Item 7 on our agenda this afternoon is a debate on petitions concerning the COVID-19 vaccination programme. I call on the Chair of the Petitions Committee to move the motion—Janet Finch-Saunders.

Motion NDM7608 Janet Finch-Saunders

To propose that the Senedd:

Notes the following petitions concerning the COVID-19 vaccination programme:

a) Petition P-05-1117 'Give Police Officers the Covid Vaccination as a priority' which received 10,879 signatures;

b) Petition P-05-1119 'Prioritise teachers, school and childcare staff for COVID-19 vaccination’ which received 16,288 signatures.

Motion moved.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer—diolch. I want to start by thanking the Business Committee for agreeing to the debate requests that the Petitions Committee has made in recent weeks. It is fair to say that they've had a very difficult job, given the number of debates that have come forward for requests and the number of petitions that we've received with very, very large numbers.

Now, this debate, the first of two to be held by our committee this afternoon, will cover two large petitions concerning the prioritisation of key professions during the COVID-19 vaccination programme. The first asks for police officers to be given the COVID-19 vaccination as a priority, whilst the second petition calls for prioritisation to be given to teachers and school and childcare staff.

These are two of a number of petitions submitted to the Senedd about such issues, which have also included ones calling for others, such as retail staff, telecommunications engineers, volunteer emergency services—for all of them to be considered as a priority for vaccination. The importance of getting the vaccination programme right is clear to us all, and each of these groups do have legitimate cases as to why they could be offered the vaccine early.

I will now briefly introduce the cases that have been put forward in the two specific petitions for debate today. The first, ‘Give Police Officers the Covid Vaccination as a priority’, was submitted by Graham Bishop with 10,879 signatures. Though it gained wider support from the police federation and others, the reasoning behind this petition was personal.

The petitioner’s son is a police officer who contracted COVID. This had a knock-on impact on his family, as the virus was transmitted to his wife, who was pregnant and who then delivered twins early whilst hospitalised due to the virus. Subsequently, his son has also experienced the debilitating effects of long COVID. I’d like to take this opportunity to pass on our best wishes to the petitioner and his family following this very difficult set of circumstances.

Members, all of our front-line emergency workers put themselves at risk every day when carrying out their duties, something COVID-19 has served to both highlight and accentuate. I want to pay tribute to everyone who has continued to carry out their roles through this dreadful pandemic, sometimes at considerable personal cost, including our police officers, who, of course, serve the public with such distinction.

Now, the second petition, 'Prioritise teachers, school and childcare staff for COVID-19 vaccination', was submitted by Jonathan Môn Hughes with a total of 16,288 signatures. This one highlights risks in relation to asymptomatic spread of COVID-19 within schools and the risk that some teachers may face from contracting the virus, as well as the number of teaching days lost due to school closures and periods of self-isolation.

I’d also like to take this chance to note my thanks to all staff in any education setting, and also to include our childcare settings, who have continued to provide vital support and education to our young children throughout this difficult pandemic.

The issue of vaccinations has had a high profile, of course, and has been raised repeatedly by teaching unions and others, particularly in the context of the return of pupils to schools. Arguments for taking a proactive approach to vaccinating school staff have included, firstly, providing increased protection to staff who come into close contact with pupils and, secondly, the potential benefit in reducing the amount of teaching time lost by pupils.

As time is short, I will leave it to other contributors to discuss the merits, or otherwise, of the cases being put forward by these petitions. To conclude, it is important to reference the decision announced by the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation—the JCVI—at the end of last week, which is of major relevance to these proceedings. Having continued to review the emerging evidence around the vaccination programme, they concluded that it should continue to be delivered on the basis of age and other medical factors, rather than prioritised on the basis of occupation. I imagine that the Minister will wish to say more about this decision and the implications for the Welsh vaccination roll-out towards the end of this debate. I want to acknowledge, of course, that this will be a blow to those behind these petitions. I look forward to the contributions of other Members during the rest of this debate. Diolch yn fawr.

As the petition regarding police officers states, they are in high-risk jobs. Speaking here in January, I highlighted calls by the North Wales Police Federation for policing to be considered for some priority on the COVID-19 vaccination programme. As they stated,

'Day in, day out, police officers put their own safety, health and wellbeing at risk whilst protecting us all. Sadly, in North Wales, we have seen many colleagues who have become unwell with Covid-19, some requiring hospital treatment, and many more having to self-isolate.'

