National Assembly for Wales

Welcome to this Plenary meeting. Before we begin, I want to set out a few points. A Plenary meeting held by 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 your agenda. I would also remind Members that Standing Orders relating to order in Plenary meetings apply to this meeting. 

The first item on our agenda this afternoon is questions to the First Minister, and the first question is from Suzy Davies.

I thank Suzy Davies for that question. The criteria for reopening outdoor visitors attractions are set out in the Welsh Government's 'Coronavirus Control Plan—Alert Levels in Wales'. We are currently at alert level 4, and outdoor attractions are listed as reopening at alert level 2. 

Thank you for that answer. Obviously, the sector understands the need to reopen safely, but this is the time of the year when they have to make significant spending decisions, and to that end they're seeking as much information as possible to help them know how long they have to plan to stay closed as opposed to open. I think the prospect of a safe May election has given them some hope that May might be a possibility. Their immediate concerns, apart from workforce planning, though, are the arrival of rates bills and the possibility of travel being permitted elsewhere in the UK but not in Wales, and, of course, that will affect people's holiday decisions. So, what prospect is there of Welsh Government introducing a further business rates holiday for the sector pending reopening, and how important do you think, for the reason I've given—nothing to do with devolution—that some attempt must be made to align the reopening dates across the UK, notwithstanding the different tiers or alert levels, certainly between England and Wales?

Llywydd, I thank Suzy Davies for those further questions, and in case I don't have a further opportunity to say it, shall I say to her she will be much missed in this Chamber? And her question today is typically constructive in wishing to find answers for a sector that has had a torrid time during coronavirus. If the Welsh Government receives money in the Chancellor's statement in March that funds us to offer a further business rate relief period in the next financial year, then we will definitely look to do that. But our ability to do it, the scale of funding that is required, means that can only be done if that is a genuine, across UK effort. 

As far as co-ordinating dates for reopening are concerned, I hear what the Member has said. I'm pleased to say that we now have regular meetings with the UK Government every Wednesday—and a number of days in between most weeks now—where we are able to talk about common approaches to things that happen in all parts of the United Kingdom. We will all, nonetheless, be calibrating the decisions that we make in the circumstances that we face. As Suzy Davies will know, the number of people falling ill with coronavirus per 100,000 of the population in Wales is falling at the moment every day. It's about half the level that is to be seen across the border in England. I wouldn't want to deny Welsh businesses or outdoor attractions the chance of opening earlier if our circumstances allowed that to happen, but the situation, Llywydd, as Members will know, is highly uncertain. Everyone here will have seen the news overnight about the South African variant and developments in England. At the moment, in Wales, we are progressing in a positive direction. All of us are vulnerable to that changing, and that would inevitably have an impact on our ability to reopen parts of the economy.

First Minister, whilst nobody would advocate opening up attractions before it is safe to do so, we also have to accept that the industry has taken massive precautions to make their businesses as secure as they can with regard to COVID. And what the industry really needs is a clear pathway to opening back up. So, First Minister, can you publish guidelines for the reopening of the visitor economy, where it can be contingent perhaps on case rates continuing to fall? We do need a timeline so that the industry can prepare. Diolch.

Llywydd, I thank Caroline Jones, and I understand the points that she makes, of course. The pathway to reopening is the pathway set out in the coronavirus control plan, and that does include a series of indicators, including positivity rates and prevalence rates in the community, that tell us when it would be safe to allow outdoor visitor attractions to reopen again. I accept everything that the Member said about the efforts the industry itself has made to put itself in the position where people will be confident to visit those attractions again. I honestly don't think there is anything more certain that I could offer that industry, or any other, other than to point to the plan that we set out, with its alert levels and with the criteria that will allow us to move between them, always pointing to the inherent uncertainty of the circumstances in which we continue to live.

Llywydd, the UK Government’s proposals for the shared prosperity fund fail to honour repeated commitments that Wales would be no worse off as a result of leaving the European Union, and have grave implications for our devolution settlement.

I'm grateful to the First Minister for that. He will have seen the reports and analysis that have been published over the last few weeks, all of which have demonstrated clearly that communities such as Blaenau Gwent and the Heads of the Valleys are likely to suffer a much worse economic impact as a consequence of the coronavirus than many other communities. These communities will therefore require additional investment to help us recover. I agree with him that the shared prosperity fund, as currently proposed, is a real betrayal of all those people not only who voted for Brexit, believing that the EU structural funds will be replaced by UK funding, but also those people who believed that the United Kingdom Government had our best interests at heart. The UK Government seem determined to repeat the mistakes of the past and not learn the lessons for the future. In this way, Blaenau Gwent is being short-changed and will pay the price of Tory dishonesty and Tory incompetence. First Minister, do you agree with me that places like Blaenau Gwent, communities in the Valleys, and the Heads of the Valleys, require additional investment to help us recover from the economic impacts of coronavirus and to create the jobs that we all want to see and need?

I thank Alun Davies for that, Llywydd. He's right to point to the reports that have been published recently. I was able to read at the weekend the Sheffield Hallam University's report on the impact of the coronavirus crisis on older, industrial Britain, dealing exactly with areas such as the one that Alun Davies represents here in the Senedd. And it does indeed demonstrate the vital importance of continued investment in those communities, of the sort that we have been able to draw down during the period when Wales has been able to deploy the funds that have come to us through the European Union. Now we see that being put into reverse. We get £375 million a year in structural funds and, as the Member will know, you can see the impact of those funds in so many aspects of the infrastructure of the Blaenau Gwent constituency.

The Welsh Affairs Select Committee, chaired by a Conservative Member, back in last year described the shared prosperity fund as having made negligible progress, no clarity as to what it will look like, how it will be administered nor how it will be funded. And when the UK Government responded to the Welsh Affairs Select Committee's report, the same Conservative chair said there are still major questions left unanswered—still no certainty of the size of the fund, the method of distribution, the share of the fund for Wales compared to EU funding, and what role, if any, devolved Governments can be expected to play in the fund's operation—and

'we do not consider this matter to be closed',

the chair of the committee said. I'm quite sure that this Senedd doesn't regard it as closed either.

First Minister, as you've just said, the chair of the Welsh affairs—the committee, I should say—in Westminster has expressed concerns, and I think we all appreciate that there have been issues with the roll-out and the development of shared prosperity fund. However, according to the UK Government response to the Welsh Affairs Select Committee report, 'Wales and the Shared Prosperity Fund', in December, the fund will, at least, match the current EU structural fund receipts with the intention of targeting places most in need—those mentioned by Alun Davies—such as ex-industrial areas, deprived towns, rural and coastal communities. So, I appreciate that's the UK Government position; it may not be the Welsh Government's position. But how is the Welsh Government planning so that these areas of Wales do indeed ultimately benefit? And how are Welsh Government officials working with or, at least, liaising with the UK Government to make sure that when funding does get up and running those areas will be delivered for? 

Well, Llywydd, I just don't agree that it's a matter of a difference of opinion. It is a difference of straightforward fact: Wales gets £375 million a year, in the last round of European funding; the shared prosperity fund next year will have £220 million in it for the whole of the United Kingdom. That is not a difference of opinion. That is a difference of £150 million. If Wales got the whole of the UK shared prosperity fund, we would be £150 million worse off than we would otherwise have been. And that's why, when Alun Davies asked his supplementary question, he said this is a betrayal of everything that people in Wales were told would happen after we left the European Union.

I'm afraid there isn't a great deal of engagement at official level, because every time we ask the question we are simply told that there are no further details that can be shared with us. And that's the same answer we've had now since 2017, when this idea was first suggested by the UK Government—2017 to 2021, in which there are no further details that can be shared with us. Little surprise that not just the Welsh Government but those communities who depend upon this investment to create the sort of economic futures that we need for them have lost patience and confidence in what this UK Government is likely to deliver. 

Given how Wales has fared for many decades, through the Thatcher years in the 1980s, 15 years of a Westminster Labour Government that didn't reform the Barnett formula, leaving Wales worse off, 11 years of Tory-led austerity and now the disgrace that it is the shared prosperity fund—and I would associate myself with what the First Minister has said about that—does the First Minister now accept that it is decades since the redistributive potential of the Untied Kingdom, to which he often refers, has come anywhere near to being fulfilled? And does he now agree with me that it's time for us here in Wales to look after ourselves and each other, using the economic levers available to an independent nation to rebuild our economy and end poverty? 

No, I don't, Llywydd, as the Member knows, and she's very unfair in her characterisation of the last Labour Government. During the last Labour Government, the cash available to the National Assembly grew by 10 per cent every single year in the first term of this institution. It grew in real terms in every year that Labour was in power. It is absolutely possible to use the United Kingdom as an engine for redistribution, and the last Labour Government demonstrated that year in and year out. The temporary failure of the current occupants of power at Westminster to do that should not be confused for an argument that the system is incapable of delivering what I believe it is capable of doing and which will be in Wales's interests. 

Questions now from the party leaders. The leader of the Welsh Conservatives, Andrew R.T. Davies. 

Thank you, Presiding Officer, and, with your permission, I'd just like to put on the record that our thoughts and prayers are with the families of the three fishermen who are still classed as missing off the north Wales coast, and our gratitude to the search and rescue teams who have been out tirelessly trying to give some comfort to those families in trying to seek out their loved ones. I'm sure all Members' thoughts and prayers are with the families of Alan Minard, Ross Ballantine and Carl McGrath, who are still listed as missing off the north Wales coast.  

First Minister, could you tell me the current state of the pandemic? Because in your earlier response to the question from Suzy Davies, you clearly indicated that we have a long way to go before we can declare the pandemic at an end. We had the Office for National Statistics figures out today about deaths in Wales, and in particular in north Wales, each and every one a tragedy, and our thoughts are with the families who've lost loved ones. And today we have the assessment on the new mutant strain of the Kent variant. So, I think it's important for us to try and understand what your assessment is of the current pandemic and the journey we have to continue on here in Wales.

I thank Andrew R.T. Davies for those questions and of course associate myself with what he said in opening about the families of those three men who are missing at sea in north Wales. I know there will be people right across Wales who have followed the events in north Wales, including the enormous efforts that have been made to locate the people who are missing, and to offer, as Andrew R.T. Davies said, comfort to their families. This must be the most awful time for them.

My assessment of the state of the pandemic in Wales is this: because of the decisions that were taken to put Wales into a level 4 series of measures before Christmas, we are seeing the benefit of that in the period since the turn of the year. The number of people suffering from coronavirus is going down every day. It's down below 140 per 100,000 today. The positivity rate is going down every day, down to just about 11 per cent today. The number of people in our hospitals with coronavirus has started to come down—it's not down anything like enough, but the trend is now downwards—and we've seen the first impact of that in our critical care capacity as well. All of those are very important achievements, and, alongside the mass vaccination programme, give us hope that, as we go further into this year, it will be possible to restore some of the freedoms to people in Wales that they have had to manage without over recent weeks. But all of that is based on foundations that can shift at any moment, and the examples that the leader of the opposition pointed to—the Kent variant and developments there, the South African variant—while things are moving in the right direction, there's a fragility about all of that. And we've seen, in other parts of the world, including parts of the world very close to us, how a set of promising indicators can turn into a set of very difficult indicators in a matter of just a few short weeks.

I'd agree with your assessment, First Minister; there is some light at the end of the tunnel with some of the numbers that are moving in the right direction now, but we still have a very long, long way to go with this pandemic, and it is right that we adhere to the restrictions and we do all we can as we go into the spring.

What concerns me greatly is when Government Ministers make commitments during this pandemic, such as those the environment Minister has made throughout the pandemic—on seven occasions in the Plenary. Back to 7 May last year, when talking about nitrate vulnerable zones, she said she would not be bringing them forward while we're in the current pandemic period. On 16 September, she said:

'What I have committed to is not bringing them forward whilst we're in the middle of a COVID-19 pandemic.' 

On seven occasions she said that she would not bring the NVZ regulations forward for adoption here in Wales, and last week she issued a statement where she contradicted herself and said she was implementing these NVZ regulations as of 1 April. Would you personally intervene, First Minister, remind the Minister of the commitments that she's made to farmers and the rural economy and to the people of Wales by her comments on the floor of the Plenary, and withhold introducing these regulations until the pandemic is clearly confirmed as being at an end and preparations can be in place to adopt these regulations, if they are approved by the Assembly?

I won't be doing that, Llywydd. We have waited before introducing the regulations until, as I set out in my answer to the first question from Andrew R.T. Davies, the fact that we are moving into, we hope, more benign times as far as the virus is concerned. The need to put control on agricultural pollution in Wales is urgent—three incidents on average every week in each of the last three years. Over 90 per cent of ammonia emissions in Wales are from agriculture. The level of pollution incidents in the agriculture sphere is damaging the reputation of farmers, damaging our environment and damaging the ability of that industry in the longer run to trade with other parts of the world, given that the strength of our industry is the quality of the produce that it delivers. Now is the right time to do this, and delay would not be in the interests of the industry. The implementation of the regulations will be done sensitively, they'll be done alongside the industry, but further delay is neither environmentally, economically or in reputational terms to the advantage of the industry.

With respect, First Minister, I'd agree with you that one pollution incident is one too many, and as someone who is involved in the agriculture industry, I want to see an industry that has as clean a bill of health as possible. But I go back to the point that I've said to you; I've offered you examples where the Minister is on the record as saying that these NVZ regulations would not be introduced while the pandemic was in existence—not once, not twice, but seven times in response to questions in the Plenary that I have a direct record of here. You say that

'When we make a promise, we know in the Labour party that we have to keep it.'

I would suggest that when a Minister of your Government makes such a commitment on the floor of the Plenary, that is a promise, and this promise is being broken. There is no dispute about pressing down on pollution incidents and making sure we bear down on the people who break the regulations, but when the Minister's made such a commitment, and you have made such a statement that when the Labour party makes a promise it has to keep it, surely these promises have to be kept, and we have to come to the end of the pandemic before these regulations are implemented.

