National Assembly for Wales

Welcome back. We are now resuming the agenda from yesterday's meeting, which was adjourned due to technical problems.

 So, we will resume with yesterday's item 7, which is the legislative consent motion on the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill. The first contributor to the debate today will be the Chair of the Finance Committee, Llyr Gruffydd.

Thank you, Llywydd. I am pleased to speak in this debate today on behalf of the committee, and given the significance of this legislation, we explored, as a committee, the financial considerations associated with the Bill with the Minister for Finance and Trefnydd, and the committee reached a majority conclusion that the constitutional and financial implications stemming from the passing of the internal market Bill, in its original form, would undermine the devolution settlement, leading to the possibility of a reduction in the funding available through the Welsh block grant .

While we welcomed the Welsh Government’s approach of seeking support through the House of Lords for its model amendments to the Bill, we highlighted our concern that changes pursued through the Lords could be reinstated once the Bill returned to the House of Commons, and that was the case when some of the financial aspects of the Bill that had been changed were reinstated by the Commons.

We have a number of concerns regarding the Bill, and I will list some of them now in my contribution this afternoon. First of all, there is the possibility that the UK Government will spend in devolved areas and in a way that is not compatible with the strategic intentions of the Welsh Government. The Minister told us that it would be possible to use the financial assistance powers within the Bill for a very broad set of purposes, including within devolved areas. The Lords removed this clause, but, of course, it was reinstated by the Commons. We don't believe that these powers are necessary and we believe that they will serve to undermine spending decisions made in Wales.

Part 6 of the Bill gave power to the UK Government Ministers to directly fund any person on a wide range of matters that are within devolved competence at this time. The committee was concerned about the implications of expenditure by UK Government in devolved areas for the Welsh block grant, with the worrying possibility that this spending will be funded by top-slicing the block grant. While an amendment was agreed in the House of Lords to remove clause 42 from the Bill, concerns remain over the UK Government’s intentions in the devolved nations.

The Finance Committee has concerns around the reservation of state aid and subsidy control without the agreement of devolved nations. The Lords, again, removed the clause that reserves state aid, but it was subsequently reinstated by the Commons. The UK Government said the clause is needed because it's necessary to reserve to the UK Parliament the right to legislate for a system to regulate the provision by public bodies of subsidies that are or may be distortive or harmful and to avoid the risk of inconsistent regulation of such subsidies in the different parts of the UK. We heard that the Welsh Government has always argued that state aid is not reserved under the Government of Wales Act 2006, and we believe there must be discussions with devolved nations on these issues.

There's a lack of clarity on the impact of the Bill in terms of subsidy control on tax devolution and the possibility that certain tax policies in Wales may be limited or open to challenge. We believe the lack of clarity on the impact of this Bill on tax devolution should be addressed to ensure there are no unintended consequences when different approaches to tax are taken in different parts of the UK.

Finally, Llywydd, it's disappointing that this close to the end of the EU transition period there still remains no clarity on the shape or form of the UK shared prosperity fund, three years after it was announced. We reported as a committee back in 2018 on replacing EU funding for Wales, at which time there were concerns about the lack of engagement from the UK Government with the Welsh Government, and, of course, we heard that this situation is still 'exceptionally poor'. There was little information on the fund in the Chancellor’s spending review announced on 25 November, which said further details would be set out in a UK-wide investment framework published in spring of next year. The UK Government has an important role to ensure that the Welsh Government and stakeholders in Wales have sufficient resource through the fund, and the UK Government must engage with the Welsh Government and other devolved Governments on this issue as a matter of urgency. With those comments, I look forward to hearing the contributions of others in this debate. Diolch.

It will come as no surprise to everybody in this Chamber that I rise to speak in support of the legislative consent motion. Labour, Plaid Cymru and others in this Chamber have done everything that they can to try to prevent the UK from delivering on the democratic mandate of the people of Wales. First, they tried to stop us from leaving the EU, then they tried to extend the transition period, and today they are trying to scupper the UK internal market Bill.

Other speakers in this debate so far, both yesterday and just now, have warned that this legislation is a snatch-and-grab at devolved powers and an attempt to centralise decision making in London. But, of course, that is not the case. It's a piece of legislation that has two principal aims: firstly, to provide an orderly transfer of powers from Brussels to the UK as the result of our departure from the EU; and secondly to protect the integrity of the UK's own internal market. The measures it contains will ensure that, when the transition period ends, businesses across Wales will continue to be able to benefit from the seamless trade that they already currently enjoy with the rest of the UK. Ensuring the continuity of this trade and the businesses and jobs that that trade protects is all the more important given the impact of the coronavirus pandemic on the Welsh economy.

The Bill reaffirms that the UK is made up of four nations and that no matter in which nation a business is based it will have an equal opportunity to sell its goods and services anywhere in the United Kingdom. The legislation also maintains current high standards across the UK on a range of subjects, including food hygiene, animal welfare and other matters. It will not diminish any of those standards, including on employment, at all. It will benefit, of course, Welsh farmers as well, actually, as we seize the opportunities presented by leaving the common agricultural policy, enabling us to create a new system that puts the interests of our farmers here in Wales first. 

Contrary to what some in the Welsh Parliament would have you believe, the Bill actually respects and strengthens the devolution settlement. As a result of this legislation, scores of powers will be transferred to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland on 1 January, and not a single power will be taken away. Powers in scores of new policy areas that previously resided in Brussels will be passed directly to the Welsh Government. Not one power will be taken away. And I refer to your comments on state aid yesterday, Minister. The reality is, of course, that state aid is fettered here in Wales as a result of the EU at present. So, transferring those responsibilities to the UK Government seems to me to be perfectly sensible. 

Llywydd, the Bill amounts to a fulfilment of Boris Johnson's pledges to get Brexit done and to devolve new powers to the Senedd as a result of the departure of the UK from the European Union. And the need to improve this legislation is more important now than ever. Wales sells more to the rest of the UK than the rest of the world put together, so it's vital that we do all that we can to protect this economic co-operation and partnership between the four nations, because only that will help us bounce back from COVID-19. 

The Bill will also help the economic recovery by paving the way for the UK Government to invest in communities across the United Kingdom, including here in Wales, through new spending powers. Currently, many UK investment decisions are taken by unelected European bureaucrats, but as a result of this Bill, the UK Government will take on those spending powers that are currently exercised by the EU. That will enable the UK Government to spend the money of UK taxpayers and invest it in communities and businesses across the whole of the UK. Isn't that a surprise? That spending would secure extra funding for Wales over and above that available to the Welsh Government via the Welsh block grant. All of us in this Chamber should be welcoming such significant potential investment to Wales, and yet bizarrely Labour Ministers are objecting. They object to the UK Government taking on such powers, yet they were more than happy for those powers to be exercised by those faceless unelected bureaucrats in Brussels. You couldn't make it up. Why on earth would anyone in this Chamber object to greater investment in economic development, greater investment in infrastructure across this country? Crucially, the UK Government has been crystal clear that the level of funding that Wales will receive following the end of the transition period will be equal to or greater than the funding that we currently receive from EU schemes.

So, let me remind Labour Ministers and Members of the Senedd today of a very inconvenient truth that they try to forget: the people of Wales voted clearly in 2016 for Brexit, especially in your heartlands and your constituency. They want to see a Welsh Government that supports the delivery of Brexit. They want a UK Parliament and a Senedd that makes decisions on laws and spending that were previously made in Brussels, and they want the Welsh economy to bounce back quickly from the pandemic that we're currently in the midst of. This Bill delivers on those priorities, so let's back it, let's get Brexit done, and let's embrace the opportunities that it presents.

Plaid Cymru will vote against giving legislative consent for the internal market Bill today. This Bill essentially takes a sledgehammer to Welsh democracy, totally undermining the devolution settlement by taking back powers in devolved areas and seriously limiting the ability of this Senedd to create any novel legislation in future that does not accord with Westminster's plans. Emboldened by the Brexit referendum vote and the vociferous and divisive campaigning that it engendered, and the constant entreaties to respect the result of that referendum and the fact that Wales voted 'leave', we have seen the drip-drip rollback of powers since 2016. No thought of respecting the results of the referendums of 1997 and 2011, when the people of Wales voted for powers here in Wales in the first place and resoundingly for more powers in 2011.

But we expect no different from the Conservatives. We started losing powers under the Wales Act 2017. Plaid argued strongly and were mocked by Labour and the Conservatives then. With EU withdrawal, Labour opposed Plaid and the late Steffan Lewis's plan for a continuity Bill to protect the Senedd's legislative competence during EU withdrawal, and relied on inter-governmental agreements with the Conservative UK Government instead. Well, that's turned out well: now we have three Senedd committees concluding that the internal market Bill drives a coach and horses through the devolution settlement. So much for the protection of inter-governmental agreements, so much for common frameworks based on shared governance instead of the continuity Bill. The internal market Bill is not merely economic, it is disastrously constitutional. There has been no issue with trading between Wales and England these last 20 years.

Even the House of Lords have been unstinting in their condemnation of the internal market Bill. Welsh Government was sidelined and ignored repeatedly during EU withdrawal negotiations over the last four years. Legislative consent was denied for the EU withdrawal Bill by Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but the Tories carried on regardless. Now in the midst of the COVID pandemic, with Brexit negotiations oven ready, as the easiest deal in the world—that's going well—if all that was not enough, we have an internal market Bill imposed upon us. A Bill breaking international law, leading to fury in Ireland and elsewhere. Our European funding, the shared prosperity fund—so-called—hollowed out, not a penny less, not a power lost; not going well, is it? The internal market Bill means losing powers, losing funding, losing control over funding, and paralysing the Senedd's future ability to make divergent laws for Wales. The internal market Bill just draws us into England, Sewel convention gone, inter-governmental agreements a joke—it's imposed upon us.

With a fisheries Bill and a trade Bill and agriculture Bill going through at present, Welsh Government is still depending on inter-governmental agreements and despatch-box promises—as empty as they are meaningless. Still, Labour remains wedded to this union of an increasingly disunited kingdom to the detriment of Wales, bleating at the injustices but complicit. Over eight centuries, English kings and the Westminster elite have either oppressed or neglected the people of Wales, or both. People often mock when I go on about Welsh history, but we don't need to recall Llywelyn Ein Llyw Olaf, the treachery of the blue books, drowning Tryweryn, or any other historical betrayal, because the modern-day examples keep on flooding in, where the UK Government gazumps Welsh Government on testing kits, or directs PPE to England not Wales, or the crippling underfunding of rail infrastructure in Wales, or UK Government wrecking shared prosperity, decimating farming incomes, and dismantling Wales politically with the internal market Bill. Betrayal is heaped upon betrayal, and still Labour is proud to be unionist. UK Tories are laughing at Welsh Government and laughing at Wales because we can always be brought to heel. Soon, Scotland will be free of this charade; it's only Wales and England left. No UK, then. We glimpse a dystopian future beloved of that malevolent, misinformed minority that wants to ditch the Senedd and ditch Wales. Labour needs to be on the right side of history moving forward, not side with forces laughing at Wales. Give legislative consent to dismantling my nation? Llywydd, in ending, you know and people know me as a detached, considered and dispassionate analyser of constitutional affairs, and even I say vote against legislative consent. Diolch yn fawr.

Diolch, Llywydd. My group will be supporting this LCM today, and we disagree with the conclusions drawn by many that the internal market Bill fundamentally undermines devolution. I would argue the opposite—without a sensible approach to the trade of goods and services between the home nations we could see a breakdown in the free movement of goods, which could lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom.

Many of the people crying foul were quite content to accept the EU internal market, so why should a UK one be any different? It's not as if we don't have any say in making the rules. After all, doesn't Wales have 40 MPs to represent our nation in the UK Parliament? What we can't have is a free-for-all whereby nation competes against nation, and in that trade war all will lose. That would be particularly true in our case. How could our small nation of 3 million people possibly hope to compete with a nation of 56 million people? And to complicate things, we rely on the goodwill and taxes of those 56 million people to fund our health service and schools. If not for them, then our taxes would be so much higher and our nation so much poorer. We have to adopt a sensible, four-nation approach to ensuring our goods and services are of the highest quality, safety and efficacy, produced under the highest labour and welfare standards. This is the only way to maintain the free flow of goods and services across an essentially borderless United Kingdom.

So, at this moment in time, Wales needs interdependence. However, should there be a public appetite in the future in Wales for independence, it would not be possible financially for many years, due to Wales's poor infrastructure, which requires heavy investment, and I'm sorry to say that, whichever Government has been in power in Westminster, Wales has always been underfunded and treated as the poor relation—not one party any better than the other—and Wales has been left behind. For these reasons, we will support the LCM today, because now, post Brexit, is the time for change and for Wales to prosper, and investment in our economy is extremely important.

So, both Governments must start working together for the benefit of the people of Wales, instead of fighting against each other. Don't forget, around 85 per cent of people in the Senedd tried to scupper the Brexit referendum result, and this is not on. We need democracy, as opposed to dictatorship. The people of Wales decide what is best for them, and I rest my case. Thank you.

And the people of Wales, of course, have decided what is best for them, and they've elected this Parliament.

This Bill, which I hope—[Interruption.]—which I hope the Parliament will refuse legislative consent for, is one of the most dishonest and destructive pieces of legislation that I've had the misfortune to read in my time in politics. They set two clear objectives for this legislation: maintaining the single market, and enabling businesses to operate across the United Kingdom. Then they say that we need this Bill to invest in Wales and Scotland. Now, those objectives aren't objectives that anyone here, on any side of this Chamber, would oppose or object to. We want to see business occurring across the Wales border. We want to see investment from the United Kingdom Government in Wales, and you don't need this Bill to achieve any of those objectives. It isn't about those objectives, it isn't about the single market, and it isn't about investment. And I'll say to Darren Millar, who did his best, through gritted teeth, I think, earlier, to justify this nonsense—it is possible for the UK Government to invest in Wales today. You take rail funding, for example. They could invest in rail funding today, but they don't, and not only do they not invest in the rail network in Wales, they change the formula to mean that they'll invest less in the future. So, if they wanted to invest in our—[Interruption.] It's a fact. If they wanted to invest in our infrastructure, they could do it today, they could do it tomorrow, they could have done it yesterday. They chose to do none of those things. And the spending review that was announced a few weeks ago follows years of such underfunding. 

We were promised the shared prosperity fund. We still haven't seen that. We still haven't seen a penny of those pounds that were promised to Wales. The basis upon which that was created is still not clear to any of us, and I'll say to Darren Millar that I was one of the Ministers who negotiated European funding in Brussels, and that process was far more transparent, far more open, far more democratic than what we have today, when we've essentially got the UK Parliament enforcing its will on this Parliament. If anyone here believes that the cuts in agricultural payments that we saw last week are anything except an absolute destruction of the industry, then they need to listen to what the NFU and the FUW are saying. 

Let me say this on the single market: this is a solution in search of a problem. There is no issue with businesses doing cross-border trade—none at all. The single market can easily be managed by four Governments working together within the common frameworks under the supervision of four legislatures. That is happening at the moment, it could happen in the future, but what wouldn't happen under that system, of course, is that the Tories wouldn't get what they want. They wouldn't get their own way, because in a democracy they need to win elections, and in Wales they've been notably lacking in some success in that over recent years. Whenever the people of Wales have an opportunity to vote, they do not elect a Conservative Government, and I don't believe they ever will. 

I listened to Laura Anne Jones. She stood in Blaenau Gwent a year ago and managed to get 18 per cent of the vote. If she wishes to stand in Blaenau Gwent in May, I'm very, very happy to show her round the constituency, but I can tell you now that the people of Blaenau Gwent will not be electing a Tory in May or at any other time. 

And finally, let me say this—[Interruption.] And finally, let me say this: this isn't about the single market, it isn't about business, it isn't about Brexit, it isn't about UK investment; it is about one thing and one thing alone—it is about the imposition of political power to undermine Welsh democracy. That is what this Bill is about, and that is what this Bill seeks to achieve. And this is fundamental to us. I say this to you, Presiding Officer: it is important for all of us, wherever we sit in this Chamber, to uphold the rights and privileges of this Parliament, and to uphold the interests of what the people of Wales have voted for. The people of Wales have voted for this Parliament to hold these powers. These powers are being taken away from this Parliament without reference to this Parliament, and I say this to my own front bench: devolution is dead if this reaches the statute book, because devolution was predicated on a UK Parliament recognising and respecting the mandates of Parliaments in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. If the powers are taken away from us without our consent, and if this Bill and its provisions are imposed on the people of Wales without their consent, then it is clear to me that the democratic structures of the United Kingdom, the devolved democratic structures that we've enjoyed for the last 20 years, are no longer sustainable, and the United Kingdom's democracy is no longer sustainable. And I believe that this Bill should be withdrawn, we should not provide our consent for that, and, if the Tories do go ahead in undermining our democracy, then we need to find a constitutional settlement for the future that protects the rights not only of this Parliament, but of the people who elected it. 

I am a member of the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee, and the reason I speak is because I want to commend the committee's report. I do want to emphasise that I'm not against the principle of the internal market Bill, but I have to say I find that the one before us has been rushed and badly thought through, typically in regard to its constitutional implications. Unlike the previous speaker and some others that have spoken, I think this is rushed and clumsy, rather than a malign attempt to undermine the principles of devolution, but, even if those principles are undermined inadvertently, it still creates a very serious constitutional peril, and this is something I would hope my own party would reflect upon.

Regarding its impact on devolved administrations, I think it's important to note here that the Bill risks making the exercise of devolved powers much more difficult, and it's in their exercise that powers are significant. They can exist notionally, and many people have referred to the supposedly 70 more powers that come to us as a result of them being moved from Brussels, but if these things cannot be exercised just because of the general framework of a particular policy area, or existing policies are more difficult to exercise—for instance, how we regulate the housing market and the provision of services by landlords, for instance, or agents of landlords—that really brings home how it can have an impact in domestic policy making.

I do believe the UK Government would have been better advised to have treated this Bill as the first of a number of constitutional Bills that may be necessary to strengthen the integrity of the UK. I do regret that this has not been its focus. Of course, to be successful, a constitutional Bill needs to be the product of joint working in its drafting between the devolved administrations, or at least giving them every opportunity to join in that effort. Now, I'm not so naive as to suppose that support from the Scottish Government was ever likely to be forthcoming, and there are well understood reasons for that, but they still may have contributed to a process they didn't entirely agree with or in the end would be happy to support. But opposition from a unionist Labour Welsh Government should not be dismissed lightly. It sends an alarming signal.

Presiding Officer, in many ways, Brexit was about the reaction to the single market and its regulation, and the accusation that those regulations often hampered the exercise of domestic sovereignty. Yet what we have proposed today is an internal market that is much more centralised than the European single market and without those principles of subsidiarity and proportionality that do give genuine local decision making full scope within a single market—or as full a scope as is possible. We are not going to have that, and I think it's ironic that senior members of my party that pursued Brexit with such verve and success are now applying and multiplying the principles they so condemned in terms of the European single market.

Can I just finish by saying that in preparing the ground to break international law, this Bill is clearly repugnant? Now, I do understand that despite the decision of the Commons to reinsert the clauses that allow for the breaking of international law—the Commons say that they had to be reinstated after the Lords withdrew them—I understand now that the Government has indicated that it will not object to the Lords removing those same clauses again, and therefore at least that stain in this Bill will then be expunged. But the fact that that threat was ever made I think must cause great unease to the devolved administrations, and the ability of a British Government to negotiate in a way that is trusting and full and not capable of these underlying menaces. I think, in this regard alone, this Bill stood remarkably outside the traditions of the Conservative Party, when you look at Churchill and Maxwell Fyfe, who did so much to establish the norms of international law after the second world war. It's with great reluctance, Presiding Officer, that I must tell the Chamber and my own party that I will be voting against giving this Bill our legislative consent.

I'm afraid I have to fundamentally disagree with my friend David Melding, particularly in relation to the points that he's just made on international law, which I'll come to later in my speech.

The opponents of this legislative consent motion seem to me to ignore the fundamental reality of why we're debating this today—that the people of the United Kingdom and the people of Wales, four and a half years ago, voted to leave the European Union, and we had a general election last December in which the Conservative Party stood on the slogan of getting Brexit done and the Prime Minister was elected, or his party was elected, with a majority of 80 in the House of Commons. Both in the red wall in northern England and in Wales, Labour citadels that had returned Labour Members for decades fell to the Tories—five Conservative seats were lost in Wales.

The withdrawal agreement does not deliver Brexit. That was a product of a rather painful period for the Conservative Party under the short-lived leadership of Theresa May. It constitutes a supine surrender to the negotiator for the EU, Monsieur Barnier, by the worst Prime Minister that this country has seen since, at least, Ramsay MacDonald. But of course, Theresa May had no majority in the House of Commons. Now, we have a Government that has a large majority in the House of Commons, and so it is able to deliver the sort of Brexit that the people voted for four and a half years ago. Boris Johnson wants to get Brexit done and this Bill is an essential ingredient in achieving that. So, everything has changed.

But, of course, nothing has changed for the Labour Party; they are the latter-day Bourbons of modern Britain, because they've learned nothing and have forgotten nothing. As Darren Millar pointed out, not only did they oppose Brexit—fair enough; of course they're entitled to do that—but they also legislated to stop the United Kingdom leaving the EU without a withdrawal agreement, and then voted against the withdrawal agreement itself. They wanted a second referendum to reverse the first referendum before the first referendum result was delivered. They've done everything they possibly can in the last four years to undermine the British negotiating position. And the Counsel General, I'm afraid, is still at it. He's been Monsieur Barnier's enthusiastic little helper during the whole of this period—the faithful servant of the Brussels technocrats whose aim is to make Britain suffer for the impertinence of demanding the restoration of its national sovereignty. And of course, the other unstated objective is to keep all the others in the EU still in line in case they be tempted to follow the route that Britain has freely chosen to take. 

The withdrawal agreement is, I believe, wholly contrary to the Good Friday agreement itself, and therefore there's an entire justification for retaining the clause that David Melding just informed us the Government is now happy perhaps to see taken out. Because under the withdrawal agreement, it said that Northern Ireland's status should change only with the consent of the people of Northern Ireland—under the Good Friday agreement, rather, the status of Northern Ireland can be changed only with the consent of the people of Northern Ireland. The Act of Union 1801, which united us into the United Kingdom, in article 6, says that

'in all treaties...with any foreign power, his Majesty’s subjects of Ireland shall...be on the same footing as his Majesty’s subjects of Great Britain.'

And of course, the withdrawal agreement drives a coach and horses through that, because it creates a border right down the middle of the Irish sea and requires people in England and in Wales exporting to Northern Ireland to fill out export documentation, and vice versa from Northern Ireland in the other direction. Now, the Northern Ireland protocol in article 4 of the withdrawal agreement says that, 

'Northern Ireland is part of the customs territory of the United Kingdom'.

All that the internal market Bill does is to ensure that this will continue after our transition out of the European Union. Now, the European Union wants to protect its single market, of course, but then, so do we in the United Kingdom. And protecting the single market of the United Kingdom is vastly more important to the people of Wales than the single market of the European Union ever was, or, indeed, could be.

Now, you can't repudiate part of a treaty in international law, but of course, you can repudiate, in certain circumstances, a treaty in its entirety. And if there's no deal, I hope that the United Kingdom Government will repudiate the withdrawal agreement in its entirety, including the financial arrangements that the withdrawal agreement contains, and the trade matters wrongly conceded to the European Union in the negotiations. Under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, if there's a fundamental change in circumstances compared with the time when the treaty was negotiated, then it is lawful for a state to repudiate its terms and—

You need to bring your comments to a close now, Neil Hamilton. You're out of time.

I'll do that, Llywydd. The withdrawal agreement was never meant to be permanent; it was meant to be transitional. If we do not pass this Bill today, then what we will do is effectively maintain the border down the middle of the Irish sea, fragment the United Kingdom, and that's the greatest danger of all.

The internal market Bill does one thing, and one thing only—it seeks to overturn the result of the referendum and ignore the will of the people. In 2011—and a few have alluded to it today—Welsh citizens were asked a direct question, and it was,

'Do you want the Assembly'—

as it was then—

'now to be able to make laws on all matters in the 20 subject areas it has powers for?'

Nearly two thirds of the respondents said 'yes'. The result meant that this Assembly could make laws on all matters in those subject areas without needing the UK Parliament's agreement. The internal market Bill would reverse that decision and undermine the Welsh Government's and this Chamber's ability to make laws.

The news out of No. 10 yesterday suggests the Westminster Government could drop those clauses of the Bill that breach international law if a deal with the EU can be agreed. But as it stands, the internal market Bill makes a 'no deal' Brexit more likely. In Pembrokeshire, we've already been dealt a Brexit blow. The Danish shipping company DFDS has announced a new direct ferry from Ireland to France, bypassing our ports. That's a huge blow for the local economy and it's a worrying sign of where we are heading.

A 'no deal' Brexit would be a catastrophe and yet another broken Tory promise. There never was an oven-ready deal; it was simply a half-baked notion, just like the Conservative manifesto commitment to Welsh farmers that promised to, and I quote, 

'Guarantee the current annual Common Agricultural Policy budget to farmers in every year of the next Parliament'.

Instead, they've robbed Welsh farmers of £95 million. Conservative Members tried to spin the fact and they tried to pull the wool over their constituents eyes, but the bottom line—and the Farmers Union of Wales's number crunching proves it—is that it's—[Interruption.] 

Hold on, Joyce. I'm sorry to cut across you. Darren Millar, you don't have to comment on every single thing that everybody says in this debate. You've had your chance to speak. Please allow other people to contribute now. Joyce Watson. 

Thank you, Llywydd. The bottom line—and the Farmers Union of Wales's number crunching proves it—is that it's a hatchet job on the rural economy, and that's a sign of what's to come.

The Finance Committee report warns that the internal market Bill opens the door to the UK Government reducing funding to Wales via the block grant. It gives powers to Westminster to decide what is best for Wales, and they don't have any mandate to do that—that mandate rests here. For three years, the UK Government has failed to publish its plans for replacing the EU structural investment funding with a UK shared prosperity fund. I'm beginning to think it's a ghost fund. I'm beginning to think it doesn't exist. Either they haven't done those sums, or they don't want to share those with the devolved administrations.

The internal market Bill is a direct risk to devolution, as many commentators have said today, and, therefore, the stability of the UK. It's against the settled will of the people of Wales. It's nothing short of a smash and grab, and at the same time, it's outside international law insofar as it currently stands.

I thank Joyce Watson for her speech; it referred back to the 2011 referendum and making laws in these 20 areas. Of course, that was subject to the overriding law of the European Union—she didn't object to that, but she objects to more limited constraints at a UK level. She also didn't remind us that on the ballot paper in that referendum it said, 'This Assembly cannot make laws on tax, irrespective of the result of this vote'. May I thank the Minister and the three Chairs of committees—and perhaps also if I can single out Dai Lloyd—for their speeches, which have reminded me and emphasised what a good Bill this is? How pleased I am to support it today. There are, I think, three core areas; the Minister mentioned five, but I'll limit myself to three.

Firstly, the UK Government is going to expressly be allowed to spend money in more areas in Wales; surely that is a good thing. Others object because it might limit, apparently, their policy control. The UK Government might perhaps fund free schools or academies and allow parents and their children more choice of education in Wales. Some Members refer to respecting manifesto commitments, but, of course, the UK Government's spending in respect of the M4 relief road could only actually deliver on a commitment that the Welsh Government made, but then broke. I think we should welcome the prospect of more spending from the UK Government, including from the shared prosperity fund.

Secondly, the area of market access and mutual recognition—excellent principles. I disagree with David Melding and his references to Tory objections to the EU single market and replicating them through this legislation. The reverse is the case. What we saw in the European Union was single market legislation that led to top-down harmonisation of rules across all 27 countries saying you can only sell something if it abides by a single central regulation. What the internal market Bill does is go back to a much better approach that the European Union had itself flown from the 1979 European Court of Justice judgment in Cassis de Dijon, basically that if something meets the regulations of the state in which it's made, then it can be sold in all member states—market access and that principle of mutual recognition. I think that's very welcome, and if it results in our being unable to legislate to ban people in Wales from buying things that people in England can buy, then that is something I would also welcome.

The third area of state aid and a measure of control over state aid by the UK Government, again, is something I welcome. We've generally had less state aid in the UK than is usual across the European Union. I'm not sure why it's a such a block for the European Union in these talks. I hear many people in this Chamber, particularly the Labour and Plaid speakers, complain of any UK oversight over what Welsh Government may do in terms of state aid, just as Joyce Watson did about legislation in those 20 areas, but they never objected to it when it came from the EU. To me, that just shows that many who come from those political traditions are, frankly, as anti-UK as they are pro-EU, and I think that was exemplified yesterday by the disgraceful comments from a Government Minister attacking the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. Actually, it is this Welsh Government and the actions of this Senedd that threaten the United Kingdom, not this internal market Bill, and if, to a limited extent, it, for the first time, pushes some powers back to a UK level that might otherwise be devolved, that is something I welcome and I think the people of Wales will welcome. 

I'll be voting for this LCM today. In some ways, though, if I lose that vote, then that in itself will be good, because we will then see the UK Government impose this Bill and we will, hopefully, be able to put the Sewel convention to bed.

Today, this Senedd will reject legislative consent for the internal market Bill, knowing in advance that the UK Government will not honour the Sewel convention. I understand the UK Government has made a last-minute offer to consult the devolved administrations before using delegated powers. They must think we're fools if we'll believe that one, as they've already made clear they'll ignore the withholding of consent on the very Bill they're now saying they'll adapt. The lack of respect the UK Government has towards this Senedd, and its pigheaded approach to democracy—that it only counts if they agree—has laid bare the reality of the union.

I'd like to thank the Minister for his strong statement and also for his work as Brexit Minister these past few years. His strategy to try to protect this Senedd through collaboration ultimately failed, but this was not because of a lack of his efforts. He tried his best out of a genuine desire to do what he believed was best for Wales, but was let down by a Westminster Government that had no interest in co-operation, one that was determined to dismantle devolution.

