National Assembly for Wales

Welcome to this Plenary session. Before we begin, I just want to set out a few points. A Plenary meeting held using video-conference, in accordance with the Standing Orders of the Welsh Parliament, constitute Senedd proceedings for the purposes of the Government of Wales Act 2006. Some of the provisions of Standing Order 34 will apply for today's Plenary meeting, and these are noted on the agenda. And I would remind Members that Standing Orders relating to order in Plenary meetings apply to this meeting, and apply equally to Members in the Chamber and those joining virtually. 

And that brings us to our first item this afternoon, namely questions to the First Minister, and the first question is from Angela Burns. 

Llywydd, the Welsh Government has no responsibility for the process to which the Member refers. The present Home Office makes such selections without reference to local or devolved democratic authorities. 

Thank you for that, First Minister. We all know that the flow of people seeking asylum is building, and I understand that the Home Office, whilst facing a deluge, needed to act quickly. But, in my view, mistakes have been made, and communication from the Home Office was very late in the day and very poor. I've put my concerns in a very detailed letter to the Home Secretary and to members of the Home Office. I am concerned that west Wales is not well suited to be a reception centre for asylum seekers to be processed, simply because we no longer, or we do not at the moment, have the infrastructure, capacity and capability to process people in a way that it is fitting, dignified and respectful to them. And we are wanting that support. I've asked the Home Office for money for additional human resource, and I wonder, First Minister, what the Welsh Government may be able to do.

Unfortunately, we saw some shocking scenes last night at Penally camp of elements coming in from away—not Pembrokeshire people; Pembrokeshire people are warm and welcoming, and we want to do our best by these people, who've already been through a really traumatic time. But if you look at the video, which you can find on the The Pembrokeshire Herald website, absolutely shocking scenes occurred, with people bussed in from outside with very unpleasant political agendas. First Minister, what are you able to do as a Welsh Government to either help put pressure on the Home Office to give the financial and human resources that our local services need to provide the right support for these people, and to aid our police—our hard-pressed local policing units—to ensure that disorder does not break out and people are not threatened, no matter which side of that camp they're in?

Well, Llywydd, I thank Angela Burns for those important questions. I share many of her concerns. A military camp is not a suitable place to house people who have fled from conflict and war in other parts of the world. I wrote to the Home Secretary on Friday of last week. I received a reply on Monday, so it was a very swift reply. It wasn't from the Home Secretary though; it was from a junior Minister in the department. In my letter, I asked very specifically for a two-week delay in the plan to house asylum seekers in Penally, in order that proper planning and proper services could be put in place. And I don't think anybody could argue that that has been done in a satisfactory way. Unfortunately, the reply declined that request. I asked in my letter to the Home Secretary for specific assurances that funding would be provided to the local authority and to the local health board. We're talking about relatively small, rural authorities who have no capacity to deal, from their own resources, with the demands that will now be placed upon them. Here was the reply:

'The Home Office will not provide additional funding in connection with any of the accommodation that is provided for asylum seekers'.

So, an utter blanket refusal to provide any additional funds, either for Pembrokeshire County Council or for Hywel Dda University Health Board. And the letter went on to say that work on an agreed communications plan is in progress. Well, really, that is nonsensical, isn't it? 'Communications plan is in progress', when there are hundreds of people protesting already in Tenby over the weekend, and the ugly scenes that the Member referred to yesterday. The Home Office did not put out a single line to reassure the local population, to explain why they are doing what they are doing.

Now, I want to endorse very much what Angela Burns said—Wales is a nation of sanctuary. When there are people who, through no decision of their own, arrive in Wales, then we want to make sure that they are well looked after and welcomed. The way in which the Home Office has gone about its decision in relation to Penally makes all of that far more difficult than it needed to have been. And while we will take part in any of the conversations and any of the groups that are set up to try to improve the position, the general approach needs rapidly to improve in order to avoid a repetition of the scenes that we saw last night, and to make sure that the people who will be housed in that camp are able to be properly looked after, and the concerns—the legitimate concerns—of that local community that deserve to be properly addressed, can be communicated to them, and to draw them into the process rather than them simply being spectators of it.

Can I begin by thanking the First Minister, in his response to Angela Burns, for reiterating the point that Wales is a nation of sanctuary and we want to make people welcome and we want to make sure that they receive the support that they need?

I was, Llywydd, shocked by what the First Minister has said about the Home Office's response, and it is quite unusual for me to be shocked by the way this Westminster Government conducts itself. But this is particularly serious. These are very vulnerable people who have seen and been through horrible experiences, and the fact that they then find themselves at the receiving end of unpleasant behaviour when they get here is heartbreaking. I would agree with Angela Burns, and as the First Minister has already said—those people causing trouble in Penally last night were not typical of the Pembrokeshire community. Much more typical of the Pembrokeshire community were the people celebrating and welcoming asylum seekers on the beach at Tenby at the weekend, and it was very good to see them there.

I fully appreciate that it is not the First Minister's responsibility to make provision for our new neighbours in Penally, but I'm sure that he will agree with me, and he has said himself, that there will be pressures on local services. In the face of what appears to be a completely obdurate position from the UK Government on this, is there anything further that the Welsh Government can do to discuss with local service providers what additional support they may need, fully accepting that it should be the Home Office's job to provide it? But if that isn't possible, will the First Minister be able to work with local services to try and allay some of the fears and concerns that local people may have about pressures on services, and to make sure that these asylum seekers are welcome here in our country?

Llywydd, I thank Helen Mary Jones for those points. Yes, of course, the Welsh Government will work alongside the local authority, the local health board, and the local police service in the difficult job they now need to do. And where we're able to mobilise assistance on their behalf, where we're able to make cases on their behalf, then of course we will be very keen to do that. Our understanding of the Home Office's plan is that the people who will be housed at the camp will, in time, be dispersed to the four main dispersal areas across Wales—that they will live in Cardiff, Newport, Swansea and Wrexham. So, our wish to welcome them to Wales is a long-term commitment to those people's welfare and well-being, and we want to make sure that that can be properly discharged. I think one of the most disturbing features of the whole episode is the way the Home Office's handling of it has led to Tenby becoming a target for hard-right extremist groups from right across the United Kingdom who've heard about this and who think that this is a cause that they can latch on to and exploit. Those people are not welcome in Wales, and I hope that we will soon be in a position to make sure that the police take the action that is necessary to make sure that they cannot inflame local sentiments and that they understand that their presence in Wales is not one that is welcome by us. 

Neil Hamilton. You're mute, Neil Hamilton; you're muted. 

Diolch, Llywydd. Isn't the truth of the matter that none of the people who are going to be housed at Penally is likely to be qualified for asylum in this country, because they've come from a safe country, in France, because they've all, as I understand it, arrived on small boats on the shores of Kent? Eighty one per cent of those who have arrived in 2020 on the shores of Kent have been said, by the Home Office, to have no credible claim to asylum, although only 2 per cent have actually been removed. So, isn't the cause of the problem that we've got today, first of all, incompetence on the part of the British Government, because they've completely lost control of our borders, but, secondly, irresponsibility on the part of the Welsh Government for its piece of virtue signalling in calling Wales a 'nation of sanctuary'? Because, ultimately, if race relations are to be preserved in this country, it's got to be on the basis of managed and controlled migration and genuine asylum claims, and not bogus ones. 

Well, Llywydd, we hear echoes of the Member's long history in support of apartheid South Africa in the remarks he's made this afternoon. To describe Wales's ambition to be a nation of sanctuary as irresponsible simply beggars belief. I'm shocked to hear it even from him, and he has no knowledge whatsoever of where people who will be housed at this camp are coming from—none of us do. Almost all of them are yet to arrive. So, as ever, it is his bogus claims, his attempt to exploit a situation to peddle a line that he finds politically convenient that we've heard this afternoon. It's disgraceful. 

Llywydd, public transport in cross-border areas has been affected in the same ways as such services more generally. I know Members in the Chamber will want to pay tribute to those operators and public transport workers who have done so much to maintain a core network of services during this crisis.

Thank you, First Minister, for your reply. Both the Welsh Government and Transport for Wales have rightfully said that no child should be left behind or have to change the pattern of their important return to education. But we do have a situation where Transport for Wales have made a number of changes to the Aberystwyth to Shrewsbury service, and the effects have meant that students in Montgomeryshire have had their travel to Shrewsbury disrupted, for education purposes. In fairness to Transport for Wales, they've put a number of bus services on, but often those are not viable because there are extended journey times and often the buses arrive after the beginning of courses. Now, as I understand it, the cancellation seems to be in regard to concern over staff safety on some of those services.

This does continue to be quite distressing for younger people, and I am sure you will agree with me that it's an anxious time for young people as they return to school and college. I'd be grateful if you could discuss this situation with your colleagues and see how Transport for Wales can indeed be supported by the Government in order to reinstate some of these services for younger people, for their education in Shrewsbury. 

Llywydd, I thank Russell George for raising these points, and I know of his previous concerns about them. I think Members will be reassured to know that Transport for Wales has reinstated the 06:29 service in the morning from Aberystwyth to Shrewsbury. It was reinstated on 14 September. The Llywydd, of course, will be aware of that. That is the key train service to take young people for education into Shrewsbury.

Now, it is true, as Russell George has said, that that train service is sometimes filled to a point where it is not safe to allow further passengers onto the route. And in those circumstances, Transport for Wales has extra bus capacity on standby should it be needed. Now, of course Russell George is right that, at the furthest point, that bus journey does take 45 minutes longer than the train journey would. The excess is reduced the closer young people get to Shrewsbury. But in the current circumstances, where coronavirus remains, as we've heard yesterday and today, on the rise, making sure the trains are not overcrowded and young people and other passengers put at risk is very important, and that extra bus capacity, which is there every day should it be needed, is, I think, at the moment a proportionate way to make sure, as we would all wish to see, that no young person is unable to access the education that is so important to them.

First Minister, prior to this morning it had been many months before that the Prime Minister of the UK had called a COBRA meeting with the devolved leaders across the United Kingdom's family of nations. Would issues of cross-border transport during the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as on many other matters, be far better served by regular and routine communication between the relevant Governments in England and Wales? How can the Welsh Government continue to encourage the UK Government that it is good to talk?

I thank the Member for that. I was very glad that there was a COBRA meeting today. I was glad to have a telephone call with the Prime Minister yesterday. The point I made to him then, and again in the COBRA meeting today, is that we need a regular and reliable pattern of engagement between the four nations of the United Kingdom. Ad hoc, last-minute, paperless meetings are not sufficient for us to be able to respond to the crisis as it is continuing to develop. I was reassured that the Prime Minister said in the COBRA meeting that they would now be properly reinstated. That will give us all an opportunity to discuss matters. Public transport was raised briefly, as Rhianon Passmore has suggested, during today's COBRA meeting. A regular, reliable rhythm of meetings, in which we all know when we will have opportunities to share information, to look at the latest analysis, to pool ideas and then to make decisions that are right for the different nations of the United Kingdom, I think is at the centre of the way that we can get through all of this in the best possible way together. 

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

Diolch, Llywydd. Could the First Minister present to the Senedd the Government's proposals in terms of the changes to coronavirus restrictions, as the Prime Minister has just done as regards England in the last hour, and the First Minister of Scotland is shortly to do in the Scottish Parliament? And in doing so, could he say whether he agrees with what the opposition parties in Westminster have been saying—that while the UK health Minister has emphasised a lack of public adherence to the rules in getting us to this point, it's also true that there have been some policy mistakes, which have contributed to getting to this position? Which begs two questions, really: what has gone wrong that needs to be put right? What are the lessons that we've learned? And what's the Government's vision and plan in terms of the next six months? Is it a succession of releasing restrictions and then reimposing them, and doing it again? If so, we should be honest about that. If it isn't, then how can we use this phase to build up the resilience so that we don't have a third and fourth period of lockdown?

Llywydd, I thank Adam Price for that. I caught some of what the Prime Minister said in the House of Commons but not quite all of it. I think it's important to remind colleagues that we start in a very different place in Wales. Our approach to unlocking coronavirus restrictions has been at a different pace and in a different way to that across our border. Many of the things that the Prime Minister is talking about doing today we have already done in Wales. So, in the part of his statement that I heard, he was talking about encouraging people again to work from home. Well, we have never, ever in Wales suggested anything else than that. We have never gone down the line of saying that people should get back on the bus and get back into work. Our advice has always been that, if you can work successfully from home, that is what you should do. We will reinforce that message today, but the message in Wales has never changed.

I heard the Prime Minister say that matters that are in guidelines in England are going to be put in regulations. Well, we've always made greater use of regulations here. Very early on, we put the 2m distance in the workplace into our regulations. It's not been in guidance in Wales; it's been a legal obligation on employers, and that's made a difference. When we published guidance to the hospitality industry, then our regulations require the person in charge of such a setting to have due regard for that guidance. So, we've already done that differently. The Prime Minister is going to tighten the rule of six, well, our rule of six has been tighter all along. You can only meet somebody from your extended household, not six people from any old household who could meet indoors. And I heard him say that he was going to halt pilots in the arts and sports world. Well, reluctantly, we halted our pilots 10 days ago. We had three successful pilots and we were hoping that, in this three weeks, we could have done more. We decided 10 days ago that things were too difficult for us to be able to do that. So, we start in a different place. There are things that we will be considering during the day. We will be talking with our colleagues in local government, in the health service, in public health and in the police about the additional measures that we might be able to take, but we will do it, as ever, with our partners. We will plan and then we will make an announcement. 

Across Wales, Llywydd, I think the majority of people continue to very carefully and very scrupulously observe the rules. They want to do the right thing and they want to know what the right thing is to do. There is a small minority of people who, somehow, took the message for the summer, when we were reducing restrictions, that coronavirus was over. Those are the people we have to convince that they need to go back to observing all the things that they were doing earlier in the summer, and that will mean that the effort across Wales will be strengthened again. That will be my message to people in Wales today. I agree with what Adam Price said: this does not have to be the pattern for the future, but if it's not to be, that depends crucially not simply on what Government does but on what every citizen in their own life does in order to make that collective effort that I think has been characteristic of the response in Wales.

Can I ask the First Minister that, when the Government has made a decision in terms of any changes that it's going to introduce, it does bring a statement to this Senedd later this afternoon? 

We've always supported as decentralised as possible an approach. It may be, of course, that you can reach a point where that is no longer possible and you need to introduce nationwide changes, but could I ask the First Minister to look at the principle of localisation because of the range of situations we see across Wales, and possibly look at reversing the logic, if you like—having an overarching national policy as a default, but then having COVID-free areas and areas of low community transmission that would be exempt from those nationwide changes? This would serve two purposes: it would incentivise continued adherence to the rules in areas of low transmission and increase adherence to the rules in areas of higher transmission. What consideration have you also given to the idea of a UK-wide ban on international travel during this critical period, a ban on non-essential travel from lockdown areas in the rest of the UK into Wales, and the temporary closure of pubs indoors, supported vitally, of course, by sector-specific financial support?  

Well, Llywydd, I think Adam Price puts his finger on one of the central dilemmas that we face in Wales, because while we have a very difficult situation in a number of local authorities in the south-east Wales corner, today in other parts of Wales, in 10 local authorities in Wales today, the rate of coronavirus was still falling. I've so far not been convinced that we should treat Ceredigion as though it were Caerphilly, because the prevalence of coronavirus in Ceredigion is still at a very low ebb indeed, and it would not be proportionate to place the same level of restrictions on citizens there as we have had to ask people in Caerphilly to observe. So, a blended approach in which we have some important national messages—the work from home message is a national message, the meeting six people indoors from your extended household is a national rule here in Wales. I will want to say something later today about trying to encourage people in Wales only to make those journeys that are really necessary. In Caerphilly and the other local authorities where local lockdown measures are concerned, you can't leave the county borough without a good reason for doing so, but beyond that I think every one of us should be asking ourselves, 'Is that journey really essential?', because the fewer people you meet and the fewer journeys you make, the less danger you are posing to yourself and others. So, I think that that, as a message to people everywhere about minimising travel and staying close to home as much as you are able to, is another brick in a national wall that we can build. After that, I'm still of the same mind as Adam Price suggested that local measures for local circumstances at this point in the virus remain the right response in Wales. 

Yes, and that will be the subject of a full statement later this afternoon, First Minister—

Llywydd, I don't want to promise that a statement can be made later this afternoon. The health Minister will be making a statement. If the discussions with the authorities that we need to reach a conclusion on matters are not concluded today, we will take the earliest chance we can to make a statement. 

Just very briefly on resilience and testing—I know we've talked about this before—in terms of the lighthouse labs, obviously building up our own capacity is absolutely critical. There's an interesting experiment in the north-east of England, where they've taken a lighthouse lab effectively into public ownership, I suppose you might call it, and also they're targeting it at local authorities and universities, and local private sector working together. Interesting model; could that be applied in Newport and then connected with our own indigenous system? Ventilators was a key theme in the early phase of the coronavirus; ventilation is becoming mission critical as well. Are we going to be providing help for workplaces and public buildings to get better ventilation during this critical phase? 

Llywydd, we had a presentation at COBRA this morning from Dido Harding, the person who is in charge of the testing regime in England. I'm afraid it is going to be a number of weeks, from what I heard, before the lighthouse lab system is back up to the level of performance that we saw only a few weeks ago. In the meantime, there are some local experiments of the sort that Adam Price referred to being undertaken, and we will certainly look to see whether any of that flexibility could be applied in Wales. And, yes, ventilation will be an increasingly important theme as we go into the winter months, where people will be indoors more and where those non-medical interventions that can help to prevent the spread of the disease will be even more important, and the Welsh Government will certainly be emphasising that in the guidance we continue to provide to public authorities and to private businesses. 

On behalf of the Welsh Conservatives group, Suzy Davies. 

Diolch, Llywydd. First Minister, on the weekend you said that you needed to earn the trust of voters again ahead of the election. Why do you think you've lost voters' trust? 