The promise that my party makes is that we will deal with agricultural pollution here in Wales. We have reached the point where I believe, and the Minister believes, that we can put these regulations before the Senedd. We can do so confident that we have worked hard with the industry, and that when it comes to implementing the regulations, we will do that alongside those many, many farmers in Wales who already comply with regulations, who don't pollute our natural environment, and who are let down by those who do. If these were entirely isolated incidents, or even if the incidents were falling, I'd have more sympathy with that the Member has said. In fact, we have seen no diminution in the rate of agricultural pollution. We don't just see one, we see three every single week, week in, week out, year in, year out, here in Wales, in a way that damages the industry and damages the environment that belongs to us all. That is why we will bring forward the regulations. That is the spirit in which we will approach it and we are doing the right thing by the industry and by Wales.

Leader of Plaid Cymru, Adam Price.

Thank you, Llywydd. May I, first of all, echo the comments made earlier and say that our thoughts and prayers are with the families of Alan Minard, Ross Ballantine and Carl McGrath at this very difficult time?

First Minister, the Scottish Government is providing £90 million in extra funding to councils to enable them to freeze council tax next year, offsetting what would have been, on average, a 3 per cent increase. It would cost around £100 million to allow Welsh councils to freeze council tax next year and offset the average 4.8 per cent rise that we saw last year. At this time of great financial uncertainty, are you attracted by the argument of, and following Scotland's lead in, at the same time protecting vital, local services, but also protecting family budgets at such a difficult time? Would you be in a better position to do so if you were able to convince Westminster to allow greater flexibility in carrying unspent money forward to next year?

Of course I see the attraction of what has been proposed for Scotland, but it's £100 million, as the Member has mentioned. Week after week, he puts to me propositions for spending that cost tens or hundreds of millions of pounds. What we have in Wales is the council tax benefit scheme, a unique scheme in Wales, in which we topped up as a Welsh Government the £220 million that we were provided with by the Westminster Government when, against our wishes, devolution of council tax benefit was carried out. We've added fresh Government money to that this year—another £5.4 million, I think—to make sure that that scheme can go on being operated. Over 300,000 families in Wales benefit from it, the vast bulk of them paying no council tax at all. That is a way, I think, of protecting those people who most need protection against rising bills at times of restraint, while requiring others of us to make a contribution that we can better make to sustain public services here in Wales. So, we have our own way of doing it, and I think it has many advantages. As to Mr Price's final point, I do agree with him there. We have asked the UK Government, as has the Government in Scotland and the Northern Ireland Executive, for simple flexibilities to allow us to manage end-of-year expenditure in this extraordinary time. Sadly, we don't appear to be gaining any traction with them.

Obviously, the additional £5.5 million increase to the council tax reduction scheme that you referred to, First Minister, is welcome, but it's lower than the increase in council tax arrears, and the people who are most likely to have gone into arrears are those affected by coronavirus, households with children, people with disabilities. Freezing council tax is a short-term measure, though I'm sure it would be very welcome to many of those families; the longer term solution is to reform what the Institute for Fiscal Studies has called an out-of-date, regressive and distortionary council tax system. Why have you allowed this unfair system to persist for so long? 

I agree that the system needs reform. The report that the Member quotes is part of the research that this Government has commissioned into the current system to give us proposals as to how it might be reformed. There are very important choices, challenging choices, for anybody who wishes to bring about reform in the current system to grapple with, whether—and this is what the IFS report is primarily about—we should take some radical action to make the current system of council tax fairer and more progressive, including a rebanding exercise, or whether it is better to think of a different system altogether. Very significant work has gone on over the last few years through the Welsh Government to look at whether land value taxation would offer a better model altogether, even than a reformed council tax system drawing on the work of the IFS. So, this Government has been on the case of reform here throughout this Senedd term, making sure that there are practical proposals that can be implemented if a mandate for that is secured at the forthcoming Senedd elections.

You and I have talked about this very issue before, but the question is, of course, what are we going to do now. What we would do in Government is to undertake to revalue more regularly and ensure that the council tax system is more proportional to the value of properties. We know in Blaenau Gwent, for example, we've seen the value of properties increase more than twice as much compared to Wrexham, and properties are increasingly arbitrary in terms of the difference in taxation. And we expect our proposals—. Under our proposals, 20 per cent of households in the bottom fifth of income distribution would see their council tax fall by more than £200, and the IFS report that you referred to shows that that would mean an average bill falling in somewhere like Merthyr Tydfil by £160. That's the medium-term solution. The longer term answer, as you say, absolutely is to replace it with an entirely fairer system related to land value. First Minister, where are you in terms of the medium and long-term vision?

Well, I thank the Member for that question and I look forward to going on discussing these matters with him, because they are genuinely serious and they're genuinely challenging in a policy sense. I am attracted not just to regular revaluation but rolling revaluation, in which it would be possible to have a register that is kept up to date all the time so that you don't get the distortions that we see when revaluations are postponed over many years. That will require a different relationship with the Valuation Office Agency, and quite possibly a separate valuation system for Wales, where we're not reliant on the current arrangements. 

The Member quotes the figures from the IFS report about what revaluation and other reforms might mean for people at the bottom end of the income scale, but he doesn't quote the fact that, for people at the top end of the property valuations, that could mean thousands of pounds in additional bills every year. And not everybody who lives in a big house, as he knows, is somebody with a big income. So, there will be a need for very considerable transition arrangements to be put in place in order to protect those who would be adversely affected and don't have incomes to fall back on; albeit that they're asset rich, they're cash poor. So, it will be more complicated than headlines that say that some parts of Wales will be better off, because the system will have to be navigated through in a way that is fair to everybody, and it will not be as simple, I'm afraid, as some of the slogans will suggest.  

Thank you, Llywydd. Population predictions are one of a range of data used to underpin the local government settlement formula. The largest drivers of service expenditure are population levels, deprivation levels and sparsity.

Well, the Welsh Government, of course, has just announced a settlement of 2.3 per cent to Wrexham County Borough Council, the second lowest in Wales. And, as you've just said, this is partially based on new population projections for the county. Now, if these new projections are correct, namely that the population is static, rather than increasing significantly, why is the planning department of your Government insisting that the local development plan in Wrexham has to deal with a significant increase in population? There is a grave inconsistency here at a time when we need consistency and fair play so that councils can plan for the future. So, perhaps you could tell us, First Minister, which department of your Government is right here, the department that says of Wrexham that the population is static or the department that says that the population is increasing substantially. 

Well, Llywydd, I think the Member is mixing up two different sorts of calculations for two different purposes, derived in two different ways. The way that the local government settlement is brought about is the way that I described in my first answer: there is a formula, the formula is agreed with local government here in Wales, the formula is independently verified by the distribution sub-group, which has prominent academics on it who certify every year that the formula has been fairly and accurately applied. Every year, there are local authorities that find themselves gaining because of the way in which factors within the formula move, and there will be local authorities that find themselves not gaining in the way that they would want. But while the formula remains as it is, and as I've always said in the time that I've been responsible for it, if there are proposals that local authorities in Wales can agree on that they wish to bring forward that would allow the formula to be reformed, then of course the Welsh Government will engage in this. But while the formula has the support, as it does, of the Welsh Local Government Association, and while it is based on objective data, independently verified, then we all have to learn to live with it in the years that it suits us and the years when it doesn't.

Because the formula has such wide anomalies, it needs a Government to take leadership, because you can never have agreement between winners and losers within the WLGA. Under your Welsh Government's provisional local government settlement, north Wales councils are again losing out with an average 3.4 per cent increase compared to 4.1 per cent in south Wales and 5.6 per cent for top place, Newport, and as we heard, Wrexham receiving just 2.3 per cent. However, Conwy, which again receives a below-average increase, has the highest proportion of its population in the oldest age group of all Welsh counties, with Anglesey also receiving a below-average increase not far behind in third position out of 22, and every north Wales county having a higher proportion of its population in the oldest age group than Newport—second from bottom—and Cardiff, bottom. How can your formula justify this, despite the weekly statements and protestations in this Senedd highlighting the rights and needs of older people and the need to meet and fund these?

Well, Llywydd, as the Member well knows, this is not the Welsh Government's formula; this is the formula that is agreed with local government in Wales.

It is a Welsh Government formula.

And I hear what he says, and actually, he is very disrespectful of local government when he claims that it's impossible for them to do a job in this area, so somebody else must take it away from them. We every year sit down with a distribution sub-group, the body of experts that gives us advice; that goes to a group of politicians, the finance sub-group on which local authorities are represented from north Wales as well as everywhere else. The Welsh Government responds to the recommendations of that group.

When I was the Minister for local government and finance, Llywydd, in 2017-18, I remember sitting in that finance sub-group when a report on reform of the personal social services data was discussed. That reform had the effect over two years of moving money away from urban south Wales to rural areas in mid, west and north Wales. That was recommended by the distribution sub-group, and despite the fact that most Members of the finance sub-group would see their own local authorities lose out, it was agreed by that group as well. That's the nature of the formula; you update it, you update it objectively, you use the best data you can, and you implement it, and you implement it in a way that does not look to see where the implementation lands geographically; you look to make sure that it is fair, objective, and defensible, right across Wales.

Llywydd, I thank the Member. The Welsh Government's strategy is to support innovation in both the statutory and third sectors in Cardiff, and then to work with successful initiatives that demonstrate the potential to help tackle food insecurity on a wider scale.

Thank you, First Minister for that answer. We've all seen the photos of cut-up carrots and peppers, which were supposed to be sufficient for making five lunches for free-school-meal families in England, and I'm sure you would share my shock that private companies have been permitted to charge £30 for such utterly inadequate food parcels. In contrast, all free-school-meals children in Cardiff have the security of vouchers to the value of nearly £20, which they can spend in the local supermarket of their choice.

The pandemic has unfortunately exposed how poor diets translate into poor health and makes disadvantaged families so much more likely to catch and die of COVID than families who can afford nourishing food, and that situation is not helped by the disruption to everyday foods imported from the EU. The green recovery action plan devised by Sir David Henshaw and others has some excellent ideas for tackling our insecure food system, including urban agriculture where it's most needed, increasing the number of people who know how to grow food, and connecting growers with local markets. But having spoken to the head of the Trussell Trust in Wales, it's unclear whether this will be sufficient to stem the rise and rise of families needing to turn to foodbanks in these incredibly difficult times. What role can the Welsh Government play, either through its own procurement policies or other strategies, to tackle the food insecurity and poor diet that coronavirus has exposed as such a major contributor to chronic ill health and vulnerability to disease?

Llywydd, I thank Jenny Rathbone for those follow-up questions. I'm afraid I'm old enough to remember when, during the Thatcher era, the Conservative-controlled Shropshire County Council served potted meat sandwiches to its free school meals children for Christmas dinner one year. So, it's no surprise to me at all to find that, when a public service delivers something for children in need, then they get a better deal than when this is hived off to profit-making friends of the Conservative Party.

I agree with the Member about the Henshaw report, and I'm very grateful to all those who contributed to it. I was able to meet the group early on in their work, and it does provide us with some very practical ideas of how we can make sure that, as we recover from coronavirus, we're able to do so in a way that puts our environment, and the place that food has in that, at the top of our agenda.

Llywydd, the Member asked for some examples of what the Welsh Government is able to do, and here are, very quickly, just a small number. As I said, what we try and do is invest in ideas and then make those ideas go further when they turn out to be good ones. In my own constituency, Llywydd, the Dusty Forge project is a fantastic project that hosted the first pantry scheme in Wales. That's now gone to other parts of Wales, including, I know, Glenwood church in the Member's own constituency. Just before Christmas, my colleague Lee Waters announced £100,000 to take into Valley communities the Big Box Bwyd scheme that had started in the Vale of Glamorgan, has been successfully demonstrated in two pioneer schools in Barry, and will now be available to five schools in Merthyr, Aberdare, Maesteg and Rhydaman.

I'll give a final example, Llywydd, on a lightly bigger scale—Carmarthenshire County Council, in partnership with its local health board and its local university is using money through the foundational economy challenge fund is finding ways in which the public sector procurement of local food can both provide better food in hospitals, in colleges and in older people's homes, but will also secure supply, strengthen local economies and reduce the carbon footprint. Working with the Centre for Local Economic Strategies, we are also looking to take those ideas and to implant them in other local areas in Wales.

First Minister, this is a very important area, and I've been very impressed by the food co-operatives that established food clubs whereby members for a modest fee get access to a wide range of fresh fruit and vegetables. But also, they're given the chance to improve their cooking skills if that is required, and indeed, when the pandemic is over and we can meet socially again, meet to share their experiences and prepare food together—skills, then, that obviously they take to their households. These sorts of innovations I think have a lot to recommend them, because I think there's a natural desire to eat well, and cooking, when you have the skills, is not the chore that it can present itself as, if you really don't know how to tackle a lot of the food substances that are available to you.

Well, Llywydd, I think David Melding makes a very important point that the natural human instinct is to share food and to use the sharing of food as the basis for social interaction. I'm sure I'm not the only Member of the Senedd who ate a virtual Christmas dinner this year with family members far away in Wales, and great as it is to see people even in that way, it's no substitute for what David Melding talked about—about people getting around the table together and sharing a meal. But I think his first example—what he talked about in relation to food co-operatives—is very important. The pantry scheme that I referred to, answering Jenny Rathbone, is just an example of that. Everybody pays £5 into the scheme and then is able to draw food out of the collective stock.

And while foodbanks do a fantastic job, sad as it is to require that job to be done, what the pantry scheme does is to get over that sense that people who use foodbanks have of being dependent on them, of being in a client relationship. With the pantry, you're a member, as you are in a co-op, and you've paid in and you take out of it by right, and that changes the whole dynamic. And more developments of that sort would have benefits of the sort that David Melding referred to, but they would have wider benefits as well in giving people that sense of social worth and dignity, which we, I know, would both wish to see. 

