negotiations, and the devolved Governments have not had the role in those that I'm sure Members of this Senedd, generally, would feel was appropriate. My description of it as a thin deal is based on the maximum ambition that the UK Government has for the relationship. Even if that was delivered in its entirety at this stage, it would be a thin deal. So, we can take that, I think, for read. 

He explores, in his question, the question of sovereignty. It's an important question, but it's essentially illusory in the context of international trade negotiations, because in order to gain advantage, you have to concede in order to secure any sort of agreement—it's in the nature of a negotiation. So, describing this as a battle between sovereignty is entirely missing the point. He speaks about Canada, he speaks about a range of other countries; if he would like us to have the level of trade with the EU that those countries have, that would be a significant diminution in our trading capability with the European Union—a significant diminution.

He asked me for opportunities, and yet he asked me to follow the principles that Canada and other countries have followed. Those two points are fundamentally at odds with each other, and I think the Member must be aware of that. In terms of opportunities from other deals, there are opportunities, we are pursuing them, but even at their most ambitious, they are a fraction of the impact on our GDP of a good trading relationship with the European Union, which is why we've put that at the top of our list of priorities. 

Finally, he says, 'Will we prosper outside the European Union?' This Government will want Wales to prosper in whatever relationship we have with any part of the world, but we have to look at the evidence and not defy the reality of our current arrangements, and how we can build upon those, not undermine them. That is what we seek to do as a Government here, and that is what we want the UK Government to do on our behalf.

Thank you to the Counsel General for the statement. As we know, with just days to go, the negotiations between the UK and the European Union continue. If a deal is put before Parliament in Westminster, Plaid Cymru will consider the pledges made in 2016 and 2019. Boris Johnson pledged that Wales would not receive a penny less, that we would receive the same benefits, and that our farmers could sell into the European market as they have done in the past. We will need to see the detail of the deal, but Plaid Cymru is clear that we couldn't support a deal that would be damaging to the people and businesses of Wales. 'Oven-ready' and 'the easiest deal in the world'—that's what was pledged, but that is not what has happened. A deal or 'no deal', there's not enough time to enable Welsh businesses, or even the Welsh Government, to prepare fully for whatever circumstances we find ourselves in on 1 January. The UK Government's red lines since 2017, leaving the single market and the customs union, do mean that some disruption is inevitable, whatever happens with the deal.

So, can I ask: what's the role of the Welsh Government been in all of this, or have you as a Government been ignored once again by the UK Government? Can you confirm what the latest situation is with the storage of drugs as a result of COVID and Brexit? And do you as Government expect delays in the delivery of medicines in our ports, which need to come in on a just-in-time basis? I hear what you say about stockpiling, but it's not possible to stockpile some medicines, because they will only last a few hours. So, are you concerned about the delays and disruption to some crucial medicines, such as radioisotopes? Further, Minister, are you concerned that, even if there is a deal, there will be a period of time where, to all intents and purposes, we will be in a 'no deal' scenario because of the nature of the discussions taking place late in the day? And to conclude, I recognise that people are working around the clock on possible arrangements, and all this in the midst of a deadly pandemic—the situation is extremely challenging. Thank you very much.

May I agree with that final point, and endorse Dai Lloyd's comments on the work that is being done across Wales to prepare for this, with the Welsh Government, but also with our partners and the various sectors, in preparation for the end of the transition period, which is just 16 days away? So, Dai Lloyd is right to say that some disruption is inevitable in both scenarios facing us, because of the uncertainties and the new red tape that the Westminster Government has imposed on businesses and exports here in Wales.

The Member asked three questions. First of all, what has the role of the Welsh Government been in negotiations? Well, our role has been in common frameworks and in preparing legislation, and preparing for what the outcome will be. But as he knows from discussions we've had in the past, the roles of the devolved Governments haven't been what they should have been in the negotiation process. So, these are the UK Government's negotiations—for better or for worse. The priorities of the people of Wales, expressed through the Welsh Government, haven't been given a proper place in the process of agreeing a position across the Governments of the UK and then having an influence on the negotiations through doing so. There have been elements of influence, but there hasn't been the structure that this Senedd would have expected on behalf of the people of Wales.

In terms of the second question, on medicines, arrangements are in place across the UK. It's the role of the UK Government to import medicines from abroad into the UK, but arrangements are in place, in order to ensure that that can happen in the context that he describes, that is to say when medicines can't be stored and they have to be transported urgently. If there was any disruption in ports, then there are systems in place to bring them in by air freight to ensure that they arrive in good time. And arrangements have been agreed with the four Governments, so that there is equal sharing of those across the four nations, with the clinical influence of the chief medical officers being very important in that in ensuring that that distribution happens on an equal basis. 

And in terms of the final question on a deal, well, I agree with what Dai Lloyd has said that this deal doesn't reflect what we would want to see on behalf of the people of Wales. It doesn't provide sufficient assurances for our economy, our employers and our exporters. But a deal of this kind would be better than no deal. And we do have a possible scenario in the new year, as Dai Lloyd has recognised, that a deal may have been reached but that it hadn't been ratified, or that it's still being negotiated, or it has been negotiated but hasn't been signed off. So, all of those scenarios are possible, and, of course, we are looking at what could happen in those scenarios. As he will know, the arrangements that we have put in place, to date, are on the basis of exiting with no deal. So, we have that worst-case scenario as part of our planning, too. 

Thank you for the statement, Counsel General. A hearing of the Welsh Affairs Select Committee earlier this month was told that 61 per cent of exports from Wales go to the EU, compared with 43 per cent of all UK exports. Wales also has a high proportion of industries that are expected to face high tariffs if no deal is reached, and to name a few: automotive, dairy, meat and aerospace. The apparent oven-ready deal and easy agreements were fictitious, as we now all know. About as oven-ready as a deeply frozen Christmas turkey. So, safety and security is also a key area to resolve, and, so, I very much welcome the preparedness of the Welsh civil contingency planning preparations and our medicines availability. This is not about illusionary sovereignty.

So, Counsel General, the Confederation of British Industry Wales has clearly stated that a Brexit deal between the UK and the EU is essential. The CBI are clear, as is this Government, that no one has voted for lesser security, or 'no deal' devastation of our trade and economy, or higher food prices, or scarcer medicine availability, or UK border ports congestion and what that would mean. Counsel General, then, what are the consequences of any 'no deal' on the Welsh economy and the relationship between Wales and Europe in 2021? And, critically, what would this mean for the people of Wales, whether you are a leaver or a remainer?  

I thank Rhianon Passmore for that question. She is right to say that Wales has a larger percentage of our exports to the European Union than any other part of the United Kingdom. In order to support our exporters in the months that lie ahead, the Welsh Government has contracted the services of a cohort of international trade advisers, who will be available to support exporters to navigate the new red tape, which the United Kingdom's negotiating position will effectively be introducing on our businesses. 

Many exporters, of course, will have already taken into account the fact they face a whole slew of new customs-related export documentation requirements, which obviously will load significant additional costs on to their businesses. But they won't yet have been able to quantify the question of tariffs or how the products that they export are taken into account, how components in those products are treated, how standards are recognised mutually across the Channel. So, all of those are very significant questions in the minds of many business that export, at this point in time, and, I just repeat, that we have 16 days to to before the end of the transition period. So, that's why it's so important to give, even at this late hour, the clarity that businesses need in Wales to support their prosperity and support the livelihoods that depend on them. 

I do think it's right to say the CBI and other business organisations are clear that a deal is in the best interests of the UK economy and the Welsh economy. Our most recent academic analyses of the long-term impact of a 'no deal' scenario on the Welsh and the UK-wide economy is of an economy that is about 8 per cent less than it would have been over a 10-year period. Now, that's at the same time that businesses are suffering the impacts of COVID and plainly will take a significant period of time to recover from that. We think it's unconscionable to add to the involuntary damage of COVID the voluntary damage of leaving the transition period without a deal.

Can I thank the Counsel General for his statement? I applaud the Welsh Government's preparation for a number of Brexit scenarios. It is both prudent and sensible. But, Counsel General, you continue to bemoan the fact that, after four years, you have come down to the last few days, but how much is that down to the stance of the remainers, including you and the Welsh Government, by your continually trying to undermine the people's democratic decision in June 2016? This stance has undeniably undermined the efforts of the UK negotiators in getting the EU to accept a reasonable and acceptable Brexit deal.

There are three crucial areas said to be the main stumbling blocks to a deal. So, earlier today, I called for a Welsh Government statement of what concessions it would make in order to avoid a 'no deal' scenario with the European Union. Given that I had no real answer to my questions, I make no apology for repeating those questions now: what concessions would the Welsh Government be willing to make in order to avoid a 'no deal' scenario? Would it be to concede on our fishing grounds—which, incidentally, are at this moment being plundered by giant French, Dutch and Spanish trawlers, dredging up to 250 tonnes of fish a day, with disastrous environmental consequences—or would it be to give way on the so-called level playing field, meaning, of course, that the UK Government would, amongst other crucial economic interventions, remain very restricted by state-aid rules, disallowing us from helping our steel industries in the way we would want, or would it be to give the European Court of Justice supremacy over UK law, something that the people who voted for Brexit were implacably against? Please, Counsel General, no obfuscations, just a straight answer to the questions.

[Inaudible.]—three letters on fisheries, level playing field and governance, which I sent to Michael Gove a number of weeks ago, that set out our preferred position in relation to each of those outstanding areas. I've asked for the opportunity, in more than one Joint Ministerial Committee (EU Negotiations), to be party to the strategic trade-offs that the UK Government is considering in these closing weeks, and we've been denied the opportunity of participating in that. So, in the absence of that—. And I refer him to the letters, which I'm sure he would have read, that set out very faithfully the Welsh Government's position in relation to how this should be negotiated. These are the UK Government's negotiations, they're not the Welsh Government's negotiations, and the reason we are 16 days away from the end of transition without an agreement is not the responsibility of the Welsh Government; it is the responsibility of the Government of the United Kingdom.

The Counsel General is so transparent. He never wanted Brexit, he's done everything he possibly could in the last four and a half years to sabotage it, he just failed to give David Rowlands an answer to his question. It's perfectly clear from his statement that his idea of a negotiation is for us simply to accept meekly whatever demands, however absurd or unreasonable, Monsieur Barnier makes—the kind of negotiation that Marshal Pétain conducted with Hitler in 1940.

In his statement, he said this, that the UK Government and the EU should

'show the flexibility and the compromise that are needed to find an agreement.'

Could he just tell me now what is the compromise that the EU should be making in order to reach an agreement with the UK Government? Is it a compromise on their demand that they should continue to legislate for us, even though we no longer have a voice or a vote in the councils of the EU? Is it that we should continue to allow European countries to have unfettered access to British waters so that they can hoover up as many fish as possible? Exactly what are the compromises that he thinks that the EU should be making at this time in order to get a deal?

Well, I think the answer to Neil Hamilton's question is the same answer that I gave to David Rowlands's question.

Thank you very much, Counsel General.

We now move on. In accordance with Standing Order 12.24, unless a Member objects, the three motions under items 5, 6 and 7 on our agenda, the health protection (coronavirus restrictions) regulations 2020, will be grouped for debate, but with a separate vote. I see no objections to that proposal.

So, we'll move on and I'll call on the Minister for Health and Social Services, Vaughan Gething. 

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I move the series of motions before us.

Last week, we saw the start of the COVID-19 vaccination programme in Wales. That is clearly very encouraging and optimistic news. The vaccination process will, however, take time, so we must continue to focus our efforts right across Wales to help control the spread of coronavirus. And sadly, coronavirus is once again accelerating across Wales. The genuine gains that we all made at great cost during the firebreak have been eroded. The seven-day rolling incidence rate of coronavirus across Wales has risen to well over 400 cases per 100,000 people. There are currently well over 2,000 people in NHS hospitals in Wales being treated for coronavirus, and we see continued rises in the number of confirmed coronavirus cases. There are now more than 500 extra people in NHS beds in Wales being treated for coronavirus than in the April peak. 

As I have set out previously, the advice from our chief medical officer is that we need to take action to help us enter the festive period with as low an infection rate as possible. Today, three recent regulations are being debated, which have contributed to our response to the pandemic.

Firstly, Members will be aware that, on 30 November, the First Minister set out additional all-Wales restrictions in relation to the hospitality sector. These further measures are provided for by the Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions and Functions of Local Authorities) (Amendment) (Wales) Regulations 2020. They came into force on Friday, 4 December, and are targeted to prevent the spread of transmission where people meet indoors. We had a take-note debate on these matters last week. So, pubs, bars, restaurants and cafes across Wales must now close by 6 p.m. and are not allowed to serve alcohol. After 6 p.m., they will only be able to provide takeaway services. These regulations also require indoor entertainment venues and indoor visitor attractions to close. I sympathise entirely with the people and the businesses that these restrictions impact. I've seen first hand the hard work that these businesses have entered into to try to make sure that their businesses are COVID-safe. To mitigate the financial impact and to support the hospitality, leisure and retail sectors, we have a £340 million package of support. That includes a specific £180 million fund for hospitality and leisure businesses. There is increasing scientific and observation evidence highlighting the role of hospitality in disease transmission. In keeping with the clear and repeated advice of SAGE on what has worked in other parts of the UK, these restrictions are, I am afraid, necessary to help reduce transmission.

Secondly, the Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (No. 4) (Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 require all outdoor attractions, including funfairs, to close. It also makes clear that trampoline parks and indoor skating parks must close. These further measures came into effect yesterday, on 14 December.

Finally, the Health Protection (Coronavirus, International Travel and Restrictions) (Amendment) (No. 3) (Wales) Regulations 2020 were laid on 8 December. These provide that a person required to isolate as a result of having had close contact with a person who has tested positive for coronavirus must now isolate for 10 days, instead of the previous 14-day period. This follows the advice of the chief medical officer and SAGE, and similar advice has been given to other administrations in the UK, who are all following suit in changing the time frame for self-isolation in their own relative Parliaments. The international travel restrictions requiring people to quarantine when coming to Wales from certain countries have similarly been reduced to 10 days. These regulations also permit a child who is required to isolate to move to another household during the period of isolation if this is in line with existing arrangements relating to custody and contact with that child's parents.

The Welsh Government remains very grateful to people and businesses across Wales for observing these often very challenging restrictions. They do remain essential, however, to protect our NHS and save lives. Yesterday, the Welsh Government published an updated COVID control plan, including a new set of four alert levels. It describes the measures that will be put in place depending on the rates of the virus and the level of risk. We're scheduled to discuss a motion relating to this plan later on in today's business. I ask Members to support the motion before us and the three sets of regulations. Thank you, Deputy Llywydd.

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

Thank you, Deputy Llywydd. Members will know that the Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (No. 4) (Wales) Regulations 2020 are the principal regulations on coronavirus in Wales, and, as the Minister has said, the Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions and Functions of Local Authorities) (Amendment) (Wales) Regulations 2020 amend the principal regulations and also make technical amendments to existing regulations on coronavirus restrictions and the functions of local authorities.

As the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee, we've had the opportunity to scrutinise these regulations, and our report on these regulations identified four merits points. In our first point, we note the Welsh Government's justification for any potential interference with human rights. Our second merits point draws attention to the significant direct economic impact the regulations will have on businesses, particularly within the hospitality sector, or for those who provide goods and services to that sector. As a result, our report seeks information about the financial support available to businesses. Our third merits point notes some typographical errors in the explanatory note to these regulations, and our fourth point highlights that no regulatory impact assessment has been prepared for the regulations. However, we have requested clarification of when the Government intends to publish its summary integrated impact assessment.

I turn now to the second set of regulations, the Health Protection (Coronavirus, International Travel and Restrictions) (Amendment) (No. 3) (Wales) Regulations 2020, which, as the Minister said, came into force on 10 December. They also amend the principal regulations as well as the international travel regulations. Our three reporting points cover familiar ground, noting the Welsh Government's justification for any potential interference with human rights, that there's been no formal consultation on the regulations, and, finally, that there is no equality impact assessment for these regulations.

Turning now to the Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (No. 4) (Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2020, which again also amend the principal regulations and came into force yesterday, the first of our two reporting points notes the Welsh Government's comments in the explanatory memorandum regarding the human rights impact of these regulations. However, we have noted that the comments in the explanatory memorandum amount to just the statement that the regulations are justified and proportionate. There is no analysis of how that conclusion was reached. Our second reporting point noted the lack of formal consultation on the regulations, although recognising the circumstances in which these regulations have been brought forward. Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd.

I thank the Minister for moving the regulations this afternoon. For those watching our proceedings this afternoon, they might find it slightly bizarre—and this is a debate that we've had several times in this Chamber—that we are voting to give enforcement, or give power, to the regulations that have been in existence nearly two weeks now, and actually will be reviewed on Friday, as I understand it, under the normal Welsh Government procedures.

It's a long-standing position from the Welsh Conservative benches that we will be voting against item 5, which affects the hospitality sector. We do note that the travel restrictions that the Welsh Government have modified during the period do allow for travel into England into tier 2 and tier 1 areas, where Welsh residents could enjoy hospitality and then travel back into Wales—something I wouldn't recommend, but it does allow it in the recommendations. And we do disagree with the Welsh-wide nature of the restrictions, given the various levels of infection around the country, in particular in north-west Wales, where there would be the ability for some of these hospitality venues to carry on trading if the rules allowed that to be. So, we will be voting against that. We also note that much of the hospitality that people enjoy in licensed premises has moved into private settings, and previous evidence has indicated that those private settings indicate avoidance of the rules and greater transmission rates.

Item 6: we believe this is a sensible and precautionary measure, lowering the isolation period from 14 days to 10 days, and we believe the evidence supports this. However, there's a genuine problem about people sticking to the isolation rules. I think in some instances only 20 per cent of the population are actually agreeing to self-isolate, and I'd be interested to hear the Minister's response as to what measures the Welsh Government in messaging is trying to undertake to try and get greater adherence to the rules of self-isolation. I do note the story that's running today about Transport for Wales, which is a Government-owned business, instructing some of its members of staff to switch off the test, trace and protect app that is available so that the business can carry on functioning. So, I'd welcome the Minister talking about that particular instruction from a Welsh Government company to its employees.

Item 7 we'll be abstaining on, because whilst we can understand the sentiments behind some of these instructions on item 7, we do believe that, again, because it's an all-Wales approach, we think that some of the evidence points that some areas could allow for some of these attractions to carry on providing hospitality facilities for outdoor events, skate parks and trampolines where infection rates are low. Rather than the all-Wales approach, we believe that it would be far better to do a more localised approach on this particular aspect, and that's why we'll be abstaining, because obviously these organised events take risk assessments, and people obviously will continue to travel to certain areas of Wales, and where they can be accommodated in a safe environment, we believe that it might be sensible to allow some of these attractions to continue. So that's why, as Welsh Conservatives, we'll be abstaining on item 7.

I'd be grateful if the Minister possibly could talk to the new variant virus, N501, which I appreciate isn't affected by these restrictions, but might affect new restrictions that are brought forward, because I note that we haven't had a comment on the floor of the Chamber about this new variant of the virus, which ultimately has had an impact on our understanding of the virus across the UK. This isn't just a Wales issue, and so it would be helpful at the end of his summing up on these restrictions if he could give us some information as to how restrictions might have to be modified to accommodate the new variant, which we understand obviously assists in speeding up the transmission of the virus in communities, not just in Wales, but in other parts of the United Kingdom. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer.

I'll deal with the regulations in turn. Item 5 first of all, the item that's been debated most. Indeed, it was the subject of a debate here in the Senedd last week, and because of that I will keep my comments brief. My views are on the record already, as are Plaid Cymru's, and I will speak more on our position on the latest situation regarding the pandemic in the debate on the new coronavirus restrictions under item 17 this afternoon.

