And therefore we move to item 12, which is the Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (No. 3) (Wales) Regulations 2020. I call on the Minister for Health and Social Services, Vaughan Gething.

Motion NDM7445 Rebecca Evans

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

1. Approves The Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (No. 3) (Wales) Regulations 2020 laid in the Table Office on 22 October 2020.

Motion moved.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I move the motion before us to approve the Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (No. 3) (Wales) Regulations 2020.

We are now in the second week of the firebreak, and I want to start by reminding Members why we introduced these extraordinary measures on 23 October. We continue to be faced with a very real and increasing public health threat. At the time we introduced the regulations the virus was spreading rapidly in every part of Wales, and we had just gone through the deadliest week of the pandemic since the peak in April. We listened to and weighed carefully the advice of SAGE and our own technical advisory cell in making this decision. We had 17 local health protection areas in place, which made a significant difference but were not enough on their own. The seven-day rolling incidence rate for Wales was at more than 130 cases per 100,000 people. It has since increased to over 250 cases per 100,000. Four local authority areas now have over 300 cases per 100,000, and cases in areas like Pembrokeshire and Ceredigion were getting or going beyond 50 cases per 100,000. Failing to act risked overwhelming our NHS. The number of people being taken to hospital with coronavirus was growing and it still continues to grow each day. We had to ensure that our critical care units could still look after people who are seriously ill.

We're not alone, of course, in introducing national restrictions. We're seeing restrictions in Northern Ireland and Scotland, and, in a major policy change this weekend, the Prime Minister announced a four-week national lockdown in England from Thursday. Yesterday, the Prime Minister referred to a medical and moral disaster if action in England did not take place. We acted earlier in Wales, but welcome the lockdown in England, which reinforces the seriousness of the threat that we face within each nation of the UK. There is no magic bullet, but our ambition is to get through to Christmas without needing another national firebreak.

The four nations discussions that began in earnest at COBRA yesterday should help all of us to achieve that shared ambition. Everyone has a role to play in our national effort to ensure that the firebreak is successful. It remains vital that people still observe social distancing, regular hand washing and wearing a face covering where required to do so. The more people we meet, the more people are at risk from coronavirus. We ask people to not only think about whether something is permitted, but whether it is necessary and sensible—what should we be doing? Everyone in Wales is still required to stay at home and work from home wherever possible.

We have sought to minimise the disruption to children's education, so primary schools, special schools and the first two years of secondary schools returned as normal yesterday, as will older pupils who need to take exams. Older pupils and further education students are learning from home this week. Our universities will continue to provide a blend of in-person and online learning.

The Llywydd took the Chair.

All non-essential retail, leisure, hospitality and tourism businesses have closed—so too community centres, libraries and recycling centres. Places of worship have closed, except for funerals or wedding ceremonies. And people must not meet others they do not live with, either indoors or outdoors. Adults living alone, though, and single parents remain able to join with one other household, for reasons we have rehearsed previously in the past. 

We've provided a new £300 million package of financial support to help businesses through this challenging period. We know small businesses have been particularly hard hit, and we've introduced a £5,000 one-off payment for those required to close. This is in addition to the support that is now available from the UK Government. As we now know, following the deterioration in southern England, the UK Government has reintroduced the more generous furlough and self-employment support across the UK. 

We're using this time to plan ahead and further strengthen our preparations for winter, our contingency plans and our currently successful test, trace, protect service. I want to thank the people of Wales once again for their enormous collective effort. Police forces in Wales continue to report that the great majority of people are complying with the firebreak regulations. For the small minority that are not complying, the police and other enforcement agencies are enforcing the regulations where necessary.

There is now less than a week to go. The firebreak will end, as planned, on Monday, 9 November. As we have said many times before, it will take two or three weeks to see reduced transmission rates after the firebreak. We all need to play our part in every community across Wales to make the firebreak work, to protect our NHS and to save lives.

Yesterday, the First Minister set out the simple national rules we will put in place after the firebreak, with further details in the statement today to the Senedd. We will, of course, debate them again in the future, but we all need to take personal responsibility for our choices and actions. This is more important than new rules, regulations or guidance. We need everyone to positively change our behaviour to protect people from the harm of the virus. Shops, hospitality, places of worship and gyms will reopen and all pupils will go back to school next week. From next Monday, people should only meet with their bubble in their own home, and only two households will be able to form a bubble. There'll be no travel restrictions inside Wales, but during the month-long lockdown in England, travel to and from England will not be permitted without a reasonable excuse. Everybody should, however, consider carefully whether they need to travel to other parts of Wales.