Voters' trust has clearly not been lost in Wales. If the Member troubled to look at any of the surveys, they are showing that levels of trust in the Welsh Government during this pandemic are at extraordinarily high levels—75 per cent and above in the Welsh Government; 45 per cent in the Government that her party runs in Westminster. The point I made, Llywydd, is this: any party in Government has to earn and re-earn trust at any election. For five elections in a row, the Labour Party has earned the trust of people in Wales, and we take nothing of that for granted. We will work as hard as we can to go on earning that trust. I imagine any party that seeks the votes of Welsh electors tries to make sure that they are trusted by them. There's nothing unusual in what I said, and I imagine it refers to much of her party as to any other. 

It's a shame to have such a defensive response to that one; it might have given you the opportunity perhaps in the Chamber today to say some of the things that you claim as achievements. Certainly, I would have appreciated an answer that would have included, perhaps, I don't know, the Labour Member for Bridgend remembering to take his mask to a shop, in accordance with Welsh Government's own rules. But I think there are some more serious issues that you could have addressed in your answer today, Minister, because last week you let it be known that there was an 11-day gap between you finding out about a major leak of 18,000 pieces of personal information and the period when your health Minister knew about them. It's the third time there have been problems with personal data on your watch during this pandemic that we know of. Do you see—or foresee, I should say—a difficulty in keeping this pandemic under control if people don't trust you with their personal data?

Well, Llywydd, people do trust the system we have in Wales with their personal data. It's why the system we have in Wales is so much more successful than the system across our border. The data breach was regrettable. It was dealt with by the body that is responsible for it, which is the data controller in that instance. I've asked today to be told that a very small number of people who may have been affected have actually contacted Public Health Wales with any concerns. Those concerns will be dealt with. I don't think the matter is of such significance that it needs rehearsing in this forum two weeks in a row, and I think there are bigger issues that the Conservative Party might have wanted to discuss, but probably are afraid to do so.

Well, First Minister, that didn't sound to me like an explanation of what that 11-day gap was all about, and there's no point saying that is all down to Public Health Wales, when we've had data issues three times in a row now. Once, obviously, that would be misfortune. Twice would be carelessness. But a third time suggests to me we've got a Welsh Government here that's not that keen on taking responsibility for something that has really shocked a lot of people here. We are relying on track and trace to be the answer to keeping this pandemic under control and to avoid the kind of national lockdowns that Adam Price was, hopefully, trying to avoid as well when he spoke earlier on.

On the issue of trust, though, there is something pretty serious, I think, we need to discuss here today, as you've invited me to do that. And yesterday, in an interview on ITV Wales's Sharp End, the health Minister said that he would not rule out making it compulsory for people to have a COVID-19 vaccine, if and when one becomes available. Now, that's compulsory vaccines, First Minister. Did you know that he was going to say this, or was that another piece of information that the health Minister's kept from you? And what is there in such a statement? It's a completely Orwellian statement, a real attack on personal freedoms, which makes you think that anyone should dare trust a future Labour Government.

Well, Llywydd, on the matter of trust that the Member seems so exercised about this afternoon, of the 440 positive cases that were eligible for follow up in the test, trace, protect system in the most recent period, 96 per cent were reached, and they provided details of their recent contacts. That says to me that our system is very well trusted and very well regarded, and 89 per cent of all those contacts were also successfully contacted and were able to have their cases resolved. We have very high levels of trust in the Welsh system, and anything that she says to the contrary is simply not borne out by the facts.

The health Minister was asked a hypothetical question: would he rule something out? He simply said that he wouldn't. It went no further than that. There's no implication in what he said that he had made a decision of any sort. And in this context, in the context of coronavirus, when so much is unknown, and where the stakes are so high, to have ruled out something at this stage I think would not have been a responsible thing to have done, and I think he was absolutely right in the answer that he gave.

Leader of the Brexit group, Mark Reckless.

First Minister, I'm astonished by that answer in respect to your health Minister having said yesterday that you had the power to mandate vaccination, suggesting that people in Wales might be forcibly injected with a COVID vaccine. Is that what devolution has come to? Surely, such a programme of forced injections would break international law, or is that only a concern when you want to impede Brexit? Wouldn't it also break domestic law, which states at section 45E of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984, as amended by the Coronavirus Act 2020, that regulations

'may not include provision requiring a person to undergo medical treatment.

'"Medical treatment" includes vaccination'.

First Minister, as with Boris Johnson and Dominic Cummings, you exonerated your health Minister from breaching guidance when he had his family picnic in Cardiff Bay. Have you similarly exonerated him now for publishing the address and date of birth of everyone who tested positive for COVID in Wales because it wasn't significant, even though the rules require disclosure of such a data breach to the Information Commissioner within 72 hours? Will he now stay in place despite saying your Government could mandate vaccination in breach of UK and international law?

Llywydd, there is no such programme; there never has been such a programme; there's no proposal to have such a programme. It's just a got-up job. He knows it is, but he wants to appeal to a certain sort of person in the population and so he makes up such charges on the floor of the National Assembly. Let me tell him again, in case he wants to ask me again: there is no such programme; there never has been such a programme; there is no proposal for a programme. And people who want to pretend that there is are doing it entirely for their own political advantage and nothing else.

First Minister, I could easily say the same to you in respect of what you've said about the internal market Bill and what you say would be a breach of the law and international law from the Prime Minister. Your health Minister said yesterday that he should keep open the option of forcibly vaccinating people with a COVID vaccine in Wales. You said just now that he was right to keep that option open, despite the fact that it is against the law.

Could you clarify the position on shielding? You previously told old and vulnerable people to maintain shielding through to 16 August, even though, by then, virus prevalence had been low for some weeks. Will it not be now more difficult for them to shield again, having only so recently come out of such a long period of confinement? Would not older and vulnerable people be at less risk from COVID now, as in Sweden, if more younger people had already been through it rather than having postponed infections through lockdown?

Llywydd, I see the question swerved to something completely different at the end of it. No international law has been broken. No law of any sort has been broken, because there is no proposal of any sort that would lead to that eventuality. When I criticise the UK Government for its deliberate intention to breach international law, I'm not just doing that by myself. I commend the Member to read Theresa May's speech in the House of Commons yesterday, a speech in which she said that the UK Government are putting the integrity of the United Kingdom at risk—a speech in which she said that this is a Conservative Government willing to go back on its word, to break an international agreement signed in good faith and to break international law. That's not me—that's the previous Conservative Prime Minister of this country, supported by the two previous Conservative Prime Ministers in their turn. This is not some idiosyncratic view of the Welsh Government; it's a view widely shared in the party that has proposed it.

As to the shielding population, I note again what he says about Sweden. In Sweden, 10 times more people have died than in Norway, its immediate neighbour. Imagine—imagine the situation here: imagine what the Member would be saying to me if Wales had pursued a policy that led to 10 times the number of citizens in Wales dying compared to the number across our border. Would he be standing up here advocating it then? Of course he wouldn't be.

I thank the Member for that question, Llywydd. The announcement that the Grange hospital will open in mid November instead of the original planned date in March 2021 is very welcome. In the coronavirus context, it will provide critical care and acute respiratory care to 600,000 people in the Aneurin Bevan University Health Board area.

Thank you, First Minister, for that answer. I'm sure you'd like to join me in thanking the construction workers who've helped keep this important project on time and on budget over the last few months and years, particularly at a time when the sector has been so badly affected by the pandemic, with construction microbusinesses making up around a third of applications to the economic resilience fund. You've just touched on the hospitals' role in the COVID-19 pandemic. What discussions—or could you say a little bit more about any discussions that your officials have had with the local health board about a strategy of using the hospital for COVID cases, and therefore removing the risk of infection from the other general hospitals in the Gwent area? And also is the Welsh Government looking at transport links to the new hospital? I have raised this before, as there are concerns about connectivity. The A4042 through Monmouthshire badly needs upgrading and there's also certainly a need for better public transport links for patients and for families to and from the new hospital.

Llywydd, I thank Nick Ramsay for those points. I absolutely do associate myself with what he said about construction workers: here is a major project, a £360 million project, delivered on budget and ahead of time, and that really is a tribute to those who've planned it and then who have executed the plans for the hospital, and it very much is part of Aneurin Bevan University Health Board's plan for dealing with those people who fall acutely ill and will need urgent respiratory care in response to coronavirus. So, the Grange hospital will be pivotal over the months during the winter when those sorts of services may be even more necessary than they have been in the spring and summer period.

I thank the Member for what he asked about public transport, and I know he's raised this in a recent article in the South Wales Argus. The university health board confirmed to me yesterday that there will be a public bus service to the site when the hospital is open in November—buses will drop off at a dedicated point on the site. There are bus services that will link Newport, Caerleon, Cwmbran and the site itself, and there are further discussions going on to confirm all those services, but the health board is determined that public transport to the site will be there from the time the hospital opens, and will be available to those who need to use it.

The Member has asked me previously about the state of the A4042. I know he will be aware of the actions that have been taken to improve drainage along the road in recent times, and there is some evidence that those investments are paying a dividend and that some of the interruptions to the road—particularly through flooding in recent years—may now have been resolved through the schemes that have been put in place and the improvements that have been made on adjacent third party land.

I thank the Member for that, Llywydd. A green recovery is at the heart of our response to the coronavirus pandemic. It will improve outcomes for Wales, generate a more sustainable and resilient economy for the future, tackle the climate emergency and address declines in biodiversity. 

First Minister, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development report that was published recently really highlights the importance of high-performing transport networks and skills development to address the historic low productivity that we've suffered in Wales, given the very low level of investment by the UK Government since the industrialisation in the 1970s and 1980s. It is very disappointing to read that the UK Government seems hell bent on using the internal market Bill to undermine the climate reduction commitments of devolved Governments. How can the Welsh Government stay focused on the precision skills required to deliver its clean, green transport and housing ambitions—essential to deliver our carbon reduction commitments—when the UK Government seems determined to top-slice the money that Wales is entitled to to build redundant relief roads and, I fear, carpet the countryside with poor-quality building developments to become the slums of the future?

Llywydd, I thank Jenny Rathbone for that very important supplementary question. I was very glad that the Welsh Government was able to commission from the OECD an independent report drawing on best international evidence to help us with the important job of designing future policies and future structures for regional economic development. The report does, absolutely, put a focus on skill development. It's really important that we are able to invest in the people that we have here in Wales, so that they are ready to be able to take advantage of employment opportunities when they come.

The Member, Llywydd, raises, I think, an extraordinary possibility. When I first saw the internal market Bill, that was bad enough when I thought that what the UK Government was planning was to take all the money that had come to Wales from European sources and hug it to itself, and eek it back out according to ideas that they may have, rather than the ideas that people in Wales may have for what is necessary here. But the idea that they would seek to top-slice budgets that are available to this Senedd, to deploy in the way that we choose, in order to run schemes of their own is, I think, an idea even beyond what we originally thought they may have in mind. To do so would make a mockery of the words that the Prime Minister uses about respecting devolution, and being a devolutionist himself. Let us hope that there is a UK Government Minister who is willing to put on record the fact that they intend no such thing.

I thank John Griffiths for that question, Llywydd. The coronavirus control plan, published in August, and last week's winter protection plan are both rooted in the lessons we have learnt during the coronavirus crisis. Adapted responses can be seen, for example, in more effective treatments for the disease and in COVID-specific rehabilitation measures.

First Minister, from 6 o'clock this evening there will be further restrictions in Newport and other local authorities. The length of time involved will depend on the incidence of cases, but are you able to say anything more about how long these measures may be in place?

An increasing number of school pupils are self-isolating, further damaging their education after the loss of school time in the last academic year. Might Welsh Government then, First Minister, prioritise testing for pupils and staff to minimise loss of time in school, and also ensure that learning at home is consistent and top quality across all our schools? 

Llywydd, I thank John Griffiths for those questions. The coronavirus restrictions in Newport will be reviewed within two weeks. My ambition is for those restrictions progressively to be lightened as soon as it is safe for us to do so. The contact tracing team in Newport, I think, have been absolutely outstanding in the way that they have responded to the flare-up of numbers in the city, and provided they continue to have the co-operation of local people, I think there is a realistic prospect that that outbreak will be brought back under control as rapidly as possible, and then some of the measures we've needed to put in place will be able to be removed.

As to schools, Llywydd, since 1 September there have been coronavirus cases in 275 schools in Wales, 140 students have been affected and 135 staff members have been affected. In 198 of those 275 schools, only one case has been reported. So, in more than seven out of 10 schools, it's a single isolated case that has been reported so far, although, I agree, it is early days. Those cases have been imported to the school by people who have contracted it for other reasons, rather than being spread in the school environment. We will continue to prioritise the testing of students and teachers and other school staff members, where that becomes necessary, in order for us to minimise the risk of transmission and to respond to the final point that John Griffiths made, about continuity of learning for young people who may still have to spend some of their time outside the classroom. In some parts of Wales, that was done fantastically well earlier in the summer. That learning is being applied now to make sure that those standards can be achieved in all parts of Wales.

And finally, Joyce Watson, question 6.

Llywydd, the OECD’s model of a more regional and place-based model of economic growth is already at the heart of our economic action plan and the goals we have set for future regional investment. We will consider the report’s recommendations with stakeholders over the coming weeks.

Thank you for that. One of the findings in the report is the impact of the continued austerity inflicted on Wales by the UK Government spending plans. That austerity did reduce local authority investment in industries, and other forms of money that we would have expected to have come to Wales, and it was purely a political decision.

So, what discussions have you had with the UK Chancellor to highlight the impact that their politically imposed austerity measures are having, and will have, on Wales if they carry on along that track? And will you ask Simon Hart, the Secretary of State for Wales, to start acting in the interests of Wales and respect the devolution settlement?

Well, very important points, Llywydd, made there by Joyce Watson. There's no doubt, is there, that the whole of the United Kingdom is less able to withstand the shocks of coronavirus and Brexit because of a decade of austerity: household incomes, public services, private businesses all undermined by the flawed and foolish policies pursued at that time. The budget of the Welsh Government is £4 billion lower today than it would have been had it simply stayed where it was 10 years ago. Not an iota of growth. If we'd simply stayed, in real terms, where we were a decade ago, £4 billion more to invest in our public services and all of the other urgent needs that we have here in Wales. We continue to take every opportunity that we have with the Chancellor, through the actions of my colleague Rebecca Evans, to urge the UK Government to use the historic low interest rates that we have for an infrastructure boost to the UK and to the Welsh economy in the comprehensive spending review.

On 30 June, Llywydd, the Prime Minister announced a new deal in infrastructure spending. For Wales, it was no deal, because not a single penny came to us for this year for any infrastructure boost. So, it would be very good if we had a Wales Office that stood up for Wales, that was the voice of Wales in Westminster, rather than the parrot of Westminster in Wales. And, in that way, we might be able to make some inroads into the difficulties and damage that has already been inflicted on us.

Thank you, First Minister.

The next item is questions to the Counsel General, and the first question is from Helen Mary Jones.

The Welsh Government has repeatedly expressed deep-seated concerns to the UK Government on behalf of women in Wales who have faced the injustice of having their state pension age raised without effective or sufficient notification. I am aware of the Court of Appeal judgment, and I will, of course, be monitoring any appeal if it's lodged to the Supreme Court.

I'm grateful to the Counsel General for his reply. He will know that I have been working very closely with campaigners across my region, particularly in Llanelli and Pembrokeshire, on this issue. The result was obviously disappointing, but it didn't come as a complete surprise.

I wonder if the Counsel General will agree with me that it now seems likely that the solution to this will come from political decisions rather than from any legal ruling. Would this be a timely moment for the Welsh Government to make representations once again to the UK Government on behalf of the women of Wales so affected?

It seems to me that, in the aftermath of the COVID crisis, this is particularly pertinent. We of course have many women who would have expected to retire who are now having to stay in work, and they might be in a position, if they were able to retire and had the pension entitlement they expected, to retire a little earlier and potentially free up some further work for younger people who will desperately need it.

Well, I share the Member's disappointment with the outcome of the appeal; as she says, perhaps more disappointing than surprising in light of progress in the matter. These women are women who faced discrimination, very often, throughout the course of their working lives. So, it will be particularly disappointing to have had that result.

As she will know, I've continued to look for opportunities to be able to, perhaps, intervene and none have, unfortunately, presented themselves. But I do think that, in her question, she's right to say that given that the litigation strategy isn't bearing the fruit that perhaps we might have hoped, there are some practical proposals that many of these groups have put forward in order to transition to a more just set of outcomes. We have corresponded consistently with the UK Government, as the Member knows. I think, unfortunately, our most recent letter hasn't even had a reply unfortunately. But, we will continue to make those representations so that the UK Government engage with these women, not in the courts, but in seeking a just resolution to what is and has been for some time, a great injustice.

The UK Government’s United Kingdom Internal Market Bill goes far beyond the structure that might be needed to ensure economic and regulatory co-operation between the nations of the UK, and is a serious assault on the devolution settlement and our powers in Wales.

I thank the Counsel General for that answer and I do agree with him. Counsel General, last week, you told me that the Welsh Government was prepared to work with others in the UK Parliament in order to protect Welsh democracy from this power grab that is inherent in the internal market Bill, as you've just alluded to, and I welcome that. Working in a cross-legislature way will be vital in the coming period, so, today, Plaid Cymru MPs will be bringing forward an amendment that would mean that this Senedd would have to give its consent before the provisions in the Bill that are designed to transfer devolved powers back to Westminster—before that comes into force. Does the Welsh Government support the intention behind that amendment, and if so, will you persuade your Welsh Labour colleagues in Westminster to support it this afternoon?

Well, I haven't seen the text of that amendment. Our position as a Government is that there should be no transfer of powers, come what may, from this Senedd to Westminster. So, it's a very simple proposition. I was very pleased to see that, on the vote at the start of last week, both my party in Parliament and hers and others in this Chamber were able to stand clear in their rejection of the principles that are at the heart of this Bill. As she knows from the discussions we've previously had, there are many ways in which this Bill cuts across profoundly the devolution settlement and locks in those changes in a way that this Senedd would not be able to reverse. So, I do welcome the opportunity to work on a cross-party basis in Parliament and I very much hope that that continues.