Our views on the first set of regulations haven't changed. We abstained last week, not because we oppose restrictions—we can see the gravity of the situation in many parts of Wales, and I made it clear that we were supportive of taking serious steps to respond to that and to prevent further spread—but it was the lack of logic of certain elements that concerned us, the total ban on alcohol and the fact that places such as restaurants would have to close very early in the evening, where the evidence on the role of such places in the spread of the virus is not particularly strong. Our concern, simply—and this applies to all the regulations that we are discussing—is that if people can't see the rationale of the steps taken, that undermines trust in Government and the ability of Government to deal with the pandemic. The rationale is questioned most in those areas that have a relatively low number of cases. No area can consider themselves safe, obviously, but it does add to the argument in terms of varying the response from one area to another, and we can discuss that later on today.

In terms of item 6, we will support that. The evidence seems robust in terms of justifying the reduction in the self-isolation period after having travelled abroad from 14 to 10 days. There is clear justification for allowing a child that is self-isolating to move between the homes of two parents, for example.

Moving on to item 7, we will support—and I note that the Conservatives have said that they will abstain—we will support because we need these regulations in place in order to introduce changes that are entirely reasonable to my eyes: the need, although nobody would want to be in this situation, to close indoor attractions, cinemas and so on, galleries, museums and so on and so forth.

But I do have a concern about certain outdoor attractions, where I think that the evidence for fresh air and its role in the response to this pandemic is very strong now. I have an e-mail, as it happens it’s from my constituency, but it’s representative of what’s happening elsewhere too. I know of a business that runs boat trips from Anglesey that had sold a high number of tickets for trips over the Christmas period. They are now having to repay their clients and they say, ‘Well, yes, we’re playing our part’ and they understand the gravity of the situation, as do we all, but once again they make the point that they need more intensive support and financial support for businesses, that they need more notice, that they need more information about what’s happening. This business owner says that many businesses that he speaks to still don’t know that there is a requirement for them to close. So, this message is arising time and time again during this pandemic: 'There is a lack of clarity in this case. Why do we need to close? Surely we’ve done everything we need to do, but we accept that we have to close, so please make sure that the communication is better at all levels.'

But, as I say, there are parts of the regulations that are important, so we will support, but with that appeal once again, to the Government, that you must get the communication right.

Thank you. No Member has indicated they wish to make an intervention, therefore I'll call on the Minister for Health and Social Services to reply to the debate. Vaughan Gething. 

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I thank the Chair of the committee for his as ever constructive comments and points for us to respond to, not just today. But I think it may be best if I write to the committee to deal with all of the comments that he's made to respect the level of detail that he's gone through. And we do want to make sure that as we need to continue to act, and we'll need to continue to act for several months more at the very least, that we do take account of the helpful points made in scrutiny about how we get the regulations right in terms of their legal meaning, and also dealing with the points about communication that Rhun ap Iorwerth finished on. 

Of course, the reality is that we are making these regulations in accordance with the rules of this institution. This is made affirmative legislation, exactly as we have done throughout the course of this crisis, and I do feel that the points that Andrew R.T. Davies makes don't take account of the fact that we had months and months of legislating in this way. I don't think there's anything unusual about it; it's the reality that we're having to take extraordinary measures to respond, and to use the extraordinary procedures that this Parliament has in place to do so. We're in the middle of an accelerating wave of coronavirus. If we were to say that the Government was not entitled to act, the Government was not able to act to protect people across Wales as the position changed without having an affirmative resolution beforehand, then we would undoubtedly make the position of the people of Wales less safe, and this Government would be less able to keep our people safe. I don't understate the seriousness of the reality that the Government is legislating first then asking for endorsement afterwards, but that is, I'm afraid, the reality of the seriousness of the position. It also, of course, in terms of the gap, allows the committee chaired by Mick Antoniw to provide their scrutiny reports for Members to consider.

I welcome the support that the Conservative spokesperson indicated for the move to 10 days on self-isolation in terms of improving messaging. That is part of what we are constantly striving to do all the time. I think we've been very clear about the messages we have. There is new information available from Welsh Government today in terms of the broader messaging about coronavirus and Christmas, and asking people to do the right thing. I think Members across parties should be able to look at that and, hopefully, share it and encourage constituents across the country of all and any political persuasion to think again about all the choices that we're making. You'll hear Ministers from every one of the four Governments in the United Kingdom asking people right across the UK to do just that.

And on the app, I haven't seen the story he refers to about Transport for Wales, but I'm very clear that the app should continue to be used and would encourage as many people to download it as possible. I don't believe that any business should be asking anybody to remove the app because it would affect the operation of their business. It's there to help keep people safe, including the people who you would work alongside in a business, if you were advised to self-isolate because of the risk that has been presented to you and potentially your fellow workers, and I don't think we can be any clearer about that.

On your continued request for a limited and targeted approach, it's never really clear what that actually means, but it's always been the case, ever since you've started calling for that particular approach from your return to this position on the Conservative front bench, that we've had very clear advice from the technical advisory group that all-Wales measures at this point in time are appropriate, simpler and easier for the public to understand and adhere to and follow—simpler and easier for all of us to be able to act together to help protect Wales. Look, I appreciate that he has a different view, but we have very clear, and published—regularly published—advice that underscores the Government's position.

On the new variant, yes, I'm aware we do have a handful of cases already within Wales. I expect to have more information in the coming days as we do more genomic sequencing from test results here in Wales, and Public Health Wales will provide more information when that is available. It isn't clear whether the new variant really is one that spreads more rapidly, but, in any event, we know that coronavirus does spread rapidly with the variants we've already been aware of. The positive news is that we don't believe that this particular variant would affect the efficacy of a vaccine, which was the main concern about the mink variant from Denmark that caused extraordinary measures to be taken very late at night on a weekend, as I and Welsh Government officials know, before we came to this Parliament to ask for approval.

On your broader point about opposing a range of restrictions, I really do think it is extraordinary to continue to oppose restrictions, given the ongoing position and the seriousness within which we find ourselves as a country. At best, I think it's tone deaf to demand improvements whilst opposing measures to deliver improvements that are evidenced by an evidence review from not only our technical advisory group, but also SAGE, on a repeated number of occasions as well. I think people in Wales should take comfort in the fact that we are taking our public health advice from SAGE, from TAG, from our own chief medical officer, and, in doing so, we're supported in taking those measures by the broad approach of every single chief medical officer across the United Kingdom in doing so, and I think that will be the main source of the advice that I take on public health, as opposed to the individual view of Mr Davies.

On Rhun ap Iorwerth's point about the logic, the evidence of what works across the UK is the logic for why we introduced these restrictions, and again, that same evidence from SAGE and TAC—hard evidence of what works. So, that's why we've introduced these restrictions. On your broader point about communication, we constantly look at how we try to have a message that is clear and simple, in amongst the noise that exists, with all the more contested environments, within the political atmosphere, but also within a range of social media and other channels, and the way in which we are looking to try to recover, where we can do, a more consistent four-nations approach with messaging for the public.

It's about how we help people to make choices, but ultimately the Government has responsibilities that we need to meet, and then all of us, every single one of us in the country, have responsibilities to consider what we should do to keep ourselves and each other safe. We are still in the middle of a significant and unfinished pandemic that will take the lives of many more Welsh citizens before this is over. That helps to underscore why these measures remain important and why they are a proportionate response to the level of threat that we all face. I ask Members to support the regulations today.

Thank you. The proposal is to agree the motion under item 5. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Therefore, we defer voting under this item until voting time.

The proposal is to agree the motion under item 6. Does any Member object? No. Therefore the motion is agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

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

Item 8 on our agenda this afternoon is the Public Health (Protection from Eviction) (Wales) (Coronavirus) Regulations 2020, and I call on the Minister for Housing and Local Government to move the motion. Julie James.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. The Public Health (Protection from Eviction) (Wales) (Coronavirus) Regulations 2020 have been made to protect public health by ensuring that tenants are not evicted into homelessness over the Christmas and new year period. In the run-up to Christmas and the period immediately thereafter, those subject to eviction are at much greater risk of being made homeless. Accessibility to services, advice and support is often much reduced. Similarly, the availability of alternative accommodation is likely to be limited at this time of year. A person made homeless is placed at greater risk of both contracting COVID-19 and transmitting it to others. Therefore, we cannot allow a situation where evictions result in homelessness, which, in turn, increases the risk to homeless individuals and public health more widely. Given the situation that we currently face in relation to the virus, it is imperative that we act swiftly to prevent this.

These regulations prevent, except in specified circumstances, attendance by High Court enforcement officers or bailiffs at a dwelling house for the purpose of executing a writ or warrant of possession, executing a writ or warrant of restitution, or delivering a notice of eviction. The specified circumstances include, for example, when a claim is made wholly or partly on the grounds of anti-social behaviour. The regulations will expire on 11 January 2021. The UK Government previously announced through guidance that it intended to suspend evictions across England and Wales between 11 December and 11 January. These regulations provide statutory underpinning to that guidance in relation to Wales.

Ideally, I would've liked my officials to have had an opportunity to engage with stakeholders before making the regulations, however, the UK Government did not alert us to the fact that they had made similar regulations applying to England until after they had come into force on 17 November. Therefore, we have had to make the regulations in respect of Wales with the greatest of urgency. Stakeholders had, however, been informed of the earlier announcement by the UK Government that evictions would be suspended from 11 December to 11 January. I commend the motion of approval to Members.

Thank you. Can I call on the Chair of the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee, Mick Antoniw?

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd. Members will know that these regulations were laid last Thursday and came into force on Friday. We considered the regulations at our meeting yesterday morning and our report has been laid before the Senedd to inform this afternoon’s debate. Our report contains one technical point and three merits points. The technical reporting point highlights what we consider to be a superfluous provision in the regulations at regulation 3(2). We have asked the Welsh Government to explain why this saving provision is necessary.

Our first merits point relates to human rights matters. These regulations engage a landlord’s rights under article 1, protocol 1 of the European convention on human rights. Although the explanatory memorandum states that these regulations are made in response to a public health emergency, it fails to refer specifically to the fact that these regulations engage human rights and how they deem the provisions to be justifiable and proportionate in the context of the human rights of both tenants and landlords. We have asked the Government to provide this justification.

Our second merits point notes that there has been no formal consultation on the regulations. While we accept that there is no statutory requirement to consult, we have asked the Government to confirm if they were able to engage in any capacity with relevant stakeholders before making these regulations. Our third merits point notes that the Government has not prepared a regulatory impact assessment for these regulations. But we have acknowledged that the explanatory memorandum does set out a summary of the potential impact of these regulations, which does provide qualitative assessment of their impact. Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd.

Just some brief comments.

Under the regulations, Minister, the evictions will only be prevented until 11 January, as you've set out. Of course this is welcome, but we also all know that, by mid January, we could well be in an even worse situation with the pandemic than we are now. And realistically, the impact of vaccination won't be felt until well into the spring in the best-case scenario. So, surely, we simply can't have evictions for public health reasons for a far longer period. So, we in Plaid will be voting in favour of these regulations this evening, but could I just ask the Minister why the Government keeps only staying the eviction of vulnerable people by a few weeks at a time incrementally, instead of guaranteeing that support for as long as it's necessary? Is there a technical reason why this is? Surely, the eviction of anyone during a pandemic would be unconscionable. I know that the Minister will agree with me on that point, so I'd welcome her comments just on that point, please. Diolch.

Thank you. I have no other Members who've requested to make any interventions. Therefore, I call on the Minister for Housing and Local Government to reply to the debate—Julie James.

Diolch, Llywydd, and my thanks to both Members who have spoken during the debate. I make no apologies for bringing forward legislation at any time that seeks to avoid people becoming homeless. But, it is of critical importance, on public health grounds, that we prevent homelessness during this particularly critical phase of the pandemic. Over the Christmas period, these regulations will play a vital role in achieving that goal.

I realise that they were made, and came into force, at short notice, using an emergency procedure, and that that has restricted the scrutiny of them. But, this is, of course, because they respond to what is an emergency situation. If they had not come into force with almost immediate effect, they would not have had the desired effect. I take the point that Delyth Jewell is making, also. We keep the regulations under constant review. We will, of course, be looking to renew them if that's necessary, if access to homelessness services and so on is further restricted after 11 January. So, I urge Members to support the motion.

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

Item 9 on the agenda is the Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (School Premises and Further Education Institution Premises) (Wales) Regulations 2020. I call on the Minister for Education to move the motion—Kirsty Williams.

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I formally move the motion on the order paper. As I set out last week, following advice from the chief medical officer and Public Health Wales, it was recommended that secondary schools move to remote learning from 14 December until the end of term. As everybody in this Chamber is well aware, rates of transmission are currently increasing, and we are sadly on course to having 2,500 people with coronavirus in hospital by Christmas Day.

While I am delighted with the offer that we were able to make yesterday with regard to asymptomatic testing for schools, and the announcement of a vaccination programme that began last week, these interventions and these processes will take time to take effect. We need to continue to put in place the necessary restrictions to protect the NHS and to save lives.

We recognise, as we did during the firebreak, that it is much more difficult for primary and special school-age children to undertake self-directed learning. That is why we have encouraged primary and special schools to continue to stay open, unless of course there are compelling and clear public health and safety reasons for them not to be able to do so. Having spoken to local education leaders, we are increasingly confident that schools and colleges have the online learning in place to continue to ensure that our young people continue to learn.

However, Deputy Presiding Officer, it is really important for me to state this: this is not an early Christmas break. Critically, our secondary and FE learners should be at home learning at this time. We all need to do what we can do to minimise contact with others, and to make a real difference to the course of this virus and, ultimately, to save lives. I would appeal to the young people of Wales who have seen their education in school disrupted once again to follow this advice.

I also want to be clear that schools are regulated and controlled settings, and there is no new evidence to suggest that schools are no longer safe. The majority of transmission appears to continue to be through community contacts and activities around the school environment, rather than the school environment itself. As we begin vaccinating, we can be rightly optimistic for a better 2021. But, at this time, we have to be cautious, and we must still keep working together to keep Wales safe and to keep our young people learning.

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

Diolch again, Dirprwy Lywydd. Members will know that these regulations were laid late into the evening last Friday, and they came into force on Monday. We considered the regulations at our meeting yesterday morning, and we are grateful for the work of officials in preparing the necessary regulations and papers. Our report has again been laid before the Senedd to inform this afternoon's debate. Our report contains one technical point, which notes that there appears to be an inconsistency between the English and Welsh texts of the regulations regarding which enabling powers are being used. Our report also contains five merits points, which I will briefly summarise.

The first and second merits points note the Welsh Government's justification for any potential interference with human rights, and that there has been no formal consultation on these regulations. Our third merits point acknowledges that these regulations have been made in response to a public health emergency. We believe that the Welsh Government should, however, provide more detail on who it consulted and when, prior to making these regulations, and we've asked the Government to provide this information. We've also noted that there was no equality impact assessment for the regulations. In this fourth merits point, we've asked the Government to explain what arrangements it has made to publish reports of equality impact assessments, in accordance with the Equality Act 2010 (Statutory Duties) (Wales) Regulations 2011. Finally, in our fifth merits point, we've noted there was no child impact assessment for these regulations, and we've invited the Welsh Government to outline the steps it took to assess the particular impact of these regulations on children. Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd.

Last week the First Minister said this:

'I want very strongly to endorse today the joint statement made between the Welsh Government and the Welsh Local Government Association, which urges schools to remain open until the last day of term, while recognising that there will be individual sets of circumstances where that will not be possible....The real problem is that we do not have confidence, from the behavioural evidence, that if children are not in school, that they would simply be being kept at home and kept away from the contacts that would otherwise create greater risk. The fear is that children who are not in school will be in even riskier environments.'

'If I thought that those young people would genuinely be at home, genuinely self-isolating, genuinely creating that period before Christmas to keep them safe, I'd be attracted to the idea. I'm afraid the risks are that that simply wouldn't happen, that those children would be doing riskier things than they would in school. Better for them to be in school.'

In saying this, the First Minister and the WLGA support the long-held views of the children's commissioner and, indeed, this Senedd—better for them to be in school. Even in the firebreak, schools were open for children up to year 8. Now, I will recognise that incidence and transmission rates in parts of Wales are very worrying and that figures associated with some secondary schools are also worrying. But 'associated with' and 'responsible for' are different things, and we have not yet seen published evidence that says that they are the same thing. I'm yet to see the evidence that says that the risk within—and I mean within—the confines of secondary schools justifies their blanket closure. Indeed, we've seen the introduction of mandatory face coverings on every part of the estate, except classrooms, to minimise that risk further. The health board briefings refer to behaviour outside the school gate, and, as we've heard in this Chamber, and, indeed, the Minister's opening remarks, that it's between households that presents more of a problem.

And now secondary pupils will be at a greater temptation to do, as the First Minister said, those riskier things than they would have in school, not least because many of them will be old enough to be unsupervised at home. But, for those younger secondary school pupils who really shouldn't be at home alone, the chances that their working parents won't be able to take time off to provide that care is real, because they are no longer considered key workers, and I'd be keen to understand, from the Minister, why that's the case.

I'm also unhappy about these regulations because they fail to compel primary schools to stay open. I understand that the legal default position, if you like, is that they should stay open anyway, but the regulations are quite plain as to the consequences of secondary schools disobeying the law. So, why not the same for primary schools in regulations? Because instead, we have local authorities flouting, once again, the education Minister's authority. Now, I absolutely understand the need for the teaching unions to consider the safety and the working conditions for their members—of course I do—but I hope they understand that they have overplayed their hands on this one.

The local authorities themselves also need to be in the spotlight, because where's their backbone on this? Rolling over the Minister yet again, what do they think this does to her authority, especially when they, through the WLGA, just a week ago, urged the very opposite of what they're doing now? Minister, we have different views on a lot of things, but this lack of respect for your office should concern all of us, because this has now happened twice on the issue of school closures, and it's almost as if the local authorities are goading us into taking away their responsibility for education.

In the meantime, I really would like to thank pupils, parents and school staff for their continued hard work in all this confusion, and wish them a merry and hopefully peaceful Christmas. Thank you.

Plaid Cymru will vote in favour of these regulations. I believe that the decision to close secondary schools could have been taken earlier because of the details that had been outlined by the technical advisory cell on 3 December, but the Minister chose to wait until the chief medical officer virtually ordered that this needed to happen, and that has created problems.

I believe that provision should have been put in place on school sites for children of families who can't, or can't afford to arrange child care for the younger secondary school pupils, particularly with so little warning or notice for families that schools were to close. This decision taken late in the day has created a whole host of problems, and in very many cases, it's grandparents who have to help out, and therefore they are putting themselves at risk of possibly catching the virus. Now, for many people, there is no choice but to carry on working, and to rely on older family members to help, or to leave the children home alone, and that, clearly, isn't acceptable either. So, provision for them, for those families who can't arrange childcare this week, would have been a step in the right direction, in my view.

I continue to be very concerned about the digital divide. As the BBC and the Children's Commissioner for Wales have found, there are children who still don't have laptops; they are trying to access education through gaming machines, Xboxes or mobile phones. There are children who are slipping through the net, and although the Minister feels the situation is under control, that isn't the picture that is emerging for me through the work referred to me as casework and so on. That's why Plaid Cymru is calling for the establishment of a national register for tracking who has digital equipment and who has broadband connectivity, so that we can then provide the additional resources as is required.

Finally, in light of all of the disruption to education that has been happening now since March, I do call on the Government to publish its post-COVID education plans early in the new year, and to announce how they will be implemented, and what additional resources will be made available to schools. A huge effort will be required to support our children and young people through their education and with their mental health and well-being; that's required now, but it'll be required for months, if not years, to come, and the sooner we can see the plans for the ensuing period the better, so that we can scrutinise them constructively from the back benches. I'm very eager to support that process. Thank you.

Thank you. No Members have requested to make any more interventions, therefore I'll call on the Minister for Education to reply to the debate. Kirsty Williams.

