National Assembly for Wales

Welcome, all, to this Plenary session. Before we begin, I want to make a few points. A Plenary meeting held by 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 the agenda. I'd like to remind Members that Standing Orders relating to order in Plenary meetings apply to this meeting, as do the time limits on questions that will be applied to this meeting.

I would also wish to inform the Senedd, in accordance with Standing Order 26.75, that the Health and Social Care (Quality and Engagement) (Wales) Act 2020 was given Royal Assent on 1 June. This is, therefore, the first Act of Senedd Cymru.

The first item this morning is the business statement, and I call on the Trefnydd to make the business statement—Rebecca Evans.

Diolch, Llywydd. There are two changes to today's agenda. The Minister for Education will make a statement this afternoon on an update to education provision, after which the Minister for Housing and Local Government will make a statement on homelessness. Draft business for the next three weeks is set out on the business statement and announcement, which can be found amongst the meeting papers available to Members electronically.

Thank you, Trefnydd.

The next item, therefore, is a statement by the First Minister on the coronavirus, and I call on the First Minister to make the statement—Mark Drakeford.

Thank you very much, Llywydd. Once again, I will report to the Senedd on the latest steps that we have taken in response to the coronavirus crisis.

Last week, we completed the third three-week period where we are required to review the restrictions that are in place. I will outline the decisions that came into force on Monday, 1 June. As we have done previously, we took account of the latest Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies evidence and the advice of the Chief Medical Officer for Wales and, on the basis of that evidence, we have taken cautious steps in relaxing some restrictions in order to enable people to meet each other in conditions where the risk is low. Although the figures are moving in the right direction, it is not safe yet for us to go further than that.

Llywydd, as in previous weeks, I will cover matters in this statement not dealt with in the statements that follow from the Minister for Health and Social Services, the Minister for Education and the Minister for Housing and Local Government.

In my previous statement on 20 May, I drew attention to the impact of coronavirus on the Welsh Government's budget. The Minister for Finance and Trefnydd has set out the changes in the first supplementary budget published last week. This includes £2.4 billion to support the coronavirus response, including £750 million to fund our NHS and public services. We have funded more than 55,000 grants to businesses in Wales, at a cost of £660 million. These businesses are also benefitting from rates relief through the £1.4 billion package announced in March.

Llywydd, the Welsh Government's response has gone far beyond the sums provided by the UK Government, but we remain constrained by Treasury rules that limit our ability to respond to the crisis. The finance Minister will continue to press the case for greater flexibility to enable us to direct resources where they are needed the most.

And, of course, the Welsh Government will continue to make new allocations in response to the crisis. Our initial funding of £10 million helped more than 800 homeless people into housing since the lockdown began. It was an important moment in devolution, Llywydd, when the Minister for Housing and Local Government was able to identify a further £20 million to help ensure that no-one has to return to the streets here in Wales, and she will have more to say on that, I know, later in proceedings.

Last week, the Minister for Economy, Transport and North Wales announced funding of £65 million to ensure train services continue to operate on the Wales and borders network. This follows funding of £40 million confirmed in March, taking the total support to a maximum of £105 million. We will continue to ensure that vital public transport links are maintained.

Llywydd, I am pleased that the guidance that we published last week on safety in the workplace was endorsed by both the Confederation of British Industry and the Trades Union Congress. Last week also saw a meeting of the extended social partnership council, attended by representatives of the third sector and commissioners, as part of our partnership response. 

Llywydd, I will turn now to the outcome of the three-week review concluded on Thursday, 28 May. The context is that coronavirus continues to present a cruel threat to health in Wales. Yesterday, the Office for National Statistics reported that, in all settings, up to 22 May, there were 2,122 deaths involving coronavirus in Wales. While these numbers are coming down, with patients in critical care beds, for example, reducing week by week, we remember the loss of each individual life, the families who are grieving them and the need for continued care and caution by us all.

Members will know that our coronavirus regulations must be reviewed every 21 days. The test we must apply is whether the restrictions on life in Wales are proportionate and necessary to protect public health. In applying this test, we must have regard to the advice of the chief medical officer and we also rely on the latest evidence from the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies.

This is the third review, Llywydd, and I will summarise the process we have followed. First, we draw together a list of the potential options for easing restrictions, drawn from ideas generated within and beyond the Welsh Government, including the many suggestions we continue to receive from people right across Wales. That list is reduced for discussion and examination to a short list of options, and those are evaluated in detail against the questions set out in the framework document we published in April, including the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 principles. Our aim is to identify measures that have a positive impact and the least risk to public health. We are always mindful of the harms caused by the restrictions, not just directly through coronavirus, but in other ways, to public health and to people's social and economic well-being.

We have held discussions with the other Governments in the United Kingdom and the mayor of London over that three-week period in order to share ideas and analysis, to understand one another's approach and the evidence in each of our jurisdictions. Coherence does not mean taking an identical approach to lifting or, indeed, imposing restrictions. Each Government must be accountable for the balance of measures we decide to adopt.

Finally, we have considered the latest evidence about the transmission of the virus, which determines how much headroom there is for any easement without putting at risk the progress achieved so far. We concluded in Wales that the conditions allowed for some adjustments to the restrictions, but the very clear advice from both SAGE and the World Health Organization is to make only one change at a time and to monitor its impact.

We decided to give priority to enabling people to meet others, as separation from family and friends has been so hard for people over the past two months. In doing so, we responded to the clear message from people in Wales that the lack of human contact was the issue that mattered to them most. The evidence said that the safest way to do this was outdoors, where the virus survives for a much shorter length of time than it does within doors. Accordingly, people can now meet others from one other household in the open air in their local areas, provided that social distancing is maintained. This will also be possible for people in the shielded group, provided they observe the social distancing, and that will be even more essential, of course, for them.

Llywydd, we made some other, minor adjustments to enable students to return to further education colleges for the assessments that are essential for some to complete their courses and to enable weddings to take place where one of the couple is terminally ill. I've also signalled that non-essential businesses that are able to comply with the physical distancing duty can start to make preparations over the coming three weeks so that they would be in a position to reopen after 18 June, provided—and always provided—that the evidence at that time supports them in doing so.

Llywydd, we are already halfway through the first week of the next review period. We are starting to consider options for any further easements that may be possible at the end of the period, supported by the contact tracing system that started in earnest on Monday. We will continue to take cautious steps towards reducing the restrictions, in a collaborative, four-nations approach, protecting public health and responding to the priorities of people here in Wales. Diolch yn fawr.

Leader of the opposition, Paul Davies.

Diolch, Llywydd. First Minister, last Friday, as you've just mentioned, you took the decision to start easing the lockdown restrictions in Wales, and introduced the rule to allow people to visit their loved ones within a 5-mile radius while socially distancing. That rule may have been some comfort to those living in some areas, but this has also been met by many with anger and frustration in other areas, many of whom felt that the Welsh Government simply doesn't care about those who live in the more remote parts of the country. You said yourself that unfairness was inevitable. First Minister, given that you're keen to tell us that your policies are based on the latest scientific and medical advice available, where is the scientific and medical advice that you have received regarding this particular policy, and will you now put that scientific and medical advice in the public domain so that the people of Wales can understand how the Welsh Government has arrived at this specific decision?

Llywydd, let me correct the leader of the opposition on something that he said, and I hope that neither he nor his colleagues will go on repeating something that is simply untrue: there is no rule about 5 miles in Wales. If there were a rule, that would have been in the regulations. There is guidance, a rule of thumb for people in Wales to understand what 'local' might mean, and I have repeatedly said that it is for people to, in a sensible way, interpret what 'local' means in their own individual geographies, because 'local' is inevitably different in a city like Cardiff, where 5 miles will take you to thousands of other households, and what it might mean in a rural part of Wales.

The scientific advice is about staying local, and we know that staying local is very important because it prevents the spread of the virus from one community to another. The 5-mile rule of thumb is there precisely to protect people in the further west and north of Wales from people from places where the virus has been in greater spread from travelling to those communities and bringing the virus with them. The leader of the opposition will know very well just how emphatic people in those localities have been about protecting them from visitors coming to those areas and putting them at risk. The 'stay local' message protects individuals and others, and the 5 mile guidance—and that's what it is; it is not a rule, it is guidance—is there to protect those communities in rural Wales from people otherwise believing that it was fine to travel in large numbers from outside those localities, and in order to avoid the distressing scenes that we have seen across our border where that sensible advice is not in place.

Clearly, First Minister, this is very confusing for people, because you've just said that now this is a rule of thumb, so people will now not know whether they can travel 5, 10, 15 miles. It's a fact that this policy has upset thousands of people across Wales who are watching others reunite with loved ones whilst they have no option but to remain at home.

Now, First Minister, yesterday the health Minister warned some lockdown measures may have to be reintroduced in the winter depending on the prevalence of COVID-19 at that time, and whilst I appreciate that no door can be closed on future restrictions, the comments have made for very grim reading for many people across Wales. Of course, strategic planning must be considered to ensure that Wales is prepared for future lockdown restrictions in the winter months, and allocations must be set aside should Wales be in the position where the Welsh Government needs to reintroduce further lockdown measures. Therefore, can you confirm what financial modelling is currently taking place to ensure that Wales has learnt from this pandemic? Could you also tell us what allocations of funding the Welsh Government is setting aside in the event that there need to be further restrictions in the winter? And what lessons have already been learnt about Wales's response to a pandemic from this period that will inform the direction of travel for any future pandemic spikes?

Llywydd, I thank Paul Davies for those questions. It's important to remind people in Wales that while we believe we have passed, in almost all parts of Wales, the first peak of coronavirus infections, and have done so thanks to the enormous efforts of people across Wales, have done so while avoiding our health service being overwhelmed, that is no guarantee at all that unless we go on doing all the sensible things that we are doing that we might not have a second peak later in the year. Conditions in the autumn will be more favourable to the virus, which doesn't like sunlight and doesn't like the outdoors, but likes the indoors, the dark and the damp, and we will be in that part of the year as we move into the second part of the autumn. So, I agree with what Paul Davies has said about the need to use this opportunity to prepare, should we find ourselves in more difficult conditions in the second part of the year. And he will know that in our framework document, one of the tests we've applied to lifting the lockdown is, 'Could any measure be re-imposed should it turn out to have unforeseen adverse impacts?'

So, we are doing further modelling both on the disease itself, making sure, for example, that in terms of PPE we use the relatively stable position we are currently in to replenish our stocks, so that we would have material ready if it was needed in the autumn. Financial modelling is far more challenging, because the needs of businesses, of local government, of people who have been without work in Wales in this first coronavirus phase have been so urgent and so necessary. We have passed on all the money, the consequentials that we have received from the UK Government, as fast as we have been able to do so. There is no great pot of money sitting idle in the Welsh Government waiting for things that can happen in the second half of the year. Of course, the finance Minister maintains a reserve, as we would need in normal times, and our budget—the one that was passed in the Assembly in March—is modelled over a 12-month period. But if there were to be a second peak and we were to find ourselves back in the difficulties we've avoided so far, then the financial consequences of that would have to be navigated with further help from the UK Government.

Plaid Cymru leader, Adam Price. 

First Minister, the criminal murder of George Floyd at the hands of police officers in the United States has re-ignited the debate around racism on both sides of the Atlantic. Do you agree that structural racism lies at the heart of this injustice, and if we truly believe that black lives matter that we have to acknowledge that and address it? And is that structural racism, in your view, one of the reasons we are seeing a much higher incidence of death from black, Asian and minority ethnic communities as a result of COVID-19? 

Llywydd, can I thank Adam Price for that question about one of the great issues of our day? Many Members will have seen that utterly distressing footage of the death of George Floyd; I think one of the most awful things that I remember ever having to look at. I was reminded in it—just to say one positive thing to begin with—of the very longstanding relationships that have existed between Wales and the black community in America, from the 1930s when Paul Robeson, that great singer and civil rights activist would visit Wales so regularly, speaking memorably in Mountain Ash in 1938 at an enormous gathering of people from south Wales in support of the Spanish civil war, and the people from Wales who went to fight there, right into the 1960s with the church in Birmingham, Alabama, which has a window paid for by people from Wales as part of our interest in the civil rights movement then. So, our interest in the black population and people from those communities in America goes back many, many decades, and I was forcefully reminded of that when I saw those awful pictures.

There is structural disadvantage for black people in America, but Adam Price is right for us not to simply think that it exists elsewhere. It exists in our own communities as well. And at the worst of it, it is straightforward racism, as the leader of Plaid Cymru has said—it is people deliberately behaving towards others on the basis of the colour of their skin. But there is disadvantage for people from those communities that is less overt than that—it is not racism in that deliberate sense, but it's embedded in the way that institutions operate and decisions get made. And the way that black people have clearly been adversely affected by the coronavirus crisis is, I think, just a vivid outcrop of those underlying structural disadvantages, and we've got to be able to grapple with them here in Wales, as they need to be grappled with elsewhere.

The Royal College of Nursing in Wales has said that the COVID work assessment tool introduced by NHS Wales, though welcomed, does not currently identify those workers from BAME backgrounds as being at a very high risk. Why is that, and will you work with them to get this right urgently? And will you also make sure that BAME voices are well represented in the work on building back better? In June of last year, the BBC reported that, of 170 recent appointments to public bodies by Welsh Ministers, fewer than six were from BAME backgrounds. Can you say how the situation has improved since then? And given that, according to the Wales Governance Centre, we in Wales have an incarceration rate that is more racially disproportionate than England, which itself is more racially disproportionate even than the United States, will you commit to a wide-ranging inquiry into the roots and remedies of structural racism and racial disadvantage here in Wales?

I thank Adam Price for all of those additional questions. The self-assessment tool that we have adopted for the NHS was led by the work of black clinicians in Wales. Professor Keshav Singhal—who I know Adam Price will have heard present the tool—was very clear when he did so that it was always going to be a work in progress, and that there would be more that could be learnt as it was implemented. And I know that he will be wanting to talk both with the RCN and with the British Medical Association and others who have developed other tools. But I am very comforted by the fact that, in Wales, our self-assessment tool was led by and actively informed by the direct front-line experience of black workers in the NHS here in Wales, looking at their everyday experience of being on the front line, and making sure that the self-assessment tool reflected all of that. I am very keen indeed that those voices go on being influential as we work our way beyond coronavirus, and the group that we have brought together under the chair of Judge Ray Singh will be an important part of that at this point, and there will be ways in which we can develop that further into the future.

Our record of appointing people from black and Asian minority communities to public appointments in Wales is not good enough. We had a root-and-branch review of our appointments process in the second half of last year, and we were on the point of introducing a radically different approach to those appointments when the coronavirus crisis struck. It's one of my ambitions to be able to bring that piece of work back to the front burner, from the back burner, as soon as we are able to in the crisis. Because we have to do better; we have to do better in relation to BAME populations, we have to do better in relation to people with disabilities. And we're by no means there, where we want to be, although we've done a little better in relation to gender equality in those areas too.

The work of the centre in looking at the experience of imprisonment in Wales is shocking on a whole range of fronts, and certainly shocking in relation to what it reveals about the treatment of black people in the criminal justice system. And there's wider evidence that with any system that has a choice between a helping and a controlling-type of response to behaviour, black people are more likely to find themselves clustered at the controlling end of things, whether that's in mental health or in the criminal justice system. I'll think about the point that Adam Price made at the end of his contribution, but I do want to agree with many of the important points that he's made this afternoon. 

Leader of the Brexit Party, Mark Reckless. 

First Minister, could you confirm that the data show that five out of the 10 council areas that have had the highest prevalence of coronavirus in the UK are in Wales? Inquiries and their apportionment of responsibility will come in due course, but for your current planning, why do you think this is? Do you believe that the greater centralisation of healthcare and integration with social care in Wales may have been a factor that led to more patients being discharged into care homes where testing in Wales was less prevalent than in England?

Many people tell me that they do not consider the regulations now restricting movement in Wales to be reasonable and proportionate. Would you confirm that, if they are correct in that assessment, then the regulations made for Wales would not be lawful? You mentioned just now in your statement a necessity test as well as a proportionality test when reviewing regulations, please could you reconcile that with having removed a necessity test from the regulations in your third set of amendment regulations? Do you think that people are clear on the difference between those regulations, which may be legally binding, and your guidance, which is not, particularly when both have previously been described as 'rules'?

We have spoken before about the confusion engendered by your insistence on making Welsh rules just a little bit different from the UK Government rules applicable in England, further confusion is surely engendered by your constantly chopping and changing Welsh rules. When you put in the third set of amendment regulations that exercise must be 'local', you then said, in the accompanying guidance, that it would be a mistake to attempt to define 'local', as this would necessarily be different in rural Wales to Cardiff, although you gave the example of Porthcawl at 30 miles as being too far for Cardiff. Why then have you now made a complete about turn and defined 'local' as five miles? That may be the view from Pontcanna, but with belated stirrings of opposition from Conservative Members, do you recognise that your view has failed to command a consensus, and that your rules, whether purported to be law or guidance, will thus become increasingly ineffective? 

Well, Llywydd, the first point in the Member's contribution is a reasonable one. Why are council areas in Wales amongst those most affected? I think there are a number of reasons that, at this stage, we might suggest for that. It's very important to remember that those figures are very much a fact of how much testing goes on. The more testing there is, the more you discover, and there will be some places where more testing has been carried out and therefore prevalence looks greater, whereas, in fact, it's just a product of different testing regimes.

But what we know about the virus is that it attacks places where people are older, sicker, poorer and live close together, and Wales is over represented in all of those factors. And when those things all come together, as they do in some of the most disadvantaged areas of Wales, then it's probably—. It may not be the whole of the explanation, and there'll be more that we will learn. But it is part of the explanation as to why you see some concentrations in communities in Wales that would be in other league tables, in the same sorts of places of disadvantage and bearing the burden of the period of austerity that the Member so cheerfully championed in another part of his political life.

Well, I completely disagree with him and I think it's dangerous for him to start suggesting to people in Wales that regulations are not proper law. They are proper law; they are the law of Wales. Don't be misled by what anybody suggests to you in thinking that they're not; they are. And there is a very easy distinction between regulations and guidance, and the Government has never confused people. There are people who have sought to confuse people by saying that the five-mile limit is a rule, whereas I have always, from the very beginning, been very clear that it is a rule of thumb, it is guidance for people to interpret in their local geographies as to what 'local' might mean for them. And, as I explained to Paul Davies, one of the primary considerations for it was to make sure that we didn't get a huge cascade of people from outside the more sparsely populated areas of Wales travelling to those places, where coronavirus has been, thank goodness, in very modest circulation, and that we didn't see a flaring up of coronavirus in those places because people had travelled from their own localities and brought the virus with them.

Llywydd, very far from constantly chopping and changing, what the Welsh Government has done is to introduce very modest changes at the end of each three-week period. We are taking the most careful and cautious approach. We are slowly building up a new repertoire of things that people can safely do in the coronavirus context.

I think that that absolutely chimes with what people in Wales want us to do, far from the sort of suggestion I think the Member is making that people in Wales are champing at the bit to be allowed to go further and do more. What we learn is that people in Wales understand that this virus is by no means beaten. Its impact is felt every day in the deaths that we have to announce every single day from it, and our approach of taking one step at a time, doing it carefully and cautiously, and building things up in a way that goes on providing confidence to people in Wales that it is their health and their well-being that is at the front of everything we do, not only is it the right thing to do, but it chimes very powerfully with the way that people in Wales would like to see their Government operate.

First Minister, one of the consequences of the pandemic is the impact on the aviation industry. All employers in this industry have constructively engaged with trade unions on behalf of their workforces to manage these very difficult circumstances, to protect jobs and to protect skills for the future.

However, sadly, there is one employer who has been described as a 'commercial predator', who has not engaged in this particular way, and that is British Airways. You'll be aware of this, First Minister, that they employ 42,000 people across the UK, and they are proposing in the region of at least 12,000 redundancies. But in attempting to achieve this, their intention is, effectively, to make the entire workforce redundant, to remove 12,000 jobs, and to have 30,000 people who will then be employed on terms and conditions that could result in them having 60 or 70 per cent less pay than they get at the moment.

Now, this seems to be an opportunity—. What British Airways are doing is trying to seize an economic advantage on the back of COVID. In my constituency, British Avionics will be closing and 130 of 186 jobs are proposed to go, there are 30 of 169 jobs in Islwyn, and at British Airways Maintenance Cardiff in Cardiff Airport, 239 out of 546. So, 400 jobs all together. Now, the company knows that it is impossible to negotiate and to consult over 40,000 potential redundancies with 40,000 members in 45 days. The union has insisted that the proper and the moral and the ethical thing to do is to withdraw those notices.

Now, this is going to be the subject of an emergency question in Westminster today, but can I ask that the Welsh Government will give its full support to Unite the Union and all those workers in south Wales who are dependent on these jobs, and all those in Cardiff Airport, because of the linked industries, to actually protect them and to get British Airways do the decent thing—to stand up and to negotiate with its workers in a proper and ethical way to save jobs and skills for the future? First Minister, will you give that support and press the UK Government to do everything it can to support the aviation sector?

Llywydd, can I begin by agreeing with Mick Antoniw about the importance of the aviation sector here in Wales? The sector has some of the best employers in Wales—employers like Airbus, with such a strong history of working co-operatively with trade unions in the joint enterprise, which is making a success of those companies. I know that my colleague, Ken Skates has written directly to the other company that Mick Antoniw has highlighted, urging them to withdraw the measures that they have proposed at present to work collaboratively with the trade union that represents workers in there. Sensible companies know that complying simply with the letter of the law is not the best way to shape a future for those companies that brings their workforce with them—their single most important asset. Those were the terms in which the Minister for the economy has written to the company and I urge the UK Government to use whatever powers of persuasion they have as well to make sure that not just the letter of the law but the spirit and the ethic of the law, as Mick Antoniw said, is complied with here as well as.

First Minister, I was pleased to hear you confirm again that the 5 miles referred to earlier is not a rule as such, because it is not just in rural areas that that is an issue, as you know; it is also an issue in many Valleys communities, including my own, where if that was rigorously adhered to, it would mean that someone couldn't go, for instance, from Cwmbran to Blaenavon to see their family, so I think that's a very important point. I wanted to ask about social distancing, because I am concerned that, as we go through this lockdown, there is a general erosion of people's response to the social distancing regulations generally. I'm seeing it in supermarkets, I'm hearing it from constituents in relation to employers, so I'd like to ask you what more we can do to re-emphasise to the public that we are nowhere near out of the woods on this pandemic yet, and that these matters, these rules, really, really matter, and people have to keep observing them. Thank you.

Thank you, Llywydd, and can I thank Lynne Neagle for making that point again? I believe that the vast majority of people in Wales still want to do the right thing and still do their best to do the right thing, and we mustn't see that fraying at the edges in a way that would lead to more people not complying with what we're asking them to, because we're not asking people to observe social distancing as some sort of penalty; we're asking people to do it because it genuinely protects them and protects other people. And this is a virulent disease; it lives for hours and hours on surfaces. You can be suffering from coronavirus yourself and not know that it's happening to you and you are infectious to other people, so you may feel fine and think, 'Well, what's the harm in me being closer to somebody?' Actually, you could be doing an enormous amount of harm unintentionally, but with really, really significant consequences.

So, we've all got a job to do, certainly I do and from the Government, but we all do, in reminding people that the simple things we ask people to do—keeping a 2m distance, observing hand hygiene, all those simple things. Collectively and cumulatively, these are the things that are making a difference. They really are saving lives and we need people to go on doing those things, because as I said in an earlier answer, every day, we have the sad, sad duty of having to announce the latest number of people who have died from this virus in different parts of Wales and we can all do more to help that not to happen.

Suzy Davies. The microphone is not working for Suzy. Can you try again, Suzy? Okay, I'll call Mohammad Asghar and we'll come back to you, Suzy. Mohammad Asghar.

Thank you, Presiding Officer, and thank you, First Minister, for your statement. I have been contacted by a number of dental practices in my region, who are concerned about the time frame proposed by the Chief Dental Officer for Wales to phase out in dentistry care. The proposal is to resume more face-to-face emergency care from 1 July, followed by routine check-ups in October and aerosol generating procedures, such as fillings and crowns, from January 2021. Private dentistry accounts for more than half of the dental services in Wales, and the number of practices that operate 100 per cent under the NHS is very low. Their financial viability depends either in part or entirely from payments received from patients undergoing AGPs. Other countries are allowing dentists to perform AGPs by using respiratory masks and other PPE. First Minister, will you look again at the timetable and what other countries are doing as a matter of urgency to ensure the financial viability of dentistry practices in Wales? And, secondly, you earlier mentioned BME casualties in Wales during this pandemic. I would like to know how many people, out of the 2,122 casualties you mentioned earlier, actually come from the BME community, which is, I understand, a pretty high number, and what measures you are going to take, at your Government level, to make sure that we stop it in future. Thank you.

Thank you, Llywydd. Shall I take the second of Mohammad Asghar's questions first? I don't have that figure in front of me, but we will have it, and I'm happy, of course, to share that with him. I know that he will have been taking an interest in the group chaired by Judge Ray Singh, and I know that he is personally acquainted with Professor Keshav Singhal and other leading clinicians who've contributed to the self-assessment tool that we are using in Wales. So, I want to give him an assurance that we are drawing on all the expertise we can find from within the community in Wales, as well as beyond, to try to make sure that we have measures in place to properly protect people from black and minority ethnic communities from the additional impact that this disease has on people from those important communities.

On the first point about dental practices, we will publish, Llywydd, the letter that the chief dental officer has provided to dental practices in Wales, setting out her three-stage plan for the reopening of dentistry in Wales. I know that she will remain in dialogue with the British Dental Association and other important interests in the dental profession in Wales. Of course we would like to see more dental activity being available—it's a very important part of what primary care provision in Wales offers to Welsh citizens. But there are some particular challenges in dental practice. You can't practice dentistry at a 2m distance, and aerosol procedures in particular carry a very high risk of the virus being carried from patients to dentists and from dentists to patients. So, the chief dental officer will continue to be in those discussions. We will publish her advice. We want more dentistry to happen in Wales, but we have to make sure that we do it in a way that protects the health and welfare of dental practitioners and their staff, as well as the people that they serve.

First Minister, your Government announced on Sunday that the guidelines for people who've been told to shield were changing the following day. I'm aware that there's a lot of concern from people who were told to shield to protect their lives that these changes were brought forward with little warning and when the R rate is still high. This morning you will have received a letter from 32 health charities active in Wales, outlining their deep concerns about these changes. They want an explanation about the rationale for the sudden departure from existing guidelines. They ask that shielders are told directly about changes rather than finding out through a press statement, and they want the sector to be informed of changes in advance in the future, so that they can prepare. They request that you meet them to discuss their concerns. First Minister, will you do that?

Llywydd, the chief medical officer will write to all people on the shielded list this week in Wales, setting out our advice to them for the coming period. Let's just be clear that what this is is advice. Nobody is instructing sheltered people to do anything that they do not feel comfortable in doing.

The medical advice from the four chief medical officers is that, at this time of year, when the virus is far, far less significant out of doors, we should have offered the opportunity to shielded people who wanted to go outside in carefully controlled conditions—to let them know that it is safe for them to do so if they choose to do so. But nobody is requiring any sheltered person to do anything that they do themselves not feel comfortable in doing.

The chief medical officer will set out his latest advice in a letter that will go to every shielded person in Wales. They remain very much at the top of our list of priorities, to make sure that we continue to offer them the best advice so that they stay safe and they stay well.

Let nobody forget that there is more than one harm from coronavirus, and being confined to your home with no prospect of being able to leave it comes with real harms as well to people's sense of well-being and other parts of their health. That is why the four chief medical officers came to the conclusion that they did, not because anybody wants to do anything that would harm sheltered people—of course not. But the advice to them is that if they feel confident and willing to do so, now they are able to take exercise out of doors and to meet one other household out of doors, in the right conditions, provided that is something that they themselves would choose to do.

First Minister, on 1 May you announced that the Welsh Government would fund an extra payment of £500 to social care workers in care homes and domiciliary care workers throughout Wales:

'This payment is designed to provide some further recognition of the value we attach to everything'

that social care workers do to

'support both our NHS and our wider society.'

