We will go on to hear the motion. I call on the Minister for health to do just that—Eluned Morgan.

Motion NDM7967 Lesley Griffiths

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

1. Approves The Coronavirus Act 2020 (Alteration of Expiry Date) (Wales) Regulations 2022 laid in the Table Office on 22 March 2022.

Motion NNDM7975 Lesley Griffiths

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

1. Approves The Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (No. 5) (Wales) (Amendment) (No. 7) Regulations 2022 laid in the Table Office on 25 March 2022.

Motion NNDM7976 Lesley Griffiths

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

1. Approves The Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (No. 5) (Wales) (Amendment) (No. 8) Regulations 2022 laid in the Table Office on 25 March 2022.

Motions moved.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. I move the motion before us. As the First Minister set out last week, cases are once again increasing rapidly across Wales, which is being driven by the subtype of omicron variant BA.2. The latest results from the ONS coronavirus infection survey suggest that one in 16 people in Wales had COVID-19 in the week ending 19 March. That was 10 days ago; it's more likely now to look like around one in 13 or 14. There were more than 1,300 COVID-19-related patients in hospital as at 23 March; today, that stands at 1,492. 

Before us today are three sets of amendment regulations. Firstly, the Coronavirus Act 2020 (Alteration of Expiry Date) (Wales) Regulations 2022. The Coronavirus Act 2020, the Act, granted the Welsh Ministers emergency powers to respond to the pandemic. The Act received Royal Assent on 25 March 2020. The majority of the temporary provisions within the Act expired at the end of the day on 24 March. All Governments across the UK have brought forward regulations extending different provisions within the Act. The Coronavirus Act 2020 (Alteration of Expiry Date) (Wales) Regulations 2022 extend two temporary provisions for a maximum period of six months to 24 September 2022.

Coronavirus is still with us, and we can expect further waves of infection and new variants to emerge. These could be more severe than previous variants, and could have higher levels of vaccine escape. The extension of these two provisions is part of our contingency planning. The relevant provisions are in section 82, business tenancies in England and Wales, protection from forfeiture. These provisions give the Welsh Ministers the power to extend the relevant period during which a right of re-entry or forfeiture under a business tenancy for non-payment of rent may not be enforced, in order to help businesses affected by coronavirus. Following the end of this period, the Commercial Rent (Coronavirus) Bill, to which the Senedd gave legislative consent on 8 March, will support landlords and tenants in resolving disputes relating to rent-owed businesses that were required to close during the pandemic. We needed to be able to extend the relevant period using section 82 of the Coronavirus Act if it had expired before the commercial rent Bill received Royal Assent. However, the commercial rent Bill came into force on 24 March and, as such, I can confirm that we will not use these provisions. 

Section 38, Schedule 17, temporary continuity, education and training and childcare. These provisions give the Welsh Ministers a power to issue temporary continuity directions to educational institutions, registered childcare providers and local authorities to help manage disruption to learning during the pandemic. The extension of these education provisions is very much a contingency measure, and we're not planning or expecting to these provisions in the six-month extension window. Any proposal to use the powers within these provisions would require the Welsh Government to bring forward further regulations, which, of course, would be subject to Senedd scrutiny. Members would have the opportunity at that time to consider the proportionality and appropriateness of any measures that we would be proposing in the six-month extension window.  

Secondly, the Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (No. 5) (Wales) (Amendment) (No. 7) Regulations 2022. In our transition plan, 'Together for a safer future', we introduced our intention, in a COVID-stable scenario, to abolish the legal restrictions on 28 March. Unfortunately, given the situation at present, we came to the conclusion at the time of the 21-day review on 24 March that it wouldn't be possible for us to move as swiftly as we had anticipated and had planned for. So, under the No. 7 regulations, the date on which the main regulations come to an end will be extended from 28 March to 18 April. 