We will continue to take a cautious and gradual approach to coming out of the firebreak, and we will review the position positively within a fortnight. As the First Minister said, this is particularly necessary to take account of the impact of the month-long lockdown in England. The firebreak gives all of us an opportunity to regain some control over the spread of the virus to save lives and, with Christmas approaching, to avoid a much longer and more damaging national lockdown. I ask Members to support our country and support the motion. 

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

The Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee reported on these regulations yesterday. They came into force at 6 p.m. on Friday, 23 October 2020, and expire at the end of the day on 8 November 2020, at which point they will have been in force in Wales for a total of 17 days. 

These regulations revoke the Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (No. 2) (Wales) (Amendment) (No. 19) Regulations 2020 and all its amending regulations, which include measures put in place for local lockdowns in Wales. The regulations make provision in four key areas, as the Minister has outlined. They limit movement and travel by requiring people to stay at home unless they have a reasonable excuse. They limit gatherings with other people. They require the closure of certain types of business and premises, and they place obligations on persons responsible for premises that are open to the public, or for work being carried out at any premises. 

The committee reported eight merits points. Our first point noted the Welsh Government's justification for any potential interference with human rights as a consequence of the restrictions being introduced. Our second point highlighted the lack of formal consultation undertaken, but noted that the Welsh Government undertook a series of urgent discussions with key sectors and stakeholders. Because of the widespread media reporting of dissatisfaction at the short notice given to introduce these regulations, we have requested further detail on who the Welsh Government consulted with, and when, prior to making the regulations. 

Regulation 16 places restrictions on mixed businesses that run both permitted and prohibited businesses on the same premises. We noted the widespread criticism of this particular policy and the confusion it has caused among stakeholders. Given that clarity is essential when making legislation, our third reporting point asked the Welsh Government whether it intends to amend this particular provision, or whether further guidance is to be given to business and members of the public. During our meeting yesterday, we considered further the extent to which the regulations impact on businesses and extended households. As a result, reporting points 6, 7 and 8 seek clarification on specific points in the regulations and how certain provisions apply in practice. For example, reporting point 6 seeks an explanation of where and how the regulations prohibit a supermarket from selling non-essential items, and asks the Welsh Government to clarify the meaning of the word 'business' that is used in regulations 11, 15 and 16. Our seventh reporting point seeks clarification about the effects of the regulations on extended households. In relation to reporting points 6 and 7, it would be helpful if the Welsh Government could, where we suggest, provide some practical examples to illustrate the points they wish to make in response. 

Turning to the matter of guidance, our fourth reporting point asks the Government to provide details of when guidance on the 17-day period was published for the purpose of providing stakeholders with the opportunity to comply with these legislative changes. Our fifth merits point notes that an integrated impact assessment has been published. We welcome that. This considers the impact of the regulations in relation to equality and children's rights in particular, which we welcome. 

In closing, I'd encourage the Welsh Government to take into account all the points we raise, and the principles underpinning them, when preparing the new regulations that were announced yesterday and that will replace the set that we are debating today. Thank you, Llywydd. 

Andrew R.T. Davies. Andrew R.T. Davies, can the microphone be unmuted? Yes, there we go. 

Thank you, Presiding Officer. Thank you, Minister, for your remarks. I do think the last statement that you made was slightly distasteful to say the least, by calling to support your country, as if by voting against these regulations you were some form of traitor. I do think that's a particularly distasteful way to end your opening remarks. There are different views to be dealt with. We have put forward our views. You have the votes in this Senedd to carry the day, but to actually question people's loyalty to their country is a particularly distasteful way of reaching out and trying to form consensus going forward once we come out from the firebreak. 

And I would make a couple of points on the issues. Some areas in the local measures have been under those local measures for five or six weeks. They've had serious issues in relation to, obviously, economic activity, and other things that have been going on in their area, despite the two-week lockdown that you've inflicted on them, and that has been emphasised by the lack of business support. After 24 hours, the Government's business support was exhausted last week, and that shows the level of harm that's going on to the economy out there.

