The following amendments have been selected: amendments 1, 2 and 3 in the name of Darren Millar, and amendments 4, 5 and 9 in the name of Siân Gwenllian. In accordance with Standing Order 12.23(iii), amendments 6, 7 and 8 have not been selected.

The next item is a debate on COVID-19 'Unlocking our Society and Economy: Continuing the Conversation', and I call on the First Minister to move the motion—Mark Drakeford.

Motion NNDM7326 Rebecca Evans

To propose that the Senedd:

1. Notes the publication of 'Unlocking Our Society and Economy: Continuing the Conversation' which sets out how Wales can progressively move out of lockdown

2. Agrees public health should be at the forefront of the decisions about when and how the stay-at-home regulations will be eased

3. Thanks the people of Wales for their ongoing support and commitment to reducing the spread of coronavirus

4. Commends the hard work and dedication of critical workers throughout Wales during the pandemic.

Motion moved.

Thank you very much, Llywydd. Last Friday, the Welsh Government announced our latest plans on how we can start to relax the rules in our society and our economy. Three weeks ago, we announced and published our framework for recovery, and both documents go hand in hand. We have had an ongoing conversation with the people of Wales to discuss what we should do and when. We are working with people in order to safeguard each and every one of us. We are making decisions in our own way—a model that we have established over a period of time. That means working in partnership with unions, with employers, with public service associations and all others who are working for the benefit of the people of Wales.

Llywydd, over the last eight weeks, the response from people across Wales has been outstanding. Our collective efforts have helped slow the spread of the virus and have helped the NHS to prepare and to respond. If, as a result of these efforts, the rate of infection continues to decline, a greater range of choices for unlocking restrictions will open up.

Our framework document of three weeks ago set out how we intend to make decisions about easing the stay-at-home restrictions. Last Friday's document takes us further. Our road map is based on a traffic-lights system. It sets out a series of changes that potentially could be made in a number of areas, including seeing friends and family, going back to work, shopping and reopening public services.

People are at the heart of our thinking. We know just how much everyone wants to see family and friends, and this is a key consideration for us. This isn't just a plan to get people back to work, important as that is, it is a plan for people too.

This road map doesn't signal dates, because changes will be made when the scientific and medical advice tells us that it is safe to do so, but it does show how we are moving carefully and cautiously into the red zone—the first steps on our journey of recovery. We will monitor the impacts of those steps really carefully, and, provided the virus remains under control, we will move towards the amber zone. In amber, there will be more signs of something like normality, and if our monitoring shows that we are still on top of the virus, we can begin the move into the green zone. In the green zone, life begins to look more like it was before coronavirus began, but not identical to it, because until we find a vaccine or effective treatment, coronavirus is with us for a long time to come.

Now, some things have already begun to unlock. Shops are opening for click and collect, recycling centres are beginning to reopen, and planning is taking place to see if library services can be resumed as well. Garden centres are opening, of course, with social distancing arrangements in place. Education Minister Kirsty Williams has set out her approach to schools, and more detail will be provided for other sectors as we work together with our partners in the trade unions, in businesses and in the wider public sector.

Llywydd, it is absolutely right that we debate our different perspectives on this, the most pressing set of circumstances we have faced since the establishment of devolution. But I do believe that, in this crisis, people in Wales look to all of us to come together where we can and to share a sense of our common interests. In that spirit, I am very pleased that the Government can support all but one of the amendments laid to today's motion. Llywydd, I'll return to all amendments in replying to the debate, but I do want to thank those parties who have laid them for the constructive spirit in which they have been drawn up, and for the positive contribution that they make to this debate.

Last week, the Government also published our test, trace and protect plan, which will be vital as we move out of lockdown. Any move towards resumption of more normal activities must go hand in hand with a viable plan for tracking and identifying any new cases and those hotspots as they may emerge. Last Friday's document is based similarly on the latest scientific advice. We will act carefully and cautiously in partnership with people, in a way that is right for Wales. That will always mean putting people's health first. 

Now, Llywydd, I have always said that we want to move together across the United Kingdom, because that is the best way forward for all of us. On Sunday, I met with Michael Gove, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and my Scottish and Northern Irish counterparts, to discuss issues around quarantining people from abroad. Yesterday, I met my devolved colleagues and the Mayor of London, again to continue our discussion, and a further meeting has been arranged between the devolved Governments and the UK Government for later this week. We are engaging actively with other administrations throughout this crisis, but we will, of course, make our decisions and exercise our responsibilities in the interests of Wales. 

Llywydd, I do need to stress that the virus remains a threat and will continue to be so even as we take steps towards greater normality. There is no risk-free future. The 2m social distancing rule remains in place, and we must all take those basic public health precautions, washing our hands carefully and often, for example. Travel should only be local, and it should only be essential. All of this is in place simply to go on reducing the risk of spreading coronavirus. In our two documents, we have set out a pathway towards making those vital decisions. We are required by law to review legislation and remove restrictions when they are no longer justified. There are choices to be made at every point in this path. The interests of all sections of our society need to be balanced, and this Government will always have particular regard for those who struggle under the disproportionate burden of disadvantage.

Now, we will have to make those decisions on a 21-day pattern, and we are now halfway through the latest three-week cycle. We will continue to be guided by the scientific advice and the advice of our chief medical officer, and those decisions will continue to be informed by the goals and the ways of working enshrined in the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, put on the statute book by this Senedd.

Llywydd, there are those who urge relaxation of measures without regard to the consequences of doing so. This is the very opposite of the approach we are taking in Wales, and as set out in our road map. The Welsh Government will not take chances, and we will not act on whims. My message is one of continued solidarity in the face of this great threat to lives and to society—a solidarity demonstrated so steadfastly by individuals and communities right across Wales. We have all played our part, and together we can continue to protect one another and to prepare to unlock and to renew our nation. Diolch yn fawr. 

I have selected six of the nine amendments tabled to the motion, and in accordance with Standing Order 12.23(iii) I have not selected amendments 6, 7 and 8, tabled in the name of Siân Gwenllian. I call now on Paul Davies to move amendments 1, 2 and 3, tabled in the name of Darren Millar—Paul Davies. 

Amendment 1—Darren Millar

Add as new point after point 1 and renumber accordingly:

Believes that the Welsh Government must work in collaboration with other governments in the United Kingdom as part of a coherent four-nation approach to lifting the lockdown.

Amendment 2—Darren Millar

Add as new point after point 2 and renumber accordingly:

Recognises those who have lost their lives during the pandemic and extends its deepest sympathy to those affected by bereavement.

Amendment 3—Darren Millar

Add as new point at end of motion:

Calls upon the Welsh Government to update Unlocking Our Society and Economy to include:

a) indicative timescales for the lifting of lockdown measures;

b) details of the milestones and targets to be achieved prior to the lifting of each measure;

c) the establishment of task forces in key ministerial departments to oversee the implementation of the plan; and

d) a proper financial plan to support the delivery of the roadmap.

Amendments 1, 2 and 3 moved.

Diolch, Llywydd, and I move the amendments tabled in the name of my colleague, Darren Millar. 

Whilst I appreciate that the Welsh Government has now published the steps it is intending to take in order to lead Wales out of the current pandemic period, I have to say from the outset that this has been a missed opportunity for the Welsh Government to provide some much-needed hope to the people of Wales. 

Now, if I can turn to our amendments—and I hope Members will consider supporting all of them as the thrust of these amendments is to constructively add to the motion of this debate—the first amendment calls for more collaboration with Governments across the UK. Now, the leader of the UK Labour Party has rightly called for a four-nations approach—an approach I've endorsed throughout the entire pandemic period. The COVID-19 virus knows no boundaries, and so it makes absolute sense that Governments at all levels should be working together to protect the people of the United Kingdom throughout this pandemic. 

Whilst the UK and Welsh Governments have worked together on issues, the divergence of some policies between Wales and England has left some people understandably confused and frustrated, and the reality is that there was far more understanding and clarity over Government guidance when the Governments' policies were more closely aligned. 

Now, I've made it clear that the Welsh Government's exit strategy should have been supplemented with concrete proposals and milestones by which the Government's progress could be assessed. This document doesn't offer the people of Wales any tangible detail that progress can be measured by and, instead, the exit strategy is effectively a list of consultation phases that the Welsh Government plans to initiate. There are no indicative timescales for the lifting of lockdown measures, and so individuals and businesses across Wales are no further forward in being able to start planning for life post lockdown. So, I can understand the sheer frustration felt by so many who had hoped that, last Friday, the Welsh Government would deliver a plan that they could follow with certainty. Ian Price, the director of the Confederation of British Industry Wales was right to say that, and I quote,

'Indicative timelines outlining when sectors and workplaces can come back online are also needed, so businesses of all shapes and sizes can quickly ramp-up essential restart planning and decision-making.'