Thirdly, the Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (No. 5) (Wales) (Amendment) (No. 8) Regulations 2022. We cannot keep these emergency regulations in place forever; it's a fact that we will have to learn to live with coronavirus. Therefore, we have also decided, following the 21-day review undertaken recently, to continue with our cautious journey away from legal restrictions. The No. 8 regulations scrap, from 28 March onwards, the legal requirement to self-isolate, and the requirement to wear face coverings in shops and on public transport is also removed. These continue to be important safeguards that people can take in order to reduce virus transmission, but now is the right time, in our view, to allow people to make their own decisions. As we've seen throughout the pandemic, the people of Wales will do the right thing to keep us all safe.

We have retained the requirement to a wear face covering in health settings and social care settings. This will assist in safeguarding the most vulnerable in those places where the risk is greatest. We have also kept the requirement for businesses and organisations to hold specific risk assessments for coronavirus, and to take reasonable steps to manage transmission. This will enable us to update the risk assessments and to consider appropriate measures in light of the BA.2 sub-variant. The regulations will be reviewed once again by 14 April. As we have always done, we will continue to make decisions to safeguard the public's health in Wales on the basis of the scientific evidence available to us, and I encourage Members to support these proposals. 

Russell George.

Diolch, Llywydd. Sorry for my earlier confusion, I was trying to remove my face mask at the same time as not having my translation equipment on. I do apologise. 

Multitasking can be difficult for some. [Laughter.]

Especially for men, yes. [Laughter.]

I didn't say that.

I know you didn't say that. Thank you, Presiding Officer.

Minister, can I thank you for introducing these regulations this afternoon? We're not going to be supporting the alteration of the date of the Coronavirus Act. I listened carefully to what you said, and I have a lot of understanding for the point that you argue this afternoon for extending the period by a further six months, and I understand a large part of the logic that you have outlined this afternoon. But, of course, my own position and the position of the Welsh Conservatives, is that all emergency legislation has to have an end date, and I think you would agree with that, and I think the difference between us is where that end date is. For me and the Welsh Conservatives, we believe that that end date has now come. If further legislation is required in the future, and we hope it's not, and you expect it not to be, and I would expect it not to be also, then that legislation should be brought forward and discussed on its own merit. I understand that you've talked about further scrutiny coming forward in the form of the extension, but I do believe firmly that there has to be an end date to emergency legislation and that that time has now come.

In regard to the other health protection regulations that you've introduced this afternoon, Minister, we'll be supporting both those regulations. I think after two years of living in restrictions, I think it's welcome news that we're now at this point where all restrictions, virtually, have been lifted. I of course agree that we have to continue to be cautious and that the coronavirus is still here, and it's still here in this country, in Wales, and in other parts of the world. So, of course I take the context in that regard. But we're now moving into a new phase of the coronavirus pandemic, we're moving to a fresh stage where coronavirus now sits alongside, to a large extent, other kinds of viruses, and we have to learn to live along with coronavirus.

Minister, I was pleased that the requirement of face masks is largely moving from law into guidance. I think that's the appropriate step to take. Of course, I appreciate that people are still being encouraged to wear face masks in many of these settings, but I now believe it is right to ask people to use their personal responsibility rather than requiring people by law to wear face masks. And the same, of course, for self-isolation rules as well. I believe the vast, vast majority of people will use their common sense and their proper judgment, and we should give the public of Wales the ability to make those judgments themselves.

I would just question, of course, why it remains in law for face masks to be worn in health and social care settings. I'm not disagreeing with the fact that those in health and social care settings should wear masks, I think that is sensible, so that is not the point I'm making here. But, of course, why treat this group very differently to the other groups of people, for example, who go into shops and use public transport? I would've thought that those working in a health and social care setting would have a greater ability to make their own judgments about what is best for health and social care settings themselves. So, I just want to understand your logic behind that particular point.

Can I also ask you for an update on when you expect the three-week cycles to come to an end as well? I think the next three-week cycle is, from memory, on 18 April. But, if on that date, as you would expect, the remaining regulations are then lifted, what, can I then ask, is your expectation of future three-week cycles? Should we then expect them to no longer take place at that point? I would expect that to be the case, but perhaps you could outline that to us.

