The following amendments have been selected: amendment 1 in the name of Darren Millar, amendment 2 in the name of Rebecca Evans, and amendments 3 and 4 in the names of Mark Reckless and Gareth Bennett. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendment 2 will be deselected. In accordance with Standing Order 12.23(iii), amendment 5 tabled to the motion was not selected.

We now move on to the Independent Alliance for Reform group debate: future measures to prevent and tackle the spread of COVID-19, and I call on David Rowlands to move the motion. David Rowlands.

Motion NDM7547 Caroline Jones

To propose that the Senedd:

1. Recognises the harms caused by measures taken to prevent the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

2. Believes that coronavirus mitigation measures have resulted in damage to the Welsh economy and have negatively impacted the life chances of younger generations.

3. Calls upon the Welsh Government to guarantee that the current lockdown is the last, by ensuring that:

a) Wales has an adequate test, trace and isolate regime and provides facilities to allow individuals to totally isolate themselves from all face-to-face contact;

b) NHS Wales has a greater number of critical care beds, with ICU beds per capita closer to that of Germany or the US, both of which have seen fewer deaths per capita than Wales.

4. Further calls upon the Welsh Government to end the postcode lottery of business support, ensuring that all Welsh businesses forced to close as a result of the Welsh Government’s action plan are adequately compensated.

Motion moved.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I'd like to begin my contribution to this debate by restating my continuing thanks to all those in our NHS and other essential services, who are working so hard during these critical times. I also preface my contribution by apologising for the plethora of statistics contained in it, but statistics are being used to enforce the lockdown, so these statistics must be scrutinised and challenged. 

What amazes me is the current restrictions are the inevitable reaction of the Welsh Government to those enacted by the UK Government, yet Plaid Cymru has been complicit in the lockdowns, never questioning the UK Government-led policies, never once questioning the figures upon which these policies are based. Welsh Conservatives are, of course, working with hands tied because they cannot criticise the UK Government policy. So, both these parties confine their criticism to an unfortunate comment by the First Minister about the instant vaccines plan, quite understandable given the pressure he's under, and the slightly tardy roll-out of vaccines in Wales, which I believe the Welsh Government is rapidly correcting. It appears it is left to my group and some independents to be two oppositions to the lockdown strategy.

Contrary to the assertions of the First Minister in previous debates, I and my group do acknowledge that COVID-19 is a dangerous disease. What we contend is that this is no more dangerous than any other COVID infection, and let me explain here that COVID is a generic term for many infections of the respiratory tract, common flu being one of them, as was the SARS virus in 2003, which, incidentally, had a death rate of one in 10. What we therefore contend is that the measures undertaken for each—[Inaudible.]—COVID-19 are wholly disproportionate to the danger it represents to 99.9 per cent of the population. The rate of infection is cited as the reason for the draconian measures the population is being subjected to, but the testing regime used to detect infections, the polymerase chain reaction test, is increasingly being challenged as a suitable or even reliable tool. Indeed, there are a number of lawsuits being initiated around the world challenging the legality of lockdowns based on these tests.

Can I now turn to the accuracy of the deaths from COVID statistics, which, of course, lie at the core of the lockdown measures to which we are being subjected? And if true figures were depicted, this virus would be seen to be little or no more dangerous than other infectious diseases that are prevalent in the population every year. I repeat again, the Office for National Statistics figure for deaths from infectious diseases in 2018 was 92,000, a figure all UK Governments choose to ignore. However, if we do accept the figure's been promulgated, we are told there have been 90,000 deaths from COVID-19 and 3.6 million have tested positive for the disease. This means that even by these exaggerated statistics, we have a death rate of just 2.5 per cent. However, recent expert estimates say that at least one in eight of the population have or have had coronavirus. In a population of 68 million, that is double those tested positive to date, so the death rate can be calculated at just over 1 per cent.