I thank the Member for that question, Llywydd. Thanks to the fantastic—. I do beg your pardon, Llywydd; I'm turning over too many pages here. It's shameful that our young people will be excluded from the Erasmus programme, the largest international exchange programme in history, will no longer be able to live and work easily in the EU 27, and will suffer from the economic fallout of the UK Government's approach to Brexit.

Thank you, First Minister, and, as you know, I've spoken before in the Senedd about how, as a young person from a deprived community who'd never even had a foreign holiday before, I was able to study at the University of Paris thanks to funding and support from the Erasmus programme. There seems to be little doubt that the Turing programme will be a very inferior successor, and there are real fears that, thanks to the UK Government's spiteful, self-defeating and totally unnecessary decision to withdraw from Erasmus+, many young people in Wales will lose out, especially those who are most disadvantaged. Now, there has been some speculation that a way can be found to enable young people in Wales and Scotland to continue to participate in Erasmus, which is something I wholeheartedly welcome. Can the First Minister update the Senedd on any discussions in this regard, and can he assure me that he will pursue every possible avenue to enable Welsh young people to continue to participate in this life-changing scheme? 

Llywydd, I entirely agree with Lynne Neagle—it is a life-changing experience to go abroad to work, to study, to meet other young people with different experiences, and it is one of the most awful decisions of this UK Government to deny those opportunities to young people not just in Wales, but across the rest of the UK. The Minister for Education received a letter on 19 January from the Minister of State for Universities in the UK Government. This is what the letter said: 'You raised the possibility of Wales joining Erasmus+ as an independent participant. You do not have the competence to enter into any such agreement'.

So, not only are they determined to deny opportunities by their own actions, but they seek to frustrate the efforts that we would make—and we'd certainly make them alongside the Scottish Government, if that was possible—to find other ways in which those opportunities could be made available. That is not to say, Llywydd, for a moment that we do not go on thinking of every way in which we can to find opportunities for those young people. I met the German ambassador recently. It was a very positive meeting in which he talked about bilateral possibilities for exchanges between young people here and young people in Germany. I discussed the whole Erasmus business with the foreign Minister of the Republic of Ireland recently, again looking to see whether there are any avenues that we might be able to explore there.

We want young people from Wales to be able to visit, to work, to study, to get all the advantages that Lynne Neagle pointed to, and we want young people from other parts of the world to come here to Wales as well—a possibility completely ruled out in the Turing scheme. At the weekend, Llywydd, I gave myself a small treat and listened for half an hour to the World Service. It was an interview with a very distinguished epidemiologist, leading a team at London university, and during the interview the interviewer asked him, 'How did you come to work in London?' and he said, 'Well, I was brought up in Germany, I went to Belfast on an Erasmus scheme, and I've stayed here ever since.' That's what we are turning our back on by the small-minded approach of this UK Government to what has been one of the jewels of the European Union.

Well, Llywydd, there have been fantastic efforts by all those involved in delivering the vaccination programme here in Wales at a rapid and an accelerating pace. In the Aneurin Bevan University Health Board, 72 GP practices are participating in the programme right across the board's area, including all the GP surgeries in Caerphilly county borough.

I agree; I think the Aneurin Bevan health board has pulled out all the stops. It's been absolutely incredible to see a vaccine programme start from absolute scratch to what they're producing at the moment, which is 77 per cent of 80-year-olds have been vaccinated. That's probably gone up since the session started today. The concern of a few residents I've been in touch with has been with regard to queuing outside the centres, and one problem is that those people who have to catch buses from areas like Senghenydd, Abertridwr and Nelson will find that they have no choice but to arrive early, because that's how the buses work. I've been in touch with Caerphilly council, who are looking into community transport to try and deliver a better transport service directly to the centre for people. Caerphilly council have got back to me and have said they are investigating those options and would like to run it, also, on a regional basis. Will the First Minister, in recognising the huge progress that's made, also give some support to community transport provision to mass vaccination centres?

Llywydd, I thank Hefin David for that follow-up question, and he's absolutely right about what has been achieved in Caerphilly—over 7,000 people over the age of 80 already vaccinated in the borough. Somebody is vaccinated every five seconds here in Wales, so I'm quite certain, by the time this question is over, somebody in Caerphilly will have been vaccinated as part of that programme, and I think it tells us something, Llywydd, that we're now at that stage in the programme where we are able to focus on not just the huge infrastructure effort that has been made in securing all the mass vaccination centres, the over 400 GPs participating, the mobile units that are out there vaccinating as well, but we're able now to focus on the practical detail of the sort that Hefin David has highlighted this afternoon. Of course, we don't want to see elderly people, particularly, having to queue outside in the January and February weather, and making sure that there are transport opportunities for people who can't rely on their own cars when we ask them to go to a particular location to get vaccination, those are the sorts of details we're now able to grapple with. And in the work that is led by my colleague Vaughan Gething, and I join him every week in a meeting with the top team responsible for vaccination across Wales, we will make sure that we take up the issues that the Member has raised today so that we can assist the efforts of Caerphilly County Borough Council in making sure that the programme goes on being the outstanding success it is today. 

Llywydd, the Welsh Government continues to fund services that provide advice and assistance to EU citizens in Wales. This includes support with making applications for settled status, and other general and specialist advice, covering a wide range of issues, from social welfare benefits to employment and workplace matters.

Thank you for that answer, First Minister. As you know, Wales is home, and has been for some time, to people from right across the EU; they've established their families here, brought their families up, they've rooted themselves in our culture in Wales, and, I have to say, have enriched it with theirs as well. Many of them have worked throughout this pandemic to keep our key services running, and yet—and yet—we know that there are still too many who've not yet applied for settled status. So, with the slightly worrying development last week that the UK Government is offering, bizarrely, financial incentives to EU citizens to leave the UK, will you ensure that we are doing all that we can in Wales and all that you can as a Welsh Government to ensure that EU citizens living here are aware of their rights, aware of how to secure settled status, and, crucially, are told clearly that this is their home and they're very, very welcome here?

Well, Llywydd, I completely agree with Huw Irranca-Davies. It has surely been one of our great success stories that we have persuaded people from other parts of the world to come and make their future part of our future here in Wales. And they bring with them, as Huw Irranca-Davies said, not simply the skills that they bring and the economic opportunities that they help us to create, but they bring that cultural richness that comes from having people from other parts of the world part of Welsh society and Welsh communities. And it is a mixed message, to put it at its politest, that the UK Government, while on the one hand claiming to encourage EU nationals to stay here in Wales, quietly slips out the fact that those people are now to be treated within the UK Government's voluntary return scheme. Well, we can't have it both ways, Llywydd. Either we are all working hard to encourage them to stay, or we're putting in arrangements to help them to leave. And here in Wales, we want to encourage them to stay, for all the reasons that Huw Irranca-Davies has said. It's why we have put £2 million of Welsh Government money into specialist advice to help people with settled status applications; it's why we've extended the contract with the Citizens Advice bureaux to the end of June to make sure that they're there right up to the last minute, helping people with what they need.

And my view is that the date by which settled status can be applied for should be extended beyond 30 June. What we are learning is that, in the coronavirus context, for people who have language challenges, trying to do it remotely, trying to do it over the phone, trying to do it by filling in forms—it is putting barriers in the paths of people who want to stay and whom we want to stay, but where face-to-face advice has been much more difficult to organise. Just more time to allow those people to complete the process in the way that the UK Government says they would wish to see would be to everybody's benefit, and we continue to make sure that we make that case to the UK Government, because we want to see those people who make such a positive contribution to Welsh life able to go on doing so.

Finally, question 8, Mandy Jones.

Llywydd, our transforming towns programme in north Wales is focused on supporting the vibrancy of our town centres, making them fit for the twenty-first century, enabling job creation and improving community facilities. Working closely with local authority partners, projects worth over £39 million are being delivered over the period between 2018 and 2021.

Thank you. First Minister, many high street shops have gone and they are unlikely to ever return. The loss of Debenhams and the Arcadia Group brands and the jobs attached to the physical stores is being felt very keenly across north Wales. The pandemic has resulted in a moratorium on business rates, which, in turn, will result in the lowering of tax revenue for local authorities. Is it now time for a radical rethink of a business rates regime that has been seen as a limiting influence on business start-ups and their sustainability, and to look at something that reflects modern shopping habits, like a small online sales tax?

I thank the Member for that contribution. It follows on from the discussion that I was having with Adam Price earlier this afternoon. A sales tax is another option, Mandy Jones is right, that can be considered as part of a repertoire of things that could be introduced to replace the business rates system alongside the domestic council tax system. 

Our town centres will need real imagination in the way that they recover from the pandemic. They need to be supported in that by a UK tax regime that takes taxes from those who trade online, and who now largely escape that, whereas somebody on the high street has to make their contribution. In the short run, we go on providing our small business rate relief, which provides significant rate relief for a very large number of particularly small businesses here in Wales. There is a longer run programme of reform, both in terms of business rates, but also in the nature of the high street in the future, and I agree with the Member that thinking about that needs to begin now, and needs to include as many imaginative ideas as can be brought to the table.

Thank you, First Minister.

The next item is questions to the Deputy Minister, and I call on Vikki Howells to ask the first question. 

The Welsh Government is committed to ensuring our communities are safe, strong and resilient.  We continue to work with our four police forces, local authorities, UK Government and other agencies to help ensure our people and our communities remain safe.

Thank you, Deputy Minister, and I'd like to extend my thanks to all those who work so hard to keep our communities safe in these very difficult times.

During the pandemic, my constituency has experienced a notable increase in anti-social and dangerous behaviour by off-road motorcycles illegally using popular walking paths and other public rights of way. The laudable work of Welsh Government to open up our walking paths and allow fully inclusive use has, with the removal of barriers, made it much easier for off-road motorcycles to use such paths, and more difficult for the police to enforce the law and keep residents safe. What discussions have you had with South Wales Police and with the police and crime commissioner about how this intractable problem can best be tackled?

Thank you very much, Vikki Howells, for that question, an important question about promoting community safety, and, as you say, thanking all of those in your constituency in the Cynon Valley, and across Wales, for the ways in which they have worked to ensure there is community safety.

But you've raised the issue of off-road biking. I'm very much aware, and obviously your evidence today shows that there's been an increase in reports of illegal activity during lockdowns, and, of course, that encroaches on all those important open spaces for walking and for taking exercise, which are so crucial for health and well-being. I do understand that South Wales Police have planned operations as part of an approach to tackle this issue. Because we have strong relationships with our police forces, I will raise the points the Member makes and ensure that we look at off-roading as an issue where we can make sure that they are not accessing routes that have no vehicle rights, or driving in an illegal manner, and that this will be an important issue in terms of community safety and well-being.

The Welsh Government provides core funding to the Wales Council for Voluntary Action and county voluntary councils to enable them to support local voluntary organisations and volunteering groups across Wales. We have approved £26.5 million, with an additional £5.7 million for the voluntary sector—that final £5.7 million was approved this week—to support the sector during the pandemic.

Thank you, Deputy Minister, for that answer. Voluntary groups and charities do exceptional work to support some of the most vulnerable in our society. One such group is the Sparkle Appeal, which supports children, young people and their families with disabilities and developmental difficulties, at the Serennu centre in Newport. Their work is crucial. However, they themselves have had an incredibly hard year, with COVID restrictions seeing their work and funding opportunities limited. They greatly appreciated the Welsh Government grant last year, which was aimed at covering six months of core costs; however, nine months in, their financial state is suffering. How are the Welsh Government supporting organisations such as this, to ensure that they can continue to support the most vulnerable through this period, because the work that they do is vital, and we can't afford to lose them?

Thank you, Jayne Bryant, for bringing attention to this important charity in your constituency. In fact, inspirational work, as you've described, is done by charities like Sparkle. And, of course, all their volunteers in the Gwent area are particularly helping to support disabled children and young people and their families. So, as you say, Sparkle did benefit from the £90,000 grant from what was our voluntary services emergency fund, during the pandemic, and we'll be ensuring that these sources of support for third sector organisations continue during the pandemic. But it has been a great challenge for communities and groups of this kind, because of the coronavirus outbreak. Because so many of them, of course, have lost income, as well as having additional demands and expectations, and so many volunteers have engaged. But I am very pleased that, as I said in answer to your first question, we're making a further £5.7 million available to continue with this work through the pandemic, and I hope this will be able to support organisations such as yours.

Question 3 [OQ56230] is withdrawn. Question 4, Delyth Jewell.

I can't thank the specialist services enough for their responses to victims during the pandemic. They've been a crucial lifeline to so many, and they've shown resilience, strength and a great ability to adapt. My officials meet with the violence against women, domestic abuse and sexual violence strategic group regularly to discuss the impact on the sector in supporting survivors of domestic violence.

Thank you for that answer. As you'll know, of course, this crisis and the associated lockdowns have led to an escalation of risk for women who are either in abusive relationships or are fleeing them. But there is an equal crisis looming that is related to the funding of the specialist support services that are literally, or figuratively then, a lifeline for these women. Funds were received later than expected and they are struggling to spend the money before the deadline in March. Organisations like Welsh Women's Aid are calling for flexibility in this spending deadline, as it's a particular problem in situations where the funding was earmarked for recruitment—organisations have had a very short time in which to recruit and train new staff to meet the continued demand for services. If that flexibility isn't introduced, Minister, or the funding commitment is made to match that after March, then many staff will be lost. Surely, Minister, no-one would want these organisations to have to re-bid for money after March, as this could be time and resource far better spent on protecting women. So, will the Government please address these concerns and consider this urgently?

Thank you, Delyth Jewell, for raising that important question, because we must make sure that this money that's been allocated does actually reach those specialist services. Because the sector itself—and, as I said, my officials, and indeed myself, when I can, meet the sector regularly—have received over £4 million of additional funding this year; it's an extra 67 per cent compared with last year. And this is also about ensuring that we're investing in the needs of the sector, particularly, for example, in terms of accommodation, the dispersed community based accommodation—so capital as well as revenue. And it is important also that the extra revenue funding does respond to the needs that have been raised with us during the pandemic. I of course will talk to my officials about the ways in which we can ensure that that money not only reaches the specialist services, but that they can spend it and that there is that flexibility. Because it is crucial that the extra money that we've been able to raise in the budget as a result of the pandemic, and, indeed, through into the draft budget, does reach those victims and the women particularly who are escaping domestic violence and abuse, and that five years into our VAWDASV legislation—pioneering legislation—it actually is delivering at the sharp end.