I wonder if the Counsel General and Minister could outline the legal and constitutional consequences of this Chamber, Siambr, not giving its consent to this Bill being railroaded forward by the UK Government. And, could he also explain why this should matter profoundly to the businesses, the farmers, the food producers, the students and the constituents in a constituency like mine of Ogmore?

Well, I thank Huw Irranca-Davies for that question. This Senedd, I have no expectation that it will do anything other, in my own view, than reject the consent for this piece of legislation. That ought to be the end of the matter; the UK Government ought, then, not to proceed with the legislation. Huw will recall, as will other Members, that when this Senedd last withheld its consent and the UK Government proceeded notwithstanding that, we received clear assurances from the UK Government that it regarded those circumstances as unique and extraordinary. And in light of that, I think the UK Government could not justify proceeding in the absence of the consent of the devolved legislatures in relation to this piece of legislation.

He is right to raise the point that this is a Bill that has a real impact on the daily lives of citizens, businesses and organisations in Wales. Any consumer who doesn't want to see hormone-injected beef on our shelves, who wants to see a Welsh Government ambitious to limit the use of single-use plastics and to maintain high standards in building construction and the regulation of landlords, and wants to make sure that the kind of ambition that the people of Wales have voted for continues to be available should be concerned about the provisions of this Bill. Any business in Wales that wants a floor of standards against which it can measure its production and supply should be concerned. Any business seeking to reconcile the UK Government seeking for itself state-aid powers, whilst also having obligations to businesses in England as the Government of England, and the conflict of interest that that so obviously presents, should be concerned by the contents of this Bill.

It is clear that the UK wishes to plough ahead and intentionally break international agreements, whilst simultaneously hiding the Bill's true intent, to attempt to take back control of this democratic place, but with a new ability to top-slice the budget of Wales for Tory priorities. What would this mean for the programme of government that the people of Wales have democratically elected this Government to carry out on their behalf? Would he agree with me that this demands renewed concern around the distribution of the shared prosperity fund and is, at its heart, an attack on this democracy, devolution, and, Llywydd, an attack on this place?

Well, the Bill, if passed into law, would constrain the actions not only of this Government, but successive Welsh Governments, and, indeed, the effectiveness of this Senedd to make the kind of ambitious changes in law and reform in Wales that it would wish to make. I mentioned in my earlier question the very practical ways in which this affects consumers and citizens right across Wales. Some of the provisions in the Bill are at odds with the Government of Wales Act 2006. Some wouldn't prevent the Senedd from passing laws or Ministers making regulations, but would effectively mean they couldn't be enforced on the ground in Wales. Now, these are changes that run the serious risk of limiting the actions of this Government and future Governments to fulfil manifesto pledges and to be ambitious on behalf of the people of Wales. She identifies in particular the impact on the shared prosperity fund. I think UK Government Ministers have been pretty upfront about the fact that the provisions in the Bill would provide UK Government Ministers with the powers to circumvent powers that effectively have been those of Welsh Ministers to manage the successor programmes to EU programmes in Wales—a clear breach of the commitment made not to reverse the devolution settlement and the powers of the Welsh Government in relation to those successor programmes. 

Questions 3 [OQ55549] and 4 [OQ55531] are withdrawn. Question 5—Janet Finch-Saunders. 

I am not aware that the European Union has made any such announcement. However, the issue of listing the UK for EU food imports demonstrates just how important the negotiations with the European Union are to Wales. The UK Government internal market Bill jeopardises those talks, which is extremely irresponsible and poses a real risk to Wales.   

I'm sorry, I must disagree with you on that. The prospect of British animals and products not being added to EU sanitary and phytosanitary lists for non-EU countries is causing some alarm. For example, 37,400 tonnes of sheep meat was exported to France, and 40,600 tonnes of beef to Ireland last year. Now, according to Nick von Westenholz of the National Farmers Union, listing should be a straightforward technical matter. Similarly, the chief executive of the British Meat Processors Association has observed that the bigger question is when third country status will be granted. Fortunately, the UK Government will be laying secondary legislation next month to clarify these listing procedures, and have commented: 'We are operating the same rules and will be at the end of the transition period. Nonetheless, there is benefit to taking precautions.' So have you had to amend preparations for the end of the transition period in light of this threat, and what detail can you provide as to the steps the Welsh Government will take should Wales not be able to sell animal products to the EU?

Well, there's a range of threats that the Welsh Government are unfortunately in the position of having to prepare for as a consequence of the conduct of negotiations between the UK and the European Union. I've listed on many occasions the damage that the current trajectory will cause to Welsh food exporters, and I'm glad to hear her list in her question the risks that are very real to those farmers and food producers right across Wales. She also said in her question that this is a straightforward technical matter. And I agree with that. I don't think there has been any statement on the part of the EU that this will not happen. But there is an understandable need to be clear about what standards the UK Government proposes to put in place. I'm pleased to hear that the UK Government is keen to bring those forward, not least because, in the current circumstances, its reassurances about high standards in future can surely not be taken at face value.

The Welsh Government continues to make representations to the UK Government on the justice system in Wales, including the accessibility of legal support for residents in all parts of Wales and in all areas of law.

Thank you. Eighty-six per cent of those surveyed in north Wales, 92 per cent in Dyfed-Powys, and 97 per cent in Gwent think that crime is significant in their rural community. A study carried out by the Countryside Alliance found that nearly a quarter of crimes were not reported to the police, and 56 per cent of respondents who did report a crime were dissatisfied with the response. As the Countryside Alliance has commented,

'Good rural policing is about far more than numbers of police officers on the ground...we must form effective partnerships'.

Now, whilst I appreciate that the Welsh Government is involved in the Wales wildlife and rural crime group, this does not include key stakeholders such as local authorities and town and smaller community councils in our rural areas. Will you now liaise with the law officers in the UK Government, with the aim of founding a national rural crime taskforce for Wales, in order to involve all stakeholders and to help ensure that there is indeed a greater understanding of the needs of our rural communities?

I will agree with the Member that it is a concern if people are not reporting rural crimes to the police. Of course, both members of the public and stakeholders should feel able to do that, and should in fact do that, and we would encourage them, indeed, to do that. She mentioned in her question the role of the Wales wildlife, crime and rural affairs group. My understanding is that the work of that group has been very widely appreciated and commended as an exemplar, whether it's to do with the secondment of police officers to Natural Resources Wales or the establishment of rural crime units within our police services, right across Wales. I understand those are regarded in other parts of the UK and beyond as examples of very good practice. But I share with her her concern about crime in any part of Wales, and I'm pleased to see the partnership working that is happening between the Government here in Wales, Natural Resources Wales, the police, and other emergency services, to support rural communities in this concern.

I have discussed the judgment with the Minister for Education in relation to the implications for educational law. I am considering the wider implications in relation to the interpretation of Welsh language text of legislation, which has equal status with the English text for all purposes.

This judgment was made by Judge Fraser over the summer, wasn't it, and was a success for a group that is fighting to keep schools open in the Pontypridd catchment area, including Ysgol Gynradd Gymraeg Pont Siôn Norton. The deficient decision taken by Rhondda Cynon Taf council meant that a disadvantaged community could have been excluded from Welsh-medium education, and the council now needs to work with the community to bring an alternative proposal forward. It would be disgraceful if the council were to consider appealing the decision. I would like to ask you about the broader significance of the judgment for Welsh language education and the status of the language. Do you agree with me that the robust decision taken by Judge Fraser is a huge step forward in terms of the expectation on courts and public authorities to give equal and appropriate consideration to the Welsh language when decisions are made, and provides protection for other communities?

I’m not in a position to make any broader comments on this policy field because it’s not my policy as a Counsel General that we are considering here. But I’m extremely surprised to hear the Member’s enthusiasm for the judgment, considering the way the judge looked at the status of the Welsh language in the legislation as compared to the status of English in the legislation. There are extremely important questions raised there; it raises important questions about the equal status of the Welsh language in our courts here in Wales. So, I would recommend that the Member looks at that question, in addition to the other questions she has raised today. 

This Government and I are fully committed in our resolve to deliver on the Cymraeg 2050 strategy. I, myself, have not had direct discussions with the public authorities or the legal sector, but I have had discussions with the legal sector regulators regarding Welsh-medium professional education, which have borne fruit. 

I’ve already talked about the significance of the judgment made by Judge Fraser in the case of the Pontypridd schools, and the decision has been welcomed from supporters of the Welsh language in the legal profession. Michael Imperato, in a recent discussion on the adjudication, talked of the ripple effect that that case would have. Can you confirm how you as a Government will inform public bodies and those making decisions about the precedents arising for the future from this decision, so that we don’t see another Ysgol Felindre and that the parents of Ysgol Pont Sion Norton will not have to go to law again to secure their right to Welsh-medium education within reasonable reach of their communities?

Well, this question is very similar in substance to the previous question. There isn’t very much more I can say in response to that, but I do feel that there is value in looking in detail at the way in which the judge looked at the equality of both Welsh and English in legislation, because there’s a very important question being raised there for lawyers in general.

I thank the Counsel General.

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

Diolch, Llywydd. There are three changes to today's agenda. Later this afternoon, the Minister for Health and Social Services will make an oral statement—update on coronavirus. The debate on the Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (No. 2) (Wales) (Amendment) (No. 8) (Caerphilly) Regulations 2020 has been postponed until next week. And finally, the motion to agree the Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (Functions of Local Authorities) (Wales) Regulations 2020 has been withdrawn. 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.  

Trefnydd, can I call for a statement on public sector procurement advice that the Welsh Government issues? Your response to a recent written question on this matter gives me a great deal of cause for concern in that you've suggested that you might be issuing a new procurement advice notice to the public sector in Wales, and in that answer that you issued, you specifically referred to it being potentially targeted at the nation of Israel, because you referred to it dealing with places where there are territorial disputes.

Now, of course, of the countless places around the world where there are territorial disputes, that answer that you issued specifically mentioned the Jewish state. Now, you'll be aware that the Welsh Government has accepted and adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism. That refers to not doing anything that could result in double standards being applied to the nation of Israel. But, in singling out Israel in your answer to a question on procurement advice, it suggests that that might well be the case should you issue that particular piece of advice.

So, I'm very concerned about the message that that sends to the Jewish community in Wales. I know that the Welsh Government does not want to send hostile messages to the Jewish community and wants to address the antisemitism that is out there. So, I would urge you to look again at the procurement advice notice that you are preparing, to make sure that your proposals do not impinge on the good work that's been done here in Wales to deal with the rise of antisemitism in our country. 

I'd like to reassure Darren Millar that there's absolutely no intention to single out any nation and the response related to occupied territories anywhere in the world. However, I do understand that there are some significant concerns about this, so we are taking some further legal advice before any further action is taken on that procurement advice note, and I know that the First Minister had a very good meeting with the board of deputies, where this was discussed again. But just to reassure Darren Millar and everybody else, there is no intention to single out any particular nation in terms of the procurement advice note, but we are taking further advice, and nothing will be published until that advice has been received and considered.

Many people are self-isolating, or will be in the coming months, as COVID transmission rates spread throughout the country. I've had many messages from people in the Rhondda, who've already endured significant financial harm from the first lockdown. Some people can work from home, some people are self-employed, some people are entitled to sick pay or statutory sick pay, and others can get nothing at all. Now, I've made representations to Westminster about this with no joy. We have to make it easy for people to abide by the rules. Now, given that we can't rely on Westminster, can we hear from the Welsh Government what it has done to improve the financial support for people who have to self-isolate? What representations or plans have you made?

Now, Plaid Cymru believes that you could be implementing a universal basic income that would both help to stop the spread of COVID and help to alleviate poverty. Do you agree with us on that and will you do it?

I thank Leanne Wood for raising this issue. I do think we have to be realistic as to the extent to which we can stretch the Welsh Government's budget, but, that said, we are currently in discussions with HM Treasury and other parts of the UK Government in relation to the announcements that the UK Government has made in terms of some kind of income support for those individuals who are unable to access other kinds of support. We're trying to, through the course of today, better understand the source of that funding, what it means in terms of Barnett consequentials, and if we're able to say more on that shortly, I know that we will.

During questions, the First Minister indicated that he would seek to bring a statement to this place on the new coronavirus regulations that will be made consequent to this morning's COBRA meeting. I understand, from social media, that he will be making a public statement on this matter this evening at 20:05. It would, therefore, be much preferable, I think, for Members on all sides of this Chamber were he able to come back to the Chamber this afternoon to make a statement so that we can have an opportunity to scrutinise the Welsh Government on these matters before they're made public later this evening.

Secondly, I understand from the business statement that there is a statement next week on the economic resilience plan, and the economy Minister will be giving that statement. He is in his place this afternoon, and I know he can hear my question, so I hope that you will be able to confirm, business manager, that that statement will cover all those sectors that are being affected by the corona regulations, as they're being amended this week, and particularly those areas of Wales, such as Blaenau Gwent, where there are new restrictions in place. This will have a significant impact on our economy and on many people and families within our communities, and it is important that the Government places some significant support and help for those people as part of its response to the continuing coronavirus crisis. I hope that the statement on the economy next week will be a broader statement encompassing all of those different areas.

Finally—

No, there's no 'finally', Alun Davies. You've had two points and you're over time, but thank you. The Trefnydd to respond.

Thank you. So, on the first of those points, I would just refer you to the comments that the First Minister made during First Minister's questions to the leader of Plaid Cymru in terms of needing to spend time this afternoon talking to our partners in local government and in the police, and others, in order to determine the way forward. But, obviously, the First Minister is keen to keep colleagues updated, and, of course, we do have the statement from the health Minister on the update on coronavirus later this afternoon, which will be an opportunity for colleagues to question the health Minister on these matters.

In terms of the statement next week, I know it's the intention of the economy and transport Minister to say more on the economic resilience fund, and particularly phase 3. I don't want to pre-empt anything that the Minister will say next week, but I can say I've had some very good discussions with him and I do know that he's very much alive to the local dimension of the challenges that face us at the moment.

Trefnydd, the issue of mental health has massively moved to the forefront of all our minds over recent years, and particularly during the pandemic with the associated issues of mental health that have been affecting some people. You may be aware that Mind Cymru have launched their Stand For Me campaign, calling on Welsh political parties, current Members of the Senedd and future candidates to stand up for mental health issues. I wonder if we could have a statement or an update from the Welsh Government on what's being done ahead of next year's Senedd election to keep the focus on mental health, both now and after that election.

If I may, Llywydd, on a related issue, 10 September was World Suicide Prevention Day. I know it was mentioned in this Chamber in the business statement last week, I think possibly by Jack Sargeant. I wonder if we could have—again, Jack asked for this—a statement from the Welsh Government on what it's doing to make sure that we all do what we can to help prevent suicide, to see the warning signs ahead of when the awful end transpires for someone so that we can do a little bit more to listen and provide that kinder Wales that we all want to give to our colleagues and friends.

Thank you, Nick Ramsay, for that, and I absolutely will discuss with the health Minister what more we can be doing to promote that day, but also to promote the message that it's absolutely fine to talk to people. It's okay not to be okay, as Jack Sargeant was telling us in the Chamber just last week. I know all colleagues will have received communication from Mind Cymru, setting out their new campaign, encouraging us as Members of the Senedd and all future Members of the Senedd to make that pledge to stand up for mental health, and I know that we'll all be very keen in order to engage with that.

Of course, we've had recently the publication of our new three-year 'Together for Mental Health' delivery plan. That's been an important step forward, and especially, I think, in terms of improving access to psychological therapies. I can say that the health Minister has also written to health boards to request proposals for funding for the transformation fund from 2021-22 onwards in order to give that longer sight and that longer line of view to investment in mental health transformation.

Can I ask for two statements, Trefnydd, one from the Minister for the economy and transport regarding his recent announcement on the red route proposal relating, of course, to the A55 along the Flintshire corridor? I've been absolutely inundated by constituents who are very concerned and who actually see legitimate and clear parallels with the decision around the M4 relief road in Newport. Clearly, there are concerns around cost—the projected cost of £210 million in 2016 is now over £300 million. We know that we've declared a climate and biodiversity emergency here in Wales. Well, if that means anything, then it surely means that the Government needs to step back and at least look at alternatives other than just a four-lane highway. And, of course, the COVID pandemic has changed the terms of the debate, in that more people will be working from home, which means there will be less demand on our road infrastructure in years to come. Now, the Welsh Government has said that it wants a coronavirus recovery that, 'Builds back a fairer, greener, more resilient economy'. Well, if that doesn't mean revisiting this proposal, then it's clearly business as usual for Welsh Government and absolutely nothing has changed.

And the Welsh Government also—and this relates to your role as finance Minister—is withdrawing the rates grant scheme for all commercial hydropower generators. I think around 50 will be affected. I appreciate that you're still retaining support for seven community hydro schemes, but, more broadly, the sector is very angry, actually, that it hasn't been able to participate in meaningful discussions that might have influenced your decision. Many of the schemes are now—

Can you ask your question, please, Llyr?

Well, it's basically that we have a statement from the finance Minister explaining why she believes that withdrawing the rates grant scheme for hydropower generators is a good idea, given the Government's ambitions in terms of net-zero carbon.

I thank Llyr for those questions, and, of course, the hydropower non-domestic rates grant scheme does sit in the portfolio of the Minister for Environment, Energy and Rural Affairs, but I know that she will be able to hear your comments on that this afternoon.

In terms of the A55 red route, the intention as I understand it is to continue and review the community and stakeholder engagement activity in order to ensure that all interested parties now are updated regularly as the scheme does move forward. But it will also include improving active travel links, bus travel links and improving the resilience of the existing infrastructure as well as reducing congestion. And I know that they will be carrying out some environmental investigations along the preferred route later this year. These will mainly be non-invasive surveys with a small number of ecologists looking to identify potential areas for further survey. That means that they will be contacting local landowners to discuss land access. So, that's the latest update that I have, but of course I will make sure that the Minister for Economy and Transport is well aware of the concerns that you've raised. 

