The following amendment has been selected: amendment 1 in the name of Neil McEvoy.

We now move on to item 10 on our agenda this afternoon, which is the debate by the Brexit Party on lifting—. Sorry, my screen's just frozen on me; I'll allow David Rowlands to tell us what the motion is, because I'm sure he's going to move it. David Rowlands. 

Motion NDM7334 Caroline Jones

To propose that the Senedd:

Calls on the Welsh Government to: 

a) accelerate lifting of lockdown measures;

b) work with the UK Government to support a UK-wide approach;

c) facilitate faster re-opening of the Welsh economy;

d) rule out raising Welsh rates of income tax to pay the costs of an extended lockdown.

Motion moved.

Yes, okay. It's on lifting the lockdown, actually, Dirprwy Lywydd. Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd.

There is no doubt that the protection of public health in response to COVID-19 is raising extraordinary economic challenges. The UK Government has tried to freeze the economy using the job retention scheme, generous business loans and various handouts. But freezing the economy is the easy part. Just as we have not mastered the second phase in cryogenics—the unfreezing part—we do not know how to successfully unfreeze an economy. Both are complex systems that cannot simply be turned off and on. The economic scarring has already begun. Thousands of businesses are shutting down, undermining the productive capacity of the Welsh economy. There have already been serious job losses. Many who lose their jobs during a recession never find work again. Young people who are trying to enter the workforce could experience long-term loss of earnings.

Locking down the economy has also had extraordinary fiscal costs, increasing UK Government debt by billions. While this was justified to prevent a total economic collapse, maintaining such levels of Government spending over the long term is simply not sustainable. There's no doubt that balancing public health against the now dire need to unlock the economy is a very delicate and precarious task. But we in the Brexit Party now believe that it has to be done sooner rather than later. We are fast approaching a situation when many once prosperous businesses and enterprises will no longer be able to sustain themselves. Large-scale loss of businesses in this way will undoubtedly lead to health consequentials that may indeed outweigh those presented by COVID-19. The economic crash of 2008 saw 10,000 suicides. I have no figures relating to mental health issues for this particular pandemic, but it is widely predicted that, even if we open the economy up immediately, there will already be substantial increases in mental health issues. 

The First Minister is adamant that we shall not see an easing of restrictions until he is certain that there will be no return to previous death rates from coronavirus. So, I feel we should analyse some of the statistics the First Minister relies on. There have been 1,483 recorded coronavirus-related deaths in Wales since the commencement of the epidemic. However, there is much anecdotal evidence emerging where coronavirus has been recorded as the cause of death, where the true cause has been a long-term, life-threatening illness such as cancer and heart disease, and whilst coronavirus was present, it could not be said to be the actual cause of death. 

Each death is, of course, a tragedy to those who knew and loved those who died. But we must remember that thousands of deaths occur over the same period every year, some of which may have been avoidable if the right actions had been taken at the right time. Indeed, how many people will die because they have been afraid to seek medical interventions whilst this pandemic has been present?

We have to accept that this is the nature of things. We also have to consider how many young, fit and healthy people have died in Wales as a direct consequence of COVID-19. The truth is there have been very few. Again, although each was a tragedy in itself, we must have the courage to ask the question: 'Does it justify closing the whole economy and putting thousands of young people out of work, perhaps for a long period of time?' It can be argued that we should maintain the same lockdown procedures for those classified as 'vulnerable' for some time longer, but the argument for keeping everybody in lockdown is fast losing credibility.

Let me now turn briefly to those businesses suffering most from the lockdown—the service sector, and in particular, pubs, restaurants and the leisure industry in general, including hotels, campsites and holiday parks. I am sure that, with good management and social distancing measures in place, much of this sector could be opened up, as has been done in the automotive trade. I was particularly impressed by a video sent to me by Andy Sinclair, of the Sinclair Group, outlining their strategy for reopening, and I am certain many other car retailers will be introducing similar measures. Risks of infection with such strategies in place would be at an absolute minimum. There are many other business operations that are still under restrictions that could apply the same sorts of measures as the motor trade.