And finally, question 5, Joyce Watson. 

In April last year, I announced £24 million to support the third sector in Wales through the pandemic. This recognised the vital role the sector plays and has played in the response to COVID-19. In December, I announced a further £2.5 million to ensure this support continues until the end of March.

I thank you very much for that commitment that is being shown by Government, but it is equally the commitment that voluntary sector organisations give to their communities, particularly in this time of great need. What I want to ask you today, Deputy Minister, is whether you would commit to thanking all of those individuals right across Wales, the charitable organisations that have given their time during the pandemic and have supported both individual people and families and communities from east to west and north to south?

I'd particularly like to thank Joyce Watson for giving me the opportunity to thank those who are volunteers, those third sector organisations that have risen to the challenge of the pandemic. I think everyone here in the Senedd, in all their constituencies, will have seen the results of that incredible volunteering response to the pandemic, in communities, neighbourhoods, and also new organisations are developing, as well as the existing ones, and making sure that they can reach out and support those who are coming forward. So, I'd like to give my thanks in that way, and just in terms of Pembrokeshire, in your community, to recognise the role of the Pembrokeshire Association of Voluntary Services. They, of course, receive a grant from us on a regular basis. They receive their core funding from us and, also, they've received extra funding to respond to the pandemic.

Can I also just say, Llywydd, that is has been so heartening to see that Pembrokeshire is a county of sanctuary? And the response that the volunteers have given, as a result of being a county of sanctuary, to those who are residing in the Penally camp, I have to say, is extraordinary. I would like to take the opportunity to thank all those volunteers in Pembrokeshire and across Wales, but particularly focusing on those Pembrokeshire volunteers today, when we think of the contribution that they are making to make life bearable for the people residing in the Penally camp.

Thank you, Deputy Minister. 

The next item is the business statement and announcement, and I call on the Trefnydd to make that statement. Rebecca Evans. 

Diolch, Llywydd. There is one change to this week's business. The debate on the general principles and financial resolution in respect of the Welsh Elections (Coronavirus) Bill has been added as the last item of business before voting today. Draft business for the next three weeks is set out on the business statement and announcement, which is available to Members electronically. 

Andrew R.T. Davies. 

Thank you. 

I caught you there, didn't I?

You did, Presiding Officer. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Business manager, could I have a statement from the health Minister, please, in relation to the new variants that are currently being identified across the United Kingdom? I appreciate there's a vaccination statement later on this afternoon, but I don't think it is appropriate to mix the two up, to be honest with you, and a direct statement from the Minister would be beneficial for Members to understand what actions the Welsh Government is taking, along with other Governments across the UK, especially in relation to the new Kent variant, E484K, given the high incidence of the Kent variant in Wales, and, obviously, the travel restrictions that have been imposed in relation to the Brazilian variant.

Thank you to Andrew R.T. Davies for raising that particular issue, and I will speak to the health Minister to explore what is the best way to keep Members updated in terms of the emergence of new variants and, particularly, the variant of concern to which the Member refers. As we say, we do have a statement on vaccinations next today, but I will explore what further information might be provided usefully to Members.

May I ask for an oral statement from the Minister for Environment, Energy and Rural Affairs on the response to the recent flooding in communities across Wales? Of course, I welcome the commitment to provide financial support to the homes and businesses affected, and we need assurances that that will be paid immediately and not in two months' time, as happened in similar cases last year, of course. But, we also need to ensure that the Welsh Government does work closely with local authorities and NRW to ensure that any improvements necessary to the flood prevention infrastructure in those areas that experienced recent disasters and that the work needed there is done immediately. They might be temporary improvements in the short term, but we must avoid further cases of flooding in those areas that have already been hit.

Also, we need to ensure that those who were almost affected by flooding—and I know of many dozens of homes that came within inches of being flooded—are given the equipment and advice needed to protect their homes as a matter of urgency. I'm talking about things like floodgates here. The concern about flooding has a grave impact on people's mental health, never mind the fact that investing to avoid flooding in the first place would make much more sense than having to deal with the outcomes of flooding when it's already too late. 

May I also ask for a statement from the Minister for Housing and Local Government, given the totally inadequate response from the First Minister to my question a few moments ago on the population estimates used by the Welsh Government, and the grave inconsistency that's now been highlighted between the projections used as part of the local government funding formula for next year's budget, and the projections used for the LDPs? One in Wrexham says that the population will be static, and the other in Wrexham says that the population is going to increase substantially. I would assume that this is a cause for embarrassment for this Government and something that you and every other Minister would be eager to sort out once and for all.

Well, I think that the First Minister's response to the question raised during First Minister's questions today was quite clear. However, I will invite you to write to the Minister for Housing and Local Government, setting out your concerns, so that you can receive a written response in respect of that.

On the matter of flooding, I completely agree that it is important that individuals affected by flooding do get that financial assistance as quickly as possible, but then also the assistance in terms of information and advice as well. I do note that the order paper for tomorrow does have several questions to the Minister for Environment, Energy and Rural Affairs in relation to flooding, and particularly the recent impact of storm Christoph. So, that might be an early opportunity to hear from the Minister on these matters.   

I raised the issue of the differential economic impact of the coronavirus on deprived communities during First Minister's questions. I would like to ask for a Government debate on this matter. This is something that has been the subject of a number of different studies and reports and analyses over the last few months, and it will set the agenda for the Government's approach, I would hope, over the coming weeks and months to these matters. I think that it is important to have a debate in Government time on the differential economic impact of coronavirus on different communities.

The second issue that I would like to raise, Minister, is the reduction in time available on statements and debates, at present, to 30 minutes. This significantly reduces the opportunity for backbenchers to raise issues on behalf of their constituents. I recognise that we're all working under different constraints at the moment, but it is important that it remains a Parliament, and that means that all of us have an equal opportunity to raise matters that are important to our constituents and our constituencies. The reduction of time available for us to do that significantly impacts our ability to do so, and I would be grateful if that matter could be reviewed.   

So, on that second point, that matter is kept under review constantly within the Business Committee and, inevitably, we do have to make some difficult decisions in terms of both the business that we table and also the amount of time which we're able to give to it, given the constrained ways under which we are currently working. But as I said, we do keep this constantly under review because it's absolutely not the intention to curtail the opportunity for scrutiny. So, I do take that point very much on board.

And then the second point was regarding the differential impact of the coronavirus on communities across Wales and, absolutely, that will be important in terms of defining the way forward and the kind of recovery that we have, which has to be a green and fair recovery where nobody is left behind. And I know that colleagues will consider the best way to have that discussion.

I call for a Welsh Government statement on shopping arrangements for blind and partially sighted people. Welsh Government officials, I understand, are working with supermarkets to improve their coronavirus safety measures. Proposed measures include systems to manage the number of customers in store, more visible signage and hygiene stations, and increased social distancing markers. RNIB Cymru have been approached by a number of their members worried about what these new restrictions might mean for them. Social distancing is near impossible for blind and partially sighted people, and navigating queues and altered store layouts has been extremely challenging for them throughout the whole pandemic. RNIB Cymru are therefore calling for guidance to be issued through supermarkets and essential retailers to make staff aware of the types of assistance and adjustments they can offer to blind and partially sighted customers. Blind and partially sighted customers need to know both how the Welsh Government intends to address the issue of access to supermarkets for them, and what guidance it will be issuing to retailers to raise staff awareness and make sure vulnerable people are not disadvantaged even further. I call for a statement accordingly.

I'm grateful to Mark Isherwood for raising the important issue of the experience of blind and partially sighted people in supermarkets during the current restrictions. I know that it does make situations particularly difficult for them, especially when people don't always understand that blind and partially sighted people might find it more difficult to maintain that social distance, and so forth. I'm aware myself of the RNIB work, but I will ensure that the health Minister—although I'm sure he's already familiar with it—does review that, with a view to exploring what more we can say to ensure that people aren't disadvantaged and that awareness is heightened as much as possible.

Can we have a statement on the number of pupils who are without either a device or internet access in order to do their home schooling? Does the Government have an idea of the number of children without the means to participate in online school lessons? Because if the Government is serious about eliminating the link between school attainment and poverty, then this issue should be a top priority. And the fact that there are children without the means to do online schooling nearly a year since we first went into lockdown means that that link between education attainment and poverty will be amplified. I've had parents and teachers approach me to say that this is still an issue in the Rhondda. In England, children without internet access in their homes have been promised free and unlimited data until the end of the academic year, and this scheme came about as a result of the Department for Education in England teaming up with internet providers. I hope we can have a similar scheme adopted in Wales soon, and I would like an indication from the Government if and when you are able to provide one.  

I'll certainly ask the education Minister to provide an update on that specific issue, but I can say that Welsh Government has been very proactive in terms of providing devices for children and young people to use in order to access the online and blended learning. Just before Christmas, we announced a further £11 million to purchase a number of devices—I think, at the time, it was 35,000 devices—which would take the number of devices distributed to children and young people across Wales to 133,000 during the course of the pandemic. I think that's quite a significant achievement. And we also recognise that it's difficult for some children to get online, so we've also distributed more than 11,000 Mi-Fi devices, so that children and young people who don't have that reliable connection at home can do so. Clearly, if there's more to do, then we would want to do it, so I will ensure that the education Minister provides the update to that specific question.

May I ask for an oral statement or a debate in Government time on nitrate vulnerable zones? I note that the Minister for Environment, Energy and Rural Affairs Lesley Griffiths is answering questions tomorrow and put out a written statement, but the timing of that written statement was such that there is no opportunity for ordinary Members of the Senedd to ask questions at that session tomorrow. The Minister said, back on 8 April last year, that she would bring in regulations only when the crisis comes to an end. Then, on 16 September last year, she said,

'What I have committed to is not bringing them forward whilst we're in the middle of a COVID-19 pandemic', 

and then, on 14 October,

'I have committed not to do anything while we are at the height of the pandemic.' 

Is it thus the Welsh Government position that we are past the height of the pandemic and no longer in its middle, and that it will come to an end by 1 April? If so, why are we debating emergency legislation later to potentially delay the election from 6 May? I think the Minister needs to give us an explanation on the matter of what she said before, and also an explanation of why the whole of Wales has been a nitrate vulnerable zone under her regulations, at great cost to farmers, many of whom aren't responsible for these problems and don't farm in areas of Wales where they're widespread. Why can't we have a similar system to that which the UK Government has for England, where areas only become NVZs where the incidence is high or where there is a particular problem?

Well, the First Minister did answer some questions on this during First Minister's questions this afternoon, but it is the case that the Minister used the negative procedure to lay the regulations, because that is the system set out in law. However, the Business Committee has today agreed a debate on the annulment of the regulations, and that will be debated by the Senedd in due course.

I wonder if I could ask for a statement from the health Minister on the continuation of telemedical abortion services? These have been absolutely vital during the pandemic lockdown to enable women to access early medical abortions without having to leave their homes. I wrote to the Minister in November on behalf of the women's health cross-party group, pointing out the discussion that we'd had, with the involvement of all seven health boards, about the transformational use of telemedicine to enable women to get that early consultation without risk and the safety and efficacy of it. Actually, for women living in rural areas, where they're some distance away from clinics that provide these services, it's been transformational, and I just wondered if we could have a statement to find out whether or not this excellent way of delivering prudent healthcare can be continued on a more permanent basis.

Well, the arrangement was put in place during the pandemic to reduce the transmission of COVID-19, and it's currently time limited for two years or until the pandemic is over, whichever is earliest. But, on 1 December, the Welsh Government did publish a consultation, seeking views on whether to make permanent the current temporary arrangements, and this consultation will run until 23 February. It's available on the Welsh Government website. So, when we have those responses to the consultation, a decision will be made. But, of course, I encourage Jenny Rathbone to make her submission to that.

Trefnydd, can I call for a statement on vaccination and its potential to enabling earlier return to the classroom for students and pupils across Wales? I held a briefing last week, in conjunction with the Israeli embassay, from Dr Asher Salmon, who is the director of international relations at the Israeli ministry for health. The Israeli Government has a taken a conscious decision, because it wanted to get children and young people back into their education, to actually vaccinate teachers and other school staff in order to accelerate that opportunity to return them to the classroom. I think it would be useful to have a statement on whether this is something that the Welsh Government has considered, in order to help clarify the position of the Welsh Government in relation to this matter. Thank you.

We do have the statement on vaccination as the next item of business this afternoon, so this might be a further opportunity to hear from the Minister in this regard. But it's been very much the case that the Welsh Government has been following the advice of the JCVI in terms of schedule that it has set out, in order to maintain the approach that we've taken throughout the pandemic of following the science and listening to what the experts tell us in terms of how to minimise the number of deaths for people across Wales. But, as I say, there's a statement next, so it might be a chance to hear a little bit more from the health Minister.

And finally, Delyth Jewell.

Diolch, Llywydd. I'd like to ask for a statement, please, explaining why some care homes have been deprioritised for vaccines. I've been contacted by a small care home in Caerphilly county borough who are really upset that their residents are no longer due to be vaccinated in the first two priority groups. They were originally told that all care home residents would be vaccinated in the first group, but adults in some residential care settings have now been moved to group six. They assume that this is because they're small. They care for residents with learning disabilities, but the residents of this care home are all over 65. People working there feel that they've been treated unfairly because they're expected to follow the same guidelines and the same rules as every other care home, and there's not been any justification given as yet why their residents have been deprioritised. I know the council have been very helpful, and the home would want me to say that the council has helped them to make sure that all staff have been vaccinated, but they can't do the same for residents because of this change in prioritisation.

