11. Debate: Coronavirus

Part of the debate – in the Senedd at 5:32 pm on 20 October 2020.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Rhun ap Iorwerth Rhun ap Iorwerth Plaid Cymru 5:32, 20 October 2020

We can't view these restrictions in isolation. And Plaid Cymru's call for a national firebreak was made because we could see that we need a reset, but it can't be a resetting of a circuit where you then end up going back round and round again. We can't commit to a cyclical process, which makes similar lockdowns inevitable in the future, and that's the basis for our amendment 4. What happens after 9 November is as important, or arguably is more important, than what happens in those 17 days of renewed lockdown.

We've put forward a number of ideas this week. We dubbed it '14 ideas for 14 days', but I can assure you that, if tidy communication is important, we can make it '17 ideas for 17 days' of lockdown, if you'd like. The point being that we need urgently to look at all the ideas, from our party and others, and from within Government, that can help put a new national framework in place for the next stage—a more sustainable stage, hopefully, in the fight against this virus.

So, we have to sort out the testing regime; it's crucial. You know my thoughts on the over-reliance on lighthouse. We should have built up our own capacity—capacity we could control. Despite promises, those problems persist: people waiting five days for results; people being told, as part of the process actually, that they should expect their results within 72 hours, and it's not good enough. We have to have robust systems and that means results back within 24 hours, so that tracing teams can get to work. We need testing of asymptomatic contacts. I have plenty of people I know taking that into their own hands, and going for a test having been in contact with somebody who's positive, but that has to be the norm, and there has to be testing of international visitors to Wales too.

And, of course, those who are positive, and those who have to self-isolate, have to know that they'll be supported to do so. We can't have a situation where people have an incentive to break the rules to go to work because they can't afford to put food on the table otherwise. To do this—and this is what we refer to in amendment 4—we have to be able to use the capacity we have in Wales in our own labs. We've heard Ministers talking about what our theoretical capacity is, but theoretical tests are no use; we need actual tests taking place and being reported back on quickly.

What else? Let's get a ventilation plan in place. Opening a window sounds so, so easy. Fresh air makes it less likely for infection to take place. But that's got to be communicated well as part of a strategy. And communication has to be sharpened right across the board. It's got to be the kind of communication that people consume and relate to, that cuts across the realities of human behaviour. I made the case to the health Minister this morning: explain what the firebreak is about; what the data tells us; what the scenarios are that we're trying to avoid; and, crucially, what people can do to help themselves and to avoid coming back here time and time again.

Let's extend face covering guidance. There are workplace settings, for example, where things could be tightened up. I have figures showing that, UK wide, workplace settings are responsible for perhaps a fifth or more of transmission still, so let's see if we can bring those numbers down. Numbers also show, sadly, that care homes are still vulnerable. We need a further tightening there. And as we refer to in amendment 8, there has to be a fresh approach to infection control in hospitals. There's a non-COVID emergency going on now in untreated illnesses that has to be resolved.

So, to conclude, the correct step is being taken in bringing in this firebreak, but the embers of this virus will still be burning after this firebreak. This will be a virus that will be ready to burn again, so let's not waste this opportunity.