The next item is the Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (No. 5) (Wales) (Amendment) (No. 17) Regulations 2021. I call on the Minister for Health and Social Services to move the motion—Eluned Morgan.

Motion NDM7789 Lesley Griffiths

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

1. Approves that the draft The Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (No. 5) (Wales) (Amendment) (No. 17) Regulations 2021 is made in accordance with the draft laid in the Table Office on 27 September 2021.

Motion moved.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. I move the motion before us. The Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (No.5) (Wales) Regulations 2020 put in place the legislative framework for the alert levels described in the coronavirus control plan. Officials are working hard to update the current control plan to cover the autumn and winter period. Across Wales we’ve recently seen transmission of COVID-19 increase, as has the percentage of people testing positive. While evidence continues to indicate that the link between cases and hospitalisations has weakened thanks to the vaccination programme, it has not been broken. Pressure on hospitals has been rising steadily and wider pressures continue to impact our health and social care system.

The First Minister was clear in his announcement on 17 September that, whilst we’re able to remain at alert level 0, there is a need to take early action to avoid longer term harms. On 27 September, draft amended regulations were laid that will require people to show an NHS COVID pass that will prove that they’ve been double vaccinated or demonstrate that they can produce a negative lateral flow test in the last 48 hours. They will need to produce this if they want to enter the following venues and events from 11 October: nightclubs and similar venues; indoor, non-seated events for more than 500 people, where people are mixing closely for prolonged periods; outdoor non-seated events for more than 4,000 people, where people will be mixing closely for prolonged periods; and any event of any nature that has more than 10,000 people in attendance. My officials have been working with stakeholders to ensure that they are ready to implement the systems next week, and we’ve prepared guidance to help the public understand why and how the system will work.

Llywydd, let me be clear: the COVID pass has already been used in Wales for some events over the summer, and some premises already require the pass to be shown as a condition of entry. This is not a vaccine passport, and people will have the opportunity to show that they've been fully vaccinated or they can provide evidence of a negative lateral flow test 48 hours before an event. I'm aware that the COVID pass currently states 'valid in England'. This is unfortunate and reflects the fact that we share the infrastructure with the UK Government. This wording will change before the system becomes mandatory in Wales. We are developing a Wales NHS app that will include our own NHS COVID pass as part of the digital services for patients and the public being delivered by Digital Health and Care Wales. This will be available early in 2022, and this will be available in Welsh as well.

Marriage, civil partnership and alternative wedding receptions, together with wakes, will be exempt from the COVID pass requirements, together with protests and mass participation events. I'm aware there have been some teething problems with the system in Scotland. Here in Wales, the COVID pass is already being used extensively, as it is in England. The NHS COVID pass has been in use in Wales for four months already, and has been downloaded and used by thousands of people already to access events and to travel abroad. We already have clear instructions on gov.wales on how to access the pass, and we'll continue to raise awareness of the use of the pass in future communications.

Can I be clear? We haven't taken the decision to introduce such measures lightly. Where we know that the rates amongst those under 25 are around 1,000 per 100,000 people, and that this age group is the most likely to attend some of these venues, in particular nightclubs, we are taking these measures to support venues to stay open and enable events to continue taking place through a potentially very difficult and challenging autumn and winter. Keeping these venues open is not an easy decision in the light of such high COVID rates.

As we head into winter, it's vital that we all work together to keep Wales safe. I'm pleased we've had the opportunity to debate this motion today, and I look forward to hearing Members' contributions. I urge Members to support the motion to keep Wales safe this autumn and winter. Diolch.

Just earlier this year, the First Minister, also in the Chamber this afternoon as well, stated that the Welsh Government had no intention or plans to introduce vaccine passports for venues here in Wales. We are now in a positive position where 70 per cent of the entire population of Wales are now fully vaccinated. I feel quite strongly about this, but I just do not think that we should become a checkpoint society by introducing a vaccine passport. [Interruption.]

Carry on.

There is a wide range of ethical, equality, privacy, legal and operational ramifications of COVID passports. [Interruption.] I hear some Labour Members chuntering in the background, but it was the First Minister himself—and the Minister herself—who have said these are finely balanced decisions. [Interruption.] So, take that into account. I don't mind taking an intervention.

The Home Secretary, speaking at the Conservative conference today, outlined plans to prevent people moving freely around the United Kingdom if their intention is to take part in a protest. If you do not believe in a checkpoint society, I'm sure you will join us in opposing such a draconian law.

I am pleased that the Labour Member supports the fact that a checkpoint society is the wrong approach, so I look forward to him voting against the regulations this afternoon.