Countries like Ireland, for example, have recognised the importance of timescales and provided them in their exit strategy. However, I accept that when the science changes, Governments may need to change course and, as a result, those timescales may then need to change. Now, the Welsh Government's road map does not include a comprehensive strategy for how and when restrictions may be eased. Indeed, the document itself confirms that specific detail on each label is still being developed with businesses, trade unions, local authorities, public service providers and others.

Now, moving forward, I believe the Welsh Government should be establishing taskforces within key ministerial departments to oversee the implementation of its exit strategy. In each portfolio area, Ministers should be considering how best to co-ordinate those taskforces and they should be set to work immediately. For example, the Minister for Economy, Transport and North Wales should be working with a dedicated taskforce to prepare businesses across Wales for reopening and to better understand the specific challenges that businesses may be facing in moving from one category to another. The Welsh Government is right to say that no two businesses are the same, and that's why establishing a taskforce is needed to ensure that the views of the business community are heard at each stage of its progress. Similarly, the Minister for Housing and Local Government should be establishing a taskforce to oversee the implementation of the exit strategy with public service providers and local authorities. 

Now, to avoid a significant second peak, the Welsh Government has made it clear that it's putting in place the infrastructure needed to manage future outbreaks of the disease via the test, track and protect strategy. Of course, for that to be realistically possible, local authorities across Wales will require a serious injection of cash to ensure that this widescale testing can actually be delivered. Not only are there significant resource implications for local authorities, but according to the Welsh Local Government Association, there are significant recruitment issues to consider as well. And so, perhaps in responding to this afternoon's debate the Welsh Government will give cast-iron assurances that its testing programme is capable of meeting the significant increase in community testing as well as confirming exactly how much the Welsh Government will be allocating to local authorities to enable them to carry out this testing.

Llywydd, the Welsh Government's road map doesn't provide a proper financial plan to support its delivery, and so there's no indication of how resources will be allocated to effectively see this plan through. Now, I know that a supplementary budget is on the way and I hope that, as well as the details the First Minister mentioned in his statement today, it will also include specific financial details regarding how the road map will indeed be delivered. And it's absolutely essential that those resource allocations firmly spell out how each portfolio area is not only limiting the impact of the virus on individuals, communities and businesses across Wales in the short term, but how public services and businesses will be able to implement the Welsh Government's exit strategy. 

So, with that, Llywydd, I hope Members will support our amendments to help ensure that Wales is as prepared as possible and is fully resourced to start moving us out of the lockdown. Thank you. 

I call on Adam Price to move amendments 4, 5 and 9, tabled in the name of Siân Gwenllian. 

Amendment 4—Siân Gwenllian

Add as new point at end of motion:

Supports the call by Wales’s four Chief Constables and Police and Crime Commissioners for the First Minister to ensure that the maximum fines police can issue for non-compliance with the public health regulations are increased so that restrictions are robustly enforced for as long as they are in place.

Amendment 5—Siân Gwenllian

Add as new point at end of motion:

Believes that having a robust testing and contact tracing system in place is a necessary prerequisite for the substantial lifting of restrictions.

Amendment 9—Siân Gwenllian

Add as new point at end of motion:

Calls on the Welsh Government to press the UK Government to introduce a universal basic income and to explore all other avenues available to the Welsh Government to ensure that a baseline of financial support is available to the people of Wales throughout the phases of the restrictions on our society and economy.

Amendments 4, 5 and 9 moved.

Diolch, Llywydd. Can I first of all thank the First Minister for his kind remarks about the spirit of the amendments? There was a tantalising reference there to the one amendment that the Government hasn't been able to accept. I hope it's not the amendment calling for support for the request, the unanimous request, by the four chief constables and the four police and crime commissioners for raising the fines for those that have broken the lockdown rules so that they can do their work of protecting people in our communities. 

Now, the first question, and the most important question of all, I think, in thinking about the next phase, is what we're trying to achieve. We really have a choice here, it seems to me, based on the strategies that other countries have followed—and there's reference in the document published by the Government to learning from other countries. We can adopt a suppression strategy to try and eliminate the disease, which is the approach that New Zealand and others have explicitly adopted, or we can try to flatten the curve, as it's come to be known, once more, with the main focus being trying to ensure the NHS isn't overwhelmed by a second or third wave. 

Now, we have asked the Government to clarify which of those two strategies it espouses, and it would be good to get clarity on that today, because I think that the language of the recovery and road map documents is a little ambiguous in some senses, because the strong emphasis on test, trace and isolate points in one direction, but in the document, for example, released on 24 April, one of the key metrics that has been set for evaluating relaxation measures is

'evidence that we can cope with the expected increase in healthcare needs for at least 14 days if the infection rate goes above 1 and the virus is spreading widely once again.' 

That sounds more as if it's pointing in the direction of managing the spread of the disease below a critical level, rather than trying to eliminate the disease wherever it re-emerges. 

The New Zealand approach means ending widespread community transmission before relaxing lockdown measures, and it means also, of course, rejecting the herd immunity approach. We had proposed two amendments on both those matters. They haven't been selected, but perhaps the First Minister, in responding, could state what the position of the Government is. 

Moving on to—. As well as ending community transmission first, we believe a second prerequisite for ending substantive lockdown measures is making sure that the contact, trace and isolate system is fully operational and a proven success. We have the pilots, but we need time to evaluate the pilots before confirming that they are working properly. And what would be good to know from the First Minister is: what does success look like? What level of the proportion of contacts do we need to be able to trace in order to control local outbreaks? Is it 50 per cent, is it 80 per cent, or 90? 

The emphasis within the Welsh Government's approach with the traffic lights is sectoral, and the UK Government, on the other hand, has a five alert-level system applied nationally. There is at least some potential for confusion here. One interesting suggestion is that the Joint Biosecurity Centre will produce rate-of-infection assessments at a very local level, and that could be used then to stop new local hotspots by re-imposing lockdown measures at a local level. Indeed, we've heard mayors in England like Andy Burnham calling for a more decentralised approach, which is also supported by the WHO. Does the Welsh Government see some potential in the next phase for that kind of localised approach?

And, finally, it's not just test and trace, of course, it's test, trace and isolate. The current position is that people with symptoms should isolate for seven days. The WHO recommend 14 days for people with symptoms, for quarantine, and that appears to be evidence-based, as viral shedding in some people can last longer than seven days. So, will the Government look at that and adopt it, based on the WHO's advice?

And, finally, could we also consider establishing central isolation quarantine points for people to isolate, for example, repurposed hotels? We know that the virus exploits overcrowded housing. We know that many people have caught it from a family member or housemates. Establishing these kinds of community facilities for quarantine has been key to eliminating the virus in Wuhan and parts of Italy, and many people would also feel reassured they were not putting family members at risk. So, could the Government, as we enter this new phase with test, trace and isolate, look at strengthening the 'isolate' element within the measures? 

Lynne Neagle. If you can wait for your microphone, Lynne. Can we hear you? No. Can you lift your—

Hello?

Oh, yes, now we can hear you.

Okay. Thank you, Llywydd, for the opportunity to make a brief contribution in this debate. It will be relatively brief, because I must admit this is not an entirely comfortable arena in which to be debating, with all the technology, et cetera.

I wanted to start by thanking the First Minister and the rest of the Government for the immense work that they are doing in this area, in particular, the core team of Ministers, Kirsty Williams, Vaughan Gething, Julie James and yourself, who I know have been very much at the centre of responding to this outbreak. I think the First Minister knows me well enough by now to know that I would not say those things if I didn't believe them to be true, but I have felt very reassured by the diligent, detailed and forensic approach you've taken to ensuring that we all remain as safe as we possibly can in these very difficult circumstances. As I've said to the First Minister in private meetings, there remains strong support for the lockdown in my constituency in Torfaen. So, I very much welcome the continued approach that has been taken by the Welsh Government.

I wanted to make a few points about principles that I feel are particularly important as we look at easing the lockdown. The first relates to equality issues. What we've seen with this virus is that although it doesn't discriminate in terms of who it attacks, I believe it is very clear that some of the poorest communities and the most vulnerable are susceptible to it, and I believe that very firmly has to be at the forefront of our minds as we consider easing the lockdown. I'd like to quote Professor Devi Sridhar, who is chair of global public health at Edinburgh university, who said yesterday: 

'What's clear is that wealth is the best shielding strategy for this virus, and from experiencing severe impacts.'