Minister, I'd like to ask for two statements, the first from the Minister for the Environment, Energy and Rural Affairs on social distancing and other safety measures in supermarkets. Because of the worsening coronavirus situation, some supermarkets have already reintroduced queues, one-way systems et cetera, but it is crucial that the Welsh Government brings whatever pressure is necessary to bear on supermarkets to ensure that they are as safe as they possibly can be.

I'd also like to request a statement from the health Minister on the restrictions that are in place for families expecting babies. At the moment, partners are not allowed to attend scan appointments and are only able to be with their partner during active labour. This is not a minor matter. Pregnancy is not an illness, and I believe that some of these restrictions could have an impact on mental health, going forward. Thank you.

Thank you to Lynne Neagle for raising both of those important issues, and I know that she has been a strong voice, really, in terms of ensuring that supermarkets play their important role in terms of helping to keep people safe. I can provide reassurance that, during the regular meetings that the Minister for Environment, Energy and Rural Affairs has with the food industry and the supermarkets, she does continue to impress upon them how important it is. I think that there has been recently a much greater effort and a much greater focus on enforcement, and local authorities will issue improvement notices to individual stores and other premises not meeting the required standard. I know that Members of the Senedd are often asked by their constituents to alert the local authorities to stores where they have had those concerns, and the local authorities will undertake inspections and actions where those shortcomings have been identified. But I just want to provide that reassurance that this is a strong topic of conversation between the Welsh Government and the supermarkets.

The second issue again is very important, in terms of support for mothers both before and after giving birth, and I do know that the arrangements are kept constantly under review because we recognise the important role of having the partner there in terms of supporting the individuals. But if they are feeling anxious about anything, the first advice is to speak to the midwife, because the health boards will always take individual circumstances into account, particularly where there might be mental health needs or learning disability or other kinds of support the individual might need. But, as I say, we do keep this under constant review.

I'd like a Government statement on the Westminster Government's report NRPB-M173. I understand it's no longer in the public domain, but it shows quite clearly that plutonium has leaked from Hinkley Point into the estuary for decades. What is of particular concern is that, in 1982, the report and the tests of the UK Government showed that was a huge spike in plutonium discharge through the waste pipe. Therefore, plutonium did enter the estuary at a very high level, scientists say, and they've actually, as I said, presented the evidence. The issue for me is that the Government allowed the mud to be dumped in 2018 because they said there was no need to test for plutonium or alpha emitters, alpha radiation, because there was no corresponding spike in gamma. Now, what report NRPB-M173 shows is that you do not need a peak in gamma radiation when there is a peak in plutonium. So, you've got a huge, huge peak in plutonium leaking into the estuary, and I think it's reasonable, therefore, to assume that it's in the mud. 

Can you ask your question please, Neil McEvoy?

Yes. What I'd like to know is: what is the Government going to do about this?

Well, with respect, Llywydd, this is the business statement, and neither Neil McEvoy nor myself are scientists. So, I would respectfully suggest that he writes to the Minister on that particular issue, although I do understand that the Petitions Committee is also taking an interest and, in due course, there will be the opportunity for the Minister to respond to a committee report on this. 

If I may start by putting on record my support for the contribution made by my colleague Nick Ramsay, with regard to suicide prevention and mental health.

Secondly, Minister, the economic recovery from coronavirus is something we need to start planning for and addressing now. Members may be aware that, at the start of the summer, I wrote a piece on the LabourList website for that to be a green recovery, and I called for a green new deal for Wales. Just yesterday, it was reported that Airbus have revealed the first zero-emission, climate-neutral passenger aircraft. If we are to be serious about a green recovery, the wings for that aircraft need to be made in Deeside. Now, for that to happen, Minister, we need the UK Government to support the aerospace industry with a sector-specific deal to protect jobs and protect skills. Minister, can we have a debate in Government time on what a green recovery should look like for Wales and what support is needed?

I thank Jack Sargeant for raising that and the potentially really exciting news in terms of the future of aviation, and I completely agree with him that Wales has to play its part in any future. He's right that this does require the UK Government to work with Welsh Government in terms of providing support to these strategically important sectors—the aerospace, steel and automotive industries, just to name a few of them. Welsh Government obviously stands ready to play its part. I know that there is a statement on the agenda in the coming weeks that in part deals with the green recovery, but perhaps it won't have the specific focus that Jack Sargeant's looking for. But I'm sure that he will find a creative way to make his interventions in that debate. 

I thank the Trefnydd. There will now be a break and we will reconvene soon. 

We'll reconvene on item 4 on our agenda this afternoon, which is a statement by the Minister for Health and Social Services: an update on the coronavirus, COVID-19. I call on the Minister for Health and Social Services, Vaughan Gething.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. A week ago I made a statement to the Senedd to inform Members about the developing situation in Rhondda Cynon Taf and the need to introduce local restrictions to control the spread of coronavirus and protect people's health. Today I want to update you about the latest action that the Welsh Government is taking, working in partnership with local authorities and public health experts. We will be introducing local restrictions in four more areas of south Wales because of a rapid increase in cases of coronavirus.

From 6 o'clock tonight, new restrictions will come into force to control the spread of the virus for everyone living in Blaenau Gwent, Bridgend, Merthyr Tydfil and Newport local authorities. This will mean people will not be allowed to enter or leave these four local authority areas without a reasonable excuse, such as travel for work or education. People will only be able to meet people they do not live with outdoors for the time being. They will not be able to form an extended household for the time being. All licensed premises in these areas will have to close at 11 p.m. Everyone over the age of 11 must continue to wear face coverings in indoor public places, as is the case throughout Wales. We're also extending the 11 p.m. licensing restriction to Caerphilly county borough area.

These restrictions are the same as those introduced in Rhondda Cynon Taf last week: from 6 o'clock tonight, the same local restrictions will be in place in all six local authority areas in south Wales. This will mean a large proportion of the population of south Wales will be living under local restrictions to help control the spread of coronavirus. We will hold a meeting later today with local authority leaders, health boards and the police throughout the wider south Wales region to discuss the developing coronavirus situation, particularly for those areas where rates are lower. We'll discuss whether further measures are needed to protect the wider population as we prepare to see students start, and return to, university. A similar meeting will be held in north Wales to bring together leaders of the local authority, health board and police to discuss the situation if we see rates rising rapidly across the region.

We've had to take the difficult but necessary decision to introduce these restrictions because we have seen a sharp and swift rise in cases in these areas since the end of August. There are many similarities between the cases in each of these six areas. We've seen a rise and spread of coronavirus cases associated with people socialising without social distancing, meeting indoors in other people's homes, and people returning from holidays overseas.

In Rhondda Cynon Taf, the number of positive cases and the incidence rate has continued to increase. This is to be expected and follows the pattern we saw in the Caerphilly borough in the days immediately after restrictions were introduced. We're seeing many small clusters throughout the local authority area, which, because of a lack of social distancing, have led to community transmission. Initially, most of the cases were in younger age groups, but we're now seeing infections in all age groups, and, particularly worrying, we have 34 cases of coronavirus in people in the Royal Glamorgan Hospital. Bridgend is a growing concern for us because there has been a sharp rise in cases in a short space of time. We've identified a small number of clusters in the borough, but we are worried that the pattern is similar to what we've already seen in Rhondda Cynon Taf. Mobile testing will be introduced in Bridgend this week.

In Blaenau Gwent, we've seen cases linked to pubs and a lack of social distancing, but there have also been cases in care home staff and in secondary schools in the area. In Newport, the rise in cases appeared to start with a house party at the end of August and was subsequently linked to a number of pubs, but we're now seeing a wide spread of cases across the city that are not linked to a particular cluster or showing links with existing cases.

But there are also some differences. In Merthyr Tydfil, the incidence rate is very high but the cases appear to be mainly focused around two distinct clusters. One is linked to a large employer and the other a pub. Two new smaller clusters have also been identified. The restrictions will be kept under close review in each of these areas and will be formally reviewed in two weeks' time.

Later this week, we'll carry out the first formal review of the restrictions in the Caerphilly borough. I'm cautiously optimistic that they are having a positive impact on cases of coronavirus in the area. We have seen a significant fall over a couple of days in the incidence rate. From being the highest rate in Wales, at 119 cases per 100,000 people in the last seven days, the latest figures show this rate has fallen to 77.9 cases per 100,000. This is still high, but provides, again, some cautiously optimistic evidence that the restrictions are helping to control the spread of the virus.

I want to thank residents and businesses in the Caerphilly borough for their help, co-operation and patience. This shows what we can do when we work together. I hope that we will see similar reductions in the other five local authority areas in south Wales that are subject to local restrictions, and, working together, we can keep Wales safe.

Thank you. Andrew R.T. Davies. You need to unmute, Mr Davies, please. There you go.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and thank you, Minister, for your statement this afternoon, although it doesn't tell us anything that isn't already in the press, I fear.

Could you confirm, Minister, what the end goal is from these measures? I'm assuming it is to suppress the virus and, ultimately, allow our health service and other public functions not to become overwhelmed. But, for many people, looking at the new measures, is this the new norm now, that, every so often, we will end up having to interact with some form of lockdown until a vaccine is available? Because many people are trying to understand how things will pan out through the next winter months that we face. Could you also confirm that these localised measures that you are taking are being put in place to avert a national lockdown, which I hope you will agree must be averted at all costs, given the economic and social costs that that would have on communities the length and breadth of Wales?

In your statement, you touch on extra measures—and I think the wording that you use is—as students return to university, to protect local populations. I'd be grateful to understand what measures you are considering might be instigated to protect, in your words, local populations from the return of students to communities that host large student populations.

Could you also confirm that the NHS, despite these local measures, is very much open for business? I highlighted yesterday that there's been a 60 per cent loss of operations within the NHS since lockdown in March, and whilst, thankfully, we've seen procedures increase ever so slowly through the summer months, it is the case that, despite these local measures, the NHS is still very much open for business.

And finally, given your comments last night, and the First Minister's comments in First Minister's questions, can you categorically rule out that you would not support mandatory vaccination under any circumstances? I have to say, when I saw your interview last night, it did send a shudder down my spine that, in a democracy, a democratically elected Minister could say such a statement that he would not rule out such a measure. I, as someone who believes in the power of vaccination to control illnesses and eradicate illness within our community, will promote vaccination to the hilt, but I do not believe it is the role of the state to instigate legislation that ultimately would sanction mandatory vaccination in any shape or form. And I do note that you have put something up on social media this afternoon. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer.

Yes, thank you for the series of questions. The end goal, in terms of the restrictions we've introduced, is to reduce and suppress the virus and to avoid harm. And you'll have seen the UK Government's chief scientific adviser and the Chief Medical Officer for England yesterday indicating that, unless measures are taken to arrest the spread of the virus, we can expect, by mid October, on current growth rates across the UK, to see 50,000 cases a day, with the attendant increase in hospitalisations that would produce, and, unfortunately, the attendant increase in deaths.

So, the measures we are taking now are to avoid that harm taking place. There's both the responsibility of Governments across the UK, of our health service, to prepare for the potential increase in cases, but, equally, the personal responsibility that we share and our own role as leaders, not just within our particular political parties, but within our communities, for the sort of conduct that we all need to reconsider about how we reduce our contacts, how we understand and follow the rules, and, in particular, the rules around household contact.

I think one of the more difficult things we've had to do is to change the extended household arrangements and to move to single households in those areas with local restrictions. That's because the evidence is that household contact is the primary driver. And so it's really important that people understand you should have an exclusive group of four households, and the same four households. It doesn't mean you each choose four different households. Four households, in other areas of Wales, for indoor contact, including if you're going out to a pub or a restaurant together—to only be with those people when you're making your booking. If that doesn't happen, then we're likely to see a further increase in the spread of the virus, with all of its harm.

And we are doing this to avoid harm and to avoid a national lockdown. Now, I appreciate it's a turn of phrase, but the phrase 'to avoid a national lockdown at all costs', well, that can't be right, because, potentially, 'all costs' is the significant exponential increase in cases and harm that we're trying to avoid. We have been very clear, though, that a national lockdown is the last resort to avoid that significant scale of harm. That remains the case for this Government, and, indeed, others across the UK. And we've already set out our stall: we'll take other measures, and the closure of schools being the last point, before we take any other action. The very last thing we want to do is to close schools, for reasons that Members understand. 

The new normal will depend on how successful we are in actually following that guidance on social distancing and in reducing our contacts, and not having large amounts of indoor contact with significantly different groups of people. That's why we have the extended household rules in place. If we do that, then it is possible we can go through the winter without needing to take even more significant measures. You will have seen the Prime Minister announcing, both through the media and then today in his statement in the House of Commons, significant national measures that are being taken across the whole of England. We are meeting to discuss what we will do in Wales, and, as soon as we're able to, as the First Minister indicated earlier, we'll come to this place. And that really does depend on how we land with the conversations that are still taking place as I'm in the Chamber, and when I leave later on to join those conversations.

In universities, I'm very pleased to say that the challenges about the large amounts of mixing that normally happen at university time at the start of the year—well, I actually want to praise universities and the National Union of Students in Wales and their members for the very responsible approach they're taking at leadership level. The education Minister will have more to say this week on the measures that are being taken in university towns and cities. 

On the reduction in elective care, I've been very upfront about the fact there has been a reduction in elective care throughout the pandemic—partly driven by the measures we've needed to take in ending elective activity at one point largely, partly driven by the reluctance of people to come into a hospital setting for their treatment, and now partly driven by the reality that, with more people in need because of that slowing down of our ability to process, that comes up against a service that isn't able to see the same number of people at the same time as it would previously have done because of the COVID security requirements, including significant personal protective equipment requirements for our staff. So, that is going to be a real challenge here in Wales and across the rest of the UK. 

We have no plans for mandatory vaccination; we do not intend to take primary law-making powers to do so. Every year, we have a conversation about the flu vaccine, and your predecessor in the shadow health spokesperson role would, every year, ask me about whether we would mandate staff in our health service to have the flu vaccine. And, every year, we decided not to, and that's still the position we're in now. And I said last night mandation would be the most extreme and most unlikely action, and we are not planning to do so. It is not what we intend to do.

So, our plan for vaccination, if and when we have a COVID vaccine, is to do so on a basis where we explain the benefits and understand that, and I think we'll have very high levels of public uptake. And I just don't think I haven't been clear this is not something that Government is planning to do. And that is the clear and, I think, unambiguous position of the Government here.

Thank you for that statement, Minister. Before I ask a few questions on the statement itself, I have a few comments on the responses that we've just heard. People will have been shocked to hear that schools could close again—as a final step, as you said. I, for one, am looking forward to a very clear statement from the Government—the education Minister, not yourself—that education will remain open unambiguously even if schools have to close, and I think parents would expect to hear that.

But I also welcome your clarity on mandatory vaccinations—it's not your plan. That's why choice of words is so important from our leaders at this point. And you still say that you're not planning to do this, but you need to be very clear that the Government will not do this, because this is the kind of thing that will raise grave doubts in the minds of constituents across Wales, rather than encouraging them to follow the advice and direction of Government. 

Just a few questions. I welcome the expansion of the restrictions—clearly the pattern in Wales is moving in the wrong direction. We certainly welcome this pattern of local restrictions. One thing you're doing, of course, is to ask people to remain within their own areas, but there's an anomaly here across Britain. Can I ask you whether it's your intention to speak to the Government in England, and to local authorities in England, to ask them to do the same? Because, at the moment, although people in Wales have to remain in their own areas, if they are high-risk areas or areas under restrictions, there is nothing to prevent people from travelling to Wales from other areas. I think that's something that needs to be discussed at the highest level between Governments. 

Does the Minister believe that we need the plan B to be ready? For me, there are clear areas where you're not going far enough. There is no restriction, apart from closing at 11 in the evening, on pubs, although people, I think, would wish to see that. We're certainly behind England on this now. So, are you considering taking a step further and asking people to close earlier at least, and only open outdoors, and even closing pubs and restaurants if, and only if, you're able to provide additional support to them?

And to conclude, I again want to highlight the problem here. We support the additional restrictions, we're asking whether they're going far enough, but we do need to address the issue on testing. You've issued a statement today saying that it will be weeks before the lighthouse labs issues will have been resolved. That's not good enough. You say that 28,000 additional tests are in Wales now, referring to Public Health Wales in relation to that. Can you explain where exactly those 28,000 tests come from, and when will we see their impact in Wales? 

And in terms of the statement to be made by the First Minister this evening, please bring it forward so that we can discuss it in the Senedd this afternoon. Thank you.

Thank you for the comments. I don't think I've shifted the Government's position at all on school closures. I've been very, very clear that it's the Government's priority to keep schools open as far as possible, and we will prioritise schools above other sectors. So, we'll close other parts of public services, or indeed the economy, to protect the ability for our schools. There's a direct impact on the mental health and well-being of children and young people. There is evidence that they are less susceptible to harm, less likely to be infectious for adults, and, equally, there is good evidence about the fact that not every child has thrived during remote schooling. It's a reality that has a longer term impact on the prospects of children and young people. So, the Government's position hasn't shifted at all in that.

And I can't be clearer: there is absolutely no plan for mandatory vaccination. I'm not going to get lost in a red herring. We have a significant job of work to do to plan for this year's flu vaccination campaign. We need to persuade people to take up their entitlement to a flu jab, to protect themselves and people around them, and the same will come whenever we do get a COVID vaccine. We are already planning about how to deliver that, and mandation does not form any part of this Government's plans.

On local travel, with the restrictions we've already introduced in the six areas of south Wales, we of course already have restrictions that prevent travel into those areas. So, if you go back to where we were previously with the stay local message we had during the first phase, we know that there were penalty notices issued to people who travelled from outside the area. And we may get to that point again, but we're not there. And, actually, the primary focus has to be on each of us reducing our contacts, to be clear about what the rules say about how we keep social distance, and how we follow the rules in particular on mixing indoors with other people.

