The following amendments have been selected to motion NNDM7501: amendments 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 in the name of Darren Millar, amendment 10 in the name of Caroline Jones, and amendments 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 in the name of Siân Gwenllian. In accordance with Standing Order 12.23(iii), amendments 1, 7, 8 and 9 tabled to the motion were not selected.

In accordance with Standing Order 12.23(iii), the amendments tabled to the motion NDM7505 have not been selected. 

It was agreed that the Government debate on the new coronavirus restrictions and the Welsh Conservatives debate on coronavirus December restrictions are grouped for debate but with separate votes. I now call on the Minister for Health and Social Services to move the Government motion—Vaughan Gething.

Motion NNDM7501 Rebecca Evans

To propose that the Senedd:

Notes:

a) the increase in the seven-day rolling incidence rate of coronavirus cases across Wales;

b) the statement by the First Minister on 1 December which set out new national measures to protect public health and reduce the spread of coronavirus; and

c) the £340m package of business support to be made available through the economic resilience fund to support businesses affected by the new national measures.

Motion moved.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I move the Government motion before us and I'll address each of the elements of the Government motion in turn.

Sadly, coronavirus is accelerating across Wales, eroding the hard-won gains from the firebreak. The seven-day rolling incidence rate of coronavirus across Wales has risen to over 320 cases per 100,000. As of 7 December, there were 1,085 people with confirmed coronavirus cases in our hospitals. We now have more than 400 more people in NHS hospitals in Wales being treated for coronavirus compared to the peak in April. The situation is undeniably serious. It demands a serious and responsible response from us all.

The First Minister's statement to the Senedd on 1 December set out the increasing challenge that we face. He set out the pressing need to take further targeted action to protect people's health and reduce the speed and spread of the virus. We should remember this is a virus that is highly infectious; it thrives when we come together. And there is an obvious risk that, as people come together to celebrate Christmas, they will catch or spread the virus. So, in line with what the chief medical officer said today, in the run-up to 23 December, we must all do what we can to make sure that infection rates reduce and to reduce our contacts.

The Welsh Government has considered the recent evidence from SAGE, the UK Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies, and especially, as we've said, their meetings of 11 and 19 November. These highlighted the positive impacts of measures in the Scottish level 3 system and English tier 3 restrictions. We already had many of these in place in Wales and have adapted other measures for Wales. That's why, from 6 o'clock on Friday, new national restrictions were introduced for hospitality and indoor attractions. So, pubs, bars, restaurants and cafes must now close at 6 p.m. and cannot serve alcohol. After 6 p.m. they will only be able to provide takeaway services. Similar measures apply to tier 3 in Scotland. Indoor entertainment venues and indoor visitor attractions must close; outdoor attractions are currently open. The rest of our national measures remain the same, but our national message has never been more important: we all have a part to play if we are going to turn back the rising tide of coronavirus.

The final part of the Government motion relates to the further £340 million package of support to business that we are making through the economic resilience fund. This includes £180 million targeted at hospitality and tourism businesses. This, of course, is in addition to the various support schemes available through the UK Government. There have been a large number of amendments to the Government motion and it won't be possible for me to address all of them in detail, but I will discuss the themes that they raise.

There is increasing scientific and observational evidence highlighting the role of hospitality in disease transmission. Health spokespeople from the Conservatives and Plaid Cymru were offered briefings last week with the chief scientific adviser on health. In addition to this, there is growing evidence of behaviour associated with alcohol, including the gaming of the rules. Rates of infection are rising across Wales in 21 out of 22 local authorities today. We have repeated and clear advice, from the technical advisory group, that a national approach is most likely to be effective at this point in time. A further report from the technical advisory group, with advice that informed the decision of the Government to introduce the new hospitality restrictions across Wales, was published on Monday. I should say at this point that we will support amendments 5 and 6.

The Plaid Cymru amendments largely deal with details of the hospitality restrictions. The restrictions on the hospitality sector, including the sale of alcohol, are a key element of the interventions that SAGE consider to have the biggest impact on the virus. Whilst the restrictions on supermarkets and off-licences selling alcohol after 10 p.m. remain in place, I don't believe it's proportionate to impose further restrictions on the ability of people to purchase alcohol for consumption in their own homes, but the messaging from the Government about how we ask people to behave, to do the right thing, remains clear.

In response to amendments 16 and 17, I should say that the Welsh Government has always brought regulations for debate and decision to the Senedd in accordance with the rules of this Parliament. Given the importance of responding quickly to the shifting and significant public health threat, we will need to continue to act promptly, whenever necessary, to keep Wales safe. Whilst I reject the hospitality-related amendments, I do not underestimate the very negative impact that these restrictions will have on businesses across Wales. That is why we have put in place the most generous package of measures anywhere in the UK. I recognise the hard work within the sector to introduce mitigations, but, unfortunately, the Welsh Government has to take very difficult, unpalatable choices to introduce further restrictions. The decisions we have taken have been supported by both SAGE and TAG advice, which I referenced earlier, and the public statements and advice of our own chief medical officer.

The Conservative motion calls for what it describes as a 'targeted approach', without clearly setting out what that would be or the advice and evidence that underpins that call for an alternative approach. What we have heard in public statements from the Conservatives is the desire to have greater restrictions imposed on individual groups of people, especially older people. That advice has been rejected as impractical and unworkable by not just SAGE, but by our own group, the technical advisory group. That advice has been rejected and not followed by the Scottish National Party health Minister in Scotland, the Ulster Unionist health Minister in Northern Ireland and the Conservative Secretary of State for health acting for England. It is also an approach that has been rejected by every single one of the four chief medical officers across the UK. It is, of course, a matter for the Conservatives if they still wish to promote that approach, but it is not a matter that this Government believes is the right course of action to keep Wales safe.

All of us hoped that the firebreak, followed by national measures, would give us a path through to Christmas. Unfortunately, that has plainly not been the case. That is why we now need to take further steps as a nation to keep the people of Wales safe. I do hope that the sobering, troubling and undeniably serious figures in the last few days will have given all Members the time to pause and reflect. As we face the prospect of greater harm, as we face the prospect of a hard, difficult and deadly winter ahead of us without further change, I hope that, in the face of that prospect, Members will reflect on whether this Senedd should vote today to relax restrictions. I believe doing so will undoubtedly cause even greater harm, and undoubtedly will lead to avoidable deaths for the people that we serve. I do not believe that is a responsible choice, as we all have to strike the balance between the harm of acting and the much greater harm of doing nothing. I move the motion and ask Members to support the Government today.

I have selected amendments 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, and amendments 10 to 17, that have been tabled to the Government motion. I now call on Darren Millar to move the Welsh Conservative motion and amendments 2 to 6 to the Government motion. Darren.

Motion NDM7505 Darren Millar

To propose that the Senedd:

1. Notes the coronavirus restrictions imposed on the hospitality and indoor entertainment industries in Wales from 4 December 2020.

2. Regrets the adverse impact of the restrictions on Welsh businesses and jobs.

3. Calls upon the Welsh Government to:

a) suspend the restrictions with immediate effect; and

b) adopt a more proportionate and targeted approach to tackling the coronavirus in Wales.

Motion moved.

Amendment 2 to NNDM7501—Darren Millar

Add as new point at end of motion:

Does not believe that a Wales-wide approach is proportionate given that COVID-19 is circulating at different rates in different parts of the country.

Amendment 3 to NNDM7501—Darren Millar

Add as new point at end of motion:

Believes that there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the Welsh Government’s current restrictions on the sale of alcohol in public houses, cafes and restaurants are proportionate.

Amendment 4 to NNDM7501—Darren Millar

Add as new point at end of motion:

Believes that the financial support available to businesses affected by the restrictions is insufficient, especially when firms have spent vast sums on ensuring their premises are COVID secure for staff and customers.

Amendment 5 to NNDM7501—Darren Millar

Add as new point at end of motion: 

Calls upon the Welsh Government to publish the evidence on which it based its decision to close indoor entertainment venues.

Amendment 6 to NNDM7501—Darren Millar

Add as new point at end of motion: 

Further calls upon the Welsh Government to make sufficient financial support available to businesses in a timely manner.

Amendments 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 moved.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I move the Welsh Conservative motion on the order paper today and all the amendments tabled to the Government motion that have been tabled in my name. Can I put on record at the start of this debate that we fully recognise on the Welsh Conservative benches the gravity of the public health emergency, not just here in Wales, but across the UK and internationally, and that we do also recognise the need to take action to reduce coronavirus infection rates?

Following the decision of the Welsh Government to impose new restrictions on the hospitality sector in the run up to Christmas, it became very clear to us that a debate was needed on the impact that this decision would have and to provide the Welsh Parliament with an opportunity to have its say. But, in spite of this, the Welsh Government refused to facilitate a debate prior to the commencement of the regulations on Friday. Frankly, Dirprwy Lywydd, I think it's a disgrace that the Welsh Government has not enabled the Senedd to hold a meaningful vote on the restrictions until today, a number of days after their imposition. The Labour Party is the first party to carp at Westminster if the UK introduces regulations before a vote, and what's good for the goose is good for the gander. They need to practice what they preach and make sure that we have the opportunity to vote in this Senedd whenever there are significant changes in its approach to controlling the coronavirus. We need to ensure that all significant changes are subject to a vote prior to their imposition.

We believe that the decision to impose severe restrictions on the hospitality and entertainment industries across Wales is neither proportionate nor reasonable. The Wales-wide approach taken by the Welsh Government pays no regard to the fact that the virus is circulating at very different rates in different parts of Wales. There's only limited evidence that the hospitality and indoor entertainment industries are responsible for the significant increases in infection rates in some parts of Wales, and evidence that stopping people from having an alcoholic drink before 6 o'clock with a meal is inherently riskier than having a soft drink with that meal appears to be non-existent. There also appears to be little recognition by the Welsh Government of the vital importance of the hospitality sector to the Welsh economy.

Now, I recognise what the Minister has just said about the inadequacy of financial support, and I welcome the fact that that amendment that we have tabled is going to receive Government support. It's not surprising, given the lack of adequate financial support from the Welsh Government that there have been a very limited number of sightings of Ken Skates in recent days. In fact, there have been more sights of—[Interruption.] There have been more sights of big cats—notwithstanding the fact that he turned up to answer questions today, there have been more sightings of big cats in the countryside in north Wales, frankly, than the Minister for the economy.

Now, we know that most of the financial support package announced by the Welsh Government will, unfortunately, not be available until January, and I regret that by that time there will be many firms across Wales—a great number of which have already been struggling to survive as a result of the severe travel restrictions—that could have collapsed. Throughout the pandemic, the Government has, on many occasions, struggled to explain to the public how it has balanced its responsibilities to protect both lives and livelihoods. Welsh Ministers are required, of course, to take proportionate decisions that are reasonable, and they have a moral obligation to demonstrate how they've met those tests to the people of Wales. But I'm afraid that they've failed to be able to demonstrate that they've met those tests in respect of these measures. Those areas of Wales such as north Wales, in particular, where the infection rates are much lower than in other parts of the country, where they appear to be getting out of control, seem to suggest that we need a different approach in different parts of the country. I heard what the Minister said about the UK Government Ministers rejecting the sort of approach that we've suggested here in Wales. You forget that, both in Scotland and England, they've got a tiered approach, they're taking a different approach that is targeted at different parts of the country because of different rates of the virus circulating. That's why they have those tiers in terms of their system.

The infection rates published by Public Health Wales today suggest that Gwynedd has a circulation rate of the virus, a positive rate, of 37.7 positives per 100,000 of the population over the past seven days, and that is falling. When you compare that to Neath Port Talbot, in south Wales, where we've got a staggering 693.6 cases per 100,000 in the past seven days, it's quite clear that we need a different approach in both of those two areas. In fact, Neath Port Talbot has the worst rate of infection in the whole of the UK, and nine out of the 10 top local authorities in terms of the infection rates are actually in Wales, and I think that's a depressing situation that absolutely needs a more targeted approach in terms of those local authorities that have got such big risks associated with them. The differences aren't minor, they are enormous, and that's why we want to see a different approach with regard to the way in which the Welsh Government is tackling these issues, not the Wales-wide blanket approach, frankly, that we have at the moment. 

