So, we'll move on and I'll call on the Minister for Health and Social Services, Vaughan Gething. 

Motion NDM7512 Rebecca Evans

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

1. Approves The Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions and Functions of Local Authorities) (Amendment) (Wales) Regulations 2020 laid in the Table Office on 3 December 2020.

Motion NDM7516 Rebecca Evans

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

1. Approves The Health Protection (Coronavirus, International Travel and Restrictions) (Amendment) (No. 3) (Wales) Regulations 2020 laid in the Table Office on 8 December 2020.

Motion NNDM7526 Rebecca Evans

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

1. Approves The Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (No. 4) (Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 laid in the Table Office on 11 December 2020.

Motions moved.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I move the series of motions before us.

Last week, we saw the start of the COVID-19 vaccination programme in Wales. That is clearly very encouraging and optimistic news. The vaccination process will, however, take time, so we must continue to focus our efforts right across Wales to help control the spread of coronavirus. And sadly, coronavirus is once again accelerating across Wales. The genuine gains that we all made at great cost during the firebreak have been eroded. The seven-day rolling incidence rate of coronavirus across Wales has risen to well over 400 cases per 100,000 people. There are currently well over 2,000 people in NHS hospitals in Wales being treated for coronavirus, and we see continued rises in the number of confirmed coronavirus cases. There are now more than 500 extra people in NHS beds in Wales being treated for coronavirus than in the April peak. 

As I have set out previously, the advice from our chief medical officer is that we need to take action to help us enter the festive period with as low an infection rate as possible. Today, three recent regulations are being debated, which have contributed to our response to the pandemic.

Firstly, Members will be aware that, on 30 November, the First Minister set out additional all-Wales restrictions in relation to the hospitality sector. These further measures are provided for by the Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions and Functions of Local Authorities) (Amendment) (Wales) Regulations 2020. They came into force on Friday, 4 December, and are targeted to prevent the spread of transmission where people meet indoors. We had a take-note debate on these matters last week. So, pubs, bars, restaurants and cafes across Wales must now close by 6 p.m. and are not allowed to serve alcohol. After 6 p.m., they will only be able to provide takeaway services. These regulations also require indoor entertainment venues and indoor visitor attractions to close. I sympathise entirely with the people and the businesses that these restrictions impact. I've seen first hand the hard work that these businesses have entered into to try to make sure that their businesses are COVID-safe. To mitigate the financial impact and to support the hospitality, leisure and retail sectors, we have a £340 million package of support. That includes a specific £180 million fund for hospitality and leisure businesses. There is increasing scientific and observation evidence highlighting the role of hospitality in disease transmission. In keeping with the clear and repeated advice of SAGE on what has worked in other parts of the UK, these restrictions are, I am afraid, necessary to help reduce transmission.

Secondly, the Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (No. 4) (Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 require all outdoor attractions, including funfairs, to close. It also makes clear that trampoline parks and indoor skating parks must close. These further measures came into effect yesterday, on 14 December.

Finally, the Health Protection (Coronavirus, International Travel and Restrictions) (Amendment) (No. 3) (Wales) Regulations 2020 were laid on 8 December. These provide that a person required to isolate as a result of having had close contact with a person who has tested positive for coronavirus must now isolate for 10 days, instead of the previous 14-day period. This follows the advice of the chief medical officer and SAGE, and similar advice has been given to other administrations in the UK, who are all following suit in changing the time frame for self-isolation in their own relative Parliaments. The international travel restrictions requiring people to quarantine when coming to Wales from certain countries have similarly been reduced to 10 days. These regulations also permit a child who is required to isolate to move to another household during the period of isolation if this is in line with existing arrangements relating to custody and contact with that child's parents.

The Welsh Government remains very grateful to people and businesses across Wales for observing these often very challenging restrictions. They do remain essential, however, to protect our NHS and save lives. Yesterday, the Welsh Government published an updated COVID control plan, including a new set of four alert levels. It describes the measures that will be put in place depending on the rates of the virus and the level of risk. We're scheduled to discuss a motion relating to this plan later on in today's business. I ask Members to support the motion before us and the three sets of regulations. Thank you, Deputy Llywydd.

