And therefore I call on the Minister for Health and Social Services to move the motions—Vaughan Gething. 

Motion NDM7396 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. 10) (Rhondda Cynon Taf) Regulations 2020 laid in the Table Office on 17 September 2020.

Motion NDM7383 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. 8) (Caerphilly) Regulations 2020 laid in the Table Office on 8 September 2020.

Motion NDM7399 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. 11) (Blaenau Gwent, Bridgend, Merthyr Tydfil and Newport etc.) Regulations 2020 laid in the Table Office on 22 September 2020.

Motion NDM7395 Rebecca Evans

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

1. Approves The Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (Functions of Local Authorities etc.) (Wales) Regulations 2020 laid in the Table Office on 18 September 2020.
 

 

Motions moved.

Thank you, Llywydd. I formally move the four sets of motions containing regulations before us today, and ask Members to support them. These regulations were again introduced under the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 through our emergency procedures to support our ongoing approach to tackling coronavirus. Members will know that the Welsh Government takes a careful and evidence-based approach to our strategy for dealing with coronavirus, including through the formal requirement to review the need for any of these requirements and regulations, and their proportionality, every 21 days.

The regulations we’re debating today were introduced over a period from 7 September to 17 September. They demonstrate the swift but necessary actions the Welsh Government has had to take to respond to the recent rise in the number of cases in certain parts of Wales. To ensure that we're equipped to do so, we’ve increased the powers of local authorities and implemented local restrictions in Caerphilly, Rhondda Cynon Taf, Blaenau Gwent, Bridgend, Merthyr Tydfil and Newport. Those are the sets of regulations before us. Sadly, as I say, we’ve seen a sharp rise in the number of positive infection rates. Members will also be aware that we have now introduced further local restrictions across Llanelli, Cardiff and Swansea, which came into force at 6 p.m. on 26 September in relation Llanelli, and at 6 p.m. on 27 September in Cardiff and Swansea. Amendments to the principal regulations that apply to Cardiff, Swansea and Llanelli will be debated in the Senedd on 6 October. As we’ve set out in our coronavirus control plan, we have an approach of monitoring cases, and attempt to control localised outbreaks. The restrictions are based on the principles of caution, proportionality and subsidiarity. These measures are kept under constant review. I'll address each of the regulations being considered today in turn.

As a consequence of data demonstrating a rapid increase in COVID-19 cases in Caerphilly, to control the spread of the virus and protect public health across that local authority area, the Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (No. 2) (Wales) (Amendment) (No. 8) (Caerphilly) Regulations 2020 were laid on 8 September. I'll refer to each of the subsequent regulations by the number of their amendment to the main regulations. These regulations prohibit households within the area from being part of an extended household or bubble with other households. Where a household from another area has formed an extended household with a household within the area, the household within that area is no longer treated as forming part of that extended household bubble. It prohibits residents of the area from leaving or to remain away from the area without a reasonable excuse. It requires residents of the area to return to work from home unless it is not reasonably practical for them to do so. And it prohibits people from outside of the area entering that area without a reasonable excuse. It requires people present in the area to wear a face covering when in an open premises, subject to the exemptions and exceptions, and it requires the restrictions and requirements introduced by the No. 8 amendment regulations to be reviewed on or before 24 September, and, if they are subsequently re-introduced, at least once every seven days thereafter. Finally, all premises selling alcohol in the local authority area have had additional restrictions applied, so they have to stop all sales of alcohol at 10 p.m. This was originally intended to be 11 p.m., however, based on advice to aid the prevention of the spread of the virus, an all-Wales restriction of 10 p.m. on the sale of alcohol has since been implemented for all licensed outlets.

On 17 September, the No. 10 amendment regulations were introduced to impose the same restrictions as I've described in Rhondda Cynon Taf as were introduced in the borough of Caerphilly. The evidence from recent weeks is clear: where we have seen increases in transmission rates, these have primarily resulted from people not observing social distancing and ignoring the previous restrictions. There has been a steep rise in the number of confirmed COVID-19 cases within RCT. On 22 September, the No. 11 amendment regulations introduced the same restrictions in Blaenau Gwent, Merthyr Tydfil and Newport local authority areas for the same reasons.