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. Can I thank the Members for their contributions to the debate this afternoon? With regard to the comments made by Mick Antoniw, the Welsh Government agrees that there is an inconsistency between the enabling powers cited in the Welsh and the English texts—in section 45(3)(c) it is cited in the Welsh text, and in 45(3) in the English text. This is a typographical error in the English text, which does not affect the validity of the regulations.

With regard to consultation, it is the case that no formal consultation was possible, given the emergency situation we found ourselves in, although within an hour of receiving the advice from the chief medical officer, we were able to meet with officials from the WLGA, and subsequently with ADEW to discuss the situation that we were in, and there were no objections from either. We have previously discussed, from our learnings on the firebreak situation, some of the issues that we need to be cognisant of, with a special regard to the education of vulnerable learners, and we have sought to give flexibility to ensure that those vulnerable learners can be catered for in their high school or FE colleges during this week. 

Moving to the points that were made by Suzy Davies. You're absolutely right: there is a balance of risks and rewards that have to be examined during these times, and displacement activity of children outside of a regulated setting is a source of concern to me, but those balance of risks change, and they change quickly. It was with great regret that I received the advice from the chief medical officer and Public Health Wales, but, having received such advice, it is incumbent upon me to act upon it. As I said, the announcement was made within hours of that advice being received. We simply could not have moved any faster. I appreciate that that comes late in the day, but my priority throughout this has been trying to keep children in face-to-face learning for as long as we possibly can do that. And, clearly, because of the impact on children's rights, there has to be a pressing public health need to deny them of their right to face-to-face learning, and, in the absence of advice from the CMO and Public Health Wales, I'm not about to deny them those rights, unless we find ourselves in an emergency situation, and I would not have had that advice previously to that. But it does mean that decisions are, indeed, taken late in the day. 

Both Siân Gwenllian and Suzy Davies raised the issue of childcare. Can I be absolutely clear, we have not asked schools or education to provide childcare since the Whitsun half term. We did not ask schools to provide childcare during the summer holiday or in the half term holiday. But, clearly, one of the issues that educators feel most proud about is that, whilst they are carrying out face-to-face teaching, that is allowing our key workers, including members of our health and social care staff, to get on with their jobs. And I know that many teachers feel very proud of the role that they are playing on the front line to allow other front-line workers to carry on caring and looking after all of us. But let's be very clear: we're not asking them to provide childcare; we're asking them to provide a due education. But, clearly, there is a knock-on effect to families, and I regret that. I really, really do. 

Siân Gwenllian also talked about the issue of a digital divide. We have made significant progress. The success of the Welsh Government in this regard has been noted by independent educational think tanks outside of Wales. But, clearly, we always need to do more. That's why we have set up a group with ADEW to understand what the remaining barriers are to supporting a distanced, digital and blended learning approach.

I meet with headteachers every week. Today, I met with the acting primary head of St Illtyd's in Blaenau Gwent, and she was happy to confirm to me that every single family that had requested IT support, whether that be with connectivity or with a digital device, has been given that support that is necessary. And we are working closely with local education authorities to identify schools that have not been in that fortunate position. 

I can confirm that new IT equipment and devices are being sent out to schools on a regular basis and, by February, we anticipate that we will have provided 133,000 new pieces of equipment to Welsh schools to address these concerns. Unfortunately, the world and his wife are trying to get hold of IT equipment at the moment, and I acknowledge that there have been some delays in satisfying some schools' orders, but we are working, as quickly as we can, to address that, and, as I said, by February, I'm confident that we will have been able to source 133,000 new, additional devices for schools to ensure that, where we, unfortunately, have to take these decisions, pupils can keep on learning.

Could I ask the Minister to wind up, please? 

Certainly. With regards to primary schools, we have to recognise—I have to recognise—that the responsibility for primary schools lies with individual governing bodies, advised by their local authorities. Welsh Government's advice has been clear that primary education should continue to the end of term, and I'm very grateful for all teachers who have worked incredibly hard over this academic term. It has been relentlessly challenging and difficult, and I'm grateful for their efforts. Thank you.

Thank you. The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Therefore, we defer voting under this item until voting time.

Item 10 on the agenda this afternoon is the Food and Feed Hygiene and Safety (Miscellaneous Amendments and Saving Provision) (Wales) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, and I call on the Minister for Mental Health, Well-being and Welsh Language to move the motion, Eluned Morgan.

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd. I move the motion. These regulations that we're discussing today make necessary changes to domestic legislation that applies to Wales on food hygiene and food compositional standards, on feed, and also labelling and the composition and standard of food. There are three main purposes to these changes: first of all, to ensure that a range of provision in Welsh domestic law reflects the Northern Ireland protocol; secondly, to address deficiencies in Welsh domestic legislation arising from EU exit; and thirdly, to account for any recent changes made to EU law that we wish to retain.

This will ensure that Welsh obligations under the Northern Ireland protocol will be delivered, and also that Welsh legislation already in place that we want to retain directly from the EU will continue to work effectively, following the end of the transition period. The Welsh Government's priority is to maintain high standards in terms of food safety and to safeguard consumers, and in this country, we enjoy very high standards. So, I want to be clear, this instrument that we're bringing forward today will not relax the robust legal situation here in Wales at present. The changes proposed through these regulations are necessary to ensure the ongoing operation of the statute book in Wales following the end of the transition period, and also to provide a smooth transition for businesses.

Finally, if these regulations are approved, Parts 1 and 2 of the regulations will come into force immediately, before the end of the transition period, and Parts 3 and 4 will come into force at the end of the transition period. These regulations will support a smooth transition for businesses, they will ensure that the high standards in terms of food and feed and safeguarding consumers that we currently enjoy will be maintained for the future. Thank you.

Thank you. I have no speakers in this debate. Therefore, the proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? No. Therefore, the motion is agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Item 11 on our agenda is the Regulation and Inspection of Social Care (Qualifications) (Wales) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, and I call on the Deputy Minister for Health and Social Services to move the motion, Julie Morgan.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I move the motion. The instrument makes further amendments to and additional transitional modifications to the application of the Regulation and Inspection of Social Care (Wales) Act 2016 to take account of the agreements made between the United Kingdom and the Swiss confederation and the EEA-EFTA countries on citizens' rights, following the UK's withdrawal from the EU insofar as those agreements relate to the mutual recognition of professional qualifications and the provision of temporary and occasional social care services in Wales.

The regulations are needed to amend the Regulation and Inspection of Social Care (Qualifications) (Wales) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 SI 2019/761 (W. 144), the principal regulations, before they come into force on IP completion day to make additional transitional provision required as a result of the United Kingdom's agreement with Switzerland and the EEA-EFTA countries.

The amendments made by these regulations mirror the effect of the UK Government's changes to its analogous legislation. They add an additional transitional provision to the principal regulations arising from both agreements, some of which affect all four EFTA states, such as mandatory co-operation required by regulators.

The additional transitional provision arising from the Swiss agreement includes an extended period to apply for a recognition decision under the pre-exit rules and an extended period in which social workers and social care managers can continue to rely on the pre-exit recognition of professional qualification arrangements to provide temporary and occasional services in Wales. The regulations also correct minor typographical errors in the principal regulations. Diolch yn fawr. 

Thank you. Again, there are no speakers. Therefore, the proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? No. Therefore the motion is agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Item 12 is the Plant Health (Amendment etc.) (Wales) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, and I call on the Minister for Environment, Energy and Rural Affairs to move the motion—Lesley Griffiths. 

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I move the motion. These amending regulations impact on three pieces of Welsh legislation: the Plant Health etc. (Fees) (Wales) Regulations 2018, the Official Controls (Plant Health and Genetically Modified Organisms) (Wales) Regulations 2020, and the Plant Health (Amendment) (Wales) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.

Part 2 rectifies deficiencies in retained EU law that would prevent the Welsh Ministers from being able to deliver workable legislation on plant health. If approved, the regulations will be made in exercise of powers under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 to correct these deficiencies. The operability amendments contained in these regulations contribute to the creation of a single market, covering GB and the Crown dependencies. The EU will become a third country and, as a result, be subject to third country import controls. The current policy of risk-based plant health controls applied under EU legislation will continue. However, the regime will now focus on risks to GB rather than risks to the EU. Plant health controls on material imported from other third countries will continue to be applied. Internal controls will also continue to apply to movement of goods within the GB internal market. 

Part 3 revokes the Plant Health (Amendment) (Wales) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, elements of which correct legislation that has since been revoked. Diolch. 

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

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. We considered and reported on these regulations yesterday. Our report identified two merits points under Standing Order 21.3. Our first point noted that the Secretary of State has been consulted regarding these regulations. Such consultation is required under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 for EU exit regulations that come into force before the end of the implementation period.

Our second point noted that the regulations set out and amend complex and intricate rules on plant health. We were unclear about the reasoning behind some of the changes, particularly changes to various fees. We welcome the Minister's helpful response to this reporting point, which sets out in greater detail the background to the changes. We would encourage Welsh Government to consider including this level of detail in future explanatory memoranda. Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd.

The Minister to reply to the debate. 

Thank you to the Chair, and just to say I'm pleased my response helped Members with these regulations, and take on board the point about the explanatory memorandum. Diolch. 

Thank you. The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? No. Therefore the motion is agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

In accordance with Standing Order 12.24, unless a Member objects, the two motions under item 13 on our agenda and item 14—item 13 being the Direct Payments to Farmers and Rural Affairs (Miscellaneous Amendments etc.) (Wales) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, and 14 the Trade in Animals and Related Products (Wales) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020—will be grouped for debate but with separate votes. Does any Member object? No.

Therefore, I call on the Minister for Environment, Energy and Rural Affairs, Lesley Griffiths.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I move the motions.

Two sets of regulations are scheduled for debate. The first is the Trade in Animals and Related Products (Wales) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020. Part 2 of the regulations amend the Trade in Animals and Related Products (Wales) Regulations 2011 to ensure they operate effectively once the UK leaves the EU. The regulations amend redundant references to EU laws and systems that no longer will be relevant at the end of the implementation period. These amendments are necessary to ensure a functioning system for the importation of live animals, products of animal origin, animal byproducts and germplasm, whilst maintaining biosecurity, protecting animal and human health and animal welfare standards. The proposed amendments maintain the existing import regime at the end of the implementation period. The regulations also introduce transitional arrangements for specified territories by inserting a new Schedule 5 to the 2011 regulations to phase in official controls on imports from those countries subject to special transitional measures. Part 3 of the instrument makes consequential amendments to other statutory instruments following the amendments proposed in Part 2.

Turning to the Direct Payments to Farmers and Rural Affairs (Miscellaneous Amendments etc.) (Wales) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, Parts 2 to 5 amend retained EU legislation, Welsh and domestic, UK, legislation to ensure the continued delivery of the basic payment scheme in Wales for claim year 2021 and beyond, prior to the introduction of new agricultural support based on sustainable land management.

The provisions establish a simpler legislative framework based on retained EU law. These changes will allow the Welsh Government to continue to support the competitiveness of farming and food production, whilst responding to the climate emergency, reversing biodiversity decline and ensuring high standards of animal health and welfare and protecting natural resources. Among other amendments, the regulations allow for greening practices to be delivered by cross compliance, with the greening ceiling being added to the total BPS ceiling. The regulations amend the process by which the BPS financial ceilings are set, and Welsh Ministers will determine and publish the ceiling each year. The regulations also make administrative amendments to BPS to ensure it is effective and efficient.

Part 6 corrects minor errors in existing EU exit SIs to ensure the provisions come into force as envisaged. Since laying the regulations, we've become aware a minor non-operative change is required to a footnote and, assuming the regulations are passed, this change will be made before the regulations are made. Diolch.

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

I thank you again, Dirprwy Lywydd. We had the pleasure of considering 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 will deal with the trade in animals and related products regulations first of all. Our report on these regulations contains one technical reporting point, and two merits reporting points. Regarding the technical reporting point, we requested further explanation from Government as to why, in our view, a superfluous amendment is being made to the Trade in Animals and Related Products (Wales) Regulations 2011. In its response, Welsh Government has agreed with us that the amendment is superfluous. They note it will take steps to correct this at the next suitable opportunity.

Our first merits point relates to the Welsh Government consulting with the UK Government over potential divergence to EU rules in relation to animal welfare, despite the absence of an agreed framework between the UK Government and all of the devolved administrations. Our second merits point noted that the Secretary of State has been consulted in line with the requirement in paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act of 2018.

Turning now to the direct payments to farmers and rural affairs regulations, our report on these regulations contained two technical reporting points and one merits point. On the first technical reporting point, the regulations make a number of amendments to retained EU law, including omitting provisions contained in the retained EU law insofar as they relate to direct payments. Although certain provisions have been omitted, reference to some of those omitted provisions remain in retained EU law. The Welsh Government, in response to our report, indicates that the error will be corrected. 

Our second technical point, reporting point, noted that the drafting appears to be defective as the regulations appear to omit an article from an EU regulation that has already been removed by earlier regulations. In its response to our report, Welsh Government has agreed with our assessment and confirmed that the erroneous omission has no legal effect. Had there been a suitable instrument being taken forward, the Welsh Government would have taken the opportunity to amend these regulations. 

Our single merits point relates to the code of practice on the carrying out of regulatory impact assessments. The explanatory memorandum states that these regulations

'do not make fundamental changes to the current agricultural support funding arrangements and will have no significant effect on public or private sectors, charity or voluntary sectors.'

However, the explanatory memorandum also explains that these regulations

'simplify the administration of the scheme',

'remove or reduce burdens on persons applying for direct payments under the scheme',

'improve the way the scheme operates',

and 

'ensure sanctions and penalties imposed under the scheme are appropriate and proportionate'.

Although an exception in respect of technical or factual amendments under the code of practice would appear to apply to some of the amendments made by these regulations, other provisions appear to constitute more than routine or factual amendments. So, in response, the Welsh Government has stated that they consider the changes to be routine technical amendments to the operation of the scheme.

That concludes the report, Dirprwy Lywydd. 

Thank you. I have no other speakers, therefore I call on the Minister for Environment, Energy and Rural Affairs to reply to the debate. 

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. Again, I thank the Chair and the committee for their consideration and observations, and confirm the necessary changes will be made to deal with the technical points highlighted at the next suitable opportunity. Thank you.

Thank you. The proposal is to agree the motion under item 13. Does any Member object? No. Therefore, the motion is agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Again, the proposal is to agree the motion under item 14. Does any Member object? No. Therefore, the motion is agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Item 15 on our agenda this afternoon is the Senedd Cymru (Representation of the People) (Amendment) Order 2020, and I call on the Counsel General to move the motion—Jeremy Miles. 

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. The Welsh Government wants to take all steps to ensure that the Senedd elections take place in May of next year, despite the ongoing challenges arising as a result of the COVID pandemic. That is why we are introducing this enabling legislation for that election. 

The Senedd Cymru (Representation of the People) (Amendment) Order is the next step in that process. The National Assembly for Wales (Representation of the People) Order 2007 sets out detailed rules for the conduct of elections to the Senedd, and includes provision for legal challenge. Ahead of each Senedd election, the conduct Order is reviewed and amended to take account of any policy or legislative change since the last election. The Senedd Cymru (Representation of the People) (Amendment) Order 2020 outlines amendments to the 2007 Order in readiness for next year's Senedd general election. 

I would like to thank the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee for their consideration of this Order, and for their subsequent report. The Order was withdrawn and relaid in response to the technical points highlighted by the committee. I am grateful for their prompt consideration, which allowed us to continue to meet our timetable. 

The amendments to the Order were subject to a 12-week public consultation, and we have worked closely on them with the Electoral Commission. The consultation ended in September of this year. The consultation included, amongst other things, the implementation of changes arising as a result of the name change of the legislature and the extension of the franchise and disqualification provisions introduced by the Senedd and Elections (Wales) Act 2020. It also proposed giving candidates the option of not publishing their home address at Senedd elections. In addition to these provisions, we made further changes following the consultation. These were allowing political parties to use the term 'Welsh' or 'Cymru' on nomination and ballot papers, replacing personal fees for returning officers with payments to electoral administration teams, and ensuring that information about 14 and 15-year-old attainers is protected. I commend the Order to the Senedd. 

Thank you. I have no Members who wish to speak in this debate. Therefore, the proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Object, therefore we defer voting under this item until voting time. 

We will now suspend proceedings to allow for changeovers in the Chamber. If you're leaving the Chamber, please do so promptly and the bell will be rung two minutes before proceedings will restart. Thank you.

We reconvene on item 17, which is a debate on the new coronavirus restrictions, and I call on the First Minister to move the motion. Mark Drakeford.

Dirprwy Lywydd, thank you very much. As we, as a Senedd, prepare to go into Christmas recess, we are facing a very serious situation in terms of the spread of coronavirus in Wales.

A week ago, we were discussing whether the Government should impose restrictions on hospitality businesses in light of an increase in the number of cases. Now, the growth has now increased extensively. We have taken further steps, including the publication of a new control plan, which is before the Senedd today. We are also facing a new strain of the virus, which has appeared here in Wales. We will keep a close eye on this over the next few days and we will update the Senedd when more information is available.

Dirprwy Lywydd, the figures make bleak reading this Christmas week. More than 30,000 cases were confirmed in the last seven days, and one in five tests carried out in Wales were positive. In some parts of south Wales, we are seeing extremely high incidence rates—higher than anything that we have experienced this year.

We have passed another two sombre milestones in our pandemic in recent days. More than 100,000 people have now tested positive for coronavirus in Wales this year. On Friday, more than 2,000 people were in our hospitals because of coronavirus. Today, that has risen even higher, to more than 2,100, and by now, we have more than 90 people with coronavirus in intensive care—the highest number that we have seen in this second wave. Coronavirus is widespread and entrenched in our communities. It is affecting the normal running of many of the services that we take for granted, as more people fall ill or self-isolate and are unavailable for duty. All of that is, as you know, putting an intense strain on our front-line NHS and social care services.

Last week, we took further measures to protect people's health and to support our health service. Secondary school and college students are being taught remotely in this last week of term. If primary schools have to close for any reason this week, hub provision will be made available for vulnerable children and the children of essential workers. Outdoor attractions have been closed, and the NHS is now having to postpone some surgery and outpatient appointments to relieve pressure and respond to staff shortages.

Wales is not unique in facing such a rising tide of infection. We are seeing similar patterns right around the world. Germany and the Netherlands have introduced new country-wide lockdowns as coronavirus surges in those countries. Yesterday, the UK Government put London and large parts of the south-east of England into the highest tier of restrictions. In Northern Ireland, Ministers are warning of a third lockdown to come after Christmas.

Yesterday, here in Wales, we published our updated coronavirus control plan. This updates our original traffic light plan, which was published in May, and those, of course, were more optimistic times, when we were emerging from lockdown. Coronavirus cases were falling, and we were able—gradually—to relax our restrictions. The new plan updates the framework for local restrictions, which was published in the summer and guided us through the first part of the autumn. The plan sets out four alert levels, which are aligned to the level of risk and which outline the measures needed at each level to control the spread of the virus and to protect people's health.

Publishing this plan now will give people, public services and businesses clarity about how we move through the alert levels, and help them to plan as we move into the new year and through some difficult weeks ahead. We have drawn, as ever, on the expertise of the UK Scientific Advisory Group on Emergencies, and our own technical advisory group. It's through their work that we have identified the interventions that work, drawing on what we have all learned during the pandemic. Our technical advisory group has told us that a national approach to restrictions is most likely to be understood, and therefore to be effective. But, if there is clear evidence of a sustained variation between some parts of Wales and other parts, the control plan allows for the alert levels and the corresponding levels to be applied regionally.

Today, across Wales, we are at alert level 3. The traffic light is red. The risk is very high. Dirprwy Lywydd, I said last week that if matters did not improve, a move to level 4 restrictions was inevitable. Since then, far from improving, the situation has deteriorated, and the pressure on our NHS and social care has intensified. In all seriousness, I say to Members that a decision on further restrictions cannot be long delayed. Now, we will review the regulations in detail this week. As part of that, we will look at the projections for the Christmas period and the steps we need to take to make sure we can keep Wales safe.