Three separate Senedd committees have recommended rejecting legislative consent. Concerns include the conflict of interest inherent in the UK Government setting UK subsidy rules when it's only responsible for English economic policy, and that the Bill would have a profound effect on the devolution settlement. The message is clear: the UK Government has responsibilities towards its four constituent nations, but its policy now is to advance English interests at the expense of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

In terms of what the Bill strives to achieve, some of the most damaging powers include the mutual recognition and non-discrimination clauses that are designed to weaken the Senedd's power to legislate. Clause 46 will empower the Westminster Government to spend directly in Wales without the consent of this place, and it's clear that the reason for this measure is that they just don't like the way that the Welsh Government uses its powers. The democratic mandate for these powers lying with Wales is unanswerable. Welsh citizens have endorsed devolution 14 times in two referendums and through delivering pro-devolution majorities in 12 elections. No anti-devolution mandate exists. It's clear that when Boris Johnson says he is enacting the will of the people, he isn't talking about the will of the people of Wales.

I would like to take this opportunity to place my thanks on record as well to Dafydd Wigley for working cross party in the Lords to try to overturn the most damaging aspects of this Bill. One successful amendment he supported, in the name of Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, sought to remove the provisions enabling the UK Government to spend in devolved areas. Now, this was supported by Labour in the Lords, but I was shocked that Labour abstained on this amendment in the Commons on Monday. I'm sure the Minister will place on record his condemnation of his Labour colleagues in Westminster for undermining his stance and failing to support an amendment that reflects his Government's policy.

We've now had 10 years of Tory UK Governments that have consistently attacked the welfare of Welsh citizens, 10 years of destructive austerity, four years of constitutional chaos and a lifetime of broken promises. Alun Cairns told a Senedd committee that there was no agenda in terms of withdrawing powers or rolling back powers from the Welsh Government. Now, rules surrounding the use of parliamentary language prevent me from using the obvious term to describe this, but we all recognise what a clear disparity between promise and action entails. And I haven't even mentioned the broken promises surrounding the shared prosperity fund.

Llywydd, Welsh democracy is being unravelled. The Welsh Government strategy was to try to protect Welsh interests by working with the UK Government. That strategy failed, not because of a lack of effort, but because their unwilling partner has been a rogue Government that has a nihilistic desire for destruction.

Today, Llywydd, is a historic day, and not for the reasons it should be. Today should be the day that we stop the internal market Bill in its tracks through rejecting our consent. Instead, it will be the day that Westminster reasserts its dominance over Wales through force. The old ways have failed us. The only option left to protect our democracy and the interests of Welsh people is independence. 

I call on the Counsel General to reply to the debate. 

Diolch, Llywydd. Can I just say, firstly, I'm glad that Delyth Jewell reminded us of the cross-party effort, both in Parliament but also in this Chamber, to support the position that I articulated at the beginning of this debate—whether it's on the Government benches, Plaid Cymru benches and, in a speech, if I might say, of great sagacity by David Melding, it was good to hear a Conservative voice standing up for the principles of democracy in Wales. 

Can I start by associating myself with the comments of Alun Davies and Mick Antoniw? We support the principle of an internal market on these benches; we think it is important for the efficient and effective functioning of the economy in the UK. But this Bill is not only unnecessary as a means of achieving that, it is positively damaging to the devolution settlement in Wales. 

I want to reflect on David Rees's point, where he reminded us of the disparity between the nations that this Bill entrenches. Yes, economic disparity, and Llyr Gruffydd also mentioned this as well, but that, in a sense, is a fact of economic life. What this Bill creates is constitutional disparity. It prevents this Senedd from being able to touch this legislation in the future, even when it deals with devolved matters. Parliament isn't constrained in the same way in acting on behalf of England. Now, I know on the benches opposite that they are no fans of the level playing field between the UK and the European Union, but I would in all sincerity have hoped that they could at least support the principle that the playing field should not be levelled against their own nation, and they failed to do that in this debate today.

Mick Antoniw reminded us, Dai Lloyd and David Melding as well, that this Bill is being imposed. It is not legislation that has been co-developed with the devolved Governments.

I listened to Darren Millar's speech. It is some time since I heard a speech of such cynicism in this place. Almost everything that he said, every sentence, I felt the opposite was the reality. It was a speech for another debate. This debate is not about Brexit, it's about the future constitutional arrangements of the United Kingdom. Darren Millar spoke about the democratic mandate. The democratic mandate that we should be upholding is that which the Welsh nation has expressed in two referenda to establish this Senedd and to expand its powers, as Joyce Watson and Dai Lloyd reminded us. Darren Millar perpetuated the myth that this Bill extends the powers of the Senedd. I have asked Government Ministers in Westminster to point me to the clause that does that, and I'm happy to yield the floor now if he can do that today. 

No, there is no yielding of the floor in the current circumstances, sorry. 

Well, I note that he failed to point me, in his speech, to that clause, Llywydd. 

Dai Lloyd's contribution—I agree with his rejection of the Bill. I don't agree with his characterisation of the work of the Labour Party, but I do agree with his rejection of the Bill. This is a time for cross-party alliances. We have managed to work together with the SNP Government in Scotland, despite having very different constitutional preferences. We're in different places on the spectrum of reform, but let us today, at least, speak with one voice from this Chamber.

Dai gave us a reminder of the history, which we should all bear in mind. Caroline Jones and Neil Hamilton's speeches both reminded me that history is not the only thing that is destined to repeat itself, and they both shared with Darren Millar a fondness for the mythology that we've heard too often in this place. 

I heard Mark Reckless in his contribution. Now, for those who want to abolish the Senedd, this Bill is constitutional catnip. The truth of it is that the principles behind this Bill strengthen the arm of people like Mark Reckless, and that's not about abolishing the Senedd; in his case, it's about abolishing Wales. 

I'll end, if I may, with Alun Davies's comments, where I started. The charade that this Bill provides further capacity for the UK Government to fund in Wales is one of the most extraordinary things. The thing that prevents the UK Government from funding more infrastructure in Wales is not that they don't have the power to do it, they don't have the inclination to do it. I was reminded of Paul Davies's promise to the Welsh people, that a Conservative Government in Wales would defund what is not devolved. I had no difficulty in believing that. They've spent the last 10 years defunding what hasn't been devolved, whether it's rail, or energy, or digital, those have all been defunded and that's been a Conservative choice. So, let's not have financial assistance powers in the Bill; let's just have more financial assistance.

This Bill, Llywydd, is an outrageous assault on this national Parliament and the Welsh Government, and I ask Members to defend this Senedd's rights and democratic powers to reject the motion and to deny it consent.

The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There are objections, and I will defer voting under this item until voting time.

The next item is a motion to suspend Standing Orders to allow the next item of business to be debated. I call on the Counsel General to formally move.

Formally.

Formally. The proposal is to suspend Standing Orders. Does any Member object? No. Therefore, the motion is agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Now, a procedural motion to allow the next item of business to be postponed. I call on the Counsel General to move that motion formally. 

Formally. 

The proposal is to agree the procedural motion. Does any Member object? No. Therefore, the procedural motion is agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36. 

Therefore, the debate on the new coronavirus restrictions will be rescheduled to the next meeting, which will take place later today, and will be included and scheduled as item 7, and will be subject to proposal to group the debate with a Conservative debate on coronavirus.

Item 9, the equality and human rights annual review is postponed. 

And that brings this to voting time at last, and I will suspend proceedings so that we can prepare for this vote. The meeting is suspended.

That brings us to the vote on the legislative consent motion on the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill. And I call for a vote on the motion, tabled in the name of Jeremy Miles. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 15, no abstentions, 36 against, and therefore the motion is not agreed.

We will now close this meeting, and reconvene for the rest of today's business. So, the meeting is now closed, and we will take a break.

Welcome, all, to the Plenary session. Before we begin, I want to set out a few points. This meeting will be held in a hybrid format, with some Members in the Senedd Chamber and others joining by video-conference. All Members participating in proceedings of the Senedd, wherever they may be, will be treated equitably. A Plenary meeting held using video-conference in accordance with the Standing Orders of the Welsh Parliament constitutes Senedd proceedings for the purposes of the Government of Wales Act 2006. Some of the provisions of Standing Order 34 will apply for today's Plenary meeting and these are noted on the agenda, and I would remind Members that Standing Orders relating to order in Plenary meetings apply to this meeting, and apply equally to Members in the Siambr and those joining us virtually.

With that, we'll move to item 1, which is questions to the Minister for Economy, Transport and North Wales, and the first question is from Angela Burns.

Good afternoon, Angela. Thanks for the question. Phase 3 of our Wales-only economic resilience fund included £100 million of business development grant support aimed specifically at helping businesses to adapt to a post-COVID life outside the European Union, and, of course, £20 million of this fund has been earmarked specifically for tourism and hospitality. And we have also made available a further £340 million through the latest phase of the economic resilience fund to support businesses affected by the new changes to COVID-19 regulations.

Thank you for that answer, Minister. Everybody is always grateful for any funds that can be made available to businesses. But I specifically wanted to ask you about businesses that are not actually affected by COVID-19, and there are many businesses out there that actually trade in very different ways and who still need to grow, to develop, to buy new premises, to take on board new staff, to start training programmes, and I've been talking with two or three of them and they are finding it very difficult to actually get any traction.

Before COVID, of course, there was a clear route into Government, a clear way of being able to apply for grants, a clear way of being able to liaise with people as to what information was required. But, of course, with the focus on COVID, what I'm really asking you is: can you just give us an overview of what moneys are available for businesses that are not affected by the COVID pandemic? How can they get access to staff, who are obviously under immense pressure trying to solve that COVID business? Because if we are going to try and grow after this is all over, then we need to encourage those businesses that are strong now to become stronger still and to carry on their businesses as normal.

Well, can I thank Angela Burns for her supplementary question? I couldn't agree more that businesses that have not been affected by COVID should be given the support that they require, in order to bounce back with strength from the pandemic, and to grow in spite of what we have faced collectively as a nation. Business-as-usual support from Business Wales is available, including, importantly, the accelerated growth programme, business start-up advice and support, and so too is the business-as-usual support from the Development Bank of Wales. Within Government, we also operate the economy futures fund, which is designed to, if you like, turbo charge the industries of tomorrow—those with great growth potential—making sure that our funding is aligned to our calls to action, including investment in skills, research and development and, crucially important of course, decarbonisation. But I'd be happy to write to the Member with comprehensive detail of the support available to businesses that she's identified.FootnoteLink

Thank you. Our strategy is to lay a strong foundation for change across the region. I updated the Senedd yesterday on the progress we have made with the Valleys taskforce. In addition to that, the Tech Valleys programme has made commitments of over £22 million to help create 600 sustainable jobs, and our £90 million transforming towns programme has a strong Heads of the Valleys focus too. 

Deputy Presiding Officer, I'm grateful to the Minister for that update, and I was grateful to him for his statement yesterday. The coronavirus has affected our communities and our lives in profoundly different ways and it's made us challenge many assumptions that we've accepted over many years. One of the most profound potential impacts and longer term impacts of the coronavirus has been a challenge to the notion and the concept that cities will continue to develop, and that city centres are the only places where business can properly be transacted. This means that, for the first time in many decades, we have an opportunity to create a renaissance for towns and villages and communities, and Wales, if it is anything, is a nation of small towns. I hope, Deputy Minister, that we will be able to create a strategy to underpin a renaissance for the towns in the Heads of the Valleys. When I think of my own constituency, my own home town of Tredegar, and of Ebbw Vale, Brynmawr, of Abertillery, Nantyglo and Blaina, we've all seen difficult, difficult times over many decades, and this is an opportunity that the Welsh Government really needs to grasp and promote and drive forward over the coming years.

Well, I agree with that. I think towns are facing a swirl of change. There's no doubt that digital disruption has had a huge impact, was already under way before the pandemic, and the pandemic has certainly accelerated that. But on the other hand, as Alun Davies rightly points out, there are opportunities from changes in attitudes and behaviours. It's one of the reasons why, when we set our target for 30 per cent of people working from home after the pandemic, we've identified alongside it an opportunity to place some of those workers within town centres into core working hubs. People will no longer have to travel to commute to work. Many will choose to do so, and it will be a mix of remote and flexible working, we hope, but there's certainly an opportunity for towns to have a different role, and I think that's what I would say here—that all people involved in the sense of place and the role of town centres have a responsibility to rethink what towns are for. We're certainly putting a significant amount of infrastructure investment in place. We've committed £6 million to Blaenau Gwent alone under the transforming towns fund, which will unleash a further £4 million. That's a £10-million pot to regenerate the towns just in Blaenau Gwent. We have adopted a town-centre-first principle in public sector investment decisions. Certainly, we know from the foundational economy projects that the public sector can have an anchor role within town centres to draw in other activity. But he's right—all of us need to think strategically about how to marshal these forces for the good of towns.

Last month, Wales saw the largest increase in unemployment in the UK due to the effects of the coronavirus pandemic. There's been a substantial increase in the number of people within the Valleys taskforce region claiming unemployment benefits—for example, the unemployment benefit claimant count increased between March and October 2020 by 68 per cent in Blaenau Gwent, 71 per cent in Torfaen, and 65 per cent in Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney. The retail vacancy rate in Wales has also increased from 15.9 per cent to 18 per cent in the third quarter of this year, the largest jump anywhere in the UK. Given that the best way to improve people's lives, not just in the Valleys but obviously in the whole of Wales, is through providing long-term, sustainable and skilled employment opportunities, what specific targeted support will you provide to Valleys towns, and what plans do you have to extend the number of enterprise zones in these areas?

The evidence on enterprise zones is mixed, and certainly the economy committee's report on them a few years ago reinforced that. We set out yesterday the activities, specifically in the Valleys taskforce area, on a whole range of interventions around placemaking, and we have set out considerable financial support for those businesses in distress because of the pandemic. We've also set out a recovery plan to make sure that, when we emerge from the pandemic, we have an emphasis on remaking our economy in a better way.

This is a really important matter raised by the Member. I have a question about priorities for funding in the area, because transforming town centres and providing better public transport is obviously key. I've been raising concerns with the Government about the cost of dualling an 11-mile stretch of road on the A465, which has increased from the original estimate of £428 million to £1.2 billion mainly because of the decision to use the mutual investment model. As I've said every time I've mentioned this, I welcome investment in our communities, but I do question whether spending £1.2 billion on 11 miles of concrete is justified when so many people in the area are living in poverty. The annual cost of repayment will be more than the annual budget of Communities First, the Welsh Government's flagship anti-poverty scheme, which it closed and never replaced. So, I'd ask the Minister what assessment was made by the Government, if any, of other means of improving that stretch of road that would have improved road safety without costing all that money?

I'm sure the Member is deliberately putting me in a difficult position, because she knows full well my view on investment in roads versus sustainable transport, and certainly in our Wales transport strategy we've set out that, in future, we want to shift our emphasis towards modal shift. In terms of this particular project, as she knows and as the First Minister has pointed out to her, the mutual investment model is a more sophisticated approach than she gives it credit, and the figure quoted involves the whole-of-life maintenance costs, which are significant. But she is right to say, in terms of addressing transport poverty for some of the most challenged communities in the country, we do need to make sure that we do more in future to help people who don't have a car, rather than reinforcing car dependency. 

We now go to spokespeople's questions, and the first up this afternoon is Conservative spokesperson, Russell George. 

Diolch, Deputy Presiding Officer. Minister, what is the Welsh Government's assessment of how the restrictions on the hospitality sector in regard to the Christmas period will affect the Welsh economy? 

Can I thank Russell George for his first question and take this opportunity, with it being my last OAQ session of the year, to wish Russell and every Member in the Siambr the very best for a peaceful Christmas and new year? And with regard to hospitality, we fully recognise the incredibly difficult position that many, many businesses across Wales are in as a consequence of those rising numbers of coronavirus victims. But we have put in place an unprecedented support package, the most generous and comprehensive anywhere in the United Kingdom, with specifically £340 million of support for businesses in tourism, hospitality and leisure in the coming weeks. 

Thank you for your answer, Minister, and for your good Christmas wishes to us all. From my perspective, Minister, businesses have bent over backwards to comply with anything that has been asked of them to make their businesses COVID-secure for their staff and for their customers. Some small businesses have spent thousands of pounds ahead of the Christmas period to do just that. And to put some context to this, the industry employs about 140,000 people with tens of thousands of additional people further in the supply chain. The reality, sadly, is that some small businesses will go to the wall if restrictions are not lifted on 17 December and if they are prevented from trading safely over the Christmas period. The worst situation, I think, for them is not knowing whether or not they can reopen. So, can you provide some clarity right now to businesses across Wales on what the current thinking is so that they can either plan to reopen and order the necessary stock, or plan to close for the whole of the Christmas period? And will you look at bringing forward that financial support that you mentioned, because January will simply be too late for some? 

Can I thank Russell for his further questions? There were a number of elements to his contribution. First and foremost, with regard to the restrictions and the period that they will be in place for, I should say that every restriction that we've put in place helps to save human life, but we're acutely aware as well of the need to save livelihoods, which is why we're making available such significant sums of financial support. We're constantly monitoring infection rates. At the moment, in some parts of Wales, those numbers are incredibly high and we wish to bring those numbers down as fast as we possibly can, and that requires all of us as citizens to consider not just what we can do by the rule of the law, but what we should do to assist in reducing infection rates.

Now, in terms of the period during which financial support will be offered, of course, any business that received financial support during the firebreak period and operates within the hospitality sector will have those second payments coming through this month, and then the operating costs support that is applied through the economic resilience fund will be available in January, ensuring that, over the course of two months, businesses have access to vital financial support that can cover their operating costs and address the lack of turnover over the six or so weeks that these restrictions are in place. 

Thank you for your answer, Minister. Any businesses in the hospitality sector would have already bought stock in the later part of November, in the early part of December in order to fulfil the needs of this period and between now up to Christmas. So, for many businesses, this is the time of year when cash flow is the tightest for them, and I'd simply say that to receive funding in January, or even into February, is simply too late. And if it's not too late, it's going to be too late for the supply chains that flow from those particular businesses, and that would be, certainly, my firm view.

The other point, Minister, that I'd make is that the one-size-fits-all approach that the Welsh Government is taking at the moment is, in my view, needlessly damaging businesses across Wales with relatively low infection rates and transmission rates. You pointed out in your last answer that you're monitoring—correctly, as well—where infection rates are particularly high, but that obviously means that there are some areas of Wales where the rates are particularly low. So, I would suggest we need targeted intervention that's backed by science and that reflects the different levels of risk in different parts of the country. So, can I ask my final question, Minister? Why does the Welsh Government continue to insist on a Wales-wide approach, impacting on livelihoods in parts of Wales that have some of the lowest rates of infection in the whole of the UK, and is this something that you will now reconsider ahead of the Christmas period that's now ahead of us?

Well, I can assure the Member that we are always considering alternative measures that could be implemented, but, of course, the national approach carries with it a very simply way of communicating to the public right across Wales. But, as I say, we are open to alternative means of addressing coronavirus infection rates if they differ significantly across the country. Now, we've attempted to feature within the fourth phase of the economic resilience fund the challenge that many businesses face in terms of loss of stock that has already been ordered, and we have also been able to feature within—[Interruption.] Deputy Presiding Officer, as I say, we also were able to feature within the fourth phase of the economic resilience fund the need to support the supply chain as well, and that's why those businesses within the supply chain of hospitality, such as cleaning services, will be able to apply for support.

Of course, just as Russell George rightly says, for many businesses in hospitality, this is the most important time of the year. This is the time of the year when the greatest level of turnover can be achieved. Equally, this is the time of 2020 when COVID is most threatening to human life and to health services. We face huge challenges across public sector services, and within the economy right now in late 2020, and that's why, in terms of the economy, we are making available £340 million—a huge sum of money—to help businesses survive through to 2021, by which time we hope that the array of vaccines will be able to be deployed in a way that enables the economy to return to something of normality during 2021.

Thank you. I turn to Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Helen Mary Jones.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Thank you very much. I'd like to expand, with the Minister, on some of the issues around hospitality and to begin by saying that we on these benches are clear, with Welsh Government, that public health and public safety is paramount. We do understand that and we share the Government's concerns about the rise of COVID. But I am struggling, Dirprwy Lywydd, to explain to hospitality businesses the exact nature of these restrictions and what the Welsh Government hopes that it will deliver. People are finding it difficult to understand why it's acceptable for people from four households to meet at lunch time, but you can't have people from four households meeting in a public house, even though they might be further away from each other physically than others, after 6 o'clock. I would put it to the Minister that this is particularly difficult for working people. The Minister will be aware, I'm sure, of lots of working men in his constituency who regularly go for the one pint at the end of a working day. I struggle to see how their behaviour is likely to be more dangerous than the behaviour of four people having lunch together. So, I wonder if the Minister, accepting that this is where we are now until 17 December—and, of course, some of the public health decisions are not his alone—would give some consideration to some flexibility in the proposals. Could he give consideration, for example, to allowing hospitality businesses after the seventeenth to sell small amounts of alcohol, to restrict to one or two drinks each? Would it be possible to consider, as he knows Plaid Cymru is proposing, allowing hospitality businesses to serve until 7 p.m. and stay open until 8 p.m.? These are small changes. I struggle to see—although I'm sure that the Minister will correct me if I'm wrong—how they would make a huge impact on worsening the spread—

Can you bring your comments to a close?

—and they would, of course, provide a lifeline to some businesses.

Can I thank Helen Mary Jones for her question and say at the outset that I have every sympathy for people who are suffering right now as a result of coronavirus, not just those who actually have coronavirus itself, but also people who feel, because of the restrictions, that their mental and emotional resilience has been weakened? The inability to socialise as we once were able to has led to many people feeling incredibly frustrated, and I have every sympathy for citizens in Wales right now as a result of our decision to impose incredibly valuable restrictions to save human life and to save the NHS.

Now, I can assure Helen Mary Jones that I and colleagues in Cabinet consider every possible amendment to the restrictions that can be imagined, but we take our advice first and foremost from health experts, and, as I said to Russell George, every restriction that is imposed helps to save human life, and that must be our priority right now—just as Helen Mary Jones rightly identified, public health is the No. 1 priority. But of course, as I said to Russell George a little earlier as well, we are backing up the necessary restrictions on business activities with the most comprehensive package of support for businesses anywhere in the United Kingdom.

I'm grateful to the Minister for his answer. I'm sure that none of us envies the Government the decisions that they have to make. I was pleased to hear the Minister, in his response to Russell George, refer to the supply chain businesses. And he will be aware, for example, of the challenges to Castell Howell, a supply business based in Crosshands, that depends, for 70 per cent of their business, on hospitality. Can he assure us that, as the Welsh Government reviews support going into the new year, those supply businesses will continue to be protected? 

Can I suggest to the Minister that there is an anomaly in the current restrictions, whereby supermarkets and other shops can sell alcohol until 10.00 p.m., but hospitality businesses have to stop at 6.00 p.m.? I wonder if the Minister shares my concern that that may be risking encouraging people socialising at home, and will he give consideration as to whether retail trade might further be restricted?

As we go into the new year, and, hopefully, we begin to be able to see things lifting, the Minister will be aware, of course, that January and February are never particularly good times for hospitality, even if they were able to open up, and there will be a need for long-term support. Will the Minister commit to giving further thought to what longer term support might be available to businesses to help them recover, because, having lost Christmas, that's very serious? Could consideration be given to some mechanism, for example, to reduce the costs of licensing to businesses, which are considerable?

I think Helen Mary Jones's suggestion there has great merit and we will certainly consider that alongside other forms of support that could offer strategic benefits to businesses, as we look towards a recovery. I had hoped by now to be able to outline the Welsh Government's economic recovery and reconstruction vision. However, given that coronavirus is still with us in such a devastating form, I felt it necessary to keep my attention and focus on emergency support for businesses. But we are most definitely going to be looking at how we can ensure that the long-term thriving nature of businesses is secured through our economic recovery and reconstruction work.

I think Helen Mary Jones makes the important point that businesses—very significant employers in Wales—within the supply chain for hospitality have struggled, and we will go on engaging with those businesses in the coming weeks to ensure that any future support is tailored to meet their needs and the needs of their workers as well. And of course, human behaviour is vitally important—none more so than at this devastating time as we approach Christmas. And there are restrictions that are in place; there will be some relaxation over the Christmas period, but, as I've already said, it's absolutely vital that people ask what is it that they should and should not do in order to protect human life—in terms of behaviour, how can they ensure that their loved ones, their friends, are protected—and the best way to do that is to take personal responsibility and ensure that you are not putting yourself at risk of transmitting or acquiring coronavirus, nor your loved ones.

I think the Minister is right to delay publishing the reconstruction and the redevelopment plans and to concentrate, at the moment, on the crisis. But, as we move towards that phase, I wonder if the Minister agrees with me that the disappointing decision made public by Ineos yesterday demonstrates to us that we really need to refocus our support to business on local businesses to enable our small businesses to grow into middle-sized ones. We have seen too many occasions where we have made investments to try and attract outside businesses in and they have let us down. Of course, I'm sure he would agree with me that there may very well be a Brexit element to this decision.

So, can he assure me that, as he's re-examining his reconstruction plans, there will be a strong focus on local businesses and on growing those and making sure that they have the skills that they need? Can he give us some indication as to what plans there might now be for the site in Bridgend now that it's categorical that Ineos have walked away?

Can I thank Helen Mary Jones for her questions again and say that it was bitterly disappointing that Ineos decided to move to France with their Grenadier programme? This is, of course, an iconic vehicle for the United Kingdom, and it's a devastating blow, I think, to those fans of the original Defender, who were hoping that the Grenadier would be manufactured on these shores. A site became available, we understand, in France that suited Ineos's needs, and, of course, Brexit is an issue that cannot be ignored by many manufacturers. So, Ineos made the decision and, as I say, we were bitterly disappointed when we learnt of it. 

But there is huge potential for that site in south Wales. We continue to work with the local authority and with the Ford taskforce experts, whom we engage with regularly, even though the taskforce itself has now ceased its operations. We are hopeful that we will be able to attract high-quality jobs to that particular site. 

I must agree with Helen Mary Jones in her assertion that we must redouble our efforts in growing small firms and ensuring that they have the support necessary to become medium sized, and to ensure that their anchors are firmly placed within Wales. I can't go into too much detail today—I should not go into too much detail today—regarding the reconstruction and recovery mission that will be outlined, but I can tell Members that there will be five beacons contained within it, and at least one of those beacons will serve the purpose of supporting Welsh indigenous small firms, enabling them to become more secure and resilient and to grow to become medium sized and employ more Welsh people.

Thank you. We return to questions on the order paper. Question 3—Mandy Jones.

Yes, of course. Environmental investigations along the route are currently taking place and we are progressing with the procurement of a designer who will develop the scheme in more detail. Dependent on the statutory processes, detailed design and construction could take place from 2024.

Thank you for that answer, Minister. I've had hundreds—literally hundreds—of e-mails about the red route, and I wrote to you in the summer about this; I thank you for your reply. I know you addressed the issues raised by the North Wales Wildlife Trust in a letter in October. Constituents in north Wales are still voicing their concerns even today. What words of comfort can you give them to assure them that the scheme will be as considerate as possible of our wildlife and our ecosystems? Thank you.

Can I thank Mandy Jones for her question? I agree that there are concerns that we are seeking to address. We're seeking to address them by carrying out those detailed surveys, by engaging with stakeholder groups that have expressed concerns, and, of course, we're engaging with the communities in the area. I have already written to local Members of the Senedd and Members of Parliament and to councillors, and to those living within a 500m radius of the route, to ensure that they were updated on the latest work that is taking place.

This particular scheme is vitally important to the north Wales metro vision as well, ensuring that we can remove traffic from the key artery of the A494/A55 to enable us to construct dedicated bus routes, bus lanes and active travel routes as well, which at the moment simply cannot exist because the available space is not there to deliver them.

Minister, you're aware that I am a supporter of the red route, but I also welcome your engagement with those who have concerns over the red route—the environmental issues—and I think you are working well to address those. You've mentioned the importance of this project to the north Wales metro, but I wonder if you could outline what benefit it would have to the north-east Wales local economy.

Can I thank Jack Sargeant for his question and just add to the points that I was making in regard to Mandy Jones's question that the primary concern at the moment regarding the environmental impact concerns the impact that it could have on Leadbrook wood? Now, it would amount to less than 5 per cent of spatial impact, but, of course, we're working with stakeholder groups. As much as we can we're trying to engage with them to look at ways of further mitigating against the impact and, indeed, going beyond that and compensating with an increase in the amount of forest that exists in that particular area of Wales.

And with regard to the economy, I'm sure Jack Sargeant will be aware of the strong support for the scheme from the Deeside business professionals and from the north Wales business council and the North Wales Economic Ambition Board. The benefit-cost ratio of this is, I believe, in excess of two, which would make it be considered a high-value investment.

But, of course, this is not just about ensuring that we have a more resilient pathway into north Wales—this is, primarily, about delivering a metro for north-east Wales, and, in order to do so, we need to reduce the number of traffic on the existing corridor, the A55/A494. It's projected that this scheme will reduce traffic on that particular corridor by between 25 per cent and 35 per cent, enabling us to operate dedicated bus corridors, bus routes, bus rapid transport. It would also enable us to end the rat run, which I'm sure Jack Sargeant is very well aware of, in the Deeside area, and it would enable us to use the space that could be acquired to implement more active travel routes.

On a number times over recent years I've raised with you constituents' concerns regarding the proposed red route to the A55 at Northop, highlighting issues, including environmental impact on habitats, meadows and ancient woodland. You've also, as we've heard, received extensive representation regarding this in support of the open letter from North Wales Wildlife Trust, sent to you and the First Minister, asking you to drop the proposals, and heard the call by the Petitions Committee for the scheme to be halted until changes in traffic flow, due to changes in commuting patterns, are considered.

In October, you wrote that you see the investment in this scheme as an essential part of the wider work to improve the transport infrastructure across north Wales. What, therefore, community and stakeholder engagement are you now planning regarding this, delayed by COVID? And why have you dismissed other suggested alternative solutions to easing congestion on the A55, A494 and A548 Deeside corridor?

Can I thank Mark Isherwood for his questions regarding this particular scheme? I should just point out as well, Dirprwy Lywydd, that, of course, increasing the availability of road space in north Wales on the A55 was a key feature of the UK Conservative Party manifesto, so it should be recognised that Mark Isherwood's own party is supportive of measures that would see increased volumes of traffic in north Wales on that key artery, the express way. What we're trying to do with the red route is to take existing traffic away from a key artery and put it onto another artery, so that we can then create a sustainable public transport and active travel solution for the most urban populated area of north Wales.

Mark Isherwood is right to say that COVID-19 has had an impact in terms of community engagement. It had been our intention to hold public information events during the spring of this year. But, of course, that couldn't take place as a result of the pandemic, but we're continuously reviewing our community and stakeholder engagement activity to ensure that all interested parties are updated regularly and, of course, safely, as our work on this scheme gathers pace.