Part of the challenge with the significant movement of people around the UK with universities reopening is that there will be people moving from one part of the country to another, potentially from a higher incidence area to a lower and vice versa. We do know that, as we've seen in RCT, in community settings the virus doesn't stay within one distinct age group, and so there's a concern about making sure that our universities don't see harm done, in relatively lower levels, to the student population, but we shouldn't expect that that will stay uniquely kept within one block of the population.

On the challenges about licensed premises, we are already considering what to do; it's part of what we're deliberately doing. We've already had a debate about earlier closing hours and the restrictions we've got at 11 o'clock, we're considering whether to move to 10 o'clock. There is something about consistency there that may help with the message, and part of the welcome meeting today at COBRA was a recognition by the UK Government that it would help to have a conversation between the four Governments of the UK, both in terms of discussing and agreeing decisions wherever possible, but it would also help in communication terms. There was, at least, a partial recognition that not having four-nation meetings had not been helpful when it comes to clarity in the communication. That matters for people who do want to follow the rules and recognise that it's important to behave in line with the guidance. So, we're not just considering the 10 o'clock issue; we're also considering whether to have the same movement on table service. Other restrictions are potentially possible before we get to closure. As I have mentioned before, it is a possibility, but not a plan, that you could potentially do what Ireland have done, where they've kept pubs open, but only if they're serving a substantial food offering as well. So there are different ways to move before getting to the point of entirely closing pubs, because if we did do that we can be confident that we'll displace some drinking activity into people's homes, which as we know is where the most significant vectors of spreading the virus have taken place.

We raised issues of testing at this morning's COBRA meeting. In the presentation with Dido Harding, which the First Minister referenced, there was again an acknowledgment that there has been a need to improve the position, with the well-advertised challenges not just in terms of the numbers of tests, but actually in the speed of the turnaround of those tests as well. Because we have a very good contact tracing service here in Wales—highly effective, materially more so than the service in England. But if people are, on a regular basis, waiting three days for their tests, then there's a challenge in whether those people and their contacts are circulating within the community unknown. So that is part of the challenge that we want to get through.

And on the use of the additional capacity we are releasing into the system, we're going to have extra lanes and extra availability in every drive-through centre. We're also creating an additional number of mobile testing units. They're currently going to be deployed in the highest incidence areas—in Aneurin Bevan University Health Board and Cwm Taf Morgannwg University Health Board areas. But we will continue to look to understand how long we expect to have to wait for the lighthouse labs programme to get back on track. And we may need to make further steps to switch over more of our testing, to make sure it's more reliable and robust, to the capacity that we have taken the time and the resource to build up here in Wales, in addition of course to the £32 million I've previously announced to strengthen our testing infrastructure here in Wales through the autumn and the winter.

Thank you. Just before we go on, we're half way through the allotted time for this statement and we've had two sets of questions. I have something like 10 speakers, so if we can have shorter contributions, that would be helpful. David Rowlands.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Can I thank the Minister for his statement this afternoon? Minister, whilst we must all acknowledge that you have, to a certain extent, to follow what the UK Government, and indeed much of the world, is doing with regard to COVID-19, it is incumbent upon us as politicians to question these draconian actions, for draconian they are, because they are having far-reaching consequences for almost every person living in Wales. We have to ask whether these actions are justified by the figures.

At the present time, COVID-19 accounts for an average of 11 of the 1,687 deaths that occur in Britain every day. By comparison, the week ending 4 September, 124 people died each day from endemic flu and pneumonia. Heart disease, Britain's biggest killer, accounted for 460 deaths every day last year, while cancer kills an average of 450 people per day. We have all been made aware that people are not seeking treatments for these killers because they are very much afraid of catching the disease in our hospitals. And given the increasing evidence that the statistics on deaths directly as a result of coronavirus are hugely flawed, can the Government really justify locking down the whole of the population because of the behaviour of a very small number of people, as the First Minister himself expressed earlier in this Plenary session? Surely, Minister, the correct action is to penalise those who are breaking the regulations, not seek to incarcerate those of us who are obeying the law.

I also wanted to point out some of the anomalies inherent in the present course of action, where we are seeing travelling funfairs allowed, but properly organised equestrian events being prevented, and where people cannot travel from closed-down areas, but where large numbers are allowed to for so-called work processes. Surely such lockdown strategies, which leak so comprehensively, only serve to cause consternation to those of us who do obey the regulations, whilst having limited effectiveness on containing the virus.

Thank you for the series of comments, and I'll try to respond to the points with questions attached to them. The Senedd, of course, votes on regulations and the significant restrictions that have been introduced and the interruptions to people's liberty, and I recognise that; it's not an easy or straightforward decision to take. What we are trying to do though is to avoid harm, not wait until significant harm has been caused. In the first wave, we have, compared to England, seen materially fewer excess deaths in Wales. So, that's a positive, and yet we still see more than 2,500 people have lost their lives to coronavirus. That is despite the significant measures that we have taken. We can be confident, I'm afraid, that without any measures being taken we would have seen a much, much greater loss of life and that is why we need to act.

In terms of the challenge about whether we should have a big stick for those people who are not following the rules, actually we need to both persuade, encourage and support people to follow the rules. And, in particular, that's why the financial measures to support self-isolation are so important. Clarity on the consequentials for that rapidly would be most welcome in each of the four nations, and it was a point that was raised in today's COBRA meeting that we need clarity for Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales on the moneys that will be available to help people in self-isolation. Because if you're on statutory sick pay, and you need to go into self-isolation for 14 days, you may find that you're not able to feed your family or pay your bills. That's not a position that we want to put people in, so it could put people off taking a test in the first place. So, as soon as we get clarity on the finance, we'll happily come back with a scheme to make sure that is in place.

Minister, can I thank you for the statement and welcome very much the fact that the four-nation conversations have started, but just to ask him is he sure and confident that there will indeed be regular, reliable rhythm to these meetings now, that it is not a one-off? And can I also thank him for the incredibly intense engagement that he's had, not only with Members of the Senedd, but also with local authority leaders throughout south Wales? If people knew the half of what was going on in the level of engagement and planning and co-ordination, I think they'd be amazed, and I doubt this is going on to the same extent, I have to say, within England. 

Could I ask him to tell us—? He mentioned that a mobile testing unit now will be introduced in Bridgend, possibly some time during this week. Could he give us a bit more detail on that? And thank you for that, because you know that's an issue that I and the local authority leader, Huw David, have raised with you. So, that's really fast work on that. And could I ask you to keep an open mind in the discussions with council leaders on going further with the pubs, as you have just said—in pubs and clubs? I think there are ways, not only lowering the time limit on pubs, but actually the sitting down for service and the face coverings, which are worth exploring. And we can see in Scotland and Northern Ireland where they have been working, and it imposes some discipline. Because the two things, Minister, that don't go together are inebriation, late hours and social distancing.

I welcome the comment. I thank the Member for his constructive engagement, not just in this place, but outside it as well. I have spent lots of time speaking to local authority leaders and I expect to join a call with 10 different local authority leaders after this session is finished. 

When it comes to the four-nation engagement, we have again made the point this morning that a regular and reliable rhythm to our engagement is in all of our interests. As we're approaching another phase, where coronavirus is increasing, the value of the consistency of our message becomes ever greater. We think it would have been helpful through the summer as well. But we're in a better place now, we welcome the fact that a COBRA meeting has taken place and I want to see more of these on a regular basis, so we don't need to wonder about what is happening or see things being briefed to the newspapers before we have meetings about them. That is in all of our interests to make sure that happens on a regular basis. 

I'll come back to you later this week with confirmed details. I'm waiting for not just the site but all the arrangements to be in place, and I'll make sure that constituency and regional Members are aware of when the Bridgend testing site is available and where it will be. And that is about having local testing for local people. Part of the challenge this morning for the UK programme was they've actually tried to introduce a fix to make sure that you can't book a test more than 50 miles away from where you live. We need to make sure that's 50 miles by travel, not as the crow flies, because, as we've seen, people living in Weston-super-Mare have been directed to testing centres in south Wales and that's particularly unhelpful.

On pub restrictions, I'm considering the point you raise, and I mentioned earlier about table service and a 10 o'clock finish time, and we're also reviewing the evidence on face coverings. Just a warning about that though: obviously you can't drink while you're wearing a face covering or eat, but the challenge about putting on and taking off the face covering is part of the concern. Taking off a face covering and putting it on are times when you may actually be shedding part of the virus, so we need to consider whether the evidence supports that being more likely to spread the coronavirus rather than lead to a benefit. But that review is being undertaken.

Thank you for your response to Huw Irranca-Davies about the mobile testing centre for Bridgend. I just wanted to ask you, bearing in mind that these regulations are likely to come before us next week and then won't be reviewed for another three weeks from this week, how long do you expect the lockdowns to last? Do you have a time frame in mind, or is it very much predicated on, well, effectively the R number? Thank you.

In the coronavirus control plan, we've set out—and I think it's the legal requirement as well—to review these individual restrictions every 14 days initially, but then to review them every week. In reality, we're looking at the daily picture of what's happening. So, we look at the rates each day and what they tell us about the trend. And, because of the challenges in getting test results through, that means that our figures change as we backtrack to understand how many positive cases have taken place on a day.

So, for example, we know that, on the figures we have got for the last couple of days, we'll get more of those filled in in the next few days. There's a lag of up to about three to four days, typically, in current lighthouse labs testing. Now, that's part of a blind spot that we have in the middle of what we are able to do. We have much more information than we had in February or March or April, with a much bigger testing programme, but the time lag introduces some difficulty about the reliability of the trend. That's why the seven-day trend is important for us, and the data over the last 48 to 72 hours.

So, we are looking at that on a regular basis, and my ambition is that, when we understand if we have managed to suppress coronavirus again in those areas, we need to think then again about releasing some of the restrictions, but doing that in a way that is manageable and in a way that we can sustain through the autumn and the winter. As I said in answer to previous questions, these are significant restrictions upon people's liberty that, in any other time—and even in this one—are truly extraordinary. I don't want them to be in place for any longer than is necessary to protect public health.  

Carwyn Jones.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Thank you for your—

No, sorry. Carwyn Jones. Sorry, Caroline.

Sorry.

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd. I know that Caroline and myself had the same problem at the time of the last election, when we were perhaps sometimes confused for each other, certainly in writing. 

Three things from me, Minister. First, you mentioned already the signposts—the review points, as it were—in the process. Could you give us some indication of what you will be looking for in 14 days, when you take your decision as to whether or not to extend these restrictions in this form or not, so that we can have an idea of what signs you are looking for in order to decide whether restrictions should be kept, or whether they should be made more restrictive or, indeed, loosened?

Secondly, I have a concern, as public houses and bars shut after 11 p.m., that there will be a temptation for some people, especially young people, to just go on to house parties. Now, we know, of course, that house parties are a particular risk as we see people mixing very closely with each other. Alcohol is involved, so we know that social distancing tends to break down. What messages are you preparing to give out about the dangers of house parties replacing pubs in that regard?

Thirdly, just a plea to make sure that, when an announcement is made, the guidance is made available as soon as possible. My colleague the Member for Ogmore and myself were lucky in the sense that, when we had enquiries from constituents, we were able to point or signpost them to the RCT guidance. But, just a plea to make sure that the guidance is made available as quickly as possible, so that those of us who are affected as Members are able to provide the right level of advice to constituents.   

Thank you for the questions. On your final point, I recognise that there is a need to provide as much clarity as quickly as possible on what the restrictions mean for people. Most people want to follow the rules, and so it's about how we help them to do so. That's got to be balanced against the speed of decision making that is necessary to keep people safe. But, it's a point well made, and in this instance, it has been helpful that there are essentially the same restrictions as are already in place within Rhondda Cynon Taf now across the six relevant local authorities in south Wales.

On the challenge about house parties, it's a real danger and a real concern. It's part of the rationale for keeping pubs and the hospitality trade open. There's an environment where people can drink together, where they enjoy doing that together, but also, it's an environment that is regulated and there's a line of sight. Our bigger concern is indoor contact in people's private homes. That's been the largest area of spread and infection rates rising. So, what we definitely don't want to see is house parties increasing. If you think you're safer drinking in your home with six or seven friends you don't live with, actually, you're at much greater risk than being in a pub where you have to be socially distanced. So, there's a real challenge in what we do and the messaging around hospitality, why it's being kept open, and the challenge of just substituting that for drinking and buying alcohol from an off-licence. We're looking at off-licences as a possible restriction, together with other Governments in the UK.

On what we need to see to see the current local restrictions removed, we'll be looking in particular at a reduction in the case rate and seeing the trends going in the right direction, seeing a sustained fall in those to get below our action levels. We're also going to be looking at the positivity rates, how many people in every 100 test positive. That will tell us a lot about the state of community transmission. And we'll also be looking at the intelligence we get from our test, trace and protect service about new clusters, whether we have unexplained clusters—that's again a signal that community transmission is taking place—but also evidence of mixing and how people are acquiring coronavirus in the first place. So, it'll be a range of harder data measures and that softer intelligence on what's happening in terms of behaviour within the community.

But if we're making any choices about dropping a level down, we'll have to be clear about why we're doing that and what that then means. What I don't want is people to lose sight of the collective discipline we need to rediscover on respecting and following social distancing in particular.

Minister, residents in my region in Blaenau Gwent, in Caerphilly, in Merthyr and in Newport are now facing restrictions. I note the answer that you gave a few moments ago about how you're going to be keeping the restrictions under daily review, and I welcome that. Now that so many neighbouring authorities are facing restrictions, I'd ask would it make more sense to be thinking of reintroducing, say, a five-mile rule, instead of expecting people who live on the border between authority areas to be able to travel the length and breadth of their own authority area but not, for example, visit family members outdoors who live two miles away but only just across the border between authorities. 

And finally, I'd like to ask about your Government's communications—[Interruption.] I think the previous First Minister has got—. The final question I'd like to ask is about your Government's communication of the rules that people need to follow. Given that so many people in Wales unfortunately get their news from English broadcasters, or broadcasters that are UK based, how do you suggest they keep themselves informed of the rules that will be determining their own locality? Would you expect them to find out themselves, or will the Welsh Government be considering informing them through a direct form of communication?

[Inaudible.]—challenge around travel restrictions. We had a long and vigorous discussion, you'll recall, in this Chamber when meeting entirely remotely about the five-mile guidance in respect of local travel. Now, that 'stay local' message was broadly welcomed in lots of places, including in areas of much lower prevalence of coronavirus. There is as much concern about coronavirus not coming into an area that hasn't been largely affected.

What we're doing with our current restrictions is, because we recognise community transmission is taking place within those local authority areas, we're again looking to isolate the virus within that area, to protect areas around it as well. But it goes alongside the crucial message, and in many ways the much more important message, of people needing to looking again at what they're doing to minimise the number of contacts they're having, to understand who they're having in their own home, and to remember the rules around extended households.

It should allow contact with other people, but it should be the same four households with each other, not one household choosing three others, and then one of those three households choosing a different group of people as well. That will lead to a much more significant change in transmission and not provide the protection we're looking for—but also the companionship and contact that we know is a challenge in the areas where we've had to undo those extended household arrangements. So, it's really important that people look again at how to follow the rules and stay within them, because this is actually about keeping us safe and avoiding harm.

I do think, in terms of the travel restrictions, in Caerphilly we're already seeing some evidence that people are following those. There's a reduced number of infections. And in terms of the messaging locally, I think that the council in Caerphilly, and in particular the leader Philippa Marsden, have been very clear about what's required. On the challenges in what's taking place, actually, our local media have been very responsible and very consistent in reporting in an honest way the new restrictions that are in place. That's in all of the hyperlocal media, not just in Caerphilly, but in all of the six areas where we've had to take action.

I think, though, that if we got to a point of wider restrictions, it is of course possible that there would be a message from the Government directly to the population, but that, again, is something to hold in reserve; it's not where we are now, but again, we shouldn't rule out options on the table, because we can't be confident about the path of coronavirus in the future and what we will need to do to keep the people of Wales safe. 

That intervention was not meant to be, so can I just remind people that they shouldn't have their mobile phones on? And that's if you're joining us virtually, as well. And if you are going to take a call, can you make sure that your mike is muted, please? That actually threw me. Alun Davies.

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. The Minister, in addressing the issues in Blaenau Gwent, singled out pubs and care homes as part of the cause of the outbreak in the borough. I was wondering if he could make any further comment on that and describe why or how the data explains that care homes and pubs have led to the issues that we're experiencing in Blaenau Gwent, and whether he intends to take any specific action to deal with issues around pubs and care homes because of that. There is some concern in the borough that we have these additional restrictions there, whilst pubs remain open. Does the Minister believe that there need to be additional powers taken or provided to local government to enable the public houses to be subject to further and more significant regulation if they are to remain open?

I'd be grateful if the Minister could outline why he believes that shielding is not necessary in these areas. There are a number of people who've been shielding for some months this year already who feel somewhat vulnerable now that we're under additional regulations, but there is no requirement for them to shield at the moment. I'd be interested to understand the Government's thinking on that. 

There is a requirement—

Can you wind up, please?

—for additional testing in Blaenau Gwent as well. The Minister is aware that I've got very little confidence in the UK systems and in what the UK Government has been doing over some months, and I know that the Welsh Government has provided for mobile testing and additional testing resources in other parts of south Wales. I'd be grateful if the Minister could make a commitment for additional resources to enable additional testing to take place in Blaenau Gwent. 

Thank you for the questions. On care homes, we've actually picked up a number of positive cases from our regular programme of testing of care home staff, and that's allowed us to understand what's taking place there and to isolate not just the staff, but to then have some protection and additional testing around the care homes affected. It is literally a handful—less than a handful—at present, but we're taking that seriously because we know the significant harm that can be caused if there's a real outbreak within a care home—not just a closed environment, but a closed environment with very vulnerable people, vulnerable to much more significant harm from this virus.