We all stand shoulder to shoulder when it comes to making sure public health is protected, and we all want to make sure that the virus is suppressed, but the comms around the firebreak, lockdown—call it what you will—have not been particularly successful, in particular when it comes to the essential shopping regulations that were put out that have seen the Assembly, or, should I say, the Welsh Parliament, receive its largest petition to date, with nearly 70,000 signatures. And the news today about hospital-acquired infections and the number of deaths associated with hospital-acquired infections is a matter of deep concern, I would suggest, for all Members. And the one figure that has stood out to me, more than any other figure, I would suggest, is a figure that touches on the suicide rates, which have gone through the roof. In certain areas, they've spiked—nearly two thirds more suicides on a daily basis have been dealt with by the ambulance services in parts of the country. I haven't seen the Welsh figures yet. But those are the real harms that are going on out there. And to question people's loyalty to their country because they don't vote for your colour Government's regulations because they don't necessarily agree with them is I think below you, Minister, it really is, and I think you should reflect on that this evening. We will not be voting on these regulations, for the arguments we've put forward before. I respect your position, I respect that you have the votes, but you don't have my respect when it comes to the remarks that you've made this afternoon.

We have by now discussed and voted on a number of regulations, and this is one of the most significant. We are talking here about very far-reaching regulations—national restrictions that are severe and that have an impact on everyone. We will be voting in favour of these regulations today, which have now been in force for more than 11 days. I and Plaid Cymru argued that such restrictions were necessary and, if anything, they should have been introduced a little earlier. We have seen in England the implications of failing to take action as swiftly, as they start a longer lockdown on Thursday, but I do wish the Government in England well with their efforts now in trying to control the virus. So, we’re talking about very significant regulations here, with a broad range of restrictions. We do agree with them and we see that there is a suite of restrictions here, if you like, that were very timely indeed.

I do have to refer to Part 3, which refers to businesses and services, with many of them having to close. This was the section that led to a very lively national debate. Discussion, criticism and holding Government to account are very important indeed. I’ve questioned a number of aspects of the Welsh Government’s response to this pandemic, and I’ve tried to do that in a way that’s constructive. And, for me, it was very disappointing to see the Conservatives doing their best to create and encourage division over the issue of selling essential goods only. Unless you want to be linked to the kinds of conspiracy theorists that deny the dangers of the virus, then be very careful in playing such games. Unfortunately, that’s the tone that we have just heard from the Conservative health spokesperson, which very much contradicts the tone of the Conservative leader earlier today. I would just make that comment.

As it happens, I have stated clearly that I believe that the Government made a mistake on the issue of sale of some goods in supermarkets. I understand what they were trying to do, I think. Indeed, the Conservatives themselves had called for assurances that supermarkets couldn’t undermine small, local shops. But the way in which this was handled by the Government—the messaging and the practical impact as it was felt by people, people not understanding why the Government was doing this, and people feeling that it didn’t make sense—was all very unfortunate, I believe, and I did ask the Government to think again. There was some clearer messaging, but I do hope that lessons have been learned. I certainly agree with what we heard from Mick Antoniw, as Chair of the legislation committee, in that we need to look anew at the kind of guidance introduced around these regulations. If I’m not entirely content with the content of that section of the regulations, why are we supporting them today? Well, I don’t think that the problem is with the regulations; it’s the way that they were implemented that was the problem, and the lack of clarity in terms of the guidance. I also think it was very important that we did have this firebreak.

But I will conclude with this point, which I’ve made on a number of occasions, and which is that this firebreak does have to be a new beginning in terms of having a new strategy. We’ve heard about some of the new restrictions, such as the lower level that will be introduced on a national basis from next week onwards. I do believe that we should be cautious. The core principle for me is to have as few restrictions as possible but to implement them effectively. Of course, the smallest number of restrictions do have to be significant at times, but that's the principle that I've adhered to. But not only must we have the right restrictions in place, we must certainly strengthen the testing process, making it more robust and ensuring that people have confidence in that process. I'm very disappointed to hear that the testing centre in Llangefni will close on Sunday. Well, now's not the time to be closing testing centres; now is the time to ensure that there is resilience in place and that new techniques and new skills in testing provide us with a system that is more robust and brings results quicker. However, we support these regulations.