In terms of some of the alternative suggestions that have been raised, we've looked into every alternative suggestion that has been raised with us—some quite enormous alternative schemes, others smaller schemes designed to address pinchpoints. But this route was determined to be the most suitable for the challenge that we face in that particular area of Wales.

And in regard to traffic and transport surveys, they are regularly conducted. Further transport and traffic surveys will be undertaken, particularly with regard to assessing how coronavirus might have affected transport and traffic volumes in the long term. But it should be noted, equally, that on the A55, volumes increased back to pre-COVID levels in August of this year, demonstrating that the A55 is very different to the M4 in that it has a far higher volume of traffic associated with the visitor economy and also haulage, and, of course, traffic associated, particularly in north-east Wales, with manufacturing industries as well, which aren't, unfortunately, as well catered for with remote working hubs as clerical work can be. So, it is a unique project for a unique problem.

Can I thank Helen Mary Jones for her question? We continue to work very closely with Tata Steel, with the UK Government and the unions on the future of the UK business. The First Minister and I spoke with Henrik Adam, the chief executive officer of Tata Steel, on 13 November. I've also had several meetings with UK Government Ministers since then, and, of course, with trade union representatives.

I'm grateful to the Minister for his answer. When we discuss the steel industry in Wales, we tend to focus on Port Talbot, and, obviously, that's vitally important. But can I ask the Minister to give the citizens of Llanelli and the workers at Trostre his personal assurance that when he is having these discussions—and I'm so glad to hear that he is—he will remember that it isn't just Port Talbot, and that decisions that are made about the future of Port Talbot may affect the possible future of what is very important work, though in much smaller numbers? To the Llanelli travel-to-work area and, of course, its supply chains, they're really important good-quality jobs.

Absolutely, I can give that assurance. Indeed, it is something that is regularly sought from my colleague and the local Member for Llanelli, Lee Waters. In recognition that the scale of the challenge that Tata faces is something that only the UK Government can assist with, he and Welsh Government, separately, are regularly putting pressure on UK Government to act in a responsible way. I understand that there are something in the region of 630 incredibly well-skilled people who are employed at the Trostre plant, and we are determined to ensure that they have a bright future, alongside those loyal employees at Tata's other sites across Wales.

We've discussed the intrinsic relationship between Trostre and Port Talbot many times in this Chamber, and it wasn't just Llanelli representatives who feared the loss of Trostre when the Thyssenkrupp merger was on the cards. We've also rehearsed those actions that could be taken by both Governments to make Welsh steel production more competitive. Whatever happens in these next few days, Minister, it seems unlikely that the UK Government will tie us in permanently to EU state-aid rules, so as well as looking for new markets for Welsh steel products, how much scope do you have, working with the UK Government, to tie in future direct Government aid supporting profitability for steel manufacturers with specific decarbonisation targets?

Can I thank Suzy Davies for her question? It's an incredibly interesting question; there is huge potential in this area. Of course, it's primarily something that the UK Government is leading on, but we are keen to ensure that we look at every opportunity to give the steel sector in Wales and, indeed, across the UK the best possible future. With regard to Trostre, of course, it produces steel products mainly for food packaging purposes, and we're investing very heavily in research and development facilities, particularly for the steel sector, in the area around Swansea and elsewhere concerning food packaging. I think it does have a very, very positive future. But the suggestions that the Member makes are very valid ones, and they are suggestions that we are working on with UK Government officials.

Minister, Helen Mary Jones rightly pointed out that Trostre and the Port Talbot works are linked very closely; they're both members of the Tata group. Trostre is a downstream client of Tata Port Talbot, and therefore the future of Port Talbot is clearly linked to the future of Trostre in that sense. You've indicated that you have had discussions with Ministers, but when we raised this at the announcement Tata made of the separation of the UK steel element from Tata Europe, the First Minister indicated he had asked for a meeting with the Prime Minister, or a telephone discussion. Are you aware whether that discussion has taken place with the Prime Minister, and have you had discussions with the business Secretary of State, Alok Sharma, to look at a future for steel? Decarbonisation is one agenda, but arc furnaces will result in Port Talbot losing large amounts of employees and jobs—not just direct employees, but also contractors.

Dai Rees makes the important point that any transition to alternative technologies must be undertaken over a period of time that allows as many skilled workers to be retained as possible. In direct response to the questions that he's raised, I have, of course, requested a meeting with the Secretary of State for BEIS; sadly that has not taken place yet. However, I have engaged very regularly with Nadhim Zahawi, who has been incredibly responsive to our calls. I would need to check, but as far as I'm aware, unfortunately, the Prime Minister has not responded to the First Minister's request for a discussion. But I will check on that and will ensure that Members are made aware of the outcome of the letter that the First Minister sent.FootnoteLink

We warmly welcome the direction of travel in the report and we are considering the recommendations in detail. Improvements to the Ebbw Vale line need to be part of the package of improvements and enhancements to rail infrastructure right across the region.

The Welsh Labour Government has long been in the vanguard of transforming public transport in Islwyn. In 2008, the Welsh Labour Government reopened the Ebbw Vale to Cardiff passenger railway service that services the communities of Islwyn at Crosskeys, Newbridge. and Risca and Pontymister. It has proven to be one of the great transport success stories of devolution in Wales, so I am glad to see that Lord Burns recommends, as the Minister has already commented in this Chamber, for this line to now include an hourly service to serve my constituents and the city of Newport as well. You've rightly identified, Minister, that the type of trips filling up this road and causing congestion are ones that could readily be served by public transport, if it were competitive on cost, journey time and convenience. So, what actions can the Welsh Government take to further ensure that the cost of rail journeys is kept low, journey times are fast and that there is a regular, convenient service for my constituents in Islwyn?

Firstly, on the cost point, from January, TfW announced—January of this year—that tickets were being reduced by a percentage, which has been going against trend. Clearly, the real answer to affordable fares over time is to make sure we have a successful public transport system that is heavily used, and that we have ongoing investment in it. In terms of the Ebbw Vale line, as the Member will know, we have developed a plan through TfW for an additional hourly service to operate between Crosskeys and Newport from December next year, and we are pursuing UK funding to help us to extend that. We've submitted a bid to the UK Government's Restoring your Railway accelerated ideas fund to secure funding to progress the work on reopening the Abertillery spur, so we are now awaiting a decision on that particular application. Rail infrastructure remains a non-devolved subject, and as we've said before, we have not been getting our population share of railway infrastructure. There is a shortfall of some £5 billion that has been preventing us from pursuing the type of investments that Rhianon Passmore is rightly pushing us to do.

Yes, of course. We have provided, and will continue to provide, significant financial support to ensure that the services people depend on continue to operate, enabling sustainable access to jobs, education and services.

Does the Minister think it's right that the Welsh Government, through Transport for Wales, should own and operate Hereford, Shrewsbury and Chester stations, and if so, how much money will the Welsh taxpayer invest in them over coming years?

Those stations are part of the Wales and borders network and the investment that's taken place in those stations is, of course, tied to the settlement that we receive from UK Government. Those stations are often used by Welsh commuters as well, recognising the porous nature of the border. I think it's absolutely vital to recognise, though, that with the franchise arrangements now coming into public ownership, we will be seeking value for money in terms of the services that are provided and the investment that takes place in those stations, but we're determined equally to ensure that people get the best experience they can possibly get when they travel by train on the Wales and borders franchise from end to end.

Yes, of course. We're investing in all modes to create an integrated transport system that contributes to our south-east Wales metro and that brings benefits to the Merthyr and Rhymney area and the wider region.

Thank you for that answer, Minister. Unlike some others who've commented on the final phase of the dualling of the Heads of the Valleys road, I'm looking forward to the many benefits that will arise in my constituency, ranging from the employment from its construction to improved safety on a very dangerous stretch of road and subsequent improvement in infrastructure, making this part of the northern Valleys a more attractive proposition for investment and economic development. In addition, the metro rail and bus investments are also important ways of getting jobs and people from Cardiff and elsewhere to live and work in the Valleys. Clearly, as already highlighted, this transport infrastructure will be critical to the economy of the northern Valleys in particular, but I'm also very interested in further improvements to digital connectivity in my constituency and the wider Heads of the Valleys corridor. So, what action can the Welsh Government take to improve that digital connectivity as well as the very welcome transport investment?

Of course, digital connectivity is absolutely vital in the modern age, and we've always been of the opinion in the Welsh Government that fast broadband should be treated as a key utility and that there should be a proper universal service obligation in place. But, of course, as Dawn Bowden knows, telecommunications policy is not devolved to Wales. It still sits with the UK Government, but we have stepped in repeatedly. We're stepping in once again to roll out fibre to a further 39,000 premises across Wales. We are looking at what we can do with new and emerging technology, alternative technologies, to improve connectivity, including the use of small cell technology. And, of course, we will have heard recently from the UK Government its ambitious plans to provide full fibre broadband to every single home in the UK and to every single business in the UK. They've pledged £5 billion to be spent between now and 2033 on that particular scheme, and we are seeking assurances of sufficient funding for Wales. That sufficient funding should recognise the needs of homes, the topography of Wales and businesses of Wales, and the incredible challenges that we face with deployment here in Wales.

Thank you very much, Minister.

Item 2 on the agenda this afternoon is questions to the Counsel General and Minister for European Transition in respect of his European transition responsibilities. Question 1 this afternoon is from David Rowlands.

The UK Government’s announcement on the shared prosperity fund has broken every promise to the people of Wales, including that we would not be worse off outside the European Union. We will continue to challenge any attempt by the UK Government to bypass matters that are devolved to Wales.

Sorry, can I just ask—? Has the Government agreed to group this with question 6?

Forgive me, Dirprwy Lywydd. Yes, indeed. Forgive me.

Thank you. Sorry, David.

Thank you. I thank the Counsel General for his answer. As the Counsel General will know, I am an avid supporter of Brexit. However, I have always advocated that each and every competence returned to the UK Government that is a devolved competence should be passed to the devolved Governments in its entirety. This also stands for any monetary benefits accruing from leaving the EU. The shared prosperity fund is a manifestation of that financial gain. I therefore urge the Counsel General to emphasise to the UK Government the cross-party support you have for this to be implemented in such a way that the Welsh Government decides where that money is spent.

Well, I thank David Rowlands for that further question. If we were still in the European Union, from January, Wales would have had a full year's allocation of around £375 million, in addition to those payments already being made through the current programmes. As he knows, there will now instead be a £220 million UK-wide fund, and there are no details still on how this funding will be distributed. I'm pleased to be able to rely on his support in our continued advocacy of the will of the people of Wales that these funds are replaced in full, and that matters in relation to those funds are devolved to this Senedd and the Welsh Government.

I refer Members to my interest in the non-remunerated role in chairing the regional investment Wales steering group, but my question lies outwith the work of that group. I've received representations, Minister, from higher education sector representatives in Wales, with their concerns over the UK shared prosperity fund and the UK Government's proposals. And they note that the UK shared prosperity fund will start as a pilot programme, with a total of £200 million for the entire UK, whereas the Towns Fund for England, by contrast—England alone has been allocated £4 billion and established at pace. And they note the disparity between the Conservative Party pledge in the 2019 manifesto, saying that,

'The UK Shared Prosperity Fund will...tackling inequality and deprivation in each of our four nations.'

And,

'at a minimum'—

these are the words—

'match the size of those funds in each nation.'

They do not understand the incongruity between the manifesto pledge and the details of the review. So, Minister, could you help us and our higher education institutions in Wales understand the clear incongruity between what was promised and what is now on offer?

Well, can I thank Huw Irranca-Davies for the work that he's undertaken, with a range of stakeholders right across Wales, chairing the group that he did, to help the Government devise the framework for regional investment, which was published mid-way through the last month? It was a work of great collaboration and creativity, and reflects the interests of a range of different stakeholders, in all sectors in Wales, including those that he mentions in his question. He will know as well as I know that what people and organisations and businesses and higher education institutions in Wales want is fair and transparent funding, rather than a political pork barrel. And that is why they've lent their support to the framework, I think, which he has helped us to devise.

Now, there are two aspects to this. One is the constitutional aspect—and we've discussed that previously today, and I know that he shares my view that it's outrageous, really, that the approach the UK Government has taken is to circumvent that. But there are very practical benefits to this as well, as I know that he knows. Part of the vision that we have as a Government is to enable these funds to be integrated with other funds that are available from different sources, to be delivered on the ground through the network of delivery that the Welsh Government and its partners in Wales already has, and to be built and devised on the basis of collaboration, joint working, consultation and co-design. None of those are features of what we understand to be the UK Government's approach in this way, and all of them are features of what the Welsh Government wishes to see in the future.

Counsel General, we've seen the Tory UK Government repeatedly talk about its levelling-up agenda, but there was scant evidence of that in the recent comprehensive spending review when it came to Wales. And now, as we approach the end of the transition period, the well-worn promise that we wouldn't be a penny worse off after Brexit is looking very thin, as the Chancellor gave further details of the UK shared prosperity fund. What assessment have you made of the shared prosperity fund, how it will live up to its promise as a fit and proper replacement for EU structural funds, particularly in areas such as mine?

I thank Vikki Howells for that question. I would like to be in a position to give her an assessment of the shared prosperity fund, but the scant detail that the Chancellor gave us in the spending review doesn't enable us to do that with any confidence. Now, she will know, as I do, that there are programmes and businesses and institutions, organisations in communities right across Wales who will have hoped that programmes would be in place for the beginning of the new year, in order to continue delivering the benefits to employability, growth, zero carbon transition, and all those other benefits that we've derived from funding to date. And they are not in that position because details have not been provided by the UK Government about programmes ahead, and we know already that next year's funding will be an absolute fraction of what otherwise would have been the expectation, and indeed, the promise to people in Wales. It's one of a long list of broken pledges of this Conservative Government in Westminster. 

I've discussed the impact of the end of the transition period on the port of Holyhead with a range of interlocutors, including the UK Government, and the Welsh Government will continue to do all it can to meet its obligations in the context of the very compressed timetable that has been forced upon us.  

Thank you. Monday's Welsh Government written statement 'End of Transition and Traffic Contingency Plans—Holyhead' refers to work with partners across north Wales, which is good, but omits reference to its work with the UK Government, and with HM Revenue and Customs—HMRC—and to the key role being played by Anglesey's MP, Virginia Crosbie. A fortnight ago, the port's owner, Stena Line, said that the process will be, quote, 'smooth.' Both the UK Government and HMRC have stated they're working closely with the Welsh Government and the port on this. Last week, we learned that the Holyhead Roadking Truckstop has been secured as a new customs post, and yesterday, the UK and EU reached a deal on Northern Ireland border checks, ensuring unfettered access for goods coming from Northern Ireland to other parts of the UK, with a small number of precautionary checks on food and products of animal origin going into Northern Ireland. 

So, what engagement has the Welsh Government actually had with the UK Government and HMRC regarding these key matters?

Well, I've reported to this Chamber on a number of occasions the work that we've been doing with both the UK Government and HMRC in relation to preparations for Holyhead. It starts from the proposition that any disruption is actually a consequence of political choices that the UK Government have made. Now, what we are engaged with, with them, and with others, is seeking to minimise the impact on the people of north Wales of choices that his Government in Westminster have forced upon them. That's the backdrop to this. And what we are doing is working co-operatively with the UK Government, HMRC, the council, and other partners, in order to mitigate that damage. 

The UK Government, as you know, has so far led on the question of seeking a location for the checkpoint, as it were. The intention is that both customs and the border control post will be located near each other to minimise the inconvenience to freight in doing so. There are commercial negotiations ongoing in relation to a site, so I won't comment further in relation to that. But the truth of the matter is, and I say this just as a matter of fact, that these decisions ought to have been made back in March, April, and could have been made then, and instead they're being made against an immense pressure of time. And the people who will bear the burden of that are the hauliers, are the traders, are the people of north-west Wales, as we do everything we can to try and mitigate the impact, and we do it in a way that is collaborative and co-operative, despite our political differences. 

As I say, so far, the UK Government has led on that as part of the UK-wide port programme. We sought engagement very early on, and it was late in the day in arising, but against that backdrop, we do all that we can within our powers to ensure that as much as possible of the damage and disruption is mitigated.

The list of concerns about the lack of the lack of preparations in Holyhead is frightening—lorries being stacked on the A55, the potential for great problems, particularly considering that the electronic system for exports from 1 January still hasn't been trialled as of yet; the lack of provision of infrastructure for borders in good time for imports from July of next year, which led to the UK Government taking the Roadking state, and I note that we've just heard that the Conservatives, including the MP for Anglesey, that they're celebrating the fact that 28 people there are losing their jobs just before Christmas. It was a new site that was needed in Holyhead. And there's the risk that any paperwork in taking good from Holyhead through Ireland to the north will be a risk for transport companies. Now, taking all of these things together, and the danger that there will be any problem in the flow of trade will cause the traders to not use the port of Holyhead, and the fact that that undermines jobs. 

Now, at the eleventh hour, we need mitigation steps as a matter of urgency for the period directly ahead of us. So, what discussions are happening on that? 

And, in the longer term, what negotiations will happen on securing investment in Holyhead, in order to make up for the mess and the damage that's being caused by our exit from the European Union, and specifically now the lack of preparation for that? 

I thank Rhun ap Iorwerth for his question. He is right to say that the uncertainty in the wake of this stems from the negotiations between the UK Government and the EU, and it's not something that we want to see, as a Government. We don't want to see any economic impact on the port. We want to see trade continuing at its current level, and increasing, of course. But it's right to say that changes in terms of the ways of trading from Northern Ireland and the route from Northern Ireland through the Republic—there is a risk that goods coming through that route will be dealt with in a disadvantageous way compared to the direct routes. We are looking at the things that have been agreed over recent days to understand for certain, when we have access to those details, what impact that will have on the trade routes. 

But, in terms of the infrastructure, as he says, at the start of the new year, our responsibilities as a Government, won't start, more or less, until midway through the next year. So, in the first six-month period, the UK Government will be leading on the infrastructure on an interim basis. But could I just say, very clearly, that the delays that have happened in terms of choosing a site, we have to look at the Westminster Government's choices in terms of the start of January, and ours then, following that—the delay then in terms of making a decision for January means that there has been a delay in the process, and we are very concerned that it won't be possible to hit the deadline in July. We're doing our best, but there's certainly a risk in that. 

We now turn to spokespeople's questions. Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Dai Lloyd. 

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. In terms of the Welsh Government role in the Brexit deal, obviously there's much feverish activity—we've all seen on our television screens in the last few days, last supper tonight et cetera—can I just ask though, from the Minister's point of view, in these final few days and hours, Minister, could you outline what role you have had on behalf of Welsh Government in feeding in to the ongoing situation to stand up for Wales's interests, or have you been sidelined again?

Well, most recently, I attended a JMC(EN) for European negotiations, last Thursday, where I made the point in relation to our priorities as a Government on behalf of the people of Wales, and raised questions about levels of progress in relation to different aspects of negotiation. I made the point that, at this stage, the imperative for both parties, incidentally, was to demonstrate flexibility, but that, in particular, since it's the UK Government's obligation to look after the economic interests of the people of the UK, that they should put the priority on the jobs and livelihoods of people in Wales, rather than on an illusory concept of sovereignty. 

Thank you for that, and if I just move on now to the shared prosperity fund, which has been touched on on occasions today. You'll be aware, of course, that you've recently announced a new framework for regional investment in Wales, which will be in place by the time EU funds begin to dissipate at the end of this year. Your recent statement regarding this, Minister, concluded that, and I quote:

'our delivery of this Framework is dependent on positive engagement with the UK Government that has so far been withheld. Wales must receive funding in full which needs to respect our devolution settlement.'

Considering, therefore, the level of input, or rather lack of input, that you've received, as part of the Brexit deal negotiation process over the years, what makes you think the situation here will end up any differently? 

Well, I hope the Member won't have read any confidence into my statement, because the experience of trying to gain information about the thinking behind the shared prosperity fund has unfortunately been one where that hasn't been forthcoming. We have tried, as a Government, as I think his question implicitly acknowledges, to devise successor arrangements in collaboration with people in Wales, and, as a consequence of that, given how important they are, there is a broad base of support for the approach that we are promoting. I myself think that, when the UK Government is able to read and analyse the provisions and the proposals in that framework that they will struggle, quite honestly, to find in there proposals that they wouldn't wish to support because the focus of them is on encouraging productive businesses, supporting employment, and so on, and I know that is on their list of priorities as well. So I would say that the UK Government ought to engage with us about how we can, even at this late hour, make sure that the people in Wales have the promises they were made kept, both with regard to how the funds are spent, but also crucially what those funds are. As we stand here today, those promises have been broken, but it's not too late to relent on that and to put in place arrangements that meet the commitments made to people in Wales. 

I'm grateful for that answer, Minister. Can I just turn finally to the internal market Bill that we've just discussed? Obviously, the Senedd voted to withhold its consent to this Bill earlier. Westminster is unlikely to listen. It has a track record of not listening to us as a Senedd when we vote down legislative consent. So, the question that arises then is: what next steps are the Welsh Government considering taking to protect devolution and protect Welsh democracy—[Inaudible.]—devolution settlement over the past few months? If not, would he now be open to doing so?

I didn't catch the entire question, but I think he was asking me about what steps we would take, and I've been very clear that we will take every step that is legally available to us to protect the powers of this Senedd. I think that we shouldn't assume—. Well, we shouldn't allow the impression to arise that proceeding in the teeth of the opposition of the devolved legislatures in the UK is an acceptable course of action for the UK Government. We do know that the Sewel convention needs, frankly, an overhaul in terms of how it operates, but at its heart is the principle that defying the decisions of the devolved Parliaments should be only ever done in absolute extremis. And these circumstances certainly do not meet that very high bar, and I describe it as a very high bar because I know that is what UK Government Ministers will describe it as as well. 

Thank you. Conservative spokesperson, Darren Millar. 

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Will the Minister provide an update on discussions he's had with the UK Government as regards trade deals outside of the EU?

Yes, certainly. I'm attending this afternoon, at about 4 o'clock, the next meeting of the ministerial forum for trade, and I expect to discuss a wide range of issues with the relevant Minister at that forum.

I'm very pleased that you are participating in that forum, Minister. As you will know, the UK Government has already struck many trade deals beyond the EU around the world, ranging from countries like Peru and Japan to Israel and South Korea. In addition to that, there's engagement ongoing with a dozen other countries, including Mexico, Singapore and Turkey, and it's very clear that post-Brexit trade agreements are lining up to fulfil the expectations that people had when they voted back in 2016 for Brexit. And I'm very hopeful that we here in Wales can take advantage of those deals. 

I know that the former Minister for international relations held regular discussions with the UK Government, and I'm very pleased to hear that you're also carrying on with that work. The former Minister holding the international trade portfolio recognised the engagement, the positive engagement, that had taken place on these trade deals. Can I ask you: what work are you doing pan-Government to ensure that Wales can seize the opportunities that these trade deals present, come 1 January?

Well, I thank the Member for that important question. He's right to say, I think about 22 agreements have been signed, there are about five in train, and there are about 12 that remain to be taken forward. What is the common feature of all of those is that they're continuity agreements. So, effectively, they're a very significant amount of work to maintain the current position. So, it is important work and it is essential work that we are able to maintain them, but it's a huge amount of effort to maintain those existing arrangements. And I know that he also wishes to see opportunities on top of those as well, which obviously we wish to see as well. 

Our vision is to make sure that we represent in our discussions with UK Government Ministers the interests of Welsh exporters, so that we can make sure that those are taken into account in those negotiations. He'll have seen I think, perhaps, the assessment that I published yesterday in relation to the impact on the Welsh economy of the Japan deal, for example. So, he will have seen the evidence in there, I think, of the advocacy that we as a Government put in place. I know that my colleague the Minister for the economy is also investing further in international trade advisers, so that businesses and exporters in Wales can have access to the best advice to support them when they don't have that support in house. Of course, part of their role will be to assist our exporters who face new red tape as a consequence of the trading arrangements that the UK Government is introducing, and obviously, again, that is work that is running to stay still in that sense, but looking outside that, there will be support available from the Government to exporters wherever they wish to export.

I'm pleased you've acknowledged the positive work, as I say, and I'm very pleased also that you recognise the work that's been done not only to engage with those countries whereby we have trade arrangements through the continuity trade arrangements, but also those new nations that we will also be doing trade with on a free-trade basis post 1 January. I was wondering whether you could tell me a little bit more about the position of the Welsh Government in relation to future trade deals with Canada, New Zealand and Australia. I'd be very interested to hear in particular whether you've done any work to identify specific Welsh interests in relation to any trade deals that could be done, and any of the representations that you might have made to the UK Government on these. As you will know, there's been significant support across the UK for a CANZUK sort of trade deal amongst the public. Many business leaders have called for that sort of trade deal, and many politicians on a cross-party basis have also supported it. So, considering that that is a potential trade deal that we could see in the future, it would be good to see the Welsh Government taking a proactive approach now and making representations to the Welsh Government in relation to it. So, can you tell us what sort of discussions have been taken place between the Welsh Government and the UK Government in relation to the potential benefits of a CANZUK trade approach?

The UK Government leads on international trade negotiations, as I know he would accept, and I imagine would support. So, our task as a Government is to feed in the Welsh Government's perspective on behalf of the Welsh economy, and Welsh businesses, Welsh exporters, into those discussions. They're very much the sorts of things that will be on the agenda of the discussion today.

I think it's very important to see this in the global context. We will want to make sure that any international trade agreements of the sort that he describes will deliver the maximum benefit for exporters in Wales, but also for businesses and producers already in Wales. So, for example, there are difficult judgments that then arise in the context of doing trade negotiations with significant agricultural exporters, and Australia and New Zealand are both in that category. So, the judgments are often quite difficult to reach, but our priority as a Government is to maximise the opportunity for Wales, for the Welsh economy.

But I think I just want to put it in the context that even the UK Government would say that the economic impact of those trade negotiations for the UK is likely to be fractions of 1 per cent. That's not to say that they shouldn't be pursued, they absolutely should, but I don't think it would be right of us to encourage people to expect that those trade deals in themselves can make up for the absence of a good trading relationship with our largest trading bloc across the channel, because we are talking different orders of magnitude, as I know that he will accept.

Leaving the transition period, even with a deal, will have profound implications for businesses and communities across Wales, including Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney. We are doing all we can as a Government to prepare, and our end-of-transition action plan sets out the issues we face and the actions we are taking to support Wales. I would encourage everyone in Wales to visit the Preparing Wales website for advice on how to prepare for the end of transition.

Thank you for that response, Minister. And for some considerable time, we've all been awaiting the vitally important details of the Prime Minister's oven-ready deal, which of course, as we now all know, never really existed. And as has already been pointed out, we're still also waiting for details of how Wales will benefit specifically from the elusive shared prosperity fund.

In my constituency, like many others in Wales, I have major employers who trade with the European Union. They depend on supplies that are from and come through the European Union into Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney. Would you agree that as 2020 draws to a close, not only are we faced with a shambolic situation, but also a very uncertain future for many jobs in our communities, because the Prime Minister of the UK lied to the people of this country? And can you tell me what are the latest representations that the Welsh Government has made to bring pressure on the UK Government to help ensure that constituencies like mine are not left behind in this Brexit shambles?

I think Dawn Bowden's question cuts to the heart of the issue here. We face today a situation, less than a month before the end of transition, where none of us in this Chamber know the basis on which we will conduct our relationships with the European Union on 1 January. I know that in her constituency and right across Wales there are businesses and organisations crying out for that certainty, and fearful of the consequence, in particular, of leaving without any sort of trading relationship. The huge disruption and economic damage that that will bring; it's hard to overestimate the risks that we'll face. There will be employers in her constituency, in mine, and in others who know already that they'll face additional costs for customs declarations, customs paperwork and new red tape, but they're waiting to find out whether they will now have to pay tariffs, how their products will be treated, how component parts in the supply chains that she mentioned will be treated, and how standards will be treated in their international trade arrangements. Those are all fundamental to how businesses conduct themselves and, crucially, impose significant costs on how businesses and employers trade. I know, therefore, that she would be hopeful, as I am, that a trading relationship can be agreed, but also she will know, as I know, that at this point in time that trading relationship will not be of the quality that is required to put employers and exporters in Wales in the best possible position.

A positive relationship with the EU will remain an important priority for the Welsh Government whatever the outcome of the EU-UK negotiations, as our international strategy makes clear. We continue to foster that through engagement with EU institutions, member states, regions and networks, and in particular through our Brussels office.

UK membership of the European Union bestowed great benefits on Wales, including enabling our country to play a significant role on the European stage in the Council of Ministers, European Parliament, Committee of the Regions and associated groupings. Outside the EU, I believe we should ensure the closest possible relationship with the European Union, and that should include the regions, with many of whom we have long enjoyed strong relationships, and also Members of the Senedd, who can add to the work of Welsh Government Ministers in maintaining Wales's profile. I think we should carefully consider European organisations and groupings to which we may fruitfully contribute.

[Inaudible.]—with John Griffiths's supplementary question, we take every opportunity to maintain those relationships. In September, for example, the First Minister, the then Minister for international relations and I each met the EU ambassador to the UK. That's obviously a new appointment, but that EU ambassador came to Cardiff. We've also been successfully chairing the Vanguard Initiative throughout 2020, which is a significant inter-regional grouping that focuses on smart specialisation on a collaborative basis to boost innovative industries. And he will know—he mentioned in his question the role of parliamentarians in that, and the UK contact group for the Committee of the Regions has representatives from this Senedd: David Rees, and Russell George as the alternative. Those are all important ways of maintaining that network of contacts, both at a member state level, a parliamentary level, but also at a regional level. And he will know from the international strategy that engagement at a regional level with Brittany, the Basque Country and Flanders in particular is an essential part of our important network of communications across the European Union into the future.

The UK Government pushing forward with its plans for a radically changed immigration system during this pandemic seems reckless, as was their decision to reject the Migration Advisory Committee’s recommendation for a Wales-only shortage occupation list, which would go some way to reduce the adverse impact of the UK Government's new immigration policies on Wales.