In this debate, Dirprwy Lywydd, we do not denigrate or criticise the First Minister or his Government for their actions during this coronavirus epidemic. Indeed, we would congratulate them on their robust economic interventions, and, in the most part, for the way these interventions have been delivered. There's no doubt that if it had not been for their actions, and the actions of the UK Government, the vast majority of Welsh businesses would be in a very precarious situation. The purpose of this debate is to ask the Government to accelerate its opening up of the economy. The time is fast approaching when, if we do not take action, the economy may take many, many years to recover—indeed, may never recover at all. We have heard that it is the most deprived areas that are worst hit by the lockdown. Valleys towns, which are already struggling, may lose many more retail outlets if it continues. We in Pontypool have just heard the news that one large retailer will not be reopening. Even one such loss is critical to our town centres. How often will this be replicated across our Valleys towns if the lockdown continues?

Yes, First Minister, there are risks, but we risk our lives every time we drive a car, so we take the precaution to avoid accidents, and we rely on thousands, indeed millions, to do the same. Tragically, people do die on our roads every year, but we do not stop people driving because of this. Ultimately, First Minister, how we come out of lockdown is a risk-assessment exercise. We believe that the risk element is now outweighed by the absolute necessity of getting the economy functioning again. There are many in the business community who are desperate to reopen—their finances are exhausted, their health and well-being are being put in jeopardy. First Minister, the people of Wales have suffered enough. We call upon you to accelerate the rate of coming out of the lockdown. The consequences of not doing so are dire, and may be worse than COVID-19 itself.

Thank you. I have selected amendment 1, tabled in the name of Neil McEvoy. The Member is not present to move the amendment. Does any Member wish to move that amendment formally? No. Therefore, the amendment falls. I call Darren Millar.

Amendment 1 not moved.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Today we are going to be supporting this particular motion calling for a further relaxation in the lockdown measures, so that we can support the people of Wales to get more of their personal freedoms back. People across the country, of course, have made enormous sacrifices during the lockdown in order to help to protect the most vulnerable, to enable critical workers to help our country to respond to the pandemic, and to reduce the transmission of the virus—sacrifices like missing a family member's funeral, not seeing loved ones, or even a partner, for many months, and living under what are, frankly, the most oppressive infringements of civil liberties in this country's history.

Now, we accept that they've had to be introduced in order to protect people's lives. But people didn't give up these sacrifices to save lives only to suffer further loss of life through the potential unintended long-term consequences of a prolonged lockdown. We know that there are links between poverty and poor life expectancy and chronic disease. And, of course, if we don't lift the restrictions sufficiently quickly, then it is quite possible that we will suffer long-term impacts to our public health as a result.

The lack of social interaction and loneliness in recent months are now beginning to take their toll on people's mental health. The national health service's chief executive in Wales, Andrew Goodall, has cited an increase in patients displaying anxiety and emotional distress, and presenting at hospitals later than they should have before requiring the intervention that they need. And that's why we've seen significant falls, of course, in attendance at our emergency departments across the country. Now, while you might expect fewer alcohol-fuelled injuries over the weekends, this sort of drop does seem to suggest that many patients are fearful of presenting themselves at hospital because of a perceived coronavirus risk.

Now, of course, we all want the public to be vigilant, but I think an overly cautious relaxation of the lockdown does risk those further losses of life. We recognise there are no risk-free solutions here, but despite the best of intentions, we do believe that the Welsh Government's approach is now lagging behind what appears to be a common approach, or very similar approach, in Scotland, Northern Ireland and indeed in England with the UK Government, and I do think that we need to look at trying to adopt more of a four-nation approach going forward. 

We've discussed at length in these sessions in recent weeks the cruel 5-mile rule, which we think needs to be dropped immediately. And I think it was a great shame that there was no relaxation of that rule on compassionate grounds in time for Father's Day this year, which of course we marked just over the weekend. Now, we welcomed, obviously, the reopening of non-essential retail on Monday, but, of course, there are limits to what local custom can do to support local businesses, and very often, many businesses in our towns across the country and villages across the country rely on much more than local custom in order to survive.

Now, part of the key to reopening our economy is the reopening of our schools. We know that our Welsh Government did make an announcement that all schools would be open for four weeks from 29 June. They, of course, have given a hospital pass to local authorities, asking them to make the decision on whether to extend the term by a single week, and I think that that was a mistake, and I think it does beg the question as to who's running the Welsh education system—is it the unions or is it the education Minister? And it certainly looks, from our perspective at the moment, as though the unions have one-up on the Minister in this respect at the moment. 