There is a real risk here that the implementation of COVID passes could be a complete disaster. In Scotland, we have seen the roll-out has been a disaster there—I don't use that word lightly; it has been a disaster there—and the Labour Party conference in Brighton was plagued with problems; we know that as well. The Welsh Government—I would really urge them to think again before bringing forward these regulations.

The roll-out of the vaccination programme has been a success across the UK and here in Wales, and that is to the credit of our key workers across the UK. The majority of the UK population are now vaccinated. So, all this amazing effort, I think, negates the need for COVID passes, which impact so much on people's freedoms. I have to say, as well, I've had contacts from groups this week, from those representing disability groups, those with disabilities and those that are unable to take the vaccination, about the consequences on those people as well. We mustn't become a two-tiered society, and this is—[Interruption.] Yes, I do, Joyce Watson. Yes, I believe that we will become a two-tiered society, and this is what this issue is, Joyce. You need to listen to this debate this afternoon. The introduction of this policy puts Wales at a real risk of becoming exactly that, and it simply undermines the freedom of choice. I don't think this is a party political issue as well; I think that views across this transcend party lines. 

I listened to what the Minister said in her opening comments about that particular age group as well, those under-25s, but I note that the Welsh Government's own technical advisory cell advises against using vaccination passports, stating that the studies have shown that their use could backfire. The study produced many points as to why vaccine passports are a bad idea. This is the Welsh Government's own technical advisory cell. They concluded that they have had a detrimental effect on people's motivation and willingness to have the vaccination. And's it's important to note that the study also said that vaccination passports will have an effect on people's relationship with local government and health authorities as well. We don't want people to lose that trust in Government officials or our health boards and our health and care workers. We don't want that to happen, and we don't want to have a checkpoint society.

I really think that these regulations will be a stumbling block to so many groups of people, and I think there's a real danger here if they are agreed this afternoon, which is why I strongly urge Members to vote against these regulations today. Diolch yn fawr.

It was my mistake not to call the Chair of the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee to contribute before the party representatives. So, I call on the Chair now, and then I'll come to Plaid Cymru next. Huw Irranca-Davies.

Thank you very much, Llywydd. We considered these regulations at our meeting yesterday, and laid our report immediately afterwards to inform this afternoon's debate. I thank the committee's legal advisers for turning around their analysis so swiftly.

I also thank my committee colleagues for their diligent scrutiny. We've noted what will now be familiar points in relation to the instrument's potential interference with human rights and the lack of formal consultation. We also noticed that there was no equality impact assessment for the regulations, and acknowledged the reasoning for this, as set out in the explanatory memorandum. I acknowledge the further information on these matters that the Welsh Government has now provided in its response to our report.

In addition to our more common reporting points, we noted that the explanatory memorandum refers to taking scientific advice into account and, in particular, advice from SAGE on the importance of acting early. In our report, we highlighted that that the explanatory memorandum does not, however, contain any specific reference to the evidence on which the Welsh Government relies when making provision under this instrument. We therefore asked the Welsh Government to set out two additional things. First, we asked the Welsh Government to set out the evidence that shows that requiring certain settings to check evidence of vaccination, prior coronavirus infection or a recent negative test result will

'slow down a growing epidemic'.

Secondly, we asked how the Welsh Government will monitor the effectiveness of requiring certain settings to carry out these checks.

I note and welcome the response we have received from the Welsh Government on these points. While we appreciate the overall context within which these changes to the law are drafted, I remind the Welsh Government respectfully that the information provided to my committee on request should have been included in the original explanatory memorandum for the benefit of all Members of the Senedd and members of the public. Therefore, I would ask the Welsh Government to reflect on this to improve the level of information in all future explanatory memoranda. Thank you very much, Llywydd.

A few words on matters of principle, first of all, in principle, and I think this is something that we in Plaid Cymru have shown time and time again during the course of the pandemic, we have been ready to support the introduction of a range of measures to control and limit the transmission of the virus. Indeed, we've been encouraging the implementation of such measures, and it's been true in situations where sometimes quite severe limitations have been imposed on our freedom. That kind of curtailing of liberties is something not to be taken lightly, and it'll be our job as legislators to ensure that those freedoms are restored as quickly as possible.