It's also reflective of what's happening within the wider community, and so there's a challenge there about how we protect people. And again, it goes back—it still starts off with contact in the home and if people are mixing in the home in larger numbers, it's likely to come through, as it has done, in a range of pubs and people coming into those pubs and if they're not respecting the social distancing guidance and the rules in those pubs as well, well, it should be no surprise that staff and people who drink there are then going to walk away with coronavirus as well. So, businesses need to do their part in following the rules with their staff to protect their staff and their customers, but customers who want to continue to enjoy the ability to go to have a drink or go out for a meal need to follow the rules as well, because otherwise, we will need to take more significant measures than I've outlined already. It's also the case that every local authority is looking at enforcement and the number of spot checks that are taking place, and that is producing a response from the more responsible parts of the business and we're also picking up issues that do require improvement as well.

On shielding, the starting point is that people who have previously shielded should follow the advice and be particularly stringent about doing so, particularly that point about who you have within your own home, about following the advice on social distancing. Our chief medical officers across the UK are looking again at shielding. It's a particularly medical model that's been adopted in the past. Now, that doesn't mean to say that it wasn't worth having, but for the next phase, we've got to consider whether that's the right approach, because we understand now that people at the greatest risk of harm aren't all neatly packaged up in the list of medical conditions. We know that if you're of certain ethnic minority origins, if you're black African or Caribbean, if you're from a south Asian origin or if you're overweight as well, you are in a higher risk category, but that won't be picked up in a medical list, necessarily, on itself, unless you have a diagnosed condition. The same for areas where there is a higher degree of socioeconomic disadvantage—much greater risk of harm, yet not picked up in our shielding advice. We're looking for a more nuanced form of advice that will still help people to understand how they can manage their risks.

And on testing, I'm happy to confirm that I do expect there to be more testing resources from the Welsh Government and national health service provision. In particular, the testing centre in Cwm should benefit from an additional lane, where those tests will go to Public Health Wales labs to supplement the challenges that we still see within the UK-led lighthouse lab testing programme.

Thank you. Caroline Jones.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Apologies for my overeagerness to come in last time—to you and to Carwyn.

Thank you for your statement, Minister. What assessment has been made of the effectiveness of local lockdowns in driving down infection rates? Do you have any data on adherence rates to measures to tackle COVID-19 and how many people have been fined for breaking the rules? What support is being offered to tourist businesses in my region, many depending on seasonal trade, who will now have to cancel bookings as a result of this lockdown?

And finally, Minister, how do you answer the widespread criticism of the new measures? Many people wonder why it is okay to mix with people in a pub, club or gym but not be okay to visit loved ones. So, can you explain the reasoning for this so that we, in turn, can explain to our constituents and get them to support the measures? Because without widespread public support, these measures are futile.

On the challenge about when we'll understand the effectiveness of the local restrictions that are already in place, we indicated it will be at least two weeks before we've understood more definitively the pattern. We're seeing cautious evidence, just before the two-week review period in Caerphilly, but we'll need to understand that and then to see a sustained fall. The local restrictions that have been introduced in Scotland, in Northern Ireland and England are still, largely, in place. In Scotland they're seeing a slowdown in growth, but still a growth, in significant parts of the west of Scotland, and, as you know, England have significantly increased—there are about 12 million people, I think, in England who are under a form of local restriction. So, we need to see the evidence of what's happening in each of those areas to understand the pattern of infection in each individual case. When it comes to the evidence about them, as I said, we do have evidence of support for the measures, and a change in behaviour in Caerphilly, in particular when it comes to travel, and I think that's important. We'll see more evidence about a reduction in the number of contacts as we continue to see what happens with the case rate over the coming week.

When it comes to business support, this, again, was an issue that was raised by ourselves, by Scotland and Northern Ireland, in today's COBRA meeting, about the essential need to look again at business support. The furlough scheme has been widely welcomed, and this Government has been clear that it was a positive initiative from the UK Government. Our concern is, as we're moving into a different phase, with more restrictions likely to come in place, not less, through the winter, that not having a successor for business support may lead to businesses making choices about ending employment and making redundancies. There's a broad point there, as well as the challenges, of, if we're introducing local restrictions, or national restrictions, about further business support that's required, and that's a conversation we need to continue having with the UK Government to understand what the Treasury are prepared to do at a UK level to protect jobs and employment.

And when it comes to drinking and socialising in your own home, or in other groups, the challenge is, as we've said, and as we've recognised, people not respecting social distancing in their own home is the largest cause in the spread of coronavirus. If you're going out in a regulated environment, whether it's a gym, a restaurant or a pub, there should be additional restrictions in place on avoiding contact with other people. People, naturally, if they're in each other's homes, with loved ones, will have contact with them, and that's very difficult. And if people aren't following the rules on having an exclusive extended household, then that means we're likely to see more spreading within that household environment. It's what we have seen already in a number of the areas where local restrictions are now in place. So, that's the issue that we need to deal with if we are going to turn back the tide of coronavirus here in Wales.

Minister, the UK Government is talking about a six-month period now, and I guess that's one alternative approach, rather than having lockdowns, easing the lockdowns and then reimposing them, perhaps there could be a consistent level of restriction over a longer period of time, which I think would give greater understanding and certainty to communities, and probably feed through to greater compliance. So, I'm wondering whether Welsh Government is considering that sort of approach for Wales.

As far as schools are concerned, I wonder if you could say anything about Welsh Government consideration of facilitating a system where schools, pupils and staff could get tested quicker, and then the self-isolation that needs to take place if a test was negative could be shortened. That would save lost school time, which is so vitally important.

Also, I wonder if you could say anything about pubs. I know that they were significant in the Newport incidence of cases, as they have been elsewhere. So, will Welsh Government consider possibly bringing the closing time down from 11 o'clock to maybe 10 o'clock or 9 o'clock, and would there be any restrictions on off-licences to make sure that there's a level playing field?

On the final point, I think I've addressed that before, and we are considering the potential for table service and 10 o'clock closure on licensed premises. We're also considering off-licence sales as well.

On the six-month indication that the UK Government have given for England, well, the challenge is that, I guess, in planning terms, if we could predict that it would take six months to reach a different point, that would be useful for people to plan for. The challenge is we can't be certain about the course of the pandemic. What we can be clear about is that the autumn and the winter will be particularly difficult, and until we get to the point of having either a more effective antiviral treatment or a vaccine, then we're likely to have to live with a real challenge and the level of interventions we're going to need to take to keep us all safe and well. So, we'll continue to talk through this period of time, through the autumn and the winter, but I can't give a definitive guarantee about the length of time that other measures may be needed. But we're considering whether we need all-Wales not just messages, but all-Wales action, and we'll continue to review the case and report openly as soon as we're able to do so.

On school testing, this is partly about the challenge in the capacity of lighthouse labs, and it's one of the factors that have meant that lighthouse labs aren't able to cope with the capacity that was coming in and why tests have been restricted. As we saw in Scotland, there's a significant bump in the requirements for tests—people going for a test when the school year starts. That's happened with the return to school in England and Wales; that's one of the factors that have caused the problem that means that lighthouse labs aren't currently able to cope with the same volume of testing.

The challenge then, though, is about, if and when those issues are resolved, whether we want to prioritise school groups for testing, and I'm afraid the advice we've been given by our technical advisory group doesn't support testing whole school-year groups or whole school classes that are out of the school classroom. That's partly because of the time that it takes for coronavirus to develop—'If you're close enough you're going to get it' isn't as neat and as simple as, 'Take a test, you're fine to go back.' That's why there's a 14-day isolation period. It's why we needed to test people twice who have returned from hotspots from abroad as well. So, whilst the idea may sound appealing, actually the science doesn't support that being the right sort of intervention at present, but, as ever, we'll learn more about the science and the evidence, and that may well change the course of choices that we make to help keep Wales safe.

Minister, thank you for your statement. It's been reported in the media that Dr Shankar of Public Health Wales has suggested that a number of local authorities are currently being monitored and could face local restrictions. Those local authorities include both Conwy and Denbighshire, both of which straddle my constituency. I've just been looking on the Public Health Wales website and it suggests that the incidence per 100,000 of positive cases in Conwy is just 16.8 and in Denbighshire 18.4. Now, that's obviously considerably below the 25 per 100,000 threshold that generally triggers action from the Welsh Government. Can you tell us on what basis those local authorities are under special monitoring arrangements and can you also explain why there appears to be two different sets of data that are available to the Welsh Government to make their judgment?

So, I understand the Welsh Local Government Association circulated some information over the past 24 hours that took a snapshot of the situation on 19 September that suggested that in Conwy, the rate was 26.4 per 100,000, which is obviously over the 25 per 100,000 threshold, and that Denbighshire's was 25.1. Yet, on the same day, Public Health Wales published figures of just 19.6 in Conwy and 16.7 in Denbighshire. Why is there such a significant discrepancy, and on what basis does the Welsh Government make the decisions in terms of further intervention and monitoring?

That comes back to my response to Suzy Davies, I think, earlier on, about the challenge in having delayed results. So, you have the headline rate on the day you get the tests themselves, the next 24 hours, and you then get more tests, typically coming through the lighthouse lab process, in significant numbers, and they need to put those back in on the day that the tests were actually taken in order to understand at that time what the figures were. That's my understanding of the challenge with some of the figures, which is why there's been such focus not just on the amount of tests that are done, not the lab capacity, but the amount of tests that are delivered, and how quickly the results are provided.

In terms of the watch list, it's a watch list of what's happening with a shifting picture, so we're not just looking and waiting till people reach a point in time, we're looking at a change in the rates within local authorities as well. So, we know that Conwy and Denbighshire are seeing some increases, and so rather than saying we'll do nothing until they hit a particular margin, we're saying that that's something to keep an eye on rather than that we need to intervene in the here and now. We will then, if cases do continue to rise, consider what further action we need to take.

To be fair, there's a point here for local authorities across the political spectrum, because I can honestly say that during the course of this crisis and now, we've had very constructive conversations with leaders from every party, including independent leaders, the Conservatives, Plaid Cymru and the Welsh Labour leadership. There's a real feeling from leaders of local authorities about the sense of national mission we have, and their responsibility in their local communities, and that's what we want to see carry on moving forward. So, we'll share data openly and transparently with local authorities and local health boards. Our TTP teams are based in local authorities. They have ready access to the intelligence on changes within the pattern of coronavirus within their communities, and we will need that unity of purpose as we all strive to keep Wales safe through a very difficult autumn and winter.

Thank you. And finally, Dawn Bowden.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. [Inaudible.]

No, I think there's something wrong. We can't hear you.

Okay. Got me?

That's better, thank you.

Okay, sorry about that. Three quick points from me. We've got additional restrictions now on visiting people's homes, but for some people their homes, of course, are also their workplaces. So, I'm thinking of people like music instructors and so on—people come to their homes for tutoring. And other people's homes are also some people's workplaces—I'm thinking of people like mobile hairdressers. So, it would be helpful to get some clarity that these businesses can continue to operate providing protective measures are put in place.

I've also had some concerns raised with me about incidents of lack of co-operation with TTP contact tracers, and reports of some people who have tested positive not being prepared to disclose their contacts. Now, given the potential seriousness of this in undermining attempts to stop the spread of the virus, do we need to consider enforcement of the requirements to disclose contacts?

And my final point, Deputy Presiding Officer, is that I'm very conscious of the pressures on local authorities, who are working at capacity now in dealing with these new restrictions. So, can we see some flexibility on bodies like Estyn and Care Inspectorate Wales in terms of when scheduled inspections need to take place, and get agreement to delay where necessary for a few weeks to ensure that everyone in those sectors can concentrate on dealing with the issues related to the new restrictions, rather than preparing for inspections which, however important, are really not imperative at this point in time?

Thank you for the comments and questions. I think the education Minister has indicated that some of the point of the Estyn inspections was actually about addressing local authority plans to safeguard the interests of learners during this particular time in the pandemic. But I of course take on board the point that the Member makes about whether the balance is the right one, as we're moving into a different phase, so I'll happily discuss that with both the Deputy Minister, who's going to be up next, about CIW, but also with the education Minister about the pattern for inspections taking place, and the point and the purpose of those, because not having an inspection regime is something that is not consequence free. It's part of what we do to help keep people safe in all those institutions, but I think the Member raises a fair point about the current balance.

On home visits where that is someone's workplace, either their own home or if they're visiting someone else's home for work, at present that is permitted, even within the local restrictions, but reasonable measures must be taken, and so will differ for people depending on the task they're undertaking. The measures may be different, for example, for a music teacher, where social distancing should be possible, typically, compared to someone who is a mobile hairdresser. And we do recognise that, if we need to move to a phase where that can no longer take place, that would have a significant economic consequence for those people and they may not have easy recourse to alternative sources of income themselves. So, we recognise there's a real impact in every choice that we make.

When it comes to the lack of co-operation with the contact tracing service, I think whilst it's disappointing, obviously, that people aren't co-operating, I understand people's frustration. We have to consider the challenge of both, I think, the carrot, and I think the welcome ability to provide people with financial support, if the UK Treasury are clear and rapid in confirming that there are funds available to not just Wales, but Scotland and Northern Ireland too, to introduce a support scheme. That should help with co-operation, but also just the message that the primary point of this is to keep people safe.

We're not looking to catch people out so we can fine them, we're looking to understand information to keep them, their family and their community safe. And you will know, from clusters taking place within your own constituency, that the mixing, where that hasn't been properly disclosed, has gone into that wider family group, with partners, parents and others then being at risk of having coronavirus, and the risk profile changes as the age profile changes as well. So, our preference is to get the right sort of co-operation with people right across Wales, but, if not, we are considering options about whether enforcement and changing the rules around that is something that we could and should do. But all of this must come back to the primary purpose: what do we all need to do to help keep Wales safe?

Thank you very much, Minister. 

Item 5 on the agenda this afternoon is a statement by the Deputy Minister for Health and Social Services: the childcare offer and support for the childcare sector. I call on the Deputy Minister for Health and Social Services, Julie Morgan. 

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, for the opportunity to update the Senedd on the position of the Welsh childcare and play sector and our childcare offer for Wales. I want to start this statement by saying a big 'thank you' and to acknowledge the exceptional way in which childcare and play providers across Wales have responded to the events of recent months. I'm sure Members would agree they deserve our heartfelt thanks for the invaluable contribution they have made and that they continue to make.

The period since March has been challenging for the sector. Even in the national lockdown earlier this year, we did not require the closure of childcare settings. It was, however, necessary to limit the number of children on site. Those settings that remained open fulfilled an essential role, enabling our key workers to undertake their critical roles. I was struck by the resolve and flexibility of so many of our providers, pulling out all the stops to ensure that they remained open. However, remaining open was not an option for all settings, and, at our lowest point, about 1,940 providers closed their doors. This represents over half of all registered childcare provision in Wales. However, today, things are looking more promising, with only around 428 settings remaining closed. And what we must remember is that, even without a pandemic, we would normally see some settings close for a range of reasons.

Fortunately, we were able to release the restrictions around childcare from 22 June. As of this week, around 1,527 of those settings that closed have reopened, which means that 88 per cent of registered providers overall are now open across Wales. However, in August we conducted a short survey of settings that were open, and that showed that most settings were expecting a 30 per cent reduction in attendance. For small settings in particular, that represents a significant reduction in demand. Our main focus now needs to be on supporting and building a sustainable sector for the future. Our approach over the coming months will be varied, including support for settings, support for the workforce and support for parents, providing them with the reassurance they need to return to childcare and the many advantages it brings to their children.

In April I made the difficult decision to suspend the childcare offer to new applications. At that point it was the right thing to do and allowed us to redirect some of the funding for the offer to help support the fight against the virus in a more direct and meaningful way. And through our coronavirus childcare assistance scheme, we supported over 9,600 children of critical workers, allowing their parents to continue their essential work, and cared for over 900 vulnerable children. Whilst the coronavirus childcare assistance scheme was a necessary and vital intervention that helped deal with the immediate crisis, it was always a priority for the Government to reinstate the childcare offer as soon as practicably possible. I'm extremely pleased that, since August, we have been able to reopen the offer.

We worked very closely with local authorities to ensure applications from parents were managed in a phased way. This has meant that parents who missed out on the offer in the summer term had their applications assessed first, with local authorities moving on quickly to deal with applications from new parents. And I want to thank local authorities for the way that they worked tirelessly to support the coronavirus childcare assistance scheme, and for working with us to bring back the offer. We couldn't have done any of this without them.

Reinstating the offer is a key part of our recovery plan. Not only does the offer provide much-needed security of funding for providers, but it helps thousands of parents, especially mothers, who seem to have been particularly negatively impacted by recent months. There were around 14,600 children accessing the offer in January and it's anticipated that around 8,000 to 9,000 children will take up the offer in the autumn term, which is approximately 75 per cent to 85 per cent of the usual take-up for autumn. Our Flying Start services have also restarted across Wales, and I am committed to completing the review of extending the offer to parents in education and training.

Alongside this, we have introduced the childcare provider grant. Although most childcare providers would have been able to access some form of Government support during the pandemic, we set up the provider grant, which allows settings to claim up to £5,000 towards their costs, to help any who were not able to access the wider business support schemes. The initial weeks of the provider grant have now started and take-up has been slower than we'd hoped, but there is still some time to go and we are working with local authorities, Cwlwm and Play Wales to further promote the grant and offer assistance in completing the application, where needed. All registered full-day care providers are also eligible for a 100 per cent business rates relief exemption until March 2022.

The workforce plan that was published in December 2017 sets out our vision to develop a highly skilled childcare, play and early years workforce here in Wales, making it a profession and a career of choice. This is more important than ever, given recent events, and we will continue to work to see its aims implemented and strengthened, with training and upskilling programmes restarting. The childcare sector in Wales is a rich tapestry of different types of organisations, all with distinct operating models and particular challenges. We must support the whole sector if we are to ensure that there is choice for families and appropriate support for all of our children, and, to that end, I'm also aiming to complete our ministerial review of play to support our thinking as we go forwards.

Deputy Presiding Officer, this Government is committed to tackling in-work poverty, to helping parents into work by removing childcare as a barrier to work, and to ensuring that childcare and play work becomes a profession that is valued here in Wales for the enormous contribution it makes towards nurturing and developing the future citizens of Wales. Thank you for the opportunity to update Members.