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

Thank you, Deputy Llywydd. Members will know that the Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (No. 4) (Wales) Regulations 2020 are the principal regulations on coronavirus in Wales, and, as the Minister has said, the Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions and Functions of Local Authorities) (Amendment) (Wales) Regulations 2020 amend the principal regulations and also make technical amendments to existing regulations on coronavirus restrictions and the functions of local authorities.

As the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee, we've had the opportunity to scrutinise these regulations, and our report on these regulations identified four merits points. In our first point, we note the Welsh Government's justification for any potential interference with human rights. Our second merits point draws attention to the significant direct economic impact the regulations will have on businesses, particularly within the hospitality sector, or for those who provide goods and services to that sector. As a result, our report seeks information about the financial support available to businesses. Our third merits point notes some typographical errors in the explanatory note to these regulations, and our fourth point highlights that no regulatory impact assessment has been prepared for the regulations. However, we have requested clarification of when the Government intends to publish its summary integrated impact assessment.

I turn now to the second set of regulations, the Health Protection (Coronavirus, International Travel and Restrictions) (Amendment) (No. 3) (Wales) Regulations 2020, which, as the Minister said, came into force on 10 December. They also amend the principal regulations as well as the international travel regulations. Our three reporting points cover familiar ground, noting the Welsh Government's justification for any potential interference with human rights, that there's been no formal consultation on the regulations, and, finally, that there is no equality impact assessment for these regulations.

Turning now to the Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (No. 4) (Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2020, which again also amend the principal regulations and came into force yesterday, the first of our two reporting points notes the Welsh Government's comments in the explanatory memorandum regarding the human rights impact of these regulations. However, we have noted that the comments in the explanatory memorandum amount to just the statement that the regulations are justified and proportionate. There is no analysis of how that conclusion was reached. Our second reporting point noted the lack of formal consultation on the regulations, although recognising the circumstances in which these regulations have been brought forward. Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd.

I thank the Minister for moving the regulations this afternoon. For those watching our proceedings this afternoon, they might find it slightly bizarre—and this is a debate that we've had several times in this Chamber—that we are voting to give enforcement, or give power, to the regulations that have been in existence nearly two weeks now, and actually will be reviewed on Friday, as I understand it, under the normal Welsh Government procedures.

It's a long-standing position from the Welsh Conservative benches that we will be voting against item 5, which affects the hospitality sector. We do note that the travel restrictions that the Welsh Government have modified during the period do allow for travel into England into tier 2 and tier 1 areas, where Welsh residents could enjoy hospitality and then travel back into Wales—something I wouldn't recommend, but it does allow it in the recommendations. And we do disagree with the Welsh-wide nature of the restrictions, given the various levels of infection around the country, in particular in north-west Wales, where there would be the ability for some of these hospitality venues to carry on trading if the rules allowed that to be. So, we will be voting against that. We also note that much of the hospitality that people enjoy in licensed premises has moved into private settings, and previous evidence has indicated that those private settings indicate avoidance of the rules and greater transmission rates.

Item 6: we believe this is a sensible and precautionary measure, lowering the isolation period from 14 days to 10 days, and we believe the evidence supports this. However, there's a genuine problem about people sticking to the isolation rules. I think in some instances only 20 per cent of the population are actually agreeing to self-isolate, and I'd be interested to hear the Minister's response as to what measures the Welsh Government in messaging is trying to undertake to try and get greater adherence to the rules of self-isolation. I do note the story that's running today about Transport for Wales, which is a Government-owned business, instructing some of its members of staff to switch off the test, trace and protect app that is available so that the business can carry on functioning. So, I'd welcome the Minister talking about that particular instruction from a Welsh Government company to its employees.

Item 7 we'll be abstaining on, because whilst we can understand the sentiments behind some of these instructions on item 7, we do believe that, again, because it's an all-Wales approach, we think that some of the evidence points that some areas could allow for some of these attractions to carry on providing hospitality facilities for outdoor events, skate parks and trampolines where infection rates are low. Rather than the all-Wales approach, we believe that it would be far better to do a more localised approach on this particular aspect, and that's why we'll be abstaining, because obviously these organised events take risk assessments, and people obviously will continue to travel to certain areas of Wales, and where they can be accommodated in a safe environment, we believe that it might be sensible to allow some of these attractions to continue. So that's why, as Welsh Conservatives, we'll be abstaining on item 7.