Finally, the Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (Functions of Local Authorities etc.) (Wales) Regulations 2020 provide local authorities with powers to intervene as outbreaks occur so they can take action to close off land or individual local premises and stop local events. These came into force on 14 September. Broadly equivalent powers have been given to local authorities in England and Scotland by regulations made by the UK and Scottish Governments respectively. Under these regulations, a local authority may issue a premises direction, an event direction or a public place direction. These powers provide a means for local authorities to take effective preventative action where circumstances require it. Our current intention is that the principal regulations will expire at the end of the day on 8 January 2021. That is six months from when they were made and introduced. The regulations are therefore intended to expire on the same day.

Llywydd, as we all know, we all have a part to play in keeping Wales safe. These regulations are necessary to our continued efforts to tackle this pandemic and I ask the Senedd to support them.

Minister, thank you for your statement this afternoon. I do regret that it's not on the floor of the Senedd here, but I fully respect that whether you're virtual or in the Senedd it is a part of the proceedings of this institution. But I am concerned greatly by some of the assertions—in fact, an assertion from you today to me on Twitter—that by your actions you are keeping Wales safe, and I am not by attending these parliamentary proceedings. I'd like to seek clarification from you whether the regulations you have put before us today or the regulations that will come next week that cover Cardiff and the Vale of Glamorgan, if you do attend a parliamentary sitting you would be breaking those regulations, because you've insinuated that in a tweet to me. So, can you point me where in these regulations I will be breaking those regulations by attending this Parliament, or indeed, Members of Parliament, such as Kevin Brennan, attending Westminster today, yet his parliamentary colleague from this institution is over in Cathays Park? I think that's an important question that you must answer if you're putting that assertion out there that parliamentarians are breaking the restrictions and not keeping Wales safe. We are all signed up to making sure that Wales is safe and we want to see the end of this virus. That is why today the Welsh Conservatives for the first time in tabling regulations will abstain on these regulations for the way that you're dealing with these matters in such a cavalier way.

I'd also like to seek clarification from you as well: do these regulations start the lockdown process on a more regional footing rather than a localised footing? Is it the case that there is now a lockdown time for pubs and social venues to shut, which is 10:20 rather than 10 o'clock? Because I notice in press comments that you put out last week that, actually, you would expect all social events to close by 10:20 rather than 10 o'clock. Is that included in the regulations or is that merely just your aspiration?

Again, I would ask to seek clarification as to which political leaders, political elected representatives are briefed on these regulations before they are made public, because again, on social media over the weekend, I did notice that some elected Members from other institutions were indicating that they'd spoken to the health Minister prior to these regulations coming out and being publicly available. That is unacceptable. Surely there is equality amongst elected Members, and Members, if they are briefed, should be briefed on an equal basis. I'd be grateful to understand how you go about briefing Members of an elected institution that isn't unanimously included in those briefings if they represent that particular area and play an important role in deciphering that information out to the communities they represent.

We are again turning to a part of our parliamentary business that is truly significant—perhaps the most important part of our proceedings at this time. It relates to this Senedd discussing, and as I would expect, approving regulations that place very severe restrictions on the freedoms of individuals and communities. In terms of the regulations under items 3, 4 and 5, which extend COVID restrictions to more counties, we will be supporting these, but—and I do make this point once again—we do believe that these restrictions should be as localised as possible and that we should operate on a hyperlocal level wherever possible.

I would also encourage very careful consideration of different elements of the restrictions. We are looking at them in their entirety, of course, and we support the general principles, but we do need to look in great detail at various elements of the restrictions. We may need to tighten further what happens when pubs and restaurants close at 10 o'clock and the need to disperse people without them going to each other's homes and so on and so forth, but on the other hand, we do need to give very careful consideration to the impact on the well-being and mental health of people and to consider, for example, steps to allow more contact for people who are likely to suffer from loneliness and isolation. It's important to bear in mind that these restrictions have a great impact on people within our communities.

It's also important to note that we are dealing with a means of legislating that is less than satisfactory. I emphasise the need to bring these regulations before us as soon as possible, and although there has been less delay in terms of the implementation of the regulations and their debate than there was last week, we are still talking about regulations that came into force as early as 7 September, and we need to tighten that timetable.

And with agenda item 6, although it's technical in nature, correcting a previous error, I do note that the legislation committee have written to the Welsh Government to request clarity on why these regulations needed to come into force before they were laid before this Senedd, and there are very clear requirements on the process that should be followed in the Statutory Instruments Act 1946. I note here my thanks to that committee for their work.