However, if we look further into the statistics, this figure of 90,000 does not make the distinction for deaths where the underlying cause was COVID, and where there is a mere mention of COVID on the death certificate. We can therefore extrapolate the real deaths as a direct result of COVID from these figures is likely to be around 60,000, which means the actual IFR—infection fatality ratio—less than 1 per cent. This figure is in accord with scientists at Imperial College London and echoed by many other eminent institutions around the world, who estimate IFR for COVID-19 to be just 0.66 per cent. The broader picture shows total figures for deaths in England and Wales in 2020 was 538,000. The figure for 2019 was 599,000 and the figure for 2018 not much lower than 2020. These figures raise the fundamental question: are we being faced by a deadly pandemic compared to other years? And the answer is patently 'no'. In addition, the vast majority of the deaths from COVID are in people over 75 years of age. Against this, the UK Government itself has estimated that, over the coming years, at least 200,000 people will die as a direct result of lockdowns, many of whom will be much younger than 75. What these figures—again, all based on Office for National Statistics figures—show is that there is no real pandemic and that the undue harm lockdowns are having on both business and people's overall health is totally disproportionate to the threat of COVID-19. Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd.

Thank you. I have selected four amendments to the motion. In accordance with Standing Order 12.23, amendment 5 has not been selected. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendment 2 will be deselected. I call on Russell George to move amendment 1, tabled in the name of Darren Millar. Russell.

Amendment 1—Darren Millar

Delete all and replace with: 

To propose that the Senedd:

1. Recognises the impact of COVID-19 on public services and business in Wales.

2. Welcomes the UK Government's action to protect lives and livelihoods in Wales and to support the public sector response to the pandemic, including:

a) £5.2 billion in financial support for the Welsh Government;

b) the coronavirus job retention scheme;

c) the self-employed income support scheme;

d) the coronavirus business interruption loans scheme;

e) the bounce-back loans scheme;

f) UK procurement of vaccines and PPE; and

g) deployment of the armed forces.

3. Calls on the Welsh Government to:

a) allocate remaining unused resources received from the UK Government to support Welsh businesses;

b) end the first-come-first-served basis distribution of Welsh Government support for businesses and focus resources at those in greatest need;

c) guarantee that business support is immediately available when restrictions are introduced; and

d) develop a comprehensive plan to bounce back from the pandemic with innovative infrastructure projects and a welcoming environment for businesses in Wales.

Amendment 1 moved.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I move the amendment in the name of my colleague Darren Millar. I'd like to thank the IAR group for the debate today. The motion is very wide ranging, but I'm going to focus my comments on support for businesses and the economy. I think, to do that, I'm going to put some context here in terms of the support that the UK Government has already provided to the Welsh Government—that is, £5.2 billion extra as a result of consequentials by the UK Government to England. That's led to £5.2 billion for Wales to protect lives and livelihoods, and that's on top of £1.4 billion already as an additional budget, and £1.3 billion for next year as well. I think it should be agreed that that's an unprecedented level of support by any UK Government to Wales, and, of course, this is to protect lives and livelihoods here in Wales. What I would say is that the Welsh Government do need to do much more to ensure that financial support is allocated quickly and when needed to businesses. 

This morning, in the Economy, Infrastructure and Skills Committee, there was some discussion about the unspent £1 billion, so I asked the obvious question of the economy Minister: 'Have you asked the finance Minister here in Wales for additional business support?' The answer was, 'Well, we have to effectively put a cap on what we're asking for, because we haven't got the capacity to design schemes in time to get that money out before the end of the financial year.' This surely can't be right. I thank the civil servants who are working on business support, and thank all the staff within Business Wales. They need to be further supported. There does clearly need to be some change within Welsh Government to ensure that there's the right capacity to be able to get money out to businesses as quickly as possible. Of course, delays to that financial support sadly mean that businesses will close. Any business that was viable in 2019 should certainly be viable and be supported to be so in 2021.

Now, our amendment calls on the Welsh Government to allocate funding quickly and on a rolling basis—that's really important here—on a rolling basis, because we have got the ongoing lockdown restrictions, and when restrictions are introduced, in order to properly support businesses. Businesses also need to be prioritised as well. We need to have money allocated based on need, rather than on a first come, first served basis. I support, and I would of course highlight my own scheme, in terms of the Welsh Conservative scheme, in terms of the COVID recovery fund, which we would promote to ensure that money gets out to businesses and communities that have been most adversely affected by the pandemic. I would like to say a lot more, but I'm aware that my time has gone, Deputy Presiding Officer.

