Item 7 on the agenda is the Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (No. 5) (Wales) (Amendment) (No. 5) Regulations 2021. I don't think I'll miss all the brackets. Can I call on the Minister for Health and Social Services to move that motion? Vaughan Gething.

Motion NDM7660 Rebecca Evans

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

1. Approves The Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (No. 5) (Wales) (Amendment) (No. 5) Regulations 2021 laid in the Table Office on 12 March 2021.

Motion moved.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I move the motion before us. The most recent review of the coronavirus restriction regulations was completed on 11 March. Since the new year, the public health situation has been steadily improving. Thanks to the efforts of everyone in Wales, we have been in a position to make cautious step-by-step changes to the current restrictions. Those changes are provided for by the amendment regulations before us today, which are referred to as the No. 5 regulations.

We have been clear that our top priority is to enable children to return to face-to-face learning as soon as possible. All primary school pupils and those in qualification years returned on 15 March; all pupils will return to face-to-face teaching and learning after the Easter break on Monday, 12 April. From 13 March, the stay-at-home restrictions were replaced with the new interim 'stay local' rule. This means people can leave their homes and travel within their local area. That's usually within five miles, although, as I've explained previously, there is flexibility, especially taking into account the realities for people who live in more rural parts of the country. Also from that date, four people from two households have been able to meet outdoors, including in gardens, but there must still be no indoor mixing, and social distancing measures should still be taken.

Outdoor facilities for sport can reopen, including golf courses. They can be used locally by up to four people from two households. Indoor care home visits have also been able to restart for single, designated visitors. And, from 15 March, hairdressers and barbers have been able to reopen for haircuts by appointment. If the public health position remains positive, all close-contact services will open from 12 April.

Yesterday, the first steps towards reopening non-essential retail began. Restrictions on the sale of non-essential items were lifted for shops that are already open. Garden centres have also been able to reopen, and, again, if the public health situation remains positive, all shops will be able to open from 12 April, as they are likely to be in England.

Other changes made include removing the need for Ministers to authorise individual elite sporting events. Theatres and concert halls can now be used for rehearsals, irrespective of whether they are linked to a broadcast, and, finally, the expiry date for these regulations was amended to 31 May this year.

This week, we'll take stock of the latest evidence before confirming further changes for the Easter holidays. If the public health situation continues to be at this improved level, we will lift 'stay local' restrictions on 27 March and begin the process of opening up part of our tourism sector, starting with self-contained accommodation. Outdoor children's activities will also restart in time for the Easter holidays, and libraries can reopen too. This package marks the first significant step towards unlocking the alert level 4 restrictions that we have all had to live with since the middle of December.

Members will be aware that last week we published an updated coronavirus control plan. This takes account of the progress in vaccinations and the highly infectious new variants, in particular the Kent variant. It refreshes both interventions at each level and the range of indicators that the Welsh Government will analyse. Our purpose and approach is to go on lifting restrictions, provided the virus remains effectively suppressed.

I was therefore disappointed to hear the leader of the Welsh Conservatives yesterday claim that there are politicians in Wales who want to keep lockdown in place because it serves their power ego. Unfortunately, he then doubled down by claiming that it is ridiculous for politicians on the left who want to continue these restrictions unnecessarily. I hope that the leader of the opposition will reflect and, I hope, retract those comments. A senior figure in public life angrily claiming that the restrictions we're living with are ideologically driven and unnecessary will be taken by some as licence not to follow the rules, and that has consequences, I'm afraid. The comments were and are untrue, and, more than that, they're outrageously irresponsible. It is, of course, a matter of fact that, as we speak, there are more restrictions in place in England, and that's nothing to do with restrictions being driven unnecessarily by politicians on the right or the left; it's because we are living through an unfinished public health crisis.