My questions are: when will it be paid? How will it be paid? Is it a one-off payment or will it be added to wages? Will it be treated as wages and taxed, or treated as a gift and not taxed?

Well, Llywydd, there will be answers to all of those questions, but those answers were contingent upon a reply from the UK Government to our plea to them to make this payment free of tax and free of national insurance contributions. It was deeply disappointing to receive a response from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on Monday declining to do that. That, of course, now means we will have to think through a whole series of issues to try to minimise the impact of that Treasury decision. It's not possible to answer all of Mike Hedges's questions this morning, because we had hoped that there was a different and far better solution.

We wanted our £500 to go directly to the people who we have identified for the contribution they have made, because they are amongst the least well-paid people in our workforce. We weren't asking the Treasury for money, we were simply asking them not to rob those people of the money that the Welsh Government was providing to them. Now, a significant amount of the money that the Welsh Government is still going to provide to those social care workers will end up not in their pockets but in the pockets of the Treasury.

We will have to reconsider a whole number of the questions that Mike Hedges has quite properly raised to try and find ways of mitigating that decision, but the real answer is that this shouldn't be subject to tax and it shouldn't be subject to national insurance, and then we wouldn't have to worry about finding ways of trying to make that impact less significant. 

Just picking up on what you said earlier about dentistry, once we see the three-stage plan that the chief medical officer is going to be publishing, I hope we're going to be able to accelerate the timetable for resuming modern dentistry where we drill and fill tooth decay rather than, as at the moment, having to extract the tooth, which obviously can never be replaced. Obviously, this is very important to people's general health.

Otherwise, I would be wanting to look at small businesses that are completely reliant on being able to operate locally, and obviously the proceeds of their business stay locally as well—in particular, hairdressing. Nobody is going to die of not having a haircut, but for elderly people in particular, that social occasion of going to the hairdresser's can be a very, very important part of their engagement with the community. For example, the Headmistress salon, run by Alison Corria at the Maelfa in Llanedeyrn for over 40 years, has a very high number of elderly customers. She is very keen to restart as soon as she has permission to do so, and has been able to put in place all the restrictions that the NHBF guidance indicates, which I know the Government has been discussing with them. So—

You need to come to a question now, Jenny.

So, I wondered if you could just tell us, if we're only going to be able to make one change at a time, as recommended by the WHO and SAGE, can we really afford to only make any change at three-week periods?

Llywydd, thank you. The answer to the question at the end is that we don't have to wait for the end of a three-week period to make a change, and we've had examples during the crisis in which we've made changes between three-week intervals where there's been a compelling case to do so.

Llywydd, I want to agree and recognise what Jenny Rathbone has said about the wider importance of hairdressing. When I was the health Minister, I vividly remember a GP in a rural part of Wales saying to me that his best source of intelligence about people with the beginnings of dementia came from a local hairdresser in his community, because she was somebody who knew her clientele over 30 years. She spotted when people coming into her salon were not quite as on top of things as they once used to be, and she could make an informal, early sort of referral to the dementia service that he ran in his community. So, I absolutely understand what Jenny meant when she talked about the fact that it's more than just having a haircut. But we will consider hairdressing alongside everything else.

One of the real difficulties, Llywydd, that I have to try and explain to people is that there are so many aspects of life where individually you can make a case for reopening, and by themselves people make the case that this wouldn't materially add to the risk of coronavirus circulating—it'll only be a little marginal addition. The problem for the Government is you've got to add up all those marginal additions, and quite soon all those marginal additions turn out to be quite a significant risk. We have to weigh up, not simply dental practices or hairdressing or tennis playing or all the many things that people understandably have an interest in, and then come to a decision in the round.

We'll do that with dentistry as well. I know, as I said to Mohammad Asghar, that the chief dental officer in her discussions with the profession will want to bring things back on as quickly as possible, and of course her focus with the profession is on preventative dentistry. We want dentists not to have to drill or fill even, let alone extract. We want them working as the new contract rewards them: for making sure that young people grow up looking after their teeth in a way that means they don't need that sort of dentistry, other than in a minimum sort of way.

First Minister, you began this session by telling us a little bit about the methodology you used for introducing rules and regulations, and I'd like to raise the point that, as of 22 May, repeat breaches of coronavirus regulations can land you with a fine of £1,920. That came in under the fourth amendment to the coronavirus restriction regulations, through the made-affirmative procedure, which gives this Parliament 28 days to ratify that law or not. Now, these regulations were ready before the Whitsun break, before the legislation clock stopped. As you said earlier in this session, these are laws—laws made by the Executive, not the legislature—and they do impose a penalty. So, why aren't we debating them today instead of 17 June, just short of a month after they come into force as Government-made law?

Well, Llywydd, they'll be debated within the rules that are set out for those things. We're not breaching those limits. I'm not trying to trivialise the point that the Member makes; it's really important. I completely agree with her that it is the legislature's responsibility to approve or not approve the changes that the Government proposes, and it's very important that the legislature has that opportunity. But we are providing that opportunity.

We wanted to bring a package of measures together so that the Senedd could look at them in that rounded way, because there are choices that have to be made, and, just as I said to Jenny Rathbone that it's the cumulative impact of different changes you have to think of, in some ways, it's the cumulative impact of all the changes to the law that Assembly Members will be interested in as well. So, it's not with any intention of not complying with the necessary and important requirement for Assembly Members to have the final say in these things that we've offered the timetable that we have; it's to bring together a series of changes that we are proposing, allowing Assembly Members to see them altogether and make their minds up as to whether or not they wish to support them, based on the totality of what the Government proposes.

Alun Davies.

I'm grateful to you, Presiding Officer. First Minister, the overwhelming majority of people in Blaenau Gwent are fully supportive of the approach that you have taken and the Welsh Government have taken over the past few months, and they recognise the importance of continuing with a very cautious approach. I'm interested in understanding how you see this moving forward.

You said at a press conference that, with the trace and testing system now in place, there may be local lockdowns where there may be a local outbreak in terms of the disease moving forward. I wonder if you could explain how you see that working and whether you see the capacity for differential rules being applied in different parts of the country. I think that's something that will be of interest to a lot of people.

And, also, as we move forward over these few months, you've appointed Jeremy Miles to look at recovery from COVID and the impact of COVID. I very much agree with the point that Mick Antoniw made earlier in this session about the impact of job losses in the aviation sector, but we know that the overall economic impact will be most keenly felt in communities such as Blaenau Gwent. How do you see the work that Jeremy is undertaking in order to address those issues of the economic impact of COVID? We've had fantastic public support for keeping people safe through this infection. Now, how do we continue to keep people safe in terms of employment and jobs and the economy as we move forward into recovery?

Llywydd, can I thank Alun Davies for those really important questions? My colleague Vaughan Gething will provide further details of the roll-out of the test, trace and protect process over the first part of this week, and it does provide us—together with the Joint Biosecurity Centre that we hope to be members of, it will provide us with more fine-grained and local information about outbreaks of coronavirus. And it may well be that the best way in the future of trying to make sure that coronavirus doesn't spread again will be to have more local action. In normal public health infection controls, that is exactly what you would see. In much smaller outbreaks of measles or something like that, it would be a local action that would be put in place.

It isn't guaranteed to be like that. If there are measures being taken elsewhere that lead to a sudden and much more general surge in coronavirus, then we can't rule out the prospect that more significant measures on a wider scale might still be necessary. But we want to avoid that if we can in Wales, and one way will be to use the TTP and other sources of intelligence to try and hone our response in more local areas—

Nick Ramsay—oh, sorry, First Minister.

Very quickly, because Alun Davies raised really important questions about recovery and life beyond coronavirus. This is a public health emergency, but it's an economic emergency as well. We have to chart our way through the coming months and continue to do those things that respond to the immediate emergency, but, after that, we will have to think absolutely seriously as to how we fashion a future for people that will be disrupted by the impact of coronavirus not just for those months, but for well beyond that, and that's the work that Jeremy Miles is leading.

First Minister, if I can ask you about two areas, firstly, briefly, I've been contacted by a constituent who is concerned that, as businesses come out of lockdown, there could be a number of issues that have developed over a long period of businesses being closed down, such as legionnaire's disease, for instance, that could generate subsequent public health issues. So, I wonder if you could tell me what advice and guidance is being given to businesses, or will be given to businesses, as the lockdown is lessened and people do return to work and their businesses.

Secondly, could you update us on what support is being made available for mental health services at this time during the pandemic? We know that the ongoing lockdown is resulting in mental health issues for many people—many of those in families, but particularly those living alone. And, of course, in the worst case scenarios this can lead to very severe problems, and even, in some cases, suicide. I wonder what data is being collected to monitor the mental health situation of people and what's being done to support those mental health services, including suicide prevention.

Llywydd, I thank Nick Ramsay for that. So, we published advice and guidance for businesses at the end of last week, having had it approved by the shadow social partnership council, and, as I said, I was very pleased that that advice was jointly endorsed by the TUC and the CBI in Wales. 'Keep Wales safe at work', the guidance is called, and there will be further, more sectorally specific guidance published as well. I will make sure that the specific point that Nick Ramsay has raised about things that may have built up while a business is closed that businesses need to think about and attend to—I'll go away and make an enquiry to make sure that the advice is covering that important issue.

On mental health services, Llywydd, more generally, the NHS is resuming some of its more normal activity. The number of beds that are free in our health service has fallen from 3,500 at its peak down to 1,700 today, and that's because more people are being admitted to hospital for non-COVID-related reasons. We've kept our mental health services going through the whole of this crisis, but we're able to resume more ordinary mental health services as well at this time. I think, last week, my colleagues Vaughan Gething and Kirsty Williams jointly announced further funding support for young people, particularly in families. I can give an assurance to Nick Ramsay, and other Members who take a close interest in it, that mental health has always been close to the top of the things that we have asked the health service to continue to do during the crisis and we are very keen indeed to strengthen the response that we're able to offer to those who have had mental health conditions specifically exacerbated by the experience of this awful illness. 

First of all, First Minister, will you join with me in issuing a note of caution to those people tempted to cut their own hair during the course of coronavirus, as I am an example of that? I'd just explain that to Members.

But two serious points: first of all, tennis. I've been asked why tennis is not yet permitted. And, secondly, I have, within 5 miles of my constituency, no fewer than eight beaches, which are very popular. Five of them would normally have Royal National Lifeboat Institution lifeguard cover. Now, they're very grateful that they haven't seen the kind of mayhem that we've seen on some beaches in England—Durdle Door, of course, being one example. But the question I have is: what is the Welsh Government doing to make sure that people are aware of the fact that there's no lifeguard cover, when there normally would be at this time of year? And what information is being given to the public to make sure that they are safe, given the fact that that cover is not there?

I thank Carwyn Jones very much for his questions. Viewers to this will be, I think, believing that there was some collusion between him and Jenny Rathbone in her question urging the reopening of hairdressers in Wales.

But, to his serious points, on tennis, the point is this—I've answered it once already, Llywydd—that tennis can make a case for it by itself being capable of being reopened, being organised in a safe way. There are some challenges in tennis that people don't always think of in that. This virus can live on a tennis ball, and, when you play tennis, normally, certainly, a ball comes over the net and people pick it up and the person on the other side of the net picks the same ball up as well. So, it's not without its challenges to make tennis safe, but, even if it can be made safe, then, you know, gliding can be made safe, jet skiing can be made safe, bowling can be made safe. Many Members here will have received letters from different interests. What the Welsh Government has to do is to add up all those marginal extra risks and decide whether or not, in the round, that is a risk we are currently able to take. We decided last week that all the headroom that we have, more or less, was to be taken by allowing family and friends to see one another again, and we didn't feel that we could take the additional risk of opening up other parts of our normal life. We will continue to consider tennis alongside other outdoor sports as part of the current three-week review.

Llywydd, Carwyn Jones makes a very important point about lifeguard services and safety on beaches. Across the whole of the United Kingdom, the RNLI will only be operating 30 per cent of normal coverage this year because of the constraints that coronavirus has caused, and in Wales that means that there will only be 10 beaches in the whole of Wales that will have lifeguard cover, and that from 20 June to the beginning of September. So, it is very important to say to people, even people who live locally, even people who can get to the beach within 5 miles, that they will have to take particular extra care this year, because the help that would have been there normally, the supervision that would have been there normally to make sure that people can use the sea safely, will not be available in Wales in the way that it has been, and people will have to take very direct responsibility for making sure that they factor that into their plans, because safety will need to be their major consideration, and they won't have a fully operational RNLI service of the sort that we've all been so pleased to see in Wales over recent years.

I thank the First Minister.

The next item is the topical question. The topical question is to be answered by the Deputy Minister, and I call on Neil McEvoy to ask the question.

I thank the Member for the question. The death of George Floyd is a tragedy. The impacts of this case are felt globally, and Wales is not immune from racism. We must continue to confront it. Our community cohesion and equality and inclusion programme embeds close engagement with black, Asian and minority ethnic communities to foster good relations and to tackle race inequality in Wales.

Thanks, Minister. I sit here today as the first Welsh-born person of colour to be elected to our national Parliament. My life experience has been the same as a lot of people with brown or black skin in Wales: violent attacks, wrongful arrest, racial slurs and negative stereotyping with the really clever middle-class racism that we encounter. Only last week, I had to correct a published article to tell them that I existed and that Wales's first ever then AM of colour, Dr Altaf Hussain, existed. And BBC Wales were at it again yesterday, in ignoring two Members of the Senedd of colour.

I think we've made progress, but have we really made the progress that we think we've made in terms of class and race? The professional side of the Senedd needs to be more representative of the Wales we live in. In our Parliament it's rare to see people of colour who are not in security, catering or cleansing. Maybe we should look back to the future. The Welsh National Party believes that Wales should have a constitution with a bill of rights, where we can all sign up to being Welsh and talk about what unites us. It doesn't matter where we're from, we can all choose to be Welsh. Our foremothers and forefathers in Tiger Bay showed the way in how to develop a multicultural, loving, harmonious society in the dock area, where my mother was brought up. So, will you support defining in law what it is to be Welsh in Wales through a constitution?

Before finishing, I must say that the murder of George Floyd was horrific. May he rest in peace, and may his legacy be social change throughout the world. Diolch yn fawr. 

Diolch yn fawr, Neil McEvoy, and thank you for asking this question and for expressing it in such a direct and personal way, in terms of your own experiences and the experiences that you've shared with us today. I am reminded of the fact that, just over a year ago, in fact, we had our first debate on race in the Assembly, on tackling racism across Wales. What was good about that debate was it was a cross-party debate. We all signed up to that debate. But what is absolutely clear—and it's the responsibility of all political parties, of course, but particularly of the Welsh Government and, indeed, in terms of all the work that we've been doing in the last few weeks to tackle the disproportionate impact of COVID-19 on BAME communities and those who are on the front line, not just in the NHS, social care, but also many in all of the key worker posts. So that's why I'm very pleased that we have got this discussion today, the question from the leader of Plaid Cymru and the response from the First Minister making it clear that we're united to be appalled by the horror of the death of George Floyd last week. 

I'm also very conscious of the fact that Vaughan Gething spoke up as the first black Minister of any of the UK's devolved Governments in 2013, speaking after posting his video online, calling on us all to unite. I respect the work of Black Lives Matter. Black Lives Matter, of course, spoke up and came together over the weekend. Indeed, I've just come this morning from a cross-party group, chaired by John Griffiths, on race, where we heard the details about the Welsh risk assessment tool, which has been mentioned already this morning, which was published and launched last week by the First Minister and the Minister for Health and Social Services. We are also, crucially, importantly, taking on board the socioeconomic issues, and I committed again this morning, as I did a few months ago, to a Wales race action plan.

Mark Isherwood. Mark Isherwood. I can't seem to see him on my screen either, so he's no longer—

I am there. Yes, I'm here. 

Yes, you are. 

Sorry, my sound might have been off, but I am there. 

Yes. You carry on with your question now, Mark. 

Right. On hate crimes, ignorance and prejudice, there's some wonderful work, for instance in north Wales, NWAMI, Networking for World Awareness of Multicultural Integration, which recognises that the best way to tackle that is through integration, through engagement, through sharing together. They're doing some wonderful work during the pandemic delivering food parcels, particularly to members of the black, Asian and minority ethnic community who are isolating and who have dietary requirements due to medical or cultural needs. So, how can we better acknowledge the good work of organisations such as NWAMI and support that work, where it's often lost because it's soft as opposed to hard? It's engaging with people through cultural activities and celebration, and food, music and dance, alongside the more substantive solid projects that Welsh Government and others are also engaged with.

Thank you very much, Mark Isherwood, and NWAMI, I know well of their work; we've discussed it. We talked about it in a forum recently, at a BAME meeting that was held, organised by the Ethnic Minorities and Youth Support Team and Race Council Cymru, who have organised many forums over the last few weeks. And the north Wales one, I particularly heard from NWAMI about their work in Bangor particularly relating to supporting the community—not just international students, but the community. And also, I've raised with Lesley Griffiths, the Minister, about the importance of recognising cultural needs in terms of our food box delivery, and this is very much reflected in the community cohesion that we've seen over the past few weeks.

So, NWAMI is an important force for good for progress and community cohesion in north Wales, alongside many of the other organisations that I've spoken to. In fact, over the last few weeks we've had virtual online forums; the Wales race forum has met twice; we've met with these regional groups, one in Newport that John Griffiths attended. But I think it's important that we recognise that we'd already put funding into hate crime projects: £480,000 from the EU transition fund, and those hate crime projects and, indeed, further funding of £350,000 for tackling racism in schools. We know that Show Racism the Red Card in schools has a huge impact on children's learning and understanding. And that work, already those organisations, third sector BAME organisations, and it always includes those at the grass-roots level because they have such an impact and they're doing the work, as you say, culturally, socially and meeting the needs of some of the most excluded parts of our community. 

I thank the Deputy Minister. We will now break for an hour before afternoon session commences. And therefore, the broadcast should cease. 

Well, we reconvene as our Plenary this afternoon, and the next item on our agenda is a statement by the Minister for Health and Social Services on coronavirus, COVID-19, and I call on the Minister for Health and Social Services, Vaughan Gething.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Prynhawn da. Good afternoon.

Today’s statement will focus on providing Members with an update on restarting more NHS activity here in Wales. I am pleased to report that, while we are still supporting those that have coronavirus, the number of confirmed cases is falling, as are the numbers of people that have lost their lives in the pandemic. Yesterday, there were still 67 new confirmed cases reported by Public Health Wales, and the death figures were in single figures. However, each number was a person, and a tragic reminder of the need for care and caution from all of us, now and in the foreseeable future if we are to reduce the spread of the virus.

No-one should underestimate the importance of continuing to maintain our state of readiness if we are to see and cope with any future peaks of the virus. We still need to support people in our communities that need our health service for other reasons that are not COVID related. I approved the NHS Wales operating framework that was issued on 6 May. It describes four types of harm: direct harm from COVID itself; harm from an overwhelmed NHS and social care system, as we saw in Italy, for example; harm from reduction in non-COVID activity; and harm from wider societal actions, including the lockdown.

I recognise that we need to move slowly and cautiously. So, shorter term planning on quarterly cycles is important for our organisations to demonstrate that they can be agile and flexible. Being able to divert resources easily and quickly to adjust to the demand, between both COVID-19 and non-COVID essential service areas is crucial. While recognising all four potential harms, the quarter 1 plans are particularly aimed at progressively scaling up essential NHS activity, whilst also addressing the current demands of COVID-19. We all recognise that it's important to get essential services operating efficiently for those that need them, but in a safe and effective manner. The fact is that the threat of COVID-19 will be with us for some time to come.

The quarter 1 plans were all received as required on 18 May. They set out how our health boards and trusts are planning to deliver the range of essential services, including cancer, cardiac, ophthalmology and other services, often in new and innovative ways. Many organisations are working to re-zone their estate, to provide areas where staff and patients feel safe to undertake diagnostic tests and receive treatment. The use of additional independent sector hospitals has been helpful for some of those treatments. Health boards are currently reviewing the use of the available facilities to see how they might be used going forward. Our aim is for our healthcare system to rebalance within a more usual hospital environment. This work with the independent sector has been helpful, but we will of course need to review its use, which is being explored in the plans.

The majority of health boards have made arrangements to create additional field hospital capacity. It is a real positive that we should not lose sight of that we have not had to make significant use of field hospitals during the first peak of the virus. The plans reflect the need to review and re-assess as we move forward. A national review of field hospitals facilities during June will support this work.

There are still issues to be overcome as we move to upscale our essential services. Ensuring sufficient PPE, medicines, testing, staff and training will all be required, and this is what the plans outline. In addition, I have asked the NHS to continue to look at where it can make greater use of regional solutions, pooling resources and expertise to ensure patients receive the best care.

However, out of this crisis, we have also been able to embrace innovation. There's much greater use of technology that has been deployed over the past 10 weeks. In the two-week period from 19 to 26 May there were 977 more remote consultations across the NHS using the new NHS Wales video consultation service. Using these new ways of working to the NHS, we can still do much more, with a growing proportion of consultations being able to be conducted virtually. Equally importantly, 97 per cent of patients and 85 per cent of clinicians rated this new way of working as 'excellent', 'really good', or 'good'. We've also seen a rise in the number of out-patient follow-ups that have been able to be conducted by telephone. That shows how, in our response to the pandemic, we're using existing tools and services to deliver care in more efficient ways. So, we're changing the way in which we're delivering services, and using our resources differently.

For example, Swansea Bay University Health Board established a health-board-wide centre to co-ordinate the flow of patients, including rapid discharge, community step-up, and any additional surge or super-surge capacity within their field hospitals. They also have an out-patient modernisation group planning the re-activation of services. And these are developing new models of care and ways of working that have been taken in response to COVID.

My officials will be meeting with each of the organisations over the next weeks to review their plans and support them to ensure implementation. The operating framework contained a number of commitments for the Welsh Government as enablers to support implementation. Examples of some of that action being taken forward include the digital priorities investment fund that I announced last September. It's been used to accelerate new digital programmes and initiatives. This includes the acceleration of video consultation across the whole of Wales, infrastructure and devices to enable remote working, and a new digital system for contact tracing, all of which have been rolled out in weeks. A programme to make Microsoft Teams and Office 365 available to all NHS staff, which started last autumn, has been compressed from three years to one. I will also bring forward a new digital system for use in intensive care units, a new digital platform for eye care, and accelerating an upgrade to our digital pathology services. The pace at which organisations have worked together to deploy new digital technologies has been impressive. 

The Wales Critical Care and Trauma Network has developed draft advice on critical care during the next phase of the pandemic and restarting NHS services, alongside newly published guidance. There's an ongoing communications campaign being developed to encourage patients to access those essential services, and funding has been provided for the establishment of field hospitals, private sector capacity, and, indeed, our student workforce.

Using the feedback and review of quarter 1, we will move towards a continuing framework approach for quarter 2. This will include understanding the next steps in planning over the summer months and for winter contingency into quarter 3. I will of course keep Members updated on progress. I have also provided Members with more detail on quarter 1 plans in a written statement that I issued earlier today.

Monday this week saw the launch of our national NHS Wales test, trace and protect service. Contact tracing is an essential next step in our fight against COVID-19. It will help us to prevent transmission of the virus, protect the public, and quickly identify and take action to control clusters and outbreaks. The new national service began, as planned, on Monday 1 June. So, anyone who has tested positive for coronavirus in Wales will now be contacted and asked for the details of all the people they have had contact with while they have had symptoms.

As I have previously said, our approach is to build and grow our local contact tracing capacity. The reality is that a national plan will only work if we make full use of the existing local knowledge, skills and expertise that has been built up over many years within health protection teams in our local authorities and health boards. This partnership approach has enabled us to quickly bring together a Wales-wide workforce of over 600 contact tracers to start the new national service. Regional plans, jointly agreed by local government and health board partners, will enable us to rapidly scale up the workforce, if and when necessary. This follows a successful two-week pilot exercise across four health board regions in Wales. A key focus of the pilots was to ensure that staff received the high-quality training, guidance and support that they need to be able to do this highly important and challenging role effectively.

Since Sunday, Public Health Wales have reported 208 positive cases, all of which have been transferred to our contact tracing teams. Where appropriate, people have been interviewed and, on average, this is identifying a further three to four follow-up contacts per positive case. The early feedback also indicates that individuals contacted by our tracing teams are engaging positively. So far, the signs are encouraging, but we should not, and must never take the public support for granted. So, for now, the focus is on the next few weeks, within which we can make a difference, and to strike the right balance between all four areas of harm as we try and aim to help keep Wales safe.

Thank you. Janet Finch-Saunders.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Thank you for your statement, Minister. You'll be aware that the tragic situation in Welsh care homes has triggered the older people's commissioner to refer the Welsh Government to the Equality and Human Rights Commission. She has highlighted delays to testing as a key concern. 

On 16 May, you announced the expansion of testing to everybody in care homes. However, according to one local authority, there's a hope that their care homes, within the Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board area, will be tested by 8 June. However, it has been described as an ambitious target. Why has it taken over three weeks since your announcement to test all care homes, to include our residents and care workers there? Do you also agree that this is made even more scandalous by the fact that patients were initially discharged from hospitals to care homes without any tests, putting many at risk?

And finally, Minister, will you explain why there is no COVID-19 monitoring or data being collected on those receiving social care in their own homes? This appears to me to be a forgotten part of our society, placing them and our own social care workers and domiciliary care workers at risk.

I thank the Member for the three questions, I think, but I'll start with the first point. It's really clear that we're not loose and misleading with our language: the older person's commissioner did not refer the Welsh Government to the human rights commission—she's had a conversation and she's clarified that she wants there to be a UK-wide look-back at the position in care homes across the UK, and, as the First Minister has indicated, and indeed as have I, we expect that there will be look-back inquiries and we'll be happy to co-operate with each of those official inquiries. And this Parliament, I would expect, will want its own exercise in looking back on lessons learned and decisions taken at the time. 

So, on domiciliary care, on your final question, it's of particular concern to me and to the Deputy Minister. It's an area where we've already had access in terms of testing of key workers. And it's an area that is, I know, a regular concern to the Welsh Local Government Association as well, because we do recognise that there's an issue about transmission and how we protect people and that's often from people coming into that person's home. So, the staff themselves want the assurance that they're not, effectively, acting to provide coronavirus to the vulnerable people who they are helping to care for, and that's why they were always one of the key workers within our system, and, of course, there's now expanded access in terms of online bookings for the system of testing that we have available in Wales.

All care homes will be tested within the next two weeks. Some health boards think they may have that test within the next week to 10 days. Others will be slightly later, but, within the next two weeks, I expect all care homes, residents and staff to have been tested. That's a deliberate policy choice we made, and I actually think that the time that it will have taken to do so compares well with every other UK nation, including, of course, England just over the border, where I understand that about six in 10 care homes are yet to be tested. But, as I say, our expectation is that, within two weeks, all care homes in Wales will have been tested. 

Another thing, on the final point that you made, that I need to respond to, is that symptomatic people should always have been tested before discharge from a hospital. There should always have been a current test for people to have left hospital. We moved to a position—which we acknowledged at the time was beyond the scientific advice and the advice of our chief medical officer about whether there was a scientific basis to do so—to test every person discharged into a care home, symptomatic or not, but that was specifically about making sure that there was confidence within the system, because we recognised that more harm could be caused if the whole system clogged up. In regular times, we discuss the harm that is caused to people who are not discharged effectively and quickly, and so this, I think, was a pragmatic measure and the right one to take. And I'm sure I'll have more time to re-discuss the past on other occasions, but I'm content that we are doing the right thing on the right evidence base in the here and now for the people of Wales. 

Thank you, Minister. I have to say, whilst you say this testing will take place within two weeks, you know the high figures that have been recorded here in north Wales, it's my opinion that if you were to suddenly test all homes, say within two or three days, we wouldn't just see our figures spike, we would see them skyrocket here. 