Trefnydd, very shortly before Plenary today, Members were sent a vaccination update by the health Minister, which talks about older people care homes. I'd like to know if this qualification means that care homes who are defined as caring for residents with learning disabilities are being neglected here, even if the residents are over 65. Has this change in prioritisation been done so that the Welsh Government can claim it has vaccinated all care homes for older people? Because this would clearly not be true. Yesterday, the Welsh Government claimed that all care homes were either being or had been vaccinated, when, in fact, small care homes like this haven't been. So, I would like a justification for what is published, please, so that it can be shown to the care homes. Because if this has been a retrospective change, I really worry that this could be discriminatory, because many of the residents of this home, because of their age, would have qualified for vaccines already if they didn't have the disabilities. 

Thank you for raising this specific issue on behalf of that care home. The Minister will be making a statement on vaccinations and vaccines as the next item of business today, so there could be an opportunity to raise that then. But, if not, if you write to the health Minister or myself with the specific details of the care home to which you refer, we can look into this in further detail and provide that detailed answer that you're after.

Thank you, Trefnydd.

The next item is a statement on COVID-19 vaccinations. I call on the Minister for Health and Social Services to make the statement—Vaughan Gething.

Thank you, Llywydd. Today we have published the second of our reports summarising progress against our national COVID-19 vaccination strategy. These reports are published every Tuesday, in addition to the surveillance data being published by Public Health Wales that is published both daily and weekly, and the operational data that is being published by Welsh Government statisticians. According to the figures published at midday today, the NHS Wales-led programme has vaccinated more than 439,000 people across Wales. That is almost 14 per cent of the population. The latest information I have also shows that over 60 per cent of our first priority groups have now received their first dose of the vaccine. The pace is continuing to increase, and we are making strong progress. The effectiveness of our infrastructure and the growth in capacity are clear for all to see.

We have already hit two markers in our vaccine strategy. We have offered all front-line Welsh ambulance service staff their first dose of the vaccine. We also exceeded our end-of-January marker to have more than 250 GP practices deploying the vaccine. Last week’s report confirmed that this marker had been achieved ahead of schedule, with over 300 practices running clinics. The number has increased again to over 400 practice locations, demonstrating the high level of engagement across all parts of our health service to work together to deliver the COVID-19 vaccination programme as quickly and as safely as possible. Protecting the vulnerable has always been at the heart of our response to the pandemic and it remains at the forefront of our fight back against this terrible disease.

The final marker that we've been working towards is vaccinating the first priority group set by the UK’s independent expert Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation—people living in a care home for older adults and their staff carers. We set out to reach all those care homes that it was possible to reach by the end of January and to make sure that plans were in place for those care homes that have had COVID-19 outbreaks and incidents to be done as soon as possible. I am pleased to confirm again that we have achieved this marker, as confirmed yesterday by my colleague Eluned Morgan. Health boards have confirmed they have visited all older person care homes that it has been safe to send vaccination teams into. For those homes where it has not been safe, visits are planned during February, as soon as the public health advice allows.

As with our delivery model generally, a blended approach is in place for older person care homes. For some care homes, health boards are sending in vaccination teams to vaccinate both residents and staff. For other care homes, GP practices are organising vaccination for residents, often through a district nurse or small team, with staff being invited to attend mass centres. This mixed model ensures the right approach for the right home, given its context and location. With the three markers on the journey to milestone 1 having been achieved, our focus now is on completing vaccine offers for all those in the first four priority groups. In the last week, we have vaccinated more people as a percentage of our population than any of the other UK nations. We are moving through the priority cohorts and are on track to deliver against our first milestone by the middle of February.

We expect to sustain this level of progress and, in fact, expect to see an additional step up in the rate of vaccination this week. We've built a sustainable programme and are building pace and capacity within it all the time. This week, an additional military aid to civil authorities request has been agreed. This will see a further 90 military personnel brought in to support capacity in the vaccination programme across Wales. I am extremely grateful to our NHS colleagues across Wales whose continued hard work and dedication is making this incredible progress possible, and, of course, their partners in local government, the military and beyond, including the voluntary sector. I am very proud of what we are doing as a country with the vaccination roll-out. We still have a marathon ahead of us, but we can face the next stage with a real sense of confidence in our NHS-led programme here in Wales. Thank you, Llywydd.

Good afternoon, Minister. Thank you for your statement. Credit where credit's due, the situation has moved on enormously since last week, and I'd like to say well done to the whole effort, from Government down to those on the front line, for cracking on with the vaccines, especially as we were behind. It is really good to see that some of these priority groups have been picked up and are moving forward.

I do want to emphasise the importance of communication, because I have a lot in my constituency, and I know, in fact, in Hywel Dda, it's the same—we have a lot of those who are in their 80s plus who haven't yet been vaccinated, but have got appointments during the course of this coming week and next week. That is different from saying to everyone, 'You will be vaccinated by last weekend', which was the target, and I think that's caused some confusion. So, going forward, down all the other priority groups, I would urge that some more thought is given to the communication message. But it's really great to see that we are making strides to try to vaccinate the whole nation.

Unfortunately, the number of registered deaths, although they have decreased from 467 to 447, which is obviously very welcome—it's still the third highest of any point in the pandemic, which shows how very distressing and awful it is, and the fact that this disease is a killer. Are you able to update us on any more that you might be able to do to reach those hard-to-vaccinate groups, the people who are either refusing the vaccine or the groups, the cohorts of people, who we know are harder to persuade to take it up? And for those people who have been phoned up and offered a vaccine and are saying, 'No, I don't want it', what plans are in place to be able to perhaps follow up on them individually, by perhaps their local GP, to try to have a conversation? Because until more of us are vaccinated, we're still going to see these awful deaths occurring in hospitals and in our communities. So, any update that you can give us on that would be really welcome. 

Of course, the other concern that people are now beginning to flood inboxes with is whether or not the vaccines are efficient against all these new strains, especially the new UK strain that Andrew R.T. Davies mentioned on the business statement, and, of course, the South African strain. Perhaps you'd like to make some kind of public comment on that, because I think it would be really useful to try to reassure people and put minds to rest. 

You mentioned the very welcome work on reaching the care homes, but can you please tell us how many care homes have yet to be vaccinated, or how many residents and staff within certain care homes? I appreciate that some care homes were deemed red because they had some element of coronavirus; I know that different health boards have got different policies in place about whether or not they will go in and try to vaccinate in part of a care home, even if some of it has got the COVID virus in it. But I also would like to build on Delyth Jewell's question that she put to you during the business statement, or asked the Trefnydd to look at: are care homes being recategorised at all? Is there any plan that some care homes have perhaps been changed into different categories? Anything you can tell us on that, again, would be very useful.

Finally, I just want to raise the issue of pharmacists. We know that we have the mass vaccination centres, we know that GPs are doing it, we know that there's an awful lot of work going on within the hospital environment and within social care, but of course our pharmacists are still standing in the wings ready to help what is basically a national effort. Can you outline any plans to involve them? I have heard from the health boards throughout Wales that they are talking to pharmacists, but actually they've been talking to them for the last two, three or four weeks. Nothing yet is happening. There seems to be nothing really concrete on the ground.

As we go down those category groups and we start looking at vaccinating the sixties and the fifties, those groups are going to get bigger and bigger and bigger. We're going to need everybody. You've already talked today about deploying 90 members of the military—very welcome, but we have some 710 pharmacy operations waiting in the wings. So, any update you can give us on that—because I do think that they are a squandered resource and that we can really use them. They want to be used, they've said it very loudly, very clearly, they've put forward the proposals and, of course, if you are somebody who is perhaps less keen on travelling, going to your local pharmacy, a bit like going to your local GP, is a much easier option than travelling to a mass vaccination centre. So, any update on when they may be used and on what category of people the pharmacists may be involved in. Thank you very much.

Thank you for the comments and questions. In particular thank you for recognising the progress that is being made and the pace of what we're able to deliver in Wales with a joint team approach.

On the questions, with the death toll that we're still seeing, it's a reality that, as we're going in the right direction, we're still going to see relatively high numbers of people coming to harm, and we'll see that in the death figures. As we went through the first peak, when we were moving in the right direction, we still had to go through a number of weeks of quite large death tolls to report, I'm afraid. And given the numbers of people we still have in our hospitals, I'm afraid we are going to see more people losing their lives in the coming weeks ahead, even though the picture is improving. So, there'll be more families each week who will be mourning the loss of loved ones, and that is why it's important that we're positive about not just what we're doing in the vaccination programme, but the reassurance for people that they won't be forgotten or left behind. So, if there are people who are over 80 who have yet to have their jabs, they will get appointments and they will get covered; they will get protected in Wales just as in the rest of the United Kingdom.

On progress on those people who are refusing, part of our challenge obviously is that the vaccination is voluntary, and so there are people who for different reasons are more or less anxious about what to do, and it builds on your point about communication, about the range of concerns that there are, so we are looking at, as we've gone through this, understanding more of the concerns that people have to be able to combat them, and these are issues that are not just here in Wales; they're common issues right across the UK and indeed across Europe.

So, we are doing some specific work, for example, on black and Asian-origin communities. I think it was a very positive step forward to see Members of Parliament from the Conservatives and the Labour Party who really don't like each other; you wouldn't normally see James Cleverly and Diane Abbott share a platform, but they were both in a joint video, encouraging people to have the vaccine. Now, I think that's really important. In amongst all of the difference of opinion we will have about what has happened or what will happen, it's really important to encourage people to take up the vaccine because it's safe and it's effective.

And I think that then goes into your point about vaccine efficacy and new strains. So, with both, if you like, the Kent-plus variant, and the South African variant, there is concern that there'll be a less effective response for vaccines. That does not mean that vaccines won't be effective at all; they will still offer a good level of protection, and in fact it reinforces the need to continue going with real pace in our vaccination programme. And as you heard the public health director for Public Health England in the press conference that he did with Matt Hancock yesterday, you'll hear exactly the same advice from all public-health agencies right across the UK about the fact that there is concern that the vaccines will be less effective but not ineffective; still safe, still effective, and still important that everyone does take up the opportunity when offered, and you can expect to see primary care clinicians in particular looking to follow-up those people who have yet to have their vaccine, but the real challenge is in getting through groups 1 to 9 as quickly as possible, where we know that 99 per cent of the deaths take place. However, there is still a high number of hospitalisations for people outside categories 1 to 9, so even after that, it's not quite as simple as taking a Ryanair approach, to then saying, 'Everything can start and go back to normal.' We're in this still for some time to come.

On your point about care homes; these have not been reclassified. There is no sleight of hand taking place here. There is no neglect of care home residents taking place. The target was about older person care homes, because that's where the highest risk is, and it's the ones where we're seeing the, at times, horrific results of coronavirus getting into those care homes. People with other susceptibilities to coronavirus will be covered by other priority groups, so if you expect to see people with, for example, a learning disability, then those that are older, over the age of 50, will be covered by their age cohort and those with other healthcare conditions, those people, for example, who can get the NHS flu jab, can expect to be covered in priority group 6 as well, and so we're moving progressively through not just groups 1 to 4, but at some point we'll be inviting in earnest groups of people from 5, 6, and others to come forward as well. So, the pace isn't going to slow up in terms of what we're able to do and we're certainly not forgetting people, either.

In terms of the care homes that we have, I was just looking at some figures earlier, and I'll provide a note back to this, so I'm not misremembering and misrecalling what's happened, but of the care homes that have not been completed, there are a range that have been partially completed, because we did issue guidance across Wales so there was a consistent approach. If there were a handful of cases as opposed to a wider outbreak, on a risk-assessed basis, teams were able to go in and test those people who had tested negative. So, they went in and they'd been able to vaccinate a number of people, so we have a range of care homes that are partially complete for staff and residents, and we have others where they weren't able to go in at all, and I think the numbers for those are in the low 30s, where that's because there's been an active outbreak. But given you've asked the question now, I'll send a note out to Members afterwards to confirm that position.FootnoteLink

And then, finally, on your point about pharmacists, we expect to make more use of pharmacists, both in our mass vaccination centres and those that are able to undertake vaccinations on their premises as we go through. And the limiting step—and you'd have pretty much the same answer from any health Minister within the UK—is vaccine supply, because I think in every nation in the UK, and certainly here in Wales, we could deliver more vaccines if we had more supply, especially if it was the AstraZeneca supplier, because it's easier to use. We haven't completely maxed out the ability of primary care to deliver against that, and as we have more vaccine coming on board, and we certainly hope we will have in the future, we should then be able to make even greater use of the well of goodwill as well as the physical ability to deliver more vaccines than exist in primary care.

Thank you very much, Llywydd, and thank you for the statement. I'm also very pleased to see the ground that's been gained in terms of the vaccination process in Wales. There are enthusiastic teams of vaccinators in all parts of the country, and I hear very positive reports of the experience that people have in accessing the vaccine, and that's to be welcomed.

I will ask the first question emerging from that. Given that things are developing well at the moment, and I agree entirely with the Minister's comments that supply is the problem, not the number of vaccinators, but given that Novavax and Janssen are to come on stream soon, is it the Government's intention to move forward the target for vaccinating the whole population? I think we could now try and be more ambitious, if truth be told, and that's a very positive note.

Now, although things are developing well, there are still concerns—concerns about the mix of Pfizer and AstraZeneca that we receive here in Wales. Of course, it would be easier if we had more of the vaccine that's easier to administer, and I'll ask the same question that I ask every week: can we have the data on how much of each vaccination is distributed to all nations and to all parts of Wales, in the spirit of transparency, so that we can identify any systematic problems? I know that the Minister suggested last week that he now agrees that it would be useful to have that data, and that he is going to try and get that data, so can we have an update on that?

May I also make an appeal to the Government not to invite people to doubt the figures by failing to be entirely open in the statements that you make? We recall the Government saying that they were a little short of the target of 70 per cent of over-80s; well, that figure was 52.8 per cent, and that's a bit more than falling short. So, be transparent on the way that the figures are released.

Likewise, we are seeing the older people's commissioner having to point out that she is concerned that a quarter of people in care homes still haven't been vaccinated. The figures as to where we are aren't included in the statement, aren't included in that information that's easiest to access by the public. So, be upfront about these figures so that we can see where we are. There is plenty of good news to focus on. Let us see where the problems are, too, so that everyone can see where those problems are.