When we have backed restrictions, it's been when (a) we're convinced that the evidence is clear on the positive impact those measures would have and (b) that they can be implemented in practice. The principle, therefore, is: back what works. So, the principle in this case is: is there an argument for the introduction of a measure in some circumstances that shows that an individual is likely to be less infectious? My response to that question is, 'Yes, there is.' In fact, Scottish Government is in the process of introducing a system whereby individuals have to show proof of vaccination; the UK Conservative Government is considering such a scheme in a plan B for the winter period; France and Israel are among many countries that have either already introduced or are working on some sort of COVID passport scheme. It's also something that's emerged in some specific sectors, for international travel, for example. Many event organisers across the UK have introduced voluntary schemes. So, though not everybody supports it, that principle, I'd argue, is something that is well established.

But today, we're not being asked to vote on a principle, we're voting on a specific set of regulations, and I'm afraid that those regulations, at this point, as they stand, raise more questions than they provide answers. I look at a number of elements. Some countries, as I mentioned, have already gone down the COVID passports/vaccine passports routes; what we have here is a hybrid scheme where proof of vaccination is only part of what can be offered as evidence that an individual is less infectious. They can also show that they've had COVID in recent months or register a lateral flow test result. Now, LFTs are very, very useful, as quick, self-administered tests that can give a good indication of whether somebody may be infectious, but because of very well-known issues around their accuracy as tests, coupled with the fact that there's no control whatsoever on the accuracy of registering the results, I think there are real questions here around their validity for this particular purpose. That then raises questions around the creation of a false sense of security for people attending events, and, yes, a new law is proposed here making it an offence to falsify results, but I'm not convinced about the policing of that, and what about some of that emerging evidence suggesting that allowing the lateral flow test option could be a disincentive for people, young people perhaps, to be vaccinated?

Now, as I stated earlier and as emphasised by the Chair of the legislation scrutiny committee, probably the key issue to consider when looking at proposals of this nature is evidence around their likely effectiveness. Now, thanks to teams of scientists that directly advise Government or other teams of researchers, a plethora of them around the world, we have become used, during this pandemic, to being able to look at and assess in detail solid evidence, modelling of likely impacts. I'm very grateful to Government officials for being willing to answer some questions as we sought clarity on that evidence base, but on this occasion the kind of evidence we've got used to studying hasn't been forthcoming. Indeed, one scientist told us they were unable to complete a paper on the likely impact of the proposals in front of us today precisely because they didn't have the evidence in front of them and wouldn't have it until later this month. I fully recognise the argument put to us that absence of evidence does not equate to evidence of absence, but nonetheless, I think in this case the argument has not been made by Government in a way, to be fair, that they have been making in front of us and the Welsh public during this pandemic. 

Now, we could, if we chose to, decide to just give it a go. It might help, so no harm in trying—an argument that would, indeed, be very strong if the impact of what we're discussing was limited, but we're talking about quite significant implications in terms of implementation for public bodies, policing and enforcing the regulations, and on individuals affected by them. So, we really need assurances on that. 

We've asked about local government and their enforcement responsibilities at a time when they're stretched as it is with other COVID duties, on implications for the police. Who will have the last say on when to enforce rigidly and when to take a softer approach? Guidelines are being drawn up, we've been told, but we don't have them before us today, before the vote. And we've no real idea about resource implications. What about the particular challenges around enforcing this for sporting crowds of tens of thousands of people, for example? Again, plans are being drawn up but we haven't seen them before this vote. I hear there's even talk of lateral flow testing stations outside stadia as a fallback, in case of problems with COVID passes. How would that work in practice?

We've asked many questions and haven't been given the assurances that we have sought. And it's for that reason that we feel unable to support these regulations today. And in voting against, I want to emphasise that, again, this isn't because of issues of principle. We asked Welsh Government to withdraw this motion and made it clear we'd contribute to discussions on how something more robust, actually, could be brought forward, better evidenced and with clarity on implication. And that offer is still genuinely open. 

Llywydd, we have given these regulations the careful consideration they deserve and, in coming to the conclusion that they have to be rejected as they are, I emphasise that we are still willing to look at the evidence, to read detailed action plans and guidance. But, given that we don't have those today, we are voting the way that we believe is right in the hope that a more robust proposal based on evidence could be put forward. 

I think we have plenty of evidence of the need to take this measure. Public Health Wales has all the evidence you might need from people who went to music festivals over the summer and the numbers who returned with COVID. We know that, when young people congregate together, that is when the spread of infection occurs. And one of the really disturbing things is that, although we've got 564 per 100,000 infected in Cardiff in the general population, young people have infection rates that are twice that. And guess who goes to nightclubs; young people, in the main. So, if I want to catch COVID, there's no shortage of opportunities. I've got thousands of students milling around, going to all these three university campuses and partying on a nightly basis, and no doubt they are spreading COVID as we speak. 