We're reflecting today on the anniversary of the first lockdown. The past year has been incredibility challenging for us all—the pressure on health and care services, the economic harm, long COVID, the mental health impact, the extraordinary interventions and, of course, the loss of life. I have made choices, Deputy Presiding Officer—difficult choices—to try to keep my country safe in this last year. I've been driven by the scientific evidence and the public health advice and the inescapable responsibility. The choices in keeping restrictions in place are not driven by ego; the restrictions are being lifted, in fact, as quickly and as safely as we can. And we will continue to be open and transparent with the people of Wales. We will continue to publish papers from our technical advisory group and the advice of our chief medical officer. We are now entering the next critical phase in this unfinished pandemic. We really can see the light at the end of the tunnel, but this is not over yet.

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

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd. We considered these regulations at our meeting yesterday morning, and our report contains three technical and five merits points. All three technical reporting points highlight what appear to be issues of defective drafting. The Welsh Government's response to these reporting points acknowledges these errors, and we welcome the Government's commitment to make the necessary corrections at the earliest opportunity.

Three of our merits reporting points will be familiar to Members. We've noted the Welsh Government's justification for any potential interference with human rights, that there has been no formal consultation on the regulations, and that a regulatory impact assessment has not been carried out. Our final two merits points relate to important matters about how Welsh citizens are able to understand the law that applies to them. Point 7 in our report notes that the changes brought into force by the regulations are given effect, in large part, by requiring the reader of the regulations to read various provisions in a particular way. Notably, readers are invited to read Schedule 4 to the principal regulations as if the wording of that Schedule is different from the actual wording that appears in it. This method has been used instead of simply amending the principal regulations. We recognise that the reason for this is partly because the changes are time limited. We also recognise the pressures currently faced by the Welsh Government in this respect. However, the use of this complex mechanism does mean that it's likely that, in many cases, only experienced readers of legislation may be able to find out the true effect of the regulations, and this obviously raises issues of the law lacking a degree of transparency.

In responding to our concerns, Welsh Government has said that, on balance, it considers this is the most appropriate way of making the required changes whilst also maintaining the principal requirements and core structure of Schedule 4 intact. The Government’s response also indicates that, while it hopes it will not be necessary, the system provided for in the regulations would enable a return to stricter restrictions quickly, either for the whole of Wales or a part of Wales. In its response to our report, the Welsh Government has also acknowledged the importance of the regulations to the general public.

We welcome the Government's decision to publish an illustrative document on the coronavirus and the law pages of gov.wales that shows the alert level 4 restrictions and requirements as they have been temporarily modified. We also welcome the Government’s intention to consider ways of drawing the public's attention to this document should this drafting approach continue to be used in the future.

Finally, reporting point 8 follows on from the previous point and highlights a particularly complex maze of provisions, which are explained in full in our report. The point relates to the change made by regulation 3(2) of the amendment No. 5 regulations. So, in responding to our concerns, Welsh Government has said that it does consider the drafting to be sufficiently clear. However, it has agreed to consider additional ways of ensuring the accessibility of these provisions should it be necessary to make similar modification in future amendment regulations. Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd.

These are broad-ranging regulations, and may I say at the outset that I agree with the general direction of travel and the pace or caution in terms of lifting restrictions generally? In terms of reopening schools and colleges, I think we all see that as a priority, and I'm pleased that we have moved from 'stay at home' to 'stay local', and, though it's a matter of guidance rather than something that is in the regulations, I do appreciate the realisation this time, as opposed to last year, that we need some flexibility as to what 'local' means, and that 'local' can mean something different in urban and rural areas. I'm pleased to see hairdressers and barbers open. I agree with allowing elite sport to take place.

I'll give particular attention to allowing up to four adults from two households to come together in the open air, including in gardens. I do welcome this. This is the direction that we want to be travelling in, of course, because this is the kind of cautious and safe relaxation that can make a real difference to people's well-being.

I do want to explain, however, why we will be abstaining on the vote today. There are two things, particularly. I don't quite understand why the Government has decided to allow supermarkets to sell anything they choose at this particular point. I can tell you that many retailers see this as something of a kick in the teeth, as we are so close to seeing shops being allowed to reopen. Why give supermarkets such an advantage at this particular point? The Government, I thought, had been clear since last year that providing fairness to small retailers, as well as safety issues surrounding COVID, was a core principle around not allowing the sale of non-essential items.