Now, the testing centre here in Llandudno was opened on 29 April. According to an FOI that I submitted to the Betsi Cadwaladr board, only 258 nursing home and local authority workers were tested at the Llandudno site by 28 May. This actually works out, on average, as eight workers a day. There are criticisms about the testing centre not having much traffic going through it when there is mass testing still required here in the north. So, I would like your opinion on that. Why were so few critical workers seen in this centre last month? And what steps are you taking to monitor testing levels at all drive-through centres across Wales? I would like to see those figures reported.

Testing does remain troublesome here. As of 27 May, testing capacity was over 9,000 a day. On Monday, only 2,492 tests were undertaken. Why is all the testing capacity not being used, when we know out in our communities we have these people—vulnerable people—who need these tests? How can we therefore have confidence in test, trace and protect if the number of daily tests are only around 10 per cent of the 20,000 tests a day the Welsh Government has previously stated that contact tracing could require?

I will deal with the final point first. Contact tracing could require up to 20,000 tests depending on where we are in terms of coming out of lockdown and the rate of the transmission spread. Trying to compare where we are now with what might happen months in the future is a pretty foolish place to get yourself into and it's not at all an honest way of describing where we are. And I just think, at a time when people are worried, to try to put out ideas and figures that are openly and undeniably misleading is incredibly irresponsible. 

You're doing that. 

On your figures on north Wales and care home testing, we're actually going through and seeing that north Wales has the highest per head testing ratio of any of the health board areas in the country. So, it's already got a higher testing level than anywhere else. But the good news about that is that whilst there are more people who are identified as having COVID-19, we're actually recognising that when it comes to the harm that's caused, in terms of hospital admissions and, indeed, then in terms of mortality rates, in mortality rates its the second lowest of the seven health boards in Wales, and that's good news for people in north Wales.  

On the Llandudno testing centre, I regularly have feedback from local resilience fora and other partners, including people representing staff and employers in the social care sector, and they've indicated for some time a significant improvement in access to testing and making use of the referral arrangements. They have been improved now further, with greater ease of access for the public as well as critical workers, who can all now book online to book their own test at a drive-through centre. So, we've made not just improvements in the lab capacity to undertake more tests, but access to those has improved. 

Thank you. Rhun ap Iorwerth.

I'd like to return to something that—[Interruption].  

Sorry, Minister, I thought you'd finished.  

No, I was talking then. A message came up saying my internet connection was unstable. I may have faded out for a second. I was just making the point—

Right. Sorry, Rhun, I'll come back to you. Do you want to briefly finish, then, Minister?

I was on my final point. The two to three thousand tests a day that we're undertaking now is a measure of the current need and demand that exists within our system, but we anticipate that that will increase as we move further out of lockdown, and, as there is more contact between people and greater need, we can actually follow up and test more people. It goes back to what I've said consistently—our test, trace and protect system requires a bigger infrastructure, and we're in a place now where we've got a much more significant capacity to be able to do so.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer.

Thank you. We'll try again now then. Rhun ap Iorwerth.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Now, Welsh Government has so far refused to recommend that people should wear face masks when out in public. The latest advice I could find from Welsh Government is that people could wear them if they want to, which isn't particularly useful, because people look to Government for leadership at times like this.

I must say, the evidence that I am seeing is getting much, much stronger on this. A major report in The Lancet this week found that the wearing of face masks could be a very useful contribution towards keeping infection rates low. The World Health Organization is absolutely saying that the use of masks isn't enough on its own, but saying wearing a mask can limit the spread of certain respiratory viral diseases, including coronavirus. The Centre for Disease Control and Prevention in the United States recommends them. There was an interesting study from California and Taiwan at the end of May saying that the virus can remain infectious indoors for hours, and that

'measures designed to reduce aerosol transmission must be implemented,'—

and I'm quoting here—

'including universal masking'.

Some 50 countries, I think, now insist that people have to wear masks, at least in some situations—just on public transport in some countries, far more widespread in others. Now, they don't have the physical side effects, potentially, of a new drug say, or the mental health implications of lockdown, so surely, the burden of proof should be lower on this. And if it makes a contribution, then why not? Even if only part of a marginal-gains approach. So, will Government listen to that growing evidence and introduce clear guidelines actively encouraging the use of face covering?

Well, the guidance and decision making of the Government that you referred to, of course, relies on the advice of the Chief Medical Officer for Wales, Dr Frank Atherton. He has reviewed the evidence, and the advice that is current in Wales comes from his advice and recommendations to us, and that is that there is limited benefit and that he is not in a position where the evidence is strong enough to recommend that people do wear masks in particular situations outside, of course, front-line care work as part of PPE.

When it comes to what might happen in the future, as I've said and will say on a number of occasions, where the evidence changes, we'll be happy to shift our position. And indeed, the chief medical officer will, of course, continue to review the evidence. In each of these—as we've seen on testing policy—it's possible that that evidence changes fairly rapidly.

We made three different choices on policy over a six-week period on care home testing because the evidence base had changed at a really rapid pace. And that's pretty disconcerting for the public, I know, but it's pretty disconcerting for decision makers as well. But if we're not prepared to be agile in decision making and being prepared to reconsider where we are as that evidence base firms up, then we won't be in the right position.

So, it is possible that there will be a change in the future, but the current advice from our chief medical officer is not to do so. But as I say, I wouldn't want to close off the reality that that advice could change and the chief medical officer's advice could change. At which point in time, of course, you would expect Ministers to make a different decision.

And I'd urge you to ask the chief medical officer to look at this. You say it might be something for the future, but when we're fighting coronavirus, the future is now in a way. What's going to happen with the pattern of the disease in Wales over the coming months can be affected by decisions that are taken now.

I've spent much of the past three months pushing for the best possible protection for front-line staff. You mentioned them, of course. I still need to do that. Maybe you could comment on reports of out-of-date PPE still being in use—masks expired in 2008 being seen by nurses with stickers underneath saying 'expiry 2016'. I'd be grateful for a copy of guidance on the process that's followed to decide when expired PPE is fit for re-issue.

Again, to finish, on that issue of the public wearing of masks—a homemade mask is much better than nothing. Of course, it means there's no impact then on PPE stock for key workers. No real cost either, so issues of equality are addressed in that. Worldwide, there are community schemes making masks, including groups in Wales. This is my mask, actually. This has travelled across the world. It was made by a friend in the United States—part of a community group making masks to give to others. Will you support a mask Cymru initiative urging more people to get involved in making masks, sharing simple templates and so on? This is something we can all do, bonding us as communities. We can even have competitions: who can make the best looking masks and that kind of thing. It contributes to the normalisation of the wearing of face coverings, and just perhaps, if the growing evidence is right, as I believe it is, it could save lives, too.

On your point about PPE, all of our PPE that is issued goes through a quality control process, including if the initial expiry dates mean that that PPE can still, no less, be used and used safely, because that is the test that we apply: have we got adequate PPE—adequate in terms of the protection that it provides, making sure that it's in date and appropriate for staff to use? And as you know, we're in the position where we have not just managed to resolve our own current PPE challenges for our front-line health and social care staff, but we've provided mutual aid in significant numbers to other UK countries, including England, and that's been the right thing to do.

So, we're in a good position on PPE compared to where we were just a matter of a few weeks ago. There's got to be a warning note on that, because as we move forward with the peak of the disease, it's entirely possible that there'll be more pressure on where we are as we ease and come out of lockdown and what might happen in the winter, and equally, demand in other parts of the world might mean that there's again greater competition for PPE supplies that we're acquiring, but again, I want to put on record my thanks to those Welsh companies that have created PPE for our front-line staff. There has been a tremendous response right across the country.

On your point about mask and face coverings, I think it's important because when people talk about masks, I think there's a lot of confusion about those being things that are the sort of grade you expect front-line health and care workers or others to raise, but I recognise you're making a point about face coverings, which are different. If the advice changed, then we'd of course need to think about how that would be, because I don't think the Government will be in a position to provide face coverings to every member of the public, but these are things that people can provide themselves. And it's actually important to remember that this is about protecting other people in case you have coronavirus. But the starting point is, if you're symptomatic, you shouldn't be out in public anyway: you should be self-isolating and getting tested.

If the advice changes, we'll of course need to consider what that means in terms of how those face coverings are provided and in what settings. So, like I say, going back to my first answer, if the evidence changes, if the advice changes, then the Government will be happy to explain that and to change our position because our aim, as ever, is to keep Wales safe. 

Thank you for your statement, Minister. Despite your assertion, what we saw this week was not a significant easing of lockdown. In reality, it is a minor change, because for the vast majority of people living in Wales, family will live more than 5 miles away. When announcing the changes, the First Minister said the decision to impose a general principle of not travelling more than 5 miles was based upon scientific evidence. So, Minister, will you publish that evidence? Has that evidence been peer reviewed? Minister, can you explain to my constituents unable to visit loved ones why it is perfectly okay for them to travel more than 5 miles to queue with strangers in a garden centre, but they can't travel to stand 2 metres apart from a family member or friend? 

On Monday, you launched the young person's mental health toolkit, which recognises the enormous impact this pandemic is having on everybody's mental health, and the longer the restrictions last, the greater the impact they will have. I know that tackling this disease is a balancing act between the direct harms of COVID-19 versus the indirect harms. Minister, do you believe that you have struck the right balance in this instance?

Our path out of lockdown is contingent on track, trace and protect. However, it is currently taking too long for tests to be conducted. Minister, what steps are you taking to speed up the process and expand our testing capacity? Many activities will require a much wider, more streamlined testing regime, and we know that routine dental treatments can't start until next year, but surely, if we were to test dentists and patients and certify them COVID-free, then treatment could be undertaken. Without such a system in place, how will my constituent, the owner of a wedding dress shop, Elin Baker, conduct her business? She's using her spare time now and her facilities and her knowledge to make PPE for the NHS, so she's using her time wisely, but we must understand that wedding dresses have to be fitted, and they can't be fumigated, so does she have to wait until there is a vaccine before she can reopen?

And finally, Minister, the First Minister said on Monday that you can only make one change to measures every three weeks due to the scientific advice from SAGE and the World Health Organization. So, please can you confirm that this is the approach you are taking and will you outline how long you anticipate it will be before most lockdown measures are relaxed? Thank you.

Perhaps I can start with that final point, because we've consistently said—and it's been in some of the papers that we've already published on the scientific evidence—I think we've been as open if not more open than any other Government in the UK on making available that evidence that we're receiving as Ministers—that advice—and then actually going out and making our decisions and taking accountability for them. I think it's really important that our advisers understand that we're taking responsibility as Ministers and really are taking their advice seriously. That includes this point about there being one significant intervention, and I want to be able to assess and understand its impact before including a further significant intervention as well. And that's why it would be entirely cavalier and wholly wrong for me to try to forecast when lockdown will end and life will return to normal as we knew it in February this year. I think the public are wise to that and recognise that those sorts of artificial deadlines don't provide the sort of reassurance that they are looking for and it's much better to be honest and honest about the level of uncertainty that we are dealing with.

Within each review, when we conduct a review of our lockdown regulations, we'll consider what we're doing, we'll then confirm we're doing that and as I say, the regular publications and advice that we're receiving will continue to be made available to help inform the public, to maintain the essential trust that we need as well. And I do think one significant change that we made this time around in—. People can go out and meet as long as they adhere to social distancing, expanding that and giving some shape to travel, because in the previous period, we had quite a lot of criticism from a range of people, in particular those representing valleys and rural areas, that telling people to simply exercise their judgment on what was local wasn't really working. And in providing a 5 mile default as a rule of thumb, as the First Minister set out from the moment he introduced the new easements, I think it's given some shape to that without it being a hard rule, because that would not have taken account of the different circumstances that some people live within, so I think we have done the right thing, and the rationale for staying local is about containing and not spreading the virus. If we removed restrictions for people to travel around the country, then I think there would be enough people in Wales who would act in such a way that you would start to see parts of the country—beauty spots and others—having larger numbers of people in a way that none of us should want to see or encourage. So, I think we're doing the right thing in maintaining a 'stay local' message and you'll see that that's not inconsistent with the messages from Scotland and Northern Ireland and, indeed, the leader of Bournemouth council herself has said that she wants the same approach in England.

On our testing speed, that's improving all the time; on the reopening of dentistry, the letter to the chief dental officer will be published; I'll provide a short written statement so that Members are notified on when that is available. I don't think that you're suggesting that you just certifying people as COVID free is necessarily as simple as that sounds. It tells you what the position is at the time someone has had the test, and so I don't think that's necessarily a helpful way forward.

On your constituent, who is a wedding dress maker, as we know, most weddings aren't taking place, and so actually, there isn't business for her in her normal business and that's because of the reality that people go to weddings and mix with other people. I had a great time on my wedding day, but you certainly couldn't have a wedding like that at this point in time.

Then finally, on the balance of harms, you'll have seen that balance of harms in the difficult decision that the education Minister's made today. Balancing the harm that lockdown causes by schools being closed, needing and wanting to return in a way that is as safe as possible and not just in doing that, but thinking about an entirely different way of managing the school day, and recognising that not providing education to more children until the start of September would cause harm to those children for their future educational prospects, and the greatest harm would be to our most vulnerable children and their families. So, we're always having to balance the different harms that come from coronavirus, that come from the lockdown, and we'll continue to see the difficult balance being struck by Welsh Ministers as we continue to keep Wales safe.

Thank you. Dawn Bowden.

Okay, thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Sorry, I had to unmute.

Thank you, Minister, for your statement. One of the things I'd like to say was that I'm very grateful for the continued briefings and updates that we get—Members of the Senedd and the Members of Parliament across my area—for meeting both the health boards and getting the regular information from them. I think it probably is worth placing on record again our thanks to everybody that's working in the NHS and doing absolutely amazing, amazing things during this pandemic. Without in any way being complacent, I've been really pleased to see the number of people actually being discharged from hospital having fully recovered from COVID, and seeing that the capacity in hospitals across my area, including in ICUs—actually coping quite well. However, what does remain a concern for me is the high levels of infections across Merthyr Tydfil and RCT, and that seems to be in direct contrast to what's happening across the rest of Wales. Now, we know that in Merthyr and RCT we have lots of terraced streets and families living close to each other, and that may well be considered as one of the reasons for the high levels of infections, as I think the First Minister alluded to in response to questions on his statement this morning. But it's also true that other Valleys communities and some of our inner city areas also have terraced houses and families living close together and don't seem to have the same levels of infections there. Now, anecdotally we've heard reports—

Can you come to your question, please? Thank you.

We've heard reports of people not respecting social distancing in some areas, but I'd like to know if there is something more that's going on in these communities? And I'd be grateful if you could advise what work the Government's epidemiologists are doing to try to establish if, in fact, there is anything other than behaviours going on in these communities which is keeping infection levels so relatively high.

Thank you for the question, Dawn, and it is a matter of fact—to put this in some context—that whilst the peak of the epidemic is different in different parts of Wales, it is a fact that the Aneurin Bevan, Cardiff and Vale and Cwm Taf Morgannwg health board areas have had a higher incidence in terms of per-head infections, and the harm that has been caused and, in turn, the mortality rates—Cwm Taf Morgannwg area has a higher mortality rate than any other health board area in Wales. So, it is a matter of obvious concern. But you're right to point out that there are other communities with similar physical and geographical characteristics, and we don't fully understand yet from our epidemiologists the exact reasons why this is different within RCT and Merthyr, because even the points about the physical health and well-being of the communities that are served—well, they're not so radically different from lots of other Valleys communities, but we do see a materially different level of an infection. So, we are still looking at that as we're looking and learning across the whole pandemic.

I do want to provide more information, not just on where we are, but what we think we need to advise people to do. But I think the starting point is that everyone should take seriously the social distancing messages. The guidance is there to help people to stick to the rules, to make clear what is allowed and within the rules and the spirit of the rules that we've created, and they'll also help people understand what isn't, and to recognise that this is about preventing harm to those people and their families and their communities and people they may never meet. If people don't follow the guidance that we've provided and don't—. In the overwhelming majority of Wales, we had really high levels of agreement with and support for those rules, and we all need to stick with it because the ONS figures this week show over 2,100 deaths in Wales, and there are still deaths every day. So, no-one should think that we can go back to normal and behave as if this never happened. We'll have months and months of difficult behaviour when we'll ask people to be self-disciplined, because if we don't, if we see coronavirus take off again, we'll see many thousands more people being harmed by coronavirus. And, again, the fantastic commitment we've had from our whole NHS and the people recovered now—we're going to need to call on those people even more, and I don't think we should press their commitment beyond that. It's up to us to make our own choices, each one of us, as to how will we all play our part in keeping Wales safe.

Thank you. Mark Isherwood.

I can't hear him.

We need to unmute Mark's mike.

I've done it. Can you hear me?

Yes, go on, you can speak now.

Thank you. I thought it was automatic, apologies.

Nursing homes are receiving a temporary fee increase for adult social care placements, but this excludes health board-funded placements. With regard to continuing healthcare funding, Care Forum Wales has highlighted that nursing homes in north Wales are disadvantaged by comparison with elsewhere. How do you, therefore, respond to sector concern that although continuing healthcare-funded residents have even more complex needs, there's been no mention of an uplift related to COVID-19?

In England dental practices are allowed to reopen from 8 June, provided strict criteria have been met before aerosol generating procedures can be performed. In Wales no provision has been made for dental practices to be allowed to do this. How, therefore, do you respond to the north Wales dental surgeons who tell me that unless you change tack, dental services and the livelihoods of thousands of hard-working and committed professionals in Wales will be destroyed?

Thank you. On the two questions—on nursing home fees, we have regular dialogue, as a Government, with Care Forum Wales. We've had that dialogue in the regular engagement that I and officials have had about improving testing, and that's now in a much better place for the residential care sector in particular. And the Deputy Minister, Julie Morgan, meets with Care Forum Wales on a regular basis each week. So, there is regular dialogue and opportunities for Care Forum Wales to raise concerns they have, in addition to not just the Deputy Minister but, of course, in the regular dialogue they have with officials as well. So, we'll continue to review—[Interruption.]

Sorry, could somebody put Mr Isherwood's mike off? We're not having heckling or intervening on questions, sorry. Vaughan Gething.

We'll continue to talk with them about what's possible as we continue to review what we're able to do across the whole of our response to the pandemic. As I've said in answer to questions earlier, if the evidence changes, we'll be happy to change the position we're in and, of course, the way that we use the resources available to us.

On the position about dentistry in England, it's not quite as simple as reported. I think the impression was given earlier this week that there was going to be a wholesale opening of dentistry in England, and that isn't quite the case there. We've had direct advice from the chief dental officer in Wales. She's written out to every dental practice to indicate how we'll want to restart safely more dental activity.

But it is a point about safely restarting dental activity, because there is a risk to both the patient and the person working in very close proximity to them. Just as we've had to balance all of the risks, the harms and the evidence that we have in the difficult decision the education Minister has made today about a different form of schools' operation for four weeks for the end of this school year, we have to think about the balance of risks for people working in dentistry. I would not want to try to place the opportunity to make money ahead of seeing a range of our dental professionals losing their lives if we're taking a cavalier approach. That's why the professional advice of the chief dental officer is so important. As I said earlier, we'll continue to be guided by the evidence, and I will be making public her letter and her advice to dentists across Wales.

Minister, last month, you announced that care workers in Wales would receive a £500 bonus payment for their contribution during the COVID-19 pandemic. It has now become apparent that the sum will be liable for income tax and national insurance deductions, meaning the actual sum people earning over the personal allowance will receive will be £360, not £500. Plaid Cymru believes that this bonus payment should not be taxed and that it should be extended to all care home workers, including cleaning staff and kitchen staff.

Minister, the carers who heard your announcement last month may have made plans to spend that £500 already on a well-deserved holiday after all of this is over or to pay overdue bills. Does the Welsh Government regret not being open about the fact that this bonus payment would be taxed when you announced it on International Workers' Day?

I think there are two things—the first is that the Welsh Government was never in a position to give a guarantee that it would not be taxed. We made clear publicly that we wanted the UK Government to agree not to tax this so it could be treated, as Mike Hedges said earlier, as a gift, not as a taxable payment. They've done that in the past in extraordinary circumstances—for example, it was a welcome move on behalf of the UK Government not to tax the hardship payments that some councils were able to make during the recent flooding that we saw. I find it deeply disappointing that the UK Government have decided to apply tax to this payment.

The Welsh Government made direct representations, not just public statements, to the UK Government, and they've now responded by saying that they expect to make a tax deduction. That's a decision for the UK Government. I think that they should reconsider, they should think again, to make sure that what is essentially a low-paid, largely female workforce should get the full £500. But it's a matter for the UK Government to decide whether it's more important to them to take tax out of this payment or to do the right thing by our care workers. I hope they do the right thing.

Minister, we've heard some reference today to the health service increasingly addressing non-COVID conditions, and the quarter 1 plans, I know, are to be submitted shortly. But I know that the cancer charities, for example, remain very concerned that we're not seeing the consultations, the diagnosis, the detection and early treatment of these very serious cancer conditions, which are all too prevalent, that should be taking place. So, I just wonder exactly how Welsh Government is working with the cancer charities, the health boards, the health sector generally, to make sure that that return to dealing with these non-COVID conditions, as would have taken place prior to the pandemic, is taking place comprehensively and consistently across Wales, while at the same time, obviously, balancing the treatment of the ongoing pandemic, as has to happen.

Thank you for the question. It's one of the concerns that I've had and expressed for a number of weeks now, that a range of our urgent care services that have remained open haven't seen people going into them, partly because people have been more frightened of going into a healthcare facility than the symptoms or concerns they would have had. Six months previously, people would have been more likely to go and seek help or advice from a health professional. It's also the case that we discover a range of cancers when people attend for a different reason. For all of those appointments and attendances that are not taking place, there's a risk not just of the direct harm someone understands may well be taking place but other harm that gets discovered.

We are now starting to see a recovery in those numbers of people attending. I indicated some of this yesterday in the press conference and I've referred to it in the written statement as well. However, we've also seen a welcome change in referring behaviour as well, so the more people that are attending, the more people are being referred, for example, through primary care. We saw a fall off in the referrals, we're now starting to see a recovery. 

In the statements that have been made on the quarter 1 plans, we're also in the position where we're seeing diagnostic services recovering. We're looking to see a return to endoscopy services. That's going to be difficult because there's going to be large amount of demand going into those services, but we are starting to see a staid recovery.

And in the regional plans I referred to, cancer services are a very obvious area where there'd need to be co-operation over more than one health board area. We already deliver cancer services over more than one health board area on a regular basis. We'll need to see more of that in terms of planning our recovery. And in terms of working with the cancer charities, I'm due to see the cancer alliance before the end of this month, I believe.

But this is part of our broader programme, and if I could just make a separate point, which is that in a range of areas we're having to think about how we do things differently. A good example outside the cancer ward of having to do things differently because there's still a risk is the way that we've re-engineered our diabetic retinopathy service for people who are pregnant. So, pregnant women who are diabetic are at a particular risk of suffering harm to their sight. We've now got a new pathway that's been rolled out to make sure that we're able to provide that service, otherwise significant and permanent harm could have been caused to their sight. So, we're already going through this, and in each area of activity, not just in cancer services, having to redesign our services and aim that at how we do the greatest good to avoid the greatest amount of harm being caused. 

Minister, I've suffered a dental abscess during the lockdown. I'm told that it could well return; it happens frequently after people have had the antibiotics. It's non-urgent, so I'm just keeping my fingers crossed. So, the fact that it may not be properly treated until January 2021 obviously directly affects me, but we're being written to by many patients and many, many dentists—and I'm sure all Members would agree with this—and I do urge further consideration of the plan. And I do completely accept that it needs to be considered very carefully, but the British Dental Association, in response to the recent hints, has said—I quote—there's 'great, growing demand' for swifter action before January 2021. That's non-emergency treatments. And it has also said, and I quote:

'There are very good, robust policies in place to make sure patients and the team are protected.'

So, can we look at this with great care? Because I think the initial plan has come under a lot of comment and probably does need some careful review, and I hope the British Dental Association will be fully involved in that.

Well, I'd be very happy to make sure that the Government and the professional leadership provided by our chief dental officer maintains the regular dialogue that we do have with the British Dental Association here in Wales. I think we should, again, accelerate the reform of the way we deliver dental services to have a greater focus on doing the greatest amount of good with the resource we have available. I would, as would the chief dental officer, want to return to having a greater amount of dental activity sooner rather than later, but it's got to be in a safe manner, and that's where we are. So, whilst I will be clear and transparent in publishing her current advice to dental professionals in Wales, if there's a further update in that ongoing dialogue, then I'll be happy to keep Members updated and to give that undertaking. And if there's any further change in the way we're able to do that and the pace that we're able to do that in keeping patients and dental professionals safe, then I'll happily make sure that all Members are informed of that at the same time.

Minister, just two points: I'm very pleased that the Welsh Government made the announcement that it would test all residents and staff in care homes. My own health board indicates that they expect to complete theirs in this area by the end of this week.

However, I am concerned about the retesting scenario, because there are situations where some tests have come back positive, because they were asymptomatic, and therefore there are residents and staff who did not demonstrate signs or symptoms of COVID-19 but have proved positive through the testing. And there could be a situation where other Members of staff, therefore, could also, as a consequence, prove positive in the future and therefore put more residents at risk. So, can you provide a detailed update as to when retesting for care home staff in particular would be available to ensure that, as they go in and out of the homes, they're not taking the virus back in with them, being asymptomatic?

Can I also concur on the situation with dentists? I'm sure, as David Melding highlighted, we all have received correspondence regarding dentistry. I know, under Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease, that the dentists took very special measures, so they're already well-versed in safe practices in relation to dealing with patients. But I also accept the responsibilities you have to ensure the safety of the staff in the dentist practices as well.

Well, the point on dentistry is understood and, of course, from my own position as a constituency Member, I've got people who will want to access dental services. Actually, we have struggled in the past to get people to take up those services in the way that we would want them to, and it's another point about the way that children and young people actually behave together and our ability to intervene earlier to actually inculcate good habits about dental hygiene. So, I do take seriously the points that Members from a range of parties have made, both here but also outside this setting, about the desire and the benefit from restarting dental services. So, I'm not ignoring or brushing that to one side; I am genuinely taking it seriously.

On your point about retesting in care homes: I expect, before the end of the completion of the initial phase, to have advice about the period of time within which retesting will take place and what that retesting programme will look like, so we don't end up with a position when, in three months' time, there's another head of steam to retest people in the care home sector, but we have a regular and understandable programme. And I then have to balance that with the need that we'll need to maintain and protect capacity within our testing programme to do that, and still to make sure that we have sufficient capacity to make sure that contact tracing isn't compromised as well. Because I certainly wouldn't want our new NHS Wales test, trace, protect service to be compromised in some way. But, equally, we need to make sure we're balancing the risks that are run in all parts of the service. That's why the increase in lab capacity to more than 9,500 we've seen take place is such good news; it allows us to have those choices, to not be constrained by capacity. But I need to see the evidence, to see the advice, and, as soon as that's available, I'll be happy to inform not just the Member but all Members of what that means and what our expectation is for retesting to take place for staff and residents in the care home sector.

Helen Mary Jones. No.

Helen Mary is silenced.

Can we—can somebody help Helen Mary? We can't hear her. Can somebody help her to unmute the mike, please? No. Can I leave Helen? I will come back to you, Helen, unless—have you got your mike open now? No. Okay, I'll come back to you. Jack Sargeant.

Diolch yn fawr, Deputy Llywydd. Minister, coronavirus, the need for isolation and the financial toll that residents across Wales are paying will, of course, have a huge impact on their mental health. Now, news that 1,700 patients were wrongly discharged in north Wales fills nobody with the confidence that services in north Wales are all that they should be. Now, I understand that there are currently huge pressures on our NHS, but this is obviously not good enough. Residents in north Wales need to have the confidence in services.

Minister, we have all been suffering a mental health pandemic long before COVID-19. So, not just as parliamentarians and Governments, but as human beings, we need to do more. Minister, what can you say to my constituents to reassure them that the lessons are being learned and that those affected are given the support they need as a matter of urgency?

I think it's a point I've dealt with before, but it's entirely a fair point for the Member to raise in this setting as well, about the mistake, and it was a mistake, that was made in discharging people when they should not have been. The health board in north Wales are recovering that, because the guidance that we provided to every health board I thought was very clear that mental health services are essential services and should continue throughout the pandemic.