Turning briefly to the amendments, Dirprwy Lywydd, both the amendments from Gareth Bennett will be rejected by the Welsh Government. I've set out this afternoon, and earlier in the Senedd, why the alert levels are entirely proportionate. Nor will the Welsh Government be able to support the amendment in the name of Siân Gwenllian in relation to isolation support. We need to consider carefully what a system of different restrictions for the regions of Wales might look like. But we will support Plaid Cymru's amendment dealing with safe reopening. My officials are regularly engaged in detailed conversations with these sectors. And finally, the amendment from the Welsh Conservatives is consistent with the updated COVID action plan, so will also be supported this afternoon by the Government side.

Dirprwy Lywydd, I have said many times that the pandemic has turned all our lives upside down. This has been one of the most difficult years for us all. The promise of a better year ahead is on the horizon, as the vaccine gradually becomes more widely available. In just the first week, more than 6,000 people across Wales have had their first dose, and tomorrow, the first care home residents in Wales will receive the vaccination. But while all of that is taking place, we have to get through some very tough weeks that lie ahead, and we can only do that if we work together to do so. The difference is made by the accumulation of all those small changes each one of us needs to make in our daily lives. This is a Government determined to keep Wales safe. Together we can change the course of this terrible virus, protect our health service and save people's lives. Dirprwy Lywydd, diolch yn fawr.

I have selected five amendments to the motion, and I call on Gareth Bennett to move amendments 3 and 4, tabled in his own name.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd, and thanks to the First Minister for bringing today's debate. I do actually agree with most of the sentiments that he just expressed.

I think that everyone in this Chamber appreciates that we are in the midst of a public health crisis and nobody wants to downplay that situation. I'm sure we all appreciate that, during this crisis, Governments of countries around the globe are struggling to deal with the pandemic and are managing the situation with varying levels of success. And, as human life is at stake, we all want the crisis to be over as soon as possible, with as little human loss as possible, although we also have to balance the long-term economic consequences as well, because they can also be life damaging or life changing.

So, can I just ask the First Minister, who, I think, made his opening remarks in a good manner, that was promising, hopefully, a good debate—can I ask him to be reasonable in his dealings with the opposition at this time? We do need to have a democratic forum in which to debate his Government's measures robustly, and we don't want to be called 'disgraceful' or anything similar just because we don't always agree with his measures. So, I thank the Government for bringing today's debate, but now that they have brought it, I hope that they can play by the rules and accept that we don't have to agree with them all of the time. I also note that when, earlier today, Caroline Jones asked the First Minister about sharing the scientific advice, he did avoid answering that part of her question. It seems to me that the First Minister wants to be all powerful and all knowing, not sharing all of the technical advice he has received, but at the same time telling everyone else that we can't question what he's doing because we don't know all the things he does.

Now, I mentioned long-term economic consequences—they do have to be borne in mind—and we in the Abolish the Welsh Assembly Party do take a view that the decision to stop pubs and restaurants from serving alcohol was disproportionate and could spell the end for many businesses. So, people in Wales could be suffering the consequences of the Welsh Government's decisions long after this pandemic is over. We are already seeing effects in Wales in terms of rising unemployment, but not only has Wales already suffered the highest rise in unemployment, we are also experiencing the highest rise in infection rates. So, it seems to me that we are having the worst of all worlds here in devolved Wales: we have the toughest lockdown measures, but we also have a public health crisis that appears to be worsening. It is no surprise that the public confidence in the Welsh Government's handling of the crisis is plummeting, with a fall of around 20 percentage points.

We in Abolish have said from the outset that we need a UK-wide response to the pandemic, led by the UK Government. I stated in last week's debate that many people have told me that they believe the First Minister has used this crisis, in part, to try and accentuate the difference between what he does, and what the UK Government do, in an attempt to win more public attention and support for devolution. I think this was a foolhardy strategy, and it has come back to bite him. We are still experiencing problems precisely because of his determination to have a distinctly Welsh approach to the virus. Regardless of what he says about the alert levels, England has different areas in different tiers, which makes some sense. As I say, despite the alert levels, here in Wales, the First Minister still, it seems to me, wants to treat all of Wales as one unit, so if one part of Wales has to go into lockdown, then all of it does. This clearly makes little sense in places like Gwynedd and Ynys Môn where the infection rates are relatively low, but because they're in Wales, they have to be treated the same as every other part of Wales. Clearly, this is nothing more than politically motivated nonsense, and very little to do with public health.

So, we do oppose the Government's motion today. We do believe that the new levels of restrictions are disproportionate and overly damaging to businesses and to people's livelihoods across Wales, and we do regret that the Welsh Government keeps taking a different line from what the UK Government is doing. What we want is a united UK response with more co-operation with the UK Government. We also support Plaid's amendments 7 and 9 today. I urge Members today to support these amendments, and I hereby move the two motions tabled in my name. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

I call on Paul Davies to move amendment 6, tabled in the name of Darren Millar. 

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I move the amendment tabled in the name of my colleague Darren Millar. I'm pleased that the Welsh Government will be supporting our amendment this afternoon.

It's deeply worrying to see that cases in Wales are continuing to rise, and so I'm pleased that the Welsh Government has brought forward this debate and published a coronavirus control plan, so that communities and businesses can understand the measures that have been put in place to control the spread of the virus. We on this side of the Chamber welcome the Welsh Government's proposals to use levels as a benchmark to ensure the public safety of Wales, and I welcome the fact that the First Minister has confirmed that, once appropriate, these alert levels could be varied in different areas of Wales in adopting a more targeted approach, rather than just a one-size-fits-all approach. 

Dirprwy Lywydd, it's also important that the people of Wales have confidence in the Welsh Government's handling of the coronavirus pandemic going forward, and so the publication of this document is very welcome in explaining to the public the Welsh Government's decision-making processes. Now, of course, a recent YouGov poll showed that fewer people have confidence in the Government's overall strategy in managing the pandemic, and it's crucial that the public has confidence in the decisions that are made on their behalf. This opinion poll demonstrates the importance of engaging with the people of Wales and communicating clearly, so people understand exactly why measures have to be taken.

Now, we mustn't lose sight of the fact that there is a vaccine, and it's a really positive step to see health boards in Wales administering vaccines to priority groups such as front-line NHS workers. The deployment and administering of that vaccine is absolutely vital in eradicating COVID-19 from our communities, and as we see more and more people across Wales vaccinated, that too will have an impact on people's confidence and on the level of measures that may be in place. However, as the First Minister said earlier on, the current figures are bleak. Wales has the highest infection rate in the UK, and eight out of the UK's top 10 worst infected areas are here in Wales, and the top three areas are Merthyr Tydfil, Neath Port Talbot and Bridgend. Therefore, we're at a point where we must recognise that the current intervention is simply not stemming the transmission of the virus.

Of course, as the number of cases rises, the pressure on NHS capacity and resources also increases, and, as we've seen, health boards in some parts of Wales are under significant pressure and struggling to cope. As was referred to earlier, we know that over 2,000 beds in Wales are occupied with COVID-19 patients, and one in 10 NHS staff are currently off ill or self-isolating, which also has an impact on the delivery of health services. In the last week, we've seen two health boards suspend non-urgent services and treatments following the increase in transmission of COVID-19 and the usual winter demand on emergency care. And on top of all that, the confirmed case rate is significantly more than 300 cases per 100,000 people. Therefore, in light of all of this activity and pressure on NHS services, the Welsh Government must now tell us when it intends to make further decisions regarding the next steps it needs to take to fight this virus. What individuals, families and businesses require now is certainty going forward, so it's imperative that the Welsh Government make a decision on the next steps to stem the virus as soon as possible, because people, businesses and our front-line workers need to know what is happening as soon as possible so they can plan ahead.

Diprwy Lywydd, it's not just our health services that are struggling, it's our businesses too. Figures today have confirmed that Wales experienced the steepest rise in unemployment between August and October of any nation or region of the UK, and that really shows how the pandemic has affected livelihoods. That figure will only grow if further restrictions are introduced, and we don't entirely see the whole picture as the UK Government's furlough scheme has continued to keep people on the payroll, and so it won't be until a few months after that scheme closes that we'll be able to see, unfortunately, the full extent of job losses across Wales. In the meantime, businesses are struggling to survive, and it's absolutely crucial that they're able to access funding before January, as those few weeks between now and then without support are simply too long for businesses to wait.

Now, I welcome the news that there will be a freeze of the non-domestic rates multiplier for 2021-22, but let us remember Wales continues to have the highest rate of business rates in Great Britain, so this simply doesn't go far enough. I therefore urge the Welsh Government not just to freeze business rates, but to go further and do more to support businesses who are continuing to struggle against the backdrop of the COVID pandemic. Of course, underpinning this coronavirus control plan is the need for a strong financial package of support, so that when Wales moves between alert levels in the plan, the public can be confident that the Welsh Government has funding in place to support those people and businesses that need it. This is absolutely crucial.

Dirprwy Lywydd, we all want to see the back of this awful virus, and the deployment of the vaccine is the very start of that journey, but we've still got a long way to go. My colleagues and I will do what we can to constructively work with the Welsh Government where we can, and where questions need to be asked and further evidence needed, we will continue to call for it. Now is the time for genuine cross-party working to save lives and protect livelihoods, therefore, I welcome the publication of the coronavirus control plan, and I hope the Welsh Government will now communicate clearly to the people of Wales exactly when and how it intends to stem the number of cases in Wales, and I look forward to seeing more of that detail in the coming days and in the coming weeks. Thank you.

Thank you. I call on Adam Price to move amendments 7 and 9, tabled in the name of Siân Gwenllian.

Thank you. I'm glad to move those amendments and to respond to the debate. I think it is welcome that the Welsh Government has produced this plan. We called for a winter plan, and it's important that it's clearly understood, and, of course, it needs to be adaptable, because of the continuing dynamic nature of the pandemic. As well as having that medium-term strategy, which is absolutely essential in terms of public confidence, I think the key question now is: what are we going to do right at this moment? We heard the First Minister refer to the current picture as bleak, which I think is an accurate assessment, and he referred to the need to consider action without further delay.

The question, I suppose, at the forefront of many of our minds, the minds of our citizens, really, is: can we afford to wait until the twenty-eighth when this new tier system comes into place? Because the current situation is worsening apace. Looking at some of the data for today from the ONS suggests, clearly, infection is increasing. We've seen the figures, we're at the wrong end of the league table in terms of 15 of the top 20 local authority areas in the UK in terms of daily cases. Positivity rate is the critical one, but that has been increasing now since 24 November, and the saddest figure of all, of course, is that excess deaths are higher than they have been over the last five years.

There are some areas of uncertainty, clearly. We don't know what the impact of the measures introduced more recently have been, there'll be a lag in terms of those. The NHS has been doing some maintenance on its IT systems, so there's some lack of clarity about the daily case figures. Presumably, the Welsh Government has better access to the data than we have, but I think it certainly is the case that we have so many parts of Wales that are above all the criteria for the highest level, the very high-risk criteria in the plan, and surely the question must be: why not introduce, therefore, those measures earlier? Because the mantra has been, from the World Health Organization through to your own technical advisory group, hasn't it, First Minister, that you go early and you go hard. Nobody wants to see any more restrictions because of all the harms that are attendant with that, but there are some circumstances where, unfortunately, it is absolutely necessary, and are we not at that point again in many, many parts of Wales?

And similarly, of course, whatever happens in terms of potentially an improving situation as a result of the recent restrictions, then we have the Christmas question, which you referred to earlier in First Minister's questions, and of course we've seen a litany of voices—two leading medical journals, a range of medical bodies calling for a review; you've got the COBRA meeting—but we would urge you, whatever the four-nation consensus is, Wales now is in a different place, and I think you have to reserve the right, and indeed there's the responsibility, to take a different decision, if necessary. If the medical advice and the scientific advice points clearly at reviewing those Christmas arrangements, then you have to do that. And it's important that you take the people of Wales with you, and that's one of the issues where we've had some differences over recent weeks. I think we have to do it as a whole nation. It's a difficult decision for any leader to have to make of a country, as has been said. I think that one way that we could possibly build that consensus, and I've written to you this afternoon, First Minister, is to get the leaders of the leading parties together to try to see if we can find a consensus across the parties, for which hopefully we can get majority support across the whole of Wales.

I think the message, difficult as it is, that we may need to hunker down a little bit harder over the holiday period in order to regain control, in order then to recover and reopen, hopefully earlier in the new year, I think that is a message that actually would receive widespread support, as long as we ensure that any restrictions are combined with additional support, in terms of financial support for people isolating, particularly those on low incomes, in terms of the childcare issues that are often a result in terms of restrictions, and in terms of sorting out test and trace. I've been looking at the numbers, First Minister, and again we're going in the wrong direction in terms of the contacts, the proportion of contacts that are traced within 24 hours. We've got to sort that out as well as, if it's necessary, based on the scientific advice, sadly, to look again at the Christmas arrangements and, indeed, going into tier 4 earlier than you had planned.  

Thank you. I have 10 speakers. If you all take three minutes, I'll get you all in; if you go over the three minutes, then I'm afraid those of you at the bottom of the list may not get called. So, I ask you that. I asked last week, it didn't do an awful lot of good, but I'll ask again this week. So, if you all take around about three minutes, we'll be fine; if not, then, as I say, those at the bottom of the list may not get called. Dawn Bowden. 

Sadly, we are ending 2020 facing another tough chapter in the story of the relentless struggle with this dreadful virus. Coronavirus has a strong grip on our communities, and our public services are struggling with the scale of the pandemic. We continue to see large numbers of people fall ill and, sadly, many deaths. And who knows what this new strain of the virus may bring. It's a practical, economic and emotional crisis, and my thoughts go to all those families who have lost loved ones, to businesses that are struggling to keep afloat, to people who have lost their jobs, and to people who are struggling with their mental health in these most challenging times. I also want to place on record yet again my thanks to all those workers on the front line whose daily challenge of dealing with the ever-increasing pressures I can only imagine. 

But can I also thank you and your Cabinet, First Minister, for the difficult decisions that you've faced and that you've taken this year, often in the face of unkind, unfair and personalised criticism? As you know, I follow football, and as a fan on the terraces, I know how easy it is to shout criticism from there, but it's never quite as easy to deliver success on the actual playing field. But the actions that you have taken have been taken to try to save lives and protect the people of Wales as best you can, and I thank you for that.

Like others in this Chamber, I've attended a number of briefings over recent weeks with the health boards, councils, and the police services that cover my constituency. The briefings are stark and the situation we currently face is severe. The most recent briefing I attended on Friday last week was with Cwm Taf Morgannwg health board. It wasn't just sobering; it was distressing. To have such a dire situation laid out so plainly about what is happening in my community was something I never thought I would have to listen to. I've said this before, Dirprwy Llywydd, but when I stood for election in 2016, it was because I wanted to help improve the lives of the people in Merthyr Tydfil and Rumney. And yet, today, I'm facing the reality of 170 COVID cases per 100,000 population, and a test positivity rate of almost 30 per cent in Merthyr Tydfil alone, and the number of ICU COVID patients last week outnumbered the number of ICU COVID beds available at Prince Charles Hospital. So, what's clear is that our NHS is reaching that point that, in truth, we'd hoped to avoid, so we must act; doing nothing is not an option. One of the two health boards in my constituency has already announced that they're having to suspend some non-routine services, and I suspect the other health board will follow suit. That in itself will bring further problems down the line, but what choice do they have? The voices on the front line are telling us that they are at breaking point.

Dirprwy Lywydd, in my constituency, the mass test pilot seems to be suggesting that over 3.5 per cent of the population could be asymptomatic carriers of the virus. As a result, the partners delivering this pilot have decided to extend the testing programme for a further week, and I welcome that decision. I certainly hope we can do more of this testing, and it is without doubt an important tool in identifying cases and having a better opportunity to reduce the spread of the virus and to identify what is happening in our communities until we see the benefits of the vaccination.

So, what is my conclusion from all this? Well, I'm of the view that in a pandemic crisis, the best way that I can meet the needs of my constituents is to support all the actions that can drive down the infection rates. In that way, we might win back some of that space that allows people and our systems to cope. Only by driving down those infection rates will people be able to see normality return to their lives. Only by driving down those infection rates will many of those small businesses that have been struggling so badly—particularly in the hospitality and tourism sectors—be given the opportunity to recover.

What we need to do will not be popular with everyone. The right decisions are often not the popular decisions, but now more than ever, those right decisions have to be taken. That is why we've seen responsible Governments across the world taking very difficult decisions to deal with this. In many of those countries, lockdown has been harsh and immediate because they, like the Welsh Government, understand how serious this is.

Dirprwy Lywydd, at this point, I'm certainly not in this for popularity. I will do what I have to do to help the Welsh Government and others to save lives. So, my message to Welsh Government is clear: please take all the necessary actions that you can to help our front-line workers to cope with the months ahead. Please take all the necessary actions that you can to help our communities recover from this virus, and please take all the necessary actions that you can to help our businesses recover, so that when this is all over, people have jobs and livelihoods to return to. And for those actions, First Minister, you will have my full support. 

Thank you. You've had your five minutes. Thank you. David Melding.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. In south Wales, we are likely in the next few days to see infection levels of 1,000 per 100,000 population, and by Christmas, they could go up even higher and reach the so-far record levels seen in the Walloon area of Belgium in the early autumn. That's the scale of the crisis that we face. And there is a real chance, as the FM has said, that the NHS will be restricted more or less to just COVID services, with all the implications for general health.

The economic damage caused by the restrictions is real and requires active mitigation, but the economic damage caused by the virus will be more severe still, especially if it continues to rage out of control. Yet we have, Deputy Presiding Officer, the promise of deliverance, because a vaccine, or several vaccines, have been found. We may not have been in this position. It is a wonderful thing that we are, and that, by Easter at the latest, there's a real prospect that all those over 70 and all those with vulnerabilities and underlying conditions will have been vaccinated, and that alone is expected to reduce the death rate by about 80 per cent, enabling our front-line staff and the NHS to cope. However, if the virus rages on, we will be compromised in the vaccine roll-out quite profoundly, potentially. So, that's what we've got to remember—that's why it's such an imperative now to look afresh at the situation we're in.

It is clear to me, Deputy Presiding Officer, that the Welsh Government's regulations since early November have been warranted. There is now a question, however, in south Wales, whether they go far enough. I realise a difficult balance has to be struck, and I understand from the BBC news report at 5 o'clock that there is likely to be a change to the regulations—or the advice, rather—over the Christmas period, and I think that is appropriate.

I welcome the more constructive tone that has marked today's debate. I think that's a sign of maturity about where we are as a Senedd and where the nation is in this public health emergency. I welcome, too, the development of the Welsh Government's approach, so that parts of Wales may be able to exit the most extensive regulations that may now be required in much of Wales, and adopt something approaching a regional, tiered approach. I will support the Welsh Government's regulations debated earlier. I will support the Welsh Government's motion before us, as well as the Conservative group's amendments. Should the Welsh Government conclude later this week that a firebreak is needed, to be applied immediately in south Wales, and obviously before Christmas, I would also support that measure.

Here we are once again, responding to a worsening situation. Wherever we look in Wales, everyone, I hope, would acknowledge that this is a crisis, whether we ourselves live in an area where the number of cases is low or in those very large areas that have seen a frightening increase in the number of COVID-19 cases over the past few weeks. We won't spend time today on what happened in coming out too soon from the firebreak, without having a sustainable strategy in place, perhaps, because we are discussing a new plan and the need to change direction once again.

In principle, I think the system of having levels of green through to black is a good idea, but deciding which level we should be on on a national basis, and in different parts of Wales, will be entirely crucial, and those decisions are not easy.