And I think that we need to be mindful of that as we go forward. 

I'd also like to raise the issues of funding. I'm sure the First Minister will have seen David Hepburn, the intensivist from Gwent, who has been very prominent in the media. One of the things that he has called for is for more funding to be directed to the worst-hit communities following this virus. And the First Minister will remember from 20 years ago the discussions we had about the Townsend formula, and I know too that, had that formula been fully implemented, Gwent, over many years, would have had more funding than we have received. So, I hope that that is something that we can look at going forward.

The other area that I think has to be a really prominent focus is that of children's rights. Children are not just massively impacted by this situation, but they are also much more voiceless than many other citizens. It is for that reason, and because of our commitment to children's rights in Wales, that I would like to see much more evidence of child rights impact assessments in taking these decisions. I'd like the Government to start showing their workings on an ongoing basis regularly as regards children.

The third principle I wanted to highlight, which the First Minister's already referred to, is that of partnership and co-production. I think that is vital going forward, and in particular I think a co-production approach with local government is absolutely crucial. Local government have been absolute stars of the show, as far as I'm concerned, in dealing with this virus. And it is crucial that we recognise that and ensure that they are fully involved in all the decisions that we take.

And I'd just like to close by saying that I think there are positives arising from this virus as well. I've seen them in terms of the approach to mental health—hearing about people who are engaging more with mental health services because virtual access suits them better, children and young people who've said that they value that approach, where they can get access to the digital technology. And I hope that, as we come through this pandemic, we can try and take the positives with us and build on them to make a better Wales going forward. Diolch yn fawr.

I'm pleased to be able to contribute to this debate. These are certainly unprecedented times. It's clearly vital that the correct balance is now struck between dealing effectively with the current pandemic whilst getting the economy moving again as swiftly as possible and protecting jobs and livelihoods. With that in mind, can I back those calls that have been made already for, as much as possible, a four-nations approach to this pandemic? I come from a border constituency, like a number of other AMs, and the virus doesn't recognise borders, so it's important, as was recognised, in fact, by the Welsh Government recently, that we do have a cross-border—as much of an integrated approach as possible.

We know there's going to be a supplementary budget in the near future, and this budget will be extremely important in making the relevant spending priorities and providing transparency. Those financial allocations must be sufficient to meet the needs of businesses and public service providers through this period of great uncertainty. I wonder if, in rounding up, the First Minister can update us on his discussions with local authorities at this time. Lynne Neagle has just mentioned the important role of local authorities in many of these areas. We know that council budgets are stretched at the best of times, and the current pandemic has put them under massive pressure. As we now look towards greater community testing, that burden will increase, so they need to know where they stand.

Can I just talk a bit about universities? Because, clearly, universities are going to be key to providing expertise for future employment and jobs, and to taking us out of this pandemic over the longer term. They are in a seriously difficult financial position. The Office for Budget Responsibility's outlook is worrying, so we really can't afford to make budget allocations that don't keep an eye on our university sector and look to future economic growth.

And the First Minister mentioned mechanisms in place for monitoring at the start. I'd be grateful if the Welsh Government could provide greater clarity on what those monitoring mechanisms are going to be over the weeks and months ahead.

Now, we've seen a number of blanket statements over recent times, such as there's going to be £11 million for those facing hardship as a result of the pandemic. As far as they go, a number of those statements say some good things, but, of course, as ever, it's important that we actually see action on the ground and we see incentives in place that really do move things forward. We need to see a particular support for our tourism industry, which has taken a massive hit. By its very nature, the tourism industry is seasonal, so, even if there's a lessening of the lockdown over the weeks and months to come, the season that delivers the revenue has been effectively lost, and the industry will not have the usual financial resources to invest over the winter period. So I'd like to see greater clarity in the framework being set forward by the Government of how the tourism industry is going to be supported. In my constituency, the Monmouthshire and Brecon canal is a major part of the tourism economy—not just the canal, but also the businesses along it, which are going to be affected. And a large number of people who use that canal are from overseas, so I imagine that they're not going to be coming back in droves any time in the near future. So, I think there's going to be more financial clarity needed there.

The Finance Minister said last week that she's seeking greater fiscal flexibility in terms of transfers between capital and revenue budgets and also borrowing—all understandable, but with that must come greater accountability and transparency. And as I said to the Finance Minister, the current UK budget deficit is expected to come in at over £300 billion, almost double where we were at the peak of the financial crisis over 10 years ago, so there must be a limit to the type of flexibility that can be expected. So it makes it even more important that existing resources are used wisely.

Fiscal devolution of taxes, such as land transaction tax and land disposals tax, mean that the Welsh Government revenues are going to take a massive hit with a fall in revenue. Now, I know that the fiscal framework agreement between the Welsh and UK Governments is designed to support the Welsh Government at difficult times like this, and I'd like to hear a bit from the First Minister and the Welsh Government on the extent to which that framework is going to be supportive of the Welsh economy.

In terms of getting chunks of the economy moving, the UK Government has moved to get the housing market moving—clearly, a huge and important part of the Welsh economy, like the rest of the UK. Estate agents are looking to the Welsh Government for support, so I'd like to see proposals in the Welsh Government framework for supporting the housing industry as soon as possible. 

I have received many—to come to a close, Llywydd—enquiries from constituents who are confused about the lockdown and different guidelines between Wales and England. As I said earlier, I think we need a four-nations approach as much as possible, but, where differences will exist, I think we need to see a drive to provide greater clarity to the public about what's permissible here. So, I wonder if the Welsh Government framework could put a much greater emphasis on explaining to the public where we are at the moment and the measures that are being put in place to make sure that we all come out of this pandemic crisis as swiftly and as safely as possible.

I wish to speak to two of the amendments, tabled in the name of Siân Gwenllian—amendment 4 with regard to supporting the police and crime commissioners and the chief constables in their wish for higher fines for breaches of the health regulations, and amendment 9, which talks about the need for a universal basic income as we move out of the lockdown.

I'd like to begin by commending the approach that the Welsh Government has taken. I think a more cautious and more sensible approach is certainly what I hear from my constituents across mid and west Wales that they believe is right. It's also what I hear from my friends and from my daughter's friends. We don't think it's safe—as a nation, we don't think it's safe to lift the lockdown too quickly. And while I hear what Nick Ramsay says about a four-nations approach and I know that that's what the First Minister and his colleagues seek to achieve, if the UK Government, acting as the Government of England, gets things wrong, then the First Minister is obviously, in my view, right to disagree.

I want to talk about the situation in mid and west Wales with regard to people's fears in terms of tourism kicking off again. And I need to say to the First Minister that my constituents across mid and west Wales are frightened. Many of them are lucky enough to live in parts of Wales where the R rate has remained really, really low and we really, really want to keep it that way. They also know that they are very lucky to live in some of the most beautiful communities and most beautiful places in these islands, and I feel proud to represent them. But this is not the time for people to be coming.

Now, the vast majority of our regular visitors to Wales, and to rural Wales from urban Wales as well—because this is not about Wales and England; this is about keeping the rural communities safe—are being respectful; they are staying away and we look forward to welcoming them back. But our police service are making it really clear to us that there is a small minority of people who are flouting those regulations. I think we would all agree, and I'm sure in this the First Minister would agree with me, that the approach the police service is taking in terms of educating and informing is the right one, and the vast majority of people, last weekend, who were confused because of the changes of regulation in England, which didn't apply in Wales in terms of being able to drive to take a walk, for example, were happy to turn around and go back. 

But the police are telling us that there is a small minority of people who simply appear not to care. There are police officers in the north of my region who are telling me that they have seen repeat offenders—people who have driven repeatedly, not one weekend, but weekend after weekend, back into the area, because the fines just simply don't put them off—they don't provide a deterrent. Now, I know that this Welsh Government prides itself rightly on listening to people on the front line, and when we are in a situation where the police and crime commissioners—all four of them—and the chief constables—all four of them—tell us that, in dealing with that recalcitrant small minority, their hands are tied behind their back because the punishments available are not sufficiently severe to act as a deterrent, I really, really ask the First Minister to explain to me why he won't listen to them, and, more importantly, to explain to my constituents and to the police officers who have to implement these polices, why he appears not to be listening to them. I've heard what he's said; I don't understand his reasoning.