And then there are those members of the public who are doing the right thing—they're washing their hands, they're wearing a mask, they're staying home, they're socially distancing—and we believe that they should be rewarded for that hard work when we have a situation where the virus is under better control, yet Ministers have chosen to impose severe restrictions on every single person in the country because of a small minority in some of our communities who, no matter what the rules, will never actually obey them.

The lack of evidence from the Government also in relation to the hospitality industry is troubling. I note, of course, that some further information has been shared this week. I think it related to evidence from back in April, which was obviously a much earlier time during the pandemic and is probably outdated. But those latest advice documents published by Ministers do not call for the sort of restrictions that the Welsh Government has decided to impose. They make no reference to the arbitrary 6 p.m. rule for the closure of regulated premises, nor the banning of alcohol sales. And the unintended consequences of those rules, such as people mixing in people's homes and drinking together, fuelling even more infections, are not rehearsed at all in those documents. 

The UK Government's chief scientific adviser, Sir Patrick Vallance, has acknowledged this week that there is no hard evidence to justify hospitality curfews. And the Minister was quite right to point out that there are some differences in the Welsh Conservatives' approach versus the UK Government approach. That's what devolution is all about, because we want a solution for Wales, not a solution for England, which the UK Government, of course, is having to impose. But it's in the face of all of this evidence, or this lack of evidence, that the new restrictions are all the more galling, especially for those hospitality businesses that have struggled to survive the pandemic so far and have worked very hard and spent many thousands of pounds to implement those COVID-safe environments on their premises in order to keep their staff and customers safe. 

I fear that the Government needs to be reminded of the huge contribution that this particular sector makes to our economy and communities every year. The hospitality sector in Wales contributes £3 billion per year to our economy. It employs over 140,000 people in Wales directly, and a further 40,000 indirectly. And according to the chief executive of UKHospitality Cymru, the hospitality sector in Wales is the third-largest private sector employer. That's bigger than the pharmaceutical, automobile and aerospace industries in Wales combined. So, given these facts, it's very difficult to understand why the Welsh Government has chosen to target this particular industry in the way that it has. Anyone who frequents pubs, restaurants and cafes would understand the significant damage that these restrictions are causing, so why is it that the Welsh Government doesn't seem to understand? And I hate to say it, but I can't help but feel that if these restrictions posed a major threat to jobs in the steel industry, there would be a very different approach from Ministers. 

Finally, with regard to business support, I'm afraid it's too little, too late. Too little because it will not go anywhere near close enough to cover the loss of revenue for the Christmas period for those people who now are suffering, and too late, because people won't be able to access the support they need until January, by which time many businesses will have gone to the wall and many thousands of jobs will have been lost. 

So, in closing, we understand the need to control the virus and to protect lives. That's why we have supported—and I want to stress this—most of the coronavirus regulations laid before this Senedd. You wouldn't think it when you listen to the Government, but that is a fact. We've supported those restrictions because they were backed by evidence and they were proportionate, and they were targeted, but unfortunately these aren't, and that's why we're calling for their immediate suspension and for a more targeted and proportionate approach, going forward. I urge Members to support the motion. 

Thank you. In accordance with Standing Order 12.23, I have not selected the amendments tabled to the Welsh Conservatives' motion. I now call on Caroline Jones to move amendment 10 to the Government motion, tabled in her own name. Caroline. 

Amendment 10 to NNDM7501—Caroline Jones

Add as new point at end of motion:

Regrets:

a) that the Welsh Government has pursued a course of action based on very limited evidence of the situation in Wales;

b) that the restrictions will have a very limited impact upon infection rates in Wales;

c) that these restrictions will have a lasting impact on jobs and livelihoods and will cause lasting damage to the hospitality sector in Wales.

Amendment 10 moved.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Before I move on to dealing with the motion itself, I have to place on record my disappointment at the way this institution has been treated. This Senedd was elected to legislate in the best interest of the people of Wales, but because of the contempt shown by the Welsh Government, we are once again being called upon to rubber-stamp decisions that have already been made. We were elected to represent our constituents, who are losing their jobs and businesses as a result of the decisions made by Welsh Ministers, and yet, we did not get to vote on the restrictions before they came into effect. Instead, we get to vote on an anodyne motion. This is not democracy; this has become an elected dictatorship, and it's no wonder that the wider public and business sector are losing faith in this institution.

Moving on to my amendment—which I formally move—we do not support the Welsh Government's decisions, but previously, I placed on record that the First Minister has had my support regarding regulations, but now, regrettably, the First Minister has set us on a path that will greatly impact our hospitality sector, and will have very little impact on the pandemic here in Wales. And this course of action, which may or may not have a limited impact on the spread of COVID-19, will, without any shadow of doubt, decimate the hospitality sector in Wales. Many pubs closed their doors on Friday evening for the last time ever, and far too many staff ended their final shift facing Christmas without a job, and some businesses have told me that they are still waiting for the first lockdown financial support. And I fear Wales is witnessing the slow death of our economy in a futile effort to stem the pandemic. So, despite measures that have devastated large parts of our tourism and hospitality sectors, as well as non-food retailers, we have the worst infection rates in the UK. I don't subscribe to the 'let it run its course' philosophy, because this virus can and does destroy lives. Yet, at the same time, we can't shut everything down until we have sufficient supplies of the vaccine.

The long-term impact could now be much worse than the direct impact of COVID-19. How many life chances have been ruined as a result of these actions? How many people will be condemned to a life of poverty because our economy will take decades to recover? Infections aren't being spread in hospitality establishments, establishments that have spent millions of pounds to make their venues COVID-safe and secure the safety of the public. It's being spread in large indoor gatherings by people who think the rules aren't for them, large gatherings of 20 people and more, playing in supermarket car parks; no masks, no social distancing, and yet, later, going home to their families.

Many people are complaining about the mixed messages that they don't understand; people are confused by the rules and then decide to totally ignore the rules altogether. They say, 'If it's okay to meet up with four friends down the pub, why not at home?' We need more clarity and less confusion, because some people are inadvertently breaking the rules. We should be sending a clear message that until we have sufficient stocks of vaccine, people should avoid all contact with those not in their household. We need a test, trace and protect system that is conducting regular population-wide testing and isolating those who are infected. Why are we not dealing with people who deliberately break the rules, and using the hospitality sector as scapegoats along with the people who are law-abiding? And I urge Members to support my amendment. Diolch yn fawr. Thank you.

Thank you. Can I now call on Rhun ap Iorwerth to move amendments 11 to 17 to the Government motion, tabled in the name of Siân Gwenllian?

Amendment 11 to NNDM7501—Siân Gwenllian

Add as new point at end of motion:

Agrees that, whilst hospitality venues can remain open, they should not be subject to a complete ban on the sale of alcohol as currently set out in regulations which came into force on 4 December.

Amendment 12 to NNDM7501—Siân Gwenllian

Add as new point at end of motion:

Agrees that the cut-off time on the sale of alcohol in supermarkets and off-licences should be consistent with the cut-off time imposed on hospitality venues.

Amendment 13 to NNDM7501—Siân Gwenllian

Add as new point at end of motion:

Agrees that hospitality venues should be allowed to stay open until 8pm.

Amendment 14 to NNDM7501—Siân Gwenllian

Add as new point at end of motion:

Calls on the Welsh Government to outline:

a) the specific objectives it hopes the new national restrictions outlined in the First Minister’s statement to the Senedd on 1 December will achieve; and

b) what the threshold will be for relaxing those measures.

Amendment 15 to NNDM7501—Siân Gwenllian

Add as new point at end of motion:

Agrees that the latest Welsh Government technical advisory cell advice, together with all data supporting the policy decisions taken, should be published alongside or prior to any announcement on further national coronavirus restrictions.

Amendment 16 to NNDM7501—Siân Gwenllian

Add as new point at end of motion:

Agrees that the Welsh Government should adopt a presumption in favour of holding a meaningful vote in the Senedd to precede the coming into effect of any further national coronavirus restrictions of the magnitude outlined in the First Minister’s statement to the Senedd on 1 December.

Amendment 17 to NNDM7501—Siân Gwenllian

Add as new point at end of motion:

Calls on the Welsh Government to afford the opportunity for opposition parties to make reasonable requests for independent modelling by the technical advisory cell on alternative proposals in relation to matters such as the closure of the hospitality sector and other non-pharmaceutical interventions.

Amendments 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 moved.

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer.

We're at another critical point in the story of this pandemic; that's clear. To hear of senior health executives or doctors speaking of their fear about what lies ahead should concern us all. We could spend a lot of time looking back at what has happened. The Conservatives, I know, have argued this week, for example, that the firebreak failed. I don't think the firebreak failed, actually. What went wrong was a lack of new strategy for after the firebreak, and a far too abrupt exit from the firebreak. Now, sadly, we are dealing with the consequences of that, but let's concentrate on looking forward.

I certainly appreciate that Government is working in extremely difficult circumstances here, but our scrutiny becomes more important at a time like this. It's about trying to encourage better decision making, so let me go through our amendments to the Government motion. The first three deal with those areas that have jarred with a significant section of public opinion most—the rules around hospitality. To be clear, you won't hear me, or any of my colleagues, say that the run-up to Christmas should be anything like normal. I don't hear the hospitality sector saying that either, and with infection levels and positivity rates on the way up pretty much everywhere, we have to look at how all aspects of how the way we live our lives affects the spread of the virus, from work to travel to leisure and, yes, how we interact with and enjoy the hospitality sector. Limiting personal and potential contact between people, especially late at night when spirits are higher, let's say, makes sense in many, many ways.

But it's the extent of the restrictions that we question here. We question whether Government has got it right. The total alcohol ban, for example, has led to many people questioning the logic, and that can lead to an undermining of trust. Individuals from four households can meet for a coffee. Not even an individual can have a quiet pint in the same establishment. Now, I know it's not people having a quiet pint that Government is worried about, but they're still affected too, and in stark contrast, supermarkets can still sell as much alcohol as they like until late in the evening. Again, those people from four households can have a lunch, but a couple living together can't have an evening meal. We're suggesting that perhaps there needn't be an outright ban on alcohol. Those evening meals can be allowed up to, say, 8 o'clock, allowing some trade to take place. And remember that the sector as a whole has worked very, very hard, and invested heavily too, to try to work COVID safely.

But here's the key—and I refer to our other amendment: what's the evidence, the specific evidence, on, for example, the harm caused by restaurants? On why 6 o'clock closing of all hospitality contributes to the overall goals, rather than perhaps a later time? What are those goals—the specific objectives? What are the thresholds that we can look forward to for the relaxing of measures? Our amendment 15 says the latest advice Government receives, 

'together with all data supporting the policy decisions taken, should be published alongside or prior to any announcement on further national coronavirus restrictions.'

This is so, so important, and it's been good to hear calls for the timely publication of evidence from the benches of the Government side too.

I'll also make reference to amendment 17. We're making some suggestions today based on research, aren't we? On best practice elsewhere, and so on. But we're asking here to be able to seek modelling by Government scientists and advisers on our alternative proposals. This is clearly an amendment in the spirit of achieving, or trying to achieve, the best outcomes for Wales—something we should all be seeking.

There's an appeal to the Conservatives there too: bring your proposals to the table. Guff and bluster really don't cut it in this pandemic, and downplaying risks to health increases risks to health. You do that at your peril. We'll be voting for your amendments today. A number of them, like ours, call for more evidence, for example, but I'm giving one big caveat. We vote for amendment 2 because, yes, we do see the need to respond in different ways in different parts of Wales, but that can go both ways. Frankly, currently that's likely to mean the need for additional measures in some places, more support for self-isolation, more resources to help communities of high prevalence of the virus.