So, what we need to do is to be realistic about what we can do to encourage young people to take this seriously. There was a 15-year-old last week, in Portsmouth, who died of COVID four days after she got it, and she was a healthy young woman who did lots of sport. So, I know it's a rarer occurrence than in the older population, but COVID is a very nasty disease and you can't say that you won't have a poor outcome. So, let's try to prevent people catching it in the first place. 

I don't understand why a nightclub wouldn't want to screen their customers, to make sure that their venue is not being used as a super-spreading event, which would cause them to have to close down while they were doing a deep clean. 

Will you take an intervention, Jenny?

Okay.

Thank you, Jenny. I think what the nightclub industry would say is that it's the length of time it takes to process people through. And there have been examples where, by the time that people are processed to get through, then it's the end of the evening. I'm not somebody who attends nightclubs very often these days, but that's what the industry are saying in that regard, Jenny, and that's what we've seen with regard to the issues in Scotland.

Thank you, Russell. I don't buy that argument, because they're going to have to screen these young people to make sure that they're above the age for drinking alcohol in any case; otherwise, they're going to be non-compliant with the law in other respects. So, they are going to have to do their checks in any case, and they can do it all in one shot with the COVID pass, which shows you what the date of birth is, and therefore, it doesn't in fact increase the procedure required, it just simplifies it.

So, I also think we have to really understand just how much pressure our emergency services are under, because demand for emergency services is now back to where it was before COVID, and on top of that, we've got all the doctors and nurses who are exhausted after 18 months of having to deal with an unprecedented pandemic, and they're having to screen everybody who turns up in an emergency, to make sure that they're not bringing COVID into the hospital, so they are under massive pressure. Why wouldn't want we to be responsibly trying to ensure that we're not giving them an even bigger task than they've got already?

I just think that it absolutely is something that we need to do, and I'm really not buying the Plaid argument that we don't know enough. I really do think that there may be some holes in the way that the lateral flow tests are going to be done, and maybe PCR tests would be more secure, but that is not a reason for not saying we need to have COVID passes before we go to these events.

Thank you for taking an intervention. I just want to say in this intervention: I agree with everything pretty much that you've said. And that is where this falls down; we're not talking about the principles of what you have been portraying. I have children myself at university; I want to make sure that they're safe. Our argument today is that these particular regulations and the proposal by Welsh Government in this particular way to do it isn't, in our view, the way to do it in terms of the evidence in front of us.

Well, I'm really surprised that Plaid's not taking the precautionary approach, because there's nothing stopping us passing the procedures today and then amending them if we think there's going to be widespread abuse of the regulations. I think we just have to bite the bullet now, because the universities are all starting up, and this is one of the places where it really is going to create a worse problem. We know that COVID likes winter, and the winter is nearly upon us.

I don't think this is about creating a two-tier society; I just don't think there's any evidence of that. Practically everybody in the over 40s and in the vulnerable groups have all been vaccinated. We're talking about rates in the high 80s, if not 90s; it's young people who think that somehow, they are going to be able to skip getting vaccinated because they're not the ones who are going to die of it. Well, that isn't necessarily the case.

And I just simply want to say lastly, that in France, our near neighbour in France, you can't even go for a cup of coffee on the pavement unless you show your COVID pass, and frankly, I don't think that society has ground to a halt as a result of that. 

No-one could have predicted the COVID-19 pandemic that hit the world 18 months ago. Its impact has changed all our lives, turned the economy upside down, and changed the relationship between those in positions of power and the people of this great nation forever. The conversations around COVID-19 restrictions are not straightforward. They're complex, they're intricate, and the public have wide-ranging views on lockdowns, restrictions and vaccine passports, or the so-called vaccine pass.

Today, we discuss the proposal about the vaccine pass in Wales brought forward by the Government here in Wales. I am wholeheartedly opposed to the introduction of any type of internal passport or pass for anyone to have to use to be able to live their lives in this country. Freedoms and democracies are hard won, and anything that erodes personal freedoms, I simply cannot support. There are various reasons for my opposition to domestic vaccine passes or passports; some are economic, some are medical, some are legal, but many are moral and based on the foundations of a free liberal society. The road this Government wants to take the people of Wales down is an extremely slippery slope; to create a system where only those who are vaccinated can have access to certain venues and events will, I believe, create a two-tiered society where those for medical reasons or others do not want to have the vaccine are barred from participating in our society. World history does not make pretty reading when you start to discriminate against people because of a single issue. I find this a terrible prospect, and not one that anybody who wants to live in a twenty-first-century liberal democracy would support.