We're very concerned, of course, because independent studies of education have concluded that there is less home-schooling going on in Wales than there is in the other UK nations, and that's probably because of the lack of consistency across the country. So, this latest lack of consistency in terms of how many weeks our children will be educated in the coming weeks is a great deal of concern. 

So, in summary, then, Deputy Presiding Officer, I just want to say we do support the calls for a four-nation approach. We believe that the UK nations having different approaches has been confusing. Wales is now lagging behind—I think that's very, very clear, particularly given the announcements in Scotland today. We know that this epidemic is going to be here for some time, but we must now make sure that the Welsh Government adopts a 'lives and livelihoods' policy in order that we can protect people's lives in the longer term and enable people to be able to use their common sense, informing them of the risks, as we reopen our economy going forward.

Not since 1918 has the world experienced such a threat from a biological agent. The Spanish flu swept the globe, leaving death and destruction in its wake, and long after the dead were buried, the economic impacts were felt. Many believed the Spanish flu led to the Great Depression. The spread of severe, acute respiratory coronavirus too threatened to be another event like the 1918 flu outbreak, but because the world took decisive action, we have not seen tens of millions of people dying. Yes, the death toll is still horrible—in excess of 2,000 people have died in Wales, and thousands across the UK and nearly 500,000 people worldwide. 

This disease has a high mortality rate among the sick and the elderly. And in order to protect our most vulnerable in society, we placed our entire country in quarantine, and, yes, it was the right thing to do. We were woefully unprepared for this virus, so in order to ensure our healthcare system did not become overwhelmed, we locked everyone away—the sick and the healthy, the young and the old. And thankfully, our NHS coped, and everyone's sacrifices, together with the hard work and dedication of our key workers, meant that we successfully flattened the curve. But we now have to balance the other side of the scales. 

A possible vaccine is at least one to two years away. We can't keep everyone locked down for that long. We have to restore people's freedoms in order to prevent indirect harms. Lockdown has already greatly impacted people's mental health and we have seen a tremendous rise in loneliness and isolation: couples separated since mid March, families unable to visit one another and friends prevented from getting together, unless they are fortunate to live near each other. Social distancing has led to social isolation, and its effects have been keenly felt by those already suffering from mental ill health.

Some of the UK's top psychologists have warned that lockdown is greatly impacting the mental health of young people. Yet, some councils in Wales are only allowing them to go to school for a few hours every few weeks. This hugely risks damaging their development, to say nothing of the impact this is having on their education.

It's not just mental health that's affected, our NHS has stopped operating for all but a few essential services. We already have the worst cancer survival rates in the western hemisphere, yet we have stopped all screening services. People have not stopped getting sick because of COVID-19, and my worry is that the halt in health services will do lasting harm to many people. Our NHS could barely cope prior to this pandemic. Who knows what impact this pause will have on patients.

What we do know about this virus is the impact it is having on our poorest communities. Newport and Rhondda Cynon Taf have been disproportionately affected by the pandemic. Infection rates in these communities are some of the highest in the UK. News out last week also pointed to the fact that Wales has experienced the greatest increase of economic inactivity of any home nation. The economic fallout of our response to this pandemic could be felt for generations.

We are approaching the point where the cure is worse than the disease. Coronavirus hasn't gone away, but we are also no longer unprepared. We need to move away from quarantining the healthy towards isolating the sick and vulnerable. COVID-19 is here for the long haul, but we mustn't kill the patient to cure the disease. We can't stop people catching the virus, but we can stop its expediential spread by isolating them and not everyone else. Unless we accelerate the lifting of lockdown, we will end up doing greater and lasting harm, and I urge Members to support our motion. 

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the debate. There's nothing surprising about this motion by the Brexit Party. It's a party that has had all sorts of deniers in the past: the impact of humans on environmental change; even the impact of smoking on cancer. I'm sure this isn't their intention, but there is a risk that they are seen here as though they are denying the very real risks still arising from this particular virus. 

Now, I'll start with where I agree with them—I am quite confident that everyone would agree, truth be told—which is that we do want to move out of the current restrictions. That's the direction of travel that we all want to see. And I myself have called on the Government to push and to test their own evidence continuously to ensure that there aren't things that we could be doing safely to provide people with more freedoms and to allow economic activity that isn't currently permissible—but it's that word 'safety' that is crucial there. And what is entirely missing from this motion is any reference to public safety and public health.