Thank you for the statement, Minister. There has been understandable concern from parents, so I welcome this today. I too would like to offer thanks from the official opposition to all our nursery and child carers, who not only do a fantastic job not only just caring for our children, but helping to nurture them and helping them grow as individuals. I welcome the fact that the system is now being reinstated, having been suspended during lockdown, for working parents of three and four-year-olds, because it's a vital lifeline for families, enabling the parents to actually earn a living.

But many nurseries have been operating at a loss due to the fall in the uptake that you've just referred to, presumably due to the ongoing uncertainty and some workers still being on furlough. What support can the Welsh Government offer to nurseries that are facing serious financial hardship due to their enforced closure, fewer children attending and increased costs to deal with COVID regulations? And what consideration has been given to setting up a transformation fund to be able to support the sector until occupancy levels pick up further than you've said, and to really review the hourly rate to reflect the additional costs that they've had to incur, as called for by the National Day Nurseries Association? 

The organisation Cwlwm, which you referred to, has said that most childcare providers did not qualify for the Welsh Government support, and the sector was being ignored during the pandemic. Cwlwm, an umbrella body that represents 4,000 childcare providers, estimates 90 per cent of nurseries, day care centres, clubs and childminding services have closed in the last month, but still had to pay bills and rent. A Welsh Government scheme offering grants up to £10,000 to businesses is still not available to most nurseries, they say, because they need to be registered for value added tax, and most childcare businesses are exempt. Cwlwm chairwoman, Dr Gwenllian Lansdown Davies, said clarity was needed so providers could pay their staff, and the VAT exemption needed to be lifted or childcare businesses would not survive the pandemic. I'd love to hear what you could say on that, Minister, please.

I hear what you're saying about not requiring childcare providers to close during the pandemic, but the reality is that many did close because numbers simply weren't viable. And in terms of our economic recovery, we need childcare settings to survive and to flourish. Indeed, following the introduction of the childcare offer, Welsh Government has been working to increase the number of childcare places by working with local authorities to create additional capacity. What assessment has the Minister made of whether these plans need revising because of the pandemic, please? Thank you.

Thank you very much for those very pertinent questions. Certainly, I have no—. I'm not trying to say, in any way, that the sector didn't suffer during this period, and I think, by the figures that I gave in my statement, I made clear the numbers that had closed. But also it is very encouraging, the numbers that have actually reopened. And although they have smaller numbers actually going at the moment, we're doing all we can to encourage parents to have the confidence to send their children back, because there is a degree of nervousness, and also to stress how it will enable the parents to continue to go back to work, if they're not able to work. And also, I think, as you mentioned, many parents may still be on furlough, so that means that they don't want their children to go back. So, I think there are many reasons why they're not actually there at the moment.

Certainly, there are many grants that are available that the childcare sector didn't fit into easily. They certainly were able to take advantage of the furlough scheme, and many of them did—the UK Government scheme—and they have had access to some other schemes. But we were aware that there was this gap, and that's why we have put forward the provider grant. Now, that is very new—it's only been there a couple of weeks—but that is particularly aimed at the different settings that have fallen in the loops that have existed.

So, I am confident that the childcare scheme will revive; it is reviving already. I think we all know how absolutely essential it is. It's essential for working parents, it's essential for the economy, and it's essential for the children. And I know you referred to Cwlwm today, and I was very pleased that there was a message here today to say that the position of today is that 99 per cent of cylchoedd meithrin are actually open, and we have been very worried in particular about the Welsh language provision, because the Welsh language provision has disproportionately suffered. So, I think that there is definitely hope there, and we are offering as much help as we can.

I too would like to thank everyone working in this important sector for their contributions over the past few months in caring for children, including children of some of our care workers, so that they could continue to maintain front-line services.

Unfortunately, half of the providers had to close their doors, but now many have reopened, as you mentioned. But 12 per cent continue to be closed. And I would like to look into this a little further and to ask you whether these locations will reopen or have some of these closed their doors once and for all. You go on to say in your statement that most of these locations expect a reduction of 30 per cent in the number of children attending in the near future. Now, that is a significant drop and will make some providers financially unsustainable, and unfortunately, as restrictions tighten once again, there is no sign that the situation is about to improve. As well as the detrimental impact on the businesses themselves, do you believe that there are other implications to this reduction? I'm thinking particularly of the impact on children, on the social development of children, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds. We know, and there is plenty of evidence to demonstrate, how important early years care and education is for the development of a child emotionally, socially and educationally. So, how concerned are you about this short-term reduction and possible longer term reduction from the perspective of the child?

As you mentioned, there's been a decline in the number of applicants for the childcare offer. It's lower than usual for this time of the year and one consequence of that, of course, is that there is more money in the budget. So, may I ask you whether you have considered extending the offer to children from families where the parent or parents don't work, so that they could benefit from early years childcare and education, which is something that Plaid Cymru has been calling for from the very outset? I hear you mention a review. When will that review take place and isn't it appropriate now to shift some of the funding in the budget towards those families where the parents aren't in work so that their children can benefit too?

And finally, mentioning the grants available. You have announced the small grants fund for the sector recently. As you mentioned, it's a £4 million fund, but I do understand that at the moment the number of applications to this fund is small. Could you tell us more about this? According to some of the providers that I've been speaking to, there's a lot of work attached to making an application for a grant from this particular fund and the amounts involved are relatively small and you have to provide a great deal of evidence to access the fund. So, I would ask you to look again at the criteria for this fund in order to attract more applications. It would be a shame if all of that £4 million weren't to be spent, and I'm sure you would agree with me on that point. Thank you.

I'd like to thank Siân Gwenllian for those questions. I'm pleased that she recognised the huge contribution that the childcare sector makes and that she thanked the sector for providing the opportunity for care workers to be able to continue to work in this pandemic. The childcare sector played an absolutely vital part.

At this time of the year, applications for the childcare offer are always lower than during the rest of the year, and in my statement I said that it was between 75 and 85 per cent of what we would normally expect at this time of the year. Bearing in mind that, for the reasons I used in my previous answers, many parents may be still reluctant for their children to go to childcare, many may still be working from home and trying to look after the children at the same time, and many may be on furlough still, I think there are reasons why that number is low and we anticipate that it will gradually rise as confidence grows in terms of returning children to the childcare sector.

We did do this survey in August to see what help had been made available to the sector and, in fact, 90 per cent of the people who replied did say that they had some form of Government grant from some place or other. So, I think 90 per cent did get grants, but nevertheless I absolutely accept what Siân Gwenllian is saying because it was a fragile sector before all this happened and obviously we want to give as much support as we possibly can, which is why we produced the provider fund grant. It's only been open for a few weeks, but as you say, the applications are slow at the moment, so I have asked officials to liaise with the providers—with Cwlwm in particular—to see what help can be given and to encourage the groups to apply, because obviously, many of these groups are run by voluntary management committees who are doing it in their own time, and we want to give them as much help as possible, because we certainly don't want that £4.5 million to go to waste, because it was specifically aimed at trying to plug the gaps in the childcare sector.

In terms of the review, we have been considering whether we can extend the offer to people in education and training, and people who are on the cusp of work. That review is taking place. It will report to me in the autumn, and I hope we'll be able to say something definitive to the Chamber towards the end of this term or at the beginning of next term.

In terms of the impact on children, I think Siân Gwenllian is absolutely right: so many children have suffered so much during this period, particularly disadvantaged children. I'm glad we were able to provide some support for disadvantaged children and also through the summer holidays, when we were able to give some money to local authorities to try to provide some provision during the summer holidays. But because we know that it is so absolutely crucial for the early years, for children to have as much support and help as they possibly can, I absolutely agree with her that we have to do all we possibly can to help the children catch up and help support the schools and the childcare settings to do all they can for particularly the disadvantaged children.

Minister, you thanked childcare providers and their staff for everything they've been doing. May I also thank you and Welsh Government for what you've been doing in this area? I'm impressed with the childcare offer as it's been delivered. You have it in your manifesto, but you've actually gone ahead and done it, it came in ahead of schedule, and I'm particularly pleased that you're being at least as encouraging of the private sector with the offer as you are of the public sector.

You mentioned in your statement that the childcare offer is a key part of the recovery plan, and I certainly agree with that. You said, though, that only 75 to 85 per cent of what you might expect in a normal term for people were back, and I just wonder if another reason for that may be the interaction with before and after-school care. Although generally the return to school has worked well, I have had a number of constituents who've raised concerns about the availability of before and after-school care that was there before, and concern that unavailability may prevent them going back to work. Is it the interaction of that with younger siblings which is keeping a significant number from taking up the childcare offer again?

And just to slightly also clarify the childcare provider grant, I think you said that this was only available where other schemes weren't available, but you then referenced, I think, later, them also being eligible for business rates relief. Can I just clarify, is it either/or, or are some providers eligible for both? And also were you particularly concerned to provide support to childminders who might be offering this at home, not from business-rated premises, or is that not relevant here? Thank you.

I thank Mark Reckless for that question. And yes, we did deliver the childcare offer a year ahead of time and I know it has been very warmly welcomed.

I think he does make a very important point about the interaction between before and after-school care in the schools because, certainly, many of the schools have not yet introduced the breakfast clubs and the after-school clubs. There is an absolute duty, as the education Minister has made clear, that the breakfast clubs, which are free and are provided by Welsh Government money ultimately, will be coming back. But with the after-school clubs, I know that there is some concern from the headteachers about having another group, possibly, in the school that is not managed by the school at this point. And I absolutely understand that, because I do think that headteachers have been anxious and have been preparing very carefully for the children to come back to school, and, as you say, it has been very successful. But, certainly, I know of headteachers who have said that they are reluctant to have the after-school clubs back yet, but we hope that they will be introduced soon. So, I think that that is something that we will have to look at very carefully. We are in touch with the local authorities, asking them to encourage headteachers to reintroduce after-school clubs, but obviously that does relate to younger siblings and attendance. So, again, it's something I think he's right that that could contribute that.

In terms of the provider grant, I think that we were looking to try to fill in gaps where groups were not actually eligible for some of the grants that were available, because their premises didn't qualify and they were not eligible. Certainly, it is possible for them to have two separate grants from Government as long as it's not for the same thing. So, you can't apply for two different pots of money for, for example, the salary for one person, but it is possible to cover different areas. So, we are doing all we can to look for ways of supporting the childcare sector, because, as you say, it's absolutely crucial to the recovery.

Thank you. And finally, Jenny Rathbone.

Thank you very much. It is certainly the case that COVID-19 has taken a terrible toll on women's position in the workplace, because they've been targeted by employers as being the first out the door if they're needing to make redundancies. So, we've got some catch up to do on ensuring that we have an inclusive workforce, but also in ensuring that all children have the opportunity of a quality early years education and play. So, your figures of a 30 per cent reduction possibly indicate people who have lost their jobs and therefore can't afford childcare any longer, but also, obviously, the anxiety that some parents may feel about placing their children in early years education.

I fully acknowledge the wonderful work that's being done by childcare providers, certainly across my constituency—both private, public and voluntary sector—but it is a fragile sector, as you say, and we know from study after study that the most effective strategy for closing the gap in attainment is that very high-quality, comprehensive education and play that you can get. We are a long way off countries like France and Germany. Flying Start for two-year-olds has been an excellent initiative, but how are we going to get more nurseries in areas of deprivation where the private sector is very unlikely to go? They are much more likely to be cherry picking areas of our communities where there are many more people who are able to pay. I appreciate all the work you're doing, but it seems to me we have a very considerable challenge still to get where we want to be. So, I wondered if you could tell us how you're going to ensure that everybody has the opportunity to put their child into quality childcare and education, not just those with the resources to pay for it.

I thank Jenny Rathbone for that question and for her contribution. And, of course, she's absolutely right, it's crucial for women in particular that we offer the opportunities so that they are able to work and fulfil their potential, as well as the children's potential.

I think that Flying Start has been one of our flagship programmes, and it has been, from the evidence that we've seen so far, extremely successful. I know that we've all heard headteachers say, 'Oh you know if the children have come from a Flying Start background.' The speech and language provision in Flying Start has been absolutely outstanding. So, I think we know what it is that we can do, and what we have to do is look towards extending what is provided in Flying Start much more widely. It's obviously on a geographic basis and we are more flexible now in terms of trying to get outreach for opening it up to people from outside the Flying Start areas, but that is, as I see it, the key of quality provision.

So, I think that we are considering ways of extending Flying Start, and I think that that is—. I absolutely agree with Jenny Rathbone that we are way behind Scandinavian countries, but we are making progress, and I think providing that high-quality early years is absolutely essential, so that children from deprived communities are able to enter school equally, and the evidence from Flying Start is that they do. So, we have got the key to it, and that's what we need to pursue.

Thank you, Deputy Minister.

The next item is the coronavirus regulations. Item 8 is postponed and item 10 has been withdrawn. In accordance with Standing Order 12.24, unless a Member objects, the three motions under items 6, 7 and 9 will be grouped for debate, but with votes taken separately. I assume that there are no objections to that grouping.

As there is no objection, I call on the Minister for Health and Social Services to move the motion—Vaughan Gething.

Thank you, Llywydd. I formally move the three sets of regulations before us today and ask Members to support them. These regulations were all introduced under the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984, through emergency procedures to support our approach to tackling coronavirus. Members will be aware that the Welsh Government takes a careful and evidence-based approach to our continual review of the lockdown restrictions, including the formal requirement to review the need for the requirements and their proportionality every 21 days.

These regulations were introduced over a period from 21 August to 11 September. As well as providing for easements to the restrictions when the circumstances allow, they demonstrate the swift action that the Welsh Government is taking to respond to the recent rise in the number of cases in certain parts of Wales. Members will be aware, as we've just discussed, of the actions that we've taken with local restrictions across Caerphilly and Rhondda Cynon Taf, which we took on 8 and 17 September, respectively; and, of course, from 6 o'clock today, local restrictions will also apply to Newport, Blaenau Gwent, Bridgend and Merthyr Tydfil.

These measures seek to control the virus and protect public health across each of these local authority areas. In each area, people are not allowed to meet indoors, including from within extended households, which cannot take place at this point in time. People are prohibited from entering or leaving each county borough council area without a reasonable excuse. Finally, as we've already discussed today, licensed premises in all of these six local authorities will need to close by 11 p.m.

As set out in the coronavirus control plan, which sets out our approach to monitoring cases and controlling localised outbreaks, the restrictions are based on the principles of caution, proportionality and subsidiarity. These measures are kept under constant review and are formally reviewed every two weeks. Amendment No. 8 provided for the restrictions in Caerphilly and was originally intended to be debated today, but it will now be debated on 29 September, alongside the amendments that provided for local restrictions in Rhondda Cynon Taf.

Members will be aware that the UK Prime Minister has indicated new restrictions that he intends to introduce in England, including that all pubs, bars and restaurants will be required to close at 10 p.m. Following the meeting that the First Minister and I had with Boris Johnson and other Ministers across the UK in the COBRA process this morning, we are urgently considering further national restrictions in Wales, including whether they might align with those announced for England.

I'll address each of the regulations being considered today in turn. The amendment No. 6 regulations first increase the number of households able to join together in an extended household from two to four. Secondly, it also allows for indoor celebrations following a wedding, civil partnership or funeral for up to 30 people. These are limited in scope, such as an organised meal in a hotel or restaurant, and must take place in a regulated setting. Finally, it provided Ministers with the power to authorise and set conditions for a series of three pilot outdoor events for up to 100 people.

The No. 7 regulations allow for visits to residents of care homes, hospices and secure accommodation services for children. Guidance was prepared with the sector, and each place will put in place its own arrangements to enable visits to take place safely. In addition, the amendment No. 7 regulations prohibited organising unlicensed music events for more than 30 people. These can be punishable by a fixed penalty of £10,000, and we've seen it in action following the events in Banwen and other places. They also provided for casinos to reopen.

In terms of the amendment No. 9 regulations, since 14 September, all residents in Wales over the age of 11 have been required to wear face coverings in indoor public spaces such as shops. This follows a continued increase in the number of cases across some parts of Wales, both in absolute terms and as a proportion of the number of people being tested. These regulations also further amended the provision for extended households. A maximum of six people can now meet indoors at any one time, and these must be from the same extended household. Children under 11 are not, though, included in this rule of six. It was also intended that today's debate would consider amendments relating to stand-alone local authority function. These have now been revoked and remade; they will be debated on 29 September.

The evidence from recent weeks is clear, we are seeing an increase in transmission rates; these are primarily resulting from people not observing social distancing and not following the restrictions. I would again stress that we are not allowed to meet other people indoors, either in their homes or in pubs, cafes or restaurants, unless we are all part of the same extended household.

Llywydd, we all have a part to play in keeping Wales safe. The restrictions and requirements set out in these regulations remain necessary to continue to tackle this pandemic, and I ask the Senedd to support them.

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

Thank you, Llywydd. With regard to items 6, 7 and 9, which are taken together, Members will know that the the Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (No. 2) (Wales) Regulations 2020 are the principal regulations on coronavirus in Wales. The Senedd approved these regulations on 5 August 2020. We reported on the No. 6 and the No. 7 amending regulations on 14 September, and yesterday we reported on the No. 9 amending regulations. Now, we acknowledge that, while we are debating these regulations today, the Welsh Government has also made further amending regulations, which demonstrates the fast-moving nature of the Government's actions in these matters.

The No. 6 regulations came into force on 22 August and permitted up to four households to join together in an extended household, and people to gather indoors in a group of up to 30 people for certain events. The No. 7 regulations came into force on 28 August and they make further amendments to the principal regulations. These include that no person may without reasonable excuse be involved in organising certain unlicensed music events, and that a person who fails to comply with the restriction commits and offence and may be issued with a fixed penalty notice of £10,000. They also include that people have a reasonable excuse to gather indoors, to visit a resident in a care home, hospice or secure accommodation for children, and clarified that people have a reasonable excuse to gather to access educational services.