And they expressed concern that people in non-priority groups were receiving the vaccine ahead of front-line police officers. When I raised this with the health Minister, he dodged this by instead referring to the impact on priority groups. A subsequent e-mail from a front-line North Wales Police officer stated:

'There is always a sense of shock and bewilderment when I speak to people and inform them that Police are not considered a priority group for the vaccine'

'I ask that the Welsh Government commit to giving policing some priority’— where—

'We need to protect the protectors who ultimately protect us all.'

And North Wales Police Federation told me they'd been contacted by

'very reliable sources working within the vaccination centres who advise that hospital secretaries and even social workers – who are working from home – are receiving the vaccine yet frontline policing is still not considered to be a risk nor even being allowed to use up any spare/unused vaccines’— adding—

'Even if we could get frontline police officers on a standby list, like is happening in some parts of England.'

Speaking here in February, I asked the First Minister why this wasn't happening in Wales. Again, the response related to priority groups, conflating two separate issues.

Betsi Cadwaladr University Heath Board stated in February:

'No vaccines will go to waste as we're using a stand-by list created in accordance with the national priority groups.'

As I said here, when we hear of the numerous examples of people not in the priority groups receiving leftover vaccines, surely any stand-by list should prioritise people like front-line police officers and teachers. Given that people not in priority groups were receiving the vaccine, why wouldn't the Welsh Government admit it and instead prioritise on stand-by lists those whose employment means that they run the risk of coming into contact with people infected with COVID when vaccines would otherwise go to waste?

Last week, Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board stated that they had now finalised an agreed stand-by list of staff who will be called upon if any vaccines become available at the end of the day, including North Wales Police staff, following national advice and guidance. But as North Wales Police Federation then told me, 'It's still far from perfect, but we're getting there slowly.'

We have two petitions before us today—one an appeal for prioritisation for police officers for COVID vaccination, the other the prioritisation of school staff and childcare staff. The Minister will be aware that I have raised these issues with him on a number of occasions. He was complaining in the health committee this morning that I'd brought the issue up three times in just a few days. But I'm sorry, that's how scrutiny works, and I'm pleased to raise some of those questions again this afternoon in supporting and sympathising with the petitioners. The reason I do sympathise with and support this call to ensure that a system is put in place to vaccinate people in public-facing roles—and we could add others to the list—is not because I doubt the JCVI's prioritisation list; it makes sense that the oldest or more vulnerable should be on top of the list, because they are most likely to become ill or worse. But I'm still convinced that exposure does contribute to the risk too, whatever one's age. Health and care workers were prioritised—of course they were. They have put themselves in extremely high-risk scenarios over the past year, and our thanks to them is very great indeed.

But, at a lower level, there are other roles where people face a risk of coming into contact with the virus far more than people like you and I. I've been very proud to play a very small role as a public servant over the past year in holding the Government to account, and I've done that from here. The reason I've been working from home is to try and prevent the spread of the virus and to keep myself and my family safe. But others aren't able to work from home.

We all want schools to reopen, but that means more risk to some of the people associated with that, including school staff. I understand that an incident occurred recently on Anglesey, where somebody spat at a police officer and tested positive subsequently. We need to restore people's confidence that everything possible is being done to respond to the various levels of risk. And, yes, I will fully support the Minister and his efforts to go through the prioritisation list, as it's been set out by the JCVI, according to age, as soon as possible. But, surely, along with that, we can ensure that other public servants, those in key roles who do face a day-to-day risk can also be prioritised. That doesn't mean deprioritising others, although I, as I have said in the past, because I work in this place, am happy to be deprioritised so that those in public-facing roles can be vaccinated before me.

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

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. There is of course no doubt in anyone's mind about the contribution of key workers during the pandemic. The people who have kept us going throughout the height of the pandemic in the different ways we've experienced—workers not just in health and social care but in manufacturing, police, the armed forces, education, transport, utilities, local and national Government, postal workers, essential retail, food production and delivery, all of these people have kept us fed, cared for, taught, connected and safe. And they deserve our thanks and recognition, not just now but beyond the pandemic, and vaccination is part of the way out of these tough times and the necessary restrictions that have been placed on our everyday lives. And the signs are encouraging, with the research published by Public Health Scotland last week, and Public Health England, showing significant positive impact from vaccination, and the AstraZeneca-Oxford study on a helpful sign about transmission being reduced with the vaccine as well.