But I turn to an area where I hope that we can agree, and that is the idea of moving in the post-COVID era to a universal basic income. Now, this is an idea that I've been advocating for a very long time, and it has seen sometimes like a romantic idea that would be nice at some point in the future, but we have, of course, seen the Spanish Government introduce this. In response to the crisis, we must commend the efforts of Welsh Government and UK Government in terms of supporting people's livelihoods, but, as we've just heard in the statement from the economy Minister, that's left us with a very complex picture. It's left people confused about what they're eligible to and what they're not eligible to, and it has left some people, through no fault or through no intention, I don't think, on the part of the Government, without support.

We talk a lot about building back better, about living our lives in a different way, about perhaps being able to learn some positives about what we've all had to live through in this crisis. And we, in Plaid Cymru, believe that now is the time—and we accept that, with the physical settlement as it is, it would have to be at a UK level, but that we would aspire in the longer term for Wales to be able to do this ourselves—for our nation to provide all citizens with a basic income so that they know that they are safe.

Now, where this has been introduced, there is no evidence whatsoever that it has stopped people from wanting to work, and, where it's been piloted, it's had the opposite effect. It's enabled people to work in different ways. It's enabled them to take risks—entrepreneurial risks—that they might otherwise be afraid to do. It's enabled them, for example, to work in the creative sector, where their contribution is huge but where the pay is low. It's enabled people to provide a better balance between work and family life, and it's enabled people to take on civic responsibilities like doing unpaid public work as a community councillor, for example.

We really need to be thinking differently now, and I think most of us, though perhaps not all of us in this Chamber, would acknowledge that the current benefits system is unfair, is divisive. It's also very expensive to implement, very expensive to police. I've lost track of the number of people who've never come across the benefits system but who are now having to in the last few weeks and who've said to me, 'I cannot live on this', when they're talking about the level of universal credit. And, yet, the truth is, as the First Minister knows, that there are many of our citizens that have no choice.

I hope that perhaps, in this greater understanding where more people who perhaps would never have expected to find themselves in economic hardship, find themselves in difficulties, where we are all rightly praising a lot of very low-paid staff who could also be helped by a universal basic income, like carers, one of the good things that will come out of this dark time is a stronger sense of social solidarity and a chance for us to live our lives in a different way. A citizen-based universal income that was available to all of us and, for those of us who didn't need it, would be repaid through the tax system, would be the best and clearest indication of that new social solidarity and would put everybody on a firm footing to enable them to really be part of the process of building back better. Diolch yn fawr. 

I'm grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this debate today, and I can confirm that my group will support the motion as it stands. 

There is no issue to take with public health being at the forefront of any plan to return to some semblance of normality, no issue to take with acknowledging the efforts of the general public in observing the rules, and every support for the gratitude expressed to all key workers who have kept the country going. 

We can also note the publication of the document that is the subject of this debate. This did feel like it was dragged out of the Welsh Government only after much canvassing by the Conservative group in the Senedd. While we can note this document, that's about all we can do, as it doesn't really tell us much at all. We, here in the Senedd, must also acknowledge that the majority of the Welsh public will not have read it cover to cover. I have, and it raises more questions than it answers. Time won't allow me to go through each one, so I'll limit it to three, and these are in accordance with the issues raised by my constituents.

In the early days of the outbreak, there was talk of measures to flatten the curve, suggesting the objective was to slow the numbers of those contracting the virus and, in doing so, to enable the NHS to cope. So, the original purpose of the lockdown was never to lessen the total number of cases, just to make the number, at any one time, less than our intensive care unit capacity. And the slogan was still, and is in Wales, 'Stay at home. Protect the NHS. Save lives.' In this document, you state that we can only move out of the green phases and back to some sort of normality—my word—once a vaccine or effective treatment is in place. Can I ask you when exactly did the scope creep from flattening the curve to finding a cure?

And while I do not seek to dismiss the good intentions here, I would also point out that we haven't found a cure for winter flu, the common cold or cancer, and they all kill too. We need to see some sort of balance between the lives at risk from COVID and the lives at risk from lockdown too. Monumentally difficult, but monumentally important; I'm not pretending there is an easy option.

In the document, you mention more than once a four-nations approach, and yet your Government has now diverged from the UK Government's approach, and Wales is subject to more stringent measures from those living in England. You mention the advice of the Chief Medical Officer for Wales, the UK Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies and your technical advisory group. Considering the close working relationships between the groups and the four nations, what was the difference in advice that led to different approaches being taken by the four nations?

I will turn now to public health. We can all agree that this should be the cornerstone of the considerations for easing restrictions. I see much communication activity by health boards, encouraging GP visits during this time as visits are down, accident and emergency department activity is vastly reduced, and elective surgery has been cancelled or delayed. Most worryingly, cancer referrals are down, and we all know how important early detection and treatment is in cancer cases. And the toll on the nation's mental health is extremely concerning, with both anxiety and depression on the rise.

The health case for beginning to ease the lockdown grows stronger by the day, so, in dealing with COVID-19, I would also like to seek reassurances from you that we are not stockpiling other public health issues, like an increase in cancer deaths due to late diagnosis, relatively minor ailments turning into life-threatening illnesses for want of treatment, and that the mental health of the nation will continue to get the care it deserves. We know the massive economic harm that lockdown is causing, but it is also causing massive health harms, and while I commend the health service for coping with everything that's been thrown at it, I do fear that we are saving many other health-related matters indeed for later.

After nine weeks and counting, the public is tired. We must see some sort of light at the end of the tunnel and of the lockdown tunnel here in Wales. Thank you very much.

Huw Irranca-Davies.

I think I'm going to need to pause you. We can't hear you at this point. No, we still have a problem. Say something again. No. I'll go to Mick Antoniw, and I'll come back to you.

Can you hear me?

Yes, you pressed something, there—that worked. Huw Irranca-Davies.

Diolch, Llywydd. Thank you for a few moments to contribute to this debate. First of all, I'd like to take as my keystone for this contribution a word that Paul Davies, the leader of the Welsh Conservative group in the Senedd, used earlier on in reference to this, which is the matter of hope. He said that people need hope through milestones and timescales. Actually, I'm not sure that that is correct. What people need is hope through seeing a Government that takes a careful, evidence-led, considered and cautious approach to easing the lockdown, whilst watching the behaviour of this virus that is still out there and that we still haven't seen the back of and won't for some time.

So, rather than hope coming from arbitrary milestones and timescales that we see, as in England at the moment, unraveling every few days, it's actually the confidence and hope that people get from looking at a Government that says, 'The first priority is public safety. We're going to do this together. We're going to work through the difficult choices here together and we're going to ease our way out, but we're only going to ease our way out on the basis that if the virus flares again across the nation or flares again in localities or regions, we will have the measures in place that allow us to stamp down on it once again.'

Now, that's where hope does come from, and hope comes from the people of Wales; the citizens; the businesses; the charities; schoolchildren and grandparents; anglers; football players knowing that their Welsh Government is not going to set arbitrary milestones and timescales, but it will actually follow the evidence and it will set—as it has done with this traffic light system—a road map of the decisions that we need to make in a timely manner to lift restrictions as we can do it safely.

And hope is actually moving at a pace that matches our capacity to identify and shut down new outbreaks of the disease with the test, trace and protection measures being in place. Hope comes from that calm and cautious and considered approach being adopted by the Welsh Government that is realistic and focused, that doesn't set out to be in any way showy or unremittingly overpromising or upbeat. It's realistic and says, 'We can do this; we can ease these restrictions, but in a cautious manner.' And it is an approach that works with people, as set out in this document, with employees and employers and with unions, with parents, with teachers and children and young people, listening to them as well to find those safe, practical and timely ways in which to ease restrictions, and not some sort of arbitrary diktat that Ministers then have to retreat from. 

Hope is also, I have to say, letting families know that there will be a safe way soon in which they can see family members, perhaps in a limited way at first, in the open air—one family member, perhaps, at first—but that if people comply and we do not see a resurgence of the virus, that this could be, indeed, extended when the evidence says it is safe.

Hope is easing the restrictions in a smart way; capturing the opportunities for outdoor exercise like walking and cycling; building on the renewed enthusiasm of people for these most basic but enjoyable of activities; developing, if you like, a more Swedish or a more Nordic way of activity here in our beautiful outdoor playground, which it normally is, which is Wales, so that as we emerge from lockdown, we're more active as a society, more outdoorsy, and we can tackle the several diseases linked with a sedentary lifestyle, which are harming and killing our people every year and which have a doubly pernicious effect on the poorest and the most disadvantaged in society. 

