The next item will be the short debate, and the short debate today is to be introduced by David Rowlands.

You'll have to just wait one second while we sort out your microphone. Okay, try now.

Okay. Are you hearing me now?

Yes, we are. You can carry on.

Okay, thank you very much. Diolch, Llywydd. Can I preface this debate by saying it is not designed to encourage people to break lockdown restrictions? On the contrary, I urge people to obey the restrictions, both for the firebreak period and those in place after next Monday. The overarching objective of this debate is to question whether the strategies employed by the Welsh Government, and indeed by the UK Government, are proportional to the threat posed by COVID-19. I should point out here there that, to a very large extent, the Welsh Government's hands are tied by the interventions of the UK Government, notwithstanding the different regimes implemented by each Government over the last few months. It would have been a very brave Welsh Government to have reacted to the COVID crisis as did the Swedish Government.

My opening remarks in this debate are to point out that COVID-19 has been reclassified as no longer being a high-consequence infectious disease, or HCID, by the four nations public health HCID group. In addition, the Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens is also of the opinion that COVID-19 should no longer be classified as a HCID.

The Welsh Government has stressed on many occasions that they are reacting to advice given to them by experts, and that the experts' advice is based on statistics and projected models with regard to the COVID pandemic. Perhaps we should remind ourselves that here 'pandemic' is a misnomer, because the World Health Organization have now redefined the COVID crisis as a 'serious health threat', and has stated clearly that it's not a pandemic, and the WHO now contend that lockdowns should not be used to combat COVID-19. If, then, the Government and their advisors are depending on COVID statistics, it is crucial that these statistics are a true and accurate reflection on how COVID-19 is impacting on the population, and not echoing the ludicrous figures put out by the so-called Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies' experts.

First among these statistics is the rise in the number infected and the projected rise in infections. However, these statistics are totally dependent on the number of tests carried out. Given that the number of tests carried out, even allowing for the inadequacies in the testing regimes, has risen and is still rising dramatically, this correlation between infections and testing will inevitably show substantial increases in the numbers detected as having had coronavirus as well as those with coronavirus, and herein lies a considerable flaw in the assumed threat that COVID-19 represents. Those who have had the virus, presumably with little or no symptoms, pose no threat to those with whom they are in contact—they are said to be asymptomatic—and yet they are included in the figures for new infections. Given that the number of those presenting this way are said to be considerable, should they be included in the test statistics at all, in that their infections could be said to be historical and they pose no threat to others? I should also point out here that many studies have shown the testing regime to be substantially flawed, with a great number of prominent scientific personnel in organisations saying it is a totally inadequate system of testing, with considerable margin for cross-contamination and completely flawed results, yet the statistics yielded by the present testing regimes are the very ones on which the Welsh Government and its advisers rely.

The Deputy Presiding Officer took the Chair.

Shall we now turn to the other statistic that is guiding the Welsh Government's interventions, that is deaths from COVID-19 infection? Here, I feel it's imperative to make the distinction between those said to have died as a direct consequence of COVID-19 and those who are said to have died with COVID-19. Let me now quote from the medical advice given to doctors with regard to recording deaths where COVID is present or indeed simply thought to be present:

'Medical practitioners are required to certify causes of death "to the best of their knowledge and belief". Without diagnostic proof, if appropriate and to avoid delay, medical practitioners can circle "2" ' in the medical certificate of cause of death,

'the MCCD ("information from post-mortem may be available later") or tick Box B on the reverse of the MCCD for ante-mortem investigations. For example, if before death the patient had symptoms typical of COVID-19 infection, but the test result has not been received, it would be satisfactory to give "Covid-19" as the cause of death'.

This means, of course, that deaths can be recorded as COVID-related even if a test for COVID has not been carried out. Every day we hear of deaths from COVID being given out as a bare statistic—no mention of how old the deceased was or whether they had long-term underlying illnesses, such as cancer, vascular problems, diabetes, or one of the many other life-threatening illnesses from which people die daily. Medical codes state that it's no longer acceptable to pronounce death from natural causes, or, in short, old age. Statistics, however, show that the vast majority of deaths occur in people over 80 years of age and very few, or even none, to people under 50.

So, what are these catastrophic consequences brought about by nationwide lockdowns? Well, they are many and varied, but each in its way life-changing for the many hundreds of thousands, indeed even millions, negatively affected by these interventions. First there is, of course, the disastrous economic impact they have on society as a whole and on individuals in general. Many thousands of businesses have collapsed or are on the brink of collapse with, of course, the attendant loss of countless thousands of jobs. There's a huge consequential impact on those made redundant where finances are cut dramatically, often resulting in large increases in personal debt and general financial hardship. There is a direct correlation between such loss of income and self-esteem often leading to mental health problems and even suicide. Indeed, statistical evidence shows a huge rise in suicides since the onset of lockdowns. 