And finally, whilst what we have here in amendments 10, 8 and 11 are new restrictions that require residents in the affected areas to play their part in trying to eradicate the virus, let's bear in mind that the Government has to play its part too, particularly when it comes to testing. Get the testing sorted; ensure that tests are available when people need them; that results are returned swiftly, so that we can start the tracing process, and then, hopefully, we will not need so many of these regulations.

I have twice forgotten to call the Chair of the legislation committee, so on the third time of asking, I call on the Chair of the legislation committee, Mick Antoniw.

Thank you, Llywydd. I had noted, and was waiting in anticipation. This is a report of the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee in respect of the four sets of regulations, so it's a composite report. Members will know that the Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (No. 2) (Wales) Regulations 2020 are the principal regulations on coronavirus in Wales, and the Senedd approved those regulations on 5 August 2020. We reported on the No. 8 amending regulations on 21 September, and yesterday we reported on the No. 10 and No. 11 amending regulations, together with the regulations related to local authority functions. We acknowledge that whilst we are debating these regulations today, the Welsh Government has also made further amending regulations, which, as I said last week, demonstrates the fast-moving nature of the Government's action on these matters.

The No. 8, No. 10 and No. 11 regulations all concern restrictions placed on specific communities. The No. 8 amending regulations came into force on 8 September and, as the Members will know, they introduce restrictions in respect of Caerphilly county borough as a local health protection area. Briefly, the restrictions cover extended households, prohibitions on movement away from and into the area, and requiring residents to work from home unless it is not reasonably practical for them to do so. Subsequently, the No. 10 amending regulations apply similar restrictions to Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council from 17 September, with an additional restriction requiring that all premises licensed to sell alcohol must not open before 6 a.m. and must close at or before 11 p.m. each day. And then from 22 September, the No. 11 amending regulations applied those same restrictions to the local authorities of Blaenau Gwent, Bridgend, Merthyr Tydfil and Newport, and the No. 11 regulations also applied the restrictions on opening hours of licensed premises to Caerphilly county borough.

Now, in our reports, we drew attention to the lack of public consultations or regulatory impact assessments carried out in relation to the amending regulations, and also considered the Welsh Government's assessment of the extent to which any interference with human rights is justified and proportionate in pursuit of the legitimate aim of protecting public health. I therefore draw Members' attention to our reports on the amending regulations.

In our meeting yesterday, we also discussed the meaning of what constitutes 'a reasonable excuse' for the purpose of the regulations. This is an issue that many constituents who want to do the right thing have raised with us all. We believe that the Welsh Government should publish more detailed guidance on this matter and we will be writing to the Minister specifically on this point.

I now return to the Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (Functions of Local Authorities etc.) (Wales) Regulations 2020. These are regulations that came into force on 18 September. They provide local authorities across Wales with powers by issuing directions to relevant people to close individual premises or impose specific restrictions or requirements on them. They prohibit certain events, or types of event, from taking place, or impose restrictions or requirements on them, and also can restrict access to or close public outdoor events.

Our report makes four merits points, and I wish to highlight three of them briefly. Regulation 9 requires a local authority to have regard to any guidance issued by the Welsh Ministers about the regulations. Our third reporting point notes that the guidance in relation to these regulations does not appear to be published on the Welsh Government website, or at least it is not easily identifiable. We think that making the guidance available or more easily accessible would be a helpful aid for local authorities and members of the public wishing to understand the impact of these regulations. The regulations also require a local authority to take reasonable steps to give prior notice of a premises direction, event direction or public place direction. Our fourth reporting point identifies the difference in treatment between the types of notice in relation to matters set out in regulations 11 and 12, however, it is not clear why this distinction is necessary.

And then, finally, as we are aware, the Welsh Government has now written to the Llywydd, as required by the Statutory Instruments Act 1946, explaining why it was necessary for the regulations to come into force before they were laid before the Senedd. I'd welcome the observations of the health Minister on these points that I've raised on the local authority functions regulations. Thank you, Llywydd.