One question, if I may, specifically on the front-line ambulance service staff. It is a concern that a substantial number, perhaps, weren't willing to take the vaccination. So, could I have your comments on the concerns that that could put patients at risk? What's the Government's view on that?

And a question that I asked last week, which I didn't receive a response to: the mRNA technology is new technology. The storage requirements mean that we need a new kind of infrastructure. It's very possible that we will become more and more reliant on that new vaccination technology, possibly to deal with new variants and so on. So, what consideration is now being given to investing in infrastructure that will make it easier to handle that kind of vaccine? Because it's possible that we will be far more reliant on it in future years.

Thank you for the list of questions. I'll try to go through these quickly to allow time for other questions, Llywydd. In terms of whether we can move faster on completion, that is really a circular question, because it goes back to supply. If you have more supply of more vaccines, as long as they're approved as being safe and effective, then we can go faster, and I think we've demonstrated that over recent weeks. In terms of data on the vaccines for each UK nation, we continue to have these discussions with colleagues across the UK and all of us need to be responsible for what we're doing. You will no doubt have noticed the difficult public fall-out between the European Union and the UK Government and, indeed, vaccine manufacturers. I hope we're now in calmer waters on that front now, but there is understandable sensitivity about stocks on order and stocks held. I want to get to a position where we can publish the stocks that we have, and to be clear about what we have and how that's being used. We're publishing currently wastage rates, and we have very, very efficient use of vaccines here in Wales, which is another real bright mark for our vaccination programme here in Wales.

When we get to agreement on being able to have those figures openly, then we will certainly do so. I'm keen that we're able to do so, but I do understand the sensitivity, particularly at this point in time, on what we're able to publish, and it would be useful if all Government figures in all four nations could respond in the same way as we are trying to do as grown-ups across all four nations. 

On the openness on the figures, I think we are being remarkably open. We have daily figures, we have weekly figures published by Public Health Wales, we have additional weekly narratives that actually provide some of the information you're looking for in terms of the percentage within each of the cohorts. They're published on a daily basis now through Public Health Wales, so I don't really take the point that we're somehow hiding information; we are publishing a huge amount of information so that people can see openly what is happening. 

And I think the older persons' commissioner's concerns were rather unfair, if I may say. The older persons' commissioner has had a member of her staff taking part in the vaccine programme and on stakeholder groups since the summer. She's well aware of what we're doing within the programme. She's also well aware of her ability through regular meetings with Ministers and officials, and in dealing with the programme board, about how to raise concerns. And actually, we're going as fast as possible, and the only reason we haven't reached an even larger percentage of older people resident in care homes is for the entirely straightforward reason that Eluned Morgan explained yesterday, and I have re-explained again today about active outbreaks. 

When it comes to the potential for staff not to have the vaccine and what that means for the public, that is part of the conversation that peers have with each other, as well as at a leadership level, particularly given the amount of harm that is taking place. I'd like to be in a position where our front-line staff are taking a lead. I'll look again at the percentage of that, but there is a challenge and a choice about keeping that member of staff safe and, indeed, the public. 

And then on mRNA, we will, of course, need to look at the end of this at proposals on what we'll need to do, not just with our current storage facilities where we've been able to take on board significant amounts of the Pfizer vaccine—let's not forget we have accepted significant amounts of those—but then the infrastructure for the testing of each of those, and then the release of each of those, rather, for the vaccination programme. So, we'll of course look at lessons learned both during the time as well as lessons for the future. I just don't think I'm in a position now to confirm an amount of investment that we will definitely make in the future, but it's certainly all part of lessons learning and there'll be a need for essential honesty as well as openness about that now and in the months to come. 

Minister, I'd like to take the opportunity to pass on the many positive comments that I've received from residents in the Cynon Valley, who have contacted me to express their relief and their jubilation at having received the vaccine, and their thanks to all those that made this possible. The Welsh Government's vaccination delivery plan explains that all vaccinations in Wales are recorded directly into the Welsh immunisation system, a bespoke software package developed by NHS Wales Informatics Service, and integrated into the GP record, which makes it easy to rapidly call people forward for the vaccine, in line with the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation guidelines. What assessment, Minister, have you made to date about how well this digital recording and reporting system is operating? And what lessons can we learn from this innovation about how we can make use of digital technology at speed to enhance patient experience within the NHS in Wales? 

Yes, thank you. I think that's one of the things that has been largely overlooked—the fact that NWIS, who at times have been criticised, have actually delivered a bespoke piece of software to really help us understand what we're doing, and to make sure, not just in terms of recording information, but that that information is then going to be used to make sure we're generating new appointments for those people when they need their second dose, but to make sure they get the right vaccine for their second dose as well. And again, it does show that a can-do approach from committed public servants really is making a huge difference throughout this crisis. And the fact that it's integrated into the GP record will be useful for the future as well.

So, I think the Welsh immunisation service is not just going to be useful for now, but on a longer-term basis in the future. And I think you'll see more of that innovation more broadly than the vaccination programme as well. So, in the software we're using, for example, Attend Anywhere, that was driven by necessity, because people had to have appointments on a remote basis. We rolled that out very rapidly. It would have taken years otherwise to have rolled out software like that across our NHS. And that will not just be a crisis-led response to the pandemic—that's going to be part of the way that our service works in the future. If you think about us as a group of not entirely typical workers, but, you know, politicians and others find it difficult to be at one place at one time, and to have a different set of appointments where you're required to physically attend a hospital premises, for example, for appointments you could do over the phone or on screen. So, more and more we're going to need to be responsive to the person, to the patient, but also in how that works for the member of staff as well. So, a lot done in terms of the digital innovation, and much more to do for the future that should benefit all of us. 

Can I thank the Minister for his statement, and also begin by saluting the terrific performance of all those involved in the vaccination programme? Truly heroic, epic, and every similar adjective applies. Can I also say that lockdowns actually work? I think it's important to emphasise that point. It may come as a shock to one or two of my regular correspondents online, but lockdowns do work, the figures show. And also can I pay tribute to the excellent genomic expertise we have here in Wales? The sequencing tech that we have is absolutely brilliant. And as regards that, and that expertise, which is how you pick up new variants, obviously we have the new South African variant, and we have this new variant, Kent plus, as the Minister implied, that allegedly could more easily evade the full effects of vaccination, and evade the full effects of our own immunity. 

The question that—. I hear what the Minister has said about that, and, obviously, I'm more than reassured. In terms of how we test for those new variants in Wales, though, how widespread is our ability to pick up on these new variants in the testing regime we have at present in Wales? And my final question, as regards testing in general, is: what is the progress in allowing individuals, i.e. ordinary members of the public, to request their own test when they have vague or non-classical symptoms of COVID? How can we deal with those non-typical, though important, situations? Diolch yn fawr. 

If I deal with the last question first, because I think, actually, if people go to a testing centre with a range of symptoms that aren't classical, but they can explain how they feel, then most people are not going to be turned away. That isn't going to be the experience. And, actually, our bigger problem is that there are people who have symptoms but don't get a test. If you look at the technical advisory group reports that we have continued to publish every week, you'll see there's a regular feature in there, and one of the regular features that I certainly look at every week, even if others don't, is you look at the number of people who acknowledge they've had symptoms and then how many of them go on to have a test, and only about half of the people who have the classic symptoms, as was put in the question, actually go on to get themselves tested. So, there is a real issue there, and there's a divide in age ranges, and a divide between genders as well. Men, frankly, are much less likely to get tested, and, actually, we know that older men are one of the higher risk categories as well. So, it's really frustrating. We need to get the message out: if you've got the symptoms, get yourself a test. And there is plenty of testing capacity at this point in time, because—one of your earlier points was that the lockdowns have worked in driving down transmission rates. Transmission rates are falling, case rates are falling—we want to see that continue—and that means that fewer people are going to get tests. 

And in terms of the genomic expertise that we do have, we punch well above our weight here in Wales, and we should be really proud of what our genomic experts are delivering in terms of the overall effort, not just to Wales, the UK, but the wider world as well. The labs we have currently are in a position where we're able to pick up a range of new variants. We've had agreement about making sure that we have a representative sample of Welsh tests to go to lighthouse labs so they can pick up the new UK variant, the Kent variant. And we also have a range of testing in place to pick up where we might have the South African variant. That's why—. We have low numbers of the South African variant here—literally handfuls—as opposed to the much larger numbers that, unfortunately, have tested positive in England. And it'll be really important for us—we want that testing programme in England looking for the South African variant to succeed, because that will actually help to keep all of us safe as well. And some of the areas where they're testing are on the Welsh border, so it's really important that we keep close to each other across the UK to understand the knowledge that we're each acquiring, and then to share it openly. And that has been a really important feature in this pandemic. It will have to carry on for many months ahead into the future.

Thank you for your update, Minister, and a huge thanks to the army of people responsible for ensuring that over 13 per cent of the Welsh population have received a first dose of the vaccine, not forgetting the help we receive from our armed forces during this pandemic. Minister, in the next few weeks, we begin the roll-out of our second doses. What steps are you taking to ensure that the roll-out of first doses can continue apace without any drop in capacity? Over the past week, we have seen European Union bureaucrats threaten our vaccine supplies. So, what discussions have you held with the UK Government about how we can ensure the security of our supply? And whilst the EU can never actually be able to prevent the exports of our vaccine supplies, they can in fact delay them, and the debacle has highlighted the inherent risks of relying on imports. So, in light of this, could you tell me what discussions you've had about producing vaccines in Wales?

And finally, Minister, we have already seen the emergence of new variants, which appear to have some vaccine resistance. This could mean that we have to constantly keep adapting the vaccines to keep pace with the virus. When life returns to some semblance of normality, we won't be able to rely upon the current mass vaccination centres, so what steps have you taken to ensure that we have long-term vaccination capacity in all communities? And I'd like to thank the constituent who rang me, who was jubilant to say that, on his seventy-fifth birthday, he received his vaccination. He says a big 'thank you'. Diolch.

Thank you. On the second dose, without affecting the wider roll-out, we're already planning for the delivery of second doses, which—. In, literally, the coming few weeks we'll start to see more people getting their second dose, and those numbers will increase, because, as you'll know, in the first three to four weeks, we had lower numbers of people being vaccinated compared to what we're doing within this week. Our ability then to keep on going at the  first dose rate we're currently doing will be affected by the overall amount of supply. So, we're going to need to think about making sure we have the right vaccine available for the second dose—so people who have had Pfizer should get Pfizer for the second dose, fewer concerns and issues about AstraZeneca, and we'll then need to know what then is left for us to deliver in terms of new first doses. So, again, it's a matter of supply, as well as then, going back to Angela Burns's point, about making use of the wider primary care team—so, our pharmacists—and our ability to then deliver an even bigger programme. If we have the supply to do that, we'll need to make use of that wider team in primary care.

On the European Union and the vaccine, I think there's wide recognition, however you feel about the European Union, that the last week or two has not been great from an EU point of view. It was extraordinarily unhelpful in the way that issue was presented. I think common sense has now prevailed. Because we actually all need each other—both about travel, because, actually, coronavirus was largely imported to Wales when Brits went to Europe for holidays and came back in January, February last year; the February half-term was a significant importation event from travel directly from Europe, not from China. So, actually, those patterns of travel aren't going to be significantly different in the future, with future threats. It's also just the case that we are already getting vaccine from Europe, so we actually need good relationships with European partners to make sure that we're able to see vaccines cross international borders, just as the supply of AstraZeneca, some of which is already manufactured here in Wales.

And your question about vaccine production in Wales—of course, AstraZeneca supply and fill is in Wrexham already. So, we already have some of that manufacture, and one of the new candidate vaccines has a vaccination production base in Scotland. So, the UK already has vaccination production within it, but that in itself isn't going, I think, to deliver the sort of certainty that we'd want. So, we still need a very practical and grown-up relationship with European production centres, as well as pharmaceutical companies that have bases in more than one part of Europe. And, when it comes to vaccine resistance, it's one of the things that, I think, has come up before. So, it's certainly a part of what our scientists look at, as well as researchers in individual companies looking to develop the next vaccines.

And capacity—capacity has sprung up because of the way we've been able to move and use our primary care team. Vaccinations are normally undertaken primarily by primary care in any event. The thing about our highly successful immunisation programmes for children and young people around the flu campaign—well, it's primary care that does that, whether in a general practice or, indeed, in a pharmacy, or health visitors and others who will go and visit people at the earliest of ages. So, we're never going to have, if you like, a permanent structure of vaccination centres. If that were the case, then we'd be living with threats on a daily basis forever and a day. But, if we're needed to flex up again, I think what has been shown is that primary care is remarkably flexible and extraordinarily willing to protect people they care for on a regular basis, and I'm very grateful for all they've done. 

Minister, we know that our ethnic minority communities are particularly susceptible to the ill-health effects of the virus, and Welsh Government and its working group have done some very good work in terms of illustrating and understanding and responding to that. There is some concern now that some in our ethnic minority communities might be more reluctant to have the vaccine than the general population. I wonder if Welsh Government has any sense as to whether that is the case in Wales, and, if so, to what extent it is an issue.

And, in terms of getting the right messages and the right communication to our ethnic minority populations, I know work is taking place with people in the community getting those messages across and, indeed, in having members of the ethnic minority community in appropriate positions of responsibility, perhaps health professionals, giving those messages and, of course, making sure that the appropriate languages are used. I just wonder if there is any more that Welsh Government is planning to do in terms of building on that work to date, given the potential problem that exists, and also whether consideration is being given to the use of mosques as vaccination centres, if we could identify buildings that have sufficient space and were suitable in terms of their physical nature. I'd be grateful if you could give us more of a picture of the work going on to address these issues, Minister, because they're obviously highly significant, given the greater ill-health effect that the virus has had on our black and Asian communities.  