Thank you. I call on the Minister for Health and Social Services to formally move amendment 2, tabled in the name of Rebecca Evans. Minister.

Amendment 2—Rebecca Evans

Delete all and replace with:

To propose that the Senedd:

1. Recognises that the necessary measures taken to protect lives and to prevent the spread of the SARS-COV-2 virus have had a profound impact on our economy, society and communities.

2. Notes the actions being taken by the Welsh Government to continue to support the Welsh economy and its commitment to ensuring that our young people do not lose out educationally or economically through the effects of the pandemic.

3. Notes the Welsh Government’s commitment to end the lockdown as soon as it is safe to do so.

4. Notes our package of business support is the most generous in the UK and more than £1.67bn of Welsh Government financial assistance has reached businesses since the beginning of April 2020.

Amendment 2 moved.

Formally move, Deputy Presiding Officer.

Thank you. I call on Mark Reckless to move amendments 3 and 4, tabled in his name and that of Gareth Bennett. Mark Reckless.

Amendment 3—Mark Reckless, Gareth Bennett

Add as new point at end of motion:

Regrets that the Welsh Government continues to take a different COVID-19 strategy from the UK Government.

Amendment 4—Mark Reckless, Gareth Bennett

Add as new point at end of motion:

Believes that the most effective COVID-19 strategy to take in Wales is a united, UK response, led by the UK Government.

Amendments 3 and 4 moved.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I move amendments 3 and 4 formally. 

May I congratulate the Independent Alliance for Reform group on securing this debate? May I also thank them for pushing it forward a week from last week, which gave me the opportunity to have my short debate on constitutional developments in Wales in prime time, for which I'm grateful? I'd also like to say that we're supportive of their motion. Others may find reasons not to support it, or vote against so they can vote for their own amendments, but, notwithstanding our later amendments, we support the motion, so we will be voting for it.

I had thought that in our amendments we might add a favourable reference to motherhood and apple pie as point 5, because I think the motion, as is, is uncontroversial and I think we can all pretty much agree with its content. The introductory speech from David Rowlands, though—there were significant parts of that that I really didn't agree with. Firstly, I think the idea that it's not a real pandemic, I just don't—. I think that's wrong, and, if you look at the excess deaths for the past year, they're very significant—in the 100,000 region. And if you compare back to the past five years, as is normally done, they are really quite significant—perhaps a sixth or so higher than they usually would be. I don't know about other—. Coronavirus has clearly—. SARS had a high death rate and a higher one than this does and I accept that the death rate on this is not up to that level, but it's clearly a lot worse than the common cold, which is a coronavirus, and, in my view, at least, significantly worse than we usually see with flu. So, to that extent, I have supported restrictions where it's about flattening the curve, and I was against the failed suppression strategy, particularly when Welsh Government was keeping stuff locked down for longer, through into the summer. But, overall, I support the concept of flattening the curve to protect the NHS and keep to capacity and be able to deal with the situation. And yes, there are issues in terms of capacity and beds, but also it's very much staffing that I put the focus on, rather than the beds.

Similarly, I think, the issue with the PCR test. I think, when rates were lower, yes, the false positives on PCR were perhaps an issue worthy of an investigation, but I think when prevalence is anywhere near as high as it now is—that becomes now a much smaller issue, when many, many more people are positive. So, I can see why we might have talked about that some months back, but I just don't see it as a material issue in assessing the overall problem now.