Also, if I can finally ask a question I've asked many times before. I've never really got a good, clear answer on this, so I'm hoping I can ask it again today. With regard to the three-week cycles, of course, what happens is the press get advised before this Senedd, the press then make that public at 10 p.m. on a Thursday evening, and then the First Minister brings his address on the Friday at the 12:15 briefing, and members of the press have the opportunity to scrutinise the First Minister in that regard. And then, on the following Tuesday, it normally comes here for a statement. In fact, we haven't had a statement even in this case today, but we have had the opportunity through these regulations. But, of course, that doesn't happen in any other part of the UK. I really want to understand, Minister, that, in future, now there's an opportunity to re-examine the way that the three-week cycles operate—. Can I now ask why on earth the First Minister or yourself would not come here to make the announcement here first, so Senedd Members can scrutinise those decisions, and then, if you so wish, to make a statement to the press and give them an opportunity to do that after the people of Wales have learnt what that decision is through this elected Senedd and Parliament here, Minister?

There are three sets of regulations in front of us today. The first two extend the current situation, and as we are in a challenging situation at the moment, with very high numbers of cases of COVID, we think that that is a sensible thing to do. We will be supporting those regulations, and I don't think that further comments are needed from me on that. But, for the exact reason that we are going to support the continuation of those regulations, we cannot support the No. 8 amendment, because I and the benches here can't understand why the Government has decided to move to raise these safety measures at this point in time.

Let me quote the First Minister's words from earlier this afternoon, answering a question, actually, about the ambulance service. He said,

'we have some of the highest numbers of people falling ill with the virus of any time in the whole of the pandemic. Only a matter of weeks ago, we managed to reduce the number of people in our hospital beds suffering from coronavirus down to around 700. It went above 1,400 yesterday'— confirmed by the Minister here now—

'and that number has continued to rise.'

He called it 

'a very challenging context, and a context that has been deteriorating'.

So, in that challenging context, Welsh Government has decided to remove most of the very modest, actually, but important protective measures still in place. And when you consider face coverings in particular, they're just not disruptive at all, are they? Why remove mandation in retail and transport now?

And if there are some signs—hopefully there are—that, in Wales as a whole, cases are beginning to stabilise, we can be pretty sure that in some parts of Wales, the west in particular, including Ynys Môn, we haven't reached the peak yet, because that's been the pattern of the spread of this virus throughout. It is an east-west movement. That's how pandemics work. Why expose people more to the virus before we know that we are over this current peak?

The Minister said this afternoon that we can't keep these regulations in place forever. I agree entirely, and if we were to have this vote in three weeks' time, I'm sure that we would support it. But with people still feeling vulnerable and nervous having to go to a shop or travel by bus or train, why create greater risk for them now?

The other safeguard that is being scrapped entirely now is the requirement for people to self-isolate. Again, why do that now? The only reason that I can think that you would want to do that is to help make public services and so on sustainable by getting people who are testing positive to go to work regardless, because, remember, there won't be LFT tests available from Friday free of charge. There won't be a test; if there isn't a test, there won't be a positive test, and if there isn't a positive test, no COVID, so off to work you go. Could the Minister confirm that that is indeed the intention? And if somebody does test positive, if they don't feel ill, they will be under a great deal of pressure, I'm afraid, to go to work. That's why the TUC have said today that they are disappointed with this decision. It will change that relationship between the employer and the employee. If safety is the priority, as the Welsh Government has stated throughout this pandemic, why not wait a little bit longer for this wave to be over? It doesn't make sense to me, and it doesn't make sense to the high number of people who have contacted me and, I suspect, a number of other Members since the announcement on Friday of last week. 

To conclude, Llywydd, I understand that Welsh Government has had to make all sorts of political judgments after looking at evidence. In this case, I just think Welsh Government has got its judgment wrong, and that's why we'll be opposing this amended regulation. 

The Minister for health to reply. Eluned Morgan.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. Of course, we are very keen, Russell, to ensure that we have an end date, which is why what we're doing is only extending a few very small parts of the COVID Act, and the reason we've got that in place is because, actually, we don't know what comes next and we need to have some contingency just in case. So, ideally, we don't want to use these powers, because, actually, we'll be in a situation where everything is under control, but we don't know. Are we going to have a new variant that's going to knock everything out and be far more serious? We need to be ready to respond, which is why it is important to keep that opportunity to restart things on the books. Of course, we have to learn to live with COVID.