Thank you. In terms of this, I refer back to what I said earlier about it was a good thing we had parliamentarians—none of whom were Welsh MPs, but parliamentarians from the Conservative Party and UK Labour, who are absolutely not on the same page on the great majority of issues—all agreeing to do a promotional message that encourages people to take up the vaccine. People recounting their own personal, family and friendship group experiences, hearing James Cleverly and David Lammy talk about people that they both know—from very different parts of politics, but they both have people they know and love and care for who they have lost through COVID. And I think that's a powerful message to then hear those same people encouraging everyone to take up the vaccine.

And we are already doing specific work with community groups here in Wales, and vaccine sceptism is not something that I think we should take a view that that doesn't exist here in Wales. It's about how we try to address it and how effectively we do so. I'll be doing some work specifically with that in talking to community leaders to build on work that's already been done. And we are already talking with the Muslim community here in Wales about whether we can use mosques, but also, though, I'm really encouraged by the message of faith leaders encouraging people to take up the vaccine as well. There is nothing incompatible with their religion in taking up the vaccine and there's also—[Inaudible.]—not just through mosques, but also through churches as well, in terms of a range of our communities. For many of them, faith is more central than, if you like, other parts of life here in Wales. So, we need to think about the different ways in which to have messages that are effective for people, have meaning for them and actually build on trust.

So, I'll be happy to give a further update after half term, because I'll have done more on that direct engagement to give you a feeling back about what we're able to do to encourage people to get themselves protected, because black and Asian-origin communities are at a higher risk than the rest of the country, because of their ethnic origin, from coronavirus.

Minister, this Sunday, Cwm Taf health board completed its vaccination of all the care homes and care home staff, and I think all the staff who contributed to that, in very difficult weather, sometimes, should actually really be congratulated for the effort that's been achieved there.

Can I raise just two points with you? One is the issue of home vaccinations. Obviously, there is a concern that there may be those who cannot get out of their home for whatever reason, et cetera, needing to be vaccinated at home. There appear to be some confused messages over that. I wonder if that could be looked at, just in terms of clarity, because obviously people do feel anxious about that. One further point is, of course, you'll have seen the Office for National Statistics data in respect of the death rate of taxi drivers and bus and coach drivers—for taxi drivers, 101 deaths per 100,000; bus and coach drivers, 83 per 100,000—and I was just wondering if there was any attention being given to either the safety aspects in respect of their work, or the work that they are doing particularly with the transportation of doctors and nurses, to whether it be vaccination centres, surgeries, hospitals and so on. Thank you, Minister.

I thank the Member for that question. On the issue of transport workers in particular, the recent ONS publication confirmed what we knew from the first wave, that transport workers, their occupation does mean they're more at risk compared to the wider population and there's a material difference. So, that's part of what the JCVI have been looking at when they're thinking about prioritisation outside groups 1 to 9. It's also why it's really important for all employers to think about what they're doing in terms of the increased need to risk assess what's happening as well. Some of these people, of course, will be self-employed. Most taxi drivers are self-employed. And we're thinking about whether there is a need, from our point of view, for further guidance on that to protect those workers from harm.

I take on board what you say about housebound members of the public. If you live in an older adult care home, then we are already going out to protect you. There is a range of other people in communities who are housebound for different reasons, and it's part of the reason why the link with primary care is so important. We do have mobile vaccine teams within each health board area, but it will need to be a conversation with general practice about where those housebound residents exist, because the NHS creating a central mobile team won't in itself mean they know who every person is. So, that's why it's really important to have the link-up and the points Vikki Howells made earlier about the link-up to the Welsh immunisation system, to make sure we understand who's doing what and who's going out to visit those people to make sure they're covered, as opposed to double-counted.

And finally, I should say I take on board the significant achievement that yourself, Vikki Howells, and others have mentioned, across parties, to congratulate our staff for what they're doing. It really is significant. On our pace in what we're doing, to give you an idea, in the last seven days the average number per 100,000 is 452 in Scotland for the vaccine, 469 in Northern Ireland, 609 in England, but 680 in Wales. That shows the pace that we're going at over this last week and I'm tremendously grateful for everyone who is playing their part in doing so.

Minister, for a number of weeks now, I've been speaking to Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board about setting up a central point of contact and a phone line for those who are concerned that they have not received their vaccine yet, and for a small number of 80-year-olds, that is obviously the case. I was particularly pleased this week when that phone line was delivered, and yesterday it was launched. I believe that is part of the answer that nobody misses out who wants the vaccine. As we work our way through the priority groups, Minister, will you have conversations with Betsi Cadwaladr health board, other health boards across Wales and Public Health Wales, to see this phone line extended throughout the pandemic?

Yes, I think this is part of our challenge in managing people's expectations and in making sure, at the same time, that no-one gets left behind, because what we don't want is people generally ringing because they're concerned, and many people will be concerned in groups 1 to 4 at present, but then when we extend that, in groups 1 to 9, because I don't want primary care colleagues, especially general practice and pharmacists, to be overwhelmed. However, we do need to find a way to provide both that confidence and also to make sure that there is a check. So, I certainly will be looking to see what has taken place already within north Wales, to look at the good practice that Betsi Cadwaladr have been able to develop, and to see how we apply that in a more uniform way across Wales to make sure that no-one is left behind as we complete this national mission to ensure that we protect our people.

Thank you, Minister.

The next item is a statement by the Minister for Health and Social Services, once again, and this time on the Cwm Taf Morgannwg University Health Board clinical review update. So, once again, I call Vaughan Gething.

Thank you, Llywydd. Last week, I published the first of three thematic reports setting out the emerging learning from the clinical review programme established by the independent maternity services oversight panel that I appointed. The programme is currently focused on reviewing around 160 episodes of care provided by the maternity and neonatal services of the former Cwm Taf University Health Board between 1 January 2016 and 30 September 2018. The first report focused on the care provided to mothers and specifically those who needed urgent care, which in the main resulted in an admission to intensive care.

As Members will have seen last week, overall the report's findings concur with those of the independent review that I commissioned by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the Royal College of Midwives in 2018. It did not make for good reading when the findings confirmed that, in 27 out of the 28 pregnancies reviewed, factors were identified that contributed to the quality of care that women received. It is a significant concern that, in 19 of the reviews, factors were considered to be major. That means that different care may reasonably be expected to have altered the outcome.

I do not underestimate how distressing this report will have been for the women and their families who have been affected. While I hope it has provided answers to concerns they may have had, the report confirms that those concerns were very real. I remain very sorry for what went wrong and I know that nothing can change what happened for these women and their families. While it is important to be transparent about these findings, I also appreciate that it may well have caused further distress for those affected. It may have triggered those memories of their poor and, at times, traumatic experiences.

The report stresses the importance of listening to women when they know that something is not right. Poor communication is a key theme that underpins the factors identified in the report. I was pleased, however, that the panel recognised the open and compassionate way that the health board has responded and the support that it has put in place for women and families through this review process. I'd also like to thank the community health council advocacy service for the important role that they are playing in this work.

We should not underestimate how difficult this report will have been for staff and particularly at a time when the NHS, including maternity and neonatal services, has been under immense pressure. It is important to acknowledge, as the report does, that considerable improvements have been achieved over the past two years and which the panel has confirmed in its previous reports. This is very much down to the commitment and hard work of the staff and, indeed, the renewed leadership. The thematic report also confirms that those areas of improvement were the right ones to be focused on. 

Last week, I met with Mick Giannasi, who is the chair of the independent panel, and the health board chair, Marcus Longley, to review progress and consider the next steps. The panel will now be turning its attention to completing the reviews of the care of babies who were sadly stillborn. Once individual findings have been shared with women and families, they will produce a further report describing the thematic learning. Their oversight of the maternity aspects of the improvement programme will continue.

In tandem, the panel is increasing its focus on the neonatal aspects of care. The reviews of babies who needed specialist care or sadly died after birth are under way. This is the largest category, involving around 70 reviews. The panel needs to ensure that the immediate learning that emerges from these reviews is aligned to the neonatal aspects of the health board’s improvement programme. This is essential to determine if all required actions have already been addressed or are in progress. 

To ensure that this is as robust as possible, the panel has identified the need to enhance its membership to include neonatal expertise. They have recommended to me that a neonatologist and a neonatal nurse join the panel. In doing so, they propose to draw on the expertise that is already part of the clinical review programme. This will enable them to ensure that the same level of rigour is applied to providing assurance on the neonatal aspects of improvement, in tandem with the learning emerging from the individual clinical reviews.

In order to take stock, they propose to undertake a deep dive of the current service, and to ensure that any improvements needed are being addressed, and are fully picking up the recommendations identified in the royal colleges' review. I was pleased that Marcus Longley, as the chair, confirmed that the board would welcome this development, and the added level of external, independent oversight and advice that it will provide them. This will ensure that they can be fully assured with regard to the quality of neonatal care, and the improvements that they are making.

Women and families remain at the heart of this process. I hope that they can see that I, the independent panel and the health board are determined that we should leave no stone unturned in ensuring that we learn from the past. This, too, is equally important for our staff, as they deserve to work in an open, learning and supportive environment at all times.

I will, of course, continue to keep Members updated, and will issue a further statement once the additional panel members have been confirmed. Thank you.

Thank you, Minister, for this statement, and for your recognition of just how difficult a scenario this has been. Like you, I just want to say to all those families out there how desperately sorry I am—and I'm sure we all are—that this has happened.

I was shocked to read that the independent clinical team actually said that, in most of these cases, they concluded that different treatments could reasonably have resulted in different outcomes for mothers and babies. In only one case would the outcome not have been different. So, Minister, that is an awfully big lesson for the health board to learn, and I wondered if you could outline exactly how we can guarantee that those lessons have indeed been learned.

I remember talking about the scandal at Cwm Taf a couple of years ago, when it first broke, and we were looking at it in the health committee. We looked at all of the various reports that had been pointing to the fact that there was a problem, but again and again and again, the then management team and board had just not recognised those problems, or they hadn't percolated up to them. There were all manner of reasons and excuses, et cetera. One of the things that really came out of those early discussions, which I see that the current report reflects, is that, although this is going well and is going in the right direction, it is a work in progress. There is still work to be done in key areas like culture and behaviours, leadership and communication.

Minister, I remember very strongly that one of the things that came forward was the fact that it wasn't just in maternity services, but actually in the whole Cwm Taf ethos, that there needed to be that step change in their culture—the leadership and the communication throughout. So, can you please talk to us a little bit and explain to us about why you feel confident that those lessons have been learned, that those cultures are still changing? We are two years down. The current report still says that there is a long way to go. Of course, we haven't yet touched on the other cases that were involved in this.

The reason why I'm very keen to understand about the culture throughout the whole of this area is because there are other warning signs that have come through on Cwm Taf. Now, you could say that they are completely unconnected, or are they triggers, are they just pointing us to say that, actually, this is a health board where some of these lessons still haven't been embedded throughout, and that this was a systemic failure? So, warning sign one is that negligence payments went from £4.5 million to £13 million in just one year. That indicates to me that there is a lot going on, and that there payments happening because there are unresolved and slowly resolved issues. So, is that a warning sign? Should we be looking at that?

The other area, of course, is the fact that Cwm Taf has had a very high number of COVID deaths because of hospital transmission. Again, that comes down to training, to communication, to leadership, to management. So, you could say, 'Yes, that's entirely unconnected with the matter at hand', but the point that I am trying to make is: have we broken the systemic issues? Was it really just in maternity, or, as has been discussed in various committee meetings over the last few years, part of a slightly bigger picture? I think that your assurance or your reassurance that that is being tackled and that you feel confident that the chair and the current team are really beginning to make that happen will actually start to answer a lot of the other questions, because talking about the detail of what did and didn't happen and all of the reports, as you said earlier, doesn't make any changes to what's happened.

Thank you for the comments and questions. I should just point out that in 27 of the 28 cases reviewed there were modifiable factors. It's in 19 of the 28 that there were major factors that could be reasonably expected to have led to a different outcome. That's important, I think, because it does show that, in 19 of the 28, there could have been a difference. In the others, those challenges, modifiable factors in care, would have made a difference to that person, but not necessarily affect the overall outcome. Many of us will know that the complaints we receive are often about the experience that people have of their care; even if the clinical outcome would be the same, a person's experience could be radically different in receiving the same outcome. It's important to recognise all of those different aspects in the improvement work that is still required.

I should say, though, that I think it's perhaps unfair to draw out the clinical negligence increase without any context, and equally the nosocomial transmission within hospitals. Because, of course—and you will understand this, Angela, as will some people watching this—the difference in an increase of that magnitude in clinical negligence payments could be one individual case. A traumatic incident at an early point in time could lead to a very high award. So, actually, it's really about the number and the magnitude, and I think there needs to be more context in that.

It's the same thing with the point about nosocomial transmission—so, those people that acquire COVID, likely or confirmed, from a healthcare setting. Actually, we know that it's a feature; when we have rates of community transmission, you will see those in health and care settings. Members who live in those communities are going to have transmission events and they're at greater risk because of the workplace that they operate in. So, actually, the COVID deaths are not really because of the way that our hospitals operate in terms of a major feature; they're actually a feature of community transmission, and the reality of where there are risk factors in the population. There's no surprise that areas of the greatest economic inequality in any part of the UK are the ones where we've seen the greatest amount of harm being caused. So, I wouldn't want to try to point out that those two issues somehow indicate a broader failing within the health board.

That doesn't mean that there is nothing to do in terms of learning from either of those points. In every clinical negligence case, there should be a point of learning and understanding what went wrong. In every instance of nosocomial transmission, there should be a point of learning and understanding how to get back on top of that, and whether it is about infection prevention and control practice, or whether it's wholly a feature of community transmission. I just wouldn't want it to be a given that that, without more context, is, if you like, a warning sign. Because, actually, there's an awful lot of attention being paid to this health board during the COVID pandemic. They have made significant moves in terms of changing the way they operate, and I think have drawn a lot of credit. It's actually improved relationships with the health board and the local public, because they've had to do so much together. I think it's engendered a level of trust and openness that is really important not to lose sight of, just as it has done in other parts of the country.