We'll be abstaining on the Conservative debate motion itself. I think we've expressed our position pretty clearly in the way we're voting on the other amendments, and whilst we are agreed on some elements that I've outlined there, this can't be about the suspension of restrictions altogether. I don't think anybody in hospitality even, as I say, is really calling for that. What we want is a rethink on some elements, and to suggest lifting of all restrictions now would clearly be damaging to health. This is not the time, as we've heard some on the Conservative benches suggesting, to pretend that there are parts of Wales that are somehow immune to this virus—there aren't—and thankfully, there are parts of the country that are faring better than others, including my own constituency, but prevention is more often than not better than cure.

Can you start to wind up?

To conclude then, however, we do think that the Government has got elements of these nationwide restrictions wrong, so we're asking for a rethink. And it feels most wrong, I think, in parts of Wales where there is lower incidence of the virus. We're calling for a rethink on elements. We're asking again, at every turn in this story, show us and the Welsh public clearly the basis on which decisions are made.

Thank you. I have a number of speakers in this debate, or these two debates that are grouped, so if I make a plea to you all that if you consider your colleagues and you can trim some seconds or some sentences from your contribution, then all your other colleagues may be called. If not, then I think we're going to run out of time. So, I'll leave that with everybody's consciences in the run-up to Christmas. Alun Davies.

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I'll certainly take note of what you've said. We are, of course, facing a real public health crisis of a depth that none of us have experienced before, but I think we also have a crisis in terms of how we deal with this public health emergency. We also have a crisis about how we debate and discuss and communicate with each other. Deputy Presiding Officer, we discuss many matters here in this Parliament, but we have significant responsibilities in these particular matters, and I have to say that rarely in the years that I've sat here have I felt the weight of this responsibility so heavily on our shoulders as it is today and in these times.

It is clear to me that the virus is spreading quickly and, therefore, the Welsh Government must take urgent action to protect public health, and the Welsh Government must have the freedom to take such action. I hear what Members say about us voting on these matters, and I've always been the first person to defend the rights of this Parliament, but the Government must also be able to act when necessary.

And I'll say this to the Conservatives: I listened to the Conservative spokesperson who disappointed me for the second time today, I'm afraid to say. I asked the Government for the advice upon which they're taking decisions on hospitality, I think it was last week. I intervened on the First Minister to say that we need to ensure that this advice is published alongside the decision. That advice has been published and, unlike the Conservatives, I've taken some time to read that advice and to read it in detail. And I have to say this: the advice from the scientific community, the advice from the medical community to the Government certainly does justify the decisions that the Government have taken. The advice also is very clear that the regional approach that was tested earlier this year did not have the same effect as national regulations. That was also in the advice. The advice was also very clear in what it said about hospitality. I've shared this advice with publicans in my own constituency. They've taken the time to read it and they understand it. It isn't too much to ask, Deputy Presiding Officer, that the main opposition party here does the same.

It is important that the Welsh Government continues to publish and to put into the public domain as much information as is possible, at the time when it takes decisions on regulations. The people of Blaenau Gwent are facing one of the most difficult situations our community has faced. We know and we understand the gravity of the situation facing us. Today's statistics tell us that 574 cases per 100,000 population reflects what we were told last week by the health board. The health board told us that our hospitals in the Aneurin Bevan University Health Board area are facing a real crisis. The people that we rely on and trust to staff those hospitals are under more pressure today than they've been at any time. There are more people today in hospital in Gwent as a consequence of the coronavirus than there has been at any time over the last nine months. These aren't matters that we can wish away, and they aren't matters that we can ignore because it is politically expedient to do so. The health board was clear, speaking to us as elected representatives, that they support what the Welsh Government is doing, and in fact want the Welsh Government to move further more quickly. It is time for us to listen to what the doctors and the medical staff and the scientific community tell us. Anybody who seeks elected office, and anybody who seeks to govern this country, has a particular responsibility to listen and to react and to follow that advice.

The people of Blaenau Gwent feel this very heavily. I speak and they understand what is happening here in Wales. They also understand the restrictions taking place elsewhere across the European Union and throughout the United Kingdom. They understand the tier 3 restrictions in England. They understand what level 3 and what level 4 in Scotland means. They know what we're facing. The Government must work with them to explain and to publish the information, and opposition parties must support what is right and not try to score points in a sterile political debate. It is time for us as a country to stand together, and it is time for us as a country not simply to clap for the national health service, but to protect it, and that means voting for the difficult decisions that we have all been elected to take.

As our motion states, we call upon the Welsh Government to adopt a more proportionate and targeted approach to tackling the coronavirus in Wales. They state that their actions are based upon technical advisory group advice, but although the group's 2 December statement acknowledges industry efforts to create COVID-secure environments, it then focuses instead on enforcement action against the tiny proportion of hospitality premises in Wales acting in breach of the restrictions. So, although targeted interventions are therefore working, the Welsh Government is taking a brutal broad-brush approach.

As we heard at October's cross-party group on beer and the pub, pubs in Wales have their backs to the wall. There is enormous fragility of confidence in trading, their staff numbers have already fallen by over a quarter during the pandemic, they're confident that their premises have COVID controls in place, and policy makers need to look at the evidence showing minimal COVID-19 infection rates in licensed premises. As the British Institute of Innkeeping said this month,

'Our pubs were among hospitality venues that safely welcomed 60 million visitors a week throughout the summer, with no discernible impact on national infection rates. September then created a perfect storm for pubs...with pubs & hospitality being unfairly implicated.'

Speaking in Plenary only four weeks ago, I highlighted the north Wales tourism survey on the impact of lockdowns on the tourism, hospitality, retail and leisure sectors and their supply chains in north Wales, which found that 39 per cent of tourism, hospitality, retail and leisure businesses in north Wales would cease trading if there were any further national or local lockdowns. I emphasised their call on the Labour Welsh Government to conduct meaningful, regional and local business engagement before any more lockdowns are imposed—yet they were ignored.

After the First Minister's previous interventions, Wales was the only part of the UK where infections were not falling at the end of November. Last week, an open letter was sent to the First Minister by the North Wales Mersey Dee Business Council on behalf of over 150 businesses across north Wales. As this states, like businesses across Wales and the wider UK,

'Our businesses...have...invested considerable time and money to make their venues and businesses Covid safe and direct evidence instances of them being linked to any material extent for transmission of Covid-19 seems not to exist....In the few days since the announcement of extra restrictions in Wales, large numbers of businesses have had to cancel bookings worth tens of thousands of pounds to them, essentially wiping out any real hope of a last ditch source of revenue at the end of a disastrous year, with expectations of the same for the coming months.'

A letter from a solicitor representing a hospitality business states that businesses in rural areas are being placed at a disadvantage by the Welsh Government's refusal to consider a tier system or more localised measures to combat and contain COVID-19. West Conwy Pubwatch wrote to the First Minister, and I quote:

'Your most recent ruling to keep Welsh pubs open whilst not allowing us to serve alcohol is a complete and utter joke that makes no sense. The fact that you've been allowed, encouraged even, to do this is sickening.'

Pubs in Wrexham and Flintshire stated that the First Minister's actions amount to a public message, 'Don't drink in Wales to save lives, but travel to England just across the border from us, for a pint and chips instead, taking away from the Welsh economy at a detrimental time of year and handing it to the English economy.' As one said, the issue is the strategy of targeting hospitality as a whole, and we have put so much time, money and emphasis on social distancing, sanitation and supervision. As another said, and I quote:

'Mr Drakeford's Government is out of touch, inconsistent and bordering the realms of dictatorship.'

My final comments are quotes received from doctors. These are doctors' comments:

'Increasingly stringent regulation which is not evidence based will alienate those who do understand the need for some restrictions and changes to life for a period, and encourage them to ignore the restrictions'.

Another:

'I watched the update this afternoon. What an uninspiring delivery it was, poorly informed and clearly used to making excuses. Has the Welsh Government got a plan?'

And:

'Instead of penalising hardworking people, the First Minister needs to listen to their calls and urgently review his ruthless measures before it is too late for them.'

This is what doctors are telling me.

I wish to speak primarily to our amendments 11, 12 and 13, and I'll start, if I may, with amendment 12. It seems to us that there is as much reason to be concerned about the spread of the virus in people's homes if large quantities of alcohol are consumed, if not more, than there is to be concerned about the spread of the virus in hospitality settings. Nobody wants, I'm sure, a disproportionate response to the crisis, but I do feel, and we do believe, that there is a case for restricting—. If there is a case for restricting the sale of alcohol altogether in licensed premises, where people are at least, as others have said, consuming food and alcohol, potentially, under supervision, consideration needs to be given about whether we should attempt to ensure that the scenario where people have their bottle of wine with dinner and then decide to go to the corner shop to buy two or three more is avoided. I can understand Ministers' reluctance to interfere disproportionately in people's behaviour in their own homes—I do appreciate that—but I do think that if we're saying to our hospitality businesses that they need to take a hit on this, the Government should potentially consider whether that hit should be more equally spread if our concerns—. I suppose one of our concerns—and I'll come to this in a moment—about the restriction of all alcohol sales in hospitality is that it simply will go into people's homes where there is less ability to control both the quantity of alcohol consumed and therefore the risk of lowering inhibitions and promoting the spread.

I should say, before I go on to amendments 11 and 13, as Rhun ap Iorwerth has said, nobody on these benches, nobody in Plaid Cymru is underestimating how serious this situation is and nobody is suggesting that we should remove all restrictions. But we urge the Welsh Government to look again at who these particular restrictions impact upon. And let me tell you, in doing that, about Phillip. Phillip is a plumber. I met him and we had a socially distanced conversation on the street in Llanelli last Saturday. He's self-employed, he lives alone and he won't be spending this Christmas with his elderly parents because they've had to decide which of their children and their children's children they can be with, and Phillip's other siblings have grandchildren who their parents wish to see. So, he's decided happily—well, accepting—that he won't be able to see them. Two or three times a week, sometimes four, on his way home from work, Phillip stops at the pub for one, maybe two pints of beer—very rarely more often than that because he has to get up early in the morning. He can't do that now. Because his local pub can't sell alcohol, it's not viable for them to open, and because it has to close at 6 o'clock and he finishes work at half past five, there's no time for him to get home, have a wash and get there. So, I urge the Welsh Government, when they come to review the restrictions, to think about who those restrictions are affecting and what effect that has on those people's lives.

Phillip is very careful when he's working in people's homes to stay well away. A lot of his social contact in the past would have been chatting with his customers as well as saying hello in a socially distanced way to his two or three friends in the pub. He's now in a situation where he can't have any of that. So, ladies who lunch, who are not at work and who are able to go out to have their meal at lunch time, can at least meet one another, even if they can't have a drink when they're meeting one another. But Phillip can't see anybody, except at weekends, because of the way his work is structured. Now, I don't for a minute think that the Welsh Government are intending to put people like Phillip in a situation of greater isolation, but I do urge them to consider how people live their lives and to think, when they look at the restrictions again, could we allow the consumption of one or two alcoholic drinks, as has been done in other countries. Could we allow hospitality to open for an hour or two after most people finish work, so that people like Phillip, many of them men, actually, living on their own, can have that level of social contact?

I'm not for a minute suggesting, Deputy Presiding Officer, that any of these choices are easy, but I have to tell you that I've known Phillip for a while and he's followed the rules religiously. You know, he's stepping aside so that his siblings can spend time with their parents over Christmas. He asked me to ask why—why the regulations have been structured as they are. While there is evidence of spread in hospitality, I'm not sure there's evidence of spread in hospitality in a properly regulated pub like Phillip's local, with people having one or two drinks in the early evening. It is true, as some others have said, that a small minority of publicans in the hospitality sector have allowed improper behaviour. It is true that some individuals have been irresponsible, but many, many more individuals have stuck to the rules and they've found it hard. I just hope that the Government can consider—

Can I ask you to wind up, please?