The Counsel General will know that, since the Labour Government in 2004 opened the floodgates to mass migration, we've been adding nearly a third of a million people to the UK population every single year. This has had a depressing effect upon wages, particularly for those in low-paid, unskilled jobs, and it's also exacerbating the very real housing shortage that we've got throughout the United Kingdom and, indeed, in Wales. Does he not accept that a fair and balanced immigration control system is now vitally necessary in the interests of those who are in the most vulnerable position in society? And does he also accept that the Welsh Labour Government's irresponsible rhetoric on Wales as a nation of sanctuary has been a direct incitement to illegal migration? 

I don't accept any of that. So, I don't accept the language that the Member uses, which I think is inflammatory and designed to be inflammatory. I think we should have a fair and balanced immigration policy—it's the one we have until the UK Government replaces it. 

Question 6 [OQ55988] was grouped, therefore question 7, Mark Reckless.

It is extremely good news that the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency has been able to approve the supply of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine. It has been able to do so using provisions under European law, which will apply until 1 January 2021.

Last week, the Financial Times carried on its front page an article emphasising the extent to which the European Medicines Agency, when it was based at Canary Wharf, leaned on our MHRA for assistance with much of its work. It has also faced very real challenges, at least from the FT evidence, since the relocation to Amsterdam because so many senior staff have not wanted to relocate from London. Would the Counsel General support and can he see any way perhaps that our regulators might be able to offer mutual aid and support to the EMA to support them in the regulatory requirements they need to fulfil for the European Union, hopefully, to speed up vaccines for them as well as for us?  

The capacity of the MHRA to act swiftly, as it has done, has been within the framework of existing European Union regulation, as the Member will know. I think his question points in the direction of international collaboration in this space, and I think it's important to recognise the development of the vaccines have, in fact, been an incredibly international effort. In a sense, looking at a competitive environment between regulators I think isn't necessarily the helpful way of looking at it. The history of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine process has been one of great European collaboration and significant European investment, and that is a very positive thing. Generally speaking, the process of Brexit will be adverse to a number of our existing arrangements in relation to health mutual aid, as he describes it, whether that's around early warning systems as well as regulatory barriers. So, I regret those new obstacles that will be put in the place of mutual aid and collaboration into the future. 

Indeed, I have. I have regular discussions with ministerial colleagues on the implications of post-EU transition international trade, and these include the meetings of the Cabinet sub-committee on European transition and trade.

Thank you for that answer, Counsel General. As 1 January and Brexit looms ever closer, it's clearly important that the UK develops as many trade deals as possible and that Wales is involved with those. As you'll be aware, the UK Government recently struck a trade deal with Japan, which includes important geographical protections that will hopefully benefit a range of Welsh businesses. I wonder if you could tell us if the Welsh Government has had any involvement in securing protections and putting the Welsh viewpoint forward on that with regard to that trade deal and also any other trade deals that might be in the offing. I'm sure you'll agree with me it's important that although it's the UK that is sovereign in these matters, it's important that the Welsh Government has a voice and we do our best to make sure that Wales is well placed to take part in the brave new world beyond 1 January. 

I would just like to reassure him that in relation to the Japan trade deal in particular, which he mentioned in his question, we have had good involvement in relation to that. I published this week an assessment of the impact of the trade deal for the Welsh economy, generally speaking. Broadly speaking, it replicates the current arrangement, but there are some ways in which it extends opportunities, which is obviously very positive. I think the approach that we've taken in relation to that has been one of, obviously, proactive engagement, and we will continue to do that in relation to all other trade deals that the UK Government seeks to negotiate.

Thank you very much, Counsel General. We've exceeded all the questions on the order paper, so da iawn.

Item 3, then, is topical questions, of which none have been accepted this week.

Item 4 is the 90-second statements, and this week it's Vikki Howells.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Congratulations, Mr Church. Our school staff have given their all in what has been a very challenging year. For some, their extra special qualities have led to particular recognition for their work, and one such figure is David Church—the very aptly named teacher of religious education at Mountain Ash Comprehensive School. A teacher at the school for over 20 years, Mr Church is renowned for his caring attitude, his commitment to the community, and his compassionate social ethos. I met Mr Church when I was a judge at Mount comp's First Give final, and it was clear to see that Mr Church was one of those most special of teachers, who lived and breathed the job, who went above and beyond, whose students trusted, respected and were inspired by. Our paths have crossed many times, on each occasion with him giving 110 per cent to projects that empower his pupils to engage with their local community. Yet, he also broadens their horizons. With his help, pupils won scholarships to help build a school in India—a life-changing experience for all. It was a pleasure, then, to see Mr Church win the inaugural pupils' award for best teacher at the 2020 Professional Teaching Awards Cymru. The judging panel noted that Mr Church

'personifies the unique qualities of a great teacher',

and I couldn't agree more. Some people are born to teach, changing lives by their work, and are remembered for a lifetime. Mr Church is one of these.

Thank you. We'll now suspend proceedings to allow for a changeover in the Chamber. If you're leaving, please do so promptly, and the bell will be rung two minutes before the proceedings restart. Thank you.

We restart the meeting, therefore. The next item is the Member debate under Standing Order 11.21(iv) on support for babies and new parents during COVID-19. I call on Lynne Neagle to move the motion—Lynne Neagle.

Thank you, Llywydd. I want to start by thanking my co-sponsors of today's debate, Leanne Wood and Bethan Sayed. I know Bethan's office has published some really valuable research into this area, but she also brings a vital personal perspective to this subject, having had a lockdown baby herself. I also want to recognise the support from Members across the Chamber and also the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children for their excellent briefing for today's debate.

Babies in Wales, and their parents, need a voice now more than ever. In recent months, we've heard a huge amount about the difficulties facing different industries and the impact of COVID on our economy, and yet too little has been said about the most important and difficult job any of us will ever do, and that is being a good parent. In the last week, we have heard more about alcohol than we have about babies. Yes, this is tough for everyone, but let's get our priorities straight, because what today's debate will show is that life for the vast majority of new and expectant parents has become much, much tougher.

The growing research into perinatal care during the pandemic is stark and deeply worrying. The voices of new mothers in particular are sounding the alarm. We are hearing stories about anxiety, isolation and new barriers to proper care and support. Yes, the pandemic has created new and unprecedented challenges, but it has also shone a light on the cracks that already existed in society.

Nowhere is that clearer than in the way we fail to prioritise babies in our decision making. This is inexplicable, given that our very future depends on those we bring into the world today and tomorrow; inexplicable, given how much we know about the importance of the first 1,000 days of a child's life; inexplicable, given how much we know about the impact of parental mental health on the welfare of babies.

The Children, Young People and Education Committee undertook a major inquiry into perinatal mental health in 2017. We heard time and time again from witnesses about the importance of support for families during pregnancy and the perinatal period. As Dr Witcombe-Hayes from the NSPCC and the Maternal Mental Health Alliance told the committee, and I quote:

'We think that this best start in life is so important because we know that the first 1,000 days are crucial for child development. So, our early experiences affect the development of brain architecture, which provides the foundation for all of our future learning, behaviour and health. Just as a weak foundation compromises the quality and strength of a house, adverse childhood experiences early in life and not meeting a child’s needs at this time can impair brain architecture, with negative effects lasting well into adulthood.'

We are the first generation of legislators who have this knowledge. There is huge potential for Governments to make a real difference here to tackle some of the biggest issues our society faces today and will face tomorrow and in 20 years' time, and yet we know that before the pandemic there were already significant gaps in specialist perinatal mental health services, despite extra investment from Welsh Government in recent years, with health boards failing to meet perinatal standards, an absence of mother and baby units for families needing specialist in-patient support, and significant gaps in specialised parent-infant relationship teams across Wales. Let us never forget that suicide is still the leading cause of maternal death in the first year of a baby's life.

So, this is the perinatal infrastructure we took into the pandemic, and now things are even tougher for many. Two thirds of Welsh respondents to the 'Babies in Lockdown' report say parental mental health was their main concern in lockdown, and yet only a quarter said they were confident they could find help if they needed it. According to the Born in Wales study, the majority of women reported a negative pregnancy experience, feeling isolated, alone, lonely, distant and not supported.

Parents are being denied a basic level of dignity. Mothers have been asked to e-mail their GP practice pictures of infected stitches. Those struggling with breastfeeding are forced to rely on Zoom calls for support. This pressure is inevitably having consequences.

One of the main sources of stress and anxiety for expectant mums was a concern about whether their partner could attend labour, so last week's announcement on easing visiting restrictions is certainly welcome. The flexibility for health boards to make decisions based on their circumstances certainly makes sense, but such an approach could also lead to inequalities for parents in different parts of Wales, and it would be helpful to know from the Minister how this will be monitored and what arrangements are in place for the sharing of best practice. It would also be helpful to provide clear guidance for parents of premature or sick babies, in line with the research and recommendations put forward by Bliss. Current restrictions have had a devastating impact on too many parents' ability to bond with their babies.

The evidence is clear—the pandemic, subsequent lockdowns and social distancing measures have had a disproportionate impact on those who are pregnant, giving birth, or at home with a baby or toddler. And yet again, the impact has been greatest on those who are already living the hardest lives—coronavirus entrenching disadvantage yet again. Those in more deprived areas consistently show higher levels of loneliness and they are less likely to have experienced an increase in community support.

I've seen the letter from the chief nursing officer to the children's commissioner, providing some assurances around the role of health visitors, but more needs to be done. Babies have largely been invisible as a consequence of the pandemic, and that should trouble all of us. Without informal contact with friends and family, drop-in groups, and a depletion of health visitor contacts, there's a real risk that no-one knows which families are struggling. Welsh Government must ensure that health visitors are able to make face-to-face visits in every instance that it is safe and possible to do so. So much is lost via telephone or even virtual appointments. We hear time and time again about the inability to identify someone who is struggling without that human contact.

To understand what has already been lost and how we need to respond, it is vital that the Government presents robust data about the number of visits that are taking place, how many are missed and how those check-ins are being conducted. In a recent answer in the House of Commons, a UK health Minister was unable to provide an assurance that health visitors would not be redeployed into vaccine-delivery work. I hope the Minister can today give Welsh parents that assurance that there will be no redeployment of health visitors in Wales. Far from removing resources away from perinatal care, we need urgent measures to better support expectant and new parents and their babies.

We now need to prioritise the needs of babies in decision making about COVID-19 response and recovery, ensure that key staff and health visiting services are protected from redeployment, give clear guidance on how face-to-face health visitor appointments can be carried out safely and effectively, and provide additional ring-fenced investment for perinatal mental health services and voluntary services to cope with the increase in demand as a result of COVID-19. The choices we make today about how we support parents and babies through the pandemic are choices we will live with for decades to come. A failure to properly support and resource perinatal health will cast a long shadow over Wales. Diolch yn fawr.

On behalf of the Petitions Committee, I would like to thank Lynne Neagle for bringing this important debate forward. We have received petition P-05-1035, 'Allow birthing partners to be present at scans, the start of labour, birth and after the birth'. This was submitted by Hannah Albrighton, having collected 7,326 signatures. The petition highlights that:

'Due to COVID-19 there has been restrictions on birthing partners being present for scans, labour and birth in many hospitals.'

And can I just say, before I go any further, how lovely it is to see our colleague Bethan Jenkins here? I've been keeping up to date with you—how your new little family is doing well—and it's fantastic to see you here today.

The text notes, and I quote:

'It seems unfair, and an insult to new families that they can stand 2m apart from complete strangers down the beach or even in a shop, but they cannot have their partner or birthing partner there to witness first time experiences such as scans, the baby's heart beat, labour and birth.'

The committee discussed the petition at its meeting on 3 November, giving consideration to correspondence from the Minister for Health and Social Services. All Members fully supported this petition and the need to resolve the situation for new parents and people during pregnancy. However, we note that the situation will be especially difficult where people's experiences of pregnancy or birth are not straightforward, as well as where extra support is needed following childbirth. Most members of the committee noted that we are being contacted by constituents who have been, very sadly, affected by these restrictions.

Now, whilst we do understand and express understanding for the difficult choices being made by our local health services, health boards and the Welsh Government, we do express our hope that decisions taken should and can be sensitive to individual circumstances and that the rules should now be relaxed as soon as this is possible. The Minister informed us in advance of that meeting that the relevant guidance was under review and was waiting approval at that time. I am aware that the updated guidance was published on 30 November, and I do welcome this. However, given the number of signatures gathered by the petition, we would have considered further, at our next committee discussions, whether to refer the petition to a debate. However, I am delighted that such a debate is now taking place today. We have notified the people who signed the petition about this debate and hope that it will now provide some of the answers that those supporting this petition have been looking for. Diolch.

COVID has presented challenges for everyone, and while all of us here would agree that everything must be done to keep parents, babies and staff safe, we must also do whatever we can to ensure the best possible outcomes for everyone involved. We must start by acknowledging that the experiences of young children, babies and their families this year have been some of the most adversely affected by the restrictions. Of course, although these restrictions have been necessary, we cannot ignore the damage that they've caused and continue to cause. At some point we may want to reflect whether the periods of lockdowns would have been necessary had Governments acted earlier to eliminate community transmission, had we established a test and trace system that worked properly, and had we imposed the kind of border controls and central quarantine facilities that have seen many countries throughout the world that have experienced fewer lockdowns and less harsh restrictions. We will be living with the consequences of this for decades, and, because of that, our recovery must start with a focus on babies and children—a focus that has been missing to date.

It was only last Monday that Government announced that they would provide financial support to the parents of children who have to isolate. Why was this issue not considered before? Is it not telling that, aside from education issues, this is the first debate in which children and babies have been placed in the centre? Becoming a parent is a challenge when there is no pandemic; the accounts of the additional pressures that exist now that I'm sure that all of us have heard cannot be ignored. We know, and we've already heard, how important those first 1,000 days of a child's life are. When parents are isolated, struggling alone, or even in couples, the risk of developing mental health problems increase. As one new mother put it to me, 'I've seen the health visitor twice. She is supportive, but I have to attend on my own and I forget a lot of what has been said.' Another says, 'We should allow babies under one some additional bubble support, which would've benefited my mental health. My baby only saw me and my husband from March to August.'

Dealing with routine matters on your own can be a strain, but it's even worse when things go wrong. Some of the most harrowing stories that I've heard have been from women who've had to process the worst imaginable news all alone, while their partner waits outside in the corridor or has to sit in the car. This issue deserves greater political attention; we are storing up long-term problems otherwise.

The maternity workforce deserves protecting and boosting. As one woman put it, 'The staff were very good, but you would think that, due to partners not being allowed to visit, they would have extra staff, but no'. So, we need additional resources to go into this, more funding for specialist mental health services, and to enable safe visiting. In general, we must see more support for those of our citizens who will live the longest with the fallout from COVID-19, as well as the parents who will help them get there.

I'd like to thank Members for bringing forward this important debate, and I'm delighted to take part. COVID-19 has taken a terrible toll on all of us, and, as this motion rightly highlights, it has placed terrible burdens on the shoulders of new parents to a child born during this pandemic. It's worth reiterating that from conception to age 2 is a critical phase, during which the foundations of a child's development are laid. If a child's body and brain develop well, then their life chances are improved. Exposure to stresses or adversity during this period can result in a child's development falling behind. Adverse childhood experiences can and do put children at greater risk of poor health outcomes. Childhood poverty, though not an ACE in itself, can place children at greater risk of experiencing one or more ACEs.

This pandemic has taken a terrible toll on the economy—one that will take decades to recover from. This has seen far too many people lose their jobs and facing the prospect of long-term unemployment. We've seen thousands of people chasing each minimum-wage job since the start of the pandemic, food banks have seen a dramatic rise in demand for their services since April, and people's livelihoods have been destroyed due to no fault of their own, but because of the virus. Those facing such situations talk about the impact it is having on their mental health. These impacts are greatly amplified for new and soon-to-be-new parents.

We rightly take pride in Wales in the support traditionally given to expecting parents. However, with the outbreak of COVID, all that appears to have gone out of the window. And while most health boards have kept up antenatal and postnatal services, they have been patchy and greatly diminished because of the exclusion of partners. According to the maternity services charity AIMS, maternity services are under huge stress with the COVID-19 pandemic. This is causing women to be given mixed messages about the services available, with different health authorities making different decisions, and many mothers have had support for their home births withdrawn.

The involvement of both parents is vital, particularly for the mental health of the mother. The pandemic has seen many expecting and new mothers left without a support network. Nine out of 10 mothers reported feeling more anxious as a result of COVID and lockdown measures. Postnatal depression has sky-rocketed since March, and, sadly, access to perinatal mental health services, like all mental health services, has diminished since the start of the first national lockdown in March. Access to these services is more important than ever, due to the reduction of traditional support networks. Many new mothers can't call on mum or grandma for help because of the ever-present fear of coronavirus.

It's therefore important—vitally important—that Welsh Government increases investment in perinatal mental health services immediately. I would ask that Ministers guarantee that partners will not be excluded from attending maternity services and the birth of their baby for the remainder of the pandemic. Unless we take action now, we risk damaging the life chances of an entire generation. Diolch yn fawr. 

I would like to thank those who brought this very important debate forward, and I was more than happy to support it. I'm going to focus on one particular area in my contribution. We all know that the COVID pandemic has had a huge impact on parents and their babies, but those particularly who need specialist care in neonatal units post birth. Since the pandemic started, access for many parents has been restricted, often with only one parent being allowed in at a time—a few people have already mentioned that today.

We know that, in normal circumstances, usually both parents are allowed 24-hour access to the unit, so they can be fully involved in the delivery of their baby's care. There was a survey, which has also been alluded to, by Bliss, the leading UK charity for babies born premature or sick, and the findings are startling, really. Two thirds of parents felt access restrictions on the unit affected their ability to be with their baby as much as they wanted, and that rose to 74 per cent for parents whose babies spent more than four weeks in neonatal care. It's worth thinking about that. It's the first four weeks of a baby's life where one parent has to rely on the other parent to give any information, any news, and perhaps a few photos. That is quite clearly going to have an impact on the well-being of that parent who can't be present, and their mental well-being.

The other impact that that will have—and 70 per cent did say that it would affect their mental health and well-being—is on the bond with the baby. Not only is the bond with the baby disrupted at that time, but it also requires some considerable input, immediately and going forward, to prevent any difficulties or any long-term impact to either parent or baby in their future relationship. So, I would be really keen to know what discussions Welsh Government have had with health boards about how they can help and facilitate as much parental access as is possible. The British Association of Perinatal Medicine guidance states that, and this is a quote,

'it is essential that the mother and her partner are never considered to be visitors within the neonatal unit—they are partners in their baby's care and their presence should be encouraged and facilitated as much as possible'.

So, I sincerely ask of the Government that they will take that recommendation from the BAPM and do their utmost to secure it. Thank you. 

The Minister for health to contribute. Vaughan Gething. 

We're not—. I think you might be okay now. Carry on. 

Thank you, Llywydd, and thank you to the Members who have tabled today's important debate. I want to restate my commitment to ensuring that every child gets the care and support they need to thrive and reach their full potential. The pandemic has resulted in unprecedented challenges across all of our services, and I do want to take this opportunity to thank once again our staff for their continued dedication and professionalism in supporting families across Wales. 

We continue to strive to provide the best possible start for children in Wales. We are working actively with health boards, local authorities, third sector partners, education providers, and within the Welsh Government, to try to redesign our early years system so that it's joined up and, of course, that the interests of children are at its core. This is within a backdrop of the work undertaken by Public Health Wales and the First 1000 Days programme that a number of Members have mentioned—that evidence base for what we need to do consistently to deliver improvements for the life prospects of children and their families. 

Our focus throughout the pandemic has been to support a flexible and practical approach to help children and families, and I recognise the comments made where families have not felt that that support has reached them. We are trying to ensure that our services work together and deliver as much support possible within the current restrictions that we're living with, and at the centre of this is the universal provision of maternity and health visiting services. I am still tremendously grateful for all the support that my own family had from maternity staff and health visitors when our own family was created. 

We need to ensure that we have the right services available to support children and their families. During the pandemic, maternity services have always been designated as an essential service and there has been no redeployment of staff. So, midwives and obstetricians have continued to provide the emotional and clinical support that every woman will require, using both face-to-face and virtual meetings. I do acknowledge the importance of parents being given the opportunity to bond with their baby and to make sure that the mother is supported through pregnancy and childbirth.

The virus has forced us to make difficult decisions about partners attending hospitals. Revised guidance, which I note Lynne Neagle welcomed, on hospital visiting was published at the end of November. So, visiting maternity services will now be based on a risk assessment approach. That will take into account local and environmental factors such as room size, ability to social distance and infection prevention and control risks to enable partners to safely accompany pregnant women and new mothers. All women will be supported with at least one partner with them during active labour, birth and the period immediately after birth, unless there are exceptional circumstances.

The recent visiting guidance does still limit visiting for neonates to one parent, guardian or carer at the bedside at a time. That's imperative to maintain physical space in neonatal areas, and to reduce the risk of infection and to keep these vulnerable babies safe. Individual circumstances can be taken into account where the benefits to the well-being of the patient or the visitor outweigh the infection control risks, but those risks are very real, as we all know. Once at home, midwives and health visitors continue to provide ongoing support and will work with women to assess their needs on an individual basis. Breastfeeding remains a key priority area and support has continued in different ways during the pandemic. I was pleased to see that the breastfeeding data published at the end of November shows that breastfeeding rates for the quarter have actually increased at birth, 10 days, six weeks and six months old.

Health visiting services continue to provide a universal programme of support through the Healthy Child Wales programme. We did issue specific guidance to all health boards in March in response to the unprecedented circumstances. The guidance on provision advised a temporary reduction in the number of contacts. In August, that was updated, with the expectation that all health boards will offer the full range of Healthy Child Wales contacts without exception. At the height of the first wave, some health boards did need to redeploy health visitors with specialist skills to acute areas. We have had assurance that these health visitors have now returned to their roles, and we expect health boards to plan the workforce to continue to meet the requirements of the Healthy Child Wales programme.

During the more recent local restrictions and the firebreak, health visiting services continued to support families and increase contacts with them. They still work closely with families and provide face-to-face contact, where possible. But if that face-to-face contact is not practical—and a number of families have not wanted to have face-to-face contact—they can, and do, offer virtual contact using Attend Anywhere to arrange appointments with parents that suit them. Throughout the pandemic, this is one of the points that Members raised again. My officials, led by the chief nurse, have continued to regularly meet with leads for both maternity and health visiting services to be aware of issues and to provide reassurance and assurance on service delivery. That's provided an opportunity for shared learning and a 'once for Wales' approach to solutions. So, we are still very much looking to have direct professional leadership and sharing of learning and experience across the country. 

Flying Start continues to be provided, and I'm extremely proud, as a former Minister with responsibility for Flying Start. The guidance we issued on 21 October confirmed that the full range of the Healthy Child Wales programme and enhanced Flying Start context should be delivered. There are excellent examples of children and families being supported in ways that are innovative, including online support, interactive parents' courses and children and family resource packs.

One of the key innovations during this pandemic has been the use of virtual technology. We know some health boards have not had the equipment to run all applications, but our officials are continuing to work closely with health boards to identify their requirements so they can properly support women and their families. I do recognise that parents at this time may well feel a sense of isolation from families and friends, and that may have a negative impact on perinatal mental health. We remain committed to improving perinatal mental health services, not just following the investment we've consistently made since 2015, but our ongoing commitment, including during this pandemic. The money we made available for service improvement in the pandemic, and the additional money we've made, in line with the priorities in accordance with our 'Together for Mental Health' delivery plan, included, specifically, perinatal mental health services.

We will continue to monitor the available evidence to understand the growing impact of COVID-19 on mental health. This will include population surveys as well as information provided by our NHS. We're also working closely with our national clinical lead for perinatal mental health to understand the impact and to agree how we need to respond to it. It is vitally important, though, that families know that perinatal mental health is still available, and they should not avoid accessing necessary healthcare. Our community perinatal mental health teams across Wales continue to show innovation and dedication, and they've moved to a range of different ways to support families where possible. I do understand how important peer support can be for new parents, so parent, baby and toddler groups I know can help reduce isolation, and support the emotional and mental health and well-being of parents. The current coronavirus regulations confirm that these sessions can take place. They're subject to the same requirements that apply for organised activities for the development or well-being of children. The guidance has been issued and is available on the Welsh Government website. 

As Lynne Neagle noted, COVID-19 has and continues to have a negative impact on the lives of our most vulnerable and disadvantaged families, particularly in the early years, where some services have been paused or scaled down because of the pandemic. The child development fund has been established to provide additional support to children and families who have been most affected by lockdown, to address concerns about developmental delay in key areas such as speech, language, communication, motor skills and personal and social development. 

I recognise that we must continue to develop a comprehensive offer for early years, to simplify the current landscape, and deliver a truly integrated early years system. We must do that by taking account of the emerging evidence on the impact of COVID-19 on children, and work with partners in health and social care to ensure that children and families remain supported during the extraordinary times that we continue to live through. We know that we are not in a perfect position now, and there is much more for us to learn from the real lived experience of parents. So, I don't underplay any of the experiences that Members have highlighted in this debate; we must continue to learn, develop and improve together. Thank you, Llywydd.

I call on Bethan Sayed to reply to the debate. And as Janet Finch-Saunders said, it's great to see you here, and I look forward to the day when we can welcome little Idris here to the Senedd as well. So, congratulations to you all. Bethan Sayed.

Thank you, Llywydd, and thank you for your kind words.

Thank you, Lynne Neagle and Leanne Wood for tabling this debate with me. I'm glad you received my request to be part of it—I didn't want to miss this opportunity—and for relaying the life stories of women across Wales so passionately today. Thank you to all who contributed, and especially to Hannah Albrighton, the petitioner, who has had a baby herself in lockdown. It's no surprise that it's taken three female politicians for this debate to actually happen, to push an allegedly feminist Government into action. Lynne Neagle stating clearly that babies have largely been invisible during this pandemic, and really emphasising the fact that this has affected the maternal death rates and suicide rates here in Wales. Leanne saying that we've missed the focus on babies until now, and re-emphasising the issue that I'm passionate about, which is creating that bubble of support for new parents so that they don't have to cope alone in the future, as I had to do and many others.

Before I carry on, I'd like to quickly say a big thank you to Sarah Rees, my maternity cover and my community manager, for campaigning so diligently and passionately on this issue on my behalf. I couldn't have hoped for a better non-locum MS. When I gave birth during this pandemic, I look back in wonder at how I and thousands like me even managed through this situation. It's not said enough in this Chamber or anywhere else in the world, for that matter: women, I salute your bravery, for carrying out one of the most, if not the most amazingly rewarding, yet truly and utterly painful experiences of your life, entirely almost alone and isolated from loved ones during this particular experience.

I do appreciate there are challenges for this Government during this time. I've been watching it all from the sidelines, and I realise it's not easy to balance what people need and what society must do to combat the spread of this virus. But people went to restaurants for food with friends, while women in hospital sat for four days, as I did, waiting to be induced, struggling through the immense pain of pregnancy contractions alone until 'active' labour came and husbands rushed from their homes, scurrying around, praying not to miss the birth of their child. But people went to pubs and sat around chatting, while birthing partners were told, after a wife had had invasive surgery, caesarean sections, stillbirth, that they had to leave her just an hour after giving birth. The woman alone in hospital miscarrying, like the author Caroline Criado-Perez has told us even today that that has been her experience, leaving her to grieve in isolation. Others overwhelmed, like myself, at having to feed and change and care for a new baby, when you struggle to move freely, and when you do, blood streams from you like a waterfall, you rush to the toilet attached to a catheter while your baby screams and screams for you to return. But people went shopping, while 'shero' midwives were overworked, mams buzzing the red button at their bedside, frantically wanting help, crying silently in time with their babies' cries at night, mams helping each other out in a spirit of community that we can only dream of seeing continue past this COVID crisis. But people attended gyms, while partners were at home, warily waiting for that WhatsApp call to see their newborn child, unable to advocate for a mentally fragile new mother, wife or partner—sorry. Dads unable to bond in those crucial first stages—sorry—unable to put their arms around their loved ones for a baby lost. That is the reality of birth during COVID.

Of course, the guidance has stated throughout the pandemic period that women can have birth partners under many stipulated conditions, but left open to their own interpretations, individual health boards have, by and large, excluded dads, birth partners and wider family from key moments of pregnancy and delivery, and some dads who have contacted me have missed the birth almost entirely. In recent announcements, the Welsh Government relaxed their guidance and made it clearer that women can have birth partners and support, but already we have evidence that this is still not being implemented by health boards. Someone wrote to my office this week and outlined her very recent experience in Betsi Cadwaladr in the period since the Welsh Government updated guidance at the end of November. Her experience is something we all are familiar with. She lives in one of the areas with the lowest transmission rates of the UK, she still was subject to the arbitrary 4 cm dilation rule, she was allowed a birth partner, but only one hour after delivery, then she was on her own. This includes women who have caesareans, and there were no visits at all postnatally.

In England, in tier 3, which I understand is the most serious area, birth partners and dads are allowed for the whole of labour and for 12 hours afterwards. It's clear that without direct intervention from Welsh Government on this, women will still be left alone without proper support.

I also heard the Minister mention active labour in his newest announcement, well, that hasn't changed. Men or partners are allowed in during active labour. We need birthing partners to be present for more than that so women are not left alone, going through the pain on their own, day in, day out.

We should also consider what happens when women leave the hospital. In research that Lynne Neagle kindly mentioned that my office conducted, 60 per cent received no postnatal check-ups, and a quarter wanted perinatal mental health support, with most feeling unable to receive any at all.

In any check-up I've been to with my son, Idris, they've never, ever asked how I am. They ask how he is, which is very important, but they have never asked me how I am. And, hot off the press, the survey we did in the run-up to this debate this week shows that 85 per cent who contacted us said that they were severely affected by their mental health because of the lack of contact with their health visitor. 

And this isn't an issue that only concerns women. We really have to consider how this affects new dads, partners, in all of this. Taking away the life experiences for fathers is potentially enormously negative for someone's mental health, so we've worked with campaigners like Mark Williams from my region, who is campaigning vociferously to highlight the issue of dads' mental health more widely. 

I'd like to close with a mention of something this Government has claimed many times in the past, as I started with: being a feminist Government. That is a laudable aim, but it's clear to me, and it will be clear to others, that action or inaction from Welsh Government on this test that claim to destruction. Women and parents, particularly many first-time parents, have been telling Welsh Government all year what a negative impact these rules have had on them, to no avail. We now have updated guidance from Welsh Government, but yet not enough movement from individual health boards on making those necessary changes. We need leadership and energy to hold those health boards to account to make sure they take those risk assessments, yes, we don't want to put anybody at risk, but do that diligently and change the rules so that we can make everybody safe and ensure those babies' lives start in a happy and constructive way. 