And the other element is that I would have liked to see more of an attempt to allow physical exercise locations to open indoors. I haven't called for the opening of every gym immediately. I do think that we would need risk assessments and so on, but I am again calling for these kinds of premises to be able to make the case for opening safely, and physical exercise, of course, is good for body and mind after such a challenging year.

I will also make an appeal to Government to refine its messaging and try and work on providing as much notice as possible, certainly weeks, of any intention to relax restrictions to allow business and every one of us to have a better idea of what's to come, although what's happening in my constituency as well as some other parts of Wales does demonstrate that the virus and the pandemic can change direction very quickly.

Another point that I draw attention to is that we are now in a period where regulations will be taking us beyond the election period and the formation of a new Government. We don't know who will be here, but whoever is here will need to take swift action to ensure a foundation of regulations that are relevant to the situation at that point.

And to conclude, very briefly, by mentioning the fact that we are now 12 months since the first lockdown. It's a day of reflection and of remembrance. It's been a difficult year for everybody, and it's been extremely painful to many. I sympathise and we sympathise with them today and, again, say thank you to everyone who has cared for us and helped their communities in this strange year.

I made some general comments earlier, but on the specifics of the regulations, I welcome broadly things that are moving in a liberalising direction. I do struggle a little understanding why, trying to connect the pace of opening to the pace at which the data is improving. It strikes me that data has been improving beyond our best expectations in recent weeks, but that doesn't seem to feed through to an accelerated pace of opening. We had the stage 4 restrictions and the overall levels of prevalence and the various tests set seem to be much more akin to level 2, but the regulations don't seem to move at a similar pace to allow that opening up. I know there's been a lot of mention of the Kent variant, but surely that's taken into account in the statistics that we are now seeing. 

I regret—. We have some changes. I haven't taken advantage of the Wales-only haircuts myself yet, but I know some people value that, and that's one area where we're ahead of England. The areas we seem to be behind: I'm not clear what's happening on the reopening of gyms and indoor sport, or why that has to be done more slowly. I think just those small differences—. Again, the Minister makes a great attack on someone from the centre-right suggesting politicians from the centre-left were keener on control and rules and regulations. He took great umbrage at that. I just again make the point that, for those of us who are unionists and who would prefer these decisions to be taken by UK Government rather than Welsh Government, having small differences at every stage (a) complicates the communication, but (b) I think gives challenges for compliance that would be less if Welsh Government tried harder to stay clearer to a four-nations approach in more areas and closer to what the UK Government was doing.

My greatest concern about these regulations, or at least how they're being implemented on the ground, is schools. We were told that getting kids back to school was the most important thing, yet this is the third week that all kids have been back in England, yet we still see huge numbers of children not going to school, at least physically, and I would question how effective some of the online teaching is in comparison, in Wales. And we're told that people can check in, but I speak to constituents' kids who have got one day where they check in, in year 7, 8 or 9, in the run-up to Easter, and I'd question whether that's satisfactory and couldn't we be doing more on that front. We intend to abstain on these regulations. Thank you.

No Members have indicated that they want 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'll begin by thanking Mick Antoniw and the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee once again. We regularly go through areas they pick up for improvement or clarification, and I regularly say, and I'll say it again, I think that scrutiny means that we have a better statute book with more clarity for members of the public and, crucially, for people in businesses and areas and their legal representatives to understand the meaning and impact of these extraordinary measures in what is still a fast-moving picture. And we may be required to make different regulations in the future to keep people safe, but I really do think that the LJC committee is a key part of helping us to ensure that's the case.