For both the No. 6 and the No. 7 regulations, we made the same merits reporting point, namely that the regulations were not subject to a public consultation or a regulatory impact assessment. We noted, though, the Welsh Government's explanation that this was due to the pandemic and the need for an urgent public health response, and that the changes are being communicated to the public and businesses through ongoing public information broadcasts and press conferences. In relation to the No. 7 regulations, we also noted that the Welsh Government has had ongoing discussions with the police forces in Wales about the introduction of a new offence.

The No. 9 regulations made further changes to the principal regulations, which came into force on 14 September. These changes included restricting gatherings indoors of members of an extended household to six people, not including any children under the age of 11, and requiring face coverings to be worn in the indoor public areas of open premises and transport hubs, unless an exemption applies or the person has a reasonable excuse for not wearing the face covering. 

Our report identified two merits reporting points. The first is with the No. 6 and the No. 7 regulations. We reported there had been no public consultation or regulatory impact assessment prepared in relation to these regulations for the same reasons. However, we noted that an integrated impact assessment is being developed and will be published shortly, which we welcome. We also noted that steps were taken by the Welsh Government to publicise the changes. Secondly, we noted that these regulations introduce a tightening of coronavirus-related restrictions. As such, these regulations do fall within the territory of human rights considerations for individual rights under the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European charter of fundamental rights. This means that any restrictions must be proportionate to achieving a legitimate aim.

Now, as regards the specific issues I've referred to in these regulations regarding meeting indoors and the wearing of face coverings, the explanatory memorandum states that the restrictions and requirements will or may engage rights under article 8, that is the right to respect for family and private life; article 9, freedom of thought, conscience and religion; article 11, freedom of assembly and association; and article 14, prohibition of discrimination. The Welsh Ministers consider, and we're in agreement, that to the extent that requirements imposed by the regulations engage or interfere with those rights, the interference is justified because it pursues the legitimate aim of providing a public health response to the threat posed by the increasing incidents and spread of coronavirus across Wales and is proportionate to that aim. Diolch, Llywydd.

I'd just like to put on the record that I believe we need to stop voting on these regulations weeks after they've been imposed. This is no longer a satisfactory state of affairs with the hybrid Plenary system we now have. The Minister himself alluded to some of the things we are voting on today in relation to raves, pilots in sports grounds, face coverings—these were all laid over a month ago, and here we are today waiting on another set of regulations that the First Minister isn't prepared to come and make a statement over.

Given the impact that these regulations are going to have on every walk of life, from the economy to potentially increased deaths from cancer and those linked to economic hardship, it's imperative that we have more timely debate on these regulations, and I do hope that the Government will subscribe to this. These have already been changed and amended in some areas, the regulations we have before us. We have near enough a lockdown in parts of south Wales, and yet, today, we are voting on regulations that were laid over a month ago. So, given that, I want to put the Government and the Minister on notice that we, as Welsh Conservatives, would like to see more debate and more challenge when these regulations are laid and this lag has to come to an end. We need to get more scrutiny on the regulations. Thank you, Presiding Officer.

We will support these regulations here today, because, generally speaking, we agree on the need to introduce, in general terms, the restrictions or the easements proposed in them. But I will make a few points. The first of those is on the scrutiny process and the fact that many weeks have passed here between the introduction of some of these changes—it's up to a month since some of these changes were introduced in the case of the No. 6 regulations. Now, of course, the current circumstances are unprecedented, but not only is the situation we're in in terms of this delay very unusual, it is most unsatisfactory in democratic terms. It creates democratic confusion, but also causes confusion on a practical level. For example, with the No. 6 amendments, it talks about allowing piloting open-air meetings of up to 100 people in sports, and so on; the First Minister has confirmed that that pilot has been judged to be too risky and came to an end 10 days ago, but now we are asked to approve these amendments. So, it causes confusion.

In this pandemic, messaging must be clear. I do think that the Government needs to look, in general terms, at how its messages are conveyed and how those messages are understood. We know from examples of interviews in the media by people in our communities that people are still confused in terms of what they're required to do in terms of their personal behaviour in a number of cases. So, I appeal for clearer messaging, and that, for me, relates to the scrutiny process being closer to the timetable of the regulations themselves. If there's confusion within our national Parliament, then there should be no doubt that there is confusion on the ground too.

I agree with what's been said about increasingly ridiculous debating things over a month after they've happened, while in the real world, new stuff is going through, often going in a different direction, at the same time we're talking about the old stuff.

I'm grateful, though, for the health Minister including in his contribution what I thought were some references to the local council-based lockdowns that we've recently had coming in. Can I clarify whether those remarks were just to be helpful and talk about something that was current, or whether particular things he was saying about that are relevant to the particular amendments we're voting on today?

Overall, our approach has been to vote against all legislative coronavirus restrictions. We consider that they are disproportionate and counterproductive, and we'd much prefer the type of approach that Sweden has exemplified successfully. We have some liberalising regulations here, but we have, and I don't know if this is the health Minister's area—. We've seen operations decline, you state, by 62 per cent in the Welsh NHS; we've seen 16,000 fewer cancer referrals. I think, on an England and Wales basis last week, we saw 70 deaths from COVID but 125 from suicide. You know, are these proportionate?

The regulations No. 6—we go from two to four extended households, which is liberalising, and also allowing life-event celebrations, which I assume are celebrations with reference to weddings; they also apply to funerals, so we support that limited liberalisation. On the No. 7 regulations, again, we support reopening casinos, as far as it goes, and also the liberalisation of visiting to care homes. There are restrictions on certain unlicensed music events, which I assume he means mass outdoor raves, given these are in a composite set of restrictions, and I think, even in Sweden, there are limits on those types of events. We will support the No. 7 regulations.

The No. 9 regulations we do not support. You have this regime of extended households—they're meeting in any event, so, as households, presumably, therefore potentially with virus transmission, if that is present—why then restrict to six in groups of households otherwise allowed to meet in differing groups of six? There's the fiddly difference, compared to England, of the arrangements for children. And also, there's the extension of compulsory face coverings, for which the Welsh Government has previously said the evidence is weak. You say you're doing research into people taking them on and off going in and out of restaurants—whether that could that be counterproductive—yet you've applied it compulsorily for shops on the basis of, at best, a very weak evidence base. So, we will support regulations 6 and 7 but vote against the No. 9. Thank you.

I have supported the Welsh Government's legislation throughout this pandemic, because these measures were necessary to avoid thousands of unnecessary deaths, so of course they have my backing. I will continue to support all necessary measures and will therefore be voting for all of the legislation before us today.

However, I do have issues with the way the legislation is being handled. We are being asked to vote on measures put in place, as has already been said, but I'm emphasising it, some weeks ago. While I accept that this was necessary early on in the pandemic, there is no reason I can see for us not to be voting on measures before they are put in place. We should be debating the need for these measures ahead of time so we can convince the wider public of their necessity. The Welsh Government doesn't have to convince me that the measures put in place by the coronavirus regulations are needed; they have to convince the Welsh public. 

Members of the public have to take responsibility for the actions that they take, so these regulations—if these regulations had been adhered to by everyone, we wouldn't now be considering imposing further lockdowns, but there is still much confusion about what is necessary and what isn't. The only way we will avoid further local or even a national lockdown is by convincing people to stick to the rules, by convincing people of the need for the rules. Every set of amending regulations so far has been accompanied by a report of the Senedd's Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee pointing out the lack of public consultation on the regulations. So, I accept that this hasn't been possible up to now, but it is sorely needed. Minister, will you commit to holding a public consultation on measures to control coronavirus and will the Welsh Government commit to putting its legislation in front of this Senedd before it comes into effect?

If we are to avoid another national lockdown in the coming weeks and months, then we need the people of Wales on side, supporting measures, instead of some choosing to ignore them. Otherwise, what's happening in the south-east of Wales is a sign of things to come for the rest of the country. Diolch yn fawr.

I've consistently opposed these regulations, because I think that they are wholly disproportionate to the threat that coronavirus presents to us. But I'd like to say first of all how much I agreed with what Andrew R.T. Davies and Rhun ap Iorwerth said earlier on about the manner in which these regulations are approved, weeks after they've been implemented by the Government. I think that's a democratic outrage, and I also think that 30 minutes is quite inadequate to discuss such draconian measures. Relaxations, of course, are always to be welcomed, but the overall, overarching scheme of the restrictions remains. We've turned our country, effectively, into an open prison, as I've said once before, and we're now doing that on an even more draconian basis at a local level.

When you look at the numerical threat that coronavirus presents to us, you really do have to wonder whether the Government, whether it's at UK level or in the devolved administration, has any sense of proportion at all. The latest figures for the UK show that the seven-day moving average of deaths from coronavirus, or, actually, related to coronavirus—that's what appears on the death certificate as a possible cause of death—is only 22, which is exactly where it was in the middle of July. There are only 138 people in the entire United Kingdom who are in a serious or critical condition with coronavirus, and the deaths per million is 615. Even if you take that as being indicative of the number of deaths from coronavirus, as opposed to people dying with coronavirus, that, as a proportion of the total population, I don't think justifies the vast economic dislocation and also the destruction of our social life, with all the implications that has had. We've got to get things back into proportion.

Sweden has been quoted by Mark Reckless and this is a very instructive case. There are only 15 people in the whole of Sweden in a serious or critical condition with COVID. They have 60,000 COVID cases, 15 people in a serious or critical condition, and their seven-day moving average since the end of July has been between one and three deaths. Sweden has had no compulsory lockdown, although they have had social distancing measures et cetera applied on a voluntary basis.

You can't draw direct comparisons between the experience of different countries. Local considerations will always, sometimes, produce significant differences. But when you consider the vast costs that we've incurred, relative to what's happened in Sweden, for a minimally different result, I do think that that is an indictment of official policy, so I shall vote against these regulations today.

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

Thank you, Llywydd. I thank Members for their contributions and I thank the committee for their scrutiny. And on the broader points raised by both Andrew R.T. Davies and Rhun ap Iorwerth on the process, these are made in mind with the made-affirmative process that this Senedd has provided for. The Government is always open to conversations about how business is transacted, and, of course, the Presiding Officer and the Business Committee have an important role in making sure this is done in accordance with our own procedures. We recalled this Senedd, of course, during the summer to pass made-affirmative regulations as well. It's an important lock on the Government's ability to make these regulations that the Senedd has to agree them for them to continue. 

We are in unprecedented circumstances, as Rhun ap Iorwerth has indicated, and part of our challenge is the speed at which we need to move, but also the speed at which the course of the pandemic changes. The start of these regulations being debated today is about further easement, and yet we're now discussing further restrictions taking place right across the United Kingdom with a significant warning about the harm that will take place in this country, as in other parts of the UK, unless further measures are taken. I think Rhun ap Iorwerth's point about clarity and messaging is important. It's always important to look at how our messages are being received and understood by the public, and I do think that the four-nation engagement at leadership level will help with that in every part of the UK. 

In terms of Mark Reckless's point, we'll be debating the Caerphilly and RCT regulations next week, as indicated by the Trefnydd and also in my opening. Both Neil Hamilton and Mark Reckless were keen to indicate their preference for the Swedish approach, and as the First Minister indicated earlier today, the death rate, I think, in Norway is over 200 deaths, and more than 5,000 deaths in Sweden. The comparison, I think, for the harm caused between comparable Nordic countries doesn't do many favours for the Swedish position, or indeed commend it as the approach we should take here. 

You will recall that tomorrow, I think, and in the weeks to come, we'll be debating the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee's report on the first stage of response. Far from suggesting that we should have taken a more lax approach, the concern there is: did we do enough at the right time with the knowledge that we had? The Government isn't going to completely move its position and take a more laissez-faire Swedish approach to managing the real risk that coronavirus poses for all of us. We think these are proportionate measures being taken now to avoid harm in significant measure, but there is no perfect choice to make. We recognise that lockdown had downsides too. 

All of the regulations today reflect careful consideration of how to balance the freedoms we enjoy with managing the significant continuing threat of coronavirus. Our approach has been guided, as always, by the chief medical officer's department, public health advice, scientific officers and our technical advisory group, and we regularly and openly publish a summary of their advice and the study they make of the evidence within Wales, the UK and beyond. As I set out, we take specific and proportionate action, as we're doing in response to the rise in cases in the south-east of Wales.

The main point, though, is that every one of us has a responsibility to make choices and to follow the measures that are in place, to keep us, our loved ones and our community safe from this infectious and harmful virus. Specifically, we all need to keep our distance from each other when we're out and about, we need to wash our hands often, we need to work from home wherever possible, we need to wear a face covering in indoor public places, and we need to stay at home if we have symptoms and while we're waiting for a test result. And we need to follow any other restrictions that are in place locally. The regulations are for all to follow for the benefit of all. We all have a role to play in keeping Wales safe, and I ask the Senedd to support these regulations. 

The proposal is to agree the motion under item 6. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, I see an objection, and so we defer that item until voting time.

The proposal is to agree the motion under item 7. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I see an objection once again, so we defer on that item.

The next motion, therefore, under item 9: does any Member object? [Objection.] I also hear an objection to that motion, so we defer the vote until voting time.

We now move on to item 11 and the National Health Service (Pharmaceutical Services) (Wales) Regulations 2020. I call on the Minister to move that motion—Vaughan Gething.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. These regulations today, as the explanatory memorandum sets out, have previously been laid twice before the Senedd, and it's my pleasure to move the regulations today. They were first laid on 17 March this year, and then withdrawn as a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic, then re-laid on 8 July, but withdrawn in order to correct a minor technical scrutiny point made in the last scrutiny report at that time. 

The regulations are being introduced under powers inserted into the National Health Service (Wales) Act 2006 by the Public Health (Wales) Act 2017. The major policy change effected by these regulations is that health boards will be required to conduct and publish a pharmaceutical needs assessment for its area and to determine applications to provide NHS pharmaceutical services against that assessment. The regulations also introduce a way of dealing with breaches of the terms of service by NHS pharmacists and NHS appliance contractors. 

Much work has been done by the Welsh Government in recent years to move health services that were traditionally provided in hospitals into the community, closer to where we live. We have concentrated significant effort in transforming community pharmacy to deliver a range of services that traditionally have been delivered by general practitioners, and I welcome the broad cross-party support in doing so. All pharmacies are now able to provide the common ailments service, many undertake medicine reviews on discharge from hospital, offer flu vaccinations, provide advice and support on smoking cessation and the emergency contraception service. However, the current regulatory regime and approach has been in place for over 27 years and no longer adequately reflects the ways in which the role of community pharmacies have developed in that time. 

In order to maximise the public health role of community pharmacy, a role that has clearly been demonstrated during the COVID-19 pandemic, the introduction of pharmaceutical needs assessments makes a fundamental change to the way in which decisions about pharmaceutical services in Wales are made by health boards. Although based on the English model for pharmaceutical needs assessments, our extensive stakeholder engagement has resulted in a made-in-Wales policy specifically focused on the provision of community pharmacy in Wales. Our model of pharmaceutical needs assessment complements the measures the Welsh Government has taken since 2017 to transform the delivery of the community pharmacy contractual framework. Once the regulations are in force, applications will move from being driven by contractors and focused heavily on the dispensing of prescriptions to a process that is alert and responsive to the broader pharmaceutical needs of their local population. 

These changes to the way that pharmaceutical services are planned will enable the NHS and specifically health boards to better meet the needs of local communities and better reflect the crucial public health role of community pharmacies. I ask the Senedd to support the regulations before us. 

Andrew R.T. Davies. Andrew R.T. Davies. No, you don't wish to speak. That's the reason you're not unmuting yourself here. Okay. I'm assuming the Minister doesn't need to respond to nobody, so I ask if everybody is content for the motion under item 11 to be agreed. Any objection? No. So, the motion has been accepted. [Interruption.] Oh.

I did have my hand up. 

Yes, I missed that, Gareth Bennett. I'll accept that. I'll thank the Minister for drawing—I thank the Minister for drawing that to my attention, and I'll accept that as an objection, and I will delay that vote until the voting time. Okay.

Which brings us to voting time, but, in accordance with Standing Order 34.14D, there will be a break now of five minutes until the beginning of voting time. So, the break will begin now. 

That brings us to voting time and the first vote is on the Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (No. 2) (Wales) (Amendment) (No. 6) Regulations 2020, and I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Rebecca Evans. Open the vote. I close the vote. In favour 49, no abstentions, two against, and therefore the motion is agreed.

The next vote is on the Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (No. 2) (Wales) (Amendment) (No. 7) Regulations 2020, and I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Rebecca Evans. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 49, no abstentions, two against, therefore the motion is agreed.

The next vote is on the Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (No. 2) (Wales) (Amendment) (No.9) Regulations 2020. I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Rebecca Evans. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 47, no abstentions, four against, therefore the motion is agreed.

The next vote is on the National Health Service (Pharmaceutical Services) (Wales) Regulations 2020. I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Rebecca Evans. Close the vote. In favour 47, four abstentions, therefore the motion is agreed.

Point of order, Adam Price. 

Thank you, Llywydd. During proceedings today, a number of Members from opposition parties as well as Members from the Government side had asked for a statement from the First Minister to be made in the Senedd if there is any intention to introduce any policy changes on coronavirus and restrictions today. We're given to understand that there is to be an announcement made. Have you received any communication from the First Minister or from the Government in terms of its intention to make a statement to the Siambr, because it's crucially important that we have an opportunity to scrutinise effectively?

Thank you for that point of order. Many Members have raised those issues during the afternoon. There has been discussion between myself, my office and the Government on such a statement being made or responding to an urgent question that was tabled and to do so before the end of this afternoon's meeting. I'm given to understand from the Government that the exact final decisions are yet to have been made and aren't likely to be made until a little before 8 o'clock tonight, when the First Minister will make a statement to the nation on the media. Therefore, as the statement isn't ready and the relevant decisions haven't yet been made, they won't be available to be made here in the Senedd this evening. We could have postponed or deferred proceedings for a while, but not until 8 o'clock, so there will be a Government statement to the Senedd tomorrow although the announcement will have been made this evening around 8 o'clock. Thank you for that point of order and the opportunity to explain that situation as I understand it to the Senedd. Thank you very much. Good afternoon.