And there's this broader point—and it's part, again, of the point that was raised earlier in questions about the different harms that are caused by coronavirus, and one of the harms, in keeping us physically alive and in saving lives, is that we will undoubtedly have seen harm caused to people's mental health and well-being. So, there'll be more demand coming into each tier of our services, so the tier 0 and tier 1 services, where they're relatively low level, will undoubtedly see more demand, just as will other areas where there's more significant demand.

That's why myself and the education Minister made our announcement on providing more resource for children and young people, and it's why I'll continue to keep on looking at the mental health issues being raised not just in the children and young people committee, and may get raised in the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee tomorrow, but to make sure that the extra infrastructure we've put in place to test and to check that mental health services are still functioning and dealing with need continues in place. We bought more beds at the start of this pandemic for the highest level of need; I have made more money available through the budget. So, I can assure Jack Sargeant that not just the treatment end, but the point about the conversation we have about mental health in this country, going back to, 'It's okay to say you're not okay'—it's really important that we do that as well in the way we live our own lives with the people around us, and what we say and how we act in public as well.

Thank you. We'll try Helen Mary Jones again.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. So, I'm very sorry, Minister, but I am unsilenced again. [Laughter.] If I may take you back to the issue with regard to shielding that was raised earlier with the First Minister by my colleague Delyth Jewell, I hope that the Welsh Government will be able to provide the 32 organisations that have written to you concerned about the way that announcement was made and asking for more clarity—I hope that you'll be able to provide them with a fuller answer than the First Minister was able to provide to Delyth Jewell this afternoon.

But, very specifically—and I hope you'll take this opportunity to reassure people—is it the case, Minister, that those people who have been advised to shield will continue to receive the support services that they currently receive? I'm thinking of things like the food boxes, the supermarket slots. I don't know if other Members have been, but I've certainly been contacted by constituents who've been left a little bit confused as to whether they will continue to get those services and for how long. So, I hope, Minister, you'll take the opportunity to reassure them this afternoon.

It may be worth me putting on record that the announcement about shielding came on the back of advice from the chief medical officer. So, this wasn't a case where I decided that I wanted to change the category and so I made a choice to do that without any evidence or advice. We did think we were going to be in a position to make a unified announcement with other UK countries, and then the time frame for that shifted. The announcement in England was made on a Saturday night, when I had expected that it might have been made later. We certainly would have been able to make it on a Sunday afternoon. That was my expectation, and we'd have had not just Saturday getting ready, but then the whole of Sunday to speak with stakeholders, including people in local government—not just local government, of course, but the healthcare professions caring for people, and a range of others—to indicate that a change was on its way and to set out what it was.

When the English announcement was, effectively, made through a newspaper article that went online on Saturday night, and I had an unusual and unexpected telephone call on my Saturday evening to tell me that that had gone out, I then had a pretty straight choice to make, both of which are messy. The first was to try to go as planned and to make an announcement in the second half of the Sunday, which would have meant that inevitably we'd have had questions about what we were doing through the first half of the Sunday, and I think that would have put us in a farcical position where, despite us telling stakeholders to get ready for an announcement, we'd be telling the press, 'No comment. We haven't got anything to say', and that would have been ridiculous. By that point there already would have been uncertainty from shielded people, their families and friends, as well as people providing care and support for them in Wales, as to whether or not we were going to make an announcement in Wales. So, I made the decision—and, again, it was my decision to do this—that we should make our announcement on the Sunday morning. It's not ideal to make that announcement by press release when the written statement wasn't available and completed until later in the day. As I say, it was messy, but it was my judgment that that was the right thing to do, rather than to spend the morning explaining why we weren't going to do anything or avoiding questions.

I'd prefer it, as we review the shielding category and the support provided to them across the UK, not just in Wales, that we're able to do that by open conversation between chief medical officers and indeed the four health departments, and I know that's a view shared by colleagues in other parts of the UK. For shielded people in Wales, the chief medical officer will be writing directly. There are letters being printed that will start to go out from tomorrow. They'll hear directly from him about the future of the shielded category. People can expect that shielding to take place for at least a further couple of months. He'll set out the details of that, and he'll also be taking the press conference tomorrow to speak directly to the public, but Members can expect to see a copy of the letter that will be going out to your constituents as well. I'll make sure that's provided to you as it's ready and signed off. We did that previously. You can expect to see that again, because Members in constituencies and regions of all parties can expect there to be contact from your constituents asking what is happening. So, I think it's important that you see the text of that letter.

To your point about the support, as I have made clear on a number of occasions, and I'm happy to do so now on the record in the Senedd, the only change made is that shielded people are now advised they can go out, if they wish to, to exercise and to see one other household at a social distance. That is the only change that we're making—so, seeing people outside, being able to go outside for exercise. All other measures are in place, so we're saying to shielded people, 'Do not go and do your own shopping. Don't go into a shop to do that.' We're saying to shielded people, 'If you can't work from home, don't go into a workplace with other people, because the risks in terms of being in an indoor environment are still significant'. That means, of course, that we continue to provide that additional support in terms of food, so, both priorities for supermarket deliveries, those people that are taking the food boxes, that support is still available, and including other things like medicines delivery as well. So, all that support remains in place, but, for shielded people, the ability to go outside now, whereas the advice had previously been not to go outside for exercise outside your own home, that's changed, and I think that's a significant matter for shielded people. But we may need to revisit that. If we get into winter months, into the autumn, we may be in a position where that advice needs to change again, and it reinforces my point that we're a long way from being at the end of coronavirus.

Minister, I listened to that answer to Helen Mary and I have to say it always seems to be someone else's communication problem, doesn’t it? Let's go back to the £500 for the carers. I heard the First Minister's response to Mike Hedges, which I thought was disingenuous, and I heard your response to Delyth Jewell. So, are you telling me that either the Welsh Government did not know that, under UK law, wages are taxed in accordance with earning levels and therefore that £500 would be taxed, or are you telling me that the Welsh Government wanted the Chancellor to give it as a gift but you hadn't bothered to ask him before you made the announcement? 

Finally, can you clarify to everybody who will get this payment? Because, on 28 May, you told me that all care home workers who work in a privately funded care home—i.e. a care home that does not take any state-aided people—would not get that £500. So, when we say that all care workers in Wales will get it, that is actually, technically, as my understanding is from my conversation with you on 28 May, incorrect, and I would be very grateful for your clarification because when we use the words 'privately funded', we have to remember that this is a lot of Welsh people who are just scraping by on the last of their savings to get into a private care home. They don't have a lot of money, their staff won't have much money.

Well, the final details of who is going to receive the payment will be announced when we've finalised the negotiations with employers and trade unions, which I understand are near final, so you will hear that in the coming days, and I think it'll provide the clarity that you're looking for, Angela. 

In terms of the tax on the £500, it's always been a UK decision. We did make representations through officials in advance about the taxable treatment of it, and we wrote directly to make representations. It was also raised by the finance Minister in conversation as well. So it's a matter for the UK Government to decide whether or not this money should be given as a gift, and it was their choice to apply tax to it. I still think it's the right thing for them to reconsider and to not apply tax to the £500 for social care workers. I'll be disappointed, as I'm sure other Members across other parties will be, if the UK Government don't reconsider taking tax from this money so it doesn't go directly into the pockets of relatively low-paid women workers and instead goes into the Treasury. I think that would—. Frankly, it wouldn't be a good look for the UK Government, and they're not expecting to have this money, so it essentially would be a tax windfall for the Treasury, and I just think that a windfall from social care workers to the Treasury is absolutely not the place where the UK Treasury should be. It's within their gift to make sure that tax isn't applied and again I urge them to do so. 

In terms of the shielding, well, it's a matter of fact what happened with shielding. It's not a matter of saying it's someone else's—. It's a matter of fact that that is what happened. I've been able to work really constructively with health Ministers across other Governments, with the unionist health Minister in the multiparty Government in Northern Ireland, the SNP health Minister in Scotland and, indeed, the Conservative Cabinet health Minister in England, but there are times where we don't always agree. We're grown up about that. There are times where what each of us does affects the other; this was one of those occasions. So it's simply a matter of fact. We were not expecting an announcement on shielding in England to be made through a newspaper column on Saturday night, but that is what happened.

Mick Antoniw.

I can't hear Mick. I can't lip read, either. 

No. We're not getting—. Can somebody assist Mr Antoniw? There we are. 

How's that? Is that okay?

There we are. Start again. 

Minister, there are many consequences of coronavirus, not just the disease. We've discussed the associated consequences of lockdown, such as mental health. The one I want to raise, though, is the increased risk in respect of gambling addiction. You will be familiar, Minister, I would have thought, with the case of Chris Bruney, who was a 25-year-old who lost £119,000 in five days. He was then offered by the gambling company a bonus of £400. He took his own life, and the company has just been fined. Now that was just one of the examples pre-coronavirus.

Of course, what we have now is a captive market in respect of online gambling, and the March data alone for 2020 indicates that virtual betting increased by 40 per cent, poker by 38 per cent and, of those who placed more than one bet, online betting increased by 88 per cent, online poker 53 per cent and, of course, there are many other similar data as well. I suspect the April figures will show even higher levels of online gambling participation, leading to the public health risks that had been identified before the lockdown. I'm wondering, Minister, if you could let us know whether this is something that you've discussed with the chief medical officer. If not, will you discuss it with the chief medical officer to see what we can actually do to prepare for what I suspect is going to be a significant increase in problems associated with online gambling addiction, and it will be a legacy that we will have to deal with as we come out of coronavirus? 

I think it's a point well made, actually, by the Member, and I recognise his longstanding and continuing interest in the real public health harms caused by gambling. I don't think now is the time to go into the division of powers that exist, but we do still need to understand what that means and we do understand that there has been a significant increase in online gambling, as the Member sets out. So, I will definitely take it up specifically with the chief medical officer about where we are and what that means in terms of not just our understanding of the harms caused now, but what that means for the future. If more people are spending more time on online gambling, there's no guarantee—in fact, we'd expect that it would be not the case that those people will disappear and stop online gambling in exactly the same numbers as we progress out of the lockdown. We could be talking about longer term challenges in terms of the addiction that gambling sadly is for some people. So, I'll happily take it up with the chief medical officer, and I'm happy to undertake to write to the Member in due course. 

Thank you. And finally, Neil McEvoy. 

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Minister, in terms of COVID, you say that you've followed scientific advice continuously. I wouldn't agree with that, actually, but you say that you've relied on science. So, there's a proposal to dump 780,000 tonnes of mud from outside Hinkley Point nuclear power station into the waters just outside Cardiff, 1 mile off the coast. Now, scientists tell us that they're convinced—and they've said it on the record—they are convinced that the mud contains plutonium. So, in terms of you being the health Minister and also the AM for southern Cardiff, will you support the scientists' call to test the mud for plutonium, because it has never been tested for that? Diolch. 

As the Member knows, I'm here to answer questions as the health Minister in the Welsh Government. I'm very well aware of my responsibilities for the constituency that I've had the privilege to be directly elected to represent twice to this Parliament. And as the Member knows, there is plenty of scientific evidence and advice around the removal and transfer of mud within an estuary environment, and I recall the spiky conversation the Member had in the Chamber with Alun Davies, who actually had spent some time looking at this during his time before the Assembly, as it then was, and indeed during his time as the environment Minister. And the Member is taking the view of some scientists rather than the accepted scientific consensus.

So, Lesley Griffiths, as the Minister with some responsibility in this area, will be guided by the scientific advice that she receives. It's a matter for Natural Resources Wales, though, of course, as you know, to understand that science and decide what to do in the granting of licences. And I think trying to return to a scare story over nuclear mud at a time when we're dealing with a pandemic that is far from finished is entirely the wrong thing to do when it comes to questions to the health Minister about where we are with this once-in-a-century event. But, no doubt, Mr McEvoy will continue to make his own choices.

That's an outrageous comment, Minister—outrageous. 

Thank you. Thank you, Minister, for that. 

We now move on to item 5 on our agenda, which is a statement by the Minister for Education and an update on the education provision. So, I call on the Minister for Education, Kirsty Williams. 

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and good afternoon, colleagues. The response to COVID-19 has been a profound challenge for the whole of the education community. Our schools and colleges have already stepped up in the defence against COVID, establishing provision for children of critical workers and for vulnerable children, and managing remote learning on an unprecedented scale with astonishing pace. Once again, I want to thank the education professionals as a whole, and especially those who've supported the operation of the hubs, for their dedication, professionalism and hard work over this period.

The Government has today published a paper from its COVID-19 technical advisory group, representing the latest understanding of the virus with respect to children and education. I am satisfied that there is now space and opportunity to increase operations. To this end, I have made the decision that schools and pupil referral units should plan to increase their operations from 29 June. This gives schools, and indeed parents, three and a half weeks to continue preparing for the next phase of education. And it also provides the time needed for governing bodies and councils to progress the necessary statutory actions.

Almost all learners will have the opportunity to attend their school. I am describing this as a chance to work together for pupils so that they can check in, catch up and prepare for the summer and September. I recognise that for some learners who are shielding this contact may need to be via digital means.

I am also proposing that schools open for an extra week, ending on the 27 July, and this week’s holiday will be redistributed to the autumn term. This allows schools more contact time before the summer and gives an extra break in what is likely to be a very long and challenging autumn term.

In practice, I would expect schools accommodating reduced numbers of learners each day according to their own individual capacity, whilst ensuring appropriate social distancing is in place. It is expected that this will mean no more than a third of pupils present at any one time, although I recognise that some schools may not be able to reach this level of operation.

During this time, I would expect schools to use this period to support the health and well-being of learners and their staff, and that should be their foremost priority; check in with learners and support them in their preparedness for learning and consider next steps for learning as appropriate; to test the operations ready for the autumn term; and to continue to build the confidence of families in the very careful approach that we are taking. This is an opportunity for both learners and staff to prepare and get used to the new normal as it will look in September.

For the foreseeable future, learners will experience a blend of face-to-face and online learning. In the autumn, I expect that schools will have to continue to accommodate all learners who can attend at a reduced time to allow for social distancing. And when they are in school, it will feel very different, with staggered arrivals, departures and breaks, with far more time being spent outdoors, weather permitting, and in much smaller classes. However, I expect them to enjoy secure, dedicated time with teachers and classmates that they know well.

Decision makers, whether you are a Minister, a parent or a headteacher, always have to balance risks. In this current period, all of us have to think about the possibilities of direct and indirect harm. I have made the decision to increase operations before the summer holidays for a number of key reasons. Waiting until September would mean that most children would not have stepped foot in a school for at least 23 weeks, and I believe that this would be to the detriment of their development, their learning and their well-being. I am convinced that it is only by returning to their own schools that we will see increased attendance from our most vulnerable and disadvantaged children.

It allows us to make the most of the warm weather and sunlight, which has an important impact in combating transmission of the virus. It ensures that test, trace and protect will have been in place for a month and will continue to expand. And I can confirm that school staff will be a priority group in our new antibody testing programme, starting with staff who have currently been working in our hubs. And, crucially, the evolving science tells us that an autumn spike in the virus is a very real possibility. We could be losing even more learning time, and it would be made even worse without this period that I’m planning for today.

It is, of course, critical that schools have the proper support to operate at this time, and we're working with councils and schools to get all the necessary hygiene stock, safety measures and cleaning regimes in place. Next week, I will publish guidance to support schools in operating under these new conditions, and to support learning. The guidance will be revised and updated over the summer to help schools prepare for the autumn, in light of these experiences.

For further education, from 15 June, colleges and work-based learning providers will begin to reopen for face-to-face learning for a limited group of students and learners. My officials have worked with colleges and training providers to agree priority groups of learners who will be included in this initial phase of reopening, focusing on those who need to return to their college or training centre in order to continue to progress in their learning. This includes learners who need to carry out practical assessments to complete their qualifications, and those students who need extra support and guidance to stay on track and to stay in education.

Guidance for childcare providers will also be published in the next week, supporting them to increase the numbers of children in attendance alongside schools.

For schools, we now have over three weeks to continue planning, and to continue to get ready, and to continue, crucially, to focus on safety and well-being. We will work with the profession to ensure that they are supported both now and into the autumn. Headteachers will have the opportunity to work with their staff in schools to prepare fully for pupils. It also provides the time needed for governing bodies and councils to progress the necessary statutory actions and risk assessments to support staff and pupils to return.

I acknowledge that this is and continues to be a very worrying period for us all. I know that many will feel apprehensive. But I want to say we have not rushed this work or this decision. The three-and-a-half-week period before the next phase also gives me time to keep watch on developments elsewhere, and provides further check-in points to review evidence, and to watch the successful roll-out of testing and tracing.

This is the best practical option that meets my five principles. Working together, I know that we will secure equity and excellence for pupils as they check in, catch up, and prepare for summer and September.

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer.

Thank you. Suzy Davies.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. And thank you to you, as well, Minister; I think there will be many—children, not least—across Wales who have been looking forward to an announcement of this kind. And can I just associate myself with the remarks that you made for all our teachers and families, and, of course, support staff who've helped work in the hubs as well as at home during this period?

I just wanted to ask you this: if we look at countries across western Europe where lockdown was imposed roughly the same time as in the UK, lifting lockdown is being done differently in different countries and, actually, within some of those countries. And on the face of it, the same actions don't always produce the same consequences, as between these regions, beyond the obvious that isolation limits the spread of the virus. Even so, their way forward, almost entirely, has been to open in a phased way in year groups. So, what has happened to allow you to be satisfied that there is space and opportunity to increase operations? And why have you proceeded to do this by application of a three-weekly cycle for a third of the school population, rather than that more popular year-group approach? And in so doing, how have you weighted factors such as emotional well-being and loss of learning against the primary concern of limiting the spread of the virus in the community?

The success of this approach, of course, is going to depend on community confidence, and I do welcome your remarks on protecting staff and children who remain vulnerable, so that no-one will be punished for not taking up the offer of school attendance. But will your guidance to schools include ascertaining which children don't want to go back to school? Can you tell us what a three-weekly cycle actually means? Is this going to be extended to the foundation phase, for three to five-year-olds—in which case, will non-school settings be affected? And will key workers' children be able to attend their own school five days a week along with vulnerable learners, or will they still have to go to hubs?

Thank you very much. I'll do my best to try and cover the multiple questions that Suzy Davies has asked. Key worker children will be able to attend their own schools, for the same hours that they are currently attending their hub schools. And that is the same for vulnerable children who already have an entitlement—they will do that now in their home school, when we move to the next phase at the end of June.

With regard to those families, I respect that each family will make a decision based on a number of factors, and what is right for them, and I respect families in their ability to do just that. If a family, for whatever reason, decides not to take up the opportunity of a check-in, then we will respect that and nobody will be fined, nor will attendance form part of any measurement of school performance either. I think that's important to say to teachers.

We do know that, at the moment, there are 4,000 children who themselves are in receipt of a shielding letter. Not all of those children will be of school age, and our advice to those children is that those children should not take up this opportunity of a check-in, and our expectation is that their needs will be met in a different way. And for those parents who are in receipt of a shielding letter, again, our advice would be that their children should not necessarily take up the offer, although it's a matter for them to weigh up. But again, they will not be disadvantaged—the check-in will happen in a different way for those children also.

What's been really important for me is the principle of equity and recognising that all children have an equal opportunity, and although it would be in some ways logistically simpler to have year groups, that means that, for some children, they would not have set foot in a school, as I said, for a considerable length of time and I believe that is detrimental to them.

We are moving very cautiously and, as I said, we will severely limit the number of children who can be on site at any one time. Our expectations are that classes will be very, very small, with a dedicated member of staff. And I need to make it very clear to Members, as I have hopefully to parents earlier today, that this in no way resembles school going back to normal. So, children will not be doing a full week in school, attending school every day— they will be allocated check-in slots for them to do that.

Now, in terms of ascertaining the level of demand, I would expect headteachers in this next three and a half weeks to be contacting parents to ascertain which parents will take up the offer of check-ins for their students and then be able to plan accordingly to ensure that numbers are kept to a manageable-to-safe level. I think it is important that all children have the opportunity to check in with their teachers, that all children's learning can be assessed at this point and that all families can be helped for the next phase of education.

Thank you for that. I think there's a serious point here about parental confidence, and I suppose one way that you could help improve that is by helping them understand, for example, how any adults in school hubs across Wales have been tested and with what returns, and whether there are any plans for testing asymptomatic adults in schools during the phased return, and also whether there's going to be some extra funding here for schools to implement the social distancing and hygiene measures, and for councils to provide sufficient school transport provision to comply with those same requirements.

I think there's also a question about consistency of application of the existing guidance across the whole of Wales. This is something I've raised with you before. If some children are still not going to be going to school and two thirds of those who do will still be getting their learning at home, I think we could do with some reassurance really on how you've been following councils and schools over this period to ascertain that the guidance that you've provided has been followed consistently across Wales.

Firstly, I think it's really important that we have a testing, tracing and protect regime that is robust to support the safe next stage of educational operations. You'll be aware that SAGE papers made it very clear that, in opening up schools to more pupils, testing and tracing had to be in place. We will have a month of the testing and tracing regime here in Wales before additional children will be going into school. That gives us the confidence that that system is up and running and is robust.

With regard to antibody testing, we will be including teaching and educational staff who've been working in our hubs to undergo antibody testing. That will be able to enhance our understanding of how—if there are any—the disease works in a school, childcare setting. The latest figures that I saw is that the vast majority of tests that have been carried out on those working in educational institutions have come back as negative. We have had some cases but, of course, it is impossible to know whether that person acquired the virus within their workplace or whether they acquired it when they were in their local supermarket or when they were having, potentially, other interactions. What we do know is that children are very, very, very rarely the index case in any provision of the disease—very, very rare indeed that they have passed that disease, the virus, on to anybody else. And, of course, all teachers are currently eligible—as is the Welsh general public now—for testing, and we will take further advice as to how routine testing should happen, but the TTP regime is absolutely crucial to us.

With regard to checking what is happening at the moment, we have a number of ways in which we are doing that. Parentkind recently did an independent survey of parents. Eighty-four per cent of Welsh parents said they were satisfied with the support that they had received from their children's schools. Obviously, there is a continued road here for local education authorities. Their job of supporting their schools hasn't gone away, neither has the role of regional school improvement services.

We have asked regional school improvement services to begin a methodical way of looking at practice at the moment. Their first report will be published on 19 June, and then we would expect that report to follow on a regular basis to ascertain the levels of engagement and the nature of the engagement of online learning, and that will report at regular intervals so that we can have assurance as to what schools are doing. Estyn have already begun work on good practice guides, looking at how the system has responded to the emergency and ensuring that best practice is understood and spread as we move forward.

Can I just say that I think schools have moved with tremendous speed to embrace new ways of learning? That will continue to develop, because what we are facing is a prolonged period of education where there will be a mixture of online learning and face-to-face contact. But all the evidence suggests that online learning is greatly enhanced when that can be supported by regular face-to-face sessions. 

I have grave doubts about the reopening of schools at the end of June. It's too soon. Many parents and teachers, as well as children and young people, will also be concerned. The test and trace system is not in place as of yet. We don't know quite how this virus works and how it transmits between children and from children to adults. And I think garnering the confidence of families that it's safe even for small groups of children to return before the summer will be a very difficult task indeed. 

We in Plaid Cymru had suggested an alternative plan, a plan which would have meant a change to the pattern of school terms: not reopening in June and July, and then, only if it was safe to do so, to gradually reopen for small groups of children from mid August onwards. By that time, hopefully, we would have a better picture of what is happening with this virus. I would like to know why you didn't take up that plan, because I do understand that it had been discussed.

In terms of opening for all pupils—and you've just been discussing that—the unions, as you know, are in favour of opening for years 6, 10 and 12 as a priority. We have discussed this, and I do have some sympathy with your stance in terms of offering an opportunity for all pupils to check in. How are you going to ask schools to provide that opportunity? And will you be encouraging schools to look specifically for those children and young people who haven't been engaging in online learning, and who haven't been maintaining a regular contact with schools? Will you be encouraging prioritisation for that particular group of children?

Can I thank Siân Gwenllian for her questions? She'll have to forgive me, I don't recall her discussing an August return with me in our weekly meetings, but she is right to suggest that we had explored the possibility of ending the summer term early and starting the new academic year in August. There were many attractions to that particular scheme. Firstly, making the most of the summer months, whereas I said earlier, we know that the sunlight and the better weather and the ability to have children outside and to better ventilate school buildings is easier to do during the summer months, and it would have allowed even more time for the TTP regime to bed in.

This was discussed with all our union colleagues—headteacher unions, teacher unions and support staff unions. We would have broken up that autumn term into a set number of periods to create natural breaks. But actually, every single union rejected that opportunity. And given the fact that this, of course, would be a profound change to the terms and conditions of our teaching staff, we can only move forward with such a profound change if that is done with the consent of our professionals, and their consent was not there. So, it was a good offer, but I believe what we've come forward with today shares many of the similar opportunities: it allows for the bedding in of testing and tracing for an entire month; it allows us to make the most of learning opportunities in the summer; it provides us with a natural break to reflect on our practice during the six-week summer holidays; and allows us to put in a little extra break—a fire break—in the autumn term when, potentially, things could be becoming difficult once again. And that's how we have decided to proceed.

I think it's important in recognising that it's very difficult to identify which children's education is more important than other people's education. For older children, it's not simply a question of identifying exam groups—different schools have different patterns of exams. There are some children who currently find themselves in year 8 who would begin their GCSE courses in the autumn. There are children who will be sitting unit 1 of their GCSE exams. So, there's a whole variety of exam classes—it's not simply the ones that Siân Gwenllian had outlined, and I think it's absolutely right, in terms of year 6, that they have an opportunity to say goodbye to their teachers and to their schools before they move on to high school. But in terms of curriculum, actually, they've come to the end of their curriculum before they move on to the next stage of their education. I received many overtures from teaching professionals that said that year 5 should take priority over year 6.

What we are doing is ensuring that every child has an opportunity to check in with their teachers, to catch up with what has been going on in their lives, how things have been, how things have been at home, how learning has gone for them, what has been difficult, what's been easy, do they have the facilities that they need in terms of the kit and equipment to allow them to learn, and what are the next phases that they need to work on over the summer and in preparation for September.

And when we think that we could have been asking some very young children to go back in September, when they haven't set foot in a classroom for over 23 weeks, that's a big ask of a small child, and also, that classroom is going to look very different to what it would look like the last time they were in it, and the operation of their school is going to look very different from the last time they were in it. This allows us to have a phased return to be able to slowly introduce our children to what education is going to look like, going forward, and that's why we need to take the opportunity of doing so before the end of the summer term.

It's crucial, of course, that no child is left behind and that every child gets the best possible education under the current circumstances. Our teachers have been very flexible indeed and have done excellent work, but are you confident that every child is engaging with his or her education? Does every child have a device, access to broadband, a space to work in and sufficient support in order to participate in learning? And how are you going to place robust expectations on all local authorities and all schools that remote learning does have to be a core part of our education system for the future, not just during this coronavirus period, but there will be expectations that education should change substantially in light of the new curriculum, for example, with a great deal of emphasis on using technology? So, do you believe at present that enough is being done to polish and refine remote learning, including streaming lessons live? Now, I'm not sure if that's happening consistently across Wales at the moment.

If I can just turn finally to the curriculum Bill, can you confirm to us when the draft will be published? I'm given to understand that this is about to happen, but I also understand that there's some threat to the practice of immersing young children in the Welsh language because of the wording on the face of the Bill, and that would be a very grave blow to the target of a million Welsh speakers. So, can you commit to changing this clause before the publication of the draft curriculum Bill? Thank you.

Well, Siân Gwenllian is right: this period has certainly led to a real boost to developing everybody's digital competence skills—children, teachers, indeed, Members of the Senedd. We're all, I'm sure, much more digitally competent today than we were 10 weeks ago even though some of us, from time to time, still struggle with our mute buttons.