Overall, I just think the problem with what Welsh Government has done and why we say we want a UK approach is firstly in terms of communication, because I think it's much clearer if people have a consistent approach, and I think compliance with restrictions would have been higher if that were the case. Secondly, I think there have been issues—I mentioned the failed suppression strategy through the summer, but, even more, I think, when we had the two-week firebreak in Wales and then that was lifted, with quite a lot of self-satisfaction, I think, from Welsh Government about how they'd done it so much better than in England. Yet then they lifted the internal travel restrictions and, at the time, I criticised them for having this border with England. Their key thing—enforce a border with England and everything will be okay—was actually allowing people from Merthyr in my constituency to travel to Monmouth, from high-infection to low-infection, yet blocking travel between Monmouth and Ross-on-Wye. It made no sense, and we then saw Wales have, I think, virtually the highest prevalence in the world coming out of that period. So, I think we'd have been much, much better with a UK-wide policy, a single national health service tackling COVID across the United Kingdom, with people coming together. Now we've got the vaccination on stream, there's not long to go. Get on with that vaccination in Wales. Let's lift these restrictions as soon as possible and look forward to the rest of our lives. Thank you.

Thank you. Can I call the Minister for Health and Social Services, Vaughan Gething?

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I'd like to thank most Members for their contributions to today's debate. I think that's only really one and a half, perhaps. I didn't agree with much of the fake news and reality denial and what I thought was a highly irresponsible opening from David Rowlands. When we talk about 'the pandemic', it is very real. We have 16 per cent excess deaths in Wales, compared to the previous five years. It's even worse in England—nearly 20 per cent of excess deaths. We have the highest excess death rates across the UK since the second world war. You cannot underplay the crisis we are facing, the harm that is being done, and claim to be responsible. The pandemic has affected all of our lives in so many ways. It is primarily, of course, a public health crisis and, to many, a personal tragedy. I'm afraid that David Rowlands's opening underplays the reality of that tragedy for thousands of families here in Wales.

But there are also consequences for our economy, society and communities, and those consequences are profound. In spite of all of these challenges, we have in so many instances seen the best of our people: individuals offering to help one another, organisations uniting to work rapidly in partnership to respond to the challenges of the pandemic. Communities have come together, and we've seen unprecedented numbers of volunteers stepping forward to support those who need help. Obviously, there have been a number of Welsh Government interventions, doing our part to help support our people through the pandemic.

Turning to a number of points in the motion, we of course recognise the impact of the virus on the continuity and quality of learning. We've always been clear that supporting education is a key priority for this Government. We have made and continue to make significant investment in connectivity, technology and learning resources, as well as additional staff, to help address the loss of opportunity to learn.

We acted swiftly and decisively to help protect Welsh businesses. We have the most generous package of support for business anywhere in the UK; it's worth over £2 billion since the start of the pandemic, and £1.7 billion of that resource is already in businesses' accounts. We'll continue to do all we can to support Welsh businesses through these incredibly difficult times.

As we continue to have interventions in place to support people, we're of course working hard on the levers that will help us to emerge. So, we're making real progress in the roll-out of the vaccination programme. Nearly 176,000 people have had their first dose, with thousands more being vaccinated every day. Subject to supply, we remain on course to complete the first four priority groups by the middle of February.

Our investment in test, trace, protect—this will go well beyond this Senedd term, but it has already been highly successful, with more than 2 million tests authorised for Welsh residents. Despite the surge in cases, our contact-tracing performance remains high, significantly better than our colleagues' across the border in England. Ninety-eight per cent of all cases have been reached and asked to provide their contact details since we started in June; 92 per cent of their close contacts have all been reached.

We're working with critical care services here in Wales, and I recognise the immense pressures they have been under and remain under as we speak. We've invested recurrent funding of £15 million since 2019-20 to act to strengthen aspects of critical care and to help redesign the way those services are delivered. That will need to continue in the future.

So, this Government will continue to take all necessary measures to protect lives and prevent the spread of COVID. That is why Wales is at alert level 4 and will remain at alert level 4 until we can be confident that infection rates are under control and our NHS is not at risk of being overwhelmed.

The new virus strains, though, add a new and dangerous dimension to the pandemic, increasing the risk of people catching or spreading the virus whenever they're in close contact with each other. That is why we are in a 'stay at home' period of time, not 'stay local'. The requirement of the law is to stay at home unless you have essential reasons or permitted reasons to leave the home.