The World Health Organization states that lockdown should only be used as a last resort and should be avoided. The harms that these measures will cause to people's health, wealth and well-being will be severe, and we are seeing a staggering number of businesses fail, countless numbers of people being put out of work, huge numbers of young people unable to find work, and children having their education stymied. Many of my constituents are already living in poverty. And this lockdown has been for what? You know that this lockdwon will not end the threat posed by SARS-CoV-2 virus. If everyone wore a mask, kept 2m apart and washed their hands regularly, this disease wouldn't be on the rise. If everyone stuck to these rules, we could learn to live with this disease. But people are not sticking to the rules and because of the actions of a selfish few people, we are all put at risk.

With regard to testing, why are we still only testing less then a third of 1 per cent of our population for this virus? We need to be more ambitious with regard to testing. Slovakia, a country with a population almost double ours, tested half their population on Saturday and we conducted just over 7,000 tests. To beat this virus in a way that does not do long-term damage to our health and well-being, we have to learn to live with this disease. Population-wide testing, I still feel, is the best way forward and we can ensure that those who test positive are properly quarantined and receive all the support that they need, instead of locking up everybody. We could use the finances being used to fund lockdowns and business closures to pay the sick to stay at home. That is how we deal with and live with this disease.

I agree that we have to do all we can to stop people from dying from COVID or having to live with long-term disablement as a result, but this is not the way. And I have previously supported the lockdown with the previous Government, but now is the time that we must find an alternative. Our economy will suffer and those in generations to come will still be paying for it. Diolch yn fawr.

Mark Reckless.

Diolch, Llywydd. Can I just clarify—I think I'm unmuted?

Yes, you are. You can carry on.

Thanks for bringing forward the debate today, Minister. I would have preferred if we'd been able to vote on these regulations before they came into force, as the Westminster Parliament is having the opportunity to do for England tomorrow. We are at least voting on them before the lockdown firebreak finishes, which is at least an improvement on some of the timings we've had before. 

I wonder if the Minister will say anything in terms of the level of compliance with these regulations. Any political consensus behind them has clearly broken down and I just wonder what the impact of that has been with the public. There's been some quite divisive rhetoric, not quite as bad as Nicola Sturgeon in Scotland, who seemed to suggest that Scotland would have eradicated the virus, like in New Zealand, if only it hadn't been reseeded from England. There were, though, comments that didn't fall that far short of that from the First Minister, who referenced people from north-west England coming to Tenby and how unwelcoming locals should be in that circumstance. I spent some of August supporting the tourism industry in Tenby, and there was certainly a large number of people from England, including the north-west of England, there. But, in Pembrokeshire, the prevalence of the virus remained low after that, and I just wonder how that's consistent with the scapegoating of visitors from England that we've seen from the Minister's Government.

Could I also just ask for an update on what's been happening with these inspections of the drains and the testing of sewage? The Minister previously made great play of a study that supposedly showed an English variant of the virus that had come into north Wales from high-prevalence areas in north-west England. Have there been similar inspections of the sewers in reference to south Wales and Bristol and south Gloucestershire, where previously the prevalence was rather low, but since we've had higher areas in the Valleys and Newport and Cardiff, is there evidence of a Welsh variant of the COVID virus moving into the south-west of England? Or do we only test for these things or take an interest in such research when there's a possibility of scapegoating England for the failures of our own Government here in Wales?

The Minister to respond to the debate—Vaughan Gething.

Thank you, Llywydd. I thank Members for their various contributions to the debate. I thank the member of the committee; we'll respond in detail to the points that he's made, so there will be a written response as usual to the committee to deal with each of the merits points to the scrutiny. Of course, as one of the later contributors mentioned, we're having this debate today, but the committee, as I understand it, were very clear they wanted to be able to scrutinise the regulations that had been introduced and to provide a report to assist in today's debate. And there are choices for us to make in doing so. We could have had this debate at a much earlier point in time, but we wouldn't have had the committee having the opportunity to scrutinise the regulations, and that is really a matter that is in the hands of the institution, in terms of timetabling when these debates happen and the process through the Business Committee.