Hope is also, as in this document, being honest with the Welsh people that the new normal is not the old normal, and certainly not until a safe and efficacious vaccine is brought forward, and even then, the way we live, work and travel and build social and economic relationships will be different.

And my final point is the hope that all Governments and Parliaments and administrations of the UK, including the Executive in London—as a UK Cabinet Minister referred to our Government here—they can all move in lockstep as we ease the constraint of lockdown, but this does depend on the willingness of UK Ministers to convene those discussions with the nations and the regions of the UK, including the large metropolitan mayors in England. The First Minister made a memorable phrase, which has now become a popular meme to a soundtrack, 'Such discussions would need to be on a regular, reliable rhythm.' Can he give us some hope that this regular, reliable rhythm of engagement, which requires the UK Prime Minister to commit to this, might now indeed happen? As the catchy meme ended: 'Give us a call, Boris Bach.'

Can I first put on record my deepest sympathy for all those who've lost their lives as a result of COVID-19? I can't imagine what many of the families and friends of those individuals are going through right now, but we owe it to them and I think we owe it to the key workers who are caring for them and those others that are keeping our economy working, our country functioning at the moment, to make sure that we get the lifting of these restrictions, these considerable restrictions on their lives, lifted in a way that is safe and will not needlessly risk people's lives. And I think it's important also that we get the balance right between, yes, saving individual lives, but also saving livelihoods too. And I've been impressed, frankly, by the levels of support that have emerged from both the UK and the Welsh Governments to support people's livelihoods as well as their lives during this pandemic so far.

I have been concerned about the recent drifting apart from a four-nation approach in respect of the lockdown. We know that all four nations have access to the same scientific evidence, so, understandably, members of the public are contacting their Members of the Welsh Parliament, asking why there is a different approach in Wales, and sometimes it's very difficult to explain why there has been a different approach, given that it is the same scientific evidence. It effectively leaves it down to some of the political decisions that are made by Ministers in accordance with their own judgment. And of course, we're all entitled to use our own judgment on these things after considering the evidence, but I think the further we drift apart from a UK-wide approach across the four nations, the more difficult it will be—as Nick Ramsay quite rightly said—to communicate those differences with the public and expect people to abide by them.

People are envious sometimes of the freedoms that people enjoy elsewhere in the UK at the moment, to be able to travel to meet family members in a way that they're not yet able to in Wales. I think we've got to think carefully about how we can safely lift some of these restrictions in a way that is compatible with the scientific evidence, that still protects people's lives, but also helps families to get back together, helps loved ones to see one another, helps to get society beginning to open itself back up again, and of course, where possible, gets the economy functioning again. Because of course, the longer that we have greater levels of restriction, particularly on our economy here in Wales, then the less competitive we will be with other parts of the country that perhaps are loosening some of those restrictions.

We've already heard about the potential impact on the property market at the moment, but just consider the tourism industry too, which Helen Mary Jones was referring to. When you look at our tourism industry, it is incredibly important in many parts of the country—including in my own constituency—but if we don't lift restrictions on the tourist industry at the same time as the lifting of restrictions in England, Scotland or Northern Ireland, there is a potential that those people who would have chosen to come to Wales on their holidays will decide to go elsewhere, and the lack of level playing field could cause us here to have less of a competitive edge and give an advantage to industries in other nations within the UK. I don't want to see that, for the sake of holiday caravan parks, hotels and the important tourist attractions here in north Wales and around my constituency. I want to make sure that there's a lifting at the same time, where possible, in order for them to continue to be able to operate successfully.

I think that Paul Davies's point about timescales is incredibly important. I listened carefully to what Huw Irranca-Davies had to say, but it's not true to say that people are playing loose and fast, if you like, with people's lives. As I say, people are considering the same scientific evidence and if you can set a tentative date—and that's all that the UK Government has done is put tentative dates in the diary to say, 'We hope to be able to do these things by these dates if the science says it's safe to do so, if the rate of infection, the R rate, and the rate of transmission have come down to a certain level.' We have none of those indicators in the document that the Welsh Government's given to us. There's absolutely nothing in terms of the conditions that must be met in order to move from red to amber and green by industry, or by sector rather, and I think that that is something that people are crying out for, if they are to see how we can inch our way out of this particular pandemic. So, I would urge you, First Minister, to really consider whether it is possible to put some of those conditions into the document in a way that is easy for people to see whether the tests can be met in order to move things up in terms of lifting that lockdown. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Siân Gwenllian. If you'd wait for the microphone, Siân Gwenllian. Try again.

Thank you, Llywydd. The establishment of a robust test, tracing and isolating system for all aspects of COVID have to be at the heart of any plans for lifting the restrictions, including the reopening of schools. The public need very clear messages about the process, and we need robust arrangements in place for the isolation period, as well as appropriate arrangements so that people can isolate away from their homes where necessary. Along with that, we need detailed data about the epidemic in each local authority area down to ward level.

Reopening our schools in a staged manner will be reliant on the success of the test, trace and isolate strategy. Unless pupils, parents and staff in our schools have confidence in that system, then it will be hugely difficult to convince them to return to school. Even if all the necessary measures are in place—the issues discussed in the education Minister's decision framework—unless there is confidence in the testing system, then reopening schools will be very difficult indeed. One must only look at the huge argument that's ongoing in England on this issue, and I'm now very doubtful as to whether the schools will reopen there on 1 June. The unions are entirely right in insisting that an effective testing and isolation system should be in place before the reopening of those schools, and that has shown the folly of placing a particular date on this and then finding that the important elements in order to lift restrictions haven't been delivered.

The careful approach of the Welsh Government to reopening schools, as compared to the unplanned rush of the Tories, is to be welcomed therefore. It's not clear yet what the role of children is in transmitting the virus, and there are a number of contradictory reports, so we have to be very guarded on that point, and we need to be careful in the steps that we take in reopening schools. But, we also need to be highly aware of the damage done by the closure of schools. The virus period has shown how important our schools are for the well-being of very many children, and it is heartbreaking for me to think about those children who aren't receiving support as a result of this virus. Some children are being abused during lockdown, without being able to turn to their schools for assistance. Young carers are under huge pressures without the respite provided by schools, and there are thousands of children with learning difficulties who are losing that additional support and the routine that is provided by our schools. And the longer the schools remain closed, then the greater that attainment gap will become—it will grow; there is no doubt about that. There are huge differences already, and it will get worse. So, I would today like to hear from the First Minister that the Government will give a clear focus on supporting those who are being left behind because of the closure of our schools.

In planning for the next phase, we must also introduce strong mitigating steps for the transition period, the long transition, facing us before everyone is back full-time in our schools. We must make all efforts to engage with the large cohort of those who are described as reluctant learners, those who don't engage fully with their education even at the best of times, but who are now being left behind because of circumstances beyond their control.

We need to ensure that every child has contact with the internet and has the appropriate technology. Every school needs to maintain regular contact with every pupil, encouraging them to use the online resources available. And crucially too, we need live distance learning. This does have to happen across Wales. We need clear encouragement from the Welsh Government. It should be an expectation that every school presents lessons via live streaming as the most effective way of garnering the interest of those learners who are being left behind at the moment. So, I very much hope that you can give full consideration to these issues. 

To conclude, Llywydd, I think, and I think we all believe, that education is a fundamental human right. The Government must lead and must insist that the best practice happening across Wales is replicated in all schools and all classrooms during this virtual time, and that all possible efforts should be made to maintain quality education for all, but particularly those who need most support in the context of COVID-19.

When I call Rhianon Passmore—just to say that I'm going to need shorter contributions from now on if I'm going to get anywhere near calling all the Members who've indicated that they want to speak. Rhianon Passmore.

Diolch, Llywydd.

Yes, carry on.

Thank you. New figures announced yesterday by the Office for National Statistics, which includes fatalities in all settings, show that up to 8 May there have been 1,852 deaths related to the virus in Wales, and that is 1,852 families that have been devastated. So, I firstly wish to place on the record my appreciation, as the Member of the Senedd for Islwyn, and my sincere thanks for the heroic efforts of the men and women of the national health service, serving on that front line. They, along with all care and critical workers, continue to ensure that the communities of Islwyn function, and Wales continues to demonstrate that there is such a thing as society.