As I said, we in Plaid Cymru do want to relax the restrictions. We do understand how much of an impact this is having on people's well-being, and how much of an economic strain it's proving to be, and the restrictions shouldn't remain in place a second longer than they have to. But any request for haste in this without reference to safety is entirely irresponsible. I would say that we need to move as quickly as possible, as long as that is safe.

What I certainly think is required from the Welsh Government is far more forward planning, far more transparency in terms of its vision and the road map. But we are following a three-weekly pattern, and I don't think that that's sufficient. I do think the Government should have provided a more phased approach, as the Republic of Ireland Government has done, noting what the Government would hope to be able to do in terms of relaxing restrictions and allowing the resumption of economic activity over a period of months, with the major caveat, of course, that things could change.

I'm speaking to businesses in my constituency continually, and it's the uncertainty that's been most difficult for them in many ways. To give you an example: the Scottish Government has announced today that pubs and restaurants will be allowed to open—outdoors first of all—on 3 July, if my memory serves me correctly, and then they'll be open as indoor operations some 10 days later. I would be delighted if the Welsh Government would consider a similar timetable, and announce that as soon as possible. But the difference between my view and the Brexit Party view is that I only want it to happen if the Government can be convinced that it is safe, and also to explain why, if they think it isn't safe, they couldn't take that step, and also to put an alternative timetable in place as soon as possible, because that kind of clarity is crucial.

Now, as we, hopefully, move to relaxing restrictions, there are a number of things that have to be put in place. Once again, I think the Brexit Party is irresponsible in not referring to these. The most crucial is to have a proper and robust test and trace system to protect the public and to lay the foundations for raising the restrictions. I am concerned that we are in the early days of test and trace. This should have been a central part of the strategy in the battle against COVID-19 throughout this period, in accordance with WHO recommendations.

I want to conclude by referring to a comparison drawn by David Rowlands in opening this debate. We take a risk by driving a car, he says, but we don't stop people from driving. No, we don't, but you do seek to make cars as safe as possible, you place restrictions on speed, you have a highway code in place, and you have to pass a test before you can get behind the wheel. And, at the moment, we are all still in a learning process. And I think that kind of attitude by the Brexit Party summarises just how heedless they are with this motion.

I'm critical of the Government in many ways—for a lack of clarity and for moving too slowly in certain areas, including being too slow in going into lockdown in the very first instance. But I'm also very critical of the English Government for overseeing a disaster in terms of death rates, and how Brexit Party Members and the Conservatives would want to say that the priority is to be the same as England—well, I simply can't understand that approach, and it appears to me that unionist ideology is more important to them than public health.

Rhun, me and you both smoke, so we're both guilty of something on that one.

We've been in lockdown now for more than 13 weeks. We were told this was to protect the NHS and to flatten the curve. I think we all understood that the timing of the lockdown was very finely balanced, but I doubt anyone consented to having their liberty curtailed for this length of time. And now here we are 13 weeks in. The curve has been flattened, the NHS has coped—at least with COVID. Why are we still in lockdown? When exactly was the date of the change to cure or vaccine or elimination? When did that happen? And here I am repeating the same questions I posed a few weeks ago that were not even acknowledged by the First Minister, let alone answered, so I would appreciate answers today, please.

Wales remains in lockdown in ways that are cruel, very damaging in terms of reputation and risks, and, to my mind, you are storing up many and varied non-COVID problems that will test the NHS again and risk lives and livelihoods again and again. Your messaging has been incoherent. You only spoke out about mass protests after they happened, and, yes, many of my constituents did agree with me that this was indeed a slap in the face for all of those who diligently followed your rules.

We now have a file-mile rule that is a rule, also a rule of thumb, also a guidance and a judgment call. It cannot be all of these things and enforceable in the courts or by law. Our constituents are our eyes and ears, and they tell me that testing centres around them appear largely empty. So, where are you with testing? Are you actually meeting your targets?

And, following on from that, the R rate in Wales is low, at 0.5 last week, and I think I need to offer my congratulations for that, but surely that number is really dependent on testing. If we don't know how many have COVID or have had COVID, isn't the R rate absolutely meaningless? I'd also point out that, while lockdown measures have been in place, there are two very concerning outbreaks of COVID on Anglesey and Wrexham.