I'll deal with Caroline Jones's comments. This Government recognises that intervention of this type is not a first response. We have had a range of other measures in place, going through local restrictions, which contributed, but did not make the difference that we needed them to, just as the Government in England had a range of local and regional restrictions over a period of several months in some parts of England and they've made their own decision that they need to have a national approach now for the next month. We're testing, on average, more than 10,000 people a day. We're regularly testing many more than 70,000 people each week. So, we have got a large testing programme. But tests and the contact tracing and the request and the support and the legal requirements for self-isolation are tools to help us deal with the consequences of infection and to try to prevent further infection. Actually, our primary point is how we live differently, and that point about how we ask, 'What should we do?' as opposed to looking to find a set of rules to try to work around.

As I said, I dealt with Mark Reckless's point about public support in my opening, about police evidence, but also there is widespread evidence of widespread public support. All the available polling evidence supports the choice that we have made. And on waste-water monitoring, we certainly aren't using that to try to scapegoat other parts of the UK—that sort of language is especially and knowingly unhelpful.

I want to thank Rhun ap Iorwerth for the broad support that Plaid Cymru have continued to provide for the measures and the constructive way that we have discussed, debated and not always agreed on some of the choices that we have made. We have reflected, though, as a Government, on a very difficult time in terms of the messaging around non-essential retail, but we made choices on significant closure in other parts of the economy because we had prioritised the interests of children and young people in keeping our schools open, and that meant we had to be harder and deeper in other activity to have the sort of impact that we want to. A different choice is now being made in other parts of the UK; Northern Ireland have had a much longer set of restrictions; England are now going for a later intervention, but a longer intervention as well. And, so, we'll learn more from each other, and that was one of the points that came from COBRA yesterday, where we have made clear that as well as reporting to the people of Wales, we want to share the learning that we get in the post-firebreak period with other Governments in the UK, as we definitely still have much to learn, as the virus has many more months to be with us before we have an effective and longer term answer.

In terms of what you say, well, I'll be having more to say about what the firebreak has allowed us to do: it's given us the space and the time to reflect on what we need to do moving forward, so I'll have more to say, as the First Minister indicated, on new testing technology, but also on what we're going to do to bolster our test, trace, protect service.

And just in terms of the direct comments from Andrew R.T. Davies, I've never suggested that people are traitors. I don't think I've said anything inappropriate at all in my contributions today. In terms of the reference to suicide rates in England, I believe he's referring to a programme about the London ambulance service, figures that are historic, as opposed to current, and, of course, we don't know about the impact on suicide rates in Wales. What we do know, though, is that all of the measures we are taking are a balance of harms: doing nothing has very real and significant consequences. That's not just my view, but the view of the UK Prime Minister too. We do know that there will be an impact on mental health and well-being, and that's why we deliberately chose to have a shorter period in this firebreak.

I still believe it was the only responsible choice to make. When we started, there were 775 patients in hospital beds. Today, there are, as the chief executive of NHS Wales has reported, 1,275, just 9 per cent below the peak in April with coronavirus. What the firebreak and the four-week lockdown in England have done is underline that the virus is not going away, but it's our behaviour that can make the biggest difference. This is not a decision that Ministers took lightly or with any enjoyment. We know how hard it has been and continues to be for people right across Wales.

I want to, once again, thank everybody for their effort and collective sacrifice that is being made in all parts of Wales. I would, though, ask the Welsh Conservative leadership in particular to reflect on their choices and to exercise responsibility in their language. Conservatives are, of course, entitled to disagree with the Welsh Government, the Conservative Prime Minister, and the view of every chief medical officer in the UK, as they do. However, the language they have used on a number of occasions to disagree has been highly personal, divisive, and goes beyond the normal rough and tumble of politics. These are not normal times. In these extraordinary times, the divisive, personal, and, at times, non-factual statements from the official opposition in Wales create more room for people on the fringes of politics. Those fringe views in the midst of a pandemic are not amusing; they are dangerous. We will, no doubt, continue to disagree, but I hope that in future the way that we disagree can be both robust and responsible. I ask Members to support the motion before us. 

The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I see that there are objections, and I will therefore defer voting until voting time. 

Voting deferred until voting time.