The following amendments have been selected: amendments 1 and 2 in the name of Rebecca Evans, and amendments 3 and 4 in the name of Siân Gwenllian. If amendment 2 is agreed amendment 3 will be deselected.

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

Motion NDM7328 Darren Millar

To propose that the Senedd:

Calls for an independent, Welsh Parliament appointed, judge-led inquiry into the Welsh Government’s handling of the Covid-19 pandemic, to be commenced at an appropriate date, when the pandemic is under control, and to be concluded prior to the next Welsh Parliament election.

Motion moved.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amendment 1—Rebecca Evans

Delete 'Welsh Parliament appointed, judge-led'.

Amendment 2—Rebecca Evans

Delete 'and to be concluded prior to the next Welsh Parliament election'.

Amendments 1 and 2 moved.

Formally. 

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

Amendment 3—Siân Gwenllian

Delete ‘and to be concluded’ and replace with ‘and for an initial report on its findings to be presented’.

Amendment 4—Siân Gwenllian

Add as new point at end of motion:

Calls for an independent judge-led inquiry to be commenced in parallel, into the UK Government’s handling of the Covid-19 pandemic.

Amendments 3 and 4 moved.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We can also—

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

Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Inaudible.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

And, sadly,

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

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

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

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

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

A constituent wrote,

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

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

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

Recent emails have included,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Janet Finch-Saunders to respond to the debate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Voting deferred until voting time.