I am truly glad that field hospitals were created in double-quick time and not needed. This is a good thing. However, I am deeply concerned about the number of deaths that have been recorded officially as COVID. I'm hearing from some constituents that their loved ones' deaths are recorded as being due to COVID when no actual testing took place and no symptoms were present. Others tell of pre-existing serious conditions like cancer, where the death has also been recorded as COVID. There is a massive difference between 'of COVID' and 'with COVID': even the ONS uses the term 'involving COVID'. How can the Welsh public have confidence that the total number of deaths recorded is actually accurate?

Just last week, your deputy chief medical officer signed off on a reduction in the alert status to 3, a very welcome development, and yet Wales's lockdown measures are currently the most stringent in the whole of the UK. Why? The three-weekly reviews have been interminable for those literally fighting for the survival of their businesses, and, while I welcome some clarity for tourism-based businesses, what do you think business owners are doing in these last few weeks? They're not waiting for you to say, 'Spend the next three weeks preparing' like you did with the non-essential retail and, last time, hairdressers: they have prepared and they are ready. They have been ready for weeks. It may come as a surprise to you, but businesses can be trusted to do what's right to keep themselves, their staff and their customers safe, and most individuals can take the steps needed to keep themselves and their friends and loved ones safe too. We don't need our lives or our businesses micromanaged by Welsh Government.

From what I see in my inbox, Wales was happy to put its trust in both Welsh and UK Governments at the start, but that trust is now wearing incredibly very thin, and, in many cases, has evaporated. I think it's time to end the lockdown. Trust us, the Welsh public, to use our judgment and to live our lives and to take care of ourselves, those and each other. Thank you.

Thanks to the Brexit Party for tabling today's debate. I think it's a timely one, because yet again we are seeing important differences between the UK Government's response to the crisis on one hand and the Welsh Government's response on the other. Why do we have these differences? The First Minister and his Cabinet colleagues, notably the health Minister, keep telling us that they 'follow the science'. What on earth does this actually mean? It's disingenuous nonsense. Their science is no different from the UK Government's science, yet they're coming to completely different conclusions. Can I say to Mark Drakeford: don't kid us that this is all down to science?The Welsh people are not children, so why not be honest with us? This is a political decision, because you want Wales to stay in lockdown for longer than England. Mark Drakeford wants to then go to the Welsh public and say, 'Look what the UK Government has done in England; they're risking people's lives.' Unfortunately, this argument falls down when we consider that Mark Drakeford and Vaughan Gething have themselves been culpable of public health crises through their totally incompetent running of the health service in Wales. They say they're so intent on protecting public health, but Vaughan Gething goes out for a family picnic on a park bench in blatant defiance of the rules he himself has brought in. Mark Drakeford makes statements that often seem to demonstrate that he does not even know what his own Government's rules are. We do need more co-ordination with the UK Government. Mark Drakeford refuses to provide this. He said today he is waiting for evidence from the UK Government, as though Westminster has somehow been remiss in not updating him. But we know that Mark Drakeford didn't even attend COBRA meetings for several weeks, when he was able to do so.

It seems to me that this omission is part of a deliberate strategy: the First Minister wants to remain out of the Westminster loop so he can push his own policies and claim he doesn't know what the UK Government is thinking. This allows him to go on pursuing his own policies in Wales that will be economically disastrous. I would like to ask the First Minister: who is going to pay for an extended lockdown here in Wales? He wants businesses to remain closed for longer, which will cost more jobs and livelihoods. Then, in a short while, he will go to Westminster with a begging bowl and ask for more money for Wales. First Minister, what do you think the UK Government will do with your begging bowl when you have decided to do things differently in Wales? In all probability, they will throw the begging bowl back in your face, so we will end up with the Welsh Labour Government after the election next year having to use its income tax powers to try and balance the books, which will mean Welsh people paying more taxes than people in England. Isn't having the Welsh Assembly turning out to be really wonderful for the people of Wales? More and more people are concluding that we will ultimately need to abolish the Assembly. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

I strongly support this motion, because what is most glaring about our experience of coronavirus is the lack of evidence that the lockdown, the draconian lockdown, has had any useful purpose at all. It was based originally on predictions by Professor Neil Ferguson of Imperial College in London that proved to be utterly absurd in the event, and the Swedish Government received studies based upon Professor Ferguson's model if they didn't introduce a lockdown, and that model projected that their critical-care demand in Sweden would peak at above 16,000 or even 20,000 a day, whereas in fact the reality, in the outcome, was 500 a day. A difference of that kind is not science. That is statistical manipulation; it's junk science.

