Can I now call on the Minister for Health and Social Services to move the regulations? Vaughan Gething.

Motion NDM7470 Rebecca Evans

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

1. Approves The Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (No. 4) (Wales) Regulations 2020 laid in the Table Office on 5 November 2020.

Motion NDM7469 Rebecca Evans

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

1. Approves The Health Protection (Coronavirus, International Travel and Restrictions) (Amendment) (Wales) Regulations 2020 laid in the Table Office on 9 November 2020.

Motions moved.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I move the motions before us for the relevant sets of regulations.

We introduced the firebreak as we believed that we had to act early and decisively in the face of a real and increasing public health threat from a virus that was spreading across our nation and threatening to overwhelm our NHS. We won’t see the full impact of the firebreak for another week or two, but there are encouraging signs that it has broken chains of transmission, leading to falling numbers of positive new cases. That is particularly clear in areas of high incidence, such as Rhondda Cynon Taf, Blaenau Gwent and Merthyr Tydfil.

We made a promise to the people of Wales that this firebreak was going to be sharp but short, and that is a promise that we kept. We also promised that we would come out of the firebreak with a new set of national measures that would be as simple, fair and clear as possible. National restrictions are simpler and easier for people to follow, but, as we have seen, coronavirus can flare up rapidly in a local area, and, if it does, there are a range of local actions that could be taken in those areas.

However, more important than any rules, regulations or guidance is the way that each one of us responds to the virus. Our new laws will only be successful if we all do our best to reduce our exposure to the virus by keeping the contacts we have with other people to a minimum at home, in work and when we go out. There is only so much that any Government can do. Our communications effort will continue to focus on asking people to think carefully about their choices and actions and the consequences that those will have.

As with the first lockdown, we have taken a cautious approach, relaxing restrictions gradually. None of us should want to lose the hard-won gains that we are now starting to see reflected from the firebreak. We continue to try to take a balanced and equitable approach to rules on meeting people indoors, tightening where we have to do, relaxing where we can, so that people in different personal circumstances can benefit. This is not easy and it cannot fit neatly with every situation. Two households can now form an extended household or bubble. We know that there is a high risk of transmission when people are at their most relaxed and at home. We listened to people, especially young people, who told us that the rules on household bubbles didn't always work for them and that meeting people outside their homes is important for their well-being. We have therefore enabled up to four people from different households to meet outdoors in regulated places like pubs, bars, cafes and restaurants. At the same time, we all have to remember that this is a legal maximum not a target number. As I said, we're relying on the choices that people make and asking people to consider the risks and meet as few as possible and, if possible, to meet the same people each time.

In relation to organised activity, up to 15 people can take part in indoor activity and up to 30 outdoors, as long as all COVID safety measures are followed. This should help people who are unable to take part in activities remotely. The word 'organised' is key here, as activities can only take place if a responsible body such as a management committee of a community centre has done a risk assessment and put in place all of the appropriate mitigating measures.

Another change is there are no longer any travel restrictions inside Wales as infection has ceded across the nation. But during the month-long lockdown in England, travel will not be permitted outside Wales without a reasonable excuse. Members will be aware that, in June, the Welsh Government made provisions in the Health Protection (Coronavirus, International Travel) (Wales) Regulations 2020 to ensure that travellers entering Wales from certain countries and territories must isolate for 14 days and provide their contact details. Since then, we have, together with other UK nations, reviewed and amended the list of exempt countries and territories every week, and we review the regulations themselves every 28 days. The most stringent restriction is on people from Denmark, who are now refused entry into Wales and the UK following the discovery of a new mutated strain of coronavirus in mink. As a precautionary measure, we took the most restrictive approach within the UK—isolation requirements for people who came back from Denmark before the ban.

Moving away from travel to education, all schools, colleges and universities have reopened. We've provided schools with further guidance and support on blended and online learning provision for classes or groups required to self-isolate. Businesses, sports facilities, museums and cinemas have all reopened, as did local authority services and places of worship. It is hugely important, though, that people work from home where it is possible.

We recognise the terrible impact that this virus is continuing to have on the Welsh economy. The latest unemployment and GDP statistics, published last week, are stark. That is why we mobilised a significant package for businesses during the firebreak. However, what would help them most and what we and they can all help to achieve is a period of stability where businesses can trade up to Christmas. If we can achieve this, we will see fewer people falling ill and fewer families losing loved ones. Nobody can guarantee that tighter restrictions won't be necessary in the future. However, if we all play our part and reduce our contacts, we will give ourselves the best chance for a positive festive season. The news about the vaccine is encouraging, but it is not a magic bullet. We will have many months before we're able to deploy a vaccine successfully across the whole population. Coronavirus is still with us; now is not the time for us to go back to normal and undo all the hard work that we have achieved together during the firebreak. I ask Members to support the motions before us.