In terms of regional action, we will support the Conservative amendment today. Our first amendment refers to the same thing, but also refers to what this action could mean. There are two aspects that are referred to in that amendment, namely restrictions and support, and there is a value in having a basic fundamental level of national controls. No area is immune to this virus, but, where the cases are highest, it makes sense to me that there is scope to operate differently. That could mean restrictions, yes, but, along with that, the Government must be able to provide a higher level of support.

There are many countries, areas and cities and so on that have experienced success in controlling the virus and ensuring that people have the support that they need to self-isolate. The Welsh Government and the UK Government haven't been effective in this particular area, and studies show that it's a minority who are doing what's required in self-isolating successfully. So, provide financial support so that people make the right choice in remaining at home. Provide practical support—take crucial services to people's doors rather than them being tempted to leave home to seek those services. Put people in a hotel, as many other countries have done, so that their families are safe, and provide emotional support too.

On the second amendment, Helen Mary Jones will expand on that, but it mentions communication and having effective communication with businesses and other organisations to prepare for the day when we can start to reopen, and we're all looking forward to that day. But putting the right actions in place now is going to have a great influence on when that day will come. Now, I love the Christmas period, but I do very much hope that the Government will accept our offer to participate in cross-party discussions on what should be done around the festive period, how we can strengthen the rules and the messaging in the period leading up to Christmas, and that five days around Christmas itself. This will affect every one of us. 

If I can conclude by making reference to the plan published yesterday, simply stating that it's people's behaviour after the firebreak that was to blame—namely that people's behaviour didn't give us the outcomes we were looking for—that isn't good enough. Yes, each and every one of us has a responsibility to behave in a way that keeps ourselves, the people around us and our communities safe, but that behaviour happens within a context set by Government. And the steps taken by Government and the messaging of Government does have a very great influence on those behaviours, and let's bear that in mind too.

I thank the First Minister for providing us with a copy of the Welsh Government's updated coronavirus control plan. First Minister, Wales now has the worst infection rates in the UK, and, over the last seven days, the rolling infection rate per 100,000 was 450.4. Wales wide, the testing positivity rate was nearly 20 per cent, and this is despite Wales being under the level 3 restrictions outlined in the Welsh Government's plans, and despite coming out of a national lockdown just a few weeks ago, which we all thought would help keep the virus under control. However, infections continued to rise despite control measures. 

So, we have to ask ourselves why control measures are not controlling the virus. And there's nothing new in the plans, because we're being asked to support the same course of action that we have been pursuing for the past nine months: various stages of lockdown, the same thing that we have been doing since the summer with little apparent success; plans that have been tried and failed elsewhere—the same plans but different names, because where England has tiers and Scotland has protection levels, Wales will now have alert levels. I feel this will just add confusion to a public already struggling to understand the different rules and regulations in place in different parts of the United Kingdom.

As the Welsh Government point out in their document, a single national approach is more likely to be understood and more effective, so why, then, are we not pursuing a single UK-wide approach to this virus? Each part of the UK is trying to do their own thing, and what that has achieved is the confusion of the general public. Some people still don't know what the rules are, and, as a result, we are seeing falling levels of adherence to those rules. We will not control this pandemic without the engagement and support of the public, who are, at the moment, frustrated. 

All we have seen is business closures, job losses, massive Government debt that will take generations to repay. The business rates still remain the same, in many cases. We should be concentrating our efforts on having a world-class track and trace system, on population-level testing to find those who are infected and infectious, and on ensuring that those people are isolated and unable to infect anyone else. We need to ensure that we are fully backward tracing, not just finding those an infected person has already been in contact with, but finding where they were infected in the first place. We know that you're more likely to pick up COVID at a superspreader event, and we need to identify these events and all those who were present at that event. I feel this is the only way we can control the virus. We break the chain of infection by ensuring the infectious are not allowed contact with the uninfected, not by instituting lockdowns and praying people will abide by the rules. We have to keep the public on side. Thank you.

The situation that we face now in Wales is grave, and we are seeing exponential growth of coronavirus. When I spoke last week, I highlighted the huge pressure on the NHS and on social care in Gwent. Since then, the situation has worsened. On Friday, the Aneurin Bevan health board became the first in Wales to suspend all non-urgent treatment due to the immense pressure services are under. I've spoken to social care staff who have described to me the distressing pressure they are under as the rising number of care home cases makes discharge from hospital hugely challenging or even impossible. I therefore welcome the coronavirus plan that was published yesterday, but, given the frightening rise in cases we are seeing, I don't believe that we can wait until after Christmas to take further action to stem the spread of this virus. I believe further measures are needed now, as we have seen in places like Germany.

I also want to place on record my continued concern about the arrangements for Christmas mixing. I know that everyone has had a really tough year and that we all want some respite from this dreadful virus, but I fear that if the plans proceed as they are at the moment, then it will come at the cost of more hospital admissions and further deaths, and I just don't think that is a price worth paying when we have the light of a vaccine at the end of this very dark tunnel we're in. Last week, I paid tribute to the health and social care staff in Wales, and I readily do that again today, but they don't need us to pay tribute to them. They need those of us who sit comfortably in this Chamber to do right by them, to take the tough decisions, to work together to stem the spread of this virus, and to keep them and everybody else in Wales safe.

I'm grateful to be able to participate in this debate, and I will address my remarks mainly to our amendment 9, as Rhun ap Iorwerth has said. We're grateful for the Government's acceptance of that amendment. These are, of course, incredibly difficult times. Restrictions are inevitable to protect public health. We may even need, as Lynne Neagle has just said, to restrict further over Christmas, perhaps to two households, with compassionate inclusions for those living alone. People's lives are of paramount importance.

But we do need to look ahead. The beginning of the vaccination programme, of course, gives us all reason to hope. We will, as a nation, as a community of communities, survive this terrible crisis, and we will do that best, we stand the best chance of building back not just better but really well, if we work together as much as we can. The Government is rightly focused at present on the immediate public health crisis and, in fairness, on trying to mitigate the inevitable serious impact on jobs and businesses. Our amendment calls on them to work more closely, particularly with those sectors hardest hit—hospitality, sports venues and cultural organisations—to develop more detailed road maps setting out the steps that will need to be taken to enable those sectors to open safely when the time is right. I must stress again, Llywydd, that I am not talking about now; I'm looking here at the medium term. The Government says they are in constant discussion with these sectors, but that is not what these businesses and organisations tell us. It may depend, of course, with whom in different sectors the Government is currently consulting. Naturally, it's not possible for the Government to speak to every individual business, music venue or sports club, but I would urge Welsh Government to take a fresh look to ensure that their consultations, looking ahead to the medium term, are as wide and as comprehensive as possible. As Adam Price and Rhun ap Iorwerth have said, we welcome this new plan, but, in terms of looking ahead to the medium term, further work is needed.

Our amendments suggest the Government facilitating direct engagement between sector representatives and the Government's scientific advisers. The scientific advisers, of course, are best placed to advise on the health risks. The sectors know their operations best, and are well used to working in complex regulatory environments around health and safety. Surely it makes sense to allow direct communication to improve the sector's understanding of the risks and the scientists' understanding of the practicalities. Given the Government's welcome acceptance of this amendment, I look forward, in the new year, to updates on direct discussions between scientific advisers under the sections I have mentioned.

Never, Llywydd, have we in Plaid Cymru so wanted the Welsh Government to succeed so that lives and livelihoods can be protected. We will continue to engage constructively—scrutinising, making constructive suggestions, supporting where we can, opposing where we must. This is, I believe, what the people of Wales expect of us. I commend both Plaid Cymru's amendments to this Senedd.

We are in the midst of an international crisis. All Governments around the world are doing what they can, the best they can to deal with the virus, the likes of which has not been seen for over 100 years in Europe and beyond. Death and infection rates go up and down—even in the UK, not long ago, Northern Ireland was top, then parts of England and now it’s Wales. This is not a race, though, Llywydd, because all politicians, I believe, are trying to do the best that they can in the circumstances they find themselves in.

There was criticism last week that only a week's notice had been given to pubs in Wales before they could close. In London this week, 48 hours' notice was given. Now, I could easily say, 'Well, doesn't that show a level of double standards?' but I'm not going to do that because this is how difficult it is to make predictions. This is how difficult it is for Governments in Wales, England, Scotland and Northern Ireland and beyond to take decisions to protect people when the virus changes behaviour so quickly. It's difficult for business; there's no question about that. There are businesses out there that are thinking, 'Will I survive? Will I still be here next year?' There are businesses out there that, despite the support from Government, will wonder whether they have a future. But it is delusional to think that we can simply go back to normal and ignore the fact that the virus is here. And I've heard that argument being made.

There are some who've used the example of Sweden. They don't do that now, do they, Llywydd? There are some who talk about herd immunity. Let me tell them what 'herd immunity' means: it means either (a) you vaccinate everybody, or (b) you allow the virus to run wild through the community, picking off the weak, the elderly and the vulnerable along the way until you get that immunity. That is not humanity, to my mind, Llywydd. We cannot pretend that this virus is not here.

I heard Gareth Bennett, who basically said that the Welsh Government's efforts are a crypto-nationalist plot. That's what he said, in effect, and then he said that he demanded respect from a Chamber that he does not wish to see here in the first place. This is not about politics. This is not about, 'England did this, Wales did that. Let's compete with each other, let's criticise each other.' This is not what this is about. Each part of the UK is doing the best it can in the circumstances it finds itself to protect its people. I support the Welsh Government in what it does. I support the UK Government in what it's doing in England, because I know that they're doing the best that they can.

I heard Caroline Jones speak. She seemed to be saying not that we should have a regional approach, but that we should have one approach across the entire UK. One set of rules across the entire UK, regardless of where you are, whether you're in Warrenpoint on the border with the Republic of Ireland, or whether you are in the Outer Hebrides or, indeed, in London. That's the impression I had from the argument. That is not the reality of the situation.

We face, in Wales, this crisis together. We have light at the end of the tunnel, we know where the journey ends: there's a vaccine. The question is how many more people are we willing to lose on the way. Eighty years ago, Llywydd, in the whole of Europe and in this country, a generation faced a level of deprivation for six years in war that we cannot possibly imagine. They did not know what the future held. They had rationing, but they got on with it. Are we saying that, for a few months, until the vaccine arrives, we cannot put up with a mild level of restriction? Because if we are, we are not fit to follow in their footsteps.

There are people who think that this virus is a con. There are people who have received positive tests who then go to work and infect other people. The question for us as a society is this: future generations will look back at us and they will say, 'How effective were these people in dealing with this virus?' We need to be able to look them in the eye. The virus doesn't care about politics, doesn't care about Brexit, doesn't care about where in the UK it is, doesn't care about the EU, and we must remember that co-operation is key to ensuring that more people live, that more people have a future, and that more lives are saved. And on that basis, Llywydd, I will give my support to the Welsh Government, I will give my support to the UK Government, and to all governments around the world who are looking to make sure that their populations are protected in the future. No matter what our politics, no matter what our parties, that surely must be our guiding light.

We're debating this afternoon a control plan. Well, it's certainly a plan, but what is uncertain is whether we will actually control anything very much. We saw with the firebreak, as indeed I predicted when it was debated, that the numbers might come down for a short period but, as soon as the restrictions were lifted, that they would start to rise again. So, unless we're prepared, as the former First Minister appeared to be saying a moment ago, that we should have a lockdown that is indefinite and will stretch well into next year, I think that what we're doing today is not proportionate to the circumstances in which we find ourselves. The one word that has been markedly missing from the debate this afternoon is the word 'winter', and it was predicted right at the start of this pandemic that, when we got to the winter, cases were bound to rise, as all respiratory cases rise in the winter, although what is interesting about the figures for this year—and I've got a chart in front of me that compares 2020 with the previous five years—is how the death figures for all respiratory diseases are very much lower this year than any of the previous four years. That's not to minimise, of course, the importance of any death that is avoidable. But the question is whether these measures, which are going to do such tremendous damage to the economy, as everybody accepts, are going to be matched by some countervailing benefit in terms of the number of people who are hospitalised and ultimately die.

And, on that, I think that what is lacking also from this debate is the question of humility on the part of the Government. Sometimes it's hard—always hard, perhaps—to admit that you don't have supreme power to control events, and governments often find themselves in these circumstances. What is marked about the international experience, which has been referred to by both the First Minister and his predecessor this afternoon, is that, despite the very, very wide variations in the way in which governments have reacted to the pandemic, the disease has not been stopped in its tracks anywhere, in fact, quite the opposite. Now, the First Minister issued a challenge in his speech, saying that those who used to look up to Sweden no longer mention it. Well, I'm going to mention it this afternoon, because Sweden's experience is actually very interesting. The death rate per million is Sweden is 757. In the United Kingdom, it is 946. So, Sweden has a very much lower death rate than we have, and Sweden's figures are very much front-loaded because they failed to protect people in their care homes in the spring, and so the bulk of the deaths in Sweden relate to that failure of policy on the part of the Swedish Government then. If we look at the figures more recently, the death figures for Sweden for COVID were three on 21 October. They rose to 69 on 25 November, and they've consistently come down from that date of 25 November, until yesterday, 14 December, they had been reduced to as low as 17. Sweden has introduced one new measure in the last couple of months to restrict movements in Sweden, and that is to impose a maximum of eight on public gatherings, although if you are 16 people and go out to a restaurant together, you can have two tables of eight next to each other so long as you socially distance and keep your 1m or 2m apart. And so, the Swedish death rate is no worse, and often is consistently better, than other countries in the northern hemisphere who are advanced. 

So, the problem we've got here is that we have a fate that is most unwelcome about which governments don't seem to be able to do anything very much apart from make temporary actions that affect the disease, which otherwise has a remorseless progress. Maybe the vaccines will free us from this terrible world in which we now live. But the performance of the economy is going to have long, long-term effects upon people, and they're not just economic effects, they're also in terms of health and well-being. These are points that have all been well made by even those who support the Government in what it's trying to do. I've every sympathy with the First Minister and his colleagues in the predicament in which they find themselves, but I do believe that these measures are disproportionate, and that it's obvious that, where infection rates are low in some parts of Wales, the restrictions are going to impose an unnecessary cost. It's true also that, in other parts of Wales—urbanised areas in particular—we've not made the restrictions tough enough. So, I say to the Government just one thing, 'Please, make your regulations proportionate.'

I thank you, First Minister. I think we've had a really good debate in most places here today, and I welcome the fact that we are focusing on what we can do together—that is really pleasing not only in here, but I'm sure to the people out there too. And we are walking a very narrow path here, but we do have, as many people have said, a vaccine—or rather, vaccines—in view, and there is light at the end of the tunnel. But I believe that we must be guided by two key things, and those are collective effort, which we're seeing here today, and personal responsibility. And I think it's in that spirit that we can all give a collective message to the people of Wales and support today's message.

We do have, and we're moving forward, a national strategy, and there will be new alert levels within that system that will be clear and consistent, and will underscore the collective effort that is critical to that strategy. So, it won't matter whether you live in Cardiff or Crymych or Criccieth or Carno, the message and the rules will be the same. And we do, there is no doubt, have personal responsibility to stick to them, to suppress the virus and prevent our national health service from being overwhelmed. That said, though, I'm very nervous about people moving around, in and out of the country next week. And I share Lynne Neagle's concerns about the virus moving between families, moving between friends, over Christmas. I know that there have been no decisions yet on what the final make-up will be of those configurations within households, but I think the message is clear—that we're going to have to revisit that, and I guess that that is what's happening.

But you only have to look at the story of the pandemic in our region to understand how precarious the situation is. And it only took a single event in Cardigan—and elsewhere—where we had a super-spreader situation, where schools had to be shut, where businesses were completely disrupted, and everything else was also affected. That was one event. Until that event happened, the virus was under control. So, things move very quickly. It's very easy to say, 'We're okay here', but it isn't the case that these things stay as they are. We know now that, in our local health board area of Hywel Dda, there are 930 health board staff either absent or sick or isolating. So, it isn't simply the numbers of people who find themselves unfortunately in hospital, but it's the people who are able and available to treat those people. And I've heard the argument about, 'Small numbers of infection, so leave us alone'. But they are actually served by small hospitals, with small numbers of staff as well.

So, end is in sight. I'm really pleased that the debate today did take on what I consider a much better tone. I welcome that. And I think that we all owe our health staff and other front-line workers a duty, and that is to try and give them some hope for the new year, so that we don't overwhelm them. Thank you. 

This has been an incredibly difficult year, as many have said, and Governments across the globe have introduced restrictions that they would never have wanted to introduce. People have made huge sacrifices in their daily lives, but, sadly, people have passed away, and I think it is right that the Government's put public health and our residents' needs at the forefront of their mind.

Llywydd, I'm always frank in this Senedd, and I always I speak up for my community, and it is in that spirit today that I support the steps of the Welsh Government and the steps they have taken, but I also seek the adoption of a regional Welsh approach as soon as it is safe to do so. The facts on the ground in north and south Wales should be paramount and, where those facts support a variance of approach, we should allow it.

Llywydd, I won't take up too much time, because I know many other Members wish to speak in this very important debate today, and this is the last chance I will get to address the Senedd this year, as tomorrow I'll be attending the funeral of my beloved grandad. So, I want to take this opportunity, if I may, Llywydd, to say thank you to the residents of Alyn and Deeside. You have been nothing short of superb, and the steps you have taken to slow the spread of the virus have saved lives. So, from me, please stick with us as we look forward to a better future. Diolch yn fawr. 

The Minister for Health and Social Services to reply to the debate. Vaughan Gething. 

Thank you, Llywydd, and thank thank you to Members for their contributions in today's debate. I have been struck by the tone from the overwhelming majority of contributors in recognising the seriousness of the situation that we face.

It was unfortunate that the debate started in response with Gareth Bennett calling for fair play and respect, before going on to make a series of unnecessary, personalised and untrue comments. This Government has never acted to pursue a course of politically motivated nonsense. The pandemic that we have faced these last 10 months has tested all of us. People may disagree with the choices we have made. I respect Members' rights to disagree, including to do so in a passionate way. But the choices the First Minister has made, the choices I have made, the choices that every Welsh Government Minister have made, have all been motivated by how we save lives and livelihoods, and that will continue to underpin our approach for the difficult road ahead. 

I welcome the fact that both Paul Davies and Adam Price, and many Members, broadly welcomed the publication of the updated coronovirus control plan with the updated alert levels. Paul Davies indicated that there needs to be public confidence in steps that we are taking, and, of course, that underpins why we have always published, from very early days, a regular summary of the scientific advice that we've received.

I think we can take some heart from the fact that the recent survey done by Ipsos MORI showed about 61 per cent support for the measures this Government is taking. And, in First Minister's questions, of course, we heard the comparison between how the public feel about measures taken by the UK Government and a positive mark in favour of the Welsh Government. But none of that is a matter of complacency and, in fact, the Welsh Government's ratings took a fall, because the recent evidence was undertaken over the time of the difficulties around the hospitality measures that we introduced. So, we certainly don't take for granted the continuing support and confidence of the people of Wales. And, in doing so, we have to recognise the impact upon our staff, and the fact that that will have a bearing on choices the public make and how they feel about the measures this Government is prepared to take.

Paul Davies recognised, as did Lynne Neagle and others, that two health boards are already reducing NHS activity. That will have an impact on future harm, and I'm afraid that more health boards will follow over these coming days and weeks, as the pressure mounts.

Now, in terms of the opportunity to continue to share information, we will continue to offer briefings from this Government directly to the leaders of the Welsh Conservatives and Plaid Cymru, as we head towards any significant interventions. That courtesy will continue: the regular briefings and also the briefings as we approach particular decision points. 

We will also work with the local authorities and want to recognise the way that they have managed to process payments for business support. We have the most generous package of business support in the UK, but that only gets to many businesses because of the work that our local government colleagues have done. And I know that both the local government Minister and the economy Minister are very grateful to local government colleagues for enabling us to do so. 