I thank the Minister for his statement. I share Andrew R.T.'s disappointment that he's decided to make it from his office in Cathays Park; he's gone rather further from home to get there than he would to come to the Senedd. I do, though, appreciate we're slightly less delayed doing these regulations than some of the others that we've done before. It's our intention to vote against these regulations for the same reasons I gave last week. The Minister and Members will probably be pleased to hear that I'm not planning to repeat those reasons. May I, though, welcome Andrew R.T. Davies stating that the Conservatives will at least abstain on this set? He says it's the first time they've abstained—I think actually they did abstain on at least one set before. There were a lot of complaints from them about the cruel rule of 5 miles, even though I think they voted for the stay local law under which it was promulgated, but I think another set did attract their abstention at the time, so it's good to see they're now looking at these with a somewhat more critical eye than previously.

Could I ask the Minister—? As you know, Minister, I consider these regulations to be disproportionate and counter-productive, and I'd question how evidence based they are. I wonder, though, could I focus particularly on the three councils that have come in most recently? You set out some principles just now for the regulations we are looking at, and we're talking, at least in the case of Caerphilly, of a rapid increase in coronavirus regulations to justify the regs. The three latest councils that have come in though, it seems almost like you're filling in the gaps within the region. If you look at those councils individually, I just wonder if it can be justified on an individual basis. It strikes me they're even less justified than the other regulations. Take, for example, Torfaen, where one constituent has pointed out to me, at least on the basis of data that's publicly available to them as of yesterday, that we were seeing infections of no more than around seven a day in Torfaen, and generally it seemed you had been looking at a threshold of at least 20 per 100,000 before you considered restrictions, and that's the assessment you were putting on abroad as well. Why have you imposed such stringent regulations and lockdown requirements in Torfaen when the incidence of coronavirus seemed to be significantly below that?

The Minister's, once again, taking a sledge hammer to crack a nut, in my view. Is it not inevitable when you relax restrictions that the risk of increasing infection is bound to occur? And, obviously, as we move towards winter, there's a higher risk anyway of any respiratory infection being contracted by individuals. It's overwhelmingly the case that where deaths from COVID are concerned they occur amongst older people. Forty per cent of the deaths are people over 85; 30 per cent in the age group of 75 to 84; and a further 15 per cent in my age group, 65 to 74; whereas the overwhelming bulk of the infections takes place in younger people, and they're not anything like as at risk. In fact, it's calculated that somebody over the age of 85 is 1,000 times more likely to die of COVID than somebody who's under 65.

So, these regulations are not proportionate, in my opinion, as the Minister says. What he has done—I wonder whether he'd agree with this—in fact is to turn south Wales in particular into a kind of series of gulags that constrain people within the boundaries of the local authority in which they live. They're not likely to be effective unless they're continued indefinitely, and we will carry on having lockdown after lockdown after lockdown if we don't accept the inevitable: that until a vaccine is effective and widely distributed, the risk of infection must continue.

I'll be voting against the local lockdowns today. I don't think it is right to stop Welsh people from moving around our own country when the border, the ports and the airports are open, and open without testing as well. So, why should people from across the border with much higher rates of infection be allowed into Wales to travel freely, whilst Welsh people here, in some circumstances, cannot even travel to the next town? I'm not going to vote to lock down my own city and country but leave it open to everybody else to come here as they like.

We've already had talk of mandatory vaccines, curfews and even use of the army, and I'm not sure what science says that we need to close entertainment establishments at 10 p.m. Where is the science behind that? Why are DJs not allowed to play? We should be treating people like adults, because some businesses have tried really, really hard and have spent a lot of money on precautions. I, myself, went to Mocka Lounge in Cardiff and was extremely impressed by the precautions taken—very well organised. I know there are other places like that as well.

In these regulations there are so many contradictions. We have segregation in school, yet on the bus everybody mixes. There's little education about masks, in terms of how often you should change your masks. I see people walking around in visors, thinking that they're protecting themselves from breathing things in and protecting others from what they breathe out, but visors don't do that. Where are the bins for masks to be deposited and got rid of safely? Where are they? You see masks all over the floor. 

The approach is chaotic and reactionary. I said in this Senedd in March that you cannot fight a pandemic without testing. The World Health Organization has told us from the very beginning, 'Test, test, test'; otherwise, it's like trying to put out a fire blindfolded. What we should be doing is thinking about processes and thinking about how we can protect the elderly and the vulnerable from picking up this virus. How do we shield people?