The next scheduled review of our regulations is 29 January. If things over the next two weeks continue to head in the right direction, the Cabinet will then have to decide if there is any headroom to begin the process of easing restrictions. However, as I said earlier today, no-one should expect any significant easing of restrictions at the end of this month. We have to be certain that an improvement is reliable and sustainable for us to begin the journey of lifting the restrictions and not causing more harm by leaving too soon. I ask Members to support amendment 2, and I look forward to the outcome of today's debate and the votes to follow.

Thank you. I've had notification that Rhun ap Iorwerth needed to speak, and I'm sorry, it wasn't on the list, so I understand you're going to do an intervention. Rhun. 

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I wasn't expecting this. I'd given up on the hope of contributing. I wasn't going to speak for too long in any case, but I just wanted to say that we will be voting against this motion. I had thought that it was mostly a problem with the tone of the motion, but having listened to David Rowlands, there's clearly a deeper problem than that and we have a party of COVID deniers here in the Senedd, and I was very disappointed, I have to say, to hear that. And any party asking for a guarantee that there won't be another lockdown, although, of course, I hope that there won't be, clearly hasn't been actually taking note of the course of the pandemic over the past 12 months. There are no guarantees with this pandemic, much as we would like to have those guarantees.

We will be voting against the Conservative amendment. I don't see funding provided by the UK Government to Wales as an act of altruism; I see the UK Government doing what they have to do under the rules of this union. And in terms of amendments 3 and 4, what we have here is a group of Senedd Members who have as little respect for the people of Wales that they want the people of Wales to have as little influence over their own future as possible. And in terms of the Government amendment: a series of statements, neither here nor there. We will abstain on that. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer.

Thank you. I now call on David Rowlands to reply to the debate. David.

Well, can I thank everyone who has contributed to this debate? But, as usual, of course, the true facts and the figures have been ignored, especially by the health Minister. I have put the facts and the figures, and they are incontrovertible.

The lockdown's a result of the UK Government's total mishandling of the COVID-19 threat. In 2003, SARS, a far more deadly and dangerous disease, was stopped in its tracks by an immediate ban on people coming into the UK from infected areas and isolating those infected. Only now, at the eleventh hour, are we seeing those restrictions being put in place—a classic case of closing the gate after the horse has bolted.

However, what the mishandling did was to expose the inherent weaknesses in the NHS across all UK nations. Despite billions being poured into the service, year on year, COVID-19 has exposed a total inadequacy of critical care beds and facilities. As long ago as 2000, and again in 2007, reports expressed concern at a totally inadequate number of such beds in Wales. Given that we now see our NHS overwhelmed by just 200 plus critical patients in the whole of Wales, it is obvious that the shortfall identified in 2000 and 2007 has not been addressed. There are similar damning figures for England.

So, one has to ask: are the lockdowns simply measures put in place to disguise the failures of both Governments to address these issues? One also must ask: given that the spike in coronavirus victims in these winter months has been predicted ever since the lockdown in March, why was nothing done in the intervening months to accommodate such a rise? Every death is not a statistic, it is a tragedy for all those who loved or cared for the deceased. But, unfortunately, death is part of life. Current COVID restrictions have much more potential to cost lives than to save them.

Llywydd, I will begin my finishing remarks by pointing out the untold damage that lockdowns are having on both the economy and health of the nation, especially with regard to mental well-being, as witnessed by the sharp rise in suicides. All this points to the fact that these draconian lockdown measures must end as soon as possible.

My last comments are to urge everyone to obey lockdown rules in their entirety until such time that they are lifted, and to be vaccinated as soon as it is offered. It really is the only way that we shall see an end to lockdowns. The postmortem on Welsh and UK Government actions will come later. Thank you.

Thank you. The proposal is to agree the motion without amendment. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I see objections, therefore we'll defer voting under this item until voting time. 

Voting deferred until voting time.

In accordance with Standing Order 12.18, I suspend the meeting before proceeding to voting time. So, the meeting stands suspended.

Plenary was suspended at 16:34.

The Senedd reconvened at 16:41, with the Llywydd in the Chair.