Even though we are moving towards a stage where, hopefully, as many people as possible can get that vaccine, this situation in hospital may not change for a good while yet, and it's a situation that needs to change now. I really hope the Minister and the Government has heard the voice of my colleague, Lynne Neagle, who has worked so hard during this pandemic on this issue, my colleague, Leanne Wood, the same, who has done so, and others in this Chamber who have heard stories from your constituents. Listen to them, Vaughan Gething, as Minister, and change the rules so that we don't have a mental health crisis amongst our parents in months or years to come because of the way that they've been treated during this pandemic. Diolch yn fawr iawn. 

The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there is objection. Therefore, I will defer voting until voting time. 

The next item is a debate on petition P-05-1010, 'An independent inquiry into the 2020 flooding in Rhondda Cynon Taf so that lessons are learned'. I call on the committee Chair to move the motion, Janet Finch-Saunders.

Diolch, Llywydd. The petition we are debating this afternoon collected 6,017 signatures and calls for an independent inquiry to be held into the terrible flooding earlier this year. This petition was submitted by Councillor Heledd Fychan, who represents the Pontypridd Town ward on Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council.

February 2020 saw some of Wales’s worst flooding on record. On 16 and 17 February, Storm Dennis caused widespread floods, reportedly impacting more than 1,000 homes and businesses in Rhondda Cynon Taf alone. Sadly, it was not an isolated event because the area experienced further flooding at the end of February and again in June.

Now, as a Member myself who represents a constituency that has also been badly hit by flooding in recent times, I have every sympathy for people whose homes and businesses have been affected by these now very frequent events, and a similar personal desire to help to prevent similar incidents in future.

Now, when we discussed the petition, the members of the Petitions Committee were moved by the heartbreaking personal stories that we received, which really helped to bring home the huge personal impact that incidents such as these have. Of course, a member of our committee, my colleague, Leanne Wood MS, has been directly involved in supporting her constituents who have been affected by these tragic events. I'm also aware that Mick Antoniw, alongside Alex Davies-Jones MP, have also recently published their own report into the impact of the flooding, demonstrating that these are cross-party matters that need addressing.

The petition calls for a full, independent, open and public inquiry into the flooding. It argues that this is necessary in order to ensure that appropriate steps are taken so that similar damage can be prevented in the future. In response, the Minister wrote to the Petitions Committee to say that she does not feel that an independent inquiry is required at this stage. The Minister told us that it is the responsibility of the local flood risk management authority to produce section 19 flood investigation reports following any incidents of flooding. She outlined the investigatory work already being carried out by Natural Resources Wales and Rhondda Cynon Taf council to assess the causes of the floods and to make recommendations for how flood risk can be reduced. I understand that the Welsh Government's position is therefore that it wishes to consider the statutory reports before deciding whether any further inquiry or review is required. So, I do hope that the Minister today will be able to expand on this position later on in this debate.

As I referred to earlier, the Petitions Committee has also received further comments from the petitioners, including a large number of personal testimonials gathered from local residents. These detail both the personal and the economic costs being borne by the people and businesses directly. Other Members will, I am sure, wish to cover the impact of the floods on their constituents. Therefore, I will use the rest of these remarks to refer to a few of the main points outlined by the petitioners.

Firstly, the petitioner argues that the section 19 report process has significant limitations. These include effectively asking local authorities to investigate themselves, given the important role that they play in local flood prevention, and because there are limited opportunities for local people to be part of those processes. Secondly, the petitioners believe that a broader perspective should be taken. They consider that an independent inquiry would be able to consider wider issues and lessons, including the declaration of a climate emergency, and the impact that these events have had on both the local economy and the health and well-being of residents. Overall, the petitioners question whether the existing reports referred to by the Minister have enough and sufficient scope to explore these issues fully, and to inform flood prevention work both in these communities and indeed across the whole of Wales.

In concluding these opening remarks, the Petitions Committee is now looking forward to hearing the contributions of other Members affected by flooding during this debate, and will return to consider the petition further in light of them. The petitioners have been very clear in their view that an independent review or inquiry is the only way to learn the lessons that will certainly help to prevent these types of flooding incidents from happening again, and to provide the reassurance that communities in Rhondda Cynon Taf not only need, but they deserve. I hope that the Minister will be able to provide further explanations this afternoon in response to this point and others that are raised during the debate. I welcome all the contributions that other Members wish to make. Diolch, Llywydd.

I rise to support the sentiments of the petition, because I do think it's really important that the lessons-learned exercise is complete and does take in all the aspects that residents, businesses and everyone affected by these terrible floods in February 2020 and other flooding incidents that followed it are learnt, because the scale of the flooding was beyond recognition. I can well remember visiting various areas and just seeing the total devastation, whether it be domestic properties, whether it be businesses, or whether is just be the allotments that you can see off the A48 in the Pontypridd constituency, just completely washed away, showing the force of the water and the extent of the damage. And it's not just water when flooding hits those residential properties; it's this raw sewage that comes up through the drains and completely devastates the properties beyond habitable use until they're rectified and put back to good measure.

Obviously, what we have here are many public sector organisations who did their best; without a shadow of a doubt, they did try their best in the aftermath to do what they could to help the communities that were affected, whether that be in the Rhondda or any other part of South Wales Central, but there are lessons to be learnt here. The warning system, as we know from some of the early indications from NRW, failed in many instances, and if you can't get the basic warning system right, what hope have you got of making sure that the more structural changes that you need to make to flood prevention measures are put in place, such as cleaning the culverts out and making sure the waterways are clear? These are some of the basic things that used to go on by the river boards and agencies that used to exist some 20, 30 years ago, which were taken for granted at the time, and allowed water to flow relatively freely.

It is a fact that we are going to see more incidents like this. It is a fact that since time immemorial there have been flooding events, but many of the communities that were affected by the events in February and other events through 2020 have maybe never even seen flooding before. So, there are some administrative issues that need to be checked, there is a follow-through exercise, and only an inquiry will get to the bottom of those issues, which has the power of Government to create that inquiry, and probe and pull together those public bodies from the local authorities, the health boards, NRW and the economic impact in particular in those communities where businesses were so devastated, as well as the domestic living conditions wiped away from many individuals and families. We can all remember the image of the landslide that happened, and there's much work to still do in that particular area, and that's where the two Governments, the Westminster Government and the Welsh Government, need to be working together to address that particular issue.

So, that's why I rise to support the call for a public inquiry, because I do think it is only through a public inquiry, and the weight of the report of that public inquiry, that we can make the changes that will be required, we can reflect on what did work, but invariably we can reflect and remedy the things that didn't work. So, I do hope that the Government will be more positive, rather than just saying they're still waiting for various administrative reports to come in from all the various organisations that are marking their own homework. That will not be good enough for the residents I represent in South Wales Central, and I do call on the Government to act more positively in response to this request from the petition today.

'Our motion makes a very simple ask—one that I am amazed but not surprised that Ministers are running from: that we have an investigation to learn the lessons from the floods,...to protect more homes and businesses...look at...affordable insurance...and...timely pay-outs, an investigation into what measures are required from Government to fund flood protections and upstream catchment management measures and to resource emergency responses.'

Those are not my words—they are the words of the Labour MP for Plymouth. He was speaking in a debate in March of this year into flooding in England. In that debate, the MP pointed out that they could have been nakedly political, attacking the Government for their failures, or, and I quote,

'Labour chose to rise above that partisan debate, which is why every single Member of the House should feel able to support our motion. How is learning the lessons from an incident—in a review of what actions took place, what actions did not work as well as was hoped and of where improvements could be made—not a sensible and proportionate step to take after a national emergency such as the recent floods?'

All MPs in the Valleys voted to back an inquiry into flooding in England, yet in Wales, where Labour have the power to instigate one, the position has been to oppose an inquiry. They voted it down at the local authority and Labour Ministers in this Government have opposed it too. In June of this year, during an interview with ITV Wales, one Labour MP described an independent inquiry into flooding in the Rhondda as

'just about the daftest idea I have heard'.

Perhaps he had forgotten that he'd voted for an inquiry into flooding in England just three months earlier.

It's not surprising that people do not have confidence in a process where authorities investigate themselves. They've seen enough buck passing, and different organisations absolving themselves of responsibility. People in the Rhondda can remember being told time and time again during the 1990s by the Labour council that Nant-y-Gwyddon landfill site was safe. Residents complained for years that that tip was causing illnesses, and Plaid Cymru supported those residents in their campaign. An inquiry subsequently recommended the closure of that tip, and we would not have had that result without that combination of people power and political pressure.

Those who oppose an independent inquiry argue that it would take too long and it would be too expensive. It needn't be either of those things. You cannot put a price on safeguarding people and their homes. You also cannot put a price on giving people the peace of mind that has been absent for so many since February of this year. The woman from Treorchy who has been repeatedly flooded and now cannot sleep when it rains at night—there are so many stories like this, and an inquiry would get to the root causes, and it would be our best shot of coming up with lasting solutions.

I implore all Members of this Senedd, but especially those of you who've not been minded to support an inquiry to date, that it is not too late to do the right thing. It is not too late to put those people who've been affected by the floods first. A vote in favour of this motion today will strengthen the case for an inquiry that will identify what went wrong and why. That is how a vote in favour of this motion will be interpreted in the Rhondda. An inquiry can work out how much finance is needed, it can identify where we need to invest in flood defences and flood prevention measures in future. We know that extreme weather is predicted to be more frequent because of the climate crisis, and we need to be prepared. The only way to ensure that we are prepared is to fully understand what happened this year, and what needs to happen to put things right.

I implore the Government and local representatives to work with us to support a flood inquiry today, not for my benefit, not for the benefit of Plaid Cymru, but for the many people in our communities who have been flooded this year. They should not have to go through that trauma again. Diolch.

I call on the Minister—. No. I'm sorry. Mick Antoniw. 

Diolch, Llywydd. I'm very pleased to be able to participate in this Petitions Committee debate today, because it is an opportunity to talk about the flooding that hit RCT in February, and Pontypridd, my constituency, was the most badly affected area of Rhondda Cynon Taf. So, it is an issue that I have consistently and persistently raised questions on to the First Minister and other Ministers, because although much has already been done, there is still much more to do, and I do not intend to allow those flooded communities in my constituency to be forgotten. 

For each of the 321 homes and dozens of businesses that were severely flooded in Pontypridd, and for the 1,800 homes that were otherwise affected, action is the key word. Winter is here and the anniversary of the floods is approaching fast. People are understandably anxious for the future, and the fear of further flooding is traumatic and must not be underestimated. So, I do not believe that my constituents want anything to get in the way of the progress that we are already making, and the work that is currently in hand.

Public inquiries have their place, but an inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005, a statutory inquiry, is expensive, it is time consuming and it is a very bureaucratic process, and I know from practical experience that a public inquiry will take at least a year—in all likelihood, at least 18 months—and would be unlikely to add very much to what we already know about the information that we already have from the inquiry report already published by Natural Resources Wales, or what we will know, certainly in my constituency, from the eight section 19 inquiry reports that we're expecting some time in early January. It is vitally important that we have the opportunity to consider those reports, because they will enable immediate action to be taken on top of the action that is already under way. 

I do understand the well-intentioned demands for a public inquiry, but it won't change what needs to be done. A public inquiry, in my view, will only delay what needs to be done now, and if I thought a public inquiry would deliver any benefit to the communities I represent, I would support it. At this moment in time, it is not the right step. It may be appropriate to consider once we have those section 19 reports, but now is not that moment in time.

So, as I say, our focus has got to be on action, and there has been progress. Considerable repair work has been carried out by RCT council, Welsh Water and NRW. RCT council, together with Welsh Government, has also been exploring the potential for a local business insurance scheme, and I want to see that develop. And I'm grateful to the environment Minister, Lesley Griffiths, who has committed millions of pounds of Welsh Government resources to ensure that the preparatory work being carried out by RCT council can go ahead whilst we await the UK Government's decision to make good on its promise of £70 million to £80 million of funding to repair key infrastructure. I'm also very grateful to the Moondance charity, who made a generous donation of £100,000 to help support over 100 of the most immediately affected families there. Also, I'm very grateful for recent interventions by the mental health Minister, Eluned Morgan, for her work with Cwm Taf Morgannwg health board in respect of ensuring that mental health and support services are available to the local community.

Can I also put on record my thanks to all those councillors and community workers and residents who did so much during the course of the flooding? Now, in the immediate aftermath of the floods, I visited those communities with the First Minister and along with the local MP in Pontypridd, Alex Davies-Jones. We've held over 30 public and private meetings with residents and local businesses. The most recent was this week. The views and experiences of the residents are set out in a very detailed report that has been circulated amongst all those who were immediately affected by the flooding. My most immediate concern is that no home that would reasonably benefit from flood resilience measures, such as, for example, floodgates, should be prevented from having them because of cost, and I'm pleased that the Minister, in response to questions from me, has confirmed that funding is available. I'm glad also that RCT council have already had confirmation that their application for funding and that discussions with NRW on a similar scheme for similar measures in flood-risk areas is under discussion with the Minister, and I'd be grateful if the Minister would provide an update on those discussions.

Now, there is still much to do. Insurance is a real issue, with businesses who suffered damage running into tens of millions finding it difficult to get cover, and we must hold the UK Government to its promise of financial support, and I hope that every Member here is as determined as I that they will. We must urgently progress the introduction of flood-resilience measures, such as floodgates, with NRW, and progress other important issues identified in our Pontypridd flood report. Such an improved flood warning system is important, and the introduction of community flood ambassadors and, we also believe, the introduction of regular flood drills. These are the actions that the communities in Pontypridd have raised with me that I want to focus on, and I can assure them that these objectives will continue to be my priority. Diolch, Llywydd.

I call on the Minister for Environment, Energy and Rural Affairs, Lesley Griffiths.

Diolch, Llywydd. I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to this petition, seeking an independent inquiry into the flooding in Rhondda Cynon Taf. I witnessed myself first hand the devastating impacts of these floods, and, without the swift action of our risk management authorities and emergency services, I am certain we would have seen even more homes flooded. We must also acknowledge how our network of defences protected thousands of properties, and the importance of keeping these structures well maintained. I of course recognise the impact on residents' well-being, as well as the effect on their homes and businesses. Knowing how those communities then had to deal with COVID-19 is heartbreaking, and has strengthened my resolve to do everything we can to help reduce future risk.

This Government acted quickly and decisively in our response to make the necessary repairs and improvements. Immediately after the February storms, I provided all risk-management authorities the opportunity to apply for financial support to undertake emergency repairs to assets. I provided 100 per cent funding for this, which has totalled £4.6 million. In addition, a funding package was also made available to directly support businesses and households. So, far, the Welsh Government has provided over £9.2 million across Wales. In RCT, I awarded £1.6 million of emergency funding to repair damaged flood assets, and this was in addition to the £2.1 million grant funding towards defences and smaller schemes across the county.

I've also provided funding for property resilience measures, such as floodgates, and, to date, have awarded over £1 million across Wales to benefit up to 594 properties. This includes a recent award of over £300,000 to RCT for 357 homes.

Today, I've announced additional revenue support for local authorities this year, providing up to £95,000 extra per authority to support with their flood-risk activities and to help ensure that assets remain resilient over the winter. My officials have written to all local authorities with further details.

In October, I published our new national flood strategy and this strengthens roles and responsibilities and sets out new objectives around communication, planning and prevention. It encourages natural flood management and adaptation, plus greater collaboration to create sustainable schemes that deliver wider well-being benefits. It's an ambitious strategy and reaffirms the importance we place on flood-risk management and the growing threat of climate change. This follows changes to funding that I announced to provide greater support and flexibility to our risk-management authorities, including 100 per cent support for natural flood-management projects and to prepare business cases for new flood and coastal schemes.

I strongly agree with the contributions from Senedd Members that we have to learn the lessons from the February flooding. There must be further scrutiny and engagement of affected communities and all those who face climate risks in Wales. Local authorities have a legal duty to produce reports that investigate the causes of flooding and bring forward recommendations to further reduce risk, and these reports are public documents and are prepared by teams of highly skilled individuals. It seems from contributions from some Members that they don't have confidence in the professional integrity of those people who will prepare the report and don't have confidence in their own ability and that of communities to scrutinise their findings. But I don't share that view, and I have absolute confidence in the professionalism of local authority staff and their commitment to the safety and well-being of the communities they serve. And if Members have evidence that should cast doubt on that belief, then they have a responsibility to present it, but I've not heard any such evidence offered to date.

All Members of this Senedd have a role in scrutinising those reports closely as soon as they're available and ensuring that the views and interests of their constituents are represented. And this Senedd has a role in ensuring that we do learn the lessons from those reports and apply them in national policy and local operational practice to keep Wales safe. I believe that the professionally prepared and legally required reports from local authorities will allow us to do that.

Local elected Members in RCT have gone beyond this to produce their own report, as we heard from Mick Antoniw, who co-authored it with Alex Davies-Jones, the MP. The report makes it clear that residents see a number of specific areas for improvement and solutions that we can consider not only to reduce flood risk, but to help support wider well-being. Contributions of this kind are welcome and clearly show ways in which local residents can scrutinise the issues and put forward creative and constructive solutions that work for them. And I hope that other Members will consider how they can similarly support the communities to be more resilient to climate-related threats and more engaged with issues.

NRW has, in addition to its statutory responsibility to produce flood investigations, published a full review in October, with a series of reports that provide a detailed account of the challenges in relation to their response and forecasting, and I would urge anyone who believes that there has been an attempt to downplay the challenges and the areas for improvement to read that review. It demonstrates not just the range and severity of the challenges we face, but, in my view, the organisation's absolute commitment to take the opportunity now to subject these challenges to public scrutiny, to work with communities to find better solutions for the future. Their conclusion was not that the report should be the end of the conversation, but very explicitly that the conversation must continue, continuing to learn the lessons of the devastating flooding in February and consider more broadly how, as a society, we prepare for the changing climate and its impact on our communities in Wales, and that's a conclusion with which I firmly agree and I hope that the Senedd would also endorse.

So, I do look forward to the further scrutiny of the flood investigation report, and I look forward to working with all Senedd Members, along with local authority partners and with communities, to learn the lessons of the dreadful February floods and to better prepare ourselves for the growing challenges that Wales faces from a changing climate. Diolch.

I call now on Janet Finch-Saunders to reply to the debate.

Diolch, Llywydd. I wish to thank the petitioners and all those others who have highlighted their own personal experiences of the devastating floods and shared these not only with our Petitions Committee, but with our Members here today. Thank you for all Member contributions on such an important issue.

I wish to thank the Minister for her response and acknowledgement of the funding that's been made available to help with defences, small schemes, floodgates, and the support to 357 homes in Rhondda Cynon Taf. All local authorities have been written to, and issues around mentioning natural flood defences in the strategy that was published recently.

This debate has enabled important matters to be raised. We will now consider this petition in the new year and we certainly welcome any further responses coming forward from the petitioner. Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. 

The proposal is to note the petition. Does any Member object? Are there any objections? There are none. Therefore, the motion is agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Before we break, unless a Member objects, the motions for the Government debate on the new coronavirus restrictions and the Welsh Conservatives' debate on coronavirus, December restrictions, will be grouped for debate but with votes taken separately. Are there any objections to that? There are no objections and therefore the items will be grouped for debate. We will now take a short break to make some changeovers in the Chamber, so we'll break.

We now reconvene. 

It was agreed that the Government debate on the new coronavirus restrictions and the Welsh Conservatives debate on coronavirus December restrictions are grouped for debate but with separate votes. I now call on the Minister for Health and Social Services to move the Government motion—Vaughan Gething.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I move the Government motion before us and I'll address each of the elements of the Government motion in turn.

Sadly, coronavirus is accelerating across Wales, eroding the hard-won gains from the firebreak. The seven-day rolling incidence rate of coronavirus across Wales has risen to over 320 cases per 100,000. As of 7 December, there were 1,085 people with confirmed coronavirus cases in our hospitals. We now have more than 400 more people in NHS hospitals in Wales being treated for coronavirus compared to the peak in April. The situation is undeniably serious. It demands a serious and responsible response from us all.

The First Minister's statement to the Senedd on 1 December set out the increasing challenge that we face. He set out the pressing need to take further targeted action to protect people's health and reduce the speed and spread of the virus. We should remember this is a virus that is highly infectious; it thrives when we come together. And there is an obvious risk that, as people come together to celebrate Christmas, they will catch or spread the virus. So, in line with what the chief medical officer said today, in the run-up to 23 December, we must all do what we can to make sure that infection rates reduce and to reduce our contacts.

The Welsh Government has considered the recent evidence from SAGE, the UK Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies, and especially, as we've said, their meetings of 11 and 19 November. These highlighted the positive impacts of measures in the Scottish level 3 system and English tier 3 restrictions. We already had many of these in place in Wales and have adapted other measures for Wales. That's why, from 6 o'clock on Friday, new national restrictions were introduced for hospitality and indoor attractions. So, pubs, bars, restaurants and cafes must now close at 6 p.m. and cannot serve alcohol. After 6 p.m. they will only be able to provide takeaway services. Similar measures apply to tier 3 in Scotland. Indoor entertainment venues and indoor visitor attractions must close; outdoor attractions are currently open. The rest of our national measures remain the same, but our national message has never been more important: we all have a part to play if we are going to turn back the rising tide of coronavirus.

The final part of the Government motion relates to the further £340 million package of support to business that we are making through the economic resilience fund. This includes £180 million targeted at hospitality and tourism businesses. This, of course, is in addition to the various support schemes available through the UK Government. There have been a large number of amendments to the Government motion and it won't be possible for me to address all of them in detail, but I will discuss the themes that they raise.

There is increasing scientific and observational evidence highlighting the role of hospitality in disease transmission. Health spokespeople from the Conservatives and Plaid Cymru were offered briefings last week with the chief scientific adviser on health. In addition to this, there is growing evidence of behaviour associated with alcohol, including the gaming of the rules. Rates of infection are rising across Wales in 21 out of 22 local authorities today. We have repeated and clear advice, from the technical advisory group, that a national approach is most likely to be effective at this point in time. A further report from the technical advisory group, with advice that informed the decision of the Government to introduce the new hospitality restrictions across Wales, was published on Monday. I should say at this point that we will support amendments 5 and 6.

The Plaid Cymru amendments largely deal with details of the hospitality restrictions. The restrictions on the hospitality sector, including the sale of alcohol, are a key element of the interventions that SAGE consider to have the biggest impact on the virus. Whilst the restrictions on supermarkets and off-licences selling alcohol after 10 p.m. remain in place, I don't believe it's proportionate to impose further restrictions on the ability of people to purchase alcohol for consumption in their own homes, but the messaging from the Government about how we ask people to behave, to do the right thing, remains clear.

In response to amendments 16 and 17, I should say that the Welsh Government has always brought regulations for debate and decision to the Senedd in accordance with the rules of this Parliament. Given the importance of responding quickly to the shifting and significant public health threat, we will need to continue to act promptly, whenever necessary, to keep Wales safe. Whilst I reject the hospitality-related amendments, I do not underestimate the very negative impact that these restrictions will have on businesses across Wales. That is why we have put in place the most generous package of measures anywhere in the UK. I recognise the hard work within the sector to introduce mitigations, but, unfortunately, the Welsh Government has to take very difficult, unpalatable choices to introduce further restrictions. The decisions we have taken have been supported by both SAGE and TAG advice, which I referenced earlier, and the public statements and advice of our own chief medical officer.

The Conservative motion calls for what it describes as a 'targeted approach', without clearly setting out what that would be or the advice and evidence that underpins that call for an alternative approach. What we have heard in public statements from the Conservatives is the desire to have greater restrictions imposed on individual groups of people, especially older people. That advice has been rejected as impractical and unworkable by not just SAGE, but by our own group, the technical advisory group. That advice has been rejected and not followed by the Scottish National Party health Minister in Scotland, the Ulster Unionist health Minister in Northern Ireland and the Conservative Secretary of State for health acting for England. It is also an approach that has been rejected by every single one of the four chief medical officers across the UK. It is, of course, a matter for the Conservatives if they still wish to promote that approach, but it is not a matter that this Government believes is the right course of action to keep Wales safe.

All of us hoped that the firebreak, followed by national measures, would give us a path through to Christmas. Unfortunately, that has plainly not been the case. That is why we now need to take further steps as a nation to keep the people of Wales safe. I do hope that the sobering, troubling and undeniably serious figures in the last few days will have given all Members the time to pause and reflect. As we face the prospect of greater harm, as we face the prospect of a hard, difficult and deadly winter ahead of us without further change, I hope that, in the face of that prospect, Members will reflect on whether this Senedd should vote today to relax restrictions. I believe doing so will undoubtedly cause even greater harm, and undoubtedly will lead to avoidable deaths for the people that we serve. I do not believe that is a responsible choice, as we all have to strike the balance between the harm of acting and the much greater harm of doing nothing. I move the motion and ask Members to support the Government today.

I have selected amendments 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, and amendments 10 to 17, that have been tabled to the Government motion. I now call on Darren Millar to move the Welsh Conservative motion and amendments 2 to 6 to the Government motion. Darren.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I move the Welsh Conservative motion on the order paper today and all the amendments tabled to the Government motion that have been tabled in my name. Can I put on record at the start of this debate that we fully recognise on the Welsh Conservative benches the gravity of the public health emergency, not just here in Wales, but across the UK and internationally, and that we do also recognise the need to take action to reduce coronavirus infection rates?

Following the decision of the Welsh Government to impose new restrictions on the hospitality sector in the run up to Christmas, it became very clear to us that a debate was needed on the impact that this decision would have and to provide the Welsh Parliament with an opportunity to have its say. But, in spite of this, the Welsh Government refused to facilitate a debate prior to the commencement of the regulations on Friday. Frankly, Dirprwy Lywydd, I think it's a disgrace that the Welsh Government has not enabled the Senedd to hold a meaningful vote on the restrictions until today, a number of days after their imposition. The Labour Party is the first party to carp at Westminster if the UK introduces regulations before a vote, and what's good for the goose is good for the gander. They need to practice what they preach and make sure that we have the opportunity to vote in this Senedd whenever there are significant changes in its approach to controlling the coronavirus. We need to ensure that all significant changes are subject to a vote prior to their imposition.

We believe that the decision to impose severe restrictions on the hospitality and entertainment industries across Wales is neither proportionate nor reasonable. The Wales-wide approach taken by the Welsh Government pays no regard to the fact that the virus is circulating at very different rates in different parts of Wales. There's only limited evidence that the hospitality and indoor entertainment industries are responsible for the significant increases in infection rates in some parts of Wales, and evidence that stopping people from having an alcoholic drink before 6 o'clock with a meal is inherently riskier than having a soft drink with that meal appears to be non-existent. There also appears to be little recognition by the Welsh Government of the vital importance of the hospitality sector to the Welsh economy.

Now, I recognise what the Minister has just said about the inadequacy of financial support, and I welcome the fact that that amendment that we have tabled is going to receive Government support. It's not surprising, given the lack of adequate financial support from the Welsh Government that there have been a very limited number of sightings of Ken Skates in recent days. In fact, there have been more sights of—[Interruption.] There have been more sights of big cats—notwithstanding the fact that he turned up to answer questions today, there have been more sightings of big cats in the countryside in north Wales, frankly, than the Minister for the economy.

Now, we know that most of the financial support package announced by the Welsh Government will, unfortunately, not be available until January, and I regret that by that time there will be many firms across Wales—a great number of which have already been struggling to survive as a result of the severe travel restrictions—that could have collapsed. Throughout the pandemic, the Government has, on many occasions, struggled to explain to the public how it has balanced its responsibilities to protect both lives and livelihoods. Welsh Ministers are required, of course, to take proportionate decisions that are reasonable, and they have a moral obligation to demonstrate how they've met those tests to the people of Wales. But I'm afraid that they've failed to be able to demonstrate that they've met those tests in respect of these measures. Those areas of Wales such as north Wales, in particular, where the infection rates are much lower than in other parts of the country, where they appear to be getting out of control, seem to suggest that we need a different approach in different parts of the country. I heard what the Minister said about the UK Government Ministers rejecting the sort of approach that we've suggested here in Wales. You forget that, both in Scotland and England, they've got a tiered approach, they're taking a different approach that is targeted at different parts of the country because of different rates of the virus circulating. That's why they have those tiers in terms of their system.

The infection rates published by Public Health Wales today suggest that Gwynedd has a circulation rate of the virus, a positive rate, of 37.7 positives per 100,000 of the population over the past seven days, and that is falling. When you compare that to Neath Port Talbot, in south Wales, where we've got a staggering 693.6 cases per 100,000 in the past seven days, it's quite clear that we need a different approach in both of those two areas. In fact, Neath Port Talbot has the worst rate of infection in the whole of the UK, and nine out of the 10 top local authorities in terms of the infection rates are actually in Wales, and I think that's a depressing situation that absolutely needs a more targeted approach in terms of those local authorities that have got such big risks associated with them. The differences aren't minor, they are enormous, and that's why we want to see a different approach with regard to the way in which the Welsh Government is tackling these issues, not the Wales-wide blanket approach, frankly, that we have at the moment. 

And then there are those members of the public who are doing the right thing—they're washing their hands, they're wearing a mask, they're staying home, they're socially distancing—and we believe that they should be rewarded for that hard work when we have a situation where the virus is under better control, yet Ministers have chosen to impose severe restrictions on every single person in the country because of a small minority in some of our communities who, no matter what the rules, will never actually obey them.

The lack of evidence from the Government also in relation to the hospitality industry is troubling. I note, of course, that some further information has been shared this week. I think it related to evidence from back in April, which was obviously a much earlier time during the pandemic and is probably outdated. But those latest advice documents published by Ministers do not call for the sort of restrictions that the Welsh Government has decided to impose. They make no reference to the arbitrary 6 p.m. rule for the closure of regulated premises, nor the banning of alcohol sales. And the unintended consequences of those rules, such as people mixing in people's homes and drinking together, fuelling even more infections, are not rehearsed at all in those documents. 

The UK Government's chief scientific adviser, Sir Patrick Vallance, has acknowledged this week that there is no hard evidence to justify hospitality curfews. And the Minister was quite right to point out that there are some differences in the Welsh Conservatives' approach versus the UK Government approach. That's what devolution is all about, because we want a solution for Wales, not a solution for England, which the UK Government, of course, is having to impose. But it's in the face of all of this evidence, or this lack of evidence, that the new restrictions are all the more galling, especially for those hospitality businesses that have struggled to survive the pandemic so far and have worked very hard and spent many thousands of pounds to implement those COVID-safe environments on their premises in order to keep their staff and customers safe. 