It is a real concern to me that everybody has an opportunity to be able to learn online. That's why the Member will be aware of the financial support that we have put in place to address the digital exclusion of pupils. To date, as a result of direct support from the Welsh Government, some 10,849 Wi-Fi units have been distributed. That is support that has been made available across and utilised by all 22 local authorities, and requests for additional support keep coming in and we are meeting those requests. 

With regard to repurposed devices, I can say that we have issued licences for some 8,966 devices. Those are devices being distributed across 14 local authorities that have benefited from the Welsh Government's central arrangements, but the actual total number of devices that have been lent out is higher than that because some local authorities very proactively gave those devices out at the very beginning of the crisis, and so have not necessarily availed ourselves. So, we know that a significant amount of support has been made available with regard to digital exclusion. And that's why, Siân, we do need everybody to have a check in or at least give people the opportunity of a check in because, you're right, I cannot guarantee you that every child has been engaging in their learning, and that might be for a whole variety of reasons, whether that be digital exclusion, whether that be because mums and dads are working very hard from home and are struggling to be able to provide that support. For some, the motivation of not being amongst their classmates might be very difficult. And that's exactly why we do have to not pick year groups, but actually provide an opportunity for all students to be seen by their teachers so these discussions can be had so we can find out what's been going on in children's lives; we can find out why maybe they have not been engaging and what we all need to do to support them better.

Live lessons are a matter for individual practitioners and schools. Welsh Government has provided guidance on how practitioners can do that safely and appropriately, so they may be able to do that and I can assure the Member that there is nothing in the forthcoming curriculum Bill that prevents or undermines the practice of immersion; indeed, the very opposite: for the first time there will be a legal underpinning to the practice of immersion.

I was disappointed that this came after rather than before the press statement earlier, but nonetheless I would like to welcome this statement from the education Secretary, and that we are going to see at least some reopening of schools. Unlike Siân Gwenllian, I would have preferred it to be earlier rather than later but it's happening and I welcome that, and I'd like to thank the education Secretary for her work to bring that about. You were very frank, I felt, in your remarks earlier that it was the unions that prevented what sounded like your preferred sort of option of opening schools in early to mid August. Could I also clarify whether the unions were also influential in the decision of when to give back this additional week to be worked late in July? Wouldn't it have been better perhaps for parents and pupils if that week had been over the coming few weeks when only online opportunities were available, rather than being an additional week that will be missed now in the autumn term? I wouldn't like, though, for that question to be interpreted as anti-union or at all criticising the Minister for the engagement she has had with the unions. Clearly, if the unions are able to bring their members with them, it is pragmatic and sensible to work with them to try to get more teachers back to work and to come back in a more positive, participative and supportive way. That's to be welcomed. Can I, though, also ask: has she considered the interests of parents and pupils within that as well, because they're also clearly very important stakeholders within this?

Overall, I think what she says about bringing all the children back at least for some education strikes me as having merits. She mentioned the equality aspect of that, but the supporting online learning and meeting physically as well, clearly, that will have benefits: checking on children, knowing where children are, being able to signpost and intervene where appropriate, and to support that online learning with some physical contact for all does seem positive.

Can I just finally clarify the situation in terms of roughly a third of pupils returning was what the written statement said? I think you said just now that it was no more than a third of pupils. Similarly, the reference to their capacity, their own individual capacity for schools, and I think in a written statement: schools may need time to reach this level of operation. I think that was then changed to: schools may not be able to reach that level of operation. Clearly, it's for the Minister to update written statements and give the verbal version, which is, of course, the record and I appreciate it, but I just wonder, though, does that suggest that that area is one of some controversy? Did she have questions at her statement earlier that led to any change of mind or emphasis on that? And she mentioned more the schools that might find it difficult to get up that level operation, are there other schools where they may feel that they can operate safely with rather more pupils than a third, and will she give schools discretion on that side of the equation as well as the other? Thank you very much.

Thank you for that, Mr Reckless. With regard to his disappointment that I had not done this earlier, I do not feel that it would have been safe to do this earlier. As I said, the SAGE advice was very, very clear, we need to have a TTP regime up and running before we could see more children accessing education. That TTP system has only began this week and I was not prepared to see more children going back to school until that system had been up and running and had been tested. So, that's why we haven't gone back any earlier. It's also very interesting to read the SAGE advice—the independent SAGE group, actually—that said the difference between children returning on 1 June and the difference between children returning on 15 June sees a halving of the likelihood of a child contracting the virus. We're going back even later, which is in line with the very cautious and careful approach that Welsh Government is taking to all of the unlocking measures, and that's based on, as I said, SAGE advice, which subsequently, I think, is in the public domain.

With regard to the extra week, I'm proposing to extend the term by a week to grasp that opportunity of learning during the summer, because, as I said earlier, we know that that gives us the best opportunity to have face-to-face. We're coming to the end of the academic year; that additional week means that we can make the most of this opportunity and maximise the amount of face-to-face contact children can have with their teachers this side of the summer. With regard to an additional week in October, I have taken that decision to reallocate that week. I have done so, again, because as was discussed at length yesterday I think by the health Minister, we are increasingly concerned about the pattern of the disease in the autumn. I hope to goodness, my goodness me, there is nobody—and I'm sure we're all the same—nobody wants to see a resurgence of the virus in the autumn. It's too early to tell whether that will happen, but there is—. The advice that we're getting is that we could well see a return. Therefore, having a natural fire break and prioritising face-to-face contact now, when we know we can do it, as opposed to additional lost face-to-face contact time in the autumn, is an important part of my strategy. Also, it's a very long term anyway, and it just gives us the opportunity to create a natural fire break at a time when the disease may—and my goodness me, we all hope not—but may begin to show itself again. 

With regard to the size—sorry. There's no controversy. I just get picky and once it's all out in print and given out to people, sometimes I just change my words and I prefer a different word, Mr Reckless. That's my prerogative as a Minister. Sometimes I just want to change my words, but it's certainly not done out of any controversy. What we're trying to do is recognise that Welsh education is massively diverse. You know, we have some schools that have 40 pupils in, and we've got some schools that have got a lot of pupils in, and we have to trust in our headteachers and our local education authorities, to make sure that there is enough flexibility to reflect the very, very different nature of our schools. We also have to accept about the availability of workforce. We know, and our recommendation and our advice is, that a teacher that is in receipt of a shielding letter should not return to the physical workplace. There are things that they can do at home and online to support learning, but they should not be in the workplace. So, we have to have some flexibility in the system. The third is the maximum amount of children that we would want to see. But, again, we have to have some flexibility and we have to rely on the discretion of individual headteachers and governing bodies of how it will work in their environment, as long as that is working within the national context and the framework that we will have set out to them. But we have to recognise that Welsh education is diverse, and individual school buildings and settings may be more easy to manage than others, and we have to recognise that as a very practical response to the situation. One size is not going to fit all.

Thank you. I'll now call Lynne Neagle, as Chair of the Children, Young People and Education Committee. Lynne Neagle.

Thank you, Deputy Llywydd, and thank you, Minister, for your statement. Like many people, I want to take some time to digest it and the associated documents before giving a considered and measured response to it, but I did just want to say that one of the huge concerns for me in this pandemic is that most of our children are largely unseen and hidden. So, the opportunity for welfare checks for our children, and the opportunity to touch base with teachers, is, I think, something that I, personally, would welcome.

I've got some specific questions. I wonder if you could say a bit more about how social distancing is going to work in practice. You referred to guidance that is going to be issued next week. Can you say whether that is going to be—how prescriptive that guidance is going to be? I think that would be helpful to know.

You said in response to Suzy Davies that what tipped you towards having all children back rather than specific year groups, which is what had been discussed previously, was the fact that you wanted an equality-based approach and for all children and young people to be seen. Can you just confirm that that was the only thing that tipped the balance in favour of having all children back?

I'd also be interested to know to what extent children's rights have been a factor in this decision. I'd like to know whether there's been a children's rights impact assessment done on this, as I have asked throughout this process, really.

I'd like to ask what the key things or triggers are that might lead to a rethink on this or to prevent this happening on the timescale that you've set out. Would that be a change in the R value? What would be the factors you would consider? 

Just finally from me, I think this lockdown has been traumatic for all of us, but for no-one more so than our children, really. How will you ensure that schools are well prepared for managing and supporting what could be a lot of very traumatised children, when they do eventually come back? Of course, there is also the issue of the well-being of our schools' staff as well. Diolch yn fawr.

Thank you, Lynne. Yes, we will publish operational guidance next week. That is being finalised—we are still consulting with our local education authorities, teaching unions and the groups that we have established to make sure that that guidance is as good as it needs to be, and that work is ongoing. It will cover all of the operational issues that are associated with the check-in sessions being made available for children.

I agree with her: one of the things that keeps me awake at night is vulnerable children. Despite the very best efforts of local authorities and individual teachers, and we have seen since the Easter holidays an increase in the number of vulnerable children attending school, it is not at a level that I feel comfortable with. Evidence would suggest that vulnerable children are more likely to go into school if it is their own school and it's in their own community. Therefore, an important consideration in the decision that I have taken is to get more vulnerable children back.

This can be a particular issue around some of our children with additional learning needs. Although children with additional learning needs have been able to access our hubs they've had an entitlement to, often that has not been—in reality, that has not been available, because for some children that's an alien environment, an environment they don't feel safe, secure and comfortable in. Often, those hubs, quite understandably, are staffed on a rota basis. The staff change, you know, all the time, and, again, that can be deeply unsettling for some children.

The ability for pupils to go back into their own school, in a building and an environment that is familiar to them, with individuals who are familiar to them, hopefully will be able to relieve some of the pressure that, undoubtedly, there has been on some families, for whom the hub situation—even though it's been an entitlement, they haven't felt able to utilise that entitlement because it hasn't met the needs of their children. I think, again, that's why this is an important step forward in making sure that more vulnerable children can access this support.

Children's rights are absolutely important and it was a difficult decision to be able to say that some children's education was more important than others', and some children's entitlement should be different to others'. This allows us to ensure that everybody is given the opportunity on an equal footing.

Lynne, you're right to say that all of the decisions that I have outlined today are caveated in ensuring that the virus allows us to make these changes. So, again, that's an important part of the next three and a half weeks in terms of making sure that the restrictions that have already been eased don't lead to not only an increase in R but the number of hospital admissions and levels of infection, and also the robustness of the TTP regime as well.

So, as I said in my statement, we will use these three and a half weeks to make sure that the decision that we have outlined today can actually go ahead. And if I am not satisfied, then I will say so.

Thank you. Darren Millar. No, sorry. We need to unmute. There you go, try again.

Can I thank you for your statement today, Minister? I think many people will be very pleased that schools are going to be reopening. Can I just ask for a little bit more clarification in terms of the under-fives, and particularly those children that are nursery-aged children in school-based nurseries? What provision is going to be in place for them under these arrangements?

And secondly, one area that you didn't provide an update on today was in terms of Welsh universities. Many students feel that they're getting a very rough deal from universities in return for their tuition fees at the moment. Obviously, for a significant time now, they've been doing their courses through distance learning. I took the opportunity to have a look on the Open University website today and for an equivalent of a full year's worth of education in the Open University, it would cost just over £2,000 for that, whereas Welsh universities are still charging the £9,000 rate. Is that something that you're hoping to be able to address in the future? I know that you've given financial support for universities, but you haven't for students as yet.

With regard to our very youngest children, I know that this is a particular area of concern to many people because of the ability for our very youngest learners to understand the concept of social distancing. You can have a conversation with older children and they can understand what they can and can't do; the natural instincts of our very youngest learners are to be together, and that can be really challenging. 

I think what's really important to say is that, over the last 10 weeks, we have amassed a lot of experience in how to minimise the risk in those scenarios. It's important to remember that a quarter of our schools have been open for the last 10 weeks to children of all ages, as have our childcare providers for even younger children. So, we've been able to learn from that experience about how you can manage risk effectively. But I recognise that it is incredibly difficult to explain to a four-year-old how to social distance. Therefore, there are practical ways in which you can minimise their interaction.

So, first of all, we'll be keeping children in very small groups, so not in their traditional classes but in very small groups with a dedicated member of staff. We will be giving advice and guidance, for instance, on resources and the sharing of resources. But without a shadow of a doubt, Darren, it's really challenging for those children. But we've looked at international examples of how that has managed, and I have to say that we know that those children are least at risk. So, the irony is the ones that can do the least social distancing, the evidence would suggest they're least at risk. But we have experience of how we can manage that process and minimise the risk as much as possible. And as I said, with regard to child minding and childcare, further guidance will be issued next week. 

With regard to universities, just like your colleague in the Westminster Government, I have no plans to reduce fee levels here at Welsh universities.

Thank you. Helen Mary Jones. 

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. If I can take you, Minister, to post-16 education—

No, sorry, Helen. We're still having problems with your mike. Let's try again.

How's that?

That's better, thank you.

Thank you. Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. With regard to—I'll take you to post-16 education, if I may, Minister. With regard to the arrangements for colleges of further education, can you confirm that some of those students who will be able to return will be students taking vocational courses who will need to take practical examinations in order to be able to complete their qualifications?

If I can then take you to the university sector, what further discussions have you had with regard to the UK Government acting as the Government for England's decision to cap the number of students coming from English universities to Welsh universities? This will obviously have potential resource implications for universities that will already be stretched, and have you yet been able to consider how the Welsh Government might respond?

Okay. First of all, with regard to FE colleges, I'll repeat what I said in my statement: further education colleges will open for more face-to-face teaching on 15 June. That is slightly earlier, because, in discussions with the college principals, ColegauCymru and the unions, they think they can move more quickly to do that. And she is absolutely right, in agreeing some priorities, that group of students to whom Helen Mary Jones referred are a priority. So, these are the one set of learners—this is the one large set of learners for whom we have not been able to come to an alternative way of allowing them to complete their course with a grade. So, we've been able to do it for mostly everybody else, but this group of learners need to demonstrate their technical competence to gain their qualification—and rightly so. If you're thinking about gas fitters or builders, they need that technical certificate and we want to make sure they have an opportunity to complete, so they are indeed the priority for colleges to get that work done so that they can complete their qualification and move on to next steps.

With regard to higher education and student number controls, we agree that the situation that HE finds itself in means that we have to introduce student number controls. Indeed, it's been agreed by the sector that this is one important way in which we can inject an element of stability at a very, very challenging time for the sector.

What came as a surprise, having agreed that we would all introduce some student number controls, and I would do that in Wales with our institutions, was to find, then, that the approach that England was taking was not simply to introduce student number controls for their own institutions, but actually to apply that to other jurisdictions, which I think is highly regrettable and is not necessary, because we intend to act to introduce stability here in Wales. We do not want to see our universities behave in a way that destabilises either each other within Wales or destabilises other institutions; we need to work together on this. And it is highly, highly regrettable that this has happened. You will be aware that I wrote to the Minister last week, as did counterparts in Northern Ireland and in Scotland. I spoke to the Minister on Monday morning, and the Government was not prepared to change its mind, which is a source of regret to me.

HEFCW have been carrying out the consultation for us on how student number controls would work in the Welsh context. That consultation came to conclusion on 1 June. I think we're on 3 June now, so I'm awaiting a report from HEFCW as a result of their conversation, and then we will make announcements for Wales. But it is regrettable, because there was an agreement between both Governments that we would act to introduce student number controls. We could have provided the stability within our own nations. We did not need to encroach and extend student number controls to institutions outside our own nations, and it's a source of regret to me that we find ourselves in this situation. But I will reflect on HEFCW's consultation and make an announcement as soon as I am able.

Minister, I would like to welcome the pragmatism of your decision today. This is a virus that could be with us for a year or two or even more, and we simply can't deprive our young people of face-to-face education for that length of time. But this is a staggered return, which needs to be done safely, so I'd like to ask you for a little more detail on how you're working with teachers to ensure that they feel safe within the classroom environment, and also with the cleaning staff in schools as well, to ensure that they have sufficient time and sufficient resources to clean the school environment thoroughly.

Secondly, I'd like to ask for a little more detail around school transport, how you intend to ensure that pupils comply with social distancing measures when they are on school transport, and also, if there will be any additional costs to local authorities in terms of putting on extra buses, how those costs are intended to be met.

My final question is on free school meals, and, with this staggered return, there will obviously be some pupils who will be present in the school environment, while others are home at different times. How will you ensure that all families access the provision to free school meal entitlement, whether that is within the school setting or if they are at home?

Thank you, Vikki. One of the reasons why we are taking three and a half weeks—we've explored some of the public health reasons about why we need to give ourselves more time, but one of the other very important reasons is that we need to give time for our school staff to implement this system and to provide training to headteachers, teachers and those who have a responsibility for maintaining our schools on how to do this safely. We simply cannot expect to make an announcement today and have everything in place that is safe on Monday, so we do need to use this time to make sure that the appropriate training is in place. I want to assure Vikki that, when we talk about consultations with unions, that includes the GMB and Unison, who represent the staff, and they have been fully involved in the discussions. So, that's one of the practical reasons why we have to have a gap in between an announcement and that announcement actually being put into practice, so that we can exactly do what Vikki says: make sure the training and the resources are put in place. And we continue to work with local authorities around what practical and financial assistance we can offer as a Welsh Government in terms of those hygiene practices and the supplies that schools will need.

As I said, we will publish guidance next week on how that should work, and that includes guidance around transport to schools. Obviously, where at all able, parents should walk, scoot, cycle, but, you know, my own children have a 25-mile one-way journey to school. It's not possible to scoot or walk that distance. So, many families will be reliant on school transport, and, again, we're working with our local authorities. It is one of those really wicked, wicked problems that we have to overcome. But we can't have a counsel of despair. Vikki, you're absolutely right; this could be with us for a considerable period of time. Doing nothing and hoping that it might be better isn't really an option; we've got to grapple with these issues and we've got to find safe and sustainable solutions to transport, and we will continue to have those discussions.

With regard to FSM, local authorities continue to do an amazing job in supporting FSM families in a variety of ways—everything from direct food deliveries through to vouchers or to cash. We will need to make sure that that is managed appropriately over the four weeks without something that is too bureaucratic, because we don't want a situation where somebody is in for a day, but their payment stops and they're not in for the rest of the week. So, we have to be pragmatic around how we do this. Indeed, one of the considerations an individual school may look at is whether people attend on a half-day basis, and, therefore, allowing that gap in the middle of the day. But we are very aware that we do not want to have a bureaucratic process that means that individual families or children could lose out on their entitlement.

Local authorities continue to report to us that they are supporting more families than ever. If you can imagine, usually, you have to be in school to receive your free school meal, and sometimes children aren't attending, or perhaps, for whatever reason, they don't want to utilise that within the school setting—for whatever reason. We're actually supporting more children and more families than we would when schools are operating as normal, and that support, I would reiterate, will be available over the summer break. We're also extending some support for students that are in FE colleges and looking to provide some financial support around FSM entitlement for some FE learners as well. 

Thank you. I am going to call a few more. We have come to the allotted time, but I do want now just a question from Members, and, if your question's already been asked, then please don't re-ask it. Rhianon Passmore.

No, sorry—you need to unmute your mike. There you go.

Right, sorry. Thank you. Will the Minister provide an update on the impact of COVID-19 on the completion of statutory assessments for children and young people with additional learning needs? Many local education authority staff continue to be vired across the different departments to provide the professional capacity to work with our most vulnerable children, so will the Minister therefore indicate her willingness to provide further guidance and support in the statutory assessment area if and when needed, and will the Minister consider further the use of virtual assessment tools in order that provisions and critical milestones are not lost, so our most vulnerable ALN children are nurtured for the future?

Deputy Presiding Officer, it's a 'yes' to both of those things, and I will report back to Rhianon Passmore as we consider the points that she's made.

Minister, please forgive me if my question cuts across what has already been asked, but my video today has been very glitchy. I wondered if you—. First of all, I'd like to thank you for your statement, and I wondered if you could give me an outline of what will be taught in years 10 and 12. I understand that the WJEC and Qualifications Wales have said that parts of the curriculum might be dropped. Is this correct? If so, can you confirm that the integrity of the curriculum can be maintained, and that teachers in those years won't waste time teaching units that will be dropped during the phased return? And finally, could you confirm when you asked the regional consortia and local councils to undertake this monitoring work?

Certainly, Angela, I can confirm that Qualifications Wales and the WJEC are already beginning to try and ascertain what an ongoing period of disruption to education—the impact that that will have on the next exam series. You're right; they are actively considering what would be appropriate in terms of elements that would traditionally be carried out, and how that would impact the next year's exams—so, for instance, whether it is necessary to have all the usual levels of coursework associated with the qualification, and, rather than focusing on coursework, focusing on teaching time ready for the actual external exam at the end of it. So, those considerations are ongoing and will need to be clearly communicated to those staff and those students ahead of time, and that work is ongoing at the moment.

I'm sorry, I've lost my train of thought now. What was the second question, Angela, sorry?

I wanted to know if—

Oh, the regional consortia—yes.

—teachers will—. And the regional consortia and when they had to look at it, yes.

Yes. So, I can't remember the exact date that we gave those instructions to the regional consortia, but their first report is due to be published on 19 June.

In relation to the question raised by Siân Gwenllian earlier on the curriculum Bill, where's the evidence that supports the fact that making English statutory on the face of the Bill in the foundation phase strengthens Welsh-medium education? Where is the evidence for that? And given the concerns that your former colleague Aled Roberts, as Welsh Language Commissioner, has raised already, will you remove the proposed clause from the Bill before bringing it forward on Friday?

Well, Dai, the Bill is not structured in a way that—. English is on the face of the Bill for all stages of education, and the Bill treats English and Welsh in exactly the same way. The Bill also allows for English to be disapplied in those settings where immersion is well understood to be the appropriate way in which Welsh language skills can be acquired by our very youngest students. What I want out of our curriculum is for more of our students to leave their statutory period of education as bilingual citizens of Wales, and there is nothing in the Bill that prevents that from happening. As I said, conversely, it actually allows for a statutory underpinning of the immersion process by allowing English to be disapplied in those settings. 

I think there is an issue here about the content of a curriculum, the linguistic status of a school and the medium of tuition within the school. I would suggest to the Member that those are three different things, and what the curriculum Bill concentrates on is the curriculum. It does not focus on the medium of tuition, nor does it focus on the language category of an individual school. 

Thank you very much, Minister, for your excellent statement. I'm really, really pleased that we are going to be offering all students some opportunity to be in school some of the time for at least four weeks before the August break. I absolutely agree with you that vulnerable and disadvantaged students are very unlikely to turn up at anything other than their very own local school, and so this is really good news for them.

Given that we haven't got over the pandemic yet, it seems to me that this ought to be a golden era of outdoor education, because this is the best way of not spreading coronavirus amongst students and staff. So I just wondered what role the regional consortia will play in promoting excellence in outdoor education and assisting those schools that don't have particularly stimulating outdoor provision to make amendments to improve on that.

Well, the Member is absolutely correct, one of the reasons why we need to take advantage of the summer months is because we can have more of our teaching done outside, and that's one of the reasons why we've taken the decision that we have.

With regard to her points on promoting excellence in outdoor education, we're working with a range of stakeholders to ensure that resources and good practice are available to practitioners. Certainly, just prior to the pandemic, I had a meeting with Natural Resources Wales around the role that they could play as a statutory agency here in Wales to support this agenda, and we will work with a number of agencies to get best practice out there to schools. Your point is well made, and I will go back to ensure that that happens.

Thank you, and finally, Nick Ramsay. 

Sorry, I was using the mouse that doesn't work. [Laughter.] 

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Minister, I wonder if you could just give us a little bit more information about the education of the under-fives that you mentioned earlier in answer to Darren Millar. I think you said that it's impossible to really adhere to social distancing with that sort of age group, and I think you mentioned that it was probably easier to divide them into small groups. It strikes me that some nurseries in urban areas are much smaller, there is much less space and so they may find that much more difficult to do than nurseries in rural areas. I wonder if any of that has been looked at or considered.

Thank you, Nick. In publishing guidance next week, obviously that is the national context in which we expect operators, institutions and settings to operate, but as I said in answer to Mr Reckless earlier, I have to accept that one size does not fit all and we have to rely on the professional discretion and the professionalism of setting leaders and individual headteachers. If we're thinking about private childcare, that may need—and we all have to accept that it may lead to some variation in the numbers that are back and the ability of individual settings to respond. And I think that whilst often as politicians we like things to be very neat, uniform and tidy—it appeals to our natures—in this circumstance, we have to have some flexibility to recognise, as you've just said, individual buildings and settings can do things in different ways, and we have to recognise that. 

Thank you very much, Minister. Thank you. 

Item 6 on the agenda this afternoon is a statement by the Minister for Housing and Local Government on homelessness, and I call on the Minister for Housing and Local Government, Julie James.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Preventing and ending homelessness in all its forms is a priority for this Government. Ensuring no-one was left without accommodation and support during this emergency made that priority all the more urgent. In March, at the start of the lockdown, I took early action to provide an additional £10 million of funding and clear guidance on how people should be sheltered and supported. I am proud of our response in Wales; the decisive and compassionate action taken by Welsh Government and local authorities, in partnership with health, third sector, registered social landlords and voluntary organisations, to bring people in from the streets has undoubtedly saved lives.

Our collective efforts have made sure that everyone was included in the measures designed to protect people and communities. More than 800 people have been provided emergency accommodation and support since the lockdown began. Many were previously sleeping on our streets, others were destitute because they had no recourse to public funds, and many were hidden homeless, living precariously as sofa surfers or in unsuitable temporary accommodation.

Local authorities have supported people facing homelessness into safe and stable accommodation, perhaps for the first time in their lives, and have helped people to start to build trust in services they have never, or rarely, engaged with before, and all in just a few short weeks. The response to this emergency has brought us closer together in many ways, recognising our shared common purpose, but also closer to achieving our vision of making homelessness in Wales rare, brief and non-repeated.

We are acutely aware that providing temporary accommodation is not ending homelessness. It does provide us with a unique opportunity to harness the creativity, innovation, collaboration and willingness to work differently to make a long-term, sustainable and fundamental change to homelessness services in Wales. It also provides us with a unique opportunity to transform people’s lives.

We cannot fall back from the huge progress we have made. We must work to ensure that people facing homelessness continue to be protected from the virus, that they are included in any continued or new public health protection measures introduced, and that no-one is forced to return to the streets or any other form of homelessness. I announced last week additional funding of up to £20 million, revenue and capital, to support the next phase of our response to homelessness in the context of COVID-19.

We are asking every local authority in Wales to prepare a phase 2 plan that sets out how they will ensure that no-one need return to the street, focusing on innovation, building and re-modelling to transform the accommodation offer across Wales. I have today published a framework document to set clear expectations and assist local authorities and their partners in developing their phase 2 plans. The framework document is based firmly on the recommendations I received from the homelessness action group just before lockdown. I am once again very grateful for their expert input and their ongoing engagement in this work.

We are not just asking others to reform the way they work; we are reforming our ways of working as well. We have gained enormously from the close working with local authorities that my officials have been undertaking during this first phase. I know authorities have positively welcomed the closer engagement and support; it has helped to quickly identify and resolve issues, and is informing better policy development. We intend to learn and build on this closer working in the next phase, assisting in the development of the plans, and ensuring we can quickly begin to implement them from July onwards.

This support will also include a series of engagement events to support local authorities and their partners. I took part in the launch event last week and was heartened by the positive response, and to hear of the innovative, multi-agency work and planning already under way in some areas across Wales.

Our collective aim is to ensure that everyone we have brought in to temporary accommodation is supported into long-term accommodation. This requires a collective effort. As I have said on many occasions, homelessness is not solely a housing issue; it is a public service issue and requires a cross-public service response. We aim to transform our whole approach to homelessness provision so that those who present as homeless each and every day experience a system focused on real prevention.

In this next phase, I expect to see creativity, partnership and a willingness to invest in these programmes, which will bring long-term savings and benefits to our public services, as well as the potential to transform the lives of the people involved. Innovation, remodelling and building must form the bedrock of how we address, prevent and end homelessness for good in Wales. 