So, as political representatives of the Welsh people, we look to the future and how Wales can move forward safely and proactively as we seek to function more fully as a society together. I wish to welcome the Welsh health Secretary's comments that Wales will take a deliberately cautious approach in unlocking the lockdown measures with the next review to be held on 28 May. It is right that human lives are paramount and not ill-judged haste. As Members know, as a lifelong socialist, I believe that our public policy actions must and should be governed by the principles and values of social justice.

It is important that we facilitate further activities, yes, but only as it is evidenced safe to do so, with outside activities and other solitary sports that allow people to recommence whilst fully observing common sense and social distancing, and enjoyment of visiting garden centres in the fresh air and other outside activities. We do know that the virus dislikes sunlight and being outside.

Equally and fundamentally, as a Welsh Labour Government, we remain committed and dedicated, as we always have been, to ensuring that those poorer and more vulnerable members of our communities—who are often living, as has been said, in smaller accommodation, often without large gardens, often cramped, or in flats without outside space—are and will be able to experience greater liberty for mental as well as physical health. We know and have heard again today that the virus disproportionately impacts on the poorest in our society.

We also know the dangers of the hidden pandemic within this global pandemic, namely women and their children, majoritively but not solely by any means, who are now forced to live under lockdown rules with controlling and abusive partners who are able to remorselessly exploit Government rules for their own invidious advantage. So, if this is you or someone you know, you must please say. You do not have to suffer, and help and support is available to you right now.

Llywydd, the First Minister re-articulated today how Welsh Government's actions are governed by the science. We are all longing to see the day where restrictions on meeting people from other households outdoors will be eased. We do know that the virus is very likely to decay very quickly a few minutes outdoors in air and on surfaces exposed to sunlight. And we also know of the very strong desire for grandparents to see grandchildren and vice versa. This is not felt just in Islwyn, but beyond. But we all know that timing must be right.

So, as the First Minister stated, COVID-19 thrives on chains of human contact. The lockdown and the new normal must seek to limit those changes, otherwise we fear, based on scientific evidence, the virus will simply spread and spike again. This is simply what Wales's lockdown restrictions are trying to negate. At all costs, we must now stop the exponential growth of an invisible killer. What is rushed in law is not good law, and with this pandemic, the same principles apply.

Finally, Llywydd, we also need, I believe, to begin to formulate a legacy programme for some hopeful good, as has been stated by others today, to come from this dreadful and tragic pandemic. In Wales we need to consider, as we have, a new way, new cultures of working, travelling, procurement, organisation, education, and climate management, but mostly how the most vulnerable in our society, whether they are children or adults, can be better safeguarded and aided in times of good as well as the bad times they are experiencing now. Would the First Minister agree that there will be green shoots of great potential?

And as the First Minister also put it—

You'll need to bring your contribution to a close now.

Thank you. So, I would just like to reiterate that I am extremely proud of the people of Islwyn for everything that they have done in this time of struggle, and I know that our Welsh Government are working in partnership, cross-party, and that with strong social partnership, we will build together a brighter future. Thank you.

Thank you. Mohammad Asghar.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. After more than seven weeks of restrictions, the United Kingdom Government recently announced measures to ease the lockdown in England. This easing has been widely welcomed as it marks a significant milestone on the road to the return of normality. The United Kingdom Government strategy offers and sets out a clear vision for the future.

In contrast, the Welsh Government has produced a document that is vague and offers little clarity for the people of Wales. Instead of outlining a clear timetable for the easing of restrictions, it lacks the details vital to provide the confidence that people and the businesses desperately need in Wales. By not working in collaboration with the rest of the United Kingdom to develop a clear, consistent approach in easing restrictions, the Welsh Government has chosen to indulge in party-political point scoring. The result has been confusion about what can and cannot be done, particularly for constituents in south-east Wales living in close proximity to the border.

The border from Chepstow to Chester is a pretty long one, and the Minister must realise that in England, people are allowed to meet one person from another household outdoors, if they remain 2m apart. I wonder, with a 100 mile-long border, how people—[Inaudible.]—and everything can be stopped. Households can also drive a distance to destinations such as parks and beaches. However, they cannot travel to Wales, even if the border is a short distance away. People in Wales are confused and dismayed that what is permitted in England is not allowed in Wales.

Coronavirus does not respect race, gender, age or personal qualities, but the Welsh Government appears to have a fixation with the border and it is determined to be different. The difference of approach is almost clearly exposed in their approach to the housing market. This strategy document only contains a pledge to consult on guidance in relation to housing and construction. In England estate agents, removal firms and surveyors are among the essential housing industry services given the green light to go ahead and go back to work. Buyers and renters are allowed to move homes, and estate agents can now reopen with strict social distancing guidelines in place. In addition, new-home developers can reopen show homes, while local councils have been encouraged to support extended working hours at construction sites for the extra time it takes to implement safe social distancing measures. The resumption of work will play a major part in helping the economy recover, as well as delivering the houses they need. In Wales the housing market remains shut.

Presiding Officer, non-essential retailers in England will be able to open, in phase 1, on 1 June, if they follow social distancing guidelines. Pubs, restaurants, hairdressers, hotels, cinemas and places of worship will open from 4 July at the earliest as long as they implement social distancing measures. Clear, sector-specific guidance is essential to ensure adherence to current social distancing and hygiene guidelines if the restrictions on shops and services are to be lifted in a controlled manner that prioritises activities and services having the lowest risk of transmission.

The Welsh Government has not succeeded in publishing any evidence to support its current strategy and to inform businesses how to achieve COVID-19 secure status to allow them to reopen within the current guidelines. This can only hinder and delay the Welsh businesses as they struggle to recover. Thank you, Presiding Officer.

Neil Hamilton. If you can just pause whilst your microphone is turned on. Neil Hamilton.

Thank you, Llywydd. Well, the First Minister, like all the Governments of the United Kingdom, says that his policy will be based upon the science, but what do we mean by 'science' in this context? It's not medical science. We're talking about statistical modelling, and nobody thinks that econometricians and economic modellers are scientists, so why should we think that statistical modellers in the field of the medication have any more credibility? After all, the UK Government's strategy has been founded upon the study of Professor Neil Ferguson of Imperial College, a man who famously lost his job because, rather than practice social distancing, he was practising one of the more extreme forms of social proximity. His track record is actually very poor. He was the one who said that the BSE outbreak would cause us to lose 150,000 people who would be dying from contracting it. In fact, the actual number in the event was 200. Nobody knows what's the basis of Professor Ferguson's modelling; it hasn't been peer-reviewed. So, I would certainly counsel caution in treating that as science.

An alternative is the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine at the University of Oxford, which has said that beyond cyclical theories about influenza, we know little about whether pandemics follow distinctive patterns at all and making absolute statements of certainty about second waves is unwise.

Of course, countries that have begun to relax their lockdown like Germany have experienced no such resurgence as a second wave, and even more interestingly—I was pleased that Huw Irranca-Davies mention Sweden in his contribution—Sweden has had no lockdown enforced by law at all, and what's been the experience of Sweden? The infection rate in Sweden is 3,000 cases per million. In the UK, it's 3,700 cases per million. Our infection rate in Britain, in spite of our total lockdown and the economic price that we've had to pay for it, is greater than in Sweden. Looking at the death rate as well, that's higher in the United Kingdom than it is in Sweden. The deaths per million in Sweden are 371, in the United Kingdom, they are 521, almost 50 per cent higher than in Sweden. The infections in the United Kingdom are about 0.4 per cent of the total population. In Sweden it's 0.3 per cent.

So, there's no actual evidence that the lockdown has made as much difference as is claimed for it. Of course, it's difficult to make international comparisons because the way statistics are collected differs, and also the social and psychological characteristics of different countries also differ. But when you consider the huge economic and social costs that we are bearing for the Government's response, not just in Wales but also throughout the United Kingdom, I really do think that we ought to have a greater sense of proportion. Mandy Jones, I thought, asked some very important questions, and so did Adam Price in his speech earlier on also. What are we hoping to achieve from this? Mandy Jones asked a very pertinent question, I think: are we trying to just flatten the curve or are we trying to stop the infection spreading? Well, if the choice is the latter, then the lockdown is going to continue for a very, very long time indeed.