I recognise the comments Adam Price made about whether we can wait until 28 December. Ministers are considering each day the choices that we make and when we need to make them. Adam Price, and a number of others, made comments about the harm that has already been caused. It is an undeniable reality that, more recently, excess death rates in Wales have been higher than in England and that's in contrast to the course of the pandemic, because over the whole of the pandemic, from Office for National Statistics figures published to date, there were 13 per cent excess deaths in Wales—that's more than 3,000 extra deaths above the average in Wales—compared to 19 per cent of excess deaths in England. On either calculation, that is a significant amount of harm already caused, and it underpins why the Government continues to have to consider future extraordinary action to keep the people of Wales safe. I haven't seen the letter that Adam Price says that he sent to the First Minister, but any constructive approaches about how we might reach a future settlement will be welcome and will be discussed.

Now, on test, trace and protect, I should point out that the test, trace and protect staff in the course of the firebreak did increase staff numbers by a third. We've managed to maintain an effective performance thus far and what is actually compromising our performance now and in the future is the continued wave of demand that continues to rise with each week. In the last week, we still got to 81 per cent of contacts, but our concern is how quickly we can get to those contacts, how long we can continue to perform at that high level, and the demand reflects the reality of transmission across our community. We can't simply demand that test, trace, protect continues to insulate people from the consequences of the rapid spread of the virus through our communities.

I want to thank Dawn Bowden and others for their recognition of the difficult choices that Ministers face. In terms of the point about mass testing, I think it is important the analysis that Dawn Bowden has already asked for about the impact of mass testing in Merthyr Tydfil. I look forward to seeing that sooner rather than later to help determine other choices that we may take. I recognise her point, and the point made by Joyce Watson too, on the collective action we need to take to improve our health and economic future, and that goes alongside personal responsibility.

I was grateful to David Melding for his measured and supportive response in terms of recognising the need to act with the regulations that we have introduced, and equally signalling that he and others indicate that they would contemplate supporting action before Christmas as well as afterwards. And also the prospect of future regional changes that, again, Jack Sargeant indicated he would wish to see, if and when it is safe to do so, and we do set that out as a real prospect and possibility in the updated COVID control plan that we've published.

Now, turning to Rhun ap Iorwerth, I think it's fair to say the firebreak did work: it significantly reduced infections. What didn't work was a new settlement on behaviour change after the firebreak had ended. We collectively returned to more normal patterns of behaviour before the firebreak and that is what leads us to the position that we face today.

I recognise the call for more support, including support for people isolating. And our constant challenge is what we do about messaging the support we've already provided, but also the reality that every extra piece of support we provide has to come from somewhere, and our budget challenge, the extra pressures that health faces, the extra pressures that businesses face, and our ability then to have more money to support individuals to do the right thing for them, their family, their community and, of course, the country. But I do recognise that the Government has a role in leading and shaping debate and in influencing behaviour, but we cannot determine the behavioural choices for every member of the public. That's why I welcome the points made by Members across the political divide within the Chamber about personal responsibility.

I respectfully didn't agree with much of what Caroline Jones had to say. I don't accept that the reason why we don't have a single, UK-wide approach is because the Welsh Government has refused to co-operate with other Governments—far from it. We have regularly called for more co-operation between the Governments of the UK to understand the context in which we all operate, to have as much commonality as possible, and that is still where we are as a Government. We want to see more common approaches to help the public to understand what we ask them to do and why, and it will continue to be the approach that we take in our engagement with every one of the Governments within the United Kingdom.

I thank Lynne Neagle for her vivid description of the health and social care pressures within Gwent. They're also being faced by Members within Swansea Bay, the Cwm Taf Morgannwg Members, and, indeed, Cardiff and Vale Members would also recognise those pressures. And I'm afraid that Hywel Dda Members, thinking again about Joyce Watson's comments, will see those as rising pressures within the west of Wales too. And we see coronavirus cases increasing in the north of our country. This is a genuine national fight that we face against the virus and not a local or regional one, and we all need to play our part.

I hope that Helen Mary Jones is content with the fact that we recognised that scientific advisers do need to have an engagement with different business sectors. In fact, that has happened already with the sector representatives we've discussed—they haven't just spoken to Ministers, they have had engagement with representatives from the chief medical officer's department or the chief scientific adviser on health's department to try to explain the evidence that underpins each of the choices we have made. But we're happy to confirm that is the approach we will continue to take as we have to make difficult choices.

I thank Carwyn Jones for his comments as well, and, as ever, there was a distinction between the comments Carwyn Jones made about Sweden as not a model to follow and Neil Hamilton, who continues to want us to do so. As ever, there was a failure to compare Sweden with the reality of what has happened in Finland, Norway and Denmark—countries that compare much more neatly with how those populations respond to their Government and the practical situation within them. I do not believe that Sweden is a model for Wales or any part of the UK to follow. I think, though, when we talk about herd immunity, it's important to recognise that herd immunity can come from protection from a vaccine, and when Carwyn Jones made his comments, I'm very clear he's saying that that should not come from a survival of the fittest, or an abandonment of our most vulnerable citizens to their fate. That has never been the approach of this Government, and it never will be. I want our people to be protected by the vaccine.

And that's where I think we need to finish, Llywydd. The action plan is a response to the crisis that we face, the reality that more action will need to be taken by the Government and by each of us, in our families and communities, in the weeks and months ahead. The vaccine does offer hope, but to get there, we all need to face the crisis together and to travel that road together, and all of us need to act so that we do not lose people on the way. We may have other life events to celebrate together, but we cannot replace those who are lost, those who are lost unnecessarily.

The pandemic will end. We will get to a position where we will protect our people through effective coverage with a vaccine, but the actions that we take, in every home, in every family, will determine how many of us finish this journey together to help rebuild our country. All of us have a part to play to keep Wales safe, and I hope that Members will feel able to support the Government with amendments to the motion today, but more than that, to support every part of our country in the difficult months that lie ahead. Thank you, Llywydd.

The proposal is to agree amendment 3. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There are objections, and I will therefore defer all voting under this item until voting time.

Now, in accordance with Standing Order 12.24, unless a Member objects, both motions under items 18 and 19 related to the Curriculum and Assessment (Wales) Bill will be grouped for debate, but with votes taken separately. Does any Member object to the grouping for debate? I see no objections to that. Excellent. I will therefore call on the Minister for Education to move the motions. Kirsty Williams.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. I move the motion on the order paper, and I'm very pleased to open this debate on the general principles of the Bill, having introduced it to the Senedd in July. It will provide the legislative framework to support our new curriculum and assessment arrangements.

The Curriculum for Wales, supported by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and at the very heart of our mission to reform education, will help raise educational standards for all and close the attainment gap. I would like to thank the respective committees for their thorough and constructive approach to scrutiny, and their subsequent report and recommendations. Unfortunately, I do not have the time today to address each of the nearly 90 recommendations, but I will, of course, reflect on Members comments as we move towards Stage 2. I'm also very grateful to everyone who's provided oral and written evidence to the committees, during what, of course, is a very challenging time for all organisations. On the totality of the recommendations, I am minded to accept 57 of them, accept 10 in principle, and I will be resisting 19.

Earlier this year, I committed to engaging with the debate on the position of English in the Bill, within the context of our ambitions for a truly bilingual system. The response to the survey on amending the Bill so that English would become a mandatory element at seven was overwhelmingly supportive, and therefore I do intend laying an amendment at Stage 2 to that effect. I note the committee's comments about a Welsh language code, and I am committed to working with stakeholders and the Welsh Language Commissioner in developing the clear Welsh language continuum for all learners as soon as possible. This will take time and thought, and many of the challenges that we face are not legislative, but they are about the ways of working, culture and mindset. I do not believe that the requirement of a code will aid us in this.

Welsh is mandatory from three on the face of the Bill, and that provides a very clear signal as to the priority that we give to this. Members will also be aware that we have launched a consultation on the draft non-statutory guidance for categorising schools according to their Welsh-medium provision. I sympathise greatly with the calls for this to be made statutory. However, that is beyond the scope of a curriculum and assessment Bill, and will need separate legislation. I very much hope that the next Government will choose to act in that way.

Now, more than ever, the mental health of our learners is so important. At Stage 2, I intent to table a duty to have regard to pupils’ mental health and emotional well-being. This duty will put mental health in a unique position, and it'll be a system-wide consideration to inform every decision a school makes about a curriculum. The teaching of mental health and well-being is already secured through the proposed 'what matters' code, and the amendment will ensure that all local decisions relating to a curriculum will need to factor in the impact of mental health and emotional well-being.

Turning to religion, values and ethics, I would like to express my appreciation to all stakeholders, including the Wales Humanists and the National Secular Society, for their contributions, as well as our education delivery partners, including the Church in Wales and the Catholic Education Service. The amendments I intend to table in Stage 2 will address some of the concerns that have been raised. The Bill will ensure that pluralistic RVE is available to all learners, whilst also ensuring that schools of a religious character can continue to operate in accordance with their trust deeds.

I also accept the CYPE committee's recommendation 50 in relation to section 58 of the Bill. The Government is content to place a duty on Welsh Ministers to make provision on assessment arrangements in regulations. I trust that Members know that my experience in the Senedd on the other side of the aisle means that I am wholly committed to appropriate scrutiny of secondary legislation, and in recognition of this, we have applied the affirmative procedure to powers and duties where it appropriate, proportionate and practical to do so.

I have accepted two of the recommendations to apply the draft affirmative procedure made by the LJC committee. First, I will bring forward Government amendments that will require that the RSE code and any subsequent revisions be subject to the affirmative procedure, as I recognise this is an area of wider public interest. Second, as the power under section 50 has a general role, I agree that I will bring forward amendments so that any regulations on further exceptions to the curriculum would also be subject to the affirmative procedure.

The changes to the curriculum in September 2022 will be significant, and I will publish our curriculum implementation plan and an outline research and evaluation programme early in the new year. These will set out how we will learn more about the progress and cost of curriculum reform, to report on these in the next Senedd. In my letters to the CYPE committee and the Finance Committee in the autumn, I committed to update the regulatory impact assessment to reflect information provided by our key stakeholders. I recognise the importance of having as much clarity as possible on this important matter.

I will not be accepting the amendments relating to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Quite simply, that is aimed at states, and it is not aimed at front-line service providers. Through this Bill, headteachers and governing bodies of schools will be obliged to design, adopt and implement a curriculum that includes learning on children's rights and the UNCRC. The proposed curriculum provides clear guidance on human rights learning and education, including an explicit reference to children's rights and the UNCRC. It is specific and practical duties, however, on public bodies that will result in improved outcomes, and this is very much the approach that we will take.

The progression code and the 'what matters' code are technical professional documents co-constructed with practitioners. The negative procedure means that we recognise the central importance of practitioners' professional judgment and provides the flexibility for changes to be made as needed, and I'm afraid that opening these to the affirmative procedure would call into question the validity and the trust that our process has in our professionals.

In conclusion, Presiding Officer, this is an important step on our journey to a curriculum for Wales, and another landmark moment for our national mission to raise standards for all. As I've said, I'm grateful for the committees' work to date on these matters, and I look forward to the debate amongst colleagues this afternoon. Diolch yn fawr.

Chair of the Children, Young People and Education Committee, Leanne—no, not Leanne—Lynne Neagle. 

Thank you, Llywydd. I’m very pleased to contribute to this Stage 1 debate to outline the Children, Young People and Education Committee’s main conclusions and recommendations in relation to the curriculum and assessment Bill. I want to begin by stating that our committee supports the general principles of this Bill.

The evidence we received made it clear that improvements are needed to the curriculum to enable our children to lead happy, successful and enriched lives, and to help them to make a full contribution to Welsh society and beyond. We've been particularly struck by the call for change from children and young people themselves. They want to see a new curriculum that enables them to develop the skills they need to begin their journey into adulthood. So, we welcome the emphasis on life skills and preparation for adulthood that runs throughout the new curriculum for Wales. Furthermore, we agree with the Welsh Government that the current curriculum is not fit for a modern Wales. The opportunity this Bill presents for schools to shape their own curriculum, based on pupils’ needs, is bold and ambitious. It has the potential to make a significant difference if implemented successfully.

Nevertheless, Members who have seen our detailed report and 66 recommendations will know that I have more to say about this Bill and the legislative framework it aims to create. As a committee, we are clear that, while we support the Bill’s general principles, there are still issues to be addressed. Our concerns are around the practicalities of how this curriculum will be rolled out effectively, whether there is enough time to train staff to deliver it, particularly in the context of COVID-19, and whether the Welsh Government is sufficiently clear about how it will ensure this legislation contributes to raising standards as well as providing pupils with the same opportunities and experiences from their education.

With only eight minutes, I can't discuss all elements of our report, so I will give a brief outline of the headline issues and some of the solutions we would like to see. But before I go into that detail, I'd like to pause to thank all of those who contributed to our scrutiny. This is the first Stage 1 to be conducted in a wholly virtual context. More importantly, it's the first Stage 1 to be undertaken in a global pandemic. We’re enormously grateful to all those who took the time to share their views and expertise with us in recent months. We know that so many of them have been on the front line, managing the impact of the coronavirus, and ensuring that our children and young people continue to receive care, support and education in Wales. So, I would like to give them my heartfelt thanks for helping us to ensure that, despite the challenges of the pandemic, our scrutiny has been as robust and as comprehensive as any piece of primary legislation rightly demands.

I also want to thank our clerk, Llinos Madeley, our researcher, Michael Dauncey, as well as Lisa Salkeld and Rhiannon Lewis from the legal team for all their hard work on this Stage 1. I've said before that the committee is blessed to have such a brilliant team supporting us, and this report is further evidence of that.

I’ll turn now to the main issues we think need further work between now and the Bill’s passing. Firstly, we think more reassurance is needed about the balance that will be struck between local flexibility and national consistency. We support the aim of empowering teachers to design a curriculum that meets the needs of pupils. We also recognise that the new curriculum will not be uniform across all schools. But we think it’s vital that children in Wales receive consistent opportunities and experiences from their education. On that basis, we’ve asked for further clarity on the checks and balances the Government will put in place to monitor and maintain that correct balance. Closely linked to this, we’ve called on the Government to monitor closely any variation in the curriculum offer and any impact that has on particular groups of pupils. This is essential if we are to avoid entrenching existing disadvantage.

Our report recognises the significant hope stakeholders have that the new curriculum will have a positive impact on standards and school improvement. While we agree with the Minister that the status quo is not fully delivering in this regard, we have not been shown demonstrable evidence that the new curriculum will lead to higher standards. In view of this, we call on the Government to monitor closely and transparently the impact that curriculum reform has on standards. It’s crucial to ensure it complements the wider school improvement efforts under way.

Moving now to details on the face of the Bill. This has been a matter of some discussion during Stage 1. Some stakeholders agreed with the Minister that including significant detail and prescription on the face of the Bill would undermine the overarching aim of allowing flexibility for schools to design a curriculum tailored to the needs of their children and young people. Others were concerned that more detail is needed on the face of the Bill to be sure that important areas not currently listed have a secure place within the new curriculum. We accept that the longer the list of requirements on the face of the Bill, the narrower the opportunities may be to realise the flexibility it seeks to deliver. Nevertheless, the reasoning applied to decisions surrounding what is placed on the face of a Bill and what resides in secondary legislation must be clear. We think more work is needed here, so we have called on the Government to set out the principles that have guided decisions about what aspects of teaching and learning are included on the face of Bill as mandatory elements.

Closely linked to this, while we recognise the Government’s desire to avoid overcrowding the Bill, we believe that explicit reference to mental health and well-being is indeed needed on the face of this legislation. As a committee, our commitment to ensuring parity of esteem for mental health is clear, and we believe this is a once-in-a-generation opportunity that warrants a belt-and-braces approach. As such, we have called for an amendment in this area during Stage 2, and we look forward to hearing more detail from the Minister on the amendments she is suggesting.

With the time remaining I will touch briefly on some other important recommendations. Firstly, we’ve called on the Welsh Government to amend the Bill to resolve concerns about the impact on immersion in the Welsh language up to age 7. We welcome the Minister’s intention to table an amendment removing English as a mandatory element for this age group. More broadly, if the Government is to reach its target of a million Welsh speakers by 2050, the scale of the transformation of teaching and learning Welsh in English-medium schools cannot be overstated. The extent of the Welsh Language Commissioner’s concerns about this was clear, so we have called on the Government to work with the commissioner to strengthen the basis within the Bill and the wider curriculum framework for the single Welsh continuum.

Moving now to RVE and RSE. As a committee, we support unanimously the provisions in the Bill to make these mandatory elements of the curriculum. We also support the fact that the Bill does not include a right to withdraw from either subject. Our report is clear that this support is predicated on provision being objective, pluralistic and critical. We make a number of recommendations in that regard, and have asked the Minister to clarify some specific points during today’s debate. We believe developmentally appropriate RSE is essential to creating the necessary conditions to enable our children and young people to access the high-quality, comprehensive relationships and sexuality education befitting of a modern, tolerant and inclusive country. It is also a vital mechanism to help children and young people to understand and respect both their own rights and those of others under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, and more broadly, under the European convention on human rights. Our report notes our deep concern about the circulation of misinformation about the Bill's RSE provisions. I would like to place on record that it's completely clear to the committee that the intention of RSE is to educate and protect children and young people, rather than in any way to expose them to inappropriate content.

Finally, barriers to the Bill's effective implementation formed a key part of our scrutiny. Making time to enable sufficient professional learning and development for the workforce is vital to the success of this Bill, especially given the backdrop of COVID, and this will be challenging. We do not think this should prevent the Bill passing through the Senedd, but we do think more work is needed to assure us, the sector, and parents and carers that everything that needs to be in place is in place for the new curriculum's roll-out.

In closing, Llywydd, I'd like to thank the Minister and her officials for their positive engagement with our Stage 1. We've undertaken our scrutiny in the spirit of providing constructive and rigorous oversight of what we view as the biggest change to education since devolution began. We urge the Senedd to support this Bill, and look forward to seeing our recommendations delivered during the next stages of the legislative process. Diolch yn fawr.

Chair of the Finance Committee, Llyr Gruffydd.

Thank you very much, Llywydd. I'm very pleased to contribute to this debate today as Chair of the Finance Committee. We've made nine recommendations. Given the time available, I will perhaps focus on some of our main concerns in this debate this afternoon.

The committee heard from the Minister that the Bill provides the legislative underpinning for the development of a wholesale reform of the curriculum and assessment for Wales, but there were only two options contained within the regulatory impact assessment, namely do nothing, or legislate, and we believe that the RIA should be a key tool to critically assess a range of methods, and to provide an evidence-based approach to policy-making decisions and the committee is concerned that informed, comprehensive RIAs are not driving the decision-making process here. Whilst the committee accepts that the impact of the pandemic may have created a more difficult environment for the preparation of the Bill, we are concerned that the Welsh Government has replaced the explanatory memorandum two months after the original was laid. Whilst the changes weren't particularly relevant to consideration of the financial aspects of the Bill, that's a worrying precedent that has been set.

The RIA notes that the curriculum will be decided at school level with each school applying the curriculum requirements in their own contexts. Therefore, there is no single basis on which to assess the costs of the legislation. However, a significant proportion of the costs are estimated to fall to schools, and that is between £146 million and £438 million, or between 45 per cent and 71 per cent of the total costs.

The methodology used to estimate the costs for schools was based primarily on a survey of 15 innovation schools, with the RIA providing a plus or minus 50 per cent range on the estimate costs. It's disappointing that a more representative sample of the wider school population has not been used, and that more detailed work of the costs to schools across Wales was not undertaken. Our second recommendations recommend that this work should be undertaken and included in a revised RIA.

The duties placed on pupil referral units and education other than at schools are different to those placed on schools. The Welsh Government undertook a small-scale investigation with these stakeholders. However, the transition and ongoing costs were not included in the RIA, as they weren't considered robust enough to aggregate to an all-Wales level. The Minister confirmed the Bill would provide a framework for learners in education other than at school, entitling them to have access to the new curriculum arrangements. However, she said that given the wide range of different learning needs in that sector, it was difficult to quantify costs, because it's a needs-based approach, and therefore the costs were not included. We recommend in our third recommendation that the Welsh Government should undertake further work to define and estimate the costs for education other than at school in consultation with stakeholders.