What we do know about coronavirus is that 98 per cent of the people who contract it either have no symptoms at all, or they certainly don't have anything like serious or critical symptoms. It affects in a severe way 2 per cent of those who contract it, and what we know also about the deaths from coronavirus is that 80 per cent of them have been people aged over 80. This virus does not attack people who are part of the working population on the whole. Nobody who's economically active in Wales, beyond a very small number, is likely to be at risk from a relaxation of the lockdown. There's a much greater risk from continuing it than there is from relaxing it.

Nobody, of course, can prove these predictions; you can't prove the future. But what we can do is look at the past, see what has happened, and see how it measures up with what was then predicted before these measures were introduced, and the reality is that the measures simply don't add up as having been worthwhile; in fact, they've been wholly counter-productive. When you look at the experience of countries that have relaxed their lockdowns or didn't have them at all, like Sweden, we find that the infection rate in the United Kingdom was far higher in the first place, and also the death rate of the United Kingdom was far higher. Per 1 million people, 4,500 people in the UK have contracted coronavirus, and the death rate has been 632 per million. In Sweden, there's a higher infection rate at 6,000 per million, but a lower death rate at only 500 per million. In Austria, a much, much lower infection rate of below 2,000, and almost no deaths at all—only 77 in the whole country, according to the Worldometer website today. Germany, similarly: half the infection rate that we've had in this country with only 100 deaths, instead of the 632 deaths per million that we've got.

So, of the people who die from the virus, we know also that 90 per cent of them have had at least one pre-existing condition—90 per cent of the cases. Twenty per cent of the people who have died from coronavirus had dementia or Alzheimer's disease; these are not people who are part of the working population and need to be protected from their own personal irresponsibilities. The great tragedy of the coronavirus is that the Government has applied entirely the wrong remedy to the crisis right from the start. It's concentrated on locking down the whole economy, whilst not protecting the people who were most at risk in nursing homes and care homes. It's like going to hospital for heart surgery to find that your surgeon, instead of having a collection of scalpels, has come into the operating theatre with a chainsaw.

Now, the virus—. Sorry. The R rate, the rate of transmission of the virus, which the Government bases its policy on, is itself only an average of what they think it might be, and actually disguises the reality of coronavirus, which is that what we know is that a great proportion of the serious cases that have developed, and this is not just in Britain, this is throughout the world, have come from a very small number of super-spreaders. Eighty per cent of the cases in Hong Kong have come from 20 per cent of the initial cases. So, the R rate is a mythical figure that can't be calculated anyway because we don't know what proportion of the population has got any kind of natural immunity. We've all acquired some sort of immunity from coronavirus because we've all had the common cold. Nobody actually knows how protective these immunities are, but we do know from other circumstances that there must be such cross immunities.

Can you remember the Diamond Princess cruise ship right at the start of the crisis? A small, confined environment, where the disease was allowed to run rampant for weeks before it was recognised as a major problem. Only 19 per cent of the passengers on that vessel actually contracted the coronavirus. Professor Sunetra Gupta, a professor of theoretical epidemiology at Oxford University, says that the coronavirus has followed the same pattern worldwide, irrespective of the lockdown policies of different Governments. Professor Yonathan Freund, a professor of emergency medicine at the Sorbonne university, says that a second wave can be absolutely ruled out from what we know of the epidemiology of the disease. So, when Rhup ap Iorwerth says that we need to prove our case, then I'm basing what I say on the science and on the scientists, not on statistical modellers, because statistical modelling is not science.

Another factor that's involved in coronavirus as well, and all viruses actually, is we don't know enough about them to know about the progress of diseases and why they behave in the way that they do. Many viruses disappear like SARS did, for no reason that is apparent at all. Six months after SARS appeared on the planet, it disappeared. Professor David Heymann, a professor in infectious disease epidemiology at the London school of tropical health and tropical medicine, who headed the global response to SARS at the World Health Organization, has pointed out that SARS spread easily and killed a tenth of those who were infected, but actually disappeared within six months.

Can I ask the Minister—sorry, the Member—to wind up, please?

Yes, I have actually come to the end of what I intend to say. So, on the basis of what we know about the science, and the facts of what we know about the way that this epidemic has developed in the course of the last few months, I believe there is an irresistible case for relaxing the lockdown as quickly as possible.