I set out last year in our revised homelessness strategy our aim to move away from temporary accommodation solutions and to adapt a rapid rehousing approach—adopt, I should say, a rapid rehousing approach. We have an opportunity to move more quickly to implement this strategy. In this next phase, we are asking local authorities to commit to and plan how to rapidly move away from the use of night shelters and floor space and approaches where significant resource, particularly from the voluntary sector, is required to support people sleeping rough.

We are asking that they prioritise rapid rehousing and long-term plans, backed up by better quality emergency provision. Our focus is on quickly supporting people back into permanent housing, providing high-quality and dignified interim options and being clear that street services are prioritised for professional assertive outreach focused on resolving homelessness. This next phase is not only about ensuring no-one need return to sleeping rough, but is also about transformation.

This plan is rightly ambitious. It challenges us all to think, plan and work differently. The new investment I have announced to support this plan clearly reflects our commitment as Welsh Government to lead and invest in what we believe in. It will also require local authorities and their partners to invest, using existing funding and grants, and leverage borrowing. This is investment for the long term.

The last few weeks have shown us how much greater than the sum of our parts we can be when we work together. I am truly excited about the opportunity we have before us. It will be a challenge, but based on what we have achieved together thus far, I am confident that we can now make a significant step change towards achieving our goal of ending homelessness in Wales. Diolch.

Can I start by placing on record the Welsh Conservative Party's appreciation of the progress that's been made in ending, to all intents and purposes, rough-sleeping? We're pleased that this has been very successful in Wales, with 800 people now moved into temporary accommodation. Many of them would have been on the streets. And I note also that similar progress has been made in England. I make this remark just to remind everyone that even in a deep crisis, new ways of thinking, and new priorities, and new forms of compassion come to the surface. And this is certainly one, and I'm pleased that we can say in Wales that we have genuine achievements to build upon. 

My first question is that I just want to look at the issue of arrears and evictions, because, unfortunately, once evictions are made permissible in law again, which may happen this month or it may happen in the autumn depending on the decision taken by the Master of the Rolls, of course, this could cause a considerable increase in homelessness and even people going back to the streets. A Tenant Participation Advisory Service survey published last week, Minister, found that two thirds of private renters knew where to go to get help if they had problems with arrears, while only a quarter of social tenants knew where to go for that sort of support and information. So, I would ask you to look at this, because it is a bit curious that the deficiency is so heavy in terms of social tenants, and you would have expected them to be more aware of the sources of help. 

And, also, can I refer to the recent calls by Chartered Institute of Housing Cymru in terms of evictions—I think you may have had sight of this—that we need in Wales a national plan to tackle evictions? Not all the levers can be controlled by us because of the changes in law, but we're going to have to deal with this. And they're calling for a repayment plan for arrears, spread over two years, so we have a plan that can help people in that situation. And then, if landlords sign up to that sort of scheme of spreading payments for two years, there would be no evictions. It does seem to me as quite a constructive way forward, but I think we would like to know what is your current evaluation of where we will be in terms of evictions, and whether we are likely to see some extension of the current moratorium for instance.

Thank you, David, and I very much value the cross-party way we've been able to work in this regard. I do think that the plan for Wales is one that we broadly share across all parties in Wales, and that's one of the reasons we've been able to do what we've been able to do because we've been collaborative across all sectors. And it does really prove what we can do when we work together. 

But there are some concerns. Obviously, rent arrears is one of them. One of the things that I agreed with our social housing partners in Wales when we agreed the rent policy for social housing in Wales—seems like a decade ago but was only actually about 13 weeks ago—was that they would not evict people into homelessness for rent arrears or any other thing. We'd just started to put that plan in action when the lockdown came. We are continuing to work with our registered social landlords and our councils to make sure that that plan stays in place. And as part of that plan, what we will be doing is ensuring that any tenant who faces rent arrears and would be facing an eviction path as a result of that—and there are various complexities in the law I know you're well familiar with, but there's a mandatory ground for eviction, and so on; some complexities I won't go into here—that we work with those tenants, in a pre-action protocol, so that, before any eviction processes can be contemplated, a full understanding of that person's financial circumstances are undertaken and what their ability to repay any arrears looks like and what their ability to sustain their tenancy looks like, and any help that can be given with that, including in certain circumstances for social landlords in Wales write-off of the rent arrears in particular individual circumstances. I want to emphasise that that's not a blanket policy, for obvious public policy reasons, but we want to understand how each individual has ended up where they've ended up, and to understand what support they would need to get back into credit. And that would of course include repayment over two years, and so on—I agree that that's certainly amongst the mix of things that would need to be looked at.

You're quite right, of course, in saying that we await the Master of the Rolls' decision on whether that pre-action protocol will be put in place for private sector rent evictions. We've made our views very clear to the UK Government, and I remain very hopeful that that will be a course of action that will occur. And, in any event, we will be working very hard with our registered landlords here in Wales—as you know, we have a very good relationship with them, and we're in contact with them in a way that is unique; because of Rent Smart Wales, we know who everybody is—to put a voluntary pre-action protocol in place, even if the court doesn't put a mandatory one in place, so that the vast majority of tenants will receive that service anyway.

I was very interested to hear what you said about not understanding sources of support. I'm quite surprised by that—I'd like to see where that came from. And we'd certainly like to take that up with our councils and registered social landlords, because it's very much part of the way that we oversee their activity—that they provide that kind of targeted tenant support, that should mean that their tenants do know where that support comes from. So, I'd be really grateful to have a look in more detail at the information you have there, to find out what we can do to put that right.

Thank you for that answer, Minister. It's from TPAS Cymru, the survey, which I think had 500 respondents—it was quite a high number. But I can certainly give you that reference.

I wonder if I could just clarify the expenditure position, and I do this simply so that we can have a full understanding. I'm not in any way sceptical that the resources won't match the ambition, because I genuinely think there is a determination to see the end of rough-sleeping and homelessness. But you made an announcement in early March of an increase of £10 million, and then last week another increase of £10 million, so the total amount of additional expenditure that's been announced during the lockdown now stands at a total of £20 million. I think sometimes you talk about £10 million here and then an additional £20 million, and I think the First Minister nearly slipped into this when he was talking in terms of £30 million more being spent. But I think the actual figure of the envelope is £20 million. If not, could you clarify that? The UK Government, in making similar increases in expenditure—and I'm not going to get into a comparison; it's very difficult to make it—have emphasised that they're aiming for a 37 per cent increase in revenue spending on support services for vulnerable tenants, and that's going to be a key way of keeping those in emergency accommodation at the moment, as they move into more stable housing, keeping them in that situation so they don't fall back and then end up in the streets again. I just wondered if you have a similar view.

And I welcome the phase 2 plans that now are going to be required from local authorities, and the emphasis on a rapid rehousing approach. I think that is right. But can I also point to a call by the National Residential Landlords Association, where they commend the Newport scheme, which offers six months' guaranteed rental and any repairs to be undertaken if landlords sign up to schemes where homeless people would be put into their property. And they're saying that perhaps we could make that a national plan. And it does seem that the Newport scheme has worked very well, and may be a very constructive way forward that uses the resources of the private sector, which are so extensive in providing rental accommodation, as we know.

Yes, thank you. So, on the expenditure, sorry if there is some confusion, but there are two lots of £10 million revenue—so, the £10 million original revenue spend, and then an additional £10 million revenue spend in this second phase. But there's also £10 million of capital. So, it's £30 million, if you include the capital—£20 million revenue and £10 million capital. So, I think that's where the confusion is coming from. So, it's a £30 million envelope, but £20 million of it is revenue, just to be really clear. We are expecting—. The reason for the mix is because the capital leverages, other schemes and the revenue, obviously, provide support for borrowing and a number of other schemes. So, we deliberately put the mix in play. So, I hope that does clarify that. 

Obviously, when we see the plans coming forward, we'll be able to work more closely with local authorities and other partners at exactly how that funding will be working, but we wanted to make sure that they could plan, knowing that there was support for that in place and that that wouldn't be a barrier to making the plans in the first place.

In terms of other routes, yes, I'm aware of the Newport scheme—I absolutely commend it. We will be looking to roll out several of those schemes right across Wales. We've also been running a scheme in a couple of local authorities where we take over a private rented house for five years, promising the landlord the local housing allowance for that whole period and then returning the house to them in the condition in which we received it or better.

Sorry, I got muted for some reason.

No, you're okay. Carry on.

I was just going to say, that would be very much part of the mix and we expect that kind of thing to feature in the plans as we go forward.

Okay, thank you. Delyth Jewell.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. We also welcome the announcement—

Sorry, we can't hear you. Sorry. Can somebody sort Delyth's mike out, please? Try again.

Can you hear me now?

Yes, fine.

We welcome the announcement about eradicating homelessness. I think one of the positives that could come from this crisis is the realisation that housing is a right for life and not just an emergency stop during a pandemic. I would also really welcome the constructive way that you've worked, Minister, across parties in approaching this crisis. The crisis has also shown that homelessness has been a political choice, not an inevitability. No more can anyone be criticised for saying that 10-year plans to end homelessness are an insulting ambition.

Now some may balk at the sums of money that we're talking about, but I'd say to them, and I'm sure you'd agree with me on this, Minister, that this investment will lead to considerable savings for our public services—you referred to that in your statement—and not to mention a better life for countless people in the future. I would ask, Minister, if you wish you had perhaps allocated the sums to ending homelessness a lot sooner.

But, looking to the future, it seems that the private rented sector is likely to see an increase in demand, where Rightmove is saying that the demand for lettings is up 22 per cent. Now, that is presumably largely in England, where the restrictions are not as severe, but this may, of course, result in the temptation for landlords to evict current occupants or persuade them to leave so that they could put the rent up for other tenants. So, could you confirm, Minister, whether you'll be extending the no-eviction period of taking no further action, to prevent this further after we have continued to focus on prevention of homelessness? I appreciate what you've just said to David Melding, but I just wonder if you could confirm how long you hope that support will be in place and, indeed, that that will be something that won't be time limited.

Yes, obviously, what the crisis has done is it has made it possible for us to do things that we would always have wanted to do, but it has made it possible to do it in ways that we wouldn't have been able to access. So, for example, in some areas in Wales, we've taken over private sector bed-and-breakfasts or hotels or student accommodation that wasn't needed because of the crisis, which wouldn't have been available to us in 'ordinary circumstances'. So, what we've done is we've made the best of a terrible situation and we've capitalised on some of those opportunities, and that's allowed us to things much more quickly than would ever have been possible in normal circumstances. But you're right—it has proved that it can be done, and what it's done is it's proved to everyone that it can be done. And so people are very determined, and I feel sure that they will be able to put the plans forward for the next phase because we now know that it can be done. It's not just theoretical, and that makes a huge difference. So, I'm very optimistic that we will be able to work in that collaborative way right across the piece.

In terms of the prevention from evictions—in terms of the legal prevention from evictions—I'm currently considering with my officials extending the three-month period that we currently have. There's a possibility of extending it under the coronavirus Act and the regulations. Obviously that's in the context of the pandemic. So, we're looking to extend it while the pandemic carries on, because that's basis of those powers, and, in the meantime, of course, we're looking at the Renting Homes (Amendment) (Wales) Bill that we want to get through, if at all possible, in this Senedd term, which would put that in for the longer term. But it does require the two, and it's not possible, as I understand it, to extend the coronavirus regulations once the pandemic is over. So, it's just not possible to do that. So, we hope that we can get the amendment Bill through in time for that not to have a gap in it, but we have to do both of those things simultaneously. And I'm sure we'll get a lot of collaboration from the Senedd in doing that as well. I know that there's a shared agenda there, too.

And then, in terms of the private sector, as I say, we've a range of actions going on with private sector landlords. But you will know from our conversations that we're very dependent on the UK Government making sure that the local housing allowance does not go back down to where it was before, because, in that case, people will not be able to afford an average accommodation in most places in Wales, and that's made a significant difference to the market forces that you mentioned as part of that. 

Thank you for that, Minister. A further issue I wanted to raise was the support that's offered to people with no recourse to public funds. Now, that status is a legacy of Tony Blair's attempt to appease the Daily Mail all those years ago, and it has left a long and bloody legacy. We know that Shelter Cymru and others have been writing about the problems it's caused migrant women since at least 2010. Now, unfortunately that status is still in place, and people with no recourse to public funds have been unable to access universal credit, the furlough scheme and other support services. So, could you assure us, Minister, that your measures to end homelessness will not ignore the plight of that group of people.

And, finally, I'd like to ask about the more general long-term lessons that we can learn from this pandemic. We know that poorer communities have been hit harder by the crisis. And one reason we can probably surmise about this is the closer proximity of houses in poorer areas, the risk of overcrowding and, of course, poorer conditions of the houses making underlying health conditions more prevalent. Minister, will you be looking at changes to the planning system in the near future to address these factors so that future housing estates can be made pandemic proof? 

So, on the recourse to public funds, Delyth, you'll know that we've already written to the UK Government regarding the changes required to ensure that nobody is returned to the streets, including people with no recourse to public funds. We, of course, have housed and supported people with no recourse to public funds, as a result of the public health legislation that the pandemic has allowed us to act under. So, in order to protect public health, we have to able to protect individuals and, therefore, we have the power to do it.

Again, once the pandemic is over, we will not be able to use that legislation, and so it is imperative that the UK Government look at that. We've emphasised two things: the common humanity of that and the need to treat everybody as a human being; and secondly, actually, if you really wanted to do it on a financial basis, there just aren't very many people—you're not talking about very much money and that makes it all the worse if people won't consider doing it. So, anything that any individual Member of the Senedd or party in the Senedd wants to do to back us up in writing to the UK Government, I'd very much welcome that. I know that we've discussed that previously, and I would very much like to be able to do that. 

And then, in terms of the rest of it, there are three bits on the supply side. So, on the state of the current housing market, you'll know that we've worked very hard on the Welsh housing quality standard, and that was thought to be impossible when we put it in place, and indeed we've met it, and even in the pandemic we've managed to get to the target that we had. We are changing Part L, as they're called, building regulations, and they'll be coming in front of the Senedd soon, so that new build is built like that. And then there's a huge issue about retrofit in the private sector. So, we will be addressing that.

Unfortunately, the pandemic has meant that we will lose some of the legislation and statutory instruments that we were hoping to bring forward in this Assembly term. I am very happy to work with all parties to make sure that we can put anything that we can all agree on in all manifestos so that officials can carry on working on it in the full knowledge that whoever forms the next Welsh Parliament Government will want to take that forward, and that will give some certainty to that piece of work.

Thank you for your statement, Minister, and I welcome the plans to end homelessness. But, Minister, can you confirm that the plans will apply to everyone who is homeless during this pandemic, and not just those who are in emergency accommodation?

I have been speaking to veterans' groups in recent weeks who are concerned that many homeless veterans are falling through the cracks because they are simply sofa surfing. Obviously, this is not ideal from a public health perspective in this current pandemic. Minister, will you liaise with groups, such as the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association, to ensure that all homeless veterans are provided long-term accommodation?

If there are any positives to come out of this pandemic, ending rough sleeping surely has to be at the very top of the list. Of course, if we are to tackle homelessness in a lasting and meaningful way, we have to move to a functioning housing market as quickly as possible. So, Minister, what discussions have you had with public health officials about the safest way to restore a functioning housing market in Wales?

Also, may I ask, what assessment has the Welsh Government made of the impact COVID-19 is having on future housing supply, and what steps, if any, are you taking to mitigate them?

We can't return to the pre-pandemic housing market until a vaccine is in place, but we can make adjustments to make building, buying and selling homes as safe as is possible. Social distancing will have an impact on the speed with which new homes can be built, so, have you discussed with house builders in Wales ways to offset the delays, such as operating multiple sites at once to accommodate the workforce?

The virus is also impacting the rental market, with many landlords unable to find tenants for their properties, or not receiving rental income due to tenants being out of work. So, what consideration have you given to waiving council tax on empty properties for the duration of this pandemic?

And finally, Minister, local government employees have a key role to play as contact tracers as part of the Welsh Government's track, trace and protect scheme. Are you confident that this new role will not leave shortages in other areas, particularly environmental health? Thank you.

Thank you for that series of questions. I'll do my best to cover them all. Certainly we do not want to leave any group of people out, and we have been very successful in not doing so during the first stage of the homelessness action that we have taken. As I said very specifically in my statement, the number of people that we've housed includes people who were not rough sleeping but who were in very precarious accommodation—temporary accommodation if you like, 'sofa surfers' as they're known.

We don't have information on the number of veterans included because we don't collect it in that way, but we're not aware that there are any people left out from that, and we have been running a campaign to make sure that people who are sofa surfing recognise themselves as homeless and come forward. And we've been very deliberately doing that in order to make sure that we don’t face a deluge at the end of the pandemic. And we have had a steady stream of people coming forward to receive help throughout this crisis. It wasn’t a fixed number at the beginning who then got housed—we've had people presenting on a daily basis throughout the pandemic that we've been able to accommodate as a result of working so closely and in collaboration with a number of partners, including our local authorities—well, primarily our local authorities. I mean, those include veterans, of course, but they include other people presenting: victims of domestic abuse, people who are displaced by family or a relationship breakdown and a number of other things—the things that cause homelessness in the first place. Those things have continued throughout the pandemic and our partners have stepped up to the plate of providing accommodation for all of those groups, I can assure you, including veterans. And, of course, we do work very closely with a number of veterans' groups. My colleague, Hannah Blythyn, is the Minister for the armed forces and she has a range of very regular meetings with a series of veterans groups, and I myself have met a fair number of them as well; we're very concerned to understand the specific circumstances.

In terms of the housing supply, it is at this point in time possible to move in Wales if you need to do so because of any emergency circumstances or if, for example, your sale would fall through if you did not. I've answered a very large number of enquiries from people who haven't understood that, so I'd just like to make that very clear. In the next phase of review—so, as you know, we review the regulations every three weeks and we begin to work on them the second the last review is over—we're looking to see what else we can do in the housing market around things like being able to view empty properties, allow people who want to find a tenant for an empty property to do that and so on. We're going, probably, I think—well, the review's underway, so it's impossible to say for sure—but we're probably, I think, going to stop short of allowing people to view tenanted or occupied properties for obvious reasons, as there have been a number of issues across the border with that. But I take your point, Caroline. Obviously, we want the market to work.

I'm also very concerned for renters who find themselves in circumstances where they can't afford their rent any longer and they would like to find somewhere else that they may be able to afford, to be able to facilitate that as soon as we possibly can. And I'll take this opportunity to say that, throughout this crisis, we've worked very hard with all our social landlords to make sure that they turn around what are called 'voids', so empty properties, as fast as possible to make sure that they're available for permanent housing for people who need that housing, whether they're coming through the homelessness stream or because they're tenants who are looking to move to different and more suitable accommodation. So, we've certainly been doing that.

In terms of the housing supply, again, construction has been allowed as long as you're able to socially distance throughout this period and much construction has gone on. We certainly have seen a lot of social residential house landlords, so RSLs and councils continue with their house building and we know that a number of SMEs continue to build for that market because that gives them a cashflow that they would otherwise not have had and we've been encouraging that. I'm very happy to do that. And, of course, we speak very regularly to the house builders associations around their needs in this crisis and how we can keep that part of the market going. 

And then, in terms of our route out of this crisis, of course, all of you will have heard me talk about the need to ensure a green housing-led recovery and we're very keen to do that to make sure that we build the social housing that we need for the future in Wales so that we make sure that homelessness is, indeed, rare, brief and unrepeated. 

Minister, as you know, the committee that I chair, the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee has taken a particular interest in rough sleeping and Welsh Government policy. Indeed, we've done two reports in this Assembly, one at the end of last year on specialist services with regard to mental health and substance misuse, and one the year before more generally. So, having given that priority and focus to rough sleeping as a committee, it's very pleasing indeed to see this progress at a time of crisis, as you've stated, and it does show that even in the midst of responding to such a crisis, it is possible to salvage some positives from the general misery, as it were, and it's really, really important to do that to show that there is some room for optimism. So, I do think that you and Welsh Government deserve a lot of congratulations for this funding and this policy, working together with key partners such as the local authorities, the health sector, the third sector, registered social landlords and voluntary organisations. I think it really has been a team effort and I think that, again, reflects one of the challenges and more positive responses through the pandemic, which has seen organisations, communities and sectors pulling together for the common good, recognising the scale of the progress that we need to make and the challenge that we face. So, it really is very, very good to see all of that. As a community, we were looking—

Could you come to a question, please?

Could I just say—I will, Dirprwy Lywydd—as a committee, we're looking for that sort of preventative approach—housing first. We met with the action group, and we were looking for the sort of corporation rights that—[Inaudible.]—achieve. So, what I'd really like to know in terms of follow-up planning and to avoid slipping back, because people in Newport tell me they're so pleased to see the progress made, but are obviously very concerned that we don't see any slipping back, we know that we're going to have an economic crisis and we're going to have great difficulties with public spending, Minister. So, in looking at how we avoid any slippage and, as the saying goes, build, act better for the future, are you really looking at the scale of those economic and public spending issues that we're going to face, and are you confident that, with your announcements, with a new approach, with the funding, we will be able to sustain the progress made?

Yes, John, I'm very happy to say that, because of the extraordinary amount of work that we've been able to do in the collaborative way that the committee had recommended in the first place and we've now seen go into action as a result of accepting the recommendations of the housing action group—I know you had a good conversations with those as well as the committee—that I'm very confident that we will be able to do it, because people have seen what's possible and they are re-energised in knowing that it can be done if we all work together. And, as we come out of this pandemic, we will want to look at economic stimulus and so on and you heard me talking about a green housing-led recovery, and we can do that.

I haven't been able to answer all the questions I've been asked today from all Members as Members had a large number of questions; it's just good to see the enthusiasm. One of the things that we're very keen to do, for example, is make sure that using modern methods of construction, as it's called, with Welsh timber and Welsh supply chains, we can put up houses that we know work because they came through our innovative housing programmes, so they're tried and tested; beautiful carbon-neutral houses that are really quick to construct, constructed in small plants that employ local people across Wales, so it provides employment—high-skilled employment, good employment. It also provides housing, it also provides a use for our forests, it provides a way of sustainable forestry, which is good. It pushes every button you can think of and, of course, it provides the housing that we need to ensure that people have secure accommodation going forward into the future, and that that accommodation is not only secure, it's also beautiful and carbon neutral. What's not to like?

So, I am absolutely sure that we can do this and I am sure about that because all of our partners believe it too and have bought into that process, and there's a consensus across this Senedd. So, actually, together, we really are greater than the sum of our parts, and I really do think we will be able to do this in the future.

Thank you for the statement. I would like to place on record my thanks to our local authority, Conwy County Borough Council for their partnership working and immense support given to our homeless here in Aberconwy. We have seen residential units placed in Llandudno and Colwyn Bay to house our very vulnerable homeless and rough sleepers, and they've carried it out in such a speedy manner during this pandemic emergency.

However, I must agree with the Salvation Army that a focus must also be on tackling the reasons why people become homeless in the first instance. So, my questions are: will our local authorities be able to apply for some of the £20 million funding to support proposals for targeting causes of homelessness, as part of your announced phase 2 plans, and also, as the National Residential Landlords Association have highlighted, there are many situations where tenants are now facing huge commitments and struggles to afford their housing. Will you clarify if these current restrictions will not prevent them from sourcing and indeed moving into affordable accommodation at this time?

Yes. All the councils have worked really hard and Conwy is a good example but all the local authorities have worked in collaboration with us. There are innovative methods right across Wales for getting people into decent accommodation. Some of that is temporary, but it's good temporary accommodation. But, obviously, what we need to do now is work to get people into secure, long-term accommodation that they can afford and that they can sustain. And that involves us working with all partners, including support partners. So, that means working with mental health services and substance abuse services and tenancy support services, welfare and support services, and so on, maximising people's income, making sure they have the skills necessary to sustain a tenancy. Four walls and a ceiling is not enough; we all have furniture in our houses and curtains and carpets and stuff like that. People need to have all of the things they need to support themselves in accommodation. And so what's been shown is that that can be done. We can do that, we can wrap the services around them, we can make sure that people come together to support them. And the phase 2 plans that we're asking local authorities to look at look at all of those things, including the support necessary to make people able to sustain those tenancies, and that includes an assessment of their ability to pay for particular types of accommodation, and what needs to be done to maximise that.

You heard me saying earlier that I very much hope the UK Government will keep the local housing allowance level at where it is. The Minister for social services, Thérèse Coffey, did say in one of the meetings I attended that that would be done, but I'd really like to see that confirmed more widely, because that would give people a lot of hope that they would continue to be able to afford it. And then, as you heard me say, Janet, in terms of being able to move to something if you really do find you can't afford where you are, we've been working very hard with people to turn around voids, to make sure that those properties are available, and to make sure that that can happen. In the next phase of the review of the lockdown measures, we are looking to make sure that people can move to empty properties. There's obviously a big problem with viewing properties that are tenanted or occupied, but if they're empty then we're looking to make sure that we free that up as rapidly as possible. I'll just take this point to emphasise the point I made earlier, which is that it is, of course, and always has been, possible to move if circumstances are such that it's an essential move and can't be delayed.

Minister, thank you for your statement today. I've just got some questions around the finer details of what you're able to extrapolate from the data that you do have. For example, are you seeing any unexpected trends or links in terms of characteristics protected under the Equality Act 2010, in terms of those who are currently homeless in Wales? Are there any regional variations that stand out to you in terms of the geography of Wales, too? And, finally, in terms of the duration of the homelessness that we are seeing, what sort of data is emerging around whether the homelessness is mostly on a short or a long-term basis, because, clearly, there are lessons that we can learn from examining the data in such detail?

Thank you, Vikki. We don't have all of the data in quite the way that you suggest, but I can tell you what we do know. So, first of all, the range of people who are homeless is huge. So, we have people who are only recently homeless because of recent family breakdown or domestic violence incidents or some other such, and there are others who have been homeless for a very long time and have entrenched problems and have come into services for the first time ever. As I said in my statement, we need to capitalise on the fact that they now have had contact with those services and we have been able to engage with them, and we can keep them engaged, and that's been a huge step forward. Previously when working with homeless people, it might take as much as nine months for our dedicated outreach worker to make a trust bond with that person so that they will come in and accept services, and we've been able to accelerate that process for nearly everyone. We do have one or two people who we have not been able to reach, but all of those have dedicated outreach workers working with them with a view to making that happen.

One of the characteristics that I can easily tell you about, though, is that homelessness is associated with poverty, because if you have a family or relationship break-up and you're not poor, then you can find yourself another house. So, it is associated most obviously with economic deprivation. And that's what we need to do: we need to make sure that people have their income maximised, that they have access to the right kind of support for maximising that income and getting back into work where that's an issue, or maintaining their work where that's an issue, because being made homeless can mean that you lose your job, which, of course, makes the situation much worse. So, we have worked very hard with a range of charities and third sector organisations and our social landlords and our private landlords to maximise that kind of support, to make sure that people can sustain their tenancy and therefore maximise their economic ability. As I say, we have wraparound services. I've always said that homelessness is not just about housing, it's about all the other services, and I'm absolutely delighted with the way that those services have come together in this crisis to work. In our summit last week we had contributions from people from all of those services and they were all saying how much they had learned from the collaboration that has been possible and how much they're looking forward to taking that forward. 

So, I have a real sense that this is now possible and that people recognise it. So, I really do think that this time we will be able to make a difference in Wales and make sure that homelessness is rare, brief and unrepeated.

Thank you, Minister, for your statement. I have to say that, as the chair of the cross-party group on the armed forces and cadets, I was a little bit disappointed that in your earlier response to a question on veterans you suggested that the Welsh Government was not collecting data regarding those who've been rehomed during the pandemic and what proportion of those are people from the veteran community. You'll be aware that there's a great deal of good work being done by organisations like Alabaré and their homes for veterans here in Wales. They've got a home just down the road from me here in Colwyn Bay, and they're prepared to do even more, provided they know where the need actually lies.

So, can I ask what work will you do with local authorities now in order to try to track what proportion of those that are currently in temporary accommodation are people from the veteran community, in order that you can engage further with the good organisations like Alabaré that are out there that want to do more and are simply looking for the places in which they can develop these sorts of facilities that they've already established so successfully elsewhere?