The slippery slope, however, is one that concerns me greatly. Of course, the Government will say this system will only be implemented for as long as COVID is with us, but Governments of all colours and all political persuasions change their minds, and, once introduced, regulations are very rarely repealed.

But where has this Welsh Government u-turn come from? A few months ago, the First Minister himself was opposed to domestic vaccine passports, and now he wants them introduced here in Wales. Why impose a system where only those who have had the jab can attend events? Scientific data shows that those who have had the jab can catch and spread COVID-19 just as much as those who have COVID-19. It only reduces the risk of serious hospital admission.

We in the west have one thing that many countries across the world do not have—that is, freedom. This freedom must be preserved at all costs. To close, I'd like to quote the American President Ronald Reagan.

'Freedom is a fragile thing and it's never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by way of inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation'.

I urge all my colleagues across parties to vote down this motion and protect our freedoms and our civil liberties here in Wales. Diolch, Llywydd.

Delyth Jewell, Chair of the culture committee.

Thank you very much. I have a series of questions here, Llywydd, not a speech. The committee hasn't discussed this issue amongst ourselves, and I'd like to emphasise that.

This is an issue that will be of great interest, clearly, to many different cultural and sporting groups, so I'd like to ask the Minister, when she responds to the debate, to outline the rationale for introducing these passes, please. Does the Government want to do this to increase vaccination rates or to control the spread of the virus? I'd like to hear what additional support will be provided to businesses that are affected by this attempt to achieve a public health objective. I'd also like to hear about what arrangements will be made to ensure that there won't be issues with the introduction of the passes as has happened in Scotland. And finally, I'd like to hear in the response to this debate what has been learned from the test events held earlier on in the year, as no mention is made of that in the TAC advice nor in the explanatory memorandum.

But just a short list of questions there, not a stance from the committee.

I should say that our committee's not debated these matters, so I don't understand how the Chair can speak as the Chair of the committee. But the debate we're having today goes to the heart of what a democracy is and the role of a Parliament in debating these matters. I do wish that, as a Parliament, we had more time this afternoon to debate this matter. I think this is a matter that demands more time and attention than we have available to us.

Can I just confirm I'm perfectly happy to extend the time available to Members if more Members wish to speak?

I'm grateful to you, Presiding Officer, for that.

When I look at these matters I ask myself, 'Is this a proportionate response to the public health challenges we face?' We've all wrestled with these challenges over the last 18 months. We've all asked ourselves, 'Is this right or is this proper that the Government seeks these powers to intervene in the way that we live our lives?' For myself, I agree very much with much of what Russell George said in opening his contribution, because I believe that liberty is something that we should cherish, and I believe that liberty is something that should be taken from us only for the greatest reasons that Government can assemble.

The heart of this debate for me is: has the Government made its case in this instance? And I believe it is clear that the Government has made its case here, and I believe it is important. My argument would be very similar to Rhun ap Iorwerth's, actually—I think the Government should go further and propose a vaccine passport that would demonstrate vaccination rather than simply a test; I think the Government should go further on it. But, in terms of where we are now, how does that affect our freedoms and our liberties? It was John Stuart Mill, of course—. And those of us of a certain vintage did spend some time reading On Liberty; I think it was published in the 1850s. And in what he said there he was very, very clear that liberty—an individual's liberty—can only be taken away if it is in the interests of the rights of the majority and to protect harm for the majority. And he was the father of liberalism, and it's something I very much agree with, because we do have a responsibility to prevent harm to others. And we cannot say that our liberty—my freedom to go to a nightclub—is more important than your freedom to live without the fear of harm or ill health, and to protect your well-being. 

And this isn't unique. Let me say, it's not often I quote Margaret Thatcher, but when she spoke, she said, 'There's no such thing as society', of course, but she went on—many members of the Labour Party wish she hadn't—but she went on and she said, 'But there is responsibility', and we all have responsibility, she said—Margaret Thatcher said—to our families and for the well-being of our neighbours. And we do have that responsibility, and it was Tony Blair, actually, who taught the Labour Party, which spoke enough about rights—and the Labour Party talks constantly about rights—but it was Tony Blair that reminded us that with rights come responsibilities, and I believe that we do have responsibilities to each other, and I believe that we do have responsibilities for the well-being of those others in society: people who are weak, people who are vulnerable, people who have particular health needs.

And nobody's liberty—nobody's liberty—is more important than somebody else's health. What sort of society have we become where Margaret Thatcher would be considered a dangerous liberal? What sort of society have we become where we say, 'My right to do what I choose to do is more important than your right to life'? What sort of society are we? If we are to be anything, then we have to be better than that. The Government gets some things right and Governments get some things wrong. Of course they do. All Governments do. And I understand Rhun's desire for a greater evidential base, but I believe it is there. I believe over the last few years, or the last year or so, we've seen enough evidence of the harm that can be done to people if we go about our lives without giving a care for others. 