Face coverings: what's happening is we're moving them from law into guidance, which is really important to remember, because, actually, our guidance is still clear that you should be very careful and you should be thinking very carefully about the need to wear a face covering, in particular in an indoor public space, where there are lots of people around. It is a finely balanced judgment call. That's exactly what Rhun was saying: it's a judgment call. Do you want to come in?

If I could. In general terms, do you think moving mask wearing from mandation to guidance will make more or fewer people wear a mask? 

I think we're in a place now where we need to trust the public, and actually the public in Wales have been quite remarkable. They've been quite remarkable. They have followed guidance, and it is difficult, but, at some point, you have to make that change. Also, I think, it is difficult. We're the only place—and certainly when we're making these calls—the only place in the UK to have the tightest regulations still and we have the lowest levels of COVID. Now, we'll always do what's right for us in Wales, and we have done all the way through. We've never been pushed around, we never followed what they're doing in England, but we had set out a route-map, and what we've done here is to compromise, because of the situation, but we do think it's time now for the public to take on that responsibility. They know what to do, they've been doing it. People have been great, and I think it's really important that we understand that that responsibility moves now to them. 

But when it comes to health and social care settings, why have we kept them there? Well, we've kept them there because these are very vulnerable settings. These are where they most vulnerable people are. We are very concerned about nosocomial transmission, transmission within hospitals, and so that's one of the reasons why we've made sure that we've kept those protections in place to protect the most vulnerable people. Because, as I say, we're going to have to learn to live with this, but the people we need to just constantly look out for are the most vulnerable people. 

We will have this three-week cycle. The fact that we haven't ended the legal protections means that there will be another round. [Interruption.] Sorry, yes.

Sorry, can I just ask—? I absolutely appreciate what you said in terms of letting the people of Wales make their own judgment calls. I fully agree with what you said in that regard. My question on the health and social care settings, though, was: I agree that it's sensible, of course, for those staff to wear face masks going forward, but my question was on the logic behind not allowing them to make that discretion, as you've outlined yourself in other settings. I don't understand that logic. 

I think it's because we don't want to see any ambiguity in those settings. We do think, in those settings in particular, we have a responsibility to protect the people who are most vulnerable. So, that is—. It's the different setting that makes a difference. 

So, we will continue to give three-weekly regular updates. You've always known about the 21-day review; the rhythm has always happened in the way that it has happened right from the beginning. We always bring it to the Chamber as soon as we can, and, of course, we will continue to do that. I think we will continue to give regular updates until at least June, when, actually, the final protections, we hope, if everything goes in the right direction, will be in that place.

Rhun, the situation is challenging, and that is why we have extended the regulations, to a certain extent. As I explained to Russell, it's been a tough call, and it is a matter of balance. We had a plan. We set out that plan, and what we've done is compromise, to an extent, in this scenario, because the numbers are still high. We are shifting responsibility from Government to the individual, and the balance—. I think it's important that we understand that there is legislation, but just because it's moving to guidance, it doesn't mean that you don't have to do it.

Now, it is different, and the question that you raised on self-isolation—. As you know, in Scotland it's never been entrenched in law that you should self-isolate, but people have been following the guidance, and we do hope that that will happen here in Wales. We are entirely clear in the guidance: if you do get COVID, then you should self-isolate. And that's one of the reasons why, for example, we have continued to ensure that there is a responsibility on people in the workplace to carry out those risk assessments. If those risk assessments do allow people to come in with COVID, well, there's something wrong with the risk assessment then. It's important that the guidance—that you're aware that those have to be published. People can see those, and that's why we think that that safeguard is in place for people. But it is a judgment call, and that's the judgment that we have come to as a Government.

The proposal therefore is to agree the motion under item 10, first of all. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is objection. Therefore, we will defer voting under this item until voting time. 

Voting deferred until voting time.

The proposal is to agree the motion under item 11. Does any Member object? No. Therefore, the motion under item 11 is agreed. 

Motion agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

The final question is the proposal to agree the motion under item 12. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is objection. Therefore, I will defer voting under item 12 until voting time. 

Voting deferred until voting time.