I'd be grateful if the Minister possibly could talk to the new variant virus, N501, which I appreciate isn't affected by these restrictions, but might affect new restrictions that are brought forward, because I note that we haven't had a comment on the floor of the Chamber about this new variant of the virus, which ultimately has had an impact on our understanding of the virus across the UK. This isn't just a Wales issue, and so it would be helpful at the end of his summing up on these restrictions if he could give us some information as to how restrictions might have to be modified to accommodate the new variant, which we understand obviously assists in speeding up the transmission of the virus in communities, not just in Wales, but in other parts of the United Kingdom. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer.

I'll deal with the regulations in turn. Item 5 first of all, the item that's been debated most. Indeed, it was the subject of a debate here in the Senedd last week, and because of that I will keep my comments brief. My views are on the record already, as are Plaid Cymru's, and I will speak more on our position on the latest situation regarding the pandemic in the debate on the new coronavirus restrictions under item 17 this afternoon.

Our views on the first set of regulations haven't changed. We abstained last week, not because we oppose restrictions—we can see the gravity of the situation in many parts of Wales, and I made it clear that we were supportive of taking serious steps to respond to that and to prevent further spread—but it was the lack of logic of certain elements that concerned us, the total ban on alcohol and the fact that places such as restaurants would have to close very early in the evening, where the evidence on the role of such places in the spread of the virus is not particularly strong. Our concern, simply—and this applies to all the regulations that we are discussing—is that if people can't see the rationale of the steps taken, that undermines trust in Government and the ability of Government to deal with the pandemic. The rationale is questioned most in those areas that have a relatively low number of cases. No area can consider themselves safe, obviously, but it does add to the argument in terms of varying the response from one area to another, and we can discuss that later on today.

In terms of item 6, we will support that. The evidence seems robust in terms of justifying the reduction in the self-isolation period after having travelled abroad from 14 to 10 days. There is clear justification for allowing a child that is self-isolating to move between the homes of two parents, for example.

Moving on to item 7, we will support—and I note that the Conservatives have said that they will abstain—we will support because we need these regulations in place in order to introduce changes that are entirely reasonable to my eyes: the need, although nobody would want to be in this situation, to close indoor attractions, cinemas and so on, galleries, museums and so on and so forth.

But I do have a concern about certain outdoor attractions, where I think that the evidence for fresh air and its role in the response to this pandemic is very strong now. I have an e-mail, as it happens it’s from my constituency, but it’s representative of what’s happening elsewhere too. I know of a business that runs boat trips from Anglesey that had sold a high number of tickets for trips over the Christmas period. They are now having to repay their clients and they say, ‘Well, yes, we’re playing our part’ and they understand the gravity of the situation, as do we all, but once again they make the point that they need more intensive support and financial support for businesses, that they need more notice, that they need more information about what’s happening. This business owner says that many businesses that he speaks to still don’t know that there is a requirement for them to close. So, this message is arising time and time again during this pandemic: 'There is a lack of clarity in this case. Why do we need to close? Surely we’ve done everything we need to do, but we accept that we have to close, so please make sure that the communication is better at all levels.'

But, as I say, there are parts of the regulations that are important, so we will support, but with that appeal once again, to the Government, that you must get the communication right.

Thank you. No Member has indicated they wish to make an intervention, therefore I'll call on the Minister for Health and Social Services to reply to the debate. Vaughan Gething. 

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I thank the Chair of the committee for his as ever constructive comments and points for us to respond to, not just today. But I think it may be best if I write to the committee to deal with all of the comments that he's made to respect the level of detail that he's gone through. And we do want to make sure that as we need to continue to act, and we'll need to continue to act for several months more at the very least, that we do take account of the helpful points made in scrutiny about how we get the regulations right in terms of their legal meaning, and also dealing with the points about communication that Rhun ap Iorwerth finished on. 

Of course, the reality is that we are making these regulations in accordance with the rules of this institution. This is made affirmative legislation, exactly as we have done throughout the course of this crisis, and I do feel that the points that Andrew R.T. Davies makes don't take account of the fact that we had months and months of legislating in this way. I don't think there's anything unusual about it; it's the reality that we're having to take extraordinary measures to respond, and to use the extraordinary procedures that this Parliament has in place to do so. We're in the middle of an accelerating wave of coronavirus. If we were to say that the Government was not entitled to act, the Government was not able to act to protect people across Wales as the position changed without having an affirmative resolution beforehand, then we would undoubtedly make the position of the people of Wales less safe, and this Government would be less able to keep our people safe. I don't understate the seriousness of the reality that the Government is legislating first then asking for endorsement afterwards, but that is, I'm afraid, the reality of the seriousness of the position. It also, of course, in terms of the gap, allows the committee chaired by Mick Antoniw to provide their scrutiny reports for Members to consider.