Thank you. Can I now call the Minister for Finance and Trefnydd, Rebecca Evans?

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. The Welsh Government rejects this motion, and I will address each of the four elements of the original motion in turn. 

Firstly, in Wales, we have deliberately taken a careful and evidence-based approach to the easing of lockdown, and our primary objective is always to keep Wales safe. We've explained how we're doing this in 'Leading Wales out of the coronavirus pandemic: a framework for recovery', and in 'Unlocking our society and economy: continuing the conversation'. We are easing restrictions when we are satisfied that changes will not threaten public health. The law in Wales requires those restrictions to be kept under review, to ensure that they're proportionate.

The most recent review was concluded on 18 June, and scientific advice allowed the Welsh Government to seek to significantly ease restrictions over the next three weeks. This includes enabling non-essential retail businesses to reopen this week where they can take reasonable measures to comply with physical distancing duties. Childcare can restart and schools will increase operations from next week. It remains necessary to continue to ask people to stay in their local area unless they have a reasonable excuse to travel further, but we will seek to lift this restriction on 6 July if the conditions permit.

Secondly, we continue to advocate working closely with the UK Government within a four-nations approach. But, let me clear: the four Governments need to operate as equal partners, with mutual respect for each other's responsibilities. The Welsh Government must take actions that reflect the circumstances and requirements in Wales. And, as the First Minister put it, England is not the template for the rest of the UK.

In the early days of the pandemic, we had to rely on emergency response machinery under COBRA. This engagement was largely positive. For example, we worked closely and at incredible pace to produce the Coronavirus Act 2020 and put in place the lockdown. However, the UK Government now, unfortunately, appears to be pulling away from this four-nations approach. We need to jointly agree inter-governmental mechanisms that ensure that we can work together effectively in the next phase of recovery from COVID-19.

In relation to the motion's third element, we recognise the need to get the Welsh economy moving, but only where workplaces are as safe as they can reasonably be. Hence, Wales is the only part of the UK to include 2m social distancing requirements for workplaces in regulations. We have put in place the most generous package of help for businesses anywhere in the UK: a total of £1.7 billion of support equivalent to 2.7 per cent of our gross domestic product. This includes more than 56,000 grant awards across Wales via our rates related package with £680 million of support. In addition, our £500 million economic resilience fund has so far helped nearly 8,000 businesses with more than £200 million of support.

As set out in the first supplementary budget debated earlier today, we moved rapidly to repurpose EU funding to maximise the support offered to businesses based on the needs that exist in Wales. And it simply will not be possible to provide this level of rapid support in the future if the UK Government rolls back our powers on EU successor funds.

A recent poll by Survation indicated that people in Wales would like to see the Welsh Government develop its own economic strategy for recovery, and I think this is a reflection of the trust that people have in this Government to deliver a recovery that works for Wales.

Finally, our manifesto confirmed the intention not to increase income tax during this Assembly term, and I intend to stick to that decision. The rates for this year were, of course, agreed by the Senedd on 3 March, and it will be for a future Welsh Government to consider Welsh tax rates going forward, and for the Senedd to vote on them, and an opposition debate is not the place to be setting future tax policy.

Dirprwy Lywydd, good public health outcomes will form the foundation of an economic recovery that lasts. That is why we will continue to base our approach on the evidence and work in partnership to ease the lockdown and rebuild. Diolch.

Thank you. Before I call Mark Reckless to reply to the debate, is there a Member who needs an intervention? No. Therefore, I'll call Mark Reckless to reply to the debate. Mark.

Thank you very much, Dirprwy Lywydd. We're certainly getting less interventions with this approach. I don't know whether that improves the quality of debate or not.

But, can I start by thanking David Rowlands for his excellent introduction to our motion? David emphasised the long-term impact on the economy of this lockdown, the non-COVID health consequentials, and the particular impact the lockdown is having on young people, and that underpinned his conclusion that the lockdown needed to be lifted sooner rather than later.

We then had a contribution from Darren Millar, and I'd like to thank the Conservatives for supporting our motion, and also particularly thank Darren for his lack of amendment to even make modest changes to our motion on this occasion. It's good we're of one mind on this.

He referred, also, to the non-COVID health impact and the risk that that was going to lead to further loss of life than any lives that would be saved by continuing lockdown. I think that's a very strong point, and when the Minister and others urge caution, I would respond that caution cuts both ways and, as I think some Members recognise, there's no avoidance of risk in the decisions that we make.