Thank you. Can I call on the Chair of the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee, Mick Antoniw?

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd. In respect of items 10 and 11 taken together, as Members will know, the Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (No. 3) (Wales) Regulations 2020 expired on 8 November. From 9 November, the No. 4 regulations impose the restrictions and requirements in response to public health risks arising from coronavirus. And Members will also be aware that the No. 4 regulations must be reviewed by 19 November, at least once between 20 November and 3 December, then again at least one time between 4 December and 17 December, followed by at least once every 21 days after that. The No. 4 regulations will expire on 19 February 2021, unless revoked before that date.

The committee considered the No. 4 regulations at our meeting yesterday and our report identified four merits points. The first three noted the justification for any potential interference with human rights, that there has been no formal consultation on the regulations and that only a summary integrated impact assessment has been prepared. Our fourth merits point asked the Welsh Government to set out the evidence that showed that restrictions and requirements should be imposed on a pan-Wales basis. In particular, we asked for evidence to show why areas of Wales with the highest prevalence of COVID-19 should be subject to the easing of restrictions and requirements upon the expiry of the No. 3 regulations. For example, according to data published by Public Health Wales, the number of cases per 100,000 population for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhondda Cynon Taf were the highest in Wales on 9 November. We note the Welsh Government's response to this point, which was received yesterday after we met. It advises that the evidence for adopting a national approach included data, coupled with advice from the chief medical officer, showing that COVID-19 infections in Wales are geographically widespread, with the majority of local authority areas experiencing increasing trends in confirmed case incidents and percentage of positive testing episodes for COVID-19.

I turn now to the Health Protection (Coronavirus, International Travel and Restrictions) (Amendment) (Wales) Regulations 2020, which we also considered and reported on yesterday. These regulations extend the existing restrictions relating to persons travelling to Wales from Denmark. Members will be aware that, from 4 a.m. on 7 November, both the returning traveller and any member of their household will now be required to isolate for 14 days.

Our report identified four technical points relating to defective drafting and inconsistency between the meaning of the English and the Welsh texts. We note the Welsh Government's response to these points, which was received after we met. It advises of the drafting errors that have been rectified and notes that this is being achieved through the Health Protection (Coronavirus, International Travel and Restrictions) (Amendment) (No. 2) (Wales) Regulations 2020, which were made and laid before the Senedd on 13 November 2020. The Welsh Government's response also advises that there has been no need for recourse to the relevant enforcement powers nor the criminal offence provisions prior to the corrections being made.

Our two merits points on the No. 4 regulations noted the lack of consultation on the regulations and raised an issue on human rights. On this point, we noted that the regulations prescribed a more limited set of circumstances in which persons may temporarily leave isolation than are applicable to persons required to isolate other than by reason of having arrived in Wales from Denmark. We therefore ask the Welsh Government to explain the reasoning for this increased interference with individual rights under the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European charter of fundamental rights. In its response, the Welsh Government said that the health risks presented by the possibility of importing a new strain of coronavirus into Wales are, in the Welsh Government's opinion, so severe that the increased interference in the rights of a very small cohort of individuals is proportionate in pursuit of the legitimate aim of protecting public health in Wales, and we just draw these comments to the attention of the Senedd. Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd.

On the regulations this afternoon, from the Conservative point of view, we will be abstaining on the first set of regulations that are covered in agenda item 10, and we will be supporting agenda item 11 with the travel restrictions when it comes to Denmark. If I could trouble the Minister, maybe, to give us an update on the Denmark situation. As the Chair of the constitution and legal affairs committee highlighted, the troubling news coming from Denmark some two weeks ago that gave rise to these restrictions was that there was potential for a new strain of COVID-19 to be developing in Denmark. Since these restrictions have come in, I can't recall much mention of how progress is going on to contain the new strain, and I think it would be a matter of public interest if the Minister did have information, so that he could update us on that situation in respect of the restrictions that have been put in place for Denmark.