Now, £126.8 million will be provided to schools for professional learning. The Minister confirmed that the funding allocated to schools is determined by a funding formula. We also heard from the Minister that other elements of professional learning are accounted for in different ways, and that the National Academy for Educational Leadership is funded via an annual grant.

To aid transparency, the committee recommends that details of the teacher-based formula used to fund schools and information on the other ways schools receive funding should be published.

We heard that engagement with a number of key stakeholders had to be paused in response to COVID-19. As I mentioned at the beginning of my contribution, the committee acknowledges the impact of the pandemic, of course. However, it is disappointing that the engagement work with stakeholders had not progressed further upon the Bill’s introduction. This leads to a number of concerns around the evidence used by Welsh Government in making the decisions outlined in the explanatory memorandum.

We are grateful to the Minister for providing an update on engagement with stakeholders, which stated that Welsh Government officials had met with representatives from the further education sector to discuss the potential impact on the post-16 education system, including financial implications for training. We recommend that the detail on the Welsh Government’s discussions with stakeholders around the potential costs to the post-16 education sector should be published along with any details of the financial implications.

That's a brief outline of some of the main recommendations that we made, but the full range of recommendations is available in the committee's report. Thank you.

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

Thank you, Llywydd. Our report contains 11 recommendations, and I thank the Minister for addressing our report and some of those recommendations in her opening remarks, and in particular the commitment to apply the affirmative procedure to certain parts of the Bill in connection with the recommendations that our committee has made.

My opening remarks will focus on our consideration of the human rights matters. We have acknowledged that the Minister has given a lot of thought to human rights issues when developing the Bill, which we welcome. It is vital that the new curriculum for Wales is both designed and delivered in a way that is objective, critical, pluralistic and altogether compliant with the convention rights of both children and parents.

In this regard, we consider that the codes that will be made under sections 6 to 8 of the Bill to be of fundamental importance. As such, we are unconvinced by the Minister’s reasoning as to why these codes should be subject to the negative procedure in the Senedd. While we welcome the Minister’s commitment to involving the relevant professions in developing the codes, we could not see why such co-construction should influence the determination of which scrutiny procedure would be applied. It was our view that an enhanced affirmative procedure should apply to the making of the codes. Therefore, our first recommendation was that the Bill be amended to require the codes made under sections 6 to 8 of the Bill to be subject to the affirmative procedure, whilst retaining the consultative provision in section 72(2)(a).

Just moving on quickly to section 25 of the Bill, Members will know that section 25 enables Welsh Ministers to make regulations that may impose further curriculum requirements in relation to pupils aged 14 to 16 at a maintained school. The Minister considers that flexibility is needed to see how schools’ practice develops. However, we have concerns that this is a broad power that lacks sufficient detail, and our third recommendation is that section 25 be amended to include a non-exhaustive but comprehensive list of the circumstances in which the regulation-making powers in section 25(1) may be used. Furthermore, recommendation 4 says the Bill should be amended so that regulations made under section 25(1) are subject to the affirmative procedure.

Section 40 of the Bill also contains a substantial power for the Welsh Ministers. In recommendation 6 of our report, we asked the Minister to use today’s debate to clarify why the power in section 40 is needed in addition to the power in section 50. We also asked the Minister to explain how the power of direction in section 40 may be used by Welsh Ministers. Given the nature of the power in section 40 of the Bill, and the fact that it is not subject to a Senedd procedure, recommendation 7 asks that the Welsh Ministers notify Senedd Members via written statement on each occasion that the power of direction is used.

Moving on quickly again to section 47 of the Bill, the Minister told us that she has already assessed the need for using the powers in section 47 at the outset to set time limits in respect of appeals about temporary exceptions for individual pupils. In our view, these time limits should be placed on the face of the Bill. In order to provide flexibility, this could be accompanied by a provision permitting the time limits to be amended by regulations. However, such a Henry VIII power must be subject to the affirmative procedure. Our recommendation 8 deals with these matters.

In the event that the Minister rejected recommendation 8, our ninth recommendation is that the Minister amends section 47(8) so that the Welsh Ministers are placed under a duty to make regulations that make further provision regarding the time limits for appeals under the section, rather than providing the Minister with a general power.

My final comment relates to section 50 of the Bill, which the Minister did address. She herself recognised that the disapplication or modification of the curriculum for any pupil is a serious step. There are also no conditions attached to the exercise of the power in section 50. For these reasons, we did not consider that the negative procedure is appropriate, and our tenth recommendation was that the Bill should be amended so that regulations made under section 50 are subject to the affirmative procedure. And, of course, I welcome—. I think it was the Minister's confirmation that the affirmative procedure would be applied; I hope I heard that correctly from the Minister, but thank you for that. Diolch, Llywydd. 

Could I just begin by thanking fellow committee members and our hard-pressed clerks and researchers, the Minister and her officials and, of course, our witnesses? Can I please urge everyone to read this report in full to see quite how thoroughly we have examined this, not just the overhaul of the system but the new time pressures brought around by COVID, and the controversial mandatory elements in the new curriculum? It is a distillation of a phenomenal amount of written and oral evidence acquired through well-publicised consultation, including with children and young people.

And I just want to emphasise that last point: this Welsh Parliament in legislation introduced over a decade ago committed to giving due regard to children's rights in the process of legislating or making policy, and balancing these with parents' rights has really exercised our committee, as well as, clearly, the LJC. 

The evidence, of course, has been far from one way, but what has come through loud and clear is that our current curriculum could be so much better in helping teachers and parents guide our children to adulthood in a modern world with new and age-old challenges, and perhaps prepare them for it in a way that most of us didn't experience. 

Now, whilst I support the general principles of the Bill, I'm still sceptical about whether it can achieve the aims as it stands. It's my perennial complaint about Swiss cheese Bills—so much is left to guidance or codes and, without them, the Minister is asking us to take a lot on trust, and support at this Stage doesn't guarantee my support later on, because I share some of Lynne's concerns about rolling out the practicalities. But at this Stage, I'm certainly supporting the Bill. 

I'm grateful that the Minister has already agreed to address the issue of teaching English below the age of seven and mental health, and I'm keen to hear a little bit more, actually, about the response to our concerns regarding religion, values and ethics in voluntary-aided schools' teaching. Other schools, as you may know, will be required to give regard to the locally-agreed RVE curriculum, whereas voluntary-aided schools must teach in accordance with that curriculum, a much stronger obligation, or provide that curriculum separately on request. I think that's an obligation that discriminates against faith schools. 

All schools should be subject to the 'give regard' requirement, and the right to request a parallel curriculum be removed as unnecessary or at least limited. I saw no persuasive evidence that the current locally-agreed religious education curriculum is being taught in a way that is not pluralistic, and so I also reject the argument that the new RVE curriculum is bound to be at odds with trust deeds or religious tenets of a faith school. Those schools already meet the needs of children from all kinds of faiths and none, but I do make this point: faith schools, you have told us that you can be broad and balanced, that you can do that. You will still be party to the design of the local RVE curriculum. There will be no secular risk veto. If you have the same 'give regard' compliance requirement as every other school, then you should not need to look behind your deeds. You should be able to deliver a denominational curriculum that has regard to a local RVE curriculum.

Minister, I'm afraid I'll still be looking for an amendment, or putting in one myself, permitting the start date for the implementation of the curriculum to be staggered. I know, Minister, that you're worried that some schools will take things to the wire, regardless of where the wire is, but I'm genuinely worried about teachers who won't be ready, because of COVID or lack of guidance, but who absolutely want to do this well.

I appreciate the confirmation that we as Members will get some oversight of the RSE codes, possibly some guidance—certainly more than the Bill currently suggests—but we are not sighted on them now. Relationships and sexuality education in particular has some controversial elements, and teachers are looking for very clear instruction. And I'm not surprised, because, despite the fact that older children have been quite categoric that they want this to be on the curriculum, there are some very understandable concerns on the part of parents about what exactly children will be taught when they're younger, and on the part of teachers who do not feel trained well enough at the moment to teach and respond to children. Parent governors will be key individuals in signing off a school's curriculum; let's remember this crucial role. But I'm afraid the Welsh Government has not helped manage these worries particularly well during the development of this Bill.

My group has a free vote on this, incidentally, but my own experience is of working in domestic violence and family law before becoming a Member of this Senedd. Instances where child protection has completely failed make me certain that we need this in the Bill, but information has been spreading and mutating, leaving parents not knowing what to believe, so much of which could have been avoided if we'd had a draft RSE code, after almost five years of preparation, to consider alongside the Bill, and so urgent action on recommendation 24 is needed. Lots more to say, Llywydd, but I appreciate my time is up. Diolch.

If implemented and operated correctly, the new curriculum could provide the skills and confidence required for future generations. The committee's work has been crucial in trying to identify any barriers and any unintended consequences that could arise from the Bill, and the fact that we have drawn up 66 recommendations does demonstrate that our scrutiny did uncover a number of issues that are a cause of concern, and I would like to thank everyone who has assisted us through this process.

One of the key considerations that the Government and the Senedd need to take into account is how we secure a consistent national curriculum across Wales. There is a general desire among young people to learn about the same things. We need details as to how the Government will ensure that individual school curricula will be appropriate, balanced, and will lead to consistency. We also need to be entirely clear that the new curriculum won't lead to widening disparity and disadvantage.

I continue to argue that the Bill itself is inconsistent in terms of what's included on the face of the Bill and what is not on the face of the Bill. I agree with the mandatory elements already there. They are important. But in my view there are two other areas that are just as important, and I agree entirely with the committee that mental health and well-being should be referred to on the face of the Bill, and I look forward to seeing what the Minister will bring forward in that area.

I also believe that the same status should be provided to the story of Wales, the history and stories of Wales in all their diversity, including the histories of BAME communities and people of colour. Specific reference should be made to the story of Wales on the face of the Bill, for the same reasons as the others are included on the face of the Bill: in order to provide prominence to the area and the need for it to be taught; to ensure its value for future generations; so that we don't ignore or avoid issues that may be seen as difficult or ones that teachers don't have sufficient information about.

I will pause on the story of Wales and the need for this to be mandatory. The emphasis on Cynefin, local history, is a great thing, but the national story also needs to have status, and the only way to do that is to include it on the face of the Bill. There are new resources for Welsh history and BAME history in the pipeline, which is excellent, of course, but they must be mandatory. It would be a huge mistake, in my view, not to include one specific unit on the story of Wales as part of the humanities, and the only way to put that right now is to include a specific reference to it on the face of the Bill.

What country would actually omit its own story from its education curriculum? It has to be on the face of the Bill, or there is a risk that some future citizens will be deprived of information about their past. Learning about Wales and its people is central to the process of helping learners to develop an awareness of their national identity, but also about other identities—those that overlap and are multiple and relate to each other. This is crucial to encourage empathy, social awareness and to encourage active citizenship among learners, citizenship that is open-minded and sensitive socially and culturally. I very much hope that I will be able to persuade you on this point as this Bill proceeds through its parliamentary journey.

In turning now to a section of the Bill dealing with the Welsh and English languages, I'm pleased that the Minister is to bring an amendment forward at Stage 2 to deal with the problems arising with the immersion policy. But I do think that there is an opportunity to strengthen other aspects—for example, the language categories of schools and the process of implementing the continuum for the learning of Welsh. I do believe that the Bill needs to be amended to make it a requirement for Welsh Ministers to publish a statutory code for teaching and learning Welsh under the curriculum. I've heard what the Minister has said today, but I will be continuing to pursue that particular point.

Others have already focused on other aspects of the Bill. It is disappointing that the guidance for religion, values and ethics is not available for scrutiny so as to allay fears. The committee also notes that we need to launch a campaign to destroy the myths that have surrounded RSE in the Bill, but the committee was unanimous in the view that this aspect, RSE, should be included as a mandatory part of the Bill.

To conclude, there are many concerns about the implementation of the new curriculum. We must have adequate funding and training to support the process. Without that, and bearing in mind the challenges of COVID, then everything could go awry and none of us wants to see that happening. And, as the Bill proceeds through its parliamentary journey, we do have to think about the implementation as well as what's contained within the Bill.

As it stands, we cannot support the curriculum Bill. If the Bill continues to remove the rights of parents as primary educators, I cannot, in all good conscience, vote to support its introduction, regardless of any other improvements it brings to education in Wales.

The compulsory teaching of RSE, or relationships and sexuality education, and RVE, or religion, values and ethics, is derisory and has been rejected by the public in not one, but two public consultations. Yet, despite the lack of support, the Welsh Government have removed the rights of parents to withdraw their children from RSE and RVE lessons, and they are, in effect, telling parents that the state knows their children better than they do themselves. But, according to the House of Lords judgment in Regina v. Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the child is not the child of the state and it is important, in a free society, that parents should be allowed a large measure of autonomy in the way they discharge their parental responsibilities. The Welsh Government, however, are clearly prepared to ignore that judgment, just as they are prepared to ride roughshod over the views of the parents who have twice rejected the Welsh Government removal of the parental opt-out.

This is a topic that parents up and down this nation feel extremely strongly about, and I've had more correspondence urging me to reject this Bill than I have had on any other piece of legislation. And some parents and grandparents have spoken to me regarding what is currently being taught to their children, and some do not think that the content of the lesson for a child of eight, as was told to me, was at all appropriate.

So, why do parents feel so strongly on this? Why do religious groups and secular groups share the same opinion on maintaining the opt-out? Because some say, they have stated, that they have seen the sorts of lessons that will be taught under the new curriculum.

No, they haven't.

And parents are now—

How?

If it's a roll-out, if it's a national roll out, they have seen—

How?

—things that can come.

Allow Caroline Jones to carry on. The Minister can respond at the end and clarify. 

She's allowed to parade her ignorance. 

Teachers have—. Thank you, Mike. 

Carry on. Carry on, Caroline Jones. 

That's recorded.

Teachers have confided in me that they do not have training in this subject, and some would prefer a healthcare professional to teach the subject, because they don't feel equipped to teach it. And I passionately believe that children should be allowed to be children and there is no developmental need to teach sexuality and relationships to young children, and especially, as they've said, the kinds of materials that parents, teachers and psychologists have stated that they believe are coming into the curriculum.

Before we can agree on this Bill, this Senedd and parents in Wales need to see concrete lesson plans for the teaching of both RSE and RVE. And the best way to approach this would be for the Welsh Government to remove RSE and RVE from the curriculum Bill and move these elements to their own Bill. This would allow wider curriculum reform to proceed, and allow greater parental input into both RSE and RVE teaching. And unless the opt-out is restored and the Welsh Government establish a parental panel to review all RVE and RSE lesson plans and materials, I cannot support the legislation. Thank you. 

I was surprised—. No, I wasn't surprised with what Caroline had to say, because she said something last week that was equally appalling in my view. I cannot understand why it is derisory that a child has no understanding of what is going to happen to them aged nine when they start menstruating. About 30 per cent of all children do not know what is happening the first time they menstruate, and that is because parents are too embarrassed to actually talk to them about it. We have the worst of all worlds in our culture, both here and in the United States. We use women's bodies to sell all manner of products, from cars to perfume to chocolate, but we don't want to talk about what our bodies do and how we can keep ourselves safe from it. So, in the balance between children's rights against parents' rights, I firmly come down on the right of the child both to know what their bodies are for, the fact that it belongs to them, that nobody else has the right to invade this space, and nothing should be done to them that they are not content with. That is what we are up against, Caroline, and, in the world where the internet is everywhere, we absolutely have to provide children with the knowledge to keep them safe, and we are absolutely against everything that we need to do to keep them safe if we are not teaching them about how we have good relationships, respectful relationships, respecting difference and ensuring that we're not entering into abusive relationships because we're so desperate to please somebody. 

So, those are really, really important issues, and, not least, we know about all the research that's been done on adverse childhood experiences—if children are experiencing domestic violence, they must at least have the tools to understand that this is not normal, because otherwise they will simply go on to being either an abuser themselves or being abused, entering into abusive relationships. This is so important. Of course, all children must have mandatory RSE. So, I hope that the code will include mandatory menstrual education, because not just girls, but boys as well, need to understand that this is something to celebrate, not to be regarded as a curse, because if we don't have periods we won't have the human race. So, it's as simple as that.

I think the whole curriculum is absolutely brilliant and I think the education Minister has so much to be proud of. Just turning to the slightly more contentious issue of religion, values and ethics, I think that Catholic and Church in Wales leaders have, to some extent, interpreted this as a Trojan horse for undermining the denominational character of their schools. I think the obligation to provide both a denomination-led pluralistic education and, also, allow parents to opt-out and demand another type of religious education seems to be utterly burdensome on individual schools. How would we manage that?

I think if parents choose a school of a religious nature, they know what they're entering into. They are going to get something that's slightly different from the county school that they've chosen not to go to. So, I was interested to hear Suzy Davies talk about the recommendation to insist that all religious education needs to be of a pluralistic nature with due regard to the multiple religious feelings and none of the whole community. So, I think that this is an important distinction, but I think we also have to make a complete difference between religious education and an act of worship, because they are two completely different things. After 30 years of religious conflict in Northern Ireland still fresh in our minds and, sadly, it could come back, as a result of negotiations going on elsewhere in Brussels, we absolutely need to ensure that all pupils have respect for people of all religions and none. So, I think this is such an important issue, but I look forward to reading the report from the committee of young people, because I think this is such an important part of the work of the Senedd. 

I, too, would like to extend my thanks to all involved: the Minister, the Chair, all our committee members, the clerks and all who have contributed so thoughtfully and passionately in providing evidence to our committee. 

The Curriculum and Assessment (Wales) Bill marks the first construction of a distinct Welsh curriculum. The curriculum that I was, admittedly, at first, very dubious about and very sceptical of. However, sitting on the education committee and listening to evidence, I now feel reassured in my concerns, although a couple still remain. But on the general principles of the curriculum and assessment Bill, I am genuinely excited for our children and young people in Wales to have the opportunity to engage in a curriculum that, I now believe, will, in the most part, far better prepare them for the real world. 

There will be relatively less prescription of what schools must teach, with no programmes of study, and I welcome this flexibility, but there, at the same time, needs to be a level of consistency across schools, which I outlined and debated on in committee, ensuring that there are levels that must be attained and taught across schools, so, as Lynne Neagle said earlier, there is fairness and equality in education across our schools. The last thing that we want to do is highlight the already apparent inequalities that do exist right now. And, as Lynne Neagle said, it is absolutely necessary that we monitor those standards and the content of what is being taught, particularly during the bedding-in period, when we get to that point, and that is an essential part of it. 

In addition to the four purposes and six areas of learning and experience, the Bill establishes three cross-curricular skills, namely literacy, numeracy and digital competence. I welcome that children will now be undertaking projects like starting their own business, which will teach them maths, English and other subjects in the round and constructively, with people seeing how to use the basic principles of these subjects in the real world. 

It also makes relationships and sexuality education, and religion, values and ethics, mandatory elements in addition to Welsh and English. Concerns have been raised on both of these issues. My son attends a Church in Wales school, which was through choice, as I strongly believe that the values that come out of that school, which happens to be a school that I attended, are so, so good and he learns—. He's such a rounded little boy and he's come back with such an understanding and respect for all religions, and I'm so proud of him for that and I'm proud of the school for delivering that sort of education to him. Therefore, I believe that the current curriculum, in terms of religious education, is delivering right now in my opinion and my experience. I do see all the arguments today, and I'm not going to go over them because they'll be talked about a lot today by people who are much more in the know than me actually. But I am concerned that the Bill notes that there is no right to withdraw from RVE. It's something that I'm still uncomfortable with, in my constant battle in my head between the rights of the parent and the rights of the child, and which one should come out on top, really. It's not black and white, but it is so important that we get that right and get everyone on board with it.