And so we do need to introduce these matters. And I actually agree with James Evans; I hope that they will be removed when these regulations are not needed, because we don't want to live in that society. And the point I made to Russell George was that his own Home Secretary told the Conservative conference this morning that people shouldn't have the liberty to go from one part of a country to another to take part in lawful protest. What sort of society is that, that tells us we can't drive down the road in order to protest against something we don't like? That's the heart of liberty. It's the heart of freedom. It's the heart of who we are as a free society. And those liberties are taken from us. An encumbrance is placed upon us in order to protect the greater freedom and the greater good of people in this society. And I believe the Government's case is made—that we have to protect the health and well-being of the most vulnerable people in society, and that is the greatest thing that we can do this afternoon. Thank you. 

Wow, follow that, Janet. Minister, I cannot support the mandatory use of domestic vaccination passes or passports, and this is largely due to the wide-ranging ethical, equality, economic, privacy, legal and operational ramifications that such regulation will bring. The Equality and Human Rights Commission in their response to the UK Government's consultation on the idea of COVID status certification highlighted the important ethical and equality issues that would need to be considered before any such legislation could be implemented. In particular, as highlighted in paragraphs 13 to 15 of the commission's reply, these concerns fall within the following areas: 13, that 

'there are concerns about potential for discrimination or for infringement of civil liberties in the use of certification status to travel, go to work, enjoy social activities and access essential services, and the creation of a two-tier society'— and that was said by Russell George—

'whereby only certain groups are able to fully enjoy their rights. These equality and human rights considerations must be considered'— and must be proven in detail by this Government here—

'with clear steps taken to address any anticipated negative impacts.'

So, with this in mind, would you clarify whether the Welsh Government considers a COVID pass to be discriminatory and an infringement on civil liberty? Given the protected status of an individual's medical information, including vaccination status, will you also outline what consideration you've given to the data protection implications of occupiers requesting the vaccination status of individuals entering buildings?

Now, recent conversations that we've had with the Night Time Industries Association Wales have made it clear that club nights and shows can take place at any bars and multiplace venues, as well as out-and-out nightclubs. Similarly, many pubs and bars have very similar late night offerings to nightclubs. So, Minister, how is the Welsh Government defining a nightclub under its COVID passport regulations? Specifically, at what point does a pub and bar become a nightclub requiring passport access?

Vaccine passports would require nightclubs to change a key part of their operating model, having just invested in reopening without this requirement. Nightclubs are already amongst some of the most badly hit businesses during the pandemic, with a number of businesses now saddled with severe debt and rent arrears. And, to be honest, there's no support mentioned for the additional capital investment that they'll need. With this in mind, Minister, what impact assessment have you undertaken prior to implementing these regs, and what financial support will be available to assist with the implementation and enforcement of these passports? So, you can understand these—

Are you taking the intervention? Are you taking the intervention, or—?

Oh, sorry, Jenny—yes.

I just want you to clarify: what is this capital investment that people would need to make? All they might need is an extra person on the door. I don't regard that as capital investment.

But where have you got any evidence that you need one extra person on the door? This is all very vague. At the end of the day, we all know that it is not safe to keep people queuing in very close proximity, so there will be capital investment needed. 

There are legitimate concerns by our businesses that these regulations may directly lead to potential confrontation between security and other venue staff. Our nightclubs are already suffering from security staff shortages and fear they may not be able to find the additional staff required to safely administer the vaccine passport system, raising yet further concerns over the implementation of exemption and protection of staff. Minister, with one prominent north Wales businessman calling for a new law to protect retail and hospitality workers from abusive customers, what steps are you taking? Are you fully understanding what you're expecting our businesses now to prepare for? I would ask all Members, and certainly the Member, not to support this going forward. I really do believe that this is a step too far. Diolch.

We have supported the cautious approach taken by the First Minister to date, and I am pleased that I live in Wales, because this Government's approach to coronavirus feels so much safer than that of the Conservative Government in Westminster. I also want to be clear that the responsibility taken by the Welsh public in relation to wearing masks, keeping their distance, being clear that they have to ensure that they are abiding by TTP, are absolutely there. And so I actually believe that the Welsh public are responsible in this situation. I also want to loudly condemn the anti-vaxxers who I believe are outside of the Senedd at this time. They are dangerous and they are a risk to everybody, and I'm sure we would all condemn them.