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, I'll end with this: I just ask the Government to consider whether we can vary the people who are affected by these restrictions, because some people have got more options and more choices than others. We just need to show a bit of humanity and a bit of understanding about how people live their lives, as well as, of course, prioritising reducing the spread of the virus.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak in the debate today and to support the further steps being taken by the Welsh Government to keep people safe in this unprecedented public health emergency. My heart goes out to those in the hospitality industry who've worked hard to try to make their premises COVID secure, but I believe, as I have throughout this pandemic, that the top priority has to be the protection of public health. As Alun Davies has said, the public health situation in Gwent is bleak and the pressure on our NHS is immense. There are currently more patients in hospital in Gwent than at any other time in the pandemic. There are huge staffing challenges, with staff absences running at nearly 10 per cent. That means that every day there are around 1,250 people who are unavailable for work. Last week, the Welsh ambulance service was forced to declare a major incident in south-east Wales.

This situation is set to worsen if infections continue on their current trajectory. We are seeing a high and growing number of infections in care homes across Gwent. In this second wave, my constituency of Torfaen has been badly hit, with 271 cases in care homes. Behind every one of those statistics is a family affected by COVID. We have all known people who have tragically lost people to COVID in the most awful circumstances. I honestly can't imagine anything harder than losing a loved one without being there to hold their hand.

We must never forget the ongoing impact of this crisis on our NHS and social care staff, who have worked under unimaginable pressure since March. We have a duty of care to those we are asking to work on the front line in this emergency. I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to all the NHS and social care staff who have worked unstintingly and who have sacrificed so much in this pandemic. Those staff don't need Members of the Senedd who are willing to clap on their doorstep. They don't need Members of the Senedd who are willing to play politics with the biggest public health crisis we have seen for 100 years. They need Members of the Senedd who are willing to take the tough decisions necessary to keep people safe.

As we are also debating the Welsh Conservatives' motion today, I would like to say a few words about them. I know there are many Members in the party opposite who recognise that we face an unprecedented public health crisis and who want to work constructively across political parties to keep the people of Wales safe. But I must say that I have found the approach of the leader of the opposition and the Welsh Conservatives' health spokesperson's willingness to play politics with public health to be nothing short of shocking in recent times. Only yesterday the leader of the opposition was tweeting that residents in care homes had been overlooked in the Welsh Government's COVID vaccination campaign, even though he knows full well that the storage requirements of the Pfizer vaccine mean we can't deliver the vaccine safely in care homes yet. So, I would respectfully remind the leader of the opposition, who has not removed those tweets, that the truth is a vital commodity in a public health crisis.

Yesterday, with the start of the vaccination programme, we had a glimmer of hope in the long, dark tunnel we have all been in—hope that next year, maybe not straight away but in the spring or summer, life will look very different. Do we really want, at what is hopefully the beginning of the end of this pandemic, to lose lives that we could save by taking hard decisions now? I certainly don't, and that's why I'm supporting the Government today.

The decisions we need to make in Wales about managing the response to the pandemic are not binary. In my view it is not about lives or livelihoods, but rather lives and livelihoods, and my contribution to this debate seeks to air that view. There is no doubt that COVID-19 is a destroyer. The whole process of infection, deteriorating health and hospitalisation has put our already stressed and pressurised NHS and social care systems under further stress, and the contagious nature of the disease means that a number of health and social care workers are away from work because they're unwell or because they have to undertake pre-emptive self-isolation measures. So, I do understand the pressures felt by the health and care services.

But for those who escape the reach of COVID, or who catch it but recover, there is another equally important weft to the weave of life—the ability to earn a living, to have purpose, to be able to continue with an admittedly changed life. Working from home, social distancing measures, different methods of travel, obeying regulations, following guidance, curtailing activities, shopping differently, disinfecting acres of Perspex are all becoming part and parcel of our normal lives. And to humankind's great credit, we have sought to save lives. Scientists have given their all, communities have pulled together, and many individuals have stepped up, become evermore innovative, and looked out for their neighbour, their friend and the stranger down the road.

But we must also look to preserve livelihoods, for a number of reasons: the macro-economic consequences of having an economy that has tanked; relieving the burden of support from the Government, which will have many other calls on funds; preserving the jobs, careers and wages of people; stabilising the tax base; enabling opportunity for purpose, for education and training for self-fulfilment; and, above all, recognising that, in Wales, we have a disproportionately high number of businesses that fall into the micro or the SME category—businesses that are often family run or involve employees from a tight geographical area, and once those businesses are gone, it will be incredibly difficult to replace them. We already know there's been a 41 per cent increase in unemployment in Wales, compared to just 18 per cent in England. So, in real terms, that means that there are another 20,000 people looking for work in Wales. Businesses need the right environment, and if that environment becomes unsustainable, it will not support business, people will not lose just a day's wages or a few weeks', but their whole job or their investment in a business, their life savings, the mortgage on the house and the future for the kids. The hospitality sector absolutely epitomises the balance the Welsh Government needs to find between ensuring COVID-19 is suppressed without suppressing our economic life. But I believe the Welsh Government has not yet got that balance right.

The coronavirus restrictions imposed on the hospitality and indoor entertainment industries from 4 December were greeted with shock and fury by many of the businesses within my constituency—businesses who've spent money and time ensuring that every guideline issued by the Welsh Government has been adhered to. They feel that the regulations currently in force are disproportionate and illogical. They ask, 'Where is the evidence?' Where, indeed? Minister, your Government has failed to provide evidence behind the transmission rates in the hospitality industry. When providing evidence for the Government's second national lockdown, the technical advisory group wrote that the closure of bars, pubs, cafes and restaurants would have a medium effect, with a potential reduction in R transmission rates of 0.1 to 0.2.

Now, a few weeks on, I'm sure the Minister will point out, rightly, that cases are rising across Wales, hence the need for national measures. But let's be clear: there are still massive variations, and I do not believe it is beyond the analysis to look at how to deliver targeted lockdowns to deal with hotspots, while allowing the areas with low R numbers to continue to trade in a more holistic manner. And the Welsh Government must remember that this vital hospitality industry, which takes shape in so many innovative forms, supports a supply chain that is also devastated.

Many speak of the chronic lack of certainty in the hospitality sector. They'd like to have a better sight forward than a few weeks at a time. Many businesses will have bookings for new year and will need to plan, especially when it comes to staffing and liaising with suppliers. Businesses also raise the mental health of staff, as many are worried daily as to whether they'll be needed to turn up for work the next week. And, of course, the failure of the Welsh Government to provide the hospitality industry with support before January is a further demonstration that this Welsh Government is a fair-weather friend of the business community. 

And, Minister, let's be clear. There was a disastrous roll-out of the development grant in November. Lessons need to be learned and businesses will need access to this funding in a fair and equitable way. We've seen months of uncertainty, last-minute decisions and the poor rolling out of Government funding. There needs to be a better balance in the Welsh Government's response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Welsh Government needs to preserve lives and livelihoods, Minister, and I urge the Senedd to support our motion.

Now, the COVID climate has changed a great deal just in the last few days, and the situation is very grave indeed now. There are over 2,000 new cases today, and the situation is very worrying in the Swansea Bay area, with high levels of cases in Neath Port Talbot and also here in Swansea, with the levels increasing quickly and at risk of going out of control, and many of them in schools. So, I would like to ask the Government: what in addition is the Government doing about this situation? How are they considering schools now, particularly as we move towards Christmas, given the increasing levels of cases linked to schools, with all or many pupils having to be sent home? There are 700 Swansea Bay health board staff who are away from work because of COVID.

And, of course, the medical opinion is that it's mixing with others in the home, on the street, in work, with friends and with strangers—that's what drives the increase in COVID. So, the fundamental advice hasn't changed: stay at home if you can, socially distance, wash your hands regularly, wear face coverings, and avoid mixing with others.

Don't mix—that's the simple medical advice. It's what we heard from officials yesterday. Don't mix; try and stay at home. The COVID figures are rising again and seemingly out of control. Doctors who I speak to are truly alarmed by the situation; these are people who don't usually get alarmed. I would encourage Welsh Government to go for mass testing, like Slovakia did. For most of its population—over 3 million—they tested it in one weekend. Slovakia has seen a dramatic decline in COVID by 60 per cent—with support, obviously, otherwise people won't have a test if they cannot isolate. So, also, Welsh Government needs to institute supported isolation to a far more radical level than it has hitherto, otherwise people cannot self-isolate.

Government needs to regard poverty as a pre-existing condition that produces adverse outcomes in COVID, much like lung disease, heart disease and all the rest. We've always known, if you're poor, the stroke you get is worse if you're poor than if you're not poor; if you have a heart attack, the heart attack you get is worse if you're poor than if you're not poor. That applies to COVID as well, and that's why we need supported isolation. Government can do something now about addressing poverty in this pandemic, by ensuring that people can self-isolate for the good of us all. Government could offer free accommodation and continued wages to people needing to self-isolate who have pre-existing poverty. A lot of hotels are lying empty. Think of this as an economic driver, as well as offering meaningful assistance to tackle the underlying poverty and, ultimately, to save lives from COVID. Let's have proper, supported isolation, as several other countries already have done, for the good of us all. Diolch yn fawr.

I begin my contribution to this debate by acknowledging the personal courage of the First Minister over the last six months in bringing the legislation, which he knew would be, in the most, very unpopular with the Welsh public. Where I seek to differ from the First Minister's approach is in the science, or so-called science, which he has acted upon. [Interruption.] But let me make this clear: I do not base my opposition on my own personal ability to interpret the effect of the COVID-19 virus, but on the views and opinions of a very large cohort of scientists who are every bit as competent as those whose advice he follows, and it is true to say that their views are at complete odds with those of the First Minister's advisers. [Interruption.] I will say this: it appears that many of the First Minister's advisers were amongst those who expressed opinions on the dire consequences of other pandemics, such as bird flu, swine fever and SARS, where it was said that each had a propensity to tear through the population like some medieval plague. Those same scientists even today cannot explain why, without the dire interventions we've experienced for COVID-19, they each died out with none of the dire consequences envisaged. Coronavirus is life threatening for a tiny proportion of the population. Almost everyone who has succumbed to this illness is over 80 years of age, and most with longstanding, morbid illnesses. [Interruption.] The Minister says that there are 400 in our hospitals with COVID; there are thousands more in our hospitals with serious flu symptoms. Flu is just as deadly to those who are old and infirm as COVID.

[Interruption.] If we can now turn to the latest regulations and restrictions that target, primarily, the hospitality sector.

Sorry, people have to be heard. I'm sorry.

On what scientific data does the First Minister's advisers rely? The chief executive of Brains brewery, the largest in Wales, says that, of the 100 plus public houses it owns, only three have been involved in the track and trace initiative. A deep clean of those pubs resulted in no further instances. He further went on to say that, of the 150,000 or so customers served, only six were identified as having COVID. First Minister, the hospitality industry has been exemplary in maintaining the rules and regulations imposed over the last six months. They're patently not the primary source of infections. The prohibition of the sale of alcohol, not unlike those imposed in 1930s America, are truly nonsensical when alcohol is freely available in our supermarkets. Anyone can avail themselves of any amount of alcohol, take it home, and invite around friends to consume alcohol with no regulations in place. [Interruption.] We acknowledge that there are a tiny minority who disobey regulations when they have drunk large amounts of alcohol, but does that necessitate stopping someone having a glass of wine with a meal in a restaurant? We are not playing party politics; we are simply opposing ludicrous lockdown restrictions. [Interruption.]

First Minister, as I have said, you have shown courage in your approach in the COVID crisis, now show that same courage and perhaps humility in retracting these latest devastating restrictions on the hospitality sector. 

I don't think any issue has caused as much controversy as this in a very long time, this alcohol ban in public houses and restaurants. I've been inundated with e-mails and phone calls about this over the last few days, and I know that many Members of the Senedd have been in a similar position. Can I start by making it clear that I fully appreciate the seriousness of the situation that Wales is facing, because I know that was raised by some Ministers yesterday, and the First Minister? And I also recognise that there are no easy decisions in this situation. There are no easy answers here. So, it's not simply about opposing all measures that are brought forward or, indeed, supporting all measures that are brought forward. The Welsh Government has to listen to the advice it receives from experts. That's clear. It has to look at the evidence and take balanced decisions that take into account transmission rates and the effects on the economy. That is the Welsh Government's job. Of course, our job as the opposition is to scrutinise and hold the Welsh Government to account for those decisions and to point out where we think things could be done better. 