Now, it would be wonderful if I could give this protection to everyone overnight, but we know that we can't do that and that we do face a need to prioritise. And, as we all know, the first phase of the roll-out involved vaccinating mainly by age and clinical vulnerability. By the end of phase 1, in around seven weeks' or so time, we'll have protected those groups in which 99 per cent of all deaths have occurred to date. I know there have been many calls for prioritising the vaccine for specific occupational groups in the next phase, particularly police and teachers, but others too, as the Petitions Committee have recognised. And I understand the reasons why a case is made for those groups or other key workers. Professor Wei Shen Lim, the chair of the independent and expert Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, recently said:

'Vaccinations stop people from dying and the current strategy is to prioritise those who are more likely to have severe outcomes and die from Covid-19.'

That remains the key aim of our COVID vaccination programme. The JCVI has reviewed the evidence to understand the association between occupation and the risk of exposure and harm from COVID-19, and there are specific risk factors for a greater risk of serious harm, and they include older age, an over-representation of certain underlying health conditions in some jobs, socioeconomic deprivation, household size and an inability to work from home. Occupational risk associated with poorer outcomes with COVID-19 has predominately affected, in the evidence that JCVI considered, men between the ages of 40 and 49, for all those people outside the current nine priority groups. The evidence suggests that there are a combination of factors, not just occupation alone, that lead to poorer outcomes in certain groups. We should remind ourselves that those poorer outcomes include people dying; we've seen significant mortality to date.

The JCVI advice also highlighted that delivery of a programme targeting occupational groups would be complex. The NHS knows how old you are, but it isn't likely to know what job you do with the same level of accuracy. The JCVI have concluded there was insufficient evidence to advise the four Governments of the UK to prioritise certain occupational groups in the next phase of the vaccination programme. An age-based model was identified as the quickest to deliver and protect the greatest number of people in the shortest period of time. And our broad understanding is that about half of key workers who have yet to be vaccinated are in the 40 to 49 age bracket. It is hard to objectively disagree with a programme designed to vaccinate the largest number of people in the shortest space of time to ensure that the most people are protected. And what we must not forget is that, for the first phase of the programme, the JCVI advised prioritisation again based on age and vulnerability. That was advice was adopted by all four UK nations—four different UK Governments, four different health Ministers, who have very different political traditions and loyalties, but we've all agreed on the nature of the advice that we have and how to provide the biggest impact on keeping our respective populations safe. And the success of the vaccination programme is undeniable and evident in both the Public Health Scotland and the Public Health England data published last week.

Now, I recognise some of the points that have been made in comments. I didn't quite agree with the presentation of Mr Isherwood's version of what's happened, because, actually, police officers have been on lists for end-of-day vaccine. In fact, I've had conversations with the police and crime commissioners in other parts of Wales who have noted that North Wales Police have actually had higher numbers of people vaccinated in that end-of-day supply. And we've clarified the position to make it clear that end-of-day supply—to make sure the vaccine doesn't go to waste, police and other key workers can, of course, be on that. I don't think that's a matter of controversy now. And it's—. Mr Isherwood will, of course, take his own view, but I don't think the facts support his version of events.

I also just need to make this point generally. This isn't about asking people to have some prioritisation, because if you prioritise any group, you are deprioritising other people. And a police officer in their 20s is at less risk overall than a police officer in their 40s, just as is the same with a teacher in their 20s, compared to a teacher in their 40s, or a post officer worker in their 20s or in their 40s. We're dealing with the evidence on how to protect people from harm, and I would need strong and incontrovertible evidence to depart from the advice of the independent, expert JCVI. I believe I am doing what any responsible health Minister should and would do to keep their country safe in the midst of an unfinished pandemic: follow the evidence, the science and the public health advice to save as many lives as possible. That is exactly what I will continue to do, and I look forward to doing so with an excellent team of people across the country to help keep Wales safe and deliver this vaccination programme as quickly as possible. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer.

Thank you. I have no Members who've indicated they wish to make an intervention, therefore I'll ask Janet Finch-Saunders to reply to the debate.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and thank you, Minister, and Members, for your comments here today. As has already been noted, the recent advice from the JCVI will have been disappointing to many people who have campaigned for prioritisation to be given to police officers, teachers, childcare staff and others, on behalf of the work they do. However, the commitment being shown in Wales and across the UK to deliver the vaccination programme at speed, and the progress being made to give people protection, will, I hope, also too act as a major comfort.

I want to close this debate by congratulating everyone involved in those programmes for the incredible efforts currently under way to vaccinate our population as swiftly as possible. Finally, may I also thank the petitioners for using our petitions process to highlight these important matters? Diolch yn fawr.

Thank you. The proposal is to note the petitions. Does any Member object? I don't see any objections. Therefore, in accordance with Standing Order 12.36, the petitions have been noted.

Motion agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.