This is not—[Interruption.] Yes, thank you; I'll take the intervention.

Thank you ever so much, Jane. I wholeheartedly agree with you in terms of the anti-vaxxers that are outside the Senedd today, but I did notice there are some more sensible people outside the Senedd today that are supportive of the position against these regulations, and to some extent I think perhaps they've been overtaken, perhaps, by the other events. But that's just to put that on record. Thank you, Jane.

Thank you. Well, you ventured out there, and well done you.

I am also grateful to your officials, Minister, for sending me information and also for meeting with me this morning.

Finally, I am astounded at the Conservative position on this in Wales, because I do understand that Boris Johnson is keen on looking at this to be introduced across England. So, the situation there kind of perplexes me slightly. But I want to be clear here that I cannot support this, and there are six reasons, very quickly, Llywydd, that I want to just outline, really.

COVID passports will not reduce the harm. What's being proposed here is either—let's be very clear—that you present something to demonstrate that you're double vaccinated, or a lateral flow test within the last 48 hours. In relation to the lateral flow test, you could absolutely meet somebody in those 48 hours before you enter that venue, and you could, therefore, catch COVID. The queuing for passes, as well, as we've heard, could actually mean that that is transmitted from one person to another. And finally, I understand from the briefing provided by your officials this morning that there is discretion at venues to actually not check everybody. The larger venues, I understand, are allowed to spot check. So, this immediately, for me, breaks down this argument. This is about doing it properly or not doing it at all.

My second reason is this: if it's designed to encourage people to be vaccinated, the evidence doesn't support it. Again, I did hear from your officials this morning—and I'm grateful for this, diolch yn fawr iawn—as quoted by Russell George, there is evidence in here, the first page actually very clearly states that the evidence does not support, that certification is one of the factors that might discourage people from being vaccinated—that is, that going to a venue and requiring vaccination does not encourage people to seek that vaccination.

Thirdly, this is about it being proportionate and my concern is that it will discriminate against people. I've had concerns raised with me by the National Autistic Society that their members are extremely concerned and, indeed, confused about this.

My fourth point is that this is about poor law making. These amendments represent the seventeenth set of amendments to the fifth set of COVID regulations and there's no end date for their use. It's poor law making, in my view, which could set a dangerous precedent.

Fifthly, it will be bad for business and bad for workers. I am really confused as to why people going into venues have to have this COVID pass, but actually the people working in the venues or volunteering in the venues don't have to have a COVID pass. So, straight away, you end up with people being put at risk because they don't have to have that COVID pass. If the Government is certain of the efficacy and need for COVID passports, then why would you leave workers at risk of transmission?

Sixthly and finally, fundamentally COVID passports are an infringement on our freedoms and liberty, and it's great to hear so many people here talking about liberty. You can join our party, the Liberal Democrats, if you really feel so strongly about liberalism and about liberty. But a basic tenet of human rights is the necessity test: does the action taken outweigh those freedoms and rights that we have so fought for over all of the centuries?

Finally—I do finish on this—I urge Members to vote against these proposals today. Let's concentrate on what we know works and what we know that the vast majority of people in Wales are already doing: masks, vaccines, boosters, test, trace and protect, keeping our distance. That's what we know works. This is actually a distraction. I know that this is a difficult issue; it's been a difficult one for me to contemplate and I know that there are party lines to hold, but please, think about what you vote for this afternoon and about the course that this sets us on. Thank you. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

I will be voting in support of introducing the COVID pass, and I want to repeat that: it is a COVID pass. It isn't a vaccination certificate, it isn't any of these elaborate names that it's been given today, and it's almost like, somehow, we've been talking about something that doesn't exist and that's the truth. I don't, however, dismiss the unease that some people feel about the civil liberties debate, but I'm content that the inclusion of the lateral flow test result deals with that.

And if we're talking about rights—and we've heard a lot about rights today—we don't actually have an automatic right to go to a nightclub. I don’t ever remember that being written into the human rights legislation that you have a human right to go to a nightclub. But we do have, and it’s been quoted here—and I prefer the Tony Blair to Thatcher, I have to tell you—we do have some responsibility as individuals to other people.

I’ve heard the debate about needing an extra member of staff that was put through by Janet Finch-Saunders. If we don’t check people who are coming into venues—and we do know there is sufficient evidence that tells us that these can be become superspreaders—I can assure you of one thing, Janet, you’ll have fewer staff the next week because they will have caught COVID, so they’ll be running a little bit on empty, and we’ve seen that happen where people have opened up already. There is plenty of evidence there already that tells you that people are being infected in their place of work. So, what we’re trying to do is actually protect those workers and we’re also trying to protect people.