But another key factor in all this, of course, is taking the public with us—and I say 'us', because it's not just the Welsh Government that people hold responsible for these regulations and rules, it is of course all of us as Senedd Members. That's how the public think. By and large, it happened with the first lockdown and even the firebreak, but that public faith does seem to have worn thin this time around, leaving aside the early closure issue, aside from the actual ban on the alcohol sales. So, what's gone wrong? I think the problem is that it doesn't tally with the public's perception of common sense. Why should having a glass of wine or a beer with lunch and following social distancing rules and other rules and hygiene guidelines for instance, be at more risk of transmitting the virus than if people are drinking soft drinks? Now, the Welsh Government clearly believes the evidence is there to back this, so I think we all need to see this. I know that Alun Davies has called for this, and other Senedd Members have as well. Restaurant owners and pub owners who have seen profits plummet over recent weeks and, in many cases, have to remain closed, need reassurances that these steps are not disproportionate and will help limit the spread of COVID-19, particularly in advance of Christmas, if the restrictions are going to be eased over the Christmas period. 

Now, the Minister has made some good arguments for the ban as a way to balance the needs of business with tackling the COVID-19 pandemic, but the fact is that many pubs and restaurants, certainly in my constituency and I know in other Members' constituencies as well, are actually seeing no option but to close because of the profit issue. Locally, the Angel in Abergavenny, the Black Bear in Bettws Newydd, the Raglan Arms in Llandenny, the Star of Llansoy; I could go on. These are pubs, hotels and restaurants that could legally remain open and serve food but not alcohol, but they've decided it's simply not viable. In the case of the Angel in Abergavenny, they're staying closed until mid January, because they have to place their orders long in advance. So, this is a heavy price to pay, and that's why we need reassurances that this is the right course of action. 

Will you undertake, or will the Welsh Government undertake, or the Minister undertake, to keep this under review? At the very least, I think we do need to see more evidence that is supporting it. I know that some Senedd Members have said that they have seen the evidence and they are reassured by it, but I think that, out there, people I speak to certainly aren't aware that that evidence exists or, indeed, gives the necessary weight for the action that's being taken. Even if the Welsh Government is actually right on this, and I have no reason to doubt that the Welsh Government does think it's taking the right course of action here, the danger is that the public are going to lose confidence, and I think this was mentioned by David Rowlands. If the public lose confidence in the measures and increasingly neglect the guidelines, that will allow the virus to get a foot in the door and it will lengthen the period that it takes to get the transmission rates down. We know that, in Swansea, the situation has been described as 'catastrophic', so there is clearly a massive public health issue here that does need to be addressed, and does need to be addressed by guidelines, but if we don't take the public with us on this, then we risk actually storing up more problems for the future. And let's not forget, we've got a vaccine now, hopefully just around the corner, in terms of dealing with the pandemic, so we don't want to make matters worse now.

So, in conclusion, Dirprwy Lywydd, I think this does need to be sorted out. I think the decision needs to be reviewed. We need to see the evidence cited for these measures. We need to carry the public with us, particularly in the run-up to Christmas, if we're going to slacken those measures over the Christmas period, so that we can all pull together and focus on combating the pandemic and building back better.

Can I thank you for calling me, Deputy Presiding Officer? Whilst we cannot go back, allowing the Cheltenham Festival and Liverpool versus Atlético Madrid to go ahead earlier this year was a very serious mistake by the Westminster Government, which in normal political times would have led to ministerial resignations. I'm going to quote from a peer-reviewed paper in The Lancet:

'Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causes COVID-19 and is spread person-to-person through close contact…The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis support physical distancing of 1 m or more and provide quantitative estimates for models and contact tracing to inform policy. Optimum use of face masks…in public…should be informed by these findings and contextual factors.’

The findings showed a reduction in risk of 82 per cent with a physical distance of 1m in both healthcare and community settings. Every additional metre of separation more than doubles the relative protection. This evidence is important to support community physical distancing guidelines and shows risk reduction is feasible by physical distancing.

Basically, if everyone kept 2m distant, wore masks in shops and other areas where they came into possible contact with others, washed their hands and sanitised regularly, then substantial progress in eradicating this virus would be being made. If people self-isolated when told to, again, progress would be being made. We are seeing the opposite. The infection rate, especially among younger people, is increasing, and sadly, so is the death rate. Whilst some of the Conservatives will disagree with me, I believe every premature death caused by COVID is a tragedy. One of the difficulties of COVID-19 is it affects people differently, from having no symptoms at all to serious ill-health and death.

Where do people gather in close proximity for a long period? Firstly, the workplace, and whilst the Welsh Government advises working from home if possible, not every employer is letting their staff do so. According to the Evening Post, there have been a large number of major infections with DVLA workers in Swansea. Some are going off sick with stress; they claim social distancing isn't being followed at the site. The shared kitchen and bathroom areas are not being deep cleaned after a case is identified, but are just cleaned. Last month, there were more than 40 workers self-isolating at DVLA after colleagues tested positive for coronavirus. I had five people yesterday ring my office, many of them in tears, frightened about going into work and frightened about losing their job at the DVLA. This is a Government organisation, albeit not a Welsh Government organisation. If we cannot keep people safe in organisations that are run by Government, what hope have we got with the private sector?

I have also received complaints from people working in call centres, haulage companies, and several manufacturing units, where people are working well within a metre, where masks are not being worn. This is putting people at risk. I really do feel for these people. As one woman said to me who rang yesterday, 'I've got two choices: I can either lose my job or risk my life'. And I think that's a very sad position we are putting people in, or allowing people to be put in.

Secondly, schools. Who remembers when the scientific advice was under-11s could not get COVID? Schools certainly are having cases, including nursery and reception classes. Can I join with those asking that schools close a week earlier, if only to protect older relatives over Christmas?

The third area is hospitality. That is the area the Government are closing, and I can understand why. But if the regulated sector—i.e. people drinking in pubs and clubs—is closed, what is going to be done about the unregulated gathering? How is that going to be stopped?

The fourth area is on-street gatherings that mainly young people are partaking in. Many of these will be asymptomatic but have the ability to pass COVID on to others.

I have a number of requests: close schools a week early; reopen pubs and restaurants as soon as possible, but any that breach safety are closed for at least a month; set maximum numbers for street gatherings and disperse larger numbers; work with the Westminster Government to force public sector workers to work from home if possible; work with the Health and Safety Executive to visit private-sector companies where concerns are being expressed; and finally, keep on promoting the 2m, hand washing and sanitising, and wearing a mask. You have to keep on doing that. When the Government stops saying it, people think they no longer have to do it. You cannot say that too often. Can I urge the Government to keep on getting that message across? Because there are people who haven't heard it for a week or two weeks who now think that message has gone.

We really are in a difficult position. I'll be supporting the Government because they're dealing with one of the causes of transmission, but please can we start dealing with the employment? Especially public sector office employment, where people are quite often literally half a metre apart.

Can I just add my voice to those who've said that of course we understand the gravity of the position in Wales? We speak to our health boards and we read the evidence—when we get to see it. We also understand that decisions to control this virus are not easy to make, but it is our duty to hold Government to account when we think that they've made the wrong call, and that is what we are doing. The First Minister's response to Laura Anne Jones's question yesterday was so off-key that it struck me as a sign of the utter weariness within Welsh Government at the moment, and when people are exhausted, they can make mistakes.

Now, Alun Davies, you would have us believe that the Welsh Conservatives would cast the entire population of Wales into a lime pit for the sake of a headline. I think you need to consider that accusation, because while it's patently untrue, of course, it's a very risky position for a party of Government to take when it's trying to persuade the people of Wales that that Government deserves respect and trust. Any Government party that puts itself out there as being unwilling to accept that their decisions are open to scrutiny is taking that risk.

I recognise the frustration. The Government has tried all manner of ways forward, most of which we have supported, and yet the virus continues to spread. Short of locking us all up until our vaccination appointment comes through, we will not beat it. As we all recognise that we cannot live in that way, we have to live with the virus in a way that balances the risk of infection with our sanity, our livelihoods, the continuing education of our children and the means of creating wealth to keep our public services going. Constituents will accept regulations when they see the connection between action and purpose—keeping everyone safe. There have been decisions that they've accepted ruefully, but in which they believe. But since then we've had the 5 mile rule, the non-essential goods announcement, random closing times, the blanket restrictions when the virus is not behaving uniformly across Wales, and now, of course, the bathos of the ban on alcohol sales, because one glass of cider at lunchtime is apparently potent enough to deprive you of your reason, whereas a glass of lemonade emits some kind of force field that keeps your hands clean and 2m away from your friends. That doesn’t sound very scientific to me.

Yes, there are people who flout the rules—sometimes deliberately, sometimes not. People are fatigued, as the First Minister has understood whilst he's tried to explain the spread of the disease. But you need to think now about how to tackle two new threats, and those are incredulity and resentment. Now, of course constituents were incredulous about the alcohol ban, not because we're a nation of boozers, but because of the cut-off of the main source of profit to small businesses that have already taken a battering, without scientific justification, whilst presenting another bonanza to the supermarkets. There's been no outbreak of temperance and social distancing as a result—rather a defiant switch to meeting indoors with friends who shouldn't be there, hugger-mugger, and where the sanitiser's going to be the least popular alcohol in the house.

Then there's that resentment. The First Minister was clearly irked yesterday by the word 'punishment', and I'm sure he doesn't intend to punish anyone. Let me make that plain. But there's no real acknowledgement of how constituents feel about what they now see as a disconnect between aim, action and achievement. And not just those who've done their best to stick within the rules, even though it's deprived them of the contact that's meant the most to them, but specifically those COVID-compliant hospitality businesses that others have already mentioned today. I know, Minister, in your response you will refer to the financial support. It is certainly appreciated, but as we've already heard, it's not enough, and it's not what these businesses and their clientele believe works now. They want to be able to employ people and trade safely.

I just want to take one pub in my region, which was bought by its owners with the husband's redundancy money and a mortgage when his pit closed. It's not a big flashy place, but they've spent money on it, and they of course have made it 100 per cent COVID compliant. It's a local that is popular with its older regulars, many of them living on their own. I think Helen Mary Jones mentioned people in a similar position. They've had one grant, for which they were grateful. They've applied for ERF funding and they're still waiting to hear if they're going to get it. They've asked for discretionary funding from the local council, but Bridgend County Borough Council's reputation for dilatoriness and hoop-jumping requirements for this kind of relief is well known locally. They've used their savings, and now they're closed because you won't let them sell their product. They are not confident that they're going to reopen. And this pub is also their home. So, what happens if the bank forecloses? What's going to happen to this couple in their sixties? This is why I think the balance is wrong here, Minister. We don't want people spreading COVID—of course, we don't—but we don't want them made homeless either.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and if you stay on this particular road, then people are just going to stop listening to you, those NHS beds will keep on filling up and, Lynne, public health will not be protected. 

I want to address the issues facing the hospitality sector, specifically the 6 p.m. closure and the prohibition of sales of alcohol in pubs and clubs and restaurants, knowing, quite frankly, that they've been to hell and back this year. They were closed in the first lockdown, then they reopened and they worked to new regulations, they invested in COVID safety measures and personal protective equipment and new outdoor areas, and then they shut again in the autumn firebreak and many of them are effectively shut right now. So, their concerns are real and understandable, and they must be reflected in the Senedd Chamber today.

But so too should the reasons behind these stringent measures and the risk to lives and to our NHS without them. As of today, my neighbouring Neath Port Talbot has 693 cases per 100,000 in the last week; it's the highest in Wales. The county is also one of the four council areas with positivity rates above 20 per cent. But there are 11 other local authorities, from Ceredigion to Monmouthshire, also at their peak for positive cases. Twenty-one out of 22 local authorities are rising dangerously, and Caerau—little Caerau near my home in Maesteg—has the highest localised case rate at nearly 1,780 per 100,000 for the past seven days, with 126 cases. And the wider Bridgend county that Suzy was just talking about has also reached its highest case rate. 