I welcome the support that the Conservative spokesperson indicated for the move to 10 days on self-isolation in terms of improving messaging. That is part of what we are constantly striving to do all the time. I think we've been very clear about the messages we have. There is new information available from Welsh Government today in terms of the broader messaging about coronavirus and Christmas, and asking people to do the right thing. I think Members across parties should be able to look at that and, hopefully, share it and encourage constituents across the country of all and any political persuasion to think again about all the choices that we're making. You'll hear Ministers from every one of the four Governments in the United Kingdom asking people right across the UK to do just that.

And on the app, I haven't seen the story he refers to about Transport for Wales, but I'm very clear that the app should continue to be used and would encourage as many people to download it as possible. I don't believe that any business should be asking anybody to remove the app because it would affect the operation of their business. It's there to help keep people safe, including the people who you would work alongside in a business, if you were advised to self-isolate because of the risk that has been presented to you and potentially your fellow workers, and I don't think we can be any clearer about that.

On your continued request for a limited and targeted approach, it's never really clear what that actually means, but it's always been the case, ever since you've started calling for that particular approach from your return to this position on the Conservative front bench, that we've had very clear advice from the technical advisory group that all-Wales measures at this point in time are appropriate, simpler and easier for the public to understand and adhere to and follow—simpler and easier for all of us to be able to act together to help protect Wales. Look, I appreciate that he has a different view, but we have very clear, and published—regularly published—advice that underscores the Government's position.

On the new variant, yes, I'm aware we do have a handful of cases already within Wales. I expect to have more information in the coming days as we do more genomic sequencing from test results here in Wales, and Public Health Wales will provide more information when that is available. It isn't clear whether the new variant really is one that spreads more rapidly, but, in any event, we know that coronavirus does spread rapidly with the variants we've already been aware of. The positive news is that we don't believe that this particular variant would affect the efficacy of a vaccine, which was the main concern about the mink variant from Denmark that caused extraordinary measures to be taken very late at night on a weekend, as I and Welsh Government officials know, before we came to this Parliament to ask for approval.

On your broader point about opposing a range of restrictions, I really do think it is extraordinary to continue to oppose restrictions, given the ongoing position and the seriousness within which we find ourselves as a country. At best, I think it's tone deaf to demand improvements whilst opposing measures to deliver improvements that are evidenced by an evidence review from not only our technical advisory group, but also SAGE, on a repeated number of occasions as well. I think people in Wales should take comfort in the fact that we are taking our public health advice from SAGE, from TAG, from our own chief medical officer, and, in doing so, we're supported in taking those measures by the broad approach of every single chief medical officer across the United Kingdom in doing so, and I think that will be the main source of the advice that I take on public health, as opposed to the individual view of Mr Davies.

On Rhun ap Iorwerth's point about the logic, the evidence of what works across the UK is the logic for why we introduced these restrictions, and again, that same evidence from SAGE and TAC—hard evidence of what works. So, that's why we've introduced these restrictions. On your broader point about communication, we constantly look at how we try to have a message that is clear and simple, in amongst the noise that exists, with all the more contested environments, within the political atmosphere, but also within a range of social media and other channels, and the way in which we are looking to try to recover, where we can do, a more consistent four-nations approach with messaging for the public.

It's about how we help people to make choices, but ultimately the Government has responsibilities that we need to meet, and then all of us, every single one of us in the country, have responsibilities to consider what we should do to keep ourselves and each other safe. We are still in the middle of a significant and unfinished pandemic that will take the lives of many more Welsh citizens before this is over. That helps to underscore why these measures remain important and why they are a proportionate response to the level of threat that we all face. I ask Members to support the regulations today.

Thank you. The proposal is to agree the motion under item 5. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Therefore, we defer voting under this item until voting time.

Voting deferred until voting time.

The proposal is to agree the motion under item 6. Does any Member object? No. Therefore the motion is agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Motion agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

The proposal is to agree the motion under item 7. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Therefore, I defer voting under this item until voting time.

Voting deferred until voting time.