The Swedish economy is forecast to contract by about 2 per cent as a result of its response to the crisis. In the United Kingdom, it's going to be anything between 15 and 30 per cent—a fall that is as great as anything that we suffered in the 1930s in the great depression, and that's going to have an impact on public services, not least the national health service. So, we really need to do all that we can to get the economy moving again. In Sweden, what they've said is that people should be socially responsible, and a third of people have avoided going to their workplace, and daily restaurant turnover has fallen by 70 per cent. But Swedes are voluntarily adhering to the guidance rather than having to be forced to. And what's the result of all that in Sweden? Fewer ICU beds now occupied, and the number of patients in intensive care in Stockholm has dropped by 40 per cent. The daily death toll flatlined in the second half of April and has been declining ever since. The famous R number is 0.85 in Sweden, and it's anything between 0.7 and 1 in the United Kingdom. So, our experience is broadly very, very similar. But the economic price that we are going to pay in this country is vastly greater than is going to be paid in Sweden.

Of course, we must behave in a sensible way. For the vulnerable parts of the population—the elderly and those with underlying health conditions—then, there ought to be isolation, and social distancing is sensible for everybody in these circumstances. Our problem is that our policy has been too little and too late in the things that should have been done, and now we're extending for too long the things that have no real beneficial effect. So, I would counsel the First Minister, without being too specific about how the traffic light system is going to be operated in practice, that he should err on the side of being bold, as I said to him last week, rather than being timid. Because there is no evidence that the health risks that are going to be run are anything like the economic and other risks flowing from it, which will have an ongoing effect in the future and will lead to other deaths as well for other causes, as Mandy Jones pointed out.

There's a philosophical quandary thrown up by this debate—how can we unlock a door without the key? Surely, the key to unlocking our society and moving out of lockdown is to have a contact tracing system in place, to have adequate stocks of PPE and to have the best reliable measures to support and give confidence to the public. Regrettably, in too many ways, the key is still missing here, and the door is jammed.

I welcome the Welsh Government's paper, but I think the Government needs to do more to acknowledge the injustices in society exposed by the lockdown. The past couple of months haven't been the same for everyone. For people able to work from home and who have gardens, this time has been disruptive, but manageable. But for people unable to work from home, lockdown has meant being exposed to dangers without adequate protection. For older people living alone, it has meant acute loneliness, and for young families living in flats with no outside space, it's meant day after day of climbing the walls. Any path out of lockdown needs to prioritise helping the people who've struggled most in this crisis. We must show compassion and resolute support to the people who need it, and at the same time, we need to show firmness to the selfish minority who are deliberately ignoring the rules—the people who insist on driving to Pen-y-Fan and Pembrokeshire. For any rule to work there has to be a deterrent, and the First Minister has to show leadership here and increase the fines.

To set us on the right track, surely we need co-operation from the UK Government to make clear when rules apply only to England. We need an approach to eliminate the virus, like in New Zealand, not maintaining dangerous levels of transmission, and we need flexibility so that localities can re-impose lockdown if outbreaks emerge. Red can't turn to amber without the danger of a car crash being removed first.

Llywydd, we have to also address the hidden harms that have been exacerbated by this crisis—people in abusive relationships, those with mounting debt, even those whose non-COVID medical conditions have worsened during the crisis. Our path out of lockdown has to put them at the forefront of any considerations—the indirect injuries and distress undergone in homes in every street across Wales.

We've learned a lot about COVID-19 these past few weeks. One of the most shocking things is that it is aggravated by poverty. Our path out of lockdown must address this poverty and not ignore it, or else it would be as good as saying that there are some lives that are more expendable than others. We have to prioritise well-being. Reopening workplaces without easing restrictions at the same time on some elements of social life could look like prioritising the economy over the well-being of people, and a rush to reopen schools without easing the ability of children to see their grandparents could look like prioritising league tables over a right to family life. A lockdown can only work with the consent of the people. Easing it requires the key of track and trace, and a plan that puts well-being first. 

So, in closing, Llywydd, I'd say yesterday the health Minister conceded that there will need to be an inquiry into how the Welsh Government has managed some elements of this crisis. I hope that that inquiry's scope will be wider than only looking at PPE and testing. It should consider the structural faults in society that are the result of long-term policy decisions that have resulted in people at the wrong end of the inequality spectrum paying a disproportionate price for poverty that isn't their fault, often with their lives. 

I have to reiterate, we as a group support much of what is contained in this statement and welcome this debate and the opportunity it gives to add, cross-party, to this vitally important discussion. But it has to be said, the Government's statement is rather short on detail. I want to concentrate on the economic elements of this statement and the different approach taken by this Government to that of the UK Government. 

Whilst I understand the Welsh Government's desire for caution, one has to ask the question: could most of its concerns be alleviated if we work closely with employers to ensure that any employees returning to work will do so in as safe an environment as possible? The UK Government is now encouraging some workers in England to return to work, but it must be understood that the underlying law has not changed as far as work is concerned. This law, the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020, came into effect on 26 March. This made it an offence for a person to leave their house to go to work, unless that work cannot reasonably be done from home. This rule has not changed.

The administration of public health is, of course, devolved to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, so this has allowed the Governments in the three nations to retain their own lockdown rules, and they have said that they are not yet following the UK Government's approach of encouraging more workers to go to work. However, there seems to be some indication of when Welsh Government will allow some form of return to work—or there needs to be some indication on returning to work for those who are unable to work from home, particularly the self-employed. And there must be a clear set of rules that will govern them when they do return. 

There is some confusion about the rules that apply to businesses in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. As public health is devolved, businesses in these nations will need to operate in accordance with the relevant devolved lockdown regulations. Meanwhile, health and safety law is not devolved to Scotland and Wales. Ultimately, employers must undertake their own risk assessments that take account of all available guidance, which will include the UK Government's 'Working safely during coronavirus (COVID-19)' guidance and the public health guidance issued by the devolved administrations. Given these complications, it is essential that the Government gives some sort of indication of how lockdown restrictions will be lifted in order to give the business community the opportunity to conform to all of these—sometimes disparate—rules. Thank you, Llywydd. 

I've heard some rather disparate opinions here this afternoon, but I'm obviously going to speak in support of the Government, and I'm really proud to be part of a group—the ruling group in Wales—where all the feedback that I get is in praise of the calm, considered approach to help keep people safe in Wales; to help people actually come through an unprecedented situation where we have a virus that is lurking around us. And we cannot see it, we cannot feel it, we cannot touch it, but one thing we do know is that we cannot, at this stage, cure it either. 

So, I have listened intently this afternoon, and Paul Davies accuses us of not giving any hope. I have to, obviously, refute that, because I read from his statement that hope, in his case, means blindly following a reckless UK Government. He also calls for collaboration and yet, we've seen the UK Government making an announcement to open schools in June in England without any consultation, of course, with his English colleagues who are supposed to implement those changes. So, I think it's somewhat difficult to have collaboration with a UK Government when they can't even collaborate with the local governments within their own borders. 

I have heard an awful lot, again, about the denying of science, and let's not take any heed, of course, of the projections. I'm not surprised, of course, that Neil Hamilton did that, because he denies the very science that tells us that we have climate change going on around us, so, at least he's persistent in that. But what I do want to discuss here today is giving hope back to people, is actually saying to them that you can trust a Government that will take a careful, considered approach to help you, and we'll do that, as has been mentioned in the document, by valuing all people, those people who are now at the front line delivering services that we all value and we go out every Thursday night and clap, quite rightly. We won't refer to those people as 'low skilled' and, therefore, undervalue them—that's exactly the conversation that happened in Westminster on Monday night when we were talking about migrant labour in the NHS. We won't do that in Wales, and we won't do it to be different; we will do it simply because we actually do value those people. And when we come out of this, we will carry on valuing those people with the social partnerships, the contract, that will ensure that all conversations for people to return safely to the workplace will have all the players around the table. That means that those people who have kept this nation going through the hardest, the most difficult of times, will remain valued. 

That is why I'll be supporting this today, because that social contract, that social partnership, is exactly what we have now, and it's exactly what we will need for the future. We cannot ever go back on that. I fully support the statement that has been made that no company in Wales that has decided to put their tax arrangements offshore will get any funds from the public purse. If you can't pay into the public purse, why on earth should you be allowed to take out of the public purse? And so, going forward, we have set out our stall and we will keep to it. 

I have to congratulate, of course, all those people who work on the front line in the most difficult of times. And they are the most difficult of times. People have lost their lives. We know that. And people are putting their families on hold. Those people who are delivering the front-line services are self-isolating away from their families. And I've heard cases, terrible cases, of people sharing space, living in accommodation where they are not the only person—it's shared accommodation—and yet they're being isolated by the other people sharing that accommodation, and I think you need to look that. 

I am going to wrap this up, and I just really want to put it on record that I absolutely fully support the motion going forward. Thank you.