I fear that the Government needs to be reminded of the huge contribution that this particular sector makes to our economy and communities every year. The hospitality sector in Wales contributes £3 billion per year to our economy. It employs over 140,000 people in Wales directly, and a further 40,000 indirectly. And according to the chief executive of UKHospitality Cymru, the hospitality sector in Wales is the third-largest private sector employer. That's bigger than the pharmaceutical, automobile and aerospace industries in Wales combined. So, given these facts, it's very difficult to understand why the Welsh Government has chosen to target this particular industry in the way that it has. Anyone who frequents pubs, restaurants and cafes would understand the significant damage that these restrictions are causing, so why is it that the Welsh Government doesn't seem to understand? And I hate to say it, but I can't help but feel that if these restrictions posed a major threat to jobs in the steel industry, there would be a very different approach from Ministers. 

Finally, with regard to business support, I'm afraid it's too little, too late. Too little because it will not go anywhere near close enough to cover the loss of revenue for the Christmas period for those people who now are suffering, and too late, because people won't be able to access the support they need until January, by which time many businesses will have gone to the wall and many thousands of jobs will have been lost. 

So, in closing, we understand the need to control the virus and to protect lives. That's why we have supported—and I want to stress this—most of the coronavirus regulations laid before this Senedd. You wouldn't think it when you listen to the Government, but that is a fact. We've supported those restrictions because they were backed by evidence and they were proportionate, and they were targeted, but unfortunately these aren't, and that's why we're calling for their immediate suspension and for a more targeted and proportionate approach, going forward. I urge Members to support the motion. 

Thank you. In accordance with Standing Order 12.23, I have not selected the amendments tabled to the Welsh Conservatives' motion. I now call on Caroline Jones to move amendment 10 to the Government motion, tabled in her own name. Caroline. 

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Before I move on to dealing with the motion itself, I have to place on record my disappointment at the way this institution has been treated. This Senedd was elected to legislate in the best interest of the people of Wales, but because of the contempt shown by the Welsh Government, we are once again being called upon to rubber-stamp decisions that have already been made. We were elected to represent our constituents, who are losing their jobs and businesses as a result of the decisions made by Welsh Ministers, and yet, we did not get to vote on the restrictions before they came into effect. Instead, we get to vote on an anodyne motion. This is not democracy; this has become an elected dictatorship, and it's no wonder that the wider public and business sector are losing faith in this institution.

Moving on to my amendment—which I formally move—we do not support the Welsh Government's decisions, but previously, I placed on record that the First Minister has had my support regarding regulations, but now, regrettably, the First Minister has set us on a path that will greatly impact our hospitality sector, and will have very little impact on the pandemic here in Wales. And this course of action, which may or may not have a limited impact on the spread of COVID-19, will, without any shadow of doubt, decimate the hospitality sector in Wales. Many pubs closed their doors on Friday evening for the last time ever, and far too many staff ended their final shift facing Christmas without a job, and some businesses have told me that they are still waiting for the first lockdown financial support. And I fear Wales is witnessing the slow death of our economy in a futile effort to stem the pandemic. So, despite measures that have devastated large parts of our tourism and hospitality sectors, as well as non-food retailers, we have the worst infection rates in the UK. I don't subscribe to the 'let it run its course' philosophy, because this virus can and does destroy lives. Yet, at the same time, we can't shut everything down until we have sufficient supplies of the vaccine.

The long-term impact could now be much worse than the direct impact of COVID-19. How many life chances have been ruined as a result of these actions? How many people will be condemned to a life of poverty because our economy will take decades to recover? Infections aren't being spread in hospitality establishments, establishments that have spent millions of pounds to make their venues COVID-safe and secure the safety of the public. It's being spread in large indoor gatherings by people who think the rules aren't for them, large gatherings of 20 people and more, playing in supermarket car parks; no masks, no social distancing, and yet, later, going home to their families.

Many people are complaining about the mixed messages that they don't understand; people are confused by the rules and then decide to totally ignore the rules altogether. They say, 'If it's okay to meet up with four friends down the pub, why not at home?' We need more clarity and less confusion, because some people are inadvertently breaking the rules. We should be sending a clear message that until we have sufficient stocks of vaccine, people should avoid all contact with those not in their household. We need a test, trace and protect system that is conducting regular population-wide testing and isolating those who are infected. Why are we not dealing with people who deliberately break the rules, and using the hospitality sector as scapegoats along with the people who are law-abiding? And I urge Members to support my amendment. Diolch yn fawr. Thank you.

Thank you. Can I now call on Rhun ap Iorwerth to move amendments 11 to 17 to the Government motion, tabled in the name of Siân Gwenllian?

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer.

We're at another critical point in the story of this pandemic; that's clear. To hear of senior health executives or doctors speaking of their fear about what lies ahead should concern us all. We could spend a lot of time looking back at what has happened. The Conservatives, I know, have argued this week, for example, that the firebreak failed. I don't think the firebreak failed, actually. What went wrong was a lack of new strategy for after the firebreak, and a far too abrupt exit from the firebreak. Now, sadly, we are dealing with the consequences of that, but let's concentrate on looking forward.

I certainly appreciate that Government is working in extremely difficult circumstances here, but our scrutiny becomes more important at a time like this. It's about trying to encourage better decision making, so let me go through our amendments to the Government motion. The first three deal with those areas that have jarred with a significant section of public opinion most—the rules around hospitality. To be clear, you won't hear me, or any of my colleagues, say that the run-up to Christmas should be anything like normal. I don't hear the hospitality sector saying that either, and with infection levels and positivity rates on the way up pretty much everywhere, we have to look at how all aspects of how the way we live our lives affects the spread of the virus, from work to travel to leisure and, yes, how we interact with and enjoy the hospitality sector. Limiting personal and potential contact between people, especially late at night when spirits are higher, let's say, makes sense in many, many ways.

But it's the extent of the restrictions that we question here. We question whether Government has got it right. The total alcohol ban, for example, has led to many people questioning the logic, and that can lead to an undermining of trust. Individuals from four households can meet for a coffee. Not even an individual can have a quiet pint in the same establishment. Now, I know it's not people having a quiet pint that Government is worried about, but they're still affected too, and in stark contrast, supermarkets can still sell as much alcohol as they like until late in the evening. Again, those people from four households can have a lunch, but a couple living together can't have an evening meal. We're suggesting that perhaps there needn't be an outright ban on alcohol. Those evening meals can be allowed up to, say, 8 o'clock, allowing some trade to take place. And remember that the sector as a whole has worked very, very hard, and invested heavily too, to try to work COVID safely.

But here's the key—and I refer to our other amendment: what's the evidence, the specific evidence, on, for example, the harm caused by restaurants? On why 6 o'clock closing of all hospitality contributes to the overall goals, rather than perhaps a later time? What are those goals—the specific objectives? What are the thresholds that we can look forward to for the relaxing of measures? Our amendment 15 says the latest advice Government receives, 

'together with all data supporting the policy decisions taken, should be published alongside or prior to any announcement on further national coronavirus restrictions.'

This is so, so important, and it's been good to hear calls for the timely publication of evidence from the benches of the Government side too.

I'll also make reference to amendment 17. We're making some suggestions today based on research, aren't we? On best practice elsewhere, and so on. But we're asking here to be able to seek modelling by Government scientists and advisers on our alternative proposals. This is clearly an amendment in the spirit of achieving, or trying to achieve, the best outcomes for Wales—something we should all be seeking.

There's an appeal to the Conservatives there too: bring your proposals to the table. Guff and bluster really don't cut it in this pandemic, and downplaying risks to health increases risks to health. You do that at your peril. We'll be voting for your amendments today. A number of them, like ours, call for more evidence, for example, but I'm giving one big caveat. We vote for amendment 2 because, yes, we do see the need to respond in different ways in different parts of Wales, but that can go both ways. Frankly, currently that's likely to mean the need for additional measures in some places, more support for self-isolation, more resources to help communities of high prevalence of the virus.

We'll be abstaining on the Conservative debate motion itself. I think we've expressed our position pretty clearly in the way we're voting on the other amendments, and whilst we are agreed on some elements that I've outlined there, this can't be about the suspension of restrictions altogether. I don't think anybody in hospitality even, as I say, is really calling for that. What we want is a rethink on some elements, and to suggest lifting of all restrictions now would clearly be damaging to health. This is not the time, as we've heard some on the Conservative benches suggesting, to pretend that there are parts of Wales that are somehow immune to this virus—there aren't—and thankfully, there are parts of the country that are faring better than others, including my own constituency, but prevention is more often than not better than cure.

Can you start to wind up?

To conclude then, however, we do think that the Government has got elements of these nationwide restrictions wrong, so we're asking for a rethink. And it feels most wrong, I think, in parts of Wales where there is lower incidence of the virus. We're calling for a rethink on elements. We're asking again, at every turn in this story, show us and the Welsh public clearly the basis on which decisions are made.

Thank you. I have a number of speakers in this debate, or these two debates that are grouped, so if I make a plea to you all that if you consider your colleagues and you can trim some seconds or some sentences from your contribution, then all your other colleagues may be called. If not, then I think we're going to run out of time. So, I'll leave that with everybody's consciences in the run-up to Christmas. Alun Davies.

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I'll certainly take note of what you've said. We are, of course, facing a real public health crisis of a depth that none of us have experienced before, but I think we also have a crisis in terms of how we deal with this public health emergency. We also have a crisis about how we debate and discuss and communicate with each other. Deputy Presiding Officer, we discuss many matters here in this Parliament, but we have significant responsibilities in these particular matters, and I have to say that rarely in the years that I've sat here have I felt the weight of this responsibility so heavily on our shoulders as it is today and in these times.

It is clear to me that the virus is spreading quickly and, therefore, the Welsh Government must take urgent action to protect public health, and the Welsh Government must have the freedom to take such action. I hear what Members say about us voting on these matters, and I've always been the first person to defend the rights of this Parliament, but the Government must also be able to act when necessary.

And I'll say this to the Conservatives: I listened to the Conservative spokesperson who disappointed me for the second time today, I'm afraid to say. I asked the Government for the advice upon which they're taking decisions on hospitality, I think it was last week. I intervened on the First Minister to say that we need to ensure that this advice is published alongside the decision. That advice has been published and, unlike the Conservatives, I've taken some time to read that advice and to read it in detail. And I have to say this: the advice from the scientific community, the advice from the medical community to the Government certainly does justify the decisions that the Government have taken. The advice also is very clear that the regional approach that was tested earlier this year did not have the same effect as national regulations. That was also in the advice. The advice was also very clear in what it said about hospitality. I've shared this advice with publicans in my own constituency. They've taken the time to read it and they understand it. It isn't too much to ask, Deputy Presiding Officer, that the main opposition party here does the same.

It is important that the Welsh Government continues to publish and to put into the public domain as much information as is possible, at the time when it takes decisions on regulations. The people of Blaenau Gwent are facing one of the most difficult situations our community has faced. We know and we understand the gravity of the situation facing us. Today's statistics tell us that 574 cases per 100,000 population reflects what we were told last week by the health board. The health board told us that our hospitals in the Aneurin Bevan University Health Board area are facing a real crisis. The people that we rely on and trust to staff those hospitals are under more pressure today than they've been at any time. There are more people today in hospital in Gwent as a consequence of the coronavirus than there has been at any time over the last nine months. These aren't matters that we can wish away, and they aren't matters that we can ignore because it is politically expedient to do so. The health board was clear, speaking to us as elected representatives, that they support what the Welsh Government is doing, and in fact want the Welsh Government to move further more quickly. It is time for us to listen to what the doctors and the medical staff and the scientific community tell us. Anybody who seeks elected office, and anybody who seeks to govern this country, has a particular responsibility to listen and to react and to follow that advice.

The people of Blaenau Gwent feel this very heavily. I speak and they understand what is happening here in Wales. They also understand the restrictions taking place elsewhere across the European Union and throughout the United Kingdom. They understand the tier 3 restrictions in England. They understand what level 3 and what level 4 in Scotland means. They know what we're facing. The Government must work with them to explain and to publish the information, and opposition parties must support what is right and not try to score points in a sterile political debate. It is time for us as a country to stand together, and it is time for us as a country not simply to clap for the national health service, but to protect it, and that means voting for the difficult decisions that we have all been elected to take.

As our motion states, we call upon the Welsh Government to adopt a more proportionate and targeted approach to tackling the coronavirus in Wales. They state that their actions are based upon technical advisory group advice, but although the group's 2 December statement acknowledges industry efforts to create COVID-secure environments, it then focuses instead on enforcement action against the tiny proportion of hospitality premises in Wales acting in breach of the restrictions. So, although targeted interventions are therefore working, the Welsh Government is taking a brutal broad-brush approach.

As we heard at October's cross-party group on beer and the pub, pubs in Wales have their backs to the wall. There is enormous fragility of confidence in trading, their staff numbers have already fallen by over a quarter during the pandemic, they're confident that their premises have COVID controls in place, and policy makers need to look at the evidence showing minimal COVID-19 infection rates in licensed premises. As the British Institute of Innkeeping said this month,

'Our pubs were among hospitality venues that safely welcomed 60 million visitors a week throughout the summer, with no discernible impact on national infection rates. September then created a perfect storm for pubs...with pubs & hospitality being unfairly implicated.'

Speaking in Plenary only four weeks ago, I highlighted the north Wales tourism survey on the impact of lockdowns on the tourism, hospitality, retail and leisure sectors and their supply chains in north Wales, which found that 39 per cent of tourism, hospitality, retail and leisure businesses in north Wales would cease trading if there were any further national or local lockdowns. I emphasised their call on the Labour Welsh Government to conduct meaningful, regional and local business engagement before any more lockdowns are imposed—yet they were ignored.

After the First Minister's previous interventions, Wales was the only part of the UK where infections were not falling at the end of November. Last week, an open letter was sent to the First Minister by the North Wales Mersey Dee Business Council on behalf of over 150 businesses across north Wales. As this states, like businesses across Wales and the wider UK,

'Our businesses...have...invested considerable time and money to make their venues and businesses Covid safe and direct evidence instances of them being linked to any material extent for transmission of Covid-19 seems not to exist....In the few days since the announcement of extra restrictions in Wales, large numbers of businesses have had to cancel bookings worth tens of thousands of pounds to them, essentially wiping out any real hope of a last ditch source of revenue at the end of a disastrous year, with expectations of the same for the coming months.'

A letter from a solicitor representing a hospitality business states that businesses in rural areas are being placed at a disadvantage by the Welsh Government's refusal to consider a tier system or more localised measures to combat and contain COVID-19. West Conwy Pubwatch wrote to the First Minister, and I quote:

'Your most recent ruling to keep Welsh pubs open whilst not allowing us to serve alcohol is a complete and utter joke that makes no sense. The fact that you've been allowed, encouraged even, to do this is sickening.'

Pubs in Wrexham and Flintshire stated that the First Minister's actions amount to a public message, 'Don't drink in Wales to save lives, but travel to England just across the border from us, for a pint and chips instead, taking away from the Welsh economy at a detrimental time of year and handing it to the English economy.' As one said, the issue is the strategy of targeting hospitality as a whole, and we have put so much time, money and emphasis on social distancing, sanitation and supervision. As another said, and I quote:

'Mr Drakeford's Government is out of touch, inconsistent and bordering the realms of dictatorship.'

My final comments are quotes received from doctors. These are doctors' comments:

'Increasingly stringent regulation which is not evidence based will alienate those who do understand the need for some restrictions and changes to life for a period, and encourage them to ignore the restrictions'.

Another:

'I watched the update this afternoon. What an uninspiring delivery it was, poorly informed and clearly used to making excuses. Has the Welsh Government got a plan?'

And:

'Instead of penalising hardworking people, the First Minister needs to listen to their calls and urgently review his ruthless measures before it is too late for them.'

This is what doctors are telling me.

I wish to speak primarily to our amendments 11, 12 and 13, and I'll start, if I may, with amendment 12. It seems to us that there is as much reason to be concerned about the spread of the virus in people's homes if large quantities of alcohol are consumed, if not more, than there is to be concerned about the spread of the virus in hospitality settings. Nobody wants, I'm sure, a disproportionate response to the crisis, but I do feel, and we do believe, that there is a case for restricting—. If there is a case for restricting the sale of alcohol altogether in licensed premises, where people are at least, as others have said, consuming food and alcohol, potentially, under supervision, consideration needs to be given about whether we should attempt to ensure that the scenario where people have their bottle of wine with dinner and then decide to go to the corner shop to buy two or three more is avoided. I can understand Ministers' reluctance to interfere disproportionately in people's behaviour in their own homes—I do appreciate that—but I do think that if we're saying to our hospitality businesses that they need to take a hit on this, the Government should potentially consider whether that hit should be more equally spread if our concerns—. I suppose one of our concerns—and I'll come to this in a moment—about the restriction of all alcohol sales in hospitality is that it simply will go into people's homes where there is less ability to control both the quantity of alcohol consumed and therefore the risk of lowering inhibitions and promoting the spread.

I should say, before I go on to amendments 11 and 13, as Rhun ap Iorwerth has said, nobody on these benches, nobody in Plaid Cymru is underestimating how serious this situation is and nobody is suggesting that we should remove all restrictions. But we urge the Welsh Government to look again at who these particular restrictions impact upon. And let me tell you, in doing that, about Phillip. Phillip is a plumber. I met him and we had a socially distanced conversation on the street in Llanelli last Saturday. He's self-employed, he lives alone and he won't be spending this Christmas with his elderly parents because they've had to decide which of their children and their children's children they can be with, and Phillip's other siblings have grandchildren who their parents wish to see. So, he's decided happily—well, accepting—that he won't be able to see them. Two or three times a week, sometimes four, on his way home from work, Phillip stops at the pub for one, maybe two pints of beer—very rarely more often than that because he has to get up early in the morning. He can't do that now. Because his local pub can't sell alcohol, it's not viable for them to open, and because it has to close at 6 o'clock and he finishes work at half past five, there's no time for him to get home, have a wash and get there. So, I urge the Welsh Government, when they come to review the restrictions, to think about who those restrictions are affecting and what effect that has on those people's lives.

Phillip is very careful when he's working in people's homes to stay well away. A lot of his social contact in the past would have been chatting with his customers as well as saying hello in a socially distanced way to his two or three friends in the pub. He's now in a situation where he can't have any of that. So, ladies who lunch, who are not at work and who are able to go out to have their meal at lunch time, can at least meet one another, even if they can't have a drink when they're meeting one another. But Phillip can't see anybody, except at weekends, because of the way his work is structured. Now, I don't for a minute think that the Welsh Government are intending to put people like Phillip in a situation of greater isolation, but I do urge them to consider how people live their lives and to think, when they look at the restrictions again, could we allow the consumption of one or two alcoholic drinks, as has been done in other countries. Could we allow hospitality to open for an hour or two after most people finish work, so that people like Phillip, many of them men, actually, living on their own, can have that level of social contact?

I'm not for a minute suggesting, Deputy Presiding Officer, that any of these choices are easy, but I have to tell you that I've known Phillip for a while and he's followed the rules religiously. You know, he's stepping aside so that his siblings can spend time with their parents over Christmas. He asked me to ask why—why the regulations have been structured as they are. While there is evidence of spread in hospitality, I'm not sure there's evidence of spread in hospitality in a properly regulated pub like Phillip's local, with people having one or two drinks in the early evening. It is true, as some others have said, that a small minority of publicans in the hospitality sector have allowed improper behaviour. It is true that some individuals have been irresponsible, but many, many more individuals have stuck to the rules and they've found it hard. I just hope that the Government can consider—

Can I ask you to wind up, please?

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, I'll end with this: I just ask the Government to consider whether we can vary the people who are affected by these restrictions, because some people have got more options and more choices than others. We just need to show a bit of humanity and a bit of understanding about how people live their lives, as well as, of course, prioritising reducing the spread of the virus.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak in the debate today and to support the further steps being taken by the Welsh Government to keep people safe in this unprecedented public health emergency. My heart goes out to those in the hospitality industry who've worked hard to try to make their premises COVID secure, but I believe, as I have throughout this pandemic, that the top priority has to be the protection of public health. As Alun Davies has said, the public health situation in Gwent is bleak and the pressure on our NHS is immense. There are currently more patients in hospital in Gwent than at any other time in the pandemic. There are huge staffing challenges, with staff absences running at nearly 10 per cent. That means that every day there are around 1,250 people who are unavailable for work. Last week, the Welsh ambulance service was forced to declare a major incident in south-east Wales.

This situation is set to worsen if infections continue on their current trajectory. We are seeing a high and growing number of infections in care homes across Gwent. In this second wave, my constituency of Torfaen has been badly hit, with 271 cases in care homes. Behind every one of those statistics is a family affected by COVID. We have all known people who have tragically lost people to COVID in the most awful circumstances. I honestly can't imagine anything harder than losing a loved one without being there to hold their hand.

We must never forget the ongoing impact of this crisis on our NHS and social care staff, who have worked under unimaginable pressure since March. We have a duty of care to those we are asking to work on the front line in this emergency. I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to all the NHS and social care staff who have worked unstintingly and who have sacrificed so much in this pandemic. Those staff don't need Members of the Senedd who are willing to clap on their doorstep. They don't need Members of the Senedd who are willing to play politics with the biggest public health crisis we have seen for 100 years. They need Members of the Senedd who are willing to take the tough decisions necessary to keep people safe.

As we are also debating the Welsh Conservatives' motion today, I would like to say a few words about them. I know there are many Members in the party opposite who recognise that we face an unprecedented public health crisis and who want to work constructively across political parties to keep the people of Wales safe. But I must say that I have found the approach of the leader of the opposition and the Welsh Conservatives' health spokesperson's willingness to play politics with public health to be nothing short of shocking in recent times. Only yesterday the leader of the opposition was tweeting that residents in care homes had been overlooked in the Welsh Government's COVID vaccination campaign, even though he knows full well that the storage requirements of the Pfizer vaccine mean we can't deliver the vaccine safely in care homes yet. So, I would respectfully remind the leader of the opposition, who has not removed those tweets, that the truth is a vital commodity in a public health crisis.

Yesterday, with the start of the vaccination programme, we had a glimmer of hope in the long, dark tunnel we have all been in—hope that next year, maybe not straight away but in the spring or summer, life will look very different. Do we really want, at what is hopefully the beginning of the end of this pandemic, to lose lives that we could save by taking hard decisions now? I certainly don't, and that's why I'm supporting the Government today.

The decisions we need to make in Wales about managing the response to the pandemic are not binary. In my view it is not about lives or livelihoods, but rather lives and livelihoods, and my contribution to this debate seeks to air that view. There is no doubt that COVID-19 is a destroyer. The whole process of infection, deteriorating health and hospitalisation has put our already stressed and pressurised NHS and social care systems under further stress, and the contagious nature of the disease means that a number of health and social care workers are away from work because they're unwell or because they have to undertake pre-emptive self-isolation measures. So, I do understand the pressures felt by the health and care services.

But for those who escape the reach of COVID, or who catch it but recover, there is another equally important weft to the weave of life—the ability to earn a living, to have purpose, to be able to continue with an admittedly changed life. Working from home, social distancing measures, different methods of travel, obeying regulations, following guidance, curtailing activities, shopping differently, disinfecting acres of Perspex are all becoming part and parcel of our normal lives. And to humankind's great credit, we have sought to save lives. Scientists have given their all, communities have pulled together, and many individuals have stepped up, become evermore innovative, and looked out for their neighbour, their friend and the stranger down the road.

But we must also look to preserve livelihoods, for a number of reasons: the macro-economic consequences of having an economy that has tanked; relieving the burden of support from the Government, which will have many other calls on funds; preserving the jobs, careers and wages of people; stabilising the tax base; enabling opportunity for purpose, for education and training for self-fulfilment; and, above all, recognising that, in Wales, we have a disproportionately high number of businesses that fall into the micro or the SME category—businesses that are often family run or involve employees from a tight geographical area, and once those businesses are gone, it will be incredibly difficult to replace them. We already know there's been a 41 per cent increase in unemployment in Wales, compared to just 18 per cent in England. So, in real terms, that means that there are another 20,000 people looking for work in Wales. Businesses need the right environment, and if that environment becomes unsustainable, it will not support business, people will not lose just a day's wages or a few weeks', but their whole job or their investment in a business, their life savings, the mortgage on the house and the future for the kids. The hospitality sector absolutely epitomises the balance the Welsh Government needs to find between ensuring COVID-19 is suppressed without suppressing our economic life. But I believe the Welsh Government has not yet got that balance right.

The coronavirus restrictions imposed on the hospitality and indoor entertainment industries from 4 December were greeted with shock and fury by many of the businesses within my constituency—businesses who've spent money and time ensuring that every guideline issued by the Welsh Government has been adhered to. They feel that the regulations currently in force are disproportionate and illogical. They ask, 'Where is the evidence?' Where, indeed? Minister, your Government has failed to provide evidence behind the transmission rates in the hospitality industry. When providing evidence for the Government's second national lockdown, the technical advisory group wrote that the closure of bars, pubs, cafes and restaurants would have a medium effect, with a potential reduction in R transmission rates of 0.1 to 0.2.

Now, a few weeks on, I'm sure the Minister will point out, rightly, that cases are rising across Wales, hence the need for national measures. But let's be clear: there are still massive variations, and I do not believe it is beyond the analysis to look at how to deliver targeted lockdowns to deal with hotspots, while allowing the areas with low R numbers to continue to trade in a more holistic manner. And the Welsh Government must remember that this vital hospitality industry, which takes shape in so many innovative forms, supports a supply chain that is also devastated.

Many speak of the chronic lack of certainty in the hospitality sector. They'd like to have a better sight forward than a few weeks at a time. Many businesses will have bookings for new year and will need to plan, especially when it comes to staffing and liaising with suppliers. Businesses also raise the mental health of staff, as many are worried daily as to whether they'll be needed to turn up for work the next week. And, of course, the failure of the Welsh Government to provide the hospitality industry with support before January is a further demonstration that this Welsh Government is a fair-weather friend of the business community. 

And, Minister, let's be clear. There was a disastrous roll-out of the development grant in November. Lessons need to be learned and businesses will need access to this funding in a fair and equitable way. We've seen months of uncertainty, last-minute decisions and the poor rolling out of Government funding. There needs to be a better balance in the Welsh Government's response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Welsh Government needs to preserve lives and livelihoods, Minister, and I urge the Senedd to support our motion.

Now, the COVID climate has changed a great deal just in the last few days, and the situation is very grave indeed now. There are over 2,000 new cases today, and the situation is very worrying in the Swansea Bay area, with high levels of cases in Neath Port Talbot and also here in Swansea, with the levels increasing quickly and at risk of going out of control, and many of them in schools. So, I would like to ask the Government: what in addition is the Government doing about this situation? How are they considering schools now, particularly as we move towards Christmas, given the increasing levels of cases linked to schools, with all or many pupils having to be sent home? There are 700 Swansea Bay health board staff who are away from work because of COVID.

And, of course, the medical opinion is that it's mixing with others in the home, on the street, in work, with friends and with strangers—that's what drives the increase in COVID. So, the fundamental advice hasn't changed: stay at home if you can, socially distance, wash your hands regularly, wear face coverings, and avoid mixing with others.

Don't mix—that's the simple medical advice. It's what we heard from officials yesterday. Don't mix; try and stay at home. The COVID figures are rising again and seemingly out of control. Doctors who I speak to are truly alarmed by the situation; these are people who don't usually get alarmed. I would encourage Welsh Government to go for mass testing, like Slovakia did. For most of its population—over 3 million—they tested it in one weekend. Slovakia has seen a dramatic decline in COVID by 60 per cent—with support, obviously, otherwise people won't have a test if they cannot isolate. So, also, Welsh Government needs to institute supported isolation to a far more radical level than it has hitherto, otherwise people cannot self-isolate.

Government needs to regard poverty as a pre-existing condition that produces adverse outcomes in COVID, much like lung disease, heart disease and all the rest. We've always known, if you're poor, the stroke you get is worse if you're poor than if you're not poor; if you have a heart attack, the heart attack you get is worse if you're poor than if you're not poor. That applies to COVID as well, and that's why we need supported isolation. Government can do something now about addressing poverty in this pandemic, by ensuring that people can self-isolate for the good of us all. Government could offer free accommodation and continued wages to people needing to self-isolate who have pre-existing poverty. A lot of hotels are lying empty. Think of this as an economic driver, as well as offering meaningful assistance to tackle the underlying poverty and, ultimately, to save lives from COVID. Let's have proper, supported isolation, as several other countries already have done, for the good of us all. Diolch yn fawr.

I begin my contribution to this debate by acknowledging the personal courage of the First Minister over the last six months in bringing the legislation, which he knew would be, in the most, very unpopular with the Welsh public. Where I seek to differ from the First Minister's approach is in the science, or so-called science, which he has acted upon. [Interruption.] But let me make this clear: I do not base my opposition on my own personal ability to interpret the effect of the COVID-19 virus, but on the views and opinions of a very large cohort of scientists who are every bit as competent as those whose advice he follows, and it is true to say that their views are at complete odds with those of the First Minister's advisers. [Interruption.] I will say this: it appears that many of the First Minister's advisers were amongst those who expressed opinions on the dire consequences of other pandemics, such as bird flu, swine fever and SARS, where it was said that each had a propensity to tear through the population like some medieval plague. Those same scientists even today cannot explain why, without the dire interventions we've experienced for COVID-19, they each died out with none of the dire consequences envisaged. Coronavirus is life threatening for a tiny proportion of the population. Almost everyone who has succumbed to this illness is over 80 years of age, and most with longstanding, morbid illnesses. [Interruption.] The Minister says that there are 400 in our hospitals with COVID; there are thousands more in our hospitals with serious flu symptoms. Flu is just as deadly to those who are old and infirm as COVID.

[Interruption.] If we can now turn to the latest regulations and restrictions that target, primarily, the hospitality sector.

Sorry, people have to be heard. I'm sorry.