If you want evidence about people’s behaviour after they pile out of or towards a nightclub, come with me on Thursday, Friday, Saturday or Sunday night in Haverfordwest when I take somebody to work at 11 o’clock. It seems that people think that they become superhuman, they’re hanging off each other, and I’m sure that they’re talking really closely, and I can guarantee that they don’t remember the next day who they’ve been talking to. Some of them won’t even remember where they were going to or coming from. My experience in the licensed trade tells me that that will be the case.

So, let’s be clear that this is not a vaccine certificate, and I think I’m going to keep repeating it as many times as it was already repeated. I don’t buy the argument either that I’ve heard that this measure is the thin edge of the wedge, nor that it’s a checkpoint Government. Let’s be clear, these are very silly words to bandy about in this debate. We’ve all made extraordinary sacrifices and compromises. We’ve stuck to the rules and followed advice in order to stay safe and to look out for each other, and we all know that people have made huge sacrifices, and that is really how we’ve managed to get through this together as a community.

But requiring people to prove they’re COVID free or vaccinated or both to attend social events is not the biggest ask that we’ve made of people so far, and I think that’s an important point to make here now. It is not the biggest ask. It isn’t the majority of people who go into nightclubs. So, let’s just keep this in perspective. As far as I know, most of my constituents don’t head off to the nightclub, and again I can relate back to the evidence I’ve already given. But, let’s also be clear that many have already actually asked for COVID passes, and at the Green Man that happened in my region, they actually asked for a pass, and thousands more have used COVID passes to travel abroad this summer. In fact, they couldn’t wait to get those to get out of the country and come back so they could have a holiday. It didn’t stop those people.

Will the Member take an intervention?

So, it's not a step too far. I will, yes.

Thank you. I'm very grateful. Is it the case that at the Green Man Festival all the workers and all of the volunteers also were required to produce proof of vaccination?

I've no idea. But what I do know is, for the event to go ahead, the people who wanted to take part in it had to have a COVID pass. That’s what I do know, and that’s the point that’s being made here. That point is actually irrelevant, as far as I can see.

So, let’s be clear here: this is proportionate, is sensible and is a fair precaution, and I really do urge everybody to examine their conscience here today, to do the right thing and support this.

I now call on the Minister for Health and Social Services to reply. Eluned Morgan.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. I want to be clear that the Welsh Labour Government has not suggested the introduction of this measure lightly; it has been challenging for us, because we wanted to think through very carefully what were the practical, what were the legal, what were the ethical implications of introducing a pass of this type. But we understand our public health responsibilities, and we understand that we are facing some of the highest COVID rates that we have seen since the beginning of the pandemic, particularly amongst young people—over 1,000 cases per 100,000. And we know that we've got to do something to stop the turbocharging in terms of the spread of the virus in these places where lots of people congregate. And you want evidence to show that that happens: well, we know how many Welsh young people came back from Cornwall, from Boardmasters Festival, and spread the virus here; we know how many came back from Reading and spread the virus here. We know that we've got to do something to address this situation.

And let me remind the Tories—[Interruption.] Let me remind the Tories—[Interruption.] I'm sorry, but I am responding to the debate. Let me remind the Tories that the COVID pass remains a tool in the armoury of the UK Government in their own winter plan, and it's quite possible that we will see the introduction of this measure in the United Kingdom. And Plaid has asked us to back what works. Well, this system has been working for four months. We know that lots of venues have been using it already across Wales. I know, because I attended a Nile Rodgers concert, and it worked extremely well under those circumstances. Nobody is being forced to be vaccinated. Let's be absolutely clear about that. There is an option for people to have a lateral flow test to show that they don't have the virus.

And you tell us to listen to what the scientists are telling us. Well, I'll tell you what the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies is telling us. They're telling us, 'Act early; act now.' And every day, every day we hesitate, those rates go up. And every day we hesitate, those rates will put more pressure on our NHS services. And let's be clear: not accepting this suggests that you're happy to do nothing in the next few weeks. Nobody is suggesting that any facility should keep data. We fully understand that businesses want to remain open, and this measure will help us to do that throughout the winter. And let me be clear: not supporting this measure today will be an act of gross irresponsibility when it comes to public health in Wales. And this measure will allow the facilities to stay open in the face of one of the most challenging winters that we are yet to face. The public is on our side on this, and they are watching you in this Chamber today, and I urge you to support this measure.

The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I will defer voting on the motion until voting time.

Voting deferred until voting time.