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

Motion NDM7381 Rebecca Evans

To propose that the Senedd, in accordance with Standing Order 27.5:

1. Approves The Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (No. 2) (Wales) (Amendment) (No. 6) Regulations 2020 laid in the Table Office on 21 August 2020.

Motion NDM7382 Rebecca Evans

To propose that the Senedd, in accordance with Standing Order 27.5:

1 . Approves The Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (No. 2) (Wales) (Amendment) (No. 7) Regulations 2020 laid in the Table Office on 28 August 2020.

Motion NDM7380 Rebecca Evans

To propose that the Senedd, in accordance with Standing Order 27.5:

1. Approves The Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (No. 2) (Wales) (Amendment) (No. 9) Regulations 2020 laid in the Table Office on 11 September 2020.

Motions moved.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Voting deferred until voting time.