In essence, what we really must do is test. How many of us have been ill these last few months and don't know whether we've had coronavirus because the antibody test has not been available? How many of us have some kind of immunity to the virus but we don't know it? We're not going to get any further forward until we identify and isolate this virus. In the meantime, these lockdowns—there'll be another one and another one and another one. It will be unending, so I will not support the proposals today, and this is the first time.

The Minister for health to reply to the debate—Vaughan Gething.

Thank you, Llywydd. I thank the Members for their contribution to the debate. I'll try to deal with each one in turn briefly. Starting with Andrew R.T. Davies, I obviously regret the approach that he and his group are taking. From what they say, they're abstaining not because they disagree with the measures or that the measures that are being put in place are somehow not appropriate, but it's a question about process rather than outcome in terms of how we keep people in Wales safe.

I can absolutely say, hand on heart, to any and every person in Wales that there is nothing cavalier in our approach. It takes a huge amount of time, energy and effort from Ministers, our officials and colleagues in local authorities, who also have incredibly difficult choices to make right across the political spectrum. We've worked very hard with them, with the police and, indeed, with our health service in coming up with and trying to understand the pattern of infection that is taking place. Rather than searching for conflict, I think that elected representatives should be searching for an answer to how we try to suppress the virus and to protect Wales from harm. 

It's also worth confirming, of course, that we're taking an approach to making these regulations that takes account of our processes here in Wales. The main affirmative procedure requires these regulations to have the support of the Senedd or they fall. Of course, in England, the equivalent regulations are introduced by ministerial decrees without Parliament needing to vote on them. I think our process is absolutely democratically more superior and provides deliberate and regular scrutiny, as it is meant to do. 

The First Minister confirmed the issues about travel and the travel restrictions. I am required to be here because it's not reasonably practical for me to do all of my job without a range of other officials here as well. On other days, I will be undertaking work from home, when it's reasonably practical for me to do so. In terms of briefing Members, if there's been an oversight in the Member not being contacted, then that is definitely something for us to look at. That is not a deliberate attempt. We make, again, great efforts to speak to elected representatives across the political spectrum when we are having to make these choices as well. And on the point about closing time for the hospitality trade, it is in the regulations; it's 10 o'clock for ending of the sale of alcohol, and 10.20 p.m. in the evening when those premises must close. 

I take on board Rhun ap Iorwerth's points about looking for a local area within a council area where possible. That's exactly what we have done within Carmarthenshire, because Llanelli is a distinct area. If Llanelli was not part of Carmarthenshire we would not be contemplating taking action in Carmarthenshire looking at the rest of the rates that exist. We consider this every time we take forward the potential to introduce these regulations—whether it is possible to take an approach that is less than the whole local authority. On each occasion up to that point we found it wasn't really possible in line with the evidence of the spread of the virus across that local authority area. 

These are local restrictions for the county, they're not regional ones. So, it doesn't mean you can travel anywhere you like across the wider south Wales area where the restrictions are in place. It's within the individual local authority in which you live—again, on the point about a reasonable excuse that I'll come to later for travel. We do have a regular conversations with local authorities about what we are doing and why, and that'll continue to be the case. It's a deliberately pluralistic approach that we take. We don't simply decide to impose these measures and then inform local authorities of our decisions afterwards. The Member will know, I'm sure, from his own contacts, that that's been a very deliberate and careful approach that we've taken. 

On the point about testing that the Member made, we are now undertaking 10,000 to 11,000 tests a day across Wales. Now, 3,000 to 4,000 of those tests are Public Health Wales lab tests and we expect more of those to be introduced over the coming days as we both increase not just the number and access to places for testing to take place, but the volume of testing available as well. The Member will see, as we roll out not just more of those tests but the consistent lanes in drive-through centres I've previously announced, that also we're going to have a generation of walk-in centres, then we're also looking to have Public Health Wales tests available at those as well, to make sure we can not just plug the gaps being created by the lighthouse lab programme challenges at present, but we'll have extra capacity in any event within the field. We're also using our mobile testing resources as infection rates climb in different parts of Wales. 