Let us now turn to the subject of deaths during the coronavirus crisis. Of course, protecting people's lives has given us the prime reason for Governments' interventions with regard to COVID, but we now know that, as a direct result of COVID restrictions, there are a very large number of deaths occurring because people have not or cannot present to clinicians. There has been a huge rise in deaths from cancer, heart disease, stroke and diabetes, and a whole myriad of diseases as a result of the usual clinical interventions not being carried out. These deaths are witnessed by the steep rise in deaths at home as opposed to hospital. Many believe there's a huge reservoir building of people not seeking timely medical help for these killer diseases, the impact of which will not present for some time to come.

We are at present in a 14-day lockdown, and after that, what next? Anyone can predict that, as soon as the lockdown ends, COVID infections will rise again. So, do we go into another lockdown phase, followed by another and another and another ad infinitum? Or are we simply waiting for a vaccine to end this terrible blight on the nation's economy and well-being? We all know that whoever produces such a vaccine will make billions of pounds on a recurring basis, as the inoculations will have to be repeated at suitable intervals, because this virus is said to mutate. Now, incidentally, it is not thought to mutate at the same rate as the common flu virus. I shall conclude by asking this question: can we really justify tearing the economy apart, with all the consequences outlined above, to save such few lives, especially if we consider that this could be done with much more targeted interventions? It is impossible to overestimate the catastrophic consequences of nationwide lockdowns, especially for the poor in our society. Let me quote Dr David Nabarro of the World Health Organization:

'Lockdowns just have one consequence that you must never, ever belittle, and that is making poor people an awful lot poorer.'

And poor people actually are likely to die 10 years ahead of those who are over 80 and those who are dying from COVID today. So, to finish, there comes a time when the cure has become worse than the illness, and I and many others believe that that time is now.

Thank you. I now call the Minister for Health and Social Services to respond to the debate. Vaughan Gething.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I listened to the contribution the Member made, and I have to say that I disagreed with not just the thrust of his argument, but a great deal of the detail that he claimed to put in, and I think it was an example of promoting the fringes of opinion in a way that is dangerous, and really can lead to misinforming the public at a time when we need more information, more clarity and more trust.

Yesterday, the Senedd, after debate, agreed the regulations that provide for the current restrictions to continue until the firebreak ends as planned on 9 November. We continue to face a very real and increasing public threat from coronavirus here in Wales, and I remind Members of some of what I said yesterday: in the weeks leading to the firebreak, the virus was spreading rapidly in every part of Wales. We have just gone through the deadliest week of the pandemic since the peak in April. Earlier today, my colleague the Minister for mental health and well-being announced that a further 44 people had sadly lost their lives to this terrible disease. And I was deeply troubled when the Member referred in his comments towards the end about so few deaths from this disease. I don't think that is appropriate at all. I send my condolences to all the families and loved ones of people who have lost their lives. On the Public Health Wales figures, 1,939 people—and we know the real figure is more—have tragically lost their lives since the start of this pandemic.

I'm proud that this Welsh Government listened to and weighed carefully the clear advice of SAGE and our own scientific experts on the technical advisory cell before deciding to implement these extraordinary restrictions. And there are choices for all of us: the Member referred to the 'so-called' experts at SAGE. They are genuine experts in their fields, and to try to refer to them to downplay the expertise and the knowledge they provide for all of us to make difficult choices on, I think is entirely wrong.

Members of the public can of course decide who to believe. They can believe the scientific experts on SAGE, who are not interested in who the Government of the day is, but to provide challenge and information to decision makers; they can believe every single chief medical officer in the United Kingdom who says that this is a clear and present threat to the future of the country, to lives and livelihoods; or they can believe the Member. I would urge Members to read again the scientific evidence that made the case for the firebreak that we published from our own technical advisory cell. And this is on the back of other measures having been taken, because, since September, we had implemented a series of local health protection areas. They did make a difference to help reduce transmission, and I want to thank people for the efforts they made in supporting all of those restrictions, but, on their own, they were not enough.

Earlier today I met with the World Health Organization—I met with the director for the European region, Dr Hans Kluge. And he was clear that lockdowns are a last resort, but the position we were in was that other measures had not been successful. The rising tide we were seeing—the rising tide of harm—would have led to much greater harm, not just in terms of COVID, but the impact that coronavirus is having in our hospitals today has a direct impact on non-COVID care and non-COVID mortality, and it's foolish in the extreme to deny that reality. The World Health Organization are not saying that the firebreak we have introduced in Wales is inappropriate, they're not saying that it's the wrong thing to do, they're saying we should consider all other measures first, as we have done. This is why we are where we are, because there were not other successful measures for us to implement. The seven-day incidence rate for Wales went from 130 cases per 100,000 to now 260—it's doubled, despite the firebreak. We know that our NHS faced the real risk of being overwhelmed. The number of people being taken to hospital with coronavirus continues to grow each day—it's up 20 per cent on this time last week. We now have a third of our critical care beds treating COVID patients. Coronavirus is not a mild disease, it is highly infectious, it makes people seriously unwell, and it takes lives. It is a deadly disease.