Relationships and sexuality education is intended to be taught across the curriculum to support physical, mental and emotional health and well-being. This was my biggest issue with it, when faced with this curriculum at first. I was at first very sceptical and uncomfortable with the idea of my 10-year-old son being taught RSE at that sort of level. But having taken the evidence and listened to people throughout the committee process of scrutinising this, I am now comfortable with what my son would potentially be taught. It is directed on what age you are. And it is so important that our children also learn about what's right and what's wrong in terms of relationships and things like that, and the massive impact that that will have on child abuse and things, going forward. I really do think it is absolutely the best part of the Bill actually—I think it's really, really important. So, I've completely turned around on that and I do think that if other people took the time to listen to people who contributed to our committee, they too would change their mind and realise that it is age appropriate and appropriate to be taught those things. I listened to the Member over here about being taught about the menstrual cycle. I was never taught about it. So, I had to find out, and that sort of thing should be taught in schools and not be a surprise like I had. It's a very scary and worrying time, and that sort of thing should be incorporated. I know that parents have a responsibility, but not all parents do that—not because they're irresponsible; my parents aren't irresponsible, but it wasn't the done thing to talk about it. It's those sort of barriers that we need to break down and this is a way of doing that.

On the preparation, I did want to talk about some other things. Firstly on the preparation of the new Bill in light of the disruption caused by this pandemic, there needs to be some consideration of the practical call from Suzy that it needs to either be delayed or staggered to give our teachers and schools more time to prepare, recognising the disruption that COVID-19 has caused. A recent survey we conducted found that 76 per cent of schools responded that the pandemic was having a negative effect on their preparation for the new curriculum, with planned work for the summer cancelled. Moreover, the recent OECD education review found that a large number of stakeholders interviewed, including experts in curriculum teaching practices, suggested that there was a need for more time and more targeted professional learning in order for teachers in Wales to be ready for implementation—

You're going to have to bring your contribution to a close now. I've been very generous.

Sorry, yes. There is a danger that, by rushing through implementation of the new curriculum, we are reducing the ability of teachers to deliver on its aims. It's a massive change, this curriculum, and I wholeheartedly wish it every success, but it is very important today that you listen to our concerns and that we iron out all of these concerns. Thank you.

Diolch, Llywydd, for letting Laura Anne Jones go on. I was enjoying her contribution. Indeed, I've been enjoying the debate in general. Thank you, Jenny, for your contribution.

My view on this is one that is on balance—it will, I think, go against most people here, but, on balance, I've decided to vote against the general principles of the Bill. But, for me, it is a finely balanced decision and it's not made with overbearing confidence. I speak with humility; I'm not sure that I'm correct. I speak tentatively in what I say. I also recognise some of the achievements of the education system in Wales under the leadership of Kirsty Williams during the fifth Assembly. I have spoken before particularly about the Seren scheme and the number of children getting into top, leading universities and the increase in that, and the rise in attainment at the highest A-level grades. I think both those are laudable. Also, when we had the PISA results—and I'm very struck by just how central the PISA results are to how we talk about education in Wales and how they frame that debate—I thought it was important—and those on the benches to my left I don't think did this in the debate—to recognise that there was an improvement, and it was a significant improvement. And while I think it's still fair to make the case that the results were less good than they were for other nations in the UK, they were better than the very poor results that had gone in the previous three-year cycle.

This is a bold and ambitious new curriculum, I think Lynne Neagle said, and the Minister said that it was intended to raise educational standards for all and to reduce the attainment gap. I hope it does, but I fear that it may not, and it is because of how bold and ambitious and how radical it is that there are greater possibilities of things going wrong and perhaps going seriously wrong, and I would just ask others to be alert to those. The Minister says that Welsh Government will monitor how it's implemented, and of course they must. Siân Gwenllian said, 'If implemented and operated correctly', but that is a very big 'if', because you are giving hugely greater discretion to schools and to teachers than we have in the current system. I appreciate the argument why that can be a good thing. Sometimes people refer to the system in Finland, where teaching is held in incredibly high regard. It's very, very competitive to get into, and teachers are paid much more there than they are here. And in that system, I've no doubt that greater discretion and professional judgment will work. But I worry whether it will work to the extent that the Minister and others hope within our system, where we have had a long period of austerity and where teachers are not well paid compared to many other professions and it's not as competitive to enter the system. I think if you do have that greater discretion, there will tend to be a greater diffusion of approaches and, potentially, results, and it could lead to an increase in attainment gaps. For me, what would make me comfortable about that is if it wasn't just Welsh Government monitoring it but that parents were better able to monitor it by having results that were on a consistent basis and that were published to allow parents to assess schools and teachers as well as for them to assess children.

I also think there should be quite a high hurdle before we move in a very independent direction about how education should develop in Wales compared to England. I know a lot of people don't like me making that comparison, but wages are very substantially higher, on average, in England, particularly in London, and if, through having a very different education system going in a very different direction, it makes it harder for people from that system to get the most competitive and well-paying jobs and into universities in that system—I'm not saying it will; I'm just saying I fear that it might, no more than that—I ask for that to be considered.

I also don't support the unequal treatment of our two languages, and Welsh being mandatory from three, but English only from seven, although I understand the reasons—other people make the argument for that.

Finally, what's happening in RSE and RVE, I hear the arguments made on both sides, and I thought Jenny Rathbone spoke in a very compelling manner in that, but I was concerned by how strongly people dismissed what Caroline Jones said and what was shouted across the Chamber at her, because I think she speaks for a lot of parents. And we've had a very British compromise from the 1944 Butler Act, and how that's evolved over time, and to move in a very radical direction away from that is something just for which I would recommend caution. I'm not convinced that this Bill is going to lead to what its proponents believe, and I fear it may not be a success, and that's why I vote against it, but I do it with humility rather than confidence.

I'll be supporting the Bill, and I'm going to particularly focus on aspects of the RSE code. I'm going to welcome the fact that the Minister has removed the right of withdrawal and is sticking with RSE and healthy relationships, and that the Welsh Government is going to make that mandatory, and I'm really, really pleased that that is happening.

Many of you here will know that I have campaigned for years about what a healthy relationship looks like. I have approached schools right across Wales to join me, even providing materials from the White Ribbon campaign, and I've had some success where schools have done that, but not much. And the reason being is trying to find that time within that school year—not that the teachers or the school themselves don't want to do it, but they're not mandated either. I've sat in schools, in classrooms where young children have talked about healthy relationships in all age groups, and understanding what that is and what it isn't, once they've been guided through age-appropriate teaching. What that does, for me, is teach those children respect, first of all for themselves, and secondly for other people. And they grow up with that respect. Because we all know that the incidence and numbers of domestic abuse are just the same as they were 30 years ago, and the only chance and opportunity that we have to do anything at all about ending violence against women and children is to start much earlier; to start with young people and to teach them respect. And they get it; they absolutely get it once you engage them in those conversations.

And, of course, that respect has to be wider; it has to be about respect for different religious outlooks and, as Jenny Rathbone quite rightly said, this is about education. And that's what we're teaching: wider perspectives. It's about also recognising that people are different, and that relationships are different too. I'm really pleased that, again, through age-appropriate education, children, going forward, will have the opportunities to have that education. 

And I, again, want to support the notion that Jenny has brought up about menstrual well-being. Because unless people know what a good period is, what a normal period looks like, and they can then speak up for themselves and have a conversation at home, things like endometriosis go undiagnosed. And I have two family members who've suffered the consequences of that, and they can be, indeed, serious and life-changing. So, I really, really want that to be there.

I think we have, today, an opportunity to do some bridge building, to give a genuine narrative of tolerance and of difference, and to allow young people to experience and to share and to celebrate, but, most of all, to accept that. And that is exactly what will happen in schools with allowing RSE education and not allowing the parents to withdraw, whether that's through fear or misunderstanding, which it very often is.

I will absolutely support this, but I do want to take issue with this idea that it's too radical and it can't happen within the state schools, by the previous speaker. And yet it's obviously okay to give radical and difference and freedom within the public schools, within free schools and any other school, as long as it's not a school that is run by the local authority—that's the exception that I have.

While there's a great deal of good in this Bill that I really do welcome, unfortunately I'm afraid that I can't actually vote for it today. That will probably come as no surprise to the Minister, but I'm afraid that, unfortunately, there are aspects of the Bill that I fundamentally disagree with.

Our education system in Wales is based on the principle that parents, not the state, are the primary educators of their children, and that schools look after children, not on their own terms, but in loco parentis, in the place of parents and with parental permission. It's in recognition of this very important principle that parents have long enjoyed the right to withdraw their children from the two subjects that engage questions of families' world views, namely sex education and religious education. The provision of the right to withdraw in relation to these two subjects has also provided a means by which we can demonstrate that the state meets its obligations under the Human Rights Act 1998. Article 2 of protocol 1 refers to the right of education and it states that, and I quote,

'the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching is in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions.'

Now, I must stress that the importance of the right to withdrawal is manifest not in its frequent use, but rather its potential use. The existence of the right to withdrawal reminds schools that they sit in loco parentis. When children go home at the end of the day, they're not looked after by parents serving the state in loco res publica. It is vital that in a free society parents should be allowed a very large degree of autonomy in the way that they discharge their parental responsibilities to educate and raise their children.

Another benefit of the potential use of the right of withdrawal is that it provides an incentive for schools to actually seek to engage proactively with parents, because it requires school leaders to sit and listen to parental concerns in order to minimise withdrawals. Now, of course, it doesn't mean that you can't engage in the sort of education that both Jenny and others in this Chamber have advocated today about protecting children from harm, talking to them about the way that their bodies work and about what's private on their body and what isn't and how a relationship should work. But I think this fundamental principle of schools acting in loco parentis is absolutely essential.

I think it's important to remind all Members in this debate today that a significant majority, not just a small majority—a significant majority—of respondents to the Welsh Government's two consultations that have been undertaken in relation to the progress that this Bill has made opposed the removal of the right to withdrawal from RSE and RVE. A staggering 88.7 per cent of respondents to the 'Our National Mission: A Transformational Curriculum' wanted to keep the right to withdraw, and 60 per cent of those responding to the consultation document 'Ensuring access to the full curriculum' also wanted to maintain that right to withdrawal. And that's in spite of the fact that, actually, the second consultation didn't expressly ask a question about the subject. People were still writing in saying how important it was to them. Now, look, I accept that the outcomes of any consultation are not necessarily a proxy for public opinion, but let's be clear about this, in completely removing the right to withdrawal, the education Minister is seeking to fundamentally shift the balance between the rights of parents and the rights of the state, something for which no party in this Welsh Parliament has a mandate.

And it's not just the right to withdraw that's a problem. The Bill will also require faith schools to provide two sets of religion, values and ethics curriculums, as has already been articulated by Suzy Davies and others: the denominational curriculum and the curriculum agreed by the local county-wide standing advisory councils if requested. This is in spite of the fact that parents, as Jenny Rathbone quite rightly said, already choose to send their children to church schools in the knowledge of the religious curriculum that is offered. The Bill places no similar requirement on non-faith schools, even if parents have no local faith school option and want their children to access a denominational curriculum. It seems to me that it's grossly unfair to expect a certain thing of a faith school, when not expecting that in the opposite direction too, and I do believe that that will be a huge burden for church schools, for Catholic schools across the country.

And then, finally, there's the issue of the locally agreed RVE curriculum. At the moment, of course, religious education curriculums in local areas are developed by standing advisory councils on religious education, or SACREs, as they're currently known, the membership of which is determined locally. But the Welsh Government's Bill wants to give the powers to change SACREs by allowing non-religious or even anti-religious groups to join those committees. That enables the potential for anti-religious values to be incorporated into local curriculums and taught in Welsh classrooms. It will diminish the voice of faith communities across Wales and that, unfortunately, is not something that I'm prepared to countenance. And it's for those reasons that I'm going to be voting against the progress of this Bill today. Our system already works well, and I think it should be maintained.  

The Minister for Education to reply to the debate—Kirsty Williams. 

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. A number of times today, the curriculum and assessment Bill has been described as 'bold, big and ambitious', and I have to admit at 19:40 this evening, I'm not feeling any of those things, but I will give it my best shot in trying to respond to the points that have been raised.

Firstly, can I just reiterate my thanks to all the committees involved? I think there should be a special shout-out for the CYPE committee, because I think the report that they have produced—I don't agree with it all, but I think the quality of that report shows the importance of scrutiny in this particular Parliament, in this Senedd, and I'm very grateful for all the work that has gone into it.

Now, a lot of the debate today has been about raising standards and closing the attainment gap. Let me be absolutely clear: a new curriculum is at the centre of that, but a curriculum on its own can't do all the heavy lifting, and that's why the curriculum is part of a wider set of Welsh Government education reforms that focus on improvement in pedagogy, that focus on a reformed initial teacher education programme—the largest single investment in professional learning that we have ever seen in the history of this Senedd; a revised accountability regime that drives the right kind of behaviours in our schools. So, yes, absolutely, the curriculum is important, but please don't think that the curriculum alone can achieve these goals; it's part of a wider reform programme.

I've talked about how we intend to address mental health, but I do think that having a duty to have regard to mental health and well-being when designing your curriculum, alongside the absolute necessity—the legal necessity—to teach mental health and resilience in our schools, I think, will take us a massive step forwards. 

Mick Antoniw talked about the huge amount of work that has gone into looking at the issue of rights. And Darren Millar just described this Bill as a conflict between the rights of parents and the rights of the state. Well, I tell you what, Darren, this is about moving rights and it's about moving to children's rights, and putting children's rights front and centre in how we educate them. And I will not apologise for that.

I'm grateful for Suzy Davies's support, and she and other Members have raised the issue of how, at the moment, schools of a religious character are treated within the legislation. There is a discrepancy that does place extra burdens and I, as I said in my opening remarks, intend to bring forward an amendment that will address that issue.

Suzy also talked about governors, and again we've heard a lot from Darren Millar about parents. The local curriculum within a school has to be agreed: first of all, it has to be consulted on with parents, and it has to be agreed by a governing body. And the last time I looked, we had significant parental representation on our governing bodies. This is not a case where a parent is not going to have the opportunity—in fact, the parent will have more of an opportunity to talk about what is discussed and taught in their school than they currently have under the system where it is previous Governments that have dictated what is to be taught. So, I would argue parents have a greater role and a greater voice in local curricula than they currently have at the moment. 

Can I just talk about RSE and address the issues that Caroline Jones raised? I will not be moving from my position that we finally get rid of the anomaly that children can be prevented from attending certain subjects within their schools. Children have to—they must—have access to information that keeps them safe from harm and allows them to navigate the world in which we live. In the new curriculum, all children will have the right to access information that keeps them informed on these vital issues, to stay safe online, to know what's right and wrong, so that they can raise issues of concern with responsible adults and protect themselves if necessary. Now, the Member may be raising these issues with what she considers the best of intentions. I have to say to you, Caroline, I'm surprised that your constituents are bringing forward material that is going to be taught in this curriculum, because I've just been accused by other Members saying that I haven't done enough work and the stuff isn't ready yet. So, both things can't be true. The curriculum doesn't exist until 2022, and what you've been shown are not the focus of our new curriculum. They are not—absolutely not. And if you were so concerned about them, then I would have hoped that you would have written to me as the Minister to expose what you believe is being taught in Welsh schools at the moment.

Let me be absolutely clear to Members in this Chamber: I am aware of the choice of the fellow travellers that Caroline Jones has chosen to align herself to at this time. You know, it is a dangerous concoction of pernicious influences, baseless prejudice and paedophile conspiracies. And the way in which some of my colleagues here in this Chamber have been addressed by those individuals, and you know what I'm talking about, is disgraceful—is disgraceful. I'm willing to put up with it as the Minister, but I do not believe that other Members of this Chamber should also be subject to that kind of abuse, and you should distance yourself from it—[Interruption.] You should distance yourself from it—[Interruption.] You should distance yourself from it.

The reality is, Laura, that your experience is not unusual. At best, I got my sex education from reading a Judy Blume book; at worst, it was a very well-thumbed copy of a Jackie Collins novel that passed its way around the classroom. But I have to tell you now, Presiding Officer, there are much more malign influences out there for our children to revert to now. The stuff that they can see at a click of a button is highly dangerous and detrimental to their well-being, and we need to protect them, and we need to give them the knowledge and the information that what they see on that screen is not a reflection of what a healthy relationship is, or the manifestation of what a healthy sexual relationship is. We need to act. We need to act, because the children of Wales are banking on us to act, and banking on us to have the courage to face down the misinformation.

Siân Gwenllian, I want to reassure you that I take very seriously the committee's recommendations around the public information campaign, because I recognise that there are parents out there who are indeed confused and scared because of the misinformation that is being spread. We need to be very clear about what RSE in Wales will look like, and perhaps more importantly, what it won't include. I give my commitment that that work will begin in the new year, so that we can go forward with some confidence.

Presiding Officer, for the first time in our nation's history, we have the opportunity to create a curriculum that has been made in Wales by our practitioners, to be delivered by our practitioners to our children. Siân Gwenllian, there is no way that children in Wales will be able to escape from the story and the stories of Wales. There is no way, because we have accounted for that within our areas of learning and experience and our 'what matters' statements. But this is a chance for our children to be equipped with the skills, the knowledge and experiences that will ensure that when they leave our education system, they can be successful, happy, healthy, confident individuals that will take our nation forward, because when we change our curriculum, we will indeed change our children. We will change their futures, and when we do that, we change the destiny of this country.

The proposal is to agree the motion under item 18. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We will therefore defer voting until voting time.

And that—[Interruption.] And the question is—. Yes, of course. I understand what I'm doing now. I do apologise. The proposal is to agree the motion under item 19. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We will therefore defer all voting until voting time.

And that brings this to voting time, so we will take a five-minute break to prepare for voting. We'll take a break.

That brings us to voting time, and the first vote is on the Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions and Functions of Local Authorities) (Amendment) (Wales) 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 30, 9 abstentions, 13 against, and therefore the motion is agreed. 

The next vote is on the Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (No. 4) (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 39, eight abstentions, five against, and therefore the motion is agreed. 

The next vote is on the Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (School Premises and Further Education Institution Premises) (Wales) Regulations 2020. Call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Rebecca Evans. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 40, no abstentions, 12 against, and therefore the motion is agreed.

The next vote is on the Senedd Cymru (Representation of the People) (Amendment) Order 2020. I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Rebecca Evans. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 38, nine abstentions, five against. The motion is therefore agreed. 

The next votes are on the new coronavirus restrictions debate. Amendment 3 is our first vote. I call for a vote on amendment 3 tabled in the name of Gareth Bennett. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour five, one abstention, 45 against, therefore the amendment is not agreed. 

Amendment 4 is next, again tabled in the name of Gareth Bennett. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour four, one abstention, 47 against. Therefore, amendment 4 is not agreed. 

Amendment 6 is next tabled in the name of Darren Millar. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 43, no abstentions, nine against, therefore the amendment is agreed. 

Amendment 7 is next, tabled in the name of Siân Gwenllian. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 20, no abstentions, 32 against, therefore amendment 7 is not agreed. 

Amendment 9 is next, tabled in the name of Siân Gwenllian. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 51, no abstentions, one against. And therefore, that amendment—amendment 9—is agreed.

I now call for a vote on the motion as amended, tabled in the name of Rebecca Evans. 

Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 46, one abstention, five against. And therefore, the motion as amended is agreed.

The next vote is on the general principles of the Curriculum and Assessment (Wales) Bill. I call for a vote on the motion, tabled in the name of Rebecca Evans. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 41, one abstention, 10 against. And therefore, the motion is agreed.

The final vote is on the financial resolution in respect of the Curriculum and Assessment (Wales) Bill. I call for a vote on the motion, tabled in the name of Rebecca Evans. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 38, eight abstentions, six against. Therefore, the motion is agreed.

That brings today's proceedings to a close.