In terms of Mick Antoniw's points, on the point about reasonable excuse to travel, I think we've done all that we can in terms of trying to set out the guidance that is available about what is and isn't a reasonable excuse for travel. The challenge is that, if we provide even more extensive and detailed guidance, we'll end up with a thicket of rules, and it's a challenge for us. We will consider the points made in the reports from the legislation and justice committee, but we do need to think about when we get to a point when it's still practical for people to understand—and some of this does rely on the judgment of individual members of the public about what really is a reasonable excuse, to think about how they comply with the regulations rather than looking for a way to avoid them. And on your point about the local authority regulations and the guidance, we'll look at the guidance to see if that's there; I take on board your point and I'll check to see what is publicly available and where it is. I also take on board the point about the clerical error in the laying of the regulations—that was a one-off, and we have written to the Llywydd, I believe, to confirm that that is the case. We'll make sure that the committee are aware of that in the formal response to your report.

Turning to Mark Reckless, he is being consistent—I don't agree with him and he doesn't agree with me, but he's consistent in the position he's taken throughout the course of these regulations. In terms of the rising tide, to give you the example of Torfaen that he particularly focused upon, seven days ago, the rate per 100,000 in Torfaen was 22.3, today it's 47.9; you can see a significant increase in levels of the virus. And because we understand that the headline rates are likely to be an underestimation of the real position—and that's partly because of the lag in lighthouse lab testing—we can plot from that the level of people who may not be coming forward for testing. 

The other point I think it's important to remember to look at is the positivity rates—the numbers of people in every 100 who are testing positive—and again, the rate in Torfaen has increased over the last seven and 14 days. It really does, I think, justify—and it's supported by all local stakeholders—the measures that have been taken. Admittedly, we'll debate and the Senedd will be asked to vote on those regulations for the Vale of Glamorgan, Torfaen and Neath Port Talbot in the future.

I think Neil Hamilton is, again, being consistent with his deliberately offensive reference in saying that south Wales had been turned into a gulag. I think people who have families who have suffered in actual gulags will find that deeply unpleasant and in no way an appropriate reference to make in the democratic choices that we are making here today, and in the threat that we face in a public health pandemic.

In terms of Neil McEvoy's comments, the challenge is broadly driven by indoor contact in hospitality venues, but in particular within the home. I think there was an attempt to say that we should not lock down areas and we should not introduce local restrictions within Wales, because others are not taking different action in other parts of the UK. I think doing nothing because others are not acting is to surrender our ability to make choices in Wales to protect and keep Wales safe. And I don't think that that's an appropriate course of action at all. I think there was also a misunderstanding of the point and the purpose of testing. I think that it may be worth his while reading the specific advice that we had from our technical advisory group. I think that may help with some of the comments he made. He then also said that it was important to isolate the virus, whilst demanding that we had no travel restrictions in place at all. I think that's entirely a real misunderstanding of what we are trying to achieve and the point and purpose of these regulations. So, a rather disappointing and misplaced contribution.

The regulations that have been debated today reflect the careful consideration of how we balance individual freedom with managing the continuing threat of coronavirus and it weighs very heavily on the minds of Ministers who are making these choices that we are making really significant choices about people's individual freedoms, whilst, of course, trying to do the right thing to keep Wales safe. Our approach has been guided as always be the advice of the chief medical officer and his department, our scientific advisers, the technical advisory group and the study they do of evidence from within Wales, across the UK and beyond. 

As I said, I believe that we're taking specific and proportionate action in response to the rising tide of coronavirus cases within specific local authority areas. But, to finish, each one of us has a continuing responsibility to make choices and to follow the measures to keep us, our families, our loved ones and our communities safe. That means to keep a distance from each other when we're out and about, to wash our hands often and to work from home wherever possible. We need to wear a face covering in indoor public places, we need to stay at home if we've got symptoms and while we're waiting for a test result, and we need to follow any local restrictions that are in place. I ask Members of the Senedd to support these regulations and do our part, as elected Members, to help keep Wales safe.

Thank you, Minister. The proposal is to agree the motion under item 3. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Thank you. Therefore, the vote is deferred until voting time.

Voting deferred until voting time.

The proposal is to agree the motion under item 4. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I will again defer voting under item 4 until voting time.

Voting deferred until voting time.

The proposal is to agree the motion under item 5. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I will therefore defer voting.

Voting deferred until voting time.

The proposal is to agree the motion under item 6. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes. I will therefore defer voting on item 6 until voting time too.

Voting deferred until voting time.

That brings us now to a break. We will break for a brief period to allow changeovers in the Siambr. So, please suspend the broadcast.

Plenary was suspended at 15:30.

The Senedd reconvened at 15:36, with David Melding in the Chair.

Order. Order. The Senedd is back in session.