Darren also, I think, rightly made the point that Wales was not just a comparison with England, but we were lagging behind Scotland and Northern Ireland and the UK generally in a four-nations approach, or the lack of one. I mean, he was perhaps a little less strong, I thought, with the emphasis towards the end on the cruel five-mile rule that we've heard so much about from the Conservatives. We heard about it at First Minister's questions as a slightly puzzling exchange, because the First Minister took great exception to Paul Davies describing it as a rule, but then told us that he'd be keeping the rule for another two weeks.

We then had Caroline Jones from the Brexit Party group give us all an excellent contribution. And, yes, at the beginning, when we didn't have an opportunity to vote on the regulations until much later, it did make sense to put the whole country in quarantine in order to protect the vulnerable, because the country was so woefully unprepared that either test or trace, or what was then described as 'cocooning' the vulnerable, were unlikely to work. But the purpose of what we did was to flatten the curve, and we were successful within that, yet the restrictions have continued. Social distancing can quickly become social isolation, she told us, and that has a particular impact on people's mental health. I think the best we can do now is to stop an exponential, substantial increase rather than expect the virus to be eradicated, although, of course, that would be very good and could happen for reasons that are totally unconnected to any intervention we may make.

We then heard from Rhun ap Iorwerth. I was slightly puzzled by his initial comments about whether there were links between smoking and cancer. I mean, that's been clear since at least the Doll studies in the early 1950s. He emphasised safety, but again, that applies both ways. Again, I was puzzled by his final sort of attack on the Brexit Party for not including reference to proper robust test and trace in our motion. Indeed, that's why we'd have been happy to vote for Neil McEvoy's amendment. If Rhun was so keen to have it in the motion, all he needed to do was to move that motion from Neil McEvoy. But I know, because of the challenge the Welsh National Party may be making to Plaid Cymru, that was not something that he wanted to do.

We then heard from Mandy Jones, who spoke, again, about the need to flatten the curve, as we were told this was for, and when did it change? We've had no answer to that. And without an answer to that, what this lockdown does, it may postpone COVID deaths, but it may not eliminate them, or not to any significant degree, while creating greatly more non-COVID deaths as well as destroying the economy and people's well-being. So, that's why we say it's time to lift these restrictions.

Gareth Bennett then referred to differences between UK and Wales and how the First Minister and Welsh Government were seemingly creating differences for the sake of it rather than reflecting the science. He then said, very similar, again, to a First Minister's question I put earlier: who's going to pay for this in the end? They'll try and blame the UK Government, but when we've got things differently in Wales because we insist on it, why is the UK Government going to step in and pay for the consequences to that? So, ultimately, Welsh rates of income tax are going to go up. Yet, as Gareth may have seen earlier, if you raise that with the First Minister, you're accused of wanting to live in another country, as if people aren't able to object to what the Senedd does, to what the Welsh Government does, without people questioning their presence in the Welsh polity. And in that conclusion Gareth came to, he ended, I think, by saying more and more people concluding, 'Abolish the Assembly', which I assume was a reference to his exciting announcement that he had earlier today, although he didn't refer to it expressly.

We then had Neil Hamilton, who said the wrong remedy was the lockdown and, actually, we should be protecting the vulnerable. And, again, the burden of proof on this should be for the proponents of people who are taking away people's liberty and trying to keep people in lockdown. When these measures are lifted in different countries, there has not been a terribly clear link between the degree of lockdown and the prevalence of this disease.

I'd then like to thank the Minister for her comments. She refers to being personally cautious, but, actually, the inverse of that is the contrary for the economy, and also for people's health, potentially, from a non-COVID perspective. I'm slightly perplexed that she then said it was all a problem with the UK Government pulling away and not having meetings or co-operating with the Welsh Government. I recall it was, I think, the First Minister who boycotted a meeting with Michael Gove, and he'd been pre-empted on Brexit or similar. But, we're clearly going to disagree with the Government on this.

We're pleased to have the Conservative support, even if they did vote to put the 2m social distancing into law, and that's one of the things holding back the economy.  But we need to get going, we need to sort this out, we need to get the economy back functioning again and the balance of risk on this lockdown is now the other way, such that we need to lift it as soon as possible not just to get the economy going, but also to protect our health generally. 

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

Voting deferred until voting time.