Yes, Darren, I'm very happy to work with them. Actually, local authorities already work with a large range of veteran organisations, and, as I said, Hannah has met with a very large number of them. I myself have met with a slightly smaller number of them. So, we're very happy to engage and signpost people to the help that veteran support agencies can supply. And that's a huge range, as you know and as I know. There's a huge range of support, from counselling and collaborative support to simply friendship, to actual accommodation, to a full range of mental health, substance abuse and so on support. So, I'm very grateful to that particular section of the third sector that provides that support.

Local authorities are signposting people who are eligible for that support to them, it's just that we don't centrally collect the data. So, I don't want you to think that we don't care, because we do care, it's just that we haven't seen any need to centrally collect how many people that is. I expect if you asked the local authorities they would know individually. I'm happy to investigate whether it's an easy thing for us to do. I would be reluctant to divert resource into it, but if it's something that we could do relatively easily, I'm certainly happy to look into that. It's just not something we've done centrally at the moment.

I welcome the opportunity to contribute today, and I welcome very much what the Minister has said in her two statements. The COVID crisis has been hard, but there are also many wins, and the temporary eradication of homelessness is one of them.

Local authorities and the third sector have responded brilliantly in very, very challenging circumstances. I note the initial investment of £10 million and now a further investment of £20 million through revenue, taking the total to £30 million. This is most welcome.

I've spoken before in this Chamber about my own experience of sofa surfing and its long-term effects on my life, so I'm so glad to see that your intention is to do all that you can to keep those 800-plus people in accommodation of some sort. It's clear from statistics and waiting lists that there just aren't enough homes to go around. However, COVID might have presented an opportunity to occupy empty B&Bs and student accommodation.

Can I ask you what your plans are for ensuring adequacy of supply once the economy opens back up? Your latest statement proclaims that you want to see creativity, partnership and a willingness to invest in these programmes. Are creativity and partnership not already embedded in this type of service?

The human cost of homelessness is huge, but the preventative spend implications of getting this right will reap rewards across local government, health and the police. I particularly liked your input on sustainable house building—

Can I ask you to come to a question, please?

I've just asked two questions—

Well, I think that's fine, then. Thank you. We'll ask the Minister to comment. You're over your time. Thank you. Minister, can you respond, please?

Yes, just on the funding, just to be clear: it's £20 million revenue—£10 million in the first place, £10 million in this tranche—and £10 million in capital, and that's additional to the money that we always put into the housing and homelessness services. So, I don't want you to think that that's all there is; that's additional money that goes with the money that we already invest. So, that a substantial sum of money overall.

On the supply side, you're absolutely right, Mandy, the human cost of it is enormous, and there but for the grace of God go all of us, quite frankly. So, we are very keen to make sure that people stay in accommodation. We are working very hard with local authorities—that's what the phase 2 plans will be about. Some of them have people in 'temporary' accommodation that's a lot less temporary and will be able to sustain that for quite some time. But you're quite right that some of them have it in sectors that are empty at the moment, but will obviously want to go back to their core group of clientele once the lockdown comes out. And we're working very hard with those local authorities to make sure that we have move-on accommodation properly. I'm also very anxious, as a result of the housing action group's recommendations, to ensure that move-on isn't something that has to happen more than once, so that people don't have to move lots of times because that's very destabilising. So, we're working very hard to make sure that they can either move straight into secure accommodation or, at the very worst-case scenario, once more.

The other thing is, as I'm sure you heard me saying earlier, we are now working very hard to make sure that we can put up these modern methods of construction—beautiful housing—that came out of our innovative housing programme. It is astonishing how fast that housing can go up. My colleague Jeremy Miles and I recently visited a field hospital that Swansea has put up, and the extent of that and how that was done in 17 weeks has really been inspirational in telling us what we can do in the future to build really decent accommodation that we'd all be proud to be in, as fast as we can go, to make sure that those people get the homes that you and I would both be proud to live in.

Thank you, Minister.

The next item, therefore, is the Regulated Services (Service Providers and Responsible Individuals) (Wales) (Amendment) (Coronavirus) 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. These regulations have been developed to mitigate the effects of the coronavirus on adult social care in three main ways. Firstly, they address the potential need for expansion of the sector by allowing the speedy establishment of emergency provision under the aegis of statutory commissioners of social care in a variety of settings. Secondly, they address the potential need to ease the recruitment of staff by relaxing some of the evidence-holding requirements currently on providers. And thirdly, they permit care homes, with the approval of the regulator, to bring currently unoccupied rooms into use as shared bedrooms.

The changes apply to adult residential settings and adult domiciliary support services only. To deliver the first purpose, certain services, created specifically to respond to COVID-19, are exempted from registration with Care Inspectorate Wales. They may be established more quickly and in a wider range of premises than would be possible for a regulated service. As they will not have a regulator's oversight, only services delivered by or on behalf of commissioners of care and support, local authorities and local health boards, with providers who are already registered with Care Inspectorate Wales or the Care Quality Commission, are eligible. Commissioners will be responsible for the quality of care and support provided and can be inspected in this regard by the regulator, Care Inspectorate Wales or Healthcare Inspectorate Wales. This is an important safeguard for anyone cared for on a temporary basis by these services.

The second purpose relates to holding of evidence about new staff members. Presently, regulations contain detailed requirements regarding evidence on matters such as qualifications. As the circumstances of the pandemic may make it difficult to source the full range of evidence, the amendment allows these requirements to be discharged by providing as much evidence as is reasonably practicable. The requirement to make checks remains unaltered, and the evidence must still be made available to the regulator as normal. The changes do not affect the requirements around holding evidence from the Disclosure and Barring Service checks.

Finally, the third purpose relates to the sharing of rooms. Current residents should never feel pressured to share a room, so the amendment only allows a care home to bring rooms that are currently unoccupied into use as additional shared rooms. Approval will rest with Care Inspectorate Wales and will always be considered with regard to the best interests of the residents.

These changes are short term, responsive to the current emergency and will be reversed in a measured way that gives the sector time to adjust as soon as it is responsible to do so. So, I ask Members to support the motion.

Some of the premises that could be used for emergency residential services may be unlikely to meet the standard required to register with Care Inspectorate Wales under the 2016 Act. So, what assurances can you give me that the providers fitting the exception will be subject to appropriate regulation and inspection?

Also, according to CIW, they are not undertaking routine inspections, and, when the pandemic is over, will not be considering retrospective actions. So, how will this impact on the safety of residents and the identification of wilful neglect or, indeed, deliberate harm?

Now, as you know, Minister, some services are experiencing difficulties with recruitment, retention, equipment and funding. So, have you considered the negative impact new premises could have on existing problems?

During the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee, it was noted that the regulations do not appear to apply to the private sector that is not providing services for the public sector. Another question: why is that the case?

And finally, a respondent to the consultation urged that pre-employment checks were essential to safeguarding individuals. What assessment has been made of the risk of relaxing these rules and can you confirm that regulation 7 will not undermine the legal requirement that adults agree to share a room and such a move may be consistent with their well-being? Thank you.

Deputy Minister to respond to the debate—or the contribution.

I'd like to thank Janet Finch-Saunders for those comments, and I'd just like to reiterate that these are temporary measures that are taken in an emergency situation. They will not be permanent measures, and the points that she made have all been carefully considered.

In terms of one of the last points she made, about whether it applies to private provision, I'd like to inform her that the provision around shared rooms applies to private, local authority and third sector adult care homes equally. So, they do apply to private provision. Also, the easements around holding evidence apply to the appointment of private, third sector and local authority domiciliary and residential care staff, and the only distinction is made in relation to emergency COVID-19 provision. Here, we considered it absolutely essential that there be statutory oversight of the provision. Private providers can deliver the commissioned provision. So, I hope that's cleared that up about the private provision.

I would like also to emphasise, in terms of the people who are being recruited, that they are still subject to Disclosure and Barring Service checks. The responsibility is on the care home owner to ensure that suitable people are recruited. But I think the Member will accept that, in these extraordinary circumstances, there has to be a degree of flexibility to ensure that we are able to expand the provision if we have to in order to cope with this extraordinarily difficult time.

I thank the Deputy Minister.

The proposal, then, is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, I can see an objection, and therefore I'll defer the vote on this until voting time.

The next item is the Welsh Conservatives debate, an independent COVID-19 inquiry. I call on Paul Davies to move the motion. Paul Davies.

Diolch, Llywydd, and I move the motion tabled in the name of my colleague Darren Millar. Our motion is clear: we're calling for an independent, Welsh Parliament-appointed, judge-led inquiry into the Welsh Government's handling of the COVID-19 pandemic. The people of Wales will continue to have many questions about what happened throughout this pandemic, how prepared Wales has been for it, and the Welsh Government's decisions and actions in response to the pandemic. As the Welsh Government has now started easing lockdown restrictions in Wales, it's time to start considering the way in which those questions should be asked and answered. Even more importantly, it's absolutely critical that lessons are learned from the COVID-19 pandemic should this Government or future Governments be faced with a pandemic like this in the future. Therefore, given restrictions are now starting to be eased, it's appropriate for us now to consider how that public inquiry must look and how it must operate.

Now, I appreciate that Senedd committees are already considering their own inquiries into COVID-19 and the impact it has had on their committee subject areas, and Welsh Government Ministers have been called to answer questions on their portfolio areas. However, given the sheer impact that COVID-19 has had on families and communities across Wales, I believe it's only appropriate that a full public inquiry is launched, led by an independent judge appointed by the Senedd, not the Welsh Government.

We must make it crystal clear to the people of Wales that this inquiry will be open and transparent and that actions will be accounted for. The appointment of an independent judge will send a statement that this institution is committed to accountability, and this inquiry quite simply deserves the authority that a senior judge would command. Indeed, when the process gets to the stage where hearings are under way, a Queen's Counsel and their team would have the most appropriate skills to conduct questioning in a fair, inquisitorial manner. For that reason, we will be opposing amendment 1, which simply deletes the point that a public inquiry should be judge-led, because it should be judge-led, and appointed by the Senedd rather than the Welsh Government. I believe that the people of Wales deserve for this inquiry to be conducted with the highest level of transparency and authority that it can. We cannot afford to allow the Welsh Government to dictate direction or agenda, and therefore I fail to see anything unreasonable and untoward in calling for the inquiry to be led by a judge that has been appointed independent of the Government that it would be examining.

Now, I appreciate that there will be expectations that a public inquiry must be done rapidly, and that's why we need to start seeing some of the groundwork starting to take place. Members may be aware of the recent letter in the Financial Times written by a group of Lords, which called for cross-party dialogue and consensus on the terms of reference of the UK's inquiry into COVID-19. Well, I'm calling for those discussions to start taking place here in Wales, and I hope that, in a spirit of openness and accountability, all political parties will wish to be part of this dialogue. The First Minister has said in principle that he's happy to confirm the Welsh Government's support for a public inquiry at the right time, and that's a welcome step forward. We can now build on that consensus and start to think about how that inquiry can come about. So, I hope, in responding to this debate, the Welsh Government will tell us a bit more about their thinking about when this inquiry can start to take place. I don't think it's entirely unreasonable that we consider some of the timescales for when the people of Wales can expect to hear some answers to the questions they have over the handling of matters relating to COVID-19 in Wales.

Llywydd, we are calling for findings to be made available before the next Welsh parliamentary elections next year. Ultimately, the people of Wales should have the opportunity to listen to the evidence and draw their own conclusions from the inquiry—and they can have their say—and, more importantly, to be able to hold current Government Ministers to account at next year's election. For that very reason, we cannot support amendment 2, which simply aims to remove the need for findings to be made available before the next Welsh parliamentary elections. We must show the world that, here in Wales, we will not shy away from asking tough questions and getting tough answers. The people of Wales have the right to be as informed as possible at the next election, and we must at least attempt to give them the answers they are looking for, so that they can go to the ballot box as informed as possible.

Now, amendment 4 calls for the inquiry to be commenced in parallel with the UK Government's handling of the COVID-19 pandemic. I'm happy to see that take place, and therefore we will be supporting this amendment, but we mustn't lose sight of that, here in Wales, we also have an opportunity to take the lead on this, and we should take it.

Members will all, rightly, have their views on the systemic issues that may be considered in the terms of reference of the inquiry. I believe this inquiry should be wide ranging and look at all Welsh Government COVID-19 policy decisions throughout this time. For example, it's absolutely critical that the public inquiry considers the Welsh Government's strategy for handling the care home sector in Wales. We know that, despite repeated pleas from Care Forum Wales and the Older People's Commissioner for Wales, the Welsh Government was slow in testing care home residents and staff here in Wales.

Now it's thought that a quarter of coronavirus deaths in Wales have been related to care home residents, and yet it wasn't until 22 April that the health Minister decided to test symptomatic care home residents and those returning from hospital to care homes as well as symptomatic care home workers. Following that, on 2 May, the Welsh Government then announced that all staff and residents of care homes with outbreaks of coronavirus would be tested following the latest scientific evidence, which showed that testing should be extended in care homes to manage any outbreaks. That then changed again and, by 6 May, Welsh Government confirmed that it would start the blanket testing of care homes, but this time only to those care homes where there were over 50 beds. With an average of 33 beds per care home in Wales, this announcement meant that much smaller care homes were left without blanket testing until nearly two weeks later, when Welsh Government eventually rolled out testing to all care home residents and staff. So, that's just one example, and I'm sure that, throughout the course of today's debate, Members will contribute their own ideas, based on the correspondence and feedback that they've received from their own constituents. 

The important point that I do want to make is that the inquiry should be a wide-ranging exercise that looks at all issues and evidence. Members will have received correspondence from constituents on a range of COVID-19 policies, with serious questions on how Welsh Government programmes and decisions have affected their lives, and the inquiry must scrutinise all areas of policy in order for those answers to be given. Concerns around issues such as testing and the supply and distribution of personal protective equipment are all very valid areas of inquiry that must be addressed. We know from the Royal College of Nursing Cymru that there is a lack of consistency and guidance for PPE use and delivery at a local health board level. Indeed, a recent RCN survey showed that, during this pandemic, 74 per cent of nursing staff raised concerns about PPE and over half of nursing staff have felt pressured to care for a patient without adequate protection as outlined in the current PPE guidance. 

It's these systemic issues that must be brought to light and fully examined by a public inquiry. Therefore, in closing, Llywydd, I hope that Members will support our motion today and that we can start to move forward and set the groundwork for that inquiry. The people of Wales need and deserve answers, and we must commit to a process that gives them just that. Diolch.

I have selected the four amendments to the motion. If amendment 2 is agreed, amendment 3 will be deselected. I call on the Counsel General to move formally amendments 1 and 2, tabled in the name of Rebecca Evans—Jeremy Miles. 

Formally. 

Formally. I therefore call on Adam Price to move amendments 3 and 4, tabled in the name of Siân Gwenllian—Adam Price. 

Diolch, Llywydd. The need for a COVID inquiry is not in question in today's debate. What the motion and the amendments that have been tabled are trying to do is to establish the answers to other questions about the nature of the inquiry: who will appoint it, who will chair it, when will it begin, when will it produce its findings? And alongside the 'who' and the 'when' there is the question of how, and specifically whether this should be a full, statutory public inquiry. 

Now, starting with the 'who', the Government has put an amendment down that strikes out 'Welsh Parliament appointed, judge-led'. Now, I'm not sure if its objection is to 'Welsh Parliament appointed', or 'judge-led', or both. Now, I understand, formally, since the passing of the Inquiries Act 2005, it's Governments that establish statutory inquiries, but I think the spirit of the motion is the proposition that there needs to be the kind of cross-party dialogue that Paul Davies referred to and was referenced in the FT letter around the terms of reference for the inquiry. If you like, there needs to be public consensus for there to be public confidence that the inquiry will be both thorough and independent. So, I would invite the Government today to commit to engaging in that kind of dialogue with opposition parties, but also more widely with the public and with relevant stakeholders on the terms of reference of the inquiry.

We think that, given the gravity of what is to be investigated and the sheer scale of suffering involved, this needs to be a statutory public inquiry with powers to compel the production of documents, to take evidence on oath and require statements from witnesses, in a similar way to the Grenfell Tower inquiry. That kind of inquisitorial process requires the skills and experience of a senior judge to chair it. And the search for that chair needs to begin immediately, if it has not already begun, which brings us on then to the question of timing.

It takes, on average, four to six months to establish a public inquiry, which is why the work does need to begin now in establishing it if evidence sessions are to begin this year. That's because there's a need for a lot of preliminary work in collating documents and statements, et cetera, so that informed questions can be asked by the Queen's Counsel's team that would act on behalf of the inquiry. 

A full report from a genuinely comprehensive statutory inquiry, of course, will take time to finalise. That's in large part because of the complexity of the inquiry's subject matter in this case, but also the wide range of people from which the inquiry will need to hear. The inquiry needs to create the time and the space to hear the voices from all those that have been affected. In that sense, this will be an inquiry unlike any other in our nation's history and, of course, it will need to be informed by a parallel inquiry to be held at the UK level.

But some questions are urgent, and I think it would be right to adopt the kind of phased approach that has been followed in the case of the Grenfell Tower inquiry, with an interim report produced before the end of this Senedd term setting out the facts of what happened, how well prepared we were, who knew and did what in relation to the early response to the pandemic, and what the interim conclusions are on what needs to be done differently in the future. 

We've made our own contribution as a party to that vital learning process today in publishing a report on the Welsh Government's response so far, written by the general practitioner and public health consultant, Dr Camilla Ducker. We will certainly face another pandemic at some point, and we may be grappling with this one for many years to come. An early inquiry will help us to do both more effectively, and I urge the Government to establish it today without any further delay. 

The past months have been a testament to the sheer grit and tenacity of the people of Wales and, in particular, to the many who've been prepared to put themselves in harm's way for the greater good, and I would like to send my heartfelt thanks to each and every one of them. This is the first truly global pandemic for over a century, since Spanish flu hit the world as the first world war was drawing to a close, and although our globally connected world is very different, a deep desire to be with family and friends, to operate a social network, remains a driver of humankind. 

The advent of technology has been a significant help, but we are also a less-constrained people who are not used to such Government restrictions on our liberties. Tough decisions have been made, but we must assess and learn from those decisions. We must share best practice and conduct a full and honest analysis of where things went wrong, what was done well and how things may change the next time this happens. And this is why we must have a truly independent judge-led inquiry. Our legacy will be to put in place the protections for our children and our children's children.

The first question that should be addressed by an inquiry is whether the lockdown was imposed at the right time. Many of the decisions had to be dictated by the Westminster Government as our border is so porous and this virus swept through the United Kingdom. However, some decisions were within the Welsh Government powers. The review should look at whether the Stereophonics concert at the Millennium Stadium should have gone ahead. This event brought tens of thousands of people into the city centre. Whilst the Wales versus Scotland six nations game was postponed, it was only done at the last minute after, again, many fans had travelled from other parts of Wales and from Scotland.

But more generally, what lessons can be learned from lockdown? Should we look at different localised lockdown? Is the 2m social distancing rule the most appropriate? How have those that are shielding found the process? Did our food chain hold up? If not, why not? And how, oh how, did care homes get so overlooked in the rush to protect our NHS?

The inquiry will need to look at whether there was adequate provision and use of PPE throughout the crisis. We'd want the inquiry to look at whether there was enough supply across the board, to all health boards, local authorities, private, public and mixed-residency care homes. The inquiry should assess if the best use was made of the PPE and whether there was adequate training provided to both purchasing organisations and front-line staff, and indeed the inquiry needs to review the definition of 'front-line staff'. Who can deny that pharmacies have been on the front line? Yet their PPE provision was a mess: unco-ordinated, poorly thought out, difficult to access. As time progresses, we appear to be in a better position on PPE, but there were clear deficiencies. Some organisations only had 24 hours' stock left. We need to review stocks, manufacturing options and access to PPE, and whether we have enough to support any further pandemics or further peaks.

One of our other major areas of concern has been the testing situation here in Wales, and this is a key area for any inquiry. The World Health Organization said at the very outset that the key message is 'test, test and test'. And this is a message that I and my colleagues in the Welsh Conservatives have always supported. Testing is one of the most important elements in both stemming the spread of coronavirus and helping countries ease out of lockdown.

What is the virus? Where is it? Where did it originate from? How did it leap boundaries? What effect is it having on different people? Does it mutate? What can kill it? What can protect us from it? Why? Why? Why? They're questions we've not yet thought to ask let alone answer. A comprehensive testing regime will provide data to enable us to answer some of these questions, but testing in Wales has been catastrophically bad.

Targets were set, denied and dropped. The health Minister and Public Health Wales had different ambitions and goals. I have called from outset of the crisis for the Welsh Government to have a dedicated and accountable testing team, led by an individual with significant logistics experience. The inquiry needs to look at the scale of the challenge and the capabilities of Public Health Wales to deliver. The inquiry should look at what exactly happened with the missing 5,000 tests per day. Did Roche have an agreement with PHW or were they just at a preliminary discussion stage? We need clarity as to whether the Welsh Government did ever have a formal deal or whether the claims of the First Minister were completely accurate.

The inquiry must focus on why the head of Public Health Wales, before an Assembly committee no less, repeatedly denied knowledge of the 9,000 test target before writing to the committee later to clarify her comments. The inquiry should review why the 15 per day testing limit for local authorities was imposed and lifted only after the Welsh Government's rapid review on 18 April found it may have depressed demand. Was this the right course of action? What was the thinking behind the limit? Should routine testing have started before 18 March? Were international factors a contributory factor, as claimed by Welsh Government? Were logistical experts from the military deployed early enough? Should testing centres have been closed on bank holidays? I welcome the Welsh Government's u-turn on 2 May, but too little, too late.

Why were care homes ignored despite the warnings? Why were staff and residents not routinely tested? Did we have enough laboratory capacity? Why didn't Welsh Government utilise available labs faster? Why did it take days for tests from north and west Wales to be processed? How should the notification process be streamlined? The list goes on, but we need to look at testing seriously. And the inquiry needs to also look at data collection because, under pressure—

Angela Burns, you're now over time. If you can bring your contribution to a conclusion. 

Thank you very much indeed, Llywydd. I just want to say there's so much for this inquiry to have a look at. It's vital that we learn the lessons going forward. This will not be the last pandemic we have to face in Wales. We need that legacy to protect Wales, our children and their children. 

I absolutely support an inquiry, but I want to first put on record and pay tribute to all those front-line workers who did keep us safe, and who we'll be relying on in the immediate and foreseeable future to carry on doing that work. And I think it's also right to put on record that people have complied with the restrictions that have been placed on them in a way that they would never have expected, and neither would we ever have expected to have asked them to do that. 

Whilst I do agree that we need a review or a public inquiry, whichever form that takes, into the handling of this COVID-19 pandemic; I agree that it will help and guide us through the possibility of dealing with another pandemic in the future, and also continuing to deal with this one, but where I probably differ from the ask that is in front of us this afternoon is: where do we start that inquiry from and where do we end it? Because, quite clearly, that is hugely important.

I think we have to start it by looking at the national pandemic plan that was in place and then was dropped by the Tory Government. As a consequence of that happening, we have seen many, many statements, by many, many experts, across the piece, saying that the UK was really not well placed whatsoever to deal with any pandemic. And in fact, we did see accusations from Tory Ministers, saying that there was an overreaction and that there was too much money being spent on Westminster officials preparing such a plan, and that they dropped that initial planning. Now that has a consequence; it has a consequence for all of the UK, and that is why I bring it to attention here today.

I think we need to also look at public health experts from Johns Hopkins University, where they ranked every single country worldwide and their preparedness for a pandemic. And they stated that, after a decade of Tory austerity, the UK was the second to last of 195 countries, with the last one being the US. All these things are relevant because they all lock on to how prepared we were. So it's fairly obvious that, whilst I agree that we need an inquiry, we need an all-encompassing inquiry. If we just focus on Wales alone, we won't reveal the real and the urgent need to understand the causes, and neither by ignoring all of those aspects—and some of them have been mentioned here today—will we get the proper answers.

We need to look at the very early statement on herd immunity that was made by Boris Johnson. Undoubtedly, that herd immunity, and that failure to lock down very early, was given to his key adviser. And had we have locked down much earlier, that indeed would have helped. Had Wales gone it alone and decided to lock down way ahead of the UK Government, I can't imagine for one minute that we would have had UK Government giving us the finances that we would have needed to support the businesses if we had gone alone. So, whilst I understand that—. Angela Burns has given a list of some of the things that we could have done all on our own; one of the things we clearly could not have done on our own, without UK Treasury support, was ask people to furlough their staff.

Again, on PPE, I'm reminded to look at the consignment that came from Turkey, and the 400,000 pieces of PPE that were returned back. I'm certain that some of that would have been heading to Wales. And there was a grand statement—we can all remember seeing it on the tv and being much relieved that there was some PPE coming our way, only for it to be put back on the plane because there was an absolute failure to test whether, in the first place, it would be of any use. It was absolutely useless. So I think what we need to do here is remind ourselves very clearly of all the failures, to look at and understand how and why they happened, and then—and only then—when we've got an all-encompassing inquiry that looks at all the aspects, do we move forward. That is my view, and that is why I will not be supporting this today in the way that is written.

We can also—

You need—. You're out of time now, Joyce Watson.

Thank you.

David Rowlands. David Rowlands. Are you able to—? No, we're not able to hear you at this point. I'll come back to you, David, and I'll call Russell George.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I'm going to focus my remarks, if I can, today on the impact of the pandemic on Welsh businesses and the Welsh economy. I think, on the whole, the four Governments of the United Kingdom have worked well together, coping with the challenges of the pandemic, but I think where the issue is, is while we started well together, I find it so disappointing that we're easing the lockdown at a different pace. And for me, this creates more problems, I think, than solutions. It puts Welsh businesses at a specific disadvantage to our, of course, neighbours in England.

And for me, it would, of course, have been preferable if the whole of the UK could have been acting in a unified way because the difference in approach is only going to serve, I think, to compound the confusion and frustration of businesses, particularly those located along the border, and many of us here this afternoon will be representing those kinds of constituencies. I think any public inquiry will have to look at how different approaches and timescales in terms of business support have affected businesses each side of the border. I think of a couple of examples—of Hafren Furnishers in my own constituency and how their competitors, effectively, across the border can operate and they can't.

And there's another example, Presiding Officer, in the difference in restrictions on general aviation in Wales, where restrictions have been lifted in England but not in Wales. And this means that general aviation pilots who have based their aircraft at the mid Wales airport in Welshpool—. Some of the people who use that airport will have to use aircraft on English airfields, and that actually might happen permanently, and, of course, that's the worry for the airport and for me. So, I think we must trust businesses to make judgments for themselves and in their ability to comply with social distancing measures. 

Perhaps turning to some other issues as well, the economic resilience fund I'm sure will be a lifeline to many businesses, but I just don't think that money is getting to those businesses quickly enough now, and I hope that the Minister responding today will perhaps be able to tell us how many businesses have been able to receive their funding to date from that fund.

And I'm also aware that there's an issue with local authorities across Wales—some have been giving their business rate grants much quicker than others. So, I think any public inquiry has also got to look at the difference in approach between different local authorities across Wales, because getting that money quickly to businesses, as some local authorities have done—including mine, which did it very well—is going to be a big advantage to those businesses, but not so in other parts of Wales.

So, I do think, as well, with a number of measures now—we're talking about a public inquiry in the future—I certainly think there are gaps that need to be filled now and I think it's also essential that the economic resilience fund, its next phase, is brought forward from the 29 June date particularly. And I do think that there are specific areas of business support that still need to be addressed, which I'll go through briefly: the recently self-employed; smaller sole traders; business owners who don't employ anyone else, but pay themselves dividends, who are not limited companies; and certainly a long-term package for the tourism sector. We've seen that in other parts of the UK, but not here in Wales. So, I think that'll have to be part of a public inquiry as well. And, of course, business rate support for those businesses that are part of a larger complex.

So, as we look to the future, I think it will also be incumbent on the Welsh Government to provide an ongoing package of support that isn't limited to the current lockdown. And while I appreciate we're in extraordinary times, I think the Welsh Government needs to do far more to kick-start the Welsh recovery now. Otherwise, I think Welsh businesses and the Welsh economy is going to be at a significant disadvantage. So, I think any public inquiry has got to look at how we're handling business support now in comparison, certainly, to other parts of the United Kingdom. 