I'm proud that we took the difficult but necessary decision to act earlier in Wales than our colleagues across the border. I say that even though I recognise how difficult that choice is. It is not a choice that I or any other Minister has enjoyed taking, because we know that lockdown does come with real harm. But we're doing this to avoid a much greater harm of an overwhelmed NHS and more people losing their lives from coronavirus and other conditions. And so I do welcome the lockdown choice that England have now made; it reinforces the seriousness of the threat that we face in every nation within the United Kingdom, and I note that the UK Parliament has today approved that four-week lockdown in England. 

Every one of us still has a role to play in the national effort we are still going through here in Wales to ensure that the firebreak is successful. It remains vital that we continue to observe social distancing, hand washing regularly, and to wear a face mask when required to do so, because the more people we meet, the more who are at risk from coronavirus. And we ask people to think not only about what is permitted and within the rules, but what we should do, and to exercise some personal responsibility and awareness of how we reduce our risk for ourselves, for our friends, family and loved ones. So, everyone in Wales is still required to stay at home and work from home wherever possible, because we know that this virus thrives on human contact. To reduce the amount of interactions, people must not meet others they do not live with, either indoors or outdoors, until the end of the firebreak, with the one exception for adults living alone or single parents, who can still meet with one other household.

I also remind people that we chose to prioritise the interests of children and young people. We know the harm that would have been caused to their mental health and well-being, as we saw through the summer when schools were closed. That meant we had to make other choices, including the choices on wider closures. That's why all non-essential retail, leisure, hospitality and tourism businesses have closed. I note that reports are now being made that non-essential retail in England will be restricted in supermarkets in much the same way as we have done here in Wales. Closures too have affected community centres, libraries and recycling centres, and even places of worship. These are difficult and far-reaching choices we have had to make to keep people safe.

We have also provided, though, support in terms of businesses—a point that the Member mentioned in his contribution—because I recognise this is an economic risk as well as a public health one. That's why we have £300 million of financial support through this challenging period, and also a £5,000 one-off payment for small businesses that have been required to close as well. That is in addition to the support available from the UK Government, including, of course, following the deterioration in southern England, the reintroduction of the much more generous furlough scheme and self-employed support across the UK. As the First Minister has said, we welcome what the Prime Minister said yesterday in the House of Commons, in response to the leader of the Scottish Conservatives, that furlough would of course be available whenever and wherever it was required within the UK. We expect the Prime Minister to keep his word, given in the House of Commons to the leader of the Scottish Conservatives, and would expect the Prime Minister to instruct any Chancellor in a Government led by him to do the same.

The firebreak represents a short, sharp shock to turn back the clock, slow down the virus and buy us more time to help us save lives. We're strengthening winter preparations, including building upon our successful test, trace, protect system. And I really am grateful for the way that people have behaved across Wales in supporting the firebreak. But we said that a successful firebreak would not be visible, in terms of its impact on infection rates, for at least two to three weeks after the firebreak has ended. That means that we're now seeing, in terms of new infections today, the impact of what was taking place two to three weeks ago in the past. But the sacrifices that we are all making during these two weeks will protect the NHS and save lives going forward, as we introduce a series of simpler national rules to come into force from 9 November, which the First Minister outlined yesterday.

Everybody should consider carefully how we follow not just the rules but how we take on board the need to think about what we should do. This is all about giving us the greatest opportunity to regain control and, with the end of the year approaching, to avoid a much longer and more damaging national lockdown that we are keen to avoid. 

I do not follow and agree with the Member's line of argument that coronavirus is somehow lessened in importance or in the harm that it causes. It is a highly infectious disease. It is a deadly disease. It is most likely to cause harm to our poorest communities. Coronavirus is not a great leveller. People who have the least advantages in life are the most likely to suffer harm and death from coronavirus. It reinforces the need to act to bring back some control, to save the lives of our least advantaged communities.

I'll give an idea of what that has meant in Wales, with this deadly disease. From 29 February to 23 October, the Office for National Statistics show that in Wales there has been a 12 per cent increase in excess deaths. It's even more significant in England, with a 19 per cent increase in excess deaths. In Wales, that 12 per cent that the Member referred to as so few deaths, that means an extra 2,418 lives have been lost—2,418 extra families grieving. That is why we acted: to prevent further losses of life and livelihoods. And that is why we all need to play our part, to act to keep friends, family and loved ones safe, to act to keep safe people who we will never meet.

The choices are not easy for any of us, but all of us can make a difference. All of us can help to keep Wales safe. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. 

Thank you, Minister. That brings today's virtual proceedings to a close. Thank you.

The meeting ended at 17:44.