On Tuesday, Welsh Government advisers said the number of people in Wales dying with the virus was above what they had as the worst-case scenario. So, it is the duty of every responsible elected representative in this Chamber to wrestle honestly with the scientific and the medical evidence, not to play to the populist gallery, and to be equally determined and serious about protecting the lives of their constituents as well as their livelihoods. And every Member here, including opposition Members, has to acknowledge that the advice given to Ministers from SAGE and from the TAC group and from the chief medical and scientific advisers is stark—that anything less than the measures now in place would risk the loss of between 1,000 and 1,700 lives. 

These are preventable deaths, unnecessary deaths, deaths of our constituents, our neighbours, our families and friends. So, which one of us is willing to go back to our constituents, who've also been to hell and back over the last year, and say we'll ignore the medical and scientific advice and risk their lives, and then sleep soundly having done so? Pubs and clubs and licensed premises are not the only area of risk, of course, and preventing the sale of alcohol on its own is not a magic solution. But the documented analysis of the transmission risk in the hospitality sector, publicly available, is not simply a model or a forecast of what could happen—it examines what has happened over the last year. It says quite clearly, and I quote, 

'The general picture in the UK (and overseas) is that it has only been possible to get R consistently below 1 in places where there have been substantial restrictions on hospitality. SAGE analysis of tiers, firebreaks and other interventions in the four nations of the UK found that epidemics shrunk in every area subject to Tier 3/3+ in England or with national restrictions in Northern Ireland. All other interventions were followed by a more mixed picture.'

In addition, separate detailed scientific analysis of the different interventions in the four nations and regions of the UK over the autumn period shows again the effectiveness of only the stringent measures in tackling the growth and the spread of the virus. And this is despite the incredible efforts being made by so many in the licensed sector to make their venues COVID safe. Regrettably, the evidence is showing that hospitality settings, and the public behaviour that sometimes flows from alcohol in these settings, is contributing to this higher risk of transmission.

Minister, my pubs and clubs and restaurants now want to know more about the support available to them, acknowledging that the scale of support in Wales, at £340 million, is way beyond the sum of £40 million made available by the Westminster Government for the whole of England. They want to know: how fast can this money be paid out? How simple can the procedures be made for them? What help can they be given to identify the right funding stream and to complete the necessary online forms? Can they appeal if they are rejected or if they make a simple mistake? Will there be more financial support available for licensing costs or on business rates? What more, Minister, can be done to help these businesses get through this crisis?

And finally, can I pay tribute to the pubs and clubs and the restaurants, in my area and Wales, who have done their absolute best to run their businesses safely and keep jobs going, despite the virus? I ask Welsh Government to continue to put in place every possible measure to support the sector so these jobs and businesses are still there when we've turned the tide on this virus and we can meet again, as soon as possible, over a pint—or maybe even a few more.

Thank you. I will make the plea again. We still have a large number of people who want to be able to speak, so I would ask you, even if you're only going over by 10 seconds, it only needs a few of you to go over by 10 seconds and we've lost time, so if you all want to be called, then can I ask you just to think about that quite seriously? Laura Anne Jones.

Thank you for calling me, today. I wasn't expecting it, because you were trying to get everyone else in, but that's great—thank you very much. I was a bit put out by the First Minister's response yesterday, resorting to a personal attack on me, rather than answering a simple question—a reasonable question—just to ask him to provide the evidence upon which the latest restrictions were made. It's our job. We're opposition Members. We're in a democracy, and our job is to scrutinise and hold the Government to account. Surely that's what I was doing. I don't understand why you'd get cross about that in a national pandemic, when it's more essential than ever that we hold the Government to account and discuss these restrictions that are going out and make sure that they are the best restrictions possible to get the maximum impact.

Nick Ramsay was very right earlier; we need to take the public with us. It is really essential. But by making restrictions without backing it up by evidence, we're not going to take the public with us. We're not taking the public with us, and that spells danger, because people will go and drink in large numbers in their houses, perhaps, and you're seeing it on social media. I'm seeing it on social media; I'm sure everyone else is. This is the sort of thing that's happening. This is accountable for, maybe, some of the rise in numbers. Who knows? We have yet to see the evidence whether these latest restrictions are working or not, and the impact.

But there has got to be some sort of check on whether these restrictions are working. They are being so detrimental to our businesses, who have worked so hard to put their businesses up into making them safe for everybody to come and enjoy a meal out and a couple of glasses of wine. Why punish the masses for the few that are flouting the rules? This is not the way, in my opinion, to go about it. I don't think these restrictions make sense. I ask the Minister and the First Minister to look again at these restrictions, and either really justify it by giving hard evidence, and get the public and the businesses on board, or maybe think about changing them, and thinking again, and thinking what really is best for our country.

Yes, of course, we all are very concerned about the rising numbers throughout my region in south-east Wales, throughout Wales as a whole, throughout the UK. It is a very worrying time, and yes, the vaccinations are coming, but we must keep banging on and getting the message out there that people need to stay safe, wash hands, keep distance, wear masks, and that sort of thing, but the restrictions, apart from that, need to be reasonable. It is Christmas. Yes, people do want to see each other. Yes, of course they do, and I know that people want to meet up and hug, and this, that and the other, but they do understand, and I'm sure the majority of people understand, that they can't do that. They know that going nuts and drinking lots of alcohol is not the way forward. Some people will always flout the rules, but the majority do not and our businesses, at a time before Christmas when they can make back some of the money, as has already been said, at a time of year that is a good time of year for them—. I don't see why the hospitality business needs to be punished like this, and I use the word 'punish'—I don't think you mean to, like Suzy said, punish them, but you are punishing them and they have done nothing but abide by the rules and do everything brilliantly, in my regard, spending an awful lot of money, time and effort to try and save their businesses.

So, please, I just ask you once again: Minister, could you provide the hard evidence of why these exact restrictions were so necessary? Thank you.

The First Minister of Wales, Mark Drakeford, has already alerted us, as Members of the Senedd, on 1 December, that scientific and medical experts have clearly stated—and I'll repeat—that, by 12 January, the total number of people with COVID in hospital could rise to 2,200 unless we respond now. The First Minister added that there could be between 1,000 and 1,700 preventable deaths over the winter. So, yes, the Welsh Government's coronavirus restrictions—the new restrictions—are tough and they're tough because they need to be. And yes, although the light at the end of this tunnel is now visible, as many have mentioned, we still remain in that tunnel, and with that darkness all around, this Christmas will not be like other Christmases at peacetime across Wales, but it is after Christmas that is the massive concern, and that could very well, with no action, extend this COVID tunnel exponentially in duration.

The seriousness of this situation is further underlined by Welsh Government's technical advisory group that states, and I'll say it slowly, that if people can avoid seeing others over the Christmas period, perhaps postponing celebrations until later next year or meeting remotely, then this is strongly advised. What a sobering and sombre message that we must all consider this Christmas.

So, to sum up and be brief, Deputy Llywydd, these restrictions are off the back of scientific evidence, are proportionate, legitimate and highly balanced, and they bravely attempt to counter the unprecedented and multifaceted dangers that our nation faces. And finally, Deputy Llywydd, I cannot—and I do fail to—understand why any cognisant person in this place would not support the protection of the people they represent and seek instead to abdicate the primary first duty, the very first duty of government, and that is to keep our people safe. Thank you.

I think it's good that we are finally having this debate. One of the problems of the pandemic is that we are constantly having measures passed by the Welsh Government that have never been approved by this Chamber. Caroline Jones made the point that, here in Wales, in our devolved institution, we are, far from being a democracy, actually becoming an elected dictatorship.

Now, I appreciate what the Minister said on this point in his opening statement. These are emergency measures, but there has to be a presumption that we debate first before controversial rules are introduced. On that point, we in the Abolish the Welsh Assembly Party support Plaid's amendment 16 today. We also support most of the Conservatives' points.

Now, as for the particular measures that we are debating, I haven't said a lot about the specific restrictions that the Welsh Government has introduced. My main thrust has been to stress that a co-ordinated UK-wide approach would be the most effective way of dealing with this national emergency. This would, of course, have to be led by the UK Government. Now, the suspicion of many people in Wales is that the First Minister is using the pandemic as a way of pushing his own pro-devolution agenda. Many people outside this place have told me that they think this is what the First Minister is about. I don't offer any opinion to these people, I simply listen. They tell me that the First Minister is determined to do things differently in Wales just because he can. They suggest to me that this is because he wants to publicise and get more public support for his own empire here at Cardiff bay, and they tell me they're getting more than a little fed up with him.

But, what have his own decisions actually led to? Wales now has by far the highest infection rate of the four UK nations. The so-called firebreak, which was meant to offer a lifeline to businesses that might hope to trade successfully in the run-up to Christmas, has been a total failure. This new shut-down could prove to be the final nail in the coffin for many pubs and restaurants. What is worse is that pubs have spent thousands of pounds complying with previous COVID regulations, yet now they are being forced to close their doors again. The idea that they can remain open whilst being banned from serving alcohol is, I am afraid, a sick joke. The unique selling point for a pub is that is serves alcohol; if it doesn't do that, then it is hardly a pub. 

Now, we are told incessantly by the First Minister that all of the measures he brings in have to happen; there is no alternative. Anyone who disagrees, the First Minister seems to say, is either a charlatan, a liar or a fool. When Laura Jones asked him a perfectly valid question yesterday, he said that her behaviour, and the Conservatives' behaviour, was disgraceful. He seems to be telling us that only he knows the right way because only he knows the scientific advice. The problem is that this scientific advice is so compelling that he won't even share it with us.

What we do know from the statistics that are out there is that less than 5 per cent of COVID infections take place in pubs or in hospitality situations; far more actually take place in supermarkets. If the First Minister had allowed pubs to continue serving beer until closing their doors at six, then that would have made some sense. The First Minister, though, says people begin to act in a more cavalier manner after drinking alcohol. He seems to think that people in pubs start staggering about after one or two beers. Perhaps he should visit a pub one day so that he can observe that this image he has of beer drinkers is not really a true picture.

Young people, who may be more inclined to want to party, are not in the main going out before 6 o'clock. Therefore, the vast majority of people drinking in pubs in the afternoon would be doing so sensibly. So, we could have allowed pubs to keep serving beer in the afternoon; common sense tells us that, but there is no common sense coming from this Welsh Government. People will carry on buying beer in supermarkets and more people will now take alcohol home and drink it in private, uncontrolled settings, which are likely to lead to a higher rate of infection.

As Tim Martin of the JD Wetherspoon chain has said, the First Minister is 'talking cobblers'. Where is the evidence? Where is the rationale? He won't answer his critics in any sensible way. He will just say that by raising these issues we are being disgraceful; that's what he always says. But, if we are being disgraceful in raising these questions about what the Welsh Government is doing, then there are an awful lot of disgraceful people out there in Wales who are asking exactly the same questions. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

The residents of Aberconwy are right to query how it is fair that Conwy county, with a rate per 100,000 almost nine times lower than Neath Port Talbot, is being subjected to exactly the same prohibitive restrictions. In fact, Darren Millar's amendment, highlighting that a Wales-wide approach is not reasonable or proportionate given that COVID is circulating at different rates in different parts of Wales, is spot on.  

Now, there have been requests for evidence, and I have to endorse the comments about how rude, aggressive and defensive I found the First Minister in his response to Laura Anne Jones yesterday. Now, the evidence we've all been asking for, we've been pointed to the TAC, the technical advisory cell. This informs you that high numbers of incidents continue to be reported mainly in residential care homes and school settings.