On what scientific data does the First Minister's advisers rely? The chief executive of Brains brewery, the largest in Wales, says that, of the 100 plus public houses it owns, only three have been involved in the track and trace initiative. A deep clean of those pubs resulted in no further instances. He further went on to say that, of the 150,000 or so customers served, only six were identified as having COVID. First Minister, the hospitality industry has been exemplary in maintaining the rules and regulations imposed over the last six months. They're patently not the primary source of infections. The prohibition of the sale of alcohol, not unlike those imposed in 1930s America, are truly nonsensical when alcohol is freely available in our supermarkets. Anyone can avail themselves of any amount of alcohol, take it home, and invite around friends to consume alcohol with no regulations in place. [Interruption.] We acknowledge that there are a tiny minority who disobey regulations when they have drunk large amounts of alcohol, but does that necessitate stopping someone having a glass of wine with a meal in a restaurant? We are not playing party politics; we are simply opposing ludicrous lockdown restrictions. [Interruption.]

First Minister, as I have said, you have shown courage in your approach in the COVID crisis, now show that same courage and perhaps humility in retracting these latest devastating restrictions on the hospitality sector. 

I don't think any issue has caused as much controversy as this in a very long time, this alcohol ban in public houses and restaurants. I've been inundated with e-mails and phone calls about this over the last few days, and I know that many Members of the Senedd have been in a similar position. Can I start by making it clear that I fully appreciate the seriousness of the situation that Wales is facing, because I know that was raised by some Ministers yesterday, and the First Minister? And I also recognise that there are no easy decisions in this situation. There are no easy answers here. So, it's not simply about opposing all measures that are brought forward or, indeed, supporting all measures that are brought forward. The Welsh Government has to listen to the advice it receives from experts. That's clear. It has to look at the evidence and take balanced decisions that take into account transmission rates and the effects on the economy. That is the Welsh Government's job. Of course, our job as the opposition is to scrutinise and hold the Welsh Government to account for those decisions and to point out where we think things could be done better. 

But another key factor in all this, of course, is taking the public with us—and I say 'us', because it's not just the Welsh Government that people hold responsible for these regulations and rules, it is of course all of us as Senedd Members. That's how the public think. By and large, it happened with the first lockdown and even the firebreak, but that public faith does seem to have worn thin this time around, leaving aside the early closure issue, aside from the actual ban on the alcohol sales. So, what's gone wrong? I think the problem is that it doesn't tally with the public's perception of common sense. Why should having a glass of wine or a beer with lunch and following social distancing rules and other rules and hygiene guidelines for instance, be at more risk of transmitting the virus than if people are drinking soft drinks? Now, the Welsh Government clearly believes the evidence is there to back this, so I think we all need to see this. I know that Alun Davies has called for this, and other Senedd Members have as well. Restaurant owners and pub owners who have seen profits plummet over recent weeks and, in many cases, have to remain closed, need reassurances that these steps are not disproportionate and will help limit the spread of COVID-19, particularly in advance of Christmas, if the restrictions are going to be eased over the Christmas period. 

Now, the Minister has made some good arguments for the ban as a way to balance the needs of business with tackling the COVID-19 pandemic, but the fact is that many pubs and restaurants, certainly in my constituency and I know in other Members' constituencies as well, are actually seeing no option but to close because of the profit issue. Locally, the Angel in Abergavenny, the Black Bear in Bettws Newydd, the Raglan Arms in Llandenny, the Star of Llansoy; I could go on. These are pubs, hotels and restaurants that could legally remain open and serve food but not alcohol, but they've decided it's simply not viable. In the case of the Angel in Abergavenny, they're staying closed until mid January, because they have to place their orders long in advance. So, this is a heavy price to pay, and that's why we need reassurances that this is the right course of action. 

Will you undertake, or will the Welsh Government undertake, or the Minister undertake, to keep this under review? At the very least, I think we do need to see more evidence that is supporting it. I know that some Senedd Members have said that they have seen the evidence and they are reassured by it, but I think that, out there, people I speak to certainly aren't aware that that evidence exists or, indeed, gives the necessary weight for the action that's being taken. Even if the Welsh Government is actually right on this, and I have no reason to doubt that the Welsh Government does think it's taking the right course of action here, the danger is that the public are going to lose confidence, and I think this was mentioned by David Rowlands. If the public lose confidence in the measures and increasingly neglect the guidelines, that will allow the virus to get a foot in the door and it will lengthen the period that it takes to get the transmission rates down. We know that, in Swansea, the situation has been described as 'catastrophic', so there is clearly a massive public health issue here that does need to be addressed, and does need to be addressed by guidelines, but if we don't take the public with us on this, then we risk actually storing up more problems for the future. And let's not forget, we've got a vaccine now, hopefully just around the corner, in terms of dealing with the pandemic, so we don't want to make matters worse now.

So, in conclusion, Dirprwy Lywydd, I think this does need to be sorted out. I think the decision needs to be reviewed. We need to see the evidence cited for these measures. We need to carry the public with us, particularly in the run-up to Christmas, if we're going to slacken those measures over the Christmas period, so that we can all pull together and focus on combating the pandemic and building back better.

Can I thank you for calling me, Deputy Presiding Officer? Whilst we cannot go back, allowing the Cheltenham Festival and Liverpool versus Atlético Madrid to go ahead earlier this year was a very serious mistake by the Westminster Government, which in normal political times would have led to ministerial resignations. I'm going to quote from a peer-reviewed paper in The Lancet:

'Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causes COVID-19 and is spread person-to-person through close contact…The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis support physical distancing of 1 m or more and provide quantitative estimates for models and contact tracing to inform policy. Optimum use of face masks…in public…should be informed by these findings and contextual factors.’

The findings showed a reduction in risk of 82 per cent with a physical distance of 1m in both healthcare and community settings. Every additional metre of separation more than doubles the relative protection. This evidence is important to support community physical distancing guidelines and shows risk reduction is feasible by physical distancing.

Basically, if everyone kept 2m distant, wore masks in shops and other areas where they came into possible contact with others, washed their hands and sanitised regularly, then substantial progress in eradicating this virus would be being made. If people self-isolated when told to, again, progress would be being made. We are seeing the opposite. The infection rate, especially among younger people, is increasing, and sadly, so is the death rate. Whilst some of the Conservatives will disagree with me, I believe every premature death caused by COVID is a tragedy. One of the difficulties of COVID-19 is it affects people differently, from having no symptoms at all to serious ill-health and death.

Where do people gather in close proximity for a long period? Firstly, the workplace, and whilst the Welsh Government advises working from home if possible, not every employer is letting their staff do so. According to the Evening Post, there have been a large number of major infections with DVLA workers in Swansea. Some are going off sick with stress; they claim social distancing isn't being followed at the site. The shared kitchen and bathroom areas are not being deep cleaned after a case is identified, but are just cleaned. Last month, there were more than 40 workers self-isolating at DVLA after colleagues tested positive for coronavirus. I had five people yesterday ring my office, many of them in tears, frightened about going into work and frightened about losing their job at the DVLA. This is a Government organisation, albeit not a Welsh Government organisation. If we cannot keep people safe in organisations that are run by Government, what hope have we got with the private sector?

I have also received complaints from people working in call centres, haulage companies, and several manufacturing units, where people are working well within a metre, where masks are not being worn. This is putting people at risk. I really do feel for these people. As one woman said to me who rang yesterday, 'I've got two choices: I can either lose my job or risk my life'. And I think that's a very sad position we are putting people in, or allowing people to be put in.

Secondly, schools. Who remembers when the scientific advice was under-11s could not get COVID? Schools certainly are having cases, including nursery and reception classes. Can I join with those asking that schools close a week earlier, if only to protect older relatives over Christmas?

The third area is hospitality. That is the area the Government are closing, and I can understand why. But if the regulated sector—i.e. people drinking in pubs and clubs—is closed, what is going to be done about the unregulated gathering? How is that going to be stopped?

The fourth area is on-street gatherings that mainly young people are partaking in. Many of these will be asymptomatic but have the ability to pass COVID on to others.

I have a number of requests: close schools a week early; reopen pubs and restaurants as soon as possible, but any that breach safety are closed for at least a month; set maximum numbers for street gatherings and disperse larger numbers; work with the Westminster Government to force public sector workers to work from home if possible; work with the Health and Safety Executive to visit private-sector companies where concerns are being expressed; and finally, keep on promoting the 2m, hand washing and sanitising, and wearing a mask. You have to keep on doing that. When the Government stops saying it, people think they no longer have to do it. You cannot say that too often. Can I urge the Government to keep on getting that message across? Because there are people who haven't heard it for a week or two weeks who now think that message has gone.

We really are in a difficult position. I'll be supporting the Government because they're dealing with one of the causes of transmission, but please can we start dealing with the employment? Especially public sector office employment, where people are quite often literally half a metre apart.

Can I just add my voice to those who've said that of course we understand the gravity of the position in Wales? We speak to our health boards and we read the evidence—when we get to see it. We also understand that decisions to control this virus are not easy to make, but it is our duty to hold Government to account when we think that they've made the wrong call, and that is what we are doing. The First Minister's response to Laura Anne Jones's question yesterday was so off-key that it struck me as a sign of the utter weariness within Welsh Government at the moment, and when people are exhausted, they can make mistakes.

Now, Alun Davies, you would have us believe that the Welsh Conservatives would cast the entire population of Wales into a lime pit for the sake of a headline. I think you need to consider that accusation, because while it's patently untrue, of course, it's a very risky position for a party of Government to take when it's trying to persuade the people of Wales that that Government deserves respect and trust. Any Government party that puts itself out there as being unwilling to accept that their decisions are open to scrutiny is taking that risk.

I recognise the frustration. The Government has tried all manner of ways forward, most of which we have supported, and yet the virus continues to spread. Short of locking us all up until our vaccination appointment comes through, we will not beat it. As we all recognise that we cannot live in that way, we have to live with the virus in a way that balances the risk of infection with our sanity, our livelihoods, the continuing education of our children and the means of creating wealth to keep our public services going. Constituents will accept regulations when they see the connection between action and purpose—keeping everyone safe. There have been decisions that they've accepted ruefully, but in which they believe. But since then we've had the 5 mile rule, the non-essential goods announcement, random closing times, the blanket restrictions when the virus is not behaving uniformly across Wales, and now, of course, the bathos of the ban on alcohol sales, because one glass of cider at lunchtime is apparently potent enough to deprive you of your reason, whereas a glass of lemonade emits some kind of force field that keeps your hands clean and 2m away from your friends. That doesn’t sound very scientific to me.

Yes, there are people who flout the rules—sometimes deliberately, sometimes not. People are fatigued, as the First Minister has understood whilst he's tried to explain the spread of the disease. But you need to think now about how to tackle two new threats, and those are incredulity and resentment. Now, of course constituents were incredulous about the alcohol ban, not because we're a nation of boozers, but because of the cut-off of the main source of profit to small businesses that have already taken a battering, without scientific justification, whilst presenting another bonanza to the supermarkets. There's been no outbreak of temperance and social distancing as a result—rather a defiant switch to meeting indoors with friends who shouldn't be there, hugger-mugger, and where the sanitiser's going to be the least popular alcohol in the house.

Then there's that resentment. The First Minister was clearly irked yesterday by the word 'punishment', and I'm sure he doesn't intend to punish anyone. Let me make that plain. But there's no real acknowledgement of how constituents feel about what they now see as a disconnect between aim, action and achievement. And not just those who've done their best to stick within the rules, even though it's deprived them of the contact that's meant the most to them, but specifically those COVID-compliant hospitality businesses that others have already mentioned today. I know, Minister, in your response you will refer to the financial support. It is certainly appreciated, but as we've already heard, it's not enough, and it's not what these businesses and their clientele believe works now. They want to be able to employ people and trade safely.

I just want to take one pub in my region, which was bought by its owners with the husband's redundancy money and a mortgage when his pit closed. It's not a big flashy place, but they've spent money on it, and they of course have made it 100 per cent COVID compliant. It's a local that is popular with its older regulars, many of them living on their own. I think Helen Mary Jones mentioned people in a similar position. They've had one grant, for which they were grateful. They've applied for ERF funding and they're still waiting to hear if they're going to get it. They've asked for discretionary funding from the local council, but Bridgend County Borough Council's reputation for dilatoriness and hoop-jumping requirements for this kind of relief is well known locally. They've used their savings, and now they're closed because you won't let them sell their product. They are not confident that they're going to reopen. And this pub is also their home. So, what happens if the bank forecloses? What's going to happen to this couple in their sixties? This is why I think the balance is wrong here, Minister. We don't want people spreading COVID—of course, we don't—but we don't want them made homeless either.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and if you stay on this particular road, then people are just going to stop listening to you, those NHS beds will keep on filling up and, Lynne, public health will not be protected. 

I want to address the issues facing the hospitality sector, specifically the 6 p.m. closure and the prohibition of sales of alcohol in pubs and clubs and restaurants, knowing, quite frankly, that they've been to hell and back this year. They were closed in the first lockdown, then they reopened and they worked to new regulations, they invested in COVID safety measures and personal protective equipment and new outdoor areas, and then they shut again in the autumn firebreak and many of them are effectively shut right now. So, their concerns are real and understandable, and they must be reflected in the Senedd Chamber today.

But so too should the reasons behind these stringent measures and the risk to lives and to our NHS without them. As of today, my neighbouring Neath Port Talbot has 693 cases per 100,000 in the last week; it's the highest in Wales. The county is also one of the four council areas with positivity rates above 20 per cent. But there are 11 other local authorities, from Ceredigion to Monmouthshire, also at their peak for positive cases. Twenty-one out of 22 local authorities are rising dangerously, and Caerau—little Caerau near my home in Maesteg—has the highest localised case rate at nearly 1,780 per 100,000 for the past seven days, with 126 cases. And the wider Bridgend county that Suzy was just talking about has also reached its highest case rate. 

On Tuesday, Welsh Government advisers said the number of people in Wales dying with the virus was above what they had as the worst-case scenario. So, it is the duty of every responsible elected representative in this Chamber to wrestle honestly with the scientific and the medical evidence, not to play to the populist gallery, and to be equally determined and serious about protecting the lives of their constituents as well as their livelihoods. And every Member here, including opposition Members, has to acknowledge that the advice given to Ministers from SAGE and from the TAC group and from the chief medical and scientific advisers is stark—that anything less than the measures now in place would risk the loss of between 1,000 and 1,700 lives. 

These are preventable deaths, unnecessary deaths, deaths of our constituents, our neighbours, our families and friends. So, which one of us is willing to go back to our constituents, who've also been to hell and back over the last year, and say we'll ignore the medical and scientific advice and risk their lives, and then sleep soundly having done so? Pubs and clubs and licensed premises are not the only area of risk, of course, and preventing the sale of alcohol on its own is not a magic solution. But the documented analysis of the transmission risk in the hospitality sector, publicly available, is not simply a model or a forecast of what could happen—it examines what has happened over the last year. It says quite clearly, and I quote, 

'The general picture in the UK (and overseas) is that it has only been possible to get R consistently below 1 in places where there have been substantial restrictions on hospitality. SAGE analysis of tiers, firebreaks and other interventions in the four nations of the UK found that epidemics shrunk in every area subject to Tier 3/3+ in England or with national restrictions in Northern Ireland. All other interventions were followed by a more mixed picture.'

In addition, separate detailed scientific analysis of the different interventions in the four nations and regions of the UK over the autumn period shows again the effectiveness of only the stringent measures in tackling the growth and the spread of the virus. And this is despite the incredible efforts being made by so many in the licensed sector to make their venues COVID safe. Regrettably, the evidence is showing that hospitality settings, and the public behaviour that sometimes flows from alcohol in these settings, is contributing to this higher risk of transmission.

Minister, my pubs and clubs and restaurants now want to know more about the support available to them, acknowledging that the scale of support in Wales, at £340 million, is way beyond the sum of £40 million made available by the Westminster Government for the whole of England. They want to know: how fast can this money be paid out? How simple can the procedures be made for them? What help can they be given to identify the right funding stream and to complete the necessary online forms? Can they appeal if they are rejected or if they make a simple mistake? Will there be more financial support available for licensing costs or on business rates? What more, Minister, can be done to help these businesses get through this crisis?

And finally, can I pay tribute to the pubs and clubs and the restaurants, in my area and Wales, who have done their absolute best to run their businesses safely and keep jobs going, despite the virus? I ask Welsh Government to continue to put in place every possible measure to support the sector so these jobs and businesses are still there when we've turned the tide on this virus and we can meet again, as soon as possible, over a pint—or maybe even a few more.

Thank you. I will make the plea again. We still have a large number of people who want to be able to speak, so I would ask you, even if you're only going over by 10 seconds, it only needs a few of you to go over by 10 seconds and we've lost time, so if you all want to be called, then can I ask you just to think about that quite seriously? Laura Anne Jones.

Thank you for calling me, today. I wasn't expecting it, because you were trying to get everyone else in, but that's great—thank you very much. I was a bit put out by the First Minister's response yesterday, resorting to a personal attack on me, rather than answering a simple question—a reasonable question—just to ask him to provide the evidence upon which the latest restrictions were made. It's our job. We're opposition Members. We're in a democracy, and our job is to scrutinise and hold the Government to account. Surely that's what I was doing. I don't understand why you'd get cross about that in a national pandemic, when it's more essential than ever that we hold the Government to account and discuss these restrictions that are going out and make sure that they are the best restrictions possible to get the maximum impact.

Nick Ramsay was very right earlier; we need to take the public with us. It is really essential. But by making restrictions without backing it up by evidence, we're not going to take the public with us. We're not taking the public with us, and that spells danger, because people will go and drink in large numbers in their houses, perhaps, and you're seeing it on social media. I'm seeing it on social media; I'm sure everyone else is. This is the sort of thing that's happening. This is accountable for, maybe, some of the rise in numbers. Who knows? We have yet to see the evidence whether these latest restrictions are working or not, and the impact.

But there has got to be some sort of check on whether these restrictions are working. They are being so detrimental to our businesses, who have worked so hard to put their businesses up into making them safe for everybody to come and enjoy a meal out and a couple of glasses of wine. Why punish the masses for the few that are flouting the rules? This is not the way, in my opinion, to go about it. I don't think these restrictions make sense. I ask the Minister and the First Minister to look again at these restrictions, and either really justify it by giving hard evidence, and get the public and the businesses on board, or maybe think about changing them, and thinking again, and thinking what really is best for our country.

Yes, of course, we all are very concerned about the rising numbers throughout my region in south-east Wales, throughout Wales as a whole, throughout the UK. It is a very worrying time, and yes, the vaccinations are coming, but we must keep banging on and getting the message out there that people need to stay safe, wash hands, keep distance, wear masks, and that sort of thing, but the restrictions, apart from that, need to be reasonable. It is Christmas. Yes, people do want to see each other. Yes, of course they do, and I know that people want to meet up and hug, and this, that and the other, but they do understand, and I'm sure the majority of people understand, that they can't do that. They know that going nuts and drinking lots of alcohol is not the way forward. Some people will always flout the rules, but the majority do not and our businesses, at a time before Christmas when they can make back some of the money, as has already been said, at a time of year that is a good time of year for them—. I don't see why the hospitality business needs to be punished like this, and I use the word 'punish'—I don't think you mean to, like Suzy said, punish them, but you are punishing them and they have done nothing but abide by the rules and do everything brilliantly, in my regard, spending an awful lot of money, time and effort to try and save their businesses.

So, please, I just ask you once again: Minister, could you provide the hard evidence of why these exact restrictions were so necessary? Thank you.

The First Minister of Wales, Mark Drakeford, has already alerted us, as Members of the Senedd, on 1 December, that scientific and medical experts have clearly stated—and I'll repeat—that, by 12 January, the total number of people with COVID in hospital could rise to 2,200 unless we respond now. The First Minister added that there could be between 1,000 and 1,700 preventable deaths over the winter. So, yes, the Welsh Government's coronavirus restrictions—the new restrictions—are tough and they're tough because they need to be. And yes, although the light at the end of this tunnel is now visible, as many have mentioned, we still remain in that tunnel, and with that darkness all around, this Christmas will not be like other Christmases at peacetime across Wales, but it is after Christmas that is the massive concern, and that could very well, with no action, extend this COVID tunnel exponentially in duration.

The seriousness of this situation is further underlined by Welsh Government's technical advisory group that states, and I'll say it slowly, that if people can avoid seeing others over the Christmas period, perhaps postponing celebrations until later next year or meeting remotely, then this is strongly advised. What a sobering and sombre message that we must all consider this Christmas.

So, to sum up and be brief, Deputy Llywydd, these restrictions are off the back of scientific evidence, are proportionate, legitimate and highly balanced, and they bravely attempt to counter the unprecedented and multifaceted dangers that our nation faces. And finally, Deputy Llywydd, I cannot—and I do fail to—understand why any cognisant person in this place would not support the protection of the people they represent and seek instead to abdicate the primary first duty, the very first duty of government, and that is to keep our people safe. Thank you.

I think it's good that we are finally having this debate. One of the problems of the pandemic is that we are constantly having measures passed by the Welsh Government that have never been approved by this Chamber. Caroline Jones made the point that, here in Wales, in our devolved institution, we are, far from being a democracy, actually becoming an elected dictatorship.

Now, I appreciate what the Minister said on this point in his opening statement. These are emergency measures, but there has to be a presumption that we debate first before controversial rules are introduced. On that point, we in the Abolish the Welsh Assembly Party support Plaid's amendment 16 today. We also support most of the Conservatives' points.

Now, as for the particular measures that we are debating, I haven't said a lot about the specific restrictions that the Welsh Government has introduced. My main thrust has been to stress that a co-ordinated UK-wide approach would be the most effective way of dealing with this national emergency. This would, of course, have to be led by the UK Government. Now, the suspicion of many people in Wales is that the First Minister is using the pandemic as a way of pushing his own pro-devolution agenda. Many people outside this place have told me that they think this is what the First Minister is about. I don't offer any opinion to these people, I simply listen. They tell me that the First Minister is determined to do things differently in Wales just because he can. They suggest to me that this is because he wants to publicise and get more public support for his own empire here at Cardiff bay, and they tell me they're getting more than a little fed up with him.

But, what have his own decisions actually led to? Wales now has by far the highest infection rate of the four UK nations. The so-called firebreak, which was meant to offer a lifeline to businesses that might hope to trade successfully in the run-up to Christmas, has been a total failure. This new shut-down could prove to be the final nail in the coffin for many pubs and restaurants. What is worse is that pubs have spent thousands of pounds complying with previous COVID regulations, yet now they are being forced to close their doors again. The idea that they can remain open whilst being banned from serving alcohol is, I am afraid, a sick joke. The unique selling point for a pub is that is serves alcohol; if it doesn't do that, then it is hardly a pub. 

Now, we are told incessantly by the First Minister that all of the measures he brings in have to happen; there is no alternative. Anyone who disagrees, the First Minister seems to say, is either a charlatan, a liar or a fool. When Laura Jones asked him a perfectly valid question yesterday, he said that her behaviour, and the Conservatives' behaviour, was disgraceful. He seems to be telling us that only he knows the right way because only he knows the scientific advice. The problem is that this scientific advice is so compelling that he won't even share it with us.

What we do know from the statistics that are out there is that less than 5 per cent of COVID infections take place in pubs or in hospitality situations; far more actually take place in supermarkets. If the First Minister had allowed pubs to continue serving beer until closing their doors at six, then that would have made some sense. The First Minister, though, says people begin to act in a more cavalier manner after drinking alcohol. He seems to think that people in pubs start staggering about after one or two beers. Perhaps he should visit a pub one day so that he can observe that this image he has of beer drinkers is not really a true picture.

Young people, who may be more inclined to want to party, are not in the main going out before 6 o'clock. Therefore, the vast majority of people drinking in pubs in the afternoon would be doing so sensibly. So, we could have allowed pubs to keep serving beer in the afternoon; common sense tells us that, but there is no common sense coming from this Welsh Government. People will carry on buying beer in supermarkets and more people will now take alcohol home and drink it in private, uncontrolled settings, which are likely to lead to a higher rate of infection.

As Tim Martin of the JD Wetherspoon chain has said, the First Minister is 'talking cobblers'. Where is the evidence? Where is the rationale? He won't answer his critics in any sensible way. He will just say that by raising these issues we are being disgraceful; that's what he always says. But, if we are being disgraceful in raising these questions about what the Welsh Government is doing, then there are an awful lot of disgraceful people out there in Wales who are asking exactly the same questions. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

The residents of Aberconwy are right to query how it is fair that Conwy county, with a rate per 100,000 almost nine times lower than Neath Port Talbot, is being subjected to exactly the same prohibitive restrictions. In fact, Darren Millar's amendment, highlighting that a Wales-wide approach is not reasonable or proportionate given that COVID is circulating at different rates in different parts of Wales, is spot on.  

Now, there have been requests for evidence, and I have to endorse the comments about how rude, aggressive and defensive I found the First Minister in his response to Laura Anne Jones yesterday. Now, the evidence we've all been asking for, we've been pointed to the TAC, the technical advisory cell. This informs you that high numbers of incidents continue to be reported mainly in residential care homes and school settings.

Councillor Sam Rowlands, who has his finger on the pulse as the leader of Conwy County Borough Council, wrote to the Welsh Government, explaining that the:

'spread of the virus we are currently seeing is through household transmission,'

—the very same household transmission that you are now seeking to increase because of you driving people away from COVID-compliant and regulated hospitality businesses. Neither the local authority nor the advisory cell have pointed to any evidence that high numbers of incidents continue to spread because of the hospitality and leisure sector. In fact, what these regulations have succeeded to do is to drive some of my constituents and other Welsh residents to use public transport to cross the border to England simply to enjoy a glass of wine or a beer with their meal. Your steps are lining the pockets of hospitality businesses across the border and leaving ours facing serious economic uncertainty, and potential mental health concerns. Yesterday, the First Minister argued in his defence that the health and well-being and livelihoods of my business owners were to be considered unimportant and peripheral. Well, I reject those sentiments.

This week, Lee Waters MS has commented that the Cabinet had debated a regional approach—so, there’s some sense there—taking into account lower levels in north-west Wales and counties like Pembrokeshire. According to him even, a regional approach remains on the table. He’s also quoted in the media as stating that north Wales Labour Members Ken Skates, Lesley Griffiths and Hannah Blythyn are asking questions about a north Wales regional approach all the time. So, apparently the Welsh Government is not deaf. So, is it the case that your three north Wales regional Members are potentially supporting a regional tiered approach, or will they be voting against these regulations today?

An unprecedented letter has been signed by more than 150 businesses from across north Wales, highlighting that their businesses across the region have invested considerable time and money to make their venues and businesses COVID safe. The letter is clear that there are serious problems with the package of financial support being offered. Then we had the timing trouble, with Business Wales stating that businesses will not start to receive payments through the ERF restrictions fund until January, and applications cannot be made for ERF sector-specific support until mid January. My businesses and other businesses across Wales are losing money as we speak, facing the brink of uncertainty and potential bankruptcy.

I know one hotel in Aberconwy that has seen a net loss of turnover of £490,000 since 1 October. Clearly, we should all be supporting the calls for you to make sufficient financial support available to businesses in a timely manner. So, will you provide a heads up to our businesses so that they know what they can and cannot do over the Christmas period? I have hotels at the moment where guests are ringing up, saying, 'Can I have a glass of wine with my Christmas dinner?', and because of the uncertainty, they’re just cancelling their bookings now. Please provide us with some advice, so that at least they can make those plans. Please clarify why you are honing in on hospitality, when the advice you were provided with highlighted residential care homes and hospitals as being where high numbers of incidents continue to be reported.

We need a localised approach that reflects the huge differences in rates in local authority areas. I implore all Members to be reasonable and to vote against these regulations today. I would just ask the Minister on behalf of the Welsh Government: how confident are you in using taxpayers’ money to defend your actions in relation to my local authority should a judicial review be forthcoming? Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Diolch.

Who would have thought last summer that for Christmas 2020 the citizens of the UK would be getting Government permission to gather in family groups? And here in Wales, who would have thought that we'd be told what we could buy, where, and that we can't stay in a pub or restaurant after 6 p.m. and have an alcoholic drink with our early meal? These latest restrictions are the subject of this debate.

The dismay felt by business owners who have bent over backwards to be COVID secure, who have hung on by their fingernails and yet have been given, again, a massive smack in the teeth by this Government. The strength of feeling in north Wales is such that a group of businesses have banned the First Minister from their establishments, and I can’t blame them. Many more will too. While I note the emphasis in yesterday’s motion on the financial support available, people in the sector want the dignity of earning their own living and not going through the further stress of having to justify themselves, their incomes and their outgoings, and using a chaotic portal that may shut down in hours due to oversubscription.

And the public: the reaction is there to see on any Welsh Government post or tweet. Contrary to what some in this Chamber think, the Welsh public is not continually out on the lash, and does not need babysitting. Minister, you've created a climate of fear in Wales. The focus on the daily death toll is a matter of regret, yes, for every loved one lost, but also the emphasis on COVID deaths: people pass away in their thousands every single week and most do not die of COVID. In fact, most people who have COVID actually recover. Why don't you focus on those numbers instead?

I listened with dismay to the language used by the health Minister in the press conference yesterday, who essentially told us that we need to behave ourselves, or Granny won't be able to see in the new year because she will be dead. The Conservative motion talks about proportionality and targeted interventions; it is certainly not proportionate to shut the places that have the lowest occurrences of COVID. You are more likely to contract the virus in a supermarket or a hospital than in a pub or a restaurant, unless of course the Government can point out this evidence to the contrary.

In October—here's some evidence for you, Minister, if you want to take notice of some—the World Health Organization special envoy for COVID made a plea to Governments to stop using lockdowns as a means of seeking to control the virus. We had a firebreak; it clearly didn't work. So why is this Government doing, effectively, the same thing and expecting any kind of different outcome? It really is time to trust our citizens to do what's right for them, their loved ones, and their unique circumstances. It's time to protect the vulnerable, if they want that protection. And it's time to allow responsible businesses to open up and thrive once more. Thank you.

Thank you. And finally, Neil Hamilton.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Well, these one-size-fits-all restrictions are plainly irrational and not supported by any credible statistical evidence. The Government has made many, many policy mistakes in the last eight months, and the predictions that I made when I criticised them all have all come true. The firebreak didn't work, nor could it work—all it could do was delay the transmission of the disease, at best. And this lockdown will be exactly the same. If the justification for these lockdowns is that we've got to have as an overriding objective the saving of life, then we shouldn't be opening up again for Christmas; indeed, we shouldn't be opening up again at all until we've got an effective vaccine that's proved to work. But obviously, we can't close down the entire economy, otherwise so many other ills will flow from that. But why are we concentrating on measures that plainly are going to have minimal if any effect upon the transmission of the virus, as everybody who's spoken in this debate against these regulations has pointed out compellingly that pubs and other regulated environments are the least likely environments in which the disease is going to be transmitted? And the alternative is to drink at home and in other circumstances where there's a higher risk of transmission. As usual, the Government is taking a sledgehammer to miss a nut.