Just the one request for an intervention contribution. Dai Lloyd. 

Thank you very much for your patience, Llywydd. Could I just push the First Minister further and ask specifically what your strategy seeks to achieve, First Minister? Are you trying to eradicate the virus entirely from our communities, as New Zealand has done, or are you not?

The First Minister now to respond to the debate. First Minister. 

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. I said in opening that I would return to the amendments laid to the motion having heard from their movers, and I plan to do that, and then, depending on how much patience you still have, I'll try and reply to some of the people who contributed to the debate, if time allows. 

Llywydd, the Government is very happy to vote in favour of the amendment that emphasises collaboration and coherence across the four nations of the United Kingdom. Our media attention focuses always on differences. The fundamental approach we are taking is common across all four Governments—a gradual unlocking of lockdown, the public health lens through which specific measures are assessed. It is not a matter, as some contributors have suggested, of our approach diverging from the United Kingdom. There is no template against which everybody else is judged. In fact, in many ways, I think an analysis of what has happened recently would suggest that it is the Government in respect of its English responsibilities that has chosen to diverge from everybody else. 

But what we will be about is not, as Darren Millar suggested, looking to lift particular restrictions at the same time. Our lens is about lifting restrictions at the right time. And that is a far more important lens through which to view things. And the more we are able to talk with our colleagues in other Governments of the United Kingdom, the more likely we are to agree on the right measures and what is the right time, and that remains my ambition—to contribute positively to that possibility. 

The second amendment on the order paper, Llywydd, draws attention again to those who have lost their lives and those who are left behind to grieve. I try to say at every press conference and every statement that, behind the figures we quote on these occasions lie individuals, with lives that could have continued for longer, and a human cost that remains behind. The Government will support the amendment, having heard what Darren Millar had to say, having heard from Rhianon Passmore in her eloquent description of the disproportionate impact that this virus has on some people and some places. What we will not be doing, Llywydd, is to take the advice of Mr Hamilton and his calls to be bold. His calls to be bold are—. The price of his call to be bold would be paid for in the lives of other people. And I remember that every time we have a decision to make here in the Welsh Government—that there are real people, with real families and real lives to lead, and I am not going to be bold at their expense. 

Amendment 4, Llywydd, calls for an increase in the maximum fines that can be issued for non-compliance with public health regulations. I'm very grateful to our chief constables and police and crime commissioners for the close co-operation we have enjoyed during the crisis, and for the evidence that they submitted to the Welsh Government at the start of this week. I intend to act on that evidence in advance of the coming bank holiday weekend.

I thought Helen Mary Jones offered one of the most reasonable accounts that I have heard of the need to respond to those people who recalcitrantly and persistently refuse to observe the regulations. It was not fair of her to say that the Government has not been listening; we have been in a continuous conversation with our chief constables and with our police and crime commissioners, and, once the necessary legal instruments can be put in place, I will be able to provide details of our intentions and how our proposals allow us to vote in favour of this amendment.

Llywydd, as I set out earlier, a test, trace and protect system is being set up. In advance of any substantial lifting of restrictions, that has to be in place, and I'm happy to confirm that again in voting in favour of amendment 5.

The Government will also support amendment 9 on the order paper. I need to be clear that, where the amendment says, 'introduce a universal basic income', our support is for the introductory work that would be needed to establish a basic income for the United Kingdom. I doubt that even the strongest supporter of that system would claim that it is ready on the shelf simply for wholesale introduction. However, Llywydd, many aspects of a universal basic income are already in place—the state pension for older people and child benefit to name just the most obvious. As we come out of the economic crisis that coronavirus has created, effective demand will be what our economy will require. And the best way to create effective demand is to make sure that there is money in the hands of our fellow citizens to be able to buy goods and services. Whether we call it a UBI, a citizen's income, a social dividend, all of them are rooted in a sense of social solidarity. And, as many other speakers have said, this whole experience surely teaches us that social solidarity is the most precious resource that we have as a community.

Llywydd, the one amendment we cannot support is amendment 3. It is overspecific in some aspects, and not capable of implementation in others. We have a proper financial plan; we've set it out over time, we will reiterate it and draw it together in the first supplementary budget. And we have groups in all parts of the Government—as Paul Davies asked for—already there, working on implementation of a pathway out of the crisis. But timescales, milestones and targets are the language of a different time and a different context. As I explained earlier today, the implementation of any measures depends not upon managerialism but upon an agile ability to identify the progress of the disease and to calibrate our measures against the medical and scientific advice at the time. It is to offer a false sense of certainty to populate a road map with actions that lie far in the future and in circumstances of which none of us are able to foresee. And Huw Irranca-Davies made that case, I thought, very strongly this afternoon.

We will not be tying ourselves to specific actions that are necessarily arbitrary in nature. Our chief medical officer has said many times that coronavirus turns out to be a virus with lots of surprises, and we will need to navigate our way through that future in a way that is attentive to the evidence, attentive to the circumstances, and clearly capable of being able to demonstrate to people in Wales that the measures we take are based on the circumstances that we face together.

Llywydd, if you will allow me, I will respond very briefly to some of the specifics in some contributions. A number of Plaid Cymru contributors particularly have pointed to New Zealand and its elimination strategy. And Adam Price said that it was important to learn from others. I agree, it is important to learn from others, but Neil Hamilton's contribution showed just how easy it is to draw the wrong conclusions from experience elsewhere, rather than the right ones. And New Zealand is an island. It has no land border with another population, and an elimination strategy is a good deal easier to implement and to achieve when you are not cheek by jowl with an administration who may be doing different things.

I did agree, however, very much with what Adam Price said about the joint biosecurity centre and its ability for us to look for local-level actions. I agree with what he said about the potential for that and we will want to maximise our ability to draw on that potential. 

I listened carefully to what Nick Ramsay said. He asked me to spend money on local authorities, on universities, on the discretionary assistance fund, on tourism and a number of other entirely deserving purposes. He asked me for financial clarity. Let me say: it's not more clarity we need; it's more money. And in order to be able to attend to the many demands that there are there to meet the circumstances we face in Wales, we will need a UK Government capable of acting, not by re-imposing austerity, but by injecting demand into the economy, by offering us the stimulus—the fiscal stimulus—that we will need in order to attend to the many things that Nick Ramsay referred to.

I want to end by just drawing together a couple of contributions from Lynne Neagle and from Joyce Watson. Let me just say how much I agreed with three of the key principles that Lynne Neagle set out. Equality: it is just desperate that wealth is the best shield against this virus. I thought Joyce Watson made an outstanding contribution to the debate this afternoon in drawing attention to the practical ways in which people's lives, which are hard enough in the first place, are now being made additionally difficult by the onset of this disease. And this Government has put equality at the front of the lens that we will use as we plot a path out of coronavirus together.

And when I say 'together', I'm drawing attention to the second of the principles that Lynne outlined, that of partnership. And the strength of local government really has come to the fore in this crisis. And I pay tribute to the leader of Torfaen County Borough Council—the community that Lynne represents in the Assembly—for everything that he has done with other leaders to turn the power of local government and their presence on the ground in communities across Wales to the benefit of those local populations and especially to those who have needed that help the most.

And finally, can I just share in what Lynne said about the positives of the experience and to draw some hope out of everything we have gone through? Last night, Llywydd, I took part in a virtual Iftar, drawing together people of all different faiths from across Wales in a very moving ceremony, attended by my colleague Jane Hutt and others. In that event, the voice of what was described as an ordinary community member in the centre here in Cardiff was given an opportunity to talk to us about what it was like to live in a densely populated inner-city area in a small house with three teenaged sons and a husband all trying to live under the same roof, and she was absolutely inspirational in focusing on the positive things that that family and that community have drawn out of this experience.

And that's where I find the hope—that's where I find the hope—in those experiences that Welsh citizens have had, how they have found ways of drawing closer to one another inside the home and with those who live around them, and the determination that was expressed there to build on the calm and considered way this Government is determined to find a way out of coronavirus, to be diligent, to be detailed in the way that we attend to decision making here in Wales, and then to draw on that strength, that key strength, that gives us solidarity—the solidarity of knowing that we share those experiences, we find the positives in them and together we act to find a way beyond coronavirus that attends to those whose needs are greatest, whose contribution has been the most and on whose requirements the future needs to be based. 

The proposal is to agree amendment 1. Does any Member object? Yes, I see an objection from Siân Gwenllian. There's been an objection, and therefore I will defer voting on this item until voting time. 

Voting deferred until voting time.