Councillor Sam Rowlands, who has his finger on the pulse as the leader of Conwy County Borough Council, wrote to the Welsh Government, explaining that the:

'spread of the virus we are currently seeing is through household transmission,'

—the very same household transmission that you are now seeking to increase because of you driving people away from COVID-compliant and regulated hospitality businesses. Neither the local authority nor the advisory cell have pointed to any evidence that high numbers of incidents continue to spread because of the hospitality and leisure sector. In fact, what these regulations have succeeded to do is to drive some of my constituents and other Welsh residents to use public transport to cross the border to England simply to enjoy a glass of wine or a beer with their meal. Your steps are lining the pockets of hospitality businesses across the border and leaving ours facing serious economic uncertainty, and potential mental health concerns. Yesterday, the First Minister argued in his defence that the health and well-being and livelihoods of my business owners were to be considered unimportant and peripheral. Well, I reject those sentiments.

This week, Lee Waters MS has commented that the Cabinet had debated a regional approach—so, there’s some sense there—taking into account lower levels in north-west Wales and counties like Pembrokeshire. According to him even, a regional approach remains on the table. He’s also quoted in the media as stating that north Wales Labour Members Ken Skates, Lesley Griffiths and Hannah Blythyn are asking questions about a north Wales regional approach all the time. So, apparently the Welsh Government is not deaf. So, is it the case that your three north Wales regional Members are potentially supporting a regional tiered approach, or will they be voting against these regulations today?

An unprecedented letter has been signed by more than 150 businesses from across north Wales, highlighting that their businesses across the region have invested considerable time and money to make their venues and businesses COVID safe. The letter is clear that there are serious problems with the package of financial support being offered. Then we had the timing trouble, with Business Wales stating that businesses will not start to receive payments through the ERF restrictions fund until January, and applications cannot be made for ERF sector-specific support until mid January. My businesses and other businesses across Wales are losing money as we speak, facing the brink of uncertainty and potential bankruptcy.

I know one hotel in Aberconwy that has seen a net loss of turnover of £490,000 since 1 October. Clearly, we should all be supporting the calls for you to make sufficient financial support available to businesses in a timely manner. So, will you provide a heads up to our businesses so that they know what they can and cannot do over the Christmas period? I have hotels at the moment where guests are ringing up, saying, 'Can I have a glass of wine with my Christmas dinner?', and because of the uncertainty, they’re just cancelling their bookings now. Please provide us with some advice, so that at least they can make those plans. Please clarify why you are honing in on hospitality, when the advice you were provided with highlighted residential care homes and hospitals as being where high numbers of incidents continue to be reported.

We need a localised approach that reflects the huge differences in rates in local authority areas. I implore all Members to be reasonable and to vote against these regulations today. I would just ask the Minister on behalf of the Welsh Government: how confident are you in using taxpayers’ money to defend your actions in relation to my local authority should a judicial review be forthcoming? Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Diolch.

Who would have thought last summer that for Christmas 2020 the citizens of the UK would be getting Government permission to gather in family groups? And here in Wales, who would have thought that we'd be told what we could buy, where, and that we can't stay in a pub or restaurant after 6 p.m. and have an alcoholic drink with our early meal? These latest restrictions are the subject of this debate.

The dismay felt by business owners who have bent over backwards to be COVID secure, who have hung on by their fingernails and yet have been given, again, a massive smack in the teeth by this Government. The strength of feeling in north Wales is such that a group of businesses have banned the First Minister from their establishments, and I can’t blame them. Many more will too. While I note the emphasis in yesterday’s motion on the financial support available, people in the sector want the dignity of earning their own living and not going through the further stress of having to justify themselves, their incomes and their outgoings, and using a chaotic portal that may shut down in hours due to oversubscription.

And the public: the reaction is there to see on any Welsh Government post or tweet. Contrary to what some in this Chamber think, the Welsh public is not continually out on the lash, and does not need babysitting. Minister, you've created a climate of fear in Wales. The focus on the daily death toll is a matter of regret, yes, for every loved one lost, but also the emphasis on COVID deaths: people pass away in their thousands every single week and most do not die of COVID. In fact, most people who have COVID actually recover. Why don't you focus on those numbers instead?

I listened with dismay to the language used by the health Minister in the press conference yesterday, who essentially told us that we need to behave ourselves, or Granny won't be able to see in the new year because she will be dead. The Conservative motion talks about proportionality and targeted interventions; it is certainly not proportionate to shut the places that have the lowest occurrences of COVID. You are more likely to contract the virus in a supermarket or a hospital than in a pub or a restaurant, unless of course the Government can point out this evidence to the contrary.

In October—here's some evidence for you, Minister, if you want to take notice of some—the World Health Organization special envoy for COVID made a plea to Governments to stop using lockdowns as a means of seeking to control the virus. We had a firebreak; it clearly didn't work. So why is this Government doing, effectively, the same thing and expecting any kind of different outcome? It really is time to trust our citizens to do what's right for them, their loved ones, and their unique circumstances. It's time to protect the vulnerable, if they want that protection. And it's time to allow responsible businesses to open up and thrive once more. Thank you.

Thank you. And finally, Neil Hamilton.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Well, these one-size-fits-all restrictions are plainly irrational and not supported by any credible statistical evidence. The Government has made many, many policy mistakes in the last eight months, and the predictions that I made when I criticised them all have all come true. The firebreak didn't work, nor could it work—all it could do was delay the transmission of the disease, at best. And this lockdown will be exactly the same. If the justification for these lockdowns is that we've got to have as an overriding objective the saving of life, then we shouldn't be opening up again for Christmas; indeed, we shouldn't be opening up again at all until we've got an effective vaccine that's proved to work. But obviously, we can't close down the entire economy, otherwise so many other ills will flow from that. But why are we concentrating on measures that plainly are going to have minimal if any effect upon the transmission of the virus, as everybody who's spoken in this debate against these regulations has pointed out compellingly that pubs and other regulated environments are the least likely environments in which the disease is going to be transmitted? And the alternative is to drink at home and in other circumstances where there's a higher risk of transmission. As usual, the Government is taking a sledgehammer to miss a nut.

Every week, we have in south-west Wales a meeting with the Hywel Dda University Health Board, and very helpful they've been. Last week, there were 89 people in hospital, in the three counties of Ceredigion, Carmarthenshire and Pembrokeshire, 89 the week before, and 85 the week before that. Where is the statistical evidence that in those areas these measures are needed? Public Health Wales published two days ago a list of all the 22 authorities in Wales and the infection rates and the death rates and the percentage positive rates. And what is the common sense behind a policy that treats Gwynedd, with a rate of 40 per 100,000 people infected by COVID, in the same way as Neath Port Talbot, with a rate of, then, 621 per 100,000? The difference between them is a factor of 15. Plainly, there is no rational basis to a policy that applies exactly the same restrictions to areas where there is a growing need to take some measures and areas where there is no obvious need at all.

And the ban on alcohol in pubs and restaurants before 6 o'clock is utterly and plainly on its face absurd and defies common sense, which as many Members have pointed out in this debate is why there is increasing frustration at the inability of Welsh Government to respond either to the pleas that are made on behalf of the many businesses that will go to the wall as a result of these continued lockdowns or, indeed, the general public who want to have some kind of a social life that is consistent with the control of the virus, or reasonable controls on the virus.

The Llywydd took the Chair.

And the pubs and restaurants have spent thousands and thousands of pounds on trying to make their businesses COVID compliant, and now all that money has been wasted. And if they have to wait for months in order to get any kind of financial compensation, then that is going to maximise the number that will go out of business.

Pubs on the border, or within reasonable distance of the border between England and Wales, are clearly at a maximum disadvantage and what is the benefit in north-east Wales or all the way down the border areas—right the way down to Chepstow—of closing all establishments on one side of the border when they're still open on the other? It's plainly a nonsensical idea that we have to have one policy that applies equally all around the country despite the various and disparate differences between the way in which the disease is transmitted and indeed the places in which it's transmitted. 

Due to the little notice that has been given by the Welsh Government, it's impossible for businesses to plan ahead in order to try to mitigate the effects of the lockdown. It's been impossible for businesses to plan in the hospitality area because beer goes off and, therefore, if you can't sell it, then you have to pour it away, and we've seen that. The Glamorgan Brewing Company, based in Llantrisant, have reportedly poured 40,000 pints of beer down the drain last week, and there are many others in exactly the same position. The chairman of the Campaign for Real Ale has said there is simply no evidence that a draconian alcohol ban will stop the spread of COVID-19. What is clear is that our pub culture is being used as a convenient scapegoat for the spread of the pandemic. 

And, of course, Welsh Labour seem to have the perfect record in destroying local businesses in favour of large multinationals. The one person in the world who's made the most out of COVID is Mr Jeff Bezos, because Amazon has vastly increased its business as a result of the pandemic. The alcohol ban on local pubs and restaurants and bars will only benefit the supermarkets to the detriment of independent Welsh businesses. It's little wonder that our First Minister's been banned from over 100 pubs across Wales and, no doubt, there'll be many more to come. 

The First Minister has changed the goalposts for the pubs that have spent a lot of time and thousands of pounds on making their premises COVID secure. Welsh Government told pubs they could open if they made their premises COVID secure, but no sooner were they allowed to open than they were shut again for the two-week firebreak lockdown. And after this was lifted, Welsh Government closed pubs by stealth, imposing measures with no evidence, which made it unviable for many pubs to open. So, I will have no hesitation in voting against these measures once again today, because I do believe that there should be—

You now need to bring your comments to a close. I've been very generous, Neil Hamilton.

Thank you, Llywydd. I believe that if regulations are to be introduced, they ought to have some sound statistical basis, and therefore, it is incumbent upon the Government to publish that. And because I believe there is no such basis—

I did ask you to bring your comments to a close. One final sentence, please.

And on that basis, I'll be voting against these regulations.

Thank you. Andrew R.T. Davies to respond on behalf of the Welsh Conservatives.

Thank you very much, Presiding Officer, and could I thank everyone who has contributed in this debate? I think the note from the Deputy Presiding Officer, who chaired the meeting, said that there were 17 participants in the debate in total. So, I couldn't do justice to everyone who participated, but I thank you all, and I think the Government should take note of that level of interaction that has gone on here this afternoon. And in particular—and this is a plea that I do think the Government should listen to—in bringing these regulations before the Assembly so that we can vote on them, that is one of the big disconnects that many constituents who approached me—. And you can argue whether the regulations are right or wrong, but they cannot for the life of them understand why there has not been a vote on these regulations.

And the Minister, in his opening remarks—and I don't disagree with some of the points that he made and the passion with which he delivered them, because we all agree that there is a public health epidemic out there. We are all concerned at the rising numbers. Let's face it, as we stand here tonight—as we stand here tonight—Wales has the highest death rate of any part of the United Kingdom, has the highest infection rate of any part of the United Kingdom, and, as Darren Millar, who opened the debate said, of the 10 top local authorities with infections across the United Kingdom, nine of them are here in Wales.

So, there isn't anyone, from any political party, who's disputing the severity of what this country faces, but it is perfectly reasonable to come to this Chamber and debate alternatives and propose alternatives, because when we look at what the Government has brought time and time again to this Chamber—and if I just go through the autumn regulations in the last 12 weeks that have been brought to this Chamber—we've had the council area restrictions that were put in place, with no financial compensation, I might add, for businesses; we've had the travel restrictions between England and Wales; we've had the lockdown/firebreak that was going to make such a massive difference and clearly hasn't done that. After that firebreak, we had unlimited travel then on an all-Wales basis, so it made no difference what the infection rate was in whatever part of Wales you come from; you could travel or whatever you wanted to do. We have now the closure of hospitality, but yet you could jump in your car because last week the travel restrictions were lifted and you could go over to England into a tier 2 or tier 1 area and have a pint of beer and enjoy hospitality in those areas and then return to Wales. And now we have the Christmas easing of the restrictions, and then we're told in pronouncements from the health Minister and from the First Minister, and everyone else advising, that there's going to be dramatic restrictions placed on the country come Christmas time. Is it any wonder that confidence is sapping away from the public in what the politicians are saying?