In respect of agenda item 10, which is the undoing of the lockdown, firebreak—call it what you will—obviously, we did not support the original restrictions that were put in place, but we do have concerns in relation to the lifting of those restrictions, namely the travel restrictions that are contained and which do not allow extended households to stay with each other if they go on holiday, for example, yet they can stay in each other's homes if they're part of the extended household. This seems to be contradictory advice, and I'd be grateful to understand why the Minister has sought to keep this regulation given the damage that it is continuing to do to the Welsh tourism sector, when we talk about the economic damage that has been done by some of these restrictions that have been brought forward earlier by the Welsh Government.

Secondly, our concern that leads us to abstain on these regulations is in relation to the national travel guidance that is now available—that people can move from high infection rates to low infection rates—when, at least since the end of August, the beginning of September, all Government advice has been supposedly led by the science, which has brought localised measures in to restrict travel movements. This seems to fly contrary to all the advice that the Government has been giving out since the start of the pandemic, and I'd be grateful again to understand what scientific advice the First Minister, or indeed the health Minister, has when introducing these national guidelines around travel, considering now it is appropriate for people, with infection rates in the hundreds per 100,000, to travel anywhere within Wales to lower infection rates. This does seem to be contrary to everything that's gone on prior to these new regulations being laid, and so I'd be grateful, in his response, if the Minister could come forward with the scientific advice that supports these regulations. Thank you.

I will start with agendum 11. I have no further comments to make on it, other than to say that we will be supporting that sensible change to the regulations.

In turning now to item 10, we will also vote in favour of these regulations, because I do believe they put in place a reasonable set of fundamental rules—the minimum that we could expect anyone to face in Wales at the moment, given that we are still living through a very dangerous pandemic. Nobody, at this moment in time, should be looking forward to normal life within days; it will be months before that can happen. Despite the positive news on a vaccine, it’s some time until we can deliver that.

So, in these regulations, yes, there are some reasonable rules that apply to everyone, but I still can’t see the other regulations that I would wish to see the Government presenting to us, explaining what that higher level would be in areas where we know that prevalence is far greater. We know where those areas are—many are in the south Wales Valleys. What we’re asking for is a higher level of support for those areas in order for them to help themselves by ensuring that there is additional support available to enable people to isolate when they need to do so, and that they are given financial support to do so, where there is support for people through the introduction of swifter testing, where there is universal testing happening across those areas too. So, that’s what’s missing, to my mind, and I am still seeking that, although, as I have said, we will be supporting these regulations because, in terms of their application across Wales, they are quite right.

The one thing I would note is that these regulations will be in place until February unless amended. Can I also seek an assurance again, although the Minister’s made reference to this on a number of occasions, that different regulations will be in place over Christmas that will allow families, hopefully, to be able to come together at that time, because it is so very important to well-being? There are many layers to the dangers of this pandemic, and one, of course, is the very real health risks of the virus, but there are also risks arising from well-being and loneliness issues as people continue to be apart. Over Christmas, people need that support of coming together.

Minister, you said that one single set of national regulations was easier for people to understand and increased compliance. How much more that would be true if it were a single national UK set of regulations, rather than one specifically for Wales intended to divide Wales from England. You exploit devolution, described by the Prime Minister as one of his predecessor’s worst mistakes, to state build. The most obvious example of that in these regulations, set four, is the imposition of a border, and enforcement of that, between Wales and England without reference to public health considerations or the level of prevalence of the virus. Constituents from Merthyr can go to Monmouth without any restrictions, despite the very high, still, I’m afraid, level of prevalence of the virus within Merthyr. However, people from Ross-on-Wye cannot go to Monmouth, despite the far lower level of prevalence there. Similarly, people from Monmouth cannot go to Hereford or Ross-on-Wye, because they’re in England and we’re in Wales and because these regulations use that to try to enforce difference, to try to state build and to try to separate more and more Wales from England by using—[Interruption.] Because I believe in the United Kingdom.

Having said that, may I say, for the international travel regulations, I would like to congratulate Ministers on this one, because there seems to be a huge improvement in how these have been set out? There used to be different announcements on the same day or the following day from three or four different administrations with very, very slightly different rules for different countries around the world, all inspected, judged and assessed independently and in a conflicting way, and then announced through the media, confusing everyone and reducing compliance. That has greatly improved with this new process of a 28-day review and all countries deciding together, such that the nations decide on a UK basis, which I think is a great improvement. Similarly, I trust you’re able to deliver a similar approach to Christmas regulations in the way that’s been suggested. Thank you.