Every week, we have in south-west Wales a meeting with the Hywel Dda University Health Board, and very helpful they've been. Last week, there were 89 people in hospital, in the three counties of Ceredigion, Carmarthenshire and Pembrokeshire, 89 the week before, and 85 the week before that. Where is the statistical evidence that in those areas these measures are needed? Public Health Wales published two days ago a list of all the 22 authorities in Wales and the infection rates and the death rates and the percentage positive rates. And what is the common sense behind a policy that treats Gwynedd, with a rate of 40 per 100,000 people infected by COVID, in the same way as Neath Port Talbot, with a rate of, then, 621 per 100,000? The difference between them is a factor of 15. Plainly, there is no rational basis to a policy that applies exactly the same restrictions to areas where there is a growing need to take some measures and areas where there is no obvious need at all.

And the ban on alcohol in pubs and restaurants before 6 o'clock is utterly and plainly on its face absurd and defies common sense, which as many Members have pointed out in this debate is why there is increasing frustration at the inability of Welsh Government to respond either to the pleas that are made on behalf of the many businesses that will go to the wall as a result of these continued lockdowns or, indeed, the general public who want to have some kind of a social life that is consistent with the control of the virus, or reasonable controls on the virus.

And the pubs and restaurants have spent thousands and thousands of pounds on trying to make their businesses COVID compliant, and now all that money has been wasted. And if they have to wait for months in order to get any kind of financial compensation, then that is going to maximise the number that will go out of business.

Pubs on the border, or within reasonable distance of the border between England and Wales, are clearly at a maximum disadvantage and what is the benefit in north-east Wales or all the way down the border areas—right the way down to Chepstow—of closing all establishments on one side of the border when they're still open on the other? It's plainly a nonsensical idea that we have to have one policy that applies equally all around the country despite the various and disparate differences between the way in which the disease is transmitted and indeed the places in which it's transmitted. 

Due to the little notice that has been given by the Welsh Government, it's impossible for businesses to plan ahead in order to try to mitigate the effects of the lockdown. It's been impossible for businesses to plan in the hospitality area because beer goes off and, therefore, if you can't sell it, then you have to pour it away, and we've seen that. The Glamorgan Brewing Company, based in Llantrisant, have reportedly poured 40,000 pints of beer down the drain last week, and there are many others in exactly the same position. The chairman of the Campaign for Real Ale has said there is simply no evidence that a draconian alcohol ban will stop the spread of COVID-19. What is clear is that our pub culture is being used as a convenient scapegoat for the spread of the pandemic. 

And, of course, Welsh Labour seem to have the perfect record in destroying local businesses in favour of large multinationals. The one person in the world who's made the most out of COVID is Mr Jeff Bezos, because Amazon has vastly increased its business as a result of the pandemic. The alcohol ban on local pubs and restaurants and bars will only benefit the supermarkets to the detriment of independent Welsh businesses. It's little wonder that our First Minister's been banned from over 100 pubs across Wales and, no doubt, there'll be many more to come. 

The First Minister has changed the goalposts for the pubs that have spent a lot of time and thousands of pounds on making their premises COVID secure. Welsh Government told pubs they could open if they made their premises COVID secure, but no sooner were they allowed to open than they were shut again for the two-week firebreak lockdown. And after this was lifted, Welsh Government closed pubs by stealth, imposing measures with no evidence, which made it unviable for many pubs to open. So, I will have no hesitation in voting against these measures once again today, because I do believe that there should be—

You now need to bring your comments to a close. I've been very generous, Neil Hamilton.

Thank you, Llywydd. I believe that if regulations are to be introduced, they ought to have some sound statistical basis, and therefore, it is incumbent upon the Government to publish that. And because I believe there is no such basis—

I did ask you to bring your comments to a close. One final sentence, please.

And on that basis, I'll be voting against these regulations.

Thank you. Andrew R.T. Davies to respond on behalf of the Welsh Conservatives.

Thank you very much, Presiding Officer, and could I thank everyone who has contributed in this debate? I think the note from the Deputy Presiding Officer, who chaired the meeting, said that there were 17 participants in the debate in total. So, I couldn't do justice to everyone who participated, but I thank you all, and I think the Government should take note of that level of interaction that has gone on here this afternoon. And in particular—and this is a plea that I do think the Government should listen to—in bringing these regulations before the Assembly so that we can vote on them, that is one of the big disconnects that many constituents who approached me—. And you can argue whether the regulations are right or wrong, but they cannot for the life of them understand why there has not been a vote on these regulations.

And the Minister, in his opening remarks—and I don't disagree with some of the points that he made and the passion with which he delivered them, because we all agree that there is a public health epidemic out there. We are all concerned at the rising numbers. Let's face it, as we stand here tonight—as we stand here tonight—Wales has the highest death rate of any part of the United Kingdom, has the highest infection rate of any part of the United Kingdom, and, as Darren Millar, who opened the debate said, of the 10 top local authorities with infections across the United Kingdom, nine of them are here in Wales.

So, there isn't anyone, from any political party, who's disputing the severity of what this country faces, but it is perfectly reasonable to come to this Chamber and debate alternatives and propose alternatives, because when we look at what the Government has brought time and time again to this Chamber—and if I just go through the autumn regulations in the last 12 weeks that have been brought to this Chamber—we've had the council area restrictions that were put in place, with no financial compensation, I might add, for businesses; we've had the travel restrictions between England and Wales; we've had the lockdown/firebreak that was going to make such a massive difference and clearly hasn't done that. After that firebreak, we had unlimited travel then on an all-Wales basis, so it made no difference what the infection rate was in whatever part of Wales you come from; you could travel or whatever you wanted to do. We have now the closure of hospitality, but yet you could jump in your car because last week the travel restrictions were lifted and you could go over to England into a tier 2 or tier 1 area and have a pint of beer and enjoy hospitality in those areas and then return to Wales. And now we have the Christmas easing of the restrictions, and then we're told in pronouncements from the health Minister and from the First Minister, and everyone else advising, that there's going to be dramatic restrictions placed on the country come Christmas time. Is it any wonder that confidence is sapping away from the public in what the politicians are saying?

I do take the health Minister up on his reference to the briefing that Rhun ap Iorwerth and I undertook last week. That is the first direct spokesperson's briefing that I have been offered by the health Minister since I've taken this role up from July. That's the first time. Now, when I compare the interaction politically between the Government in other parts of the United Kingdom and opposition parties to inform them—. If you take the lockdown restrictions that were brought in in England, there was comprehensive discussions between the opposition parties and information shared. There might well have been disagreements, but at least people understood what was happening. Today, here in Wales, we have to tune into the press conference that happens at 12:30 or 12:15 on a Monday, a Wednesday or a Friday, rather than get statements in this Parliament. And it is a Parliament that should have a deciding role in any of the restrictions the Government are bringing forward.

I cannot see why no-one could not vote for the motion that the Conservatives have put on the order paper today, because I think every Member, including Government Members, raise their unease over the restrictions that have been imposed on the hospitality sector. All we are merely calling for is a suspension of the current restrictions and an implementation of more proportionate regulations to be brought in place. I think every single Member—. Mike Hedges from Swansea said he wants the pubs opened as soon as possible, but he wants action taken against abusers of the system. I think we'd all agree with that, and we all want to make sure that where bad practice is being implement, that practice is stamped out, because of the very figures that I talked of in my opening remarks—the highest death rates of anywhere in the United Kingdom, the highest infection rates of anywhere in the United Kingdom. Those are real issues that we have to tackle, and we cannot turn our backs on the dedicated public servants who are working tirelessly in our health and care systems and in our local authorities to make sure people are safe in their communities or as safe as they can be.

And it will rely on people individually stepping up to the mark and taking their responsibilities seriously, because whilst it feels this has been going on forever and a day, we are within touching distance, with the vaccine now, of a brighter future. It was refreshing to leave the house this morning with the breakfast news cycles flowing from around the world pointing out that Britain, the United Kingdom, was the first country to be vaccinating its population with an approved vaccine that had gone through medical trials. That is a positive news story that we should be embracing. But these regulations that the Government have put on the table as of last week that are penalising an important part of our economy—a part of our economy that has raised its game, adopted the restrictions and put the investment in to create a safe environment for people to have that desperately needed comfort of hospitality and interaction in a regulated environment—have gone too far, and that is why we have tabled this motion today.

I was called out by the Member for Torfaen for politicising the situation around COVID. I make no apology for putting an alternative when I think the Government are wrong. I have outlined in my remarks that I think the Government are wrong, and I point to the fact that the health board that serves both you and me, when I took my briefing from them recently, pointed to the fact that there were eight people in an intensive care unit of 88. When I was coming into this Chamber and being told I was doing a disservice to the NHS—. No-one in this Chamber, I would respectfully say, is doing a disservice to the NHS. People can put alternatives, because it's a democracy, and I regret the remarks that she directed at me as shadow health Minister and at the leader of the opposition today. Democracy is good for any country, and that's why we're debating these points, and that's why I hope people will support the motion on the order paper today rather than say people are taking cheap political shots, because they're not, and we know the value of it. And I can see you saying we are, and I'll gladly debate on any platform you want.

I call on the Minister for Health and Social Services to reply to the debate on behalf of the Government—Vaughan Gething.

Thank you, Llywydd, and I thank Members for their contributions in the debate. I'll try and address the main thrust of the arguments put forward by groups of people rather than individually, given the number of people who spoke.

The Conservatives have regularly said during this debate that they recognise the severity of the situation that we face. What they actually then asked this Parliament to do is to vote to ease restrictions in the face of a rising tide of coronavirus infections. That is simply not a logical or sustainable position to adopt. They've regularly demanded yet more evidence; they've demanded evidence for what works, and I'm afraid that, as Alun Davies and Huw Irranca-Davies have done, in considering that evidence and quoting from it, it appears that virtually every Conservative speaker has chosen not to engage in the evidence of what works across the United Kingdom. That evidence is evidence that we have considered and we now apply to Wales, and I'm sorry that other Members do not think that that is persuasive, but the evidence from SAGE, the evidence from the technical advisory group is not to be dumped on or put to one side because other Members don't agree with it. And, essentially, the frontbench position of the official opposition is that Darren Millar, Paul Davies and Andrew R.T. Davies should be trusted to give advice to the country on public health, but our technical advisory group should not, SAGE should not, and every chief medical officer in the United Kingdom should not. That advice should be put to one side in favour of proposals that are actually not set out in any meaningful way in today's debate. I do not believe that is a reasonable and responsible position for this Government to take.

And in terms of the challenge that Andrew R.T. Davies set out at the end of his comments, it seemed to me that there were times during this debate when it was as if a public health emergency did not actually exist, in a range of the comments that have been made by largely Conservative speakers, in the demands for further easements on restrictions, in the claims that the approach does not need to be taken, and then in the claim that there is no element of politics in this. But I can tell you that when the leader of opposition yesterday said that Labour had overlooked care homes residents for the vaccine here in Wales, that statement was not true, and the leader of the opposition knows that statement is not true. It not only does a disservice to Welsh Conservatives to have your leader making untrue—knowingly untrue—statements, it poisons the well of public trust. And in the crisis that we face, we actually need to have some honesty and integrity between us, even as we disagree. And I don't dispute a Member's right to disagree with the Government, but we all need to be responsible in the way we go about that.

While I note the comments from Rhun ap Iorwerth—and, look, I disagree with the position taken by Plaid Cymru—I think the SAGE evidence is clear. It's clear about what works within the United Kingdom, it's clear about the measures that have worked in Scotland and in England, it's clear about the evidence of what has worked in Northern Ireland, and we can't take a pick-and-mix approach to policy making. We look at what's worked, we look at the evidence of how that's worked, and we're applying it. And we've published significant evidence to underpin the position that we've taken, and in fact, as you'll know, in Scotland, the Scottish National Party-led Government there have taken pretty much the same measures that we have now introduced and that we are debating today.

TAG—again, this is a point made by a number of Members—has given us repeated advice on the move from local restrictions that we had before the firebreak to a simpler set of national measures. That's the position that we're in. A reasonable approach may be possible in the future, but the clear current advice is to stick with a simpler set of national measures. And we will continue to openly publish the advice that we receive from the technical advisory cell. We have done so since the very start of the pandemic. That was an early decision that I took within the Government, supported by every Minister in the Government, because we want there to be a regular supply of trusted information for the public to see openly, to see the information and advice that we get, then making choices on how we wish to keep the country safe.

And I do welcome the fact that a number of Members referred to the briefings they've had from health boards and the seriousness of the position—the seriousness of the position, whether it's Aneurin Bevan, Cwm Taf, Hywel Dda or, indeed, in Betsi Cadwaladr as well.

We should not be sanguine about coronavirus rates in any part of the country. We are regularly encouraged to listen to a range of people, which other speakers referred to. I think people should listen to Dave and to Lisa, the critical care consultant and lead nurse who spoke on Channel 4 news last night about the position in Prince Charles Hospital. Part of what we have to persuade our country to do is to help our NHS to help us. That is about changing behaviour, about living our lives differently, and recognising the impact isn't just on the number of beds that are occupied by coronavirus patients, it's about the direct impact on our staff, what they have gone through this year, and the impact that will have upon them and their willingness and ability to carry on serving us for years into the future.

I won't seriously address the comments in a democratic Parliament about the Government acting like a dictatorship; there is some irony there that I don't think the mentioners of that word particularly understood. 

On the targeting of lockdown—the comments that Angela Burns made—to be fair, after she left the health brief, the Conservatives have broadly opposed the measures that we've brought in and, of course, the TAG advice on national measures. And I can say that the balance between lives and livelihoods continues to underpin our approach. I should say that Andrew R.T. Davies referred to there being one briefing for him and Rhun ap Iorwerth as spokespeople; I've provided regular briefings to the health committee for some time now, and it's a matter of fact that Andrew R.T. Davies has chosen not to attend more than half of those briefings. He can hardly complain about not having access to information from me, the chief scientific adviser and the chief medical officer if he chooses not to attend. To be fair to Rhun ap Iorwerth and Dai Lloyd and other members of the committee, they regularly do attend and engage in those briefings. 

I'm pleased that Dai Lloyd mentioned the socioeconomic grain of the COVID—that is very much true. It's a matter of fact that, over the last month or so, we do have higher excess death rates in Wales than England. That is undeniably true, and that underpins the seriousness of our position and why we are taking action and why we may need to take more action in the future. But, actually, over the course of this pandemic, you would have expected Wales to have had higher death rates than England because, compared to the whole of England, Wales is older, poorer and sicker—all significant factors in COVID mortality. And yet, in excess death rates over the course of the pandemic, there is a material difference, with Wales having a lower excess death rate than England, and that is the reality of the whole course of this pandemic. And, again, part of the reason for us acting is to make sure that we do not have an increasing tide of excess deaths during a long and difficult winter.

I found the comments from David Rowlands to be dangerous, irresponsible, and virtually every fact or claim he made was wrong. One of the key ones to highlight is that COVID is much more deadly than flu, and claims to the contrary are simply wrong. 

I welcome the broadly serious comments of Suzy Davies and Nick Ramsay. There are no easy answers, as Nick Ramsay mentioned. The Welsh Government does listen to expert advice and then decide, as we have done. We've published the TAG evidence, and that should be considered and not simply dismissed. When it comes to the evidence we are receiving, it comes from Public Health Wales, every single public health director and our chief medical officers and the technical advisory group itself. 

I welcome the comments that Huw Irranca-Davies made on the analysis and the preventable deaths. I know he speaks as someone who is a former licensee, so someone who understands much about the trade and the difficult position that many people find themselves in. We are doing more—and Ken Skates, doing more—about the work that we're doing to have automatic payments, in conjunction with the local government Minister, and arrangements are in place to do that. I thought it was a particularly low point in the debate when Darren Millar chose to be personally offensive towards Ken Skates, who is working incredibly hard, as are other Ministers, during these unprecedented times. 

I should really move to a conclusion, Llywydd, because whilst Members have all had contributions to make, I think it's fair to say that no-one in the Senedd, on any side of this debate, will welcome the new restrictions the Welsh Government has put in place, including those on the hospitality sector. The restrictions demonstrate what we all feared: that the period prior to Christmas this year will not be normal. This is a very difficult decision, but I am clear that introducing these new restrictions was the right decision. It is not a decision that I or any other Minister has enjoyed at any time, because we understand the impact, but the Welsh Government has had to respond to a rise in cases in a way that SAGE clearly recommends, based on the consideration of the approach in England and Scotland of what has actually worked. And in reconsidering the seriousness, let's remind ourselves again: the rate today in Wales is 348 per 100,000. There are 400 more beds occupied in our national health service treating people with coronavirus compared to the April peak.

I know that the business restrictions will cause harm and frustration, and, as a health Minister, I know that harm is very real, and I never forget the reality that economic harm will lead to health harm. Angela Burns said that businesses may not return, and she is right. However, the balance we have to strike is the reality that, without action, the clear advice we have is that many lives will be lost, lives that do not need to be lost, lives that, unlike businesses, cannot return.

We regularly and openly consider the impact of each of our restrictions on different people—that's not just in the equality impact assessment, but in the range of people and activities, and the intrusion that we make into people's lives. Each choice comes with harm. Ministers have to choose, as does this Senedd—and I'll end here, Llywydd—and I think particularly carefully of Alun Davies's comments about feeling the weight of responsibility on his shoulders as a Member of this Senedd, and I can tell you that is a weight that every single Minister in this Government feels in understanding the impact of the choices we make on the lives that we seek to save, and we seek to persuade people to behave differently. With the vaccine becoming available to help save lives and to protect people, the time that will take should redouble our collective commitment across the nation to do what we should do to keep ourselves and each other safe through all that we should do to keep Wales safe. I ask Members to support the Government today.

The first question is whether to agree amendment 2 to the Government motion under item 7. Does any Member object to that? [Objection.] Yes, I see objection. I therefore defer all voting under item 7 until voting time.

The next question is whether to agree the Welsh Conservative motion under item 8 without amendment. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, I see and I hear the objection to that, and therefore I will defer voting on that item until voting time.

The next debate is the debate on the Standards of Conduct Committee report 03-20, and I call on the Chair of the committee to move the motion. Jayne Bryant.

Diolch, Llywydd. As the Chair of the Standards of Conduct Committee, I formally move the motion. The committee considered this report from the former commissioner for standards in October 2019. The report was in relation to a complaint made against Neil McEvoy MS, alleging that he'd breached the code of conduct for Members by being physically and verbally aggressive towards another Member. The Standards of Conduct Committee gave the commissioner's report careful consideration and agreed with the conclusion of the commissioner that a breach had been found.

Our report sets out the committee's judgment as to the sanction that is appropriate in this case. The Member concerned took the opportunity afforded to him through the complaints procedure to provide oral evidence to the committee. He also lodged an appeal to this report, which was considered and dismissed by a legally qualified person. The appeal report has been laid, as well as the committee's report. The facts relating to the complaint and the committee's reason for its recommendation are set out in full in the committee's report.

I rise to oppose the reports, and I'm going to be suspended for something that I've not done. The unedited closed-circuit television proves that statements were either embellished or simply made up. The standards committee refused to view the CCTV. They also refused to allow me to have witnesses, so I published the CCTV. If you view the unedited version from the Senedd, there was no finger-pointing, I was not in Mick Antoniw's face; that was untrue. Mick Antoniw alleged that I aggressively went towards him in an aggressive manner. Well, the CCTV shows that didn't happen. I actually held the door open for Mick Antoniw. Mick Antoniw alleged that I chased him and blocked his path into this Chamber, but again the CCTV—it's there for everybody to view—shows that did not happen. It was an untrue allegation. 

But the truth doesn't matter here, does it? It's about this report. We now know that officials of the former standards commissioner discussed on which grounds to pursue me before any statements had been submitted. You couldn't make this up. You couldn't make it up. And also without looking at the CCTV. Now, the statements were collected by the staff member who referred to me as a species of animal. She classified me as a species of animal, and that unbiased person was allowed to go and collect the statements, after they'd decided how to pursue me. So, clearly, no bias there. 

There was another recording, which I listened to, and before I made my appeal—this is great; the public need to listen to this—before I made my appeal, officials discussed how to make sure my appeal failed. And a very senior member of this Senedd, a very senior official, was quite open to that—quite open to it. So, before I made my appeal, before I made the appeal—. Sorry, not open, sympathetic. The word was 'sympathetic'. The official here was sympathetic to making sure my appeal failed. 

So, what we have here is a Parliament of double standards. I lost the appeal, obviously. I was always going to lose the appeal. We have double standards here, in this building. I have had two MSs physically shout in my face—physically. I didn't react. Nothing was done. I've been sworn at. Nothing was done. I've been regularly insulted in this Chamber. I've been called a racist, a misogynist— you name it, I've been called it. It's never heard, and nothing's ever done. Whenever I complain, nothing is ever done. My staff, and I will speak up for my brilliant staff now, it's on the record—it's on the record—that they have been bullied in this place by politicians and by the staff of politicians.

I think the public will find it interesting that it's seen as a more serious matter to call a Labour politician a red Tory, in an aggressive way, than actually committing crimes. I'm getting a more harsh punishment here for saying something to a fellow politician in a corridor, more of a punishment than people who've committed crimes as Members of this Senedd. Staggering. Staggering. But I think it's okay, really, because, as a person of colour—and all you guys out there, all you people of colour out there, will know what I'm saying here—I'm used to this treatment. It's the way that it is. 

In six months' time, none of these people here will matter, and it's up to you guys out there. You have the future of Wales in your hands. It doesn't matter today that I'm going to be thrown out for three weeks, because in six months' time we have a vote and there are 59 bums on seats here that you guys out there can vote out of office. So, I urge you all to support the Welsh Nation Party and let's get it done. Diolch yn fawr. 

Bullying of any kind is disgusting behaviour. We must, of course, all do all we can to eradicate it in all its forms. What Neil has been accused of may not have been acceptable, but it isn't necessarily more impactful on the victim than the bullying inflicted in the Chamber, where mobbing is a regular occurrence. We should all be accustomed to challenge and heckling in this place, but the line between that and abuse is often crossed. I'm sure that some Members will excuse their behaviour as 'banter'. Well, there is a very big difference between good-natured banter and the onslaught that often greets anyone in this place who has a dissenting opinion. It isn't banter; it's a means to silence and exclude dissenting views, as is the pride of certain Members of this place in sending other Members to Coventry. And when I stood up to a couple of them and told them to shut up because their mobbing was so intrusive, it was me who ended up being asked to apologise, not them. As per usual in a bullying culture, the bullies painted themselves as the injured parties.

Members of this place have spoken many pious words about bullying and how damaging it is, and, of course, there are many Members who are pleasant, professional people, or at least have the courtesy to listen, even if they don't agree. How many Members of this place, though, who now condemn Neil McEvoy, have tried to do something about the bullying that goes on? How many of you have spoken up about it or confronted it when it happens?

Today is the first time we're debating a potential case of it happening—why is that? This place is supposed to be about equality, yet the only thing equal about it is that the number of times bullying has been left undealt with is equal to the number of times it's happened. If we vote for this motion, I'm concerned that the perception will be that bullying in this place is dealt with, and that this is the only case of it happening. That would be a huge distortion of the truth, to the point of being utterly disingenuous. Bullying happens a lot here and yet the only time it has been charged as a breach of anti-bullying policy or standards is on an occasion when the complaint has been motivated by political gain. And anyone who thinks that bullying doesn't go on here needs to really educate themselves about what passive-aggressive bullying actually is. If we genuinely want Wales to be governed by people from a more representative cross-section of society, rather than a Government made up largely of people from the political class we have today, we must act against bullying every time it happens, not just those times when a few people deem it politically advantageous to do so. Thank you.

Llywydd, it was not my desire or intention to speak in the debate on this report by the standards committee. In the normal course of events, on a matter as serious as this, the Member found to be in breach of upholding the standards of this Senedd would have the courtesy and the integrity to take the opportunity to apologise to the Senedd and to the people of Wales, and that would be the proper thing to do. However, I cannot stay silent on this matter. The Member has publicly attacked the integrity of the report, of the committee, the independent witnesses and also myself. In almost Trumpian style in his social media, he suggests the committee is victimising him for being a Welsh-born person of colour. This is a totally false and reprehensible attempt to distract attention from his own conduct.

Llywydd, I welcome the committee's report on a matter that has been hanging over me for more than 18 months. The conclusions reached I believe are wholly accurate and consistent with the independent witness evidence. Llywydd, there can be no place for bullying or even the threat of physical violence in this place. Such behaviour must never be allowed to become normalised. That is why I pursued the complaint. It gave me no pleasure to make, but the seriousness of the incident cannot be underestimated, as is clear from the independent witness evidence. [Interruption.] For months after, for months after—[Interruption.] For months after, I was always—[Interruption.]

Neil McEvoy, you were listened to in silence. Will you allow Mick Antoniw to be listened to in silence?

For months after, I would always ensure, when walking to the Chamber, that I was in the company of others or alert to the space around me, in the event that I would be accosted or assaulted by the Member. This is what I expected from a Member of this Senedd who told me he would 'get me', a threat I take very seriously. This is not the environment I expected to work in when I stood for election to this public office, and it must not be allowed to become normalised in any way.

Llywydd, there is a broader concern I have. This Member has been suspended from public duties as a Cardiff councillor on two separate occasions for bullying and threatening behaviour. These are matters of public record. This is the third occasion. My concern is that Neil McEvoy is in denial. The truth is that he has proven to be a serial bully and aggressor whose conduct brings this place into disrepute. Llywydd, this Member's conduct has also had an adverse effect on individual employees of this place, as can be seen from the witness evidence. In my view, this type of behaviour cannot be allowed to continue.

I thank the committee and its staff and all the staff of the office of the standards commissioner for the diligence in the way that they have properly carried out their duties.

I call on Jayne Bryant to reply to the debate.

Diolch, Llywydd. I'd like to thank all Members for taking part in the debate. I'd like to put on record that, as a committee, we don't take these decisions in any way lightly, and we do take our role incredibly seriously. It is a unanimous cross-party committee report. I'd also like to put on record the fact that the committee is clear that inappropriate behaviour has no place in the Senedd. We have taken a firm line on this matter throughout the Senedd, and I can assure all Members that we will continue to do that. I'm incredibly grateful to Michelle Brown for raising the issue around bullying. Obviously, we can only deal with the reports that are in front of us as a committee. But I'd encourage all Members to take part in the Call It Out campaign that's run by the Commission, because bullying has no place in this establishment. It's a serious matter.

Just to finish, the committee stage, to remind Members, is not about redoing the investigation completed by the commissioner. It's about considering what's presented in the report and reaching a conclusion on whether we consider what happened was a breach of the code of conduct and what, if any, sanction is appropriate. The independent appeal considered the process followed by the committee in terms of considering this report, including our decision not to view the CCTV, and found that the committee followed the procedure as set out. That was the independent appeal conducted by Sir John Griffith Williams. I'd urge the Senedd to support this committee's report.

The question is that the motion be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I therefore defer the vote until voting time.

One further matter before voting time—a procedural motion to postpone the short debate until next Wednesday. I call on Andrew R.T. Davies to move the motion. 

Formally.

The question is that the motion be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Therefore, the procedural motion is agreed. 

We will have a temporary suspension in order to hold the vote. 

That brings us to voting time. If everyone is ready for the first vote, we will take the vote on the Member debate under Standing Order 11.21 on support for babies and new parents during COVID-19. I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the names of Lynne Neagle, Bethan Sayed and Leanne Wood. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 41, 12 abstentions, none against, and therefore the motion is agreed. 

The next votes are on the Government debate on the new coronavirus restrictions. I call for a vote on amendment 2 tabled in the name of Darren Millar. Amendment 2 tabled in the name of Darren Millar. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 25, no abstentions, 28 against, therefore the amendment is not agreed. 

Amendment 3 is our next amendment, again tabled in the name of Darren Millar. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 25, no abstentions, 28 against. The amendment is not agreed. 

Amendment 4 is our next amendment, tabled in the name of Darren Millar. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 25, no abstentions, 28 against. Therefore, amendment 4 is not agreed.  

Amendment 5 is next, again tabled in the name of Darren Millar. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 53, no abstentions and none against. Therefore, amendment 5 is agreed. 

Amendment 6 is next, again in the name of Darren Millar. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 53, no abstentions and none against. Amendment 6 is agreed.  

Amendment 10 is our next amendment in the name of Caroline Jones. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 16, no abstentions, 37 against. And therefore, the amendment is not agreed.

Amendment 11 is our next amendment, tabled in the name of Siân Gwenllian. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 24, no abstentions, 29 against. And therefore, the amendment is not agreed.

Amendment 12 is next, in the name of Siân Gwenllian. Open the vote.

Close the vote.

In favour 16, four abstentions, and 32 against. Therefore, amendment 12 is not agreed.

Amendment 13. I call for a vote on amendment 13, tabled in the name of Siân Gwenllian. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 16, five abstentions, 31 against. And therefore, the amendment is not agreed.

Amendment 14 is next, tabled in the name of Siân Gwenllian. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 23, one abstention, 28 against. And therefore, the amendment is not agreed.

Amendment 15 is next, in the name of Siân Gwenllian. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 23, one abstention, 28 against. And therefore, the amendment is not agreed.

Amendment 16 next, in the name of Siân Gwenllian. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 22, two abstentions, 28 against. Therefore, the amendment is not agreed.

Amendment 17 is next, again tabled in the name of Siân Gwenllian. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 20, one abstention and 31 against. Therefore, the amendment is not agreed.

The next vote is on the motion as amended. The motion was tabled in the name of Rebecca Evans.

Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 33, 10 abstentions, nine against. Therefore, the motion as amended is agreed.

The next vote is on the Welsh Conservatives' debate on coronavirus and the December restrictions. The first and only vote under this item is a vote on the motion, tabled in the name of Darren Millar. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 17, nine abstentions, 27 against. Therefore, the motion is not agreed.

The next vote is on the Standards of Conduct Committee report 03-20. I call for a vote on the motion, tabled in the name of Jayne Bryant. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 45, two abstentions and six against. Therefore, the motion is agreed.

And that brings today's proceedings to a close. Thank you.