I do take the health Minister up on his reference to the briefing that Rhun ap Iorwerth and I undertook last week. That is the first direct spokesperson's briefing that I have been offered by the health Minister since I've taken this role up from July. That's the first time. Now, when I compare the interaction politically between the Government in other parts of the United Kingdom and opposition parties to inform them—. If you take the lockdown restrictions that were brought in in England, there was comprehensive discussions between the opposition parties and information shared. There might well have been disagreements, but at least people understood what was happening. Today, here in Wales, we have to tune into the press conference that happens at 12:30 or 12:15 on a Monday, a Wednesday or a Friday, rather than get statements in this Parliament. And it is a Parliament that should have a deciding role in any of the restrictions the Government are bringing forward.

I cannot see why no-one could not vote for the motion that the Conservatives have put on the order paper today, because I think every Member, including Government Members, raise their unease over the restrictions that have been imposed on the hospitality sector. All we are merely calling for is a suspension of the current restrictions and an implementation of more proportionate regulations to be brought in place. I think every single Member—. Mike Hedges from Swansea said he wants the pubs opened as soon as possible, but he wants action taken against abusers of the system. I think we'd all agree with that, and we all want to make sure that where bad practice is being implement, that practice is stamped out, because of the very figures that I talked of in my opening remarks—the highest death rates of anywhere in the United Kingdom, the highest infection rates of anywhere in the United Kingdom. Those are real issues that we have to tackle, and we cannot turn our backs on the dedicated public servants who are working tirelessly in our health and care systems and in our local authorities to make sure people are safe in their communities or as safe as they can be.

And it will rely on people individually stepping up to the mark and taking their responsibilities seriously, because whilst it feels this has been going on forever and a day, we are within touching distance, with the vaccine now, of a brighter future. It was refreshing to leave the house this morning with the breakfast news cycles flowing from around the world pointing out that Britain, the United Kingdom, was the first country to be vaccinating its population with an approved vaccine that had gone through medical trials. That is a positive news story that we should be embracing. But these regulations that the Government have put on the table as of last week that are penalising an important part of our economy—a part of our economy that has raised its game, adopted the restrictions and put the investment in to create a safe environment for people to have that desperately needed comfort of hospitality and interaction in a regulated environment—have gone too far, and that is why we have tabled this motion today.

I was called out by the Member for Torfaen for politicising the situation around COVID. I make no apology for putting an alternative when I think the Government are wrong. I have outlined in my remarks that I think the Government are wrong, and I point to the fact that the health board that serves both you and me, when I took my briefing from them recently, pointed to the fact that there were eight people in an intensive care unit of 88. When I was coming into this Chamber and being told I was doing a disservice to the NHS—. No-one in this Chamber, I would respectfully say, is doing a disservice to the NHS. People can put alternatives, because it's a democracy, and I regret the remarks that she directed at me as shadow health Minister and at the leader of the opposition today. Democracy is good for any country, and that's why we're debating these points, and that's why I hope people will support the motion on the order paper today rather than say people are taking cheap political shots, because they're not, and we know the value of it. And I can see you saying we are, and I'll gladly debate on any platform you want.

I call on the Minister for Health and Social Services to reply to the debate on behalf of the Government—Vaughan Gething.

Thank you, Llywydd, and I thank Members for their contributions in the debate. I'll try and address the main thrust of the arguments put forward by groups of people rather than individually, given the number of people who spoke.

The Conservatives have regularly said during this debate that they recognise the severity of the situation that we face. What they actually then asked this Parliament to do is to vote to ease restrictions in the face of a rising tide of coronavirus infections. That is simply not a logical or sustainable position to adopt. They've regularly demanded yet more evidence; they've demanded evidence for what works, and I'm afraid that, as Alun Davies and Huw Irranca-Davies have done, in considering that evidence and quoting from it, it appears that virtually every Conservative speaker has chosen not to engage in the evidence of what works across the United Kingdom. That evidence is evidence that we have considered and we now apply to Wales, and I'm sorry that other Members do not think that that is persuasive, but the evidence from SAGE, the evidence from the technical advisory group is not to be dumped on or put to one side because other Members don't agree with it. And, essentially, the frontbench position of the official opposition is that Darren Millar, Paul Davies and Andrew R.T. Davies should be trusted to give advice to the country on public health, but our technical advisory group should not, SAGE should not, and every chief medical officer in the United Kingdom should not. That advice should be put to one side in favour of proposals that are actually not set out in any meaningful way in today's debate. I do not believe that is a reasonable and responsible position for this Government to take.

And in terms of the challenge that Andrew R.T. Davies set out at the end of his comments, it seemed to me that there were times during this debate when it was as if a public health emergency did not actually exist, in a range of the comments that have been made by largely Conservative speakers, in the demands for further easements on restrictions, in the claims that the approach does not need to be taken, and then in the claim that there is no element of politics in this. But I can tell you that when the leader of opposition yesterday said that Labour had overlooked care homes residents for the vaccine here in Wales, that statement was not true, and the leader of the opposition knows that statement is not true. It not only does a disservice to Welsh Conservatives to have your leader making untrue—knowingly untrue—statements, it poisons the well of public trust. And in the crisis that we face, we actually need to have some honesty and integrity between us, even as we disagree. And I don't dispute a Member's right to disagree with the Government, but we all need to be responsible in the way we go about that.

While I note the comments from Rhun ap Iorwerth—and, look, I disagree with the position taken by Plaid Cymru—I think the SAGE evidence is clear. It's clear about what works within the United Kingdom, it's clear about the measures that have worked in Scotland and in England, it's clear about the evidence of what has worked in Northern Ireland, and we can't take a pick-and-mix approach to policy making. We look at what's worked, we look at the evidence of how that's worked, and we're applying it. And we've published significant evidence to underpin the position that we've taken, and in fact, as you'll know, in Scotland, the Scottish National Party-led Government there have taken pretty much the same measures that we have now introduced and that we are debating today.

TAG—again, this is a point made by a number of Members—has given us repeated advice on the move from local restrictions that we had before the firebreak to a simpler set of national measures. That's the position that we're in. A reasonable approach may be possible in the future, but the clear current advice is to stick with a simpler set of national measures. And we will continue to openly publish the advice that we receive from the technical advisory cell. We have done so since the very start of the pandemic. That was an early decision that I took within the Government, supported by every Minister in the Government, because we want there to be a regular supply of trusted information for the public to see openly, to see the information and advice that we get, then making choices on how we wish to keep the country safe.

And I do welcome the fact that a number of Members referred to the briefings they've had from health boards and the seriousness of the position—the seriousness of the position, whether it's Aneurin Bevan, Cwm Taf, Hywel Dda or, indeed, in Betsi Cadwaladr as well.

We should not be sanguine about coronavirus rates in any part of the country. We are regularly encouraged to listen to a range of people, which other speakers referred to. I think people should listen to Dave and to Lisa, the critical care consultant and lead nurse who spoke on Channel 4 news last night about the position in Prince Charles Hospital. Part of what we have to persuade our country to do is to help our NHS to help us. That is about changing behaviour, about living our lives differently, and recognising the impact isn't just on the number of beds that are occupied by coronavirus patients, it's about the direct impact on our staff, what they have gone through this year, and the impact that will have upon them and their willingness and ability to carry on serving us for years into the future.

I won't seriously address the comments in a democratic Parliament about the Government acting like a dictatorship; there is some irony there that I don't think the mentioners of that word particularly understood. 

On the targeting of lockdown—the comments that Angela Burns made—to be fair, after she left the health brief, the Conservatives have broadly opposed the measures that we've brought in and, of course, the TAG advice on national measures. And I can say that the balance between lives and livelihoods continues to underpin our approach. I should say that Andrew R.T. Davies referred to there being one briefing for him and Rhun ap Iorwerth as spokespeople; I've provided regular briefings to the health committee for some time now, and it's a matter of fact that Andrew R.T. Davies has chosen not to attend more than half of those briefings. He can hardly complain about not having access to information from me, the chief scientific adviser and the chief medical officer if he chooses not to attend. To be fair to Rhun ap Iorwerth and Dai Lloyd and other members of the committee, they regularly do attend and engage in those briefings. 

I'm pleased that Dai Lloyd mentioned the socioeconomic grain of the COVID—that is very much true. It's a matter of fact that, over the last month or so, we do have higher excess death rates in Wales than England. That is undeniably true, and that underpins the seriousness of our position and why we are taking action and why we may need to take more action in the future. But, actually, over the course of this pandemic, you would have expected Wales to have had higher death rates than England because, compared to the whole of England, Wales is older, poorer and sicker—all significant factors in COVID mortality. And yet, in excess death rates over the course of the pandemic, there is a material difference, with Wales having a lower excess death rate than England, and that is the reality of the whole course of this pandemic. And, again, part of the reason for us acting is to make sure that we do not have an increasing tide of excess deaths during a long and difficult winter.

I found the comments from David Rowlands to be dangerous, irresponsible, and virtually every fact or claim he made was wrong. One of the key ones to highlight is that COVID is much more deadly than flu, and claims to the contrary are simply wrong. 

I welcome the broadly serious comments of Suzy Davies and Nick Ramsay. There are no easy answers, as Nick Ramsay mentioned. The Welsh Government does listen to expert advice and then decide, as we have done. We've published the TAG evidence, and that should be considered and not simply dismissed. When it comes to the evidence we are receiving, it comes from Public Health Wales, every single public health director and our chief medical officers and the technical advisory group itself. 

I welcome the comments that Huw Irranca-Davies made on the analysis and the preventable deaths. I know he speaks as someone who is a former licensee, so someone who understands much about the trade and the difficult position that many people find themselves in. We are doing more—and Ken Skates, doing more—about the work that we're doing to have automatic payments, in conjunction with the local government Minister, and arrangements are in place to do that. I thought it was a particularly low point in the debate when Darren Millar chose to be personally offensive towards Ken Skates, who is working incredibly hard, as are other Ministers, during these unprecedented times. 

I should really move to a conclusion, Llywydd, because whilst Members have all had contributions to make, I think it's fair to say that no-one in the Senedd, on any side of this debate, will welcome the new restrictions the Welsh Government has put in place, including those on the hospitality sector. The restrictions demonstrate what we all feared: that the period prior to Christmas this year will not be normal. This is a very difficult decision, but I am clear that introducing these new restrictions was the right decision. It is not a decision that I or any other Minister has enjoyed at any time, because we understand the impact, but the Welsh Government has had to respond to a rise in cases in a way that SAGE clearly recommends, based on the consideration of the approach in England and Scotland of what has actually worked. And in reconsidering the seriousness, let's remind ourselves again: the rate today in Wales is 348 per 100,000. There are 400 more beds occupied in our national health service treating people with coronavirus compared to the April peak.

I know that the business restrictions will cause harm and frustration, and, as a health Minister, I know that harm is very real, and I never forget the reality that economic harm will lead to health harm. Angela Burns said that businesses may not return, and she is right. However, the balance we have to strike is the reality that, without action, the clear advice we have is that many lives will be lost, lives that do not need to be lost, lives that, unlike businesses, cannot return.

We regularly and openly consider the impact of each of our restrictions on different people—that's not just in the equality impact assessment, but in the range of people and activities, and the intrusion that we make into people's lives. Each choice comes with harm. Ministers have to choose, as does this Senedd—and I'll end here, Llywydd—and I think particularly carefully of Alun Davies's comments about feeling the weight of responsibility on his shoulders as a Member of this Senedd, and I can tell you that is a weight that every single Minister in this Government feels in understanding the impact of the choices we make on the lives that we seek to save, and we seek to persuade people to behave differently. With the vaccine becoming available to help save lives and to protect people, the time that will take should redouble our collective commitment across the nation to do what we should do to keep ourselves and each other safe through all that we should do to keep Wales safe. I ask Members to support the Government today.

The first question is whether to agree amendment 2 to the Government motion under item 7. Does any Member object to that? [Objection.] Yes, I see objection. I therefore defer all voting under item 7 until voting time.

Voting deferred until voting time.

The next question is whether to agree the Welsh Conservative motion under item 8 without amendment. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, I see and I hear the objection to that, and therefore I will defer voting on that item until voting time.

Voting deferred until voting time.