Thank you. I have no Members who have requested to make an intervention, despite the fact that there have been mutterings from certain quarters of the Chamber, which is unfair to those people who are on virtually, and this is supposed to be an equality Senedd. So I will ask you just to think about that. So I now call on the Minister for Health and Social Services to reply to the debate. Vaughan Gething.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I won’t trouble myself with the deliberately offensive comments of the last speaker, and the factually incorrect comments.

I thank the Chair of the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee for their scrutiny and for the summary of that scrutiny in his contributions. We continue to take seriously the points they raise and it does lead to changes in drafting. I think it’s a good thing that we do then respond to the merits points that they raise. Even if we don’t always agree there is, I think, a clear explanation of the differing positions, and I think that’s important.

I note the agreement from the Welsh Conservatives on the restrictions in respect of Denmark. The four Governments within the United Kingdom have met again. I participated in those meetings. We’ve had conversations between our respective chief medical officer departments. We’ve agreed to maintain and review the position in Denmark in another two weeks’ time. That’s because we should then have more evidence about how successful those restrictions in Denmark have been, but also to have more evidence on the epidemiology and the sharing of information. I should say the Government of Denmark, I think, have been responsible and very good partners in identifying the issue and acting promptly and working with us and other countries.

I find myself in an odd position with Conservatives who were originally opposed to travel restrictions but who are now concerned over the lifting of the restrictions that they opposed in the first place. But, as Andrew R.T. Davies knows, we set out previously and indeed in my contribution again today that coronavirus is seeded across the country. We said that before the firebreak, when that was doubted by Conservatives. We then saw rates increase in every county of the country despite the stay at home measures that people observed.

The national measures are easy to follow. That's the advice we had from our scientific committee, the technical advisory cell. That was set out in the report beforehand, but also in the regular summaries that we're providing each week as well. That also set out that local restrictions had made a difference, but that a network of different local measures were no longer coherent, and people were finding it more difficult to follow the guidance. And, again, we need to move away from a wholly rules-based approach and actually get to where people behave, and encourage people to think differently and behave differently, because that is going to be essential to us in terms of our combating of the virus before, in the months ahead—and it is months ahead—we do expect to get a vaccine.

On Rhun ap Iorwerth's points, a number of points he made are really policy questions in terms of the support. Of course, we're having a debate tomorrow with a range of suggestions, but the £500 payment applications have started this week. They're going to be backdated to the start of the firebreak, 23 October, so progress is being made. I expect to make more progress on testing policy over the next week or so, and I'll confirm that in a statement to Members. Now, that, of course, doesn't require a change in the regulations; that's actually a policy and implementation matter.

In terms of the longer term challenges, we do need to see—. We said before that it'll take two to three weeks from the end of the firebreak to understand where we are, and then to see if we do need to take additional measures in any other part of Wales. And I tried to set that out again in opening today. So, it's not a matter that we have simply put from our minds. It's always possible we'll need to come back to this. And that brings me back to Christmas. And, again, I note what Rhun ap Iorwerth said in his contribution, that this is a dangerous pandemic. This is indeed a dangerous pandemic. It's a highly infectious virus that is taking lives in every single community across the country. The vaccine is in the future. It is not in the here and now. The choices we make in the here and now will come back to us in the next few weeks. So, the choices we make about the people we see and the contact we have with them, the time we spend with them, make a huge difference. The vaccine is not a cause to loosen our grip and throw away the gains that we've made. And our foresight, and looking ahead to the festive season at the end of the year, should make us all think about what we're prepared to do, because if we can't collectively do the right thing together, then, actually, we may find ourselves in a position that, before we get to the middle of December, the virus may have taken off again and caused such harm that there may be a need to intervene further. That is not what the Government wants to see happen. We want to see people take responsibility and to think about their choices, to measure their own risk and the risk they present to other people, because if we can't do that together, then we will be faced and potentially forced into making really difficult and unpleasant choices. And I do not want to intervene in people's lives any more than I have to to keep the country safe.

So, I thank Members for their contributions in today's debate. I commend both sets of regulations to Members and ask you to support them. 

Thank you. The proposal is to agree the motion under item 10. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I see an objection. Okay, thank you. Therefore, we defer voting under this item until voting time. 

Voting deferred until voting time.

The proposal is to agree the motion under item 11. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I do see an objection to item 11. Therefore, we defer that voting until voting time. 

Voting deferred until voting time.