Can I say, first of all, I don't oppose the idea of an inquiry? I think it's inevitable. There will be questions that will need to be asked, some questions that will need to be answered. I think that's true of all the Governments within the UK. So, I've no objection to the thrust of the motion, but I do question very much that this is not the way to do it. 

First of all, as far as I'm aware, this Parliament has no power to instigate an Inquiries Act 2005 inquiry, which is what I think Members have suggested they wanted. Nor do I believe that the fact that it's in the hands of this Parliament makes it less, or more independent, rather, than if it was in the hands of the Government. The independence of the inquiry is ensured by the judge or the person who leads the inquiry, not who sets it up in the first place. There would need to be a vote on the terms and conditions, there would need to be a vote on the way the inquiry is set up, and there'd be a vote on who is the chair of the inquiry. So, I don't think it's actually realistic or sensible for it to be formally in the hands of this Parliament, although I take the point that there may well need to be discussion in the future between parties as to how it might work. 

Can I say, first of all, let's face it, this debate is not about having an inquiry? This debate is about making and scoring political points today. I could equally sit here and say, 'Well, yes we want to know why it is that the UK Government was so slow in preventing people from coming into the country? Why introduce the 14-day quarantine rule that's now falling apart? Why it is that travelling 260 miles if you're a special adviser is fine and another 60 miles to test your eyesight if you're driving? Why is it, for example, that across the UK, or in England rather, there was a 100,000 tests a day target that was dropped, because it wasn't reached? And even then it included tests, of course, that had been sent out and not actually carried out.' All manner of questions that might be answered there. That is for the future. 

But let me focus, having made those points, on the legal aspects here and perhaps some practical ones. This is not the time to start preparing for an inquiry. We're in the middle of a crisis. You don't want officials looking at setting up an inquiry at the same time as we're dealing with the worst crisis that any of us has ever faced. Now is just not the time to start looking at setting up an inquiry into something that hasn't even finished. You have to bear in mind that it is possible—we hope not, but it is possible—that we may see a second spike in October. We may well still be dealing with this at Christmas time. There is no way that an inquiry can be set up to report by March on this issue, even if it started today because—. Adam Price mentioned the Grenfell inquiry. Well, that began it's work on 4 June 2018. It took it 16 months just to produce preliminary findings for phase one. It took several months to set up. These things don't happen overnight; they take a long, long time to set up and a long, long time to put the process in place and a long time to hear all the evidence. There is no prospect at all of a public inquiry reporting before March. Something slipshod might, but a public inquiry won't do it. No inquiry that would do the work that Members have asked for could possibly report by that time. So, I think it's worth making that point. 

As far as the Conservative motion is concerned, well, unless you're prepared to postpone the elections to some unspecified date, then there is no way of guaranteeing that there would be findings in place by March. No rational judge will take on board an inquiry like this when they're being told, 'You must submit your evidence and produce a report in, effectively, two months.' It's just not going to happen. So, let's be realistic: this is not the way. Although there will be an inquiry at some point—I don't dispute that—there is no way that this will be done or could be done before March.

I'd urge the Conservatives in the Assembly not to play politics with this. We've seen their MPs doing it—another letter yesterday. Believe me that went down badly. Time and time again, I've heard people say, 'What's it got to do with them?' and 'Why are they focusing on that and not on dealing with the virus?' If they want to write again, that's up to them. But, believe me, it's doing them no good at all. 

The second issue is—I look at time, Llywydd—if there's going to be an inquiries Act inquiry alone in Wales, it has to be at least concurrent with one running in the UK. Bear in mind that I don't think there's the power, even on the part of the Welsh Government, to compel witnesses who are outside of the devolved sphere: the police, the Border Agency, all those people that any Welsh inquiry would want to hear from, but who may decide, on instruction from London, not to give evidence, and there's nothing that we could do about it. It's inevitable, to my mind, for there to be the fullest possible picture, that there at least has to be concurrence between an inquiry in England or the UK and in Wales at the same time in order to get the kind of answers that people would want.

So, for me, I have to say, there is no prospect of getting any kind of findings by March, even if such an inquiry could begin, miraculously, tomorrow. What is important is that, of course, there's transparency. What is important is that there is at some point an inquiry—I don't dispute that—but it has to be a full, proper inquiry and not some kind of rushed kangaroo court, because the people of Wales deserve no less.

I thank the Conservative Party for bringing this very important debate to Plenary, and can I echo the comments made by both Joyce Watson and Angela Burns with regard to front-line staff and the work that they've done throughout this coronavirus epidemic? We are not talking about an inquiry into their behaviour; we're talking about an inquiry into the behaviour of the Governments of the UK.

It is important to show the public that we're willing—to use that hackneyed phrase beloved by politicians—to learn lessons. We support this motion and hope the Senedd shows the maturity to accept that an inquiry is needed, not as a finger-pointing exercise, but a true attempt at finding what was done well—and there were many things which were—but to accept that there were many other things which could have been done better not just by the Welsh Government, but also by the UK Government.

It is vitally important that we do not make the same mistakes the next time round, and science tells us there will be other such crises. Throughout this crisis, it has often been quoted that these are unprecedented times. Well, this is not actually true—there have been warnings as recent as 2016. The World Health Organization warned that a SARS-related coronavirus would be the likely cause of a future epidemic. They urged Governments to plan for diagnostic tests and to develop vaccines. Yet nothing was done. We in the UK failed to put in place plans to ensure that all agencies of the NHS were equipped with the necessary protection it would need.

It is unfortunate that politics seems to have raised its ugly head in some aspects of the handling of this crisis. The apparent desire in the devolved Governments to assert their own authority seemed at times to be a ploy to exploit shortcomings of the UK Government, rather than acting uniformly across the nations. Sometimes it seemed there was a Welsh Government attempt to rebuild Offa's Dyke from the Welsh side rather than to act as a Government supposedly committed to the union.

The warnings are there: these pandemics will happen again, and possibly sooner rather than later, which makes it fundamentally important that there is a root-and-branch examination of why we were so poorly prepared despite the warnings. Much of the responsibility for this must lie with the UK Government, but there are many areas where we in Wales also failed.

It must be obvious to all that the country, indeed any country, will not be able to instigate a total lockdown in the form we have, indeed are witnessing, on a regular basis. The economic costs are far too high. The youth of this country will be paying for this pandemic in higher taxes for years, maybe decades, to come. These pandemics will have to be countered in some other way.

It is a fact that it's only through science that we shall be able to avoid the catastrophic consequences of pandemics on such a global scale. Given that here in Wales we have some of the best facilities for research in these areas in the world, we need the Welsh Government to commit to funding these institutions and to put as much pressure on the UK Government to provide funds on a UK-wide basis so that we in Wales can remain in the forefront of such research.

Llywydd, science, not lockdowns, is the only answer to viral pandemics.

[Inaudible.]

Mark Isherwood, can you just wait a minute? Yes, you can start now, Mark.

Thank you. Last week, Vaughan Gething stated that the Welsh Government's position on managing coronavirus was overwhelmingly supported by members of the public, so, let me burst their bubble by quoting from some of the hundreds of e-mails I've received stating otherwise. The scene was set at the start of lockdown by people in isolation stating that they had next to no information from the Welsh Government; it was all coming from Westminster, and that Mr Drakeford, quote, needed to get his finger out.

Welsh Women's Aid wrote to the Deputy Minister that services providing violence against women, domestic abuse and sexual violence support across Wales are in urgent need of ring-fenced emergency funding. Despite previous correspondence, they said that this has not yet been provided. Yesterday, they told committee that the funding announced so far was existing funds.

Hourglass Cymru, formerly Action on Elder Abuse, wrote stating that they're facing a crisis due to the levels of support they're being asked to provide. Responding to the Welsh Government's call for temporary cycle lanes and pavement widening, Guide Dogs Cymru and RNIB Cymru wrote that any unexpected new element within the street environment has the potential to put them at risk.

When I raised RNIB Cymru's concern that blind or partially sighted people are having difficulty getting their groceries, the rural affairs Minister, Lesley Griffiths, replied that they will only be allowed priority if they're identified as shielding. 

Bed and breakfast businesses wrote, 'Rebecca Evans, if we don't get the top-up grant, then our business will cease to trade. I'm grossly insulted by the remarks that Ken Skates has made, essentially dismissing us as insignificant, unimportant, unreal businesses that are playing at making a living.'

And, sadly,

'Ken Skates's lack of action is providing fuel to the argument against devolution.'

Holiday let businesses wrote that the guidance from the Welsh Government is not only unfair, but clearly discriminates against holiday letting businesses. There was no consultation with the industry, and that, sadly, a marked lack of confidence is building in the Welsh Government response.

A holiday park business wrote, 'These are desperate times and I'm pleading for the future of my business. I submitted an urgent written question to the First Minister on 30 April asking him to respond to calls by the British Holiday & Home Parks Association Ltd for a specific plan to support tourism businesses in Wales. Other than the holding response, no reply has yet been received.'

Dental practices wrote that England, Ireland and Scotland have commenced planning for reopening of dental practices with strict new protocols, and that there is no reason why Welsh dental practices should not be reopening as soon as they are fully prepared.

A nursing home, which wrote, 'I have grave concern regarding how the access to PPE and health hygiene products in the care sector has been handled and continues to be farcically managed', subsequently wrote stating that five residents had suffered COVID-19-related deaths and that Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board had so far contributed not a single penny towards the COVID-19 crisis. 

A constituent wrote,

'I have a friend who was due to have his kidney removed early April—cancer—and it was put off. He's still waiting and now very unwell. Despite two requests, my wife can't get a scan or x-ray for something that may well be serious.'

Veterinary practices wrote that the veterinary profession has so far been overlooked. The Welsh Government announced £6.3 for hospices, but it's receiving £12 million consequential funding from the UK Government's commitment to fund hospices in England, and hospices wrote,

'We still don't know how the Welsh Government will allocate the additional £5.7 million, but it looks very unlikely that it'll be passed on. Should the crisis last much longer, then hospices will be struggling'.

Recent emails have included,

'We, like most involved in hospitality and tourism in Wales were dismayed by Mark Drakeford's announcement, which offers little hope to our already severely damaged sector.'

'My English estate agent colleagues are now super busy, hugely helping the economy, while we in north Wales are still in lockdown. We could easily open with social distancing measures.'

'The response from the First Minister has been weak, confused and definitely Cardiff and South Wales based',

and,

'It is frightening enough to be living through this pandemic, but the shambolic management and politicisation of the crisis by Mark Drakeford and Vaughan Gething, et cetera, is criminal.'

All actual quotes. By seeking to emasculate our motion today, the Welsh Government is simply showing that they still haven't got it. 

May I say at the outset that it's very important that we strike the right balance in our scrutiny between looking at what has happened during this pandemic and looking forward at the steps that still need to be developed in order to safeguard the public. I've heard some suggesting again today that whatever has happened and whatever mistakes were made by Government, well, there we go, we can ask those questions at some other point; let's just focus on what can be done now.

Well, first of all, those who make those comments clearly take it for granted that there will be an inquiry, and as Adam Price said earlier, there is no question of the need for such an inquiry; indeed, we will need inquiries at a number of different levels, but I don't think that we can make that separation quite that easily between what's happened and the lessons that need to be learned and what needs to be in for the future. The earlier that we can learn some lessons, then the better it will be, because the pandemic goes on and it will be with us for quite some time. The risk is still significant, and it will remain so. There's talk of at least another peak of the pandemic, a second peak, and that's why Plaid Cymru proposed weeks ago that work on the establishment of an inquiry, a judge-led inquiry, should commence immediately and there was real value to that in addition, of course, to the scrutiny work that we as a Senedd are doing.

The suggestion from Government and the suggestion made by the First Minister today was that a judge and his team would be in the way and would get in the way of the practical work of fighting the pandemic. Now, I am confident that a research team could work, or an inquiry team could work in a way that not only wouldn't interfere, but could help in the long term by providing real-time information on what's happening.

No-one is suggesting that our scrutiny is getting in the way of dealing with the pandemic; scrutiny is important. An inquiry of the kind that we're talking about could provide guidance for any further pandemic, and also, not quite in real time as we are doing at the Senedd, but to a far tighter timetable than the Government seems to wish to be put in place, and that there would be feedback for later peaks of this pandemic.

We of course would need inquiries into well-known failings by the UK Government running alongside this and hopefully, we will get support for amendment 4 in the name of Siân Gwenllian that makes that point, but we are talking here about looking at the response of the Welsh Government, specifically, as well as the co-ordination between Welsh Government and Whitehall. We in Plaid Cymru, as you've already heard, had commissioned research already that has identified many quite fundamental questions, and some of these are pertinent in order to learn lessons within the pandemic to deal with other peaks. If the Welsh Government has failed to learn lessons from operation Cygnus in 2016 before the beginning of this pandemic, can they at least show that they have learnt from those now?

We will need to know what impact international travel into Wales at the beginning of the pandemic had in order to know what impact that could have on a second possible peak, where international travel will be happening more than it is at the moment. We need to learn from the slowness in raising the risk level. There is clear evidence that lockdown was called too late, and we may need to call lockdown again in the future and we would need to do that sooner. Those kinds of decisions may have to be made within months, so people do need to have confidence that lessons have been learnt.

The Welsh Government decided not to follow some of the most fundamental guidance of WHO. We need to know why, and when do they think the WHO guidance is to be followed and when it isn't, not in order to be able to point the finger at some point in the future, but to learn lessons now. There are questions about the communication strategy of the Government and how we give people confidence in PPE processes, for example; even if the Government is confident, 'Yes, we've learnt lessons from those early days,' there is real benefit in giving the public that confidence too, and of course, our key workers. I could go on. Those are things we want to look at in the short term. When we look at the mid term and the longer term, then the list of questions will be far longer: what went wrong with testing? What went wrong with PPE in the preparations for a pandemic of this kind? 

We need an inquiry. It needs to be judge-led. We need it to commence as soon as possible. We need it to report back in an interim fashion soon so that we can learn lessons, although a full inquiry, of course, will take longer, and that's why we have tabled amendment 3 today. We do need an unquestioning commitment from Government to that, in order to give the public confidence. 

There has to be an independent public inquiry. We owe it to those who have died and to the front-line staff who have put their lives on the line in this crisis. But, I believe that that has to be on a four-nation basis, albeit with a thorough examination of handling in Wales, as all the key initial decisions were taken on a four-nation basis. As the First Minister has said on numerous occasions, we went into this lockdown together and we want to come out of it together as best as we can, and then we should learn the lessons together too.

The first question any public inquiry should address is why the lockdown didn't happen sooner. Those pictures of the Cheltenham Festival will remain totemic in the public's mind for years to come. As Angela Burns has said, in Wales, we had a major Stereophonics concert, and in Gwent, a major rugby game between the Dragons and Benetton just days before lockdown. We could see what was happening in the rest of Europe, and clearly, a change of direction did take place, but I believe too late. These and other questions do deserve answers, and real answers at that, and not the kind we are used to seeing Matt Hancock provide at the daily press briefings.

We are a long way from being ready to start the work of a proper inquiry. The focus today, tomorrow and for the foreseeable future needs to be on saving lives, minimising the impact of COVID-19 on our communities and safely introducing a new normal into all our lives. By any measure, we are a long way from that happening. I will, therefore, not be supporting the Tory motion today, which could not have been more brazen in its politics if it was written in blue crayon and stamped with a blue rosette. By identifying the next election as the deadline for reporting, you are saying, in simple terms, you want to make this a political bun fight, not a genuine learning exercise that will save lives. To divert attention from those people battling the pandemic now by getting them into public inquiry territory now, when the pandemic is still claiming lives, would be grossly irresponsible. It would be akin to grounding the Spitfires and Hurricanes in the middle of the Battle of Britain in order to discuss flight training for future pilots. 

Yes, there are things we can learn as we go along, and the Assembly committees have a vital role to play in scrutinising the COVID response on an ongoing basis. I am pleased that both the committees I sit on are committed to doing that in a vigorous way. There is no sense to my mind that anyone is running from scrutiny. Indeed, I urge the Welsh Government to listen carefully to the views of committees, and genuinely embrace our recommendations as a real opportunity to add value and improve the Welsh Government response. 

One of the only sensible things Dominic Cummings has ever said is that he made mistakes every day during this crisis. And so, yes, there will have been mistakes in Wales, too, and we must learn from them. But, there has not been one moment in this pandemic where I have doubted for one second even that the Welsh Government has the safety of my constituents and everyone else in Wales as their very top priority. That is not something any serious person could say about the UK Government, and I think we should see this motion today for what it is—a desperate attempt to distract from that. Thank you.

I call on the Counsel General, Jeremy Miles. There we go, Jeremy Miles.

Thank you, Llywydd. May I start by being entirely unambiguous from the central question at the heart of the motion? The Welsh Government does support the establishment of an independent public inquiry that would look at how we and others have responded to this pandemic. The circumstances that each and every one of us has lived through over the past few months are so significant that that would be entirely appropriate and entirely necessary.

Coronavirus has affected all parts of the UK and the whole world in different ways, and there is no doubt that there are lessons to be learnt, things that we can improve, and steps that we can take to safeguard people here in Wales for the future.

The current priority, of course, is to focus on responding to the crisis, and I would take this opportunity to highlight our message to the people of Wales. The First Minister announced the outcome of our 21-day review on Friday. We know how important it is for the people of Wales to meet their family and friends, and we know that there is very little scope to relax the restrictions. We have chosen to relax those restrictions carefully to allow more local visits, using an area of 5 miles as a guideline for people to start to see friends and family once again.

Llywydd, we are still, in many ways, in the early stages of this outbreak. Until we have effective therapies and, in time, we hope, an effective vaccine, our focus must be on dealing with the coronavirus as a public health emergency.

The motion notes that the point for any inquiry is not now, and people who would give evidence to an inquiry are entirely focused on handling the current emergency, and I expect that will be the case for some time yet. We know, from the experience of other pandemics, that it may well be into next year before we can say with confidence that the worst is behind us; that remains to be seen as we debate today.

I am proud of the way that the Welsh Government is, and has, responded, and I am grateful to the people of Wales for their response. In any number of ways, this crisis has brought out the best in people in all our communities as they face this adversity together. But there are, of course, lessons to be learned and areas to improve, and we are taking steps within Welsh Government to do that from day to day and from week to week as we keep focused on responding to the crisis.

Llywydd, there is a need for an independent inquiry to be set up. It should happen at the right time, and these are the key principles that should guide us as we establish it: an inquiry will be most effective in understanding events and the actions taken, if it involves all the UK administrations. This pandemic has affected all parts of the UK, and many decisions have been taken across the four nations. A great deal of the response to the pandemic has rightly been managed at a UK level and has involved many others alongside Governments, so it's important that there is a co-ordinated approach to the inquiry into the handling, by the UK Government, the devolved Governments and others. We would hope that could be achieved, but if not, then we would obviously accept an inquiry limited to events and actions in Wales. And, of course, the Senedd will continue to scrutinise the Welsh Government and its ongoing actions to deal with the crisis, as it has today, and I know that Members will understand why I won't address each of the specific points made about actions taken during the debate.

The leadership of the inquiry should be agreed between all parts of the UK. It must not be imposed on, or by, any of us. We agree the inquiry should be independent. I want to be clear that we are not opposed, in principle, to a judge-led inquiry, but it does require discussions with others and it does bring with it some constraints. Some parties have called for an epidemiologist to lead any future inquiry, and this is a matter for consideration over the coming months.

The person chosen to lead the inquiry will rightly want to be involved in setting its terms. These should consider Government but others, also, so that it looks at the response in the round. The inquiry will need to respect the devolved competence of this Senedd and of each part of the UK. It should start, report and conclude at the times when it can most effectively undertake its task of investigation and scrutiny. We should not seek to predetermine when that can be today.

Crucial to the issue of timing will be the need to take account of the ongoing crisis management. As we move from summer to winter, we may well be dealing with a further peak and with other winter pressures, and I know that Members will agree that those working on the front line will need, of course, to be able to do their work unimpeded by other pressures. Equally, the inquiry will deserve the fullest attention from those giving evidence to it, and I would anticipate that the person leading the inquiry will want to give consideration to an approach that enables that.

Turning briefly to the original motion, I have set out the principles we believe should guide the establishment of an inquiry. Our amendments are consistent with these, and I invite Members to support them. While we agree with the premise of the amendments in Siân Gwenllian's name, it is impossible for the Government to support them today, because they prescribe timings for the inquiry to report and specify the leadership, and it is too early to be so prescriptive. We must first seek to agree a UK-wide approach and then give the independent inquiry leadership our support in due course.

Janet Finch-Saunders to respond to the debate.

Diolch, Llywydd. The pandemic is coming at a huge cost to Wales. Two thousand one hundred and twenty-two individuals have sadly lost their lives to date, and the situation is far from being under control, or even contained. One only needs to look no further than here in north Wales, which has 635.7 confirmed cases per 100,000 of population, with many more tests required. Constituents reasonably question whether the Welsh Government has done everything possible to support them.

Yes, we face unprecedented circumstances, but in a true and healthy democracy, the measures taken by this Government must be open to transparency and scrutiny. That is clear from listening to some of the contributions to this important debate. Angela Burns—lack of PPE, failure to protect the most vulnerable in our care homes, a chaotic testing regime, lack of data collection. Russ George on the problems facing our businesses with mixed messaging, confusion around financial support and the immense damage to our local economy.

Testing has been and continues to be shambolic. Despite the Government's own targets of 5,000 and 9,000 tests per day, we are still only managing 2,492; seriously delayed testing of our symptomatic care home residents and those returning from hospital to care homes, with symptomatic care home workers causing huge risk; and then the scandal of the universal testing announcement for care homes only made on 16 May, despite many obvious calls, from us even, for this to come sooner to protect our most vulnerable. Sadly, they have been failed.

A constituent of mine, 94 years old, falling, breaking their hip, going into Glan Clwyd, where she sadly contracted COVID-19 and has since passed away. Others pressured into signing 'do not attempt CPR' forms. Cancer charities concerned that Wales is not opening up COVID-19-free cancer centres as is happening in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Thirteen thousand shielding letters for our most vulnerable going to the wrong address. Misleading Welsh Government announcements: £40 million for adult social care on 17 April—reality: this is only related to local authority-commissioned adult social care. A £500 bonus for care staff announced on 1 May—reality: not all working in the social care sector will receive this, and those who do will see this reduced through tax and impact on benefits, the Welsh Government not having done its homework on this before announcing it. An announcement on 6 May of £26 million to support our small charities—still great uncertainty as to how this will be allocated and to whom. The Welsh Government is also responsible for mixed messaging on education, self-isolation and support for businesses.

I would stress that we will reject the amendment by the Minister for Finance and Trefnydd. Her amendment and suggestions to remove 'Welsh Parliament appointed, judge-led' speaks volumes and shows up an absolute fear of scrutiny and independent challenge. Such a desire to remove the actual target set indicates a sheer inability to accept judgment. Too often in this Senedd, in my time as a Member, over the past nine years, serious inquiries have been previously commissioned, yet they have never been delivered. Now, with such a global emergency, requiring strong, transparent leadership from this Government in Wales, the only way to seek truth and honest answers is by no less than an independent, Welsh Parliament-appointed, judge-led inquiry, and this, in all fairness, must be delivered before the Senedd elections next May. As has been said earlier in this debate, those who've sadly lost their lives, and their families, those who've worked hard in our social care and the NHS and other services across Wales—they deserve it. At the end of the day, from an independent inquiry will come the transparency that we all seek, and I would ask and plead with the Welsh Labour Government not to shirk away from the greatest responsibility that they hold, and that is to allow absolute scrutiny and challenge. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

The proposal is to agree the motion without amendment. Is there an objection? Is there an objection to agreeing the motion without amendment? [Objection.] Yes, I think I can see an objection—or hear it, anyway. I couldn't quite work out who was making it. But I hear an objection, so we'll defer the vote until the voting time, which is now.

Therefore, we will move to voting time. As indicated on the agenda, today's votes will be conducted in accordance with Standing Order 34.11. Each political group may nominate one Member of the group to carry the same number of votes as there are Members. A nominee will carry the same number of votes as there are Members of that group, plus any other Members of the Government. Members who do not belong to a group or grouping will vote for themselves. I will conduct the vote by roll call.

So, the first vote is on the Regulated Services (Service Providers and Responsible Individuals) (Wales) (Amendment) (Coronavirus) Regulations 2020. The first vote is on those regulations. On behalf of the Labour group and the Government, Jayne Bryant, how do you cast your 30 votes?

In favour. 

On behalf of the Welsh Conservatives, Darren Millar, how do you cast your 11 votes?

Abstain. 

On behalf of Plaid Cymru, Siân Gwenllian, how do you cast your nine votes?

In favour.

In favour. On behalf of the Brexit Party, Mark Reckless, how do you cast your four votes?

In favour. 

Gareth Bennett. 

In favour. 

Neil McEvoy.

In favour. 

The result of the vote, therefore, is 45 in favour, 11 abstentions, none against. Therefore, the motion is agreed. 

The next vote is on the Conservatives' debate on an independent inquiry into COVID-19. I call for a vote on the motion unamended, tabled in the name of Darren Millar. On behalf of the Labour group and the Government, Jayne Bryant, how do you cast your 30 votes?

Against. 

On behalf of the Welsh Conservatives, Darren Millar, how do you cast your 11 votes?

In favour.

On behalf of Plaid Cymru, Siân Gwenllian, how do you cast your nine votes?

Against. 

Mark Reckless, how do you cast your four votes on behalf of the Brexit Party?

In favour. 

Gareth Bennett.

In favour. 

Neil McEvoy.

In favour. 

The result of the vote on the motion unamended is that there were 17 in favour, no abstentions, and 39 against. Therefore, the motion is not agreed. 

We will therefore move to a vote on amendment 1, tabled in the name of Rebecca Evans. On behalf of the Labour group and Government, Jayne Bryant, how do you cast your 30 votes?

In favour. 

On behalf of the Welsh Conservatives, Darren Millar, how do you cast your 11 votes? 

Against. 

On behalf of Plaid Cymru, Siân Gwenllian, how do you cast your nine votes? 

Against.

Mark Reckless, on behalf of the Brexit Party, how do you cast your four votes?

Against. 

Gareth Bennett. 

Against. 

Neil McEvoy. 

Against. 

The result of the vote on amendment 1 is that there are 30 in favour, no abstentions, 26 against. Therefore, the amendment is agreed. 

The next vote is on amendment 2, and if amendment 2 is agreed, amendment 3 will be deselected. I call for a vote on amendment 2, tabled in the name of Rebecca Evans. On behalf of the Labour group and Government, Jayne Bryant, how do you cast your 30 votes? 

In favour. 

On behalf of the Welsh Conservatives, Darren Millar, how do you cast your 11 votes?

Against. 

On behalf of Plaid Cymru, Siân Gwenllian, how do you cast your nine votes? 

Against. 

Mark Reckless, on behalf of the Brexit Party, how do you cast your four votes?

Abstain. 

Gareth Bennett. 

Against. 

Neil McEvoy. 

Against.

The result of that vote is that there were 30 in favour, four abstentions, 22 against. And therefore, amendment 2 is agreed and amendment 3 is deselected. 

The next vote is on amendment 4, tabled in the name of Siân Gwenllian. Amendment 4, on behalf of the Labour group and Government, Jayne Bryant, how do you cast your 30 votes?

Against. 

On behalf of the Welsh Conservatives, Darren Millar, how do you cast your 11 votes?

In favour. 

Siân Gwenllian, on behalf of Plaid Cymru, how do you cast your nine votes?

In favour. 

Mark Reckless, on behalf of the Brexit Party, how do you cast your four votes?

Against. 

Gareth Bennett. 

Against. 

Neil McEvoy. 

In favour.

That vote is therefore completed and the result is that there were 21 in favour, no abstentions and 35 against. And therefore, amendment 4 is not agreed. 

I therefore call for a vote on the motion as amended.