I welcome Rhun ap Iorwerth's broad points about welcoming the direction and the cautious approach taken. I note that his group is going to abstain. On non-essential retail, we had a difficult choice to make, not a straightforward one, on whether we have opening of new areas, and that in itself could be messy and complicated, or whether we reopen those venues that are already open and that would only have been acceptable in the way that we have done it, in making sure there is further support available for those businesses that are yet to be able to open, albeit they can all see the clear telegraphing of 12 April as a date to reopen more fully. And again, that comes back to the point about having a properly phased return and being able to forecast those changes. And the phased return for schools has meant that we have had some room for alternative manoeuvre, but not to the extent that we could open all non-essential retail at the same time, and so a choice has had to be made.

When it comes to your concern about the balance of indoor and outdoor exercise—and I note that you didn't put in an absolute term, saying 'open up lots more indoor exercise'—it comes back to a point that I think you made earlier in your contribution: outdoor activities tend to be less risky, and that's why—as we did last summer and last spring—we're looking to open up outdoor activities typically first when it comes to exercise and potential mixing. That's a safer way to do this. We are looking at indoor exercise and indoor activity opening more gradually, and we of course have got to think about the balance of risk and the available headroom to us in the advice we get from our scientific advisers and the chief medical officer.

We have, though, provided a forecast for the future; we have an indication of six weeks or so of what we think is likely to happen, but we can't guarantee those things will happen. As the Member knows, in your reference to issues on your local patch around Holyhead, it's possible that circumstances may change, it's possible that we may see an unfortunate and more widespread increase in case numbers that may mean that we need to pause. So, as ever, that's why we are generally being driven by data and not dates.

I'll deal with Mark Reckless's point, and I think that when it comes to, 'The data is moving faster than our opening', I think, with respect, that doesn't take account of the clear advice that we've had and that we've published, but also the very public comments from the technical advisory group, from the SAGE committee, and from chief medical officers across the UK. The Chief Medical Officer for England has given some very clear advice about not having too fast a pace in reopening, because that would risk a significant return in coronavirus infections with all the harm caused physically, mentally and, crucially, economically as well. I recognise the Member has a desire to see as much liberalising as quickly as possible; we are simply taking seriously the public health and the scientific advice on how to do that as safely as possible as well as as quickly as possible, and that will remain the position during the lifetime of this Government.

I note that he took umbrage on behalf of Andrew R.T. Davies. I think, with respect, when the leader of the opposition is making the comments that he did and imputing motives to politicians making incredibly difficult choices, I don't think that's something that should be left uncommented on. And I think, with respect, he's taken a much broader point from the very specific issues, where I do think the leader of the opposition should reflect on the position that he's set out in public. These regulations and the measures that I have had to front and introduce—the measures that all Cabinet Members have had to take part in—have not been done by recourse to ego, but by recourse to the reality of our situation, and on a day when we're reflecting on a year of lockdown from the first one and the incredible loss of life we've seen despite those measures, I just think that it's a poor choice of tone as well as the deliberate content of those words yesterday from the leader of the Welsh Conservatives to suggest that there other irrelevant and ideological egos, rather than simply keeping the public safe. 

When it comes to being a unionist, I say that I'm a unionist as well. I just don't want to roll back devolution in the way that he does. The powers that the people of Wales have voted for on two occasions mean that this is why we're having these debates, this is why Welsh Ministers are making the range of decisions that we have made. And, with respect, he knows very well that we disagree on this, but I do object to a suggestion that to be a unionist you have to be in favour of rolling back powers and sending them back to Westminster, rather than a proper sharing of responsibility and powers across the United Kingdom that respects the two devolution referenda that we have had. And I did rather think that Mr Reckless liked to respect referenda results, but apparently not in this case. 

When it comes to the phased return for schools, we are respecting the advice from SAGE and our own technical advisory group and the chief medical officer. A phased return for schools—

The Minister does need to wind up, please. I'm sorry, we are out of time.

I'm winding up here. And that means that we are doing exactly as the advice has said. I look forward to all children returning to face-to-face learning on 12 April in line with the advice that we've had, and how we seek to make use of the alternative headroom available to us. I hope that Members in the majority will support the regulations before us.

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

Voting deferred until voting time.