3., 4., 5. & 6. The Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (No 2) (Wales) (Amendment) (No 10) (Rhondda Cynon Taf) Regulations 2020, The Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (No. 2) (Wales) (Amendment) (No. 8) (Caerphilly) Regulations 2020, The Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (No. 2) (Wales) (Amendment) (No. 11) (Blaenau Gwent, Bridgend, Merthyr Tydfil and Newport etc.) Regulations 2020 and The Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (Functions of Local Authorities etc.) (Wales) Regulations 2020

Part of the debate – in the Senedd at 3:12 pm on 29 September 2020.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Mark Reckless Mark Reckless Conservative 3:12, 29 September 2020

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?