It's also worth reflecting that, of course, the independent panel is providing regular quarterly reports still. So, this is the clinical review report. We'll still expect there to be a quarterly report looking at the broader progress being made against the 70 recommendations that were made. Fifty of those 70 recommendations have been completed, the other 20 are in progress. Most of those now relate to the cultural changes that still need to take place. Cultural change—again, you'll be familiar with this, Angela—doesn't happen in the space of a few months, and it takes time not just for it to take place, but for it then to be confirmed that cultural change is embedded and secured and sustainable. There's always a risk that, after an improvement, you can start to see complacency return. That's why the board functioning effectively and not just leadership at an executive level, but actually through each of the wards and the community settings, is so important as well.

I hope to get to the point where a future health Minister will be able to confirm that the independent panel's work is done, but we'll still need to make sure that other board processes work effectively. I do think people should take some assurance from not just the panel being there now, but the fact that the health board's own quality and safety committee recognised that it wanted more assurance about neonatal services. So, there's been a proper conversation between the health board and the panel. There's been no attempt to deny that there is a need for further assurance, and that, I think, does reflect the sort of openness that we would want to see. That's why I have agreed to the recommendation formally, and I will return with a statement for Members in the future when we've confirmed who the two additions will be. Because this really is about restoring the trust and confidence the public should have, and that staff should have, and, indeed, Members will want to know exists as well.

It's not possible to overstate the pain, the hurt, the harm and the anguish that has been caused to every one of the families that has been affected by this scandal, and that is ongoing. It's not something that's in the past; it's something that people are living with every single day. The report says that, of the 28 episodes of care reviewed, in two thirds of these cases, different care may be reasonably expected to have had a different outcome. Can the Minister explain what he understands 'different outcome' to mean? Does he accept that this polite and diplomatic language used in these reports may well be part of the problem? The report mentions that only four of the 28 women in the cohort chose to share their stories, despite the community health council providing an advocacy service. Does the Minister accept that these low numbers are a problem, and a problem that illustrates that much more work needs to be done in order to restore trust from the community in the health board? The report and the statement put much emphasis on the improvements and learning that has taken place, but if we've learnt anything from the past year and other scandals that have taken place in other institutions, it's that learning can only be really embedded if there is accountability for wrongdoing. Can the Minister honestly say that there has been accountability in this scandal, when the previous leadership of the health board have received such large payouts and the women who've become bereaved, in some cases, have received nothing?

Thank you for the comments and questions. I think that, in terms of understanding what 'different outcome' would mean, that will always depend on the harm that was done, and you'd need to go through individual cases to come past that. But we do know that there were poor outcomes for mothers and/or their babies, and some of the modifiable factors could have meant that people did not need to go into intensive care and would have had a better outcome, and that harm could be temporary or it could be longer lasting. Within the 28 cases, it's about understanding the reviews as they are presented, and then in recognising that women haven't given their permission to share the detail of that.

So, the panel report is a summary of that by necessity, and it's really about—this goes to your second point and question—what does it mean that four of the 28 were prepared to share their experiences. Now, it's possible, I guess, to read into Leanne Wood's suggestion that this means that the public don't have confidence in the health board. I don't actually think that is a fair assumption, because, actually, this is so intensely personal. You started by talking about the hurt and the upset that is continuing; when I have met families, I am very well aware of the fact that that pain and that upset is very much continuing, years after the event, for a number of these people.

The reports today, and the one published last week, will be upsetting for many of them, and some people are not prepared to go through that. There are people whose reaction is that they want to explain and to talk through what happened to them, and they find that helpful, others feel that they should do it, because they want to help others, and others, for reasons that, I think, are entirely understandable, don't want to talk about it in public and don't want to share experiences with others. I think we all need to reflect that different people will react differently to different experiences and even similar experiences they've had.

That's why the independent review is so important, because the individuals get their detailed feedback, and we then have a summary that protects them and their identity. But I would say that for all of those women and their families who have shared their experiences, that does make a difference, because hearing directly from people what happened to them, how it made them feel when they were and weren't listened to, and all that it has meant for their life, is really important in terms of the learning. It's so often the case that first-person feedback from people is something that is not just a positive learning aspect, but that learning should lead to a better service being provided to other women and their families in the future. So, the clinical review process isn't just about embedding learning; it is absolutely about improving the quality of care that is provided. 

On your final point about accountability, there is always a question about when and how you make staff accountable. It's in the report itself as well about one of the things that was going wrong in terms of the staff culture, where people who felt that they had concerns did not feel that others would be accountable, and would actually feel that they would be punished if they spoke out and said that there was a problem. Actually, if you then go out and look for people to punish publicly, that doesn't necessarily help you to get people to come forward and have a conversation, acknowledge they've made mistakes, or recognise that there are concerns about the service they're taking part in delivering with other colleagues.

It's been a very difficult experience, not just for Ministers and not just for your own health board, but it's been a very difficult experience for all of the staff who have looked back on what happened. And for some staff, they've left the service because of it. That isn't because necessarily they felt they'd done something wrong, but actually, because of the extra attention and what that has meant for them and their ability to do their job, and to come in, they've been so upset they've left. So, actually, yes, the chief exec is no longer in the organisation, and I don't think that chief exec will work again in NHS Wales. The challenge of resolving what's happened at a leadership level while running through a lengthy process could actually have harmed the organisation more.

It's never a straightforward matter, but I've seen this from all sides of the fence, both as a Minister and as an employment lawyer, in having to resolve some of this as well, and equally here in making a choice about what is the right thing to do for the service. I think being able to move on with a new leadership sooner rather than later was absolutely the right thing to do for the service. Because, as I say, it's women and their families who are at the heart of this in doing the right thing to improve the service, and to make sure that there's openness and honesty about what happened, and the openness and the assurance that people will want about the path forward for improvement.

Thank you, Minister, for your statement today. As you will know, I have met with women and families affected by the failings of the former Cwm Taf maternity services, I've met with maternity staff who have since worked so hard to turn the service around, and have followed the work of the expert panel and its review throughout. I have three questions for you today. Firstly, I'm pleased that this report once again reaffirms that considerable improvements have been seen and are continuing to be seen within the maternity services. What reassurance can you provide to expectant mothers soon to use the service, and with the added pressure of the restrictions imposed by the pandemic, that they can have faith in the maternity teams at Cwm Taf Morgannwg to provide them with the very best care? Secondly, communications has been a recurring theme throughout the review; can you provide more detail about how the board has sought to address this key issue? And my final question: as the panel moves to focus on neonatal care, you say quite rightly that they need to ensure that immediate learning emerges from these reviews aligned to the neonatal aspects of the health board's improvement programme. Can you confirm what systems are being put in place to ensure that this learning is conveyed at speed into the board's improvement programme?

On the final point about the board's improvement programme, you'll see it transparently in both the quarterly reviews we publish and the responses from the board. This is a continuing high-profile area for the board and its governance, and the assurance that it is seeking. Again, as I said earlier, the health board knows that there is a high level of interest in what it is doing and the steps that it is taking, and they will also know that, as well as their own processes, the independent panel maintain a role in the oversight and assurance for the maternity service as well. And I think that's really important for members of the public, which I think goes into your point about what can expectant mothers expect in terms of the quality of care that they're entitled to receive and take part in. I say 'take part in' because there are choices for people to make about what matters and makes a difference for them.

On the point about being listened to during the course of their treatment, during the course of their care going through a pregnancy, I think, actually, the fact that the panel in this report, as well as in their quarterly reports, have recognised that improvement is taking place is really important. They recognise the commitment of the leadership, both at the executive nurse director level and, indeed, the chief exec, but also, through the teams who are delivering the care on the ground, as it were, in the ward and in the community. I think that's really important too, because the great majority of the women who work in the service—and I'm pleased that you've been able to meet staff, as well as expectant mothers or new mothers—most of these women live in their local communities, and it was why it was so hurtful when there were such challenges with the service, because some of them felt challenge about going into their local community, wearing the uniform and explaining that they were a midwife, because of the level of shock there was. Actually, it's really important that those women, and they are almost all women, who go about doing their job have a real sense of pride in what they're doing, and are delivering excellence in care, and have that supportive learning environment for them as well, because that will help them to deliver the sort of quality of care that I would want for my own family, as well.

That's also why the communications work and the direct engagement with mothers is really important, as well. So, that's one of the things that Cath Broderick, in particular, who is one of the independent panel members, has led, and that has been about reviewing and revising the liaison service and the maternity network that exists. So, they're deliberately going out, proactively looking for women's stories, to listen to them, to understand their experience of care, and to ask them what does good care look like to them, and then to go back and say, 'And is that what the health board is delivering?' They're much more open in terms of sharing those patients' stories now, as well. So, there are a range of women who have shared their stories, and good, positive stories of what good-quality care looks like within Cwm Taf Morgannwg. Again, I look forward to seeing that, whatever role I hold or do not hold in public life in the future, in the months ahead, because the pandemic may have interrupted many things, but it certainly hasn't interrupted the maternity service.

Thank you for the update, Minister, and my thoughts are with everyone affected. The fact that the independent review found that two thirds of the women affected would have had vastly different outcomes if only they had better care is a travesty, and this finding must place further stress on those affected, and I hope that those affected by this finding are receiving the additional support that they need.

Minister, will you expand upon the steps you are taking to not only learn the lessons, but also ensure that such a travesty can never again happen in any Welsh hospital? Minister, what impact, if any, has the COVID-19 pandemic had upon the health board's ability to deliver against the review's recommendations, and are you content that sufficient progress will continue to be made? And finally, Minister, whilst this report is rightly focused upon the failings with maternity services, it does highlight leadership failings, so what is the Welsh Government doing to ensure the safety and efficacy of all services at the health board? Thank you.

On your point about leadership, there is new leadership at the health board at executive level, and there's a new chief exec, there's a new nurse director. In fact, the nurse director arrived shortly after the independent review had reported. So, there are clean hands at executive level, which I think is really important in building staff competence, but also at clinical director level, there's new leadership there as well. That's important too.

But it's the change in culture that is the outstanding point to be able to give direct assurance that it's been embedded that I think is most important, because this is about the assurance that I think both Vikki Howells has touched on in her conversations with staff, and I know that Dawn Bowden has had similar conversations too with constituents about making sure that the environment is one where people feel supported to raise concerns and will not feel that those concerns are being suppressed, because that is what a number of staff reflected when the reviews took place, and when I went out and met with staff in both the Royal Glamorgan in Mick Antoniw's constituency as well as staff at Prince Charles. And the assurance that that culture has changed definitively and positively for the future is, I think, in many ways the most important part about making sure that women are properly listened to. 

And I think, in terms of your second point about assurance on progress, I think I've dealt with that extensively in answer to questions already, and, indeed the independent panel is part of that assurance process, as I've indicated. 

On your first point about better care, it does indicate that, in about two thirds of these cases, 19 of the 28, there could have been better outcomes for women and their babies, and that is important not to lose sight of. The panel, though, also reflect this, that these are exceptional events. Nearly 10,000 women used maternity and neonatal services between the time in the period of review, and the vast majority gave birth to healthy babies without significant complications or adverse consequences. So, the cases reviewed are a fraction of those delivered. But it is important to recognise that these cases are the exception, rather than the norm, but the danger and the problem is that, if you ignore these cases and if you try to explain them away, then you undermine wider confidence in the whole service. And the harm that has been caused has been really significant for women and their families. That's why the review of not just these 28 but the full 160 cases that are in the scope of this clinical review are so important, and it's why the panel will stay in place until it has completed its work to provide the assurance that I know that Members and constituents will be looking for. 

Minister, I think we need to acknowledge that this review also indicates that there are significant parts of the NHS that still find it difficult to enable informed consent to be given at the level that it has to be if we're going to have the best quality services, and the need for women to feel fully informed to make decisions about their care is really paramount. Also, patient involvement in the design and evaluation of care is another great safety valve if things are not operating as well as they should be. And the general point about communications, not only communications between patients and staff but also amongst staff. But this issue of informed consent is something that we really need to identify, and I hope the lessons will be learnt and shared in other parts of the NHS. And it does echo, does it not, the chilling findings in the Cumberlege review into NHS services in England.

I don't disagree with what the Member has said at all. I think there definitely are points here about patient involvement in the design and delivery of services that make for better services in terms of their safety, but in terms of the experience and outcomes for people. I think that's absolutely true.

And in terms of informed consent, I did have in my mind the issues around Cumberlege, because where consent is not informed and you take—. When I was a student, a law student, I did medical ethics and the law, we talked about a paternalistic approach to medicine, very much, 'The doctor knows best, and you will have things done to you that are in your interest and you need to agree to them.' Well, actually, that is not where we are, not where we should be, and yet you can see vestiges of that approach in parts of healthcare. So, there is learning for maternity services, not just in Cwm Taf Morgannwg, but across the whole service, and those learning opportunities will be taken up. We have a maternity network that will want to see what's happening in Cwm Taf Morgannwg to make their own assurance that they are doing the right thing as well.

And there is a much broader point that you referred to as well that I completely agree with as well: informed consent isn't just for this part of our NHS, it is for the whole of the NHS. And we may well find in the future areas where that is not dealt with perfectly. The point, I think, is when you uncover that, when you find that it is there, you should address it and not try to wash over it and explain it away. That is how we'll get a safer service and a better service, and the service that we value so much, not just in the pandemic but through all times in the fortunate political lives we live. 

It was about 15 or 16 months ago that I attended the hospital to discuss with the new staff, the new expertise brought in, to look at the new facilities, because at that time, I think all the representatives in the Cwm Taf area had had a lot of very emotive meetings with families, and continued to do so. And it was very clear that despite the investment and expertise, the restoration of confidence was clearly one of the major challenges.

So, the report that has been published for today identifies, really, three points that very much go into the need for culture change. There's the poor communication, the lack of information, but most importantly, the lack of empathy, and I think that was the item that really shone out most to me in terms of what was identified. And of course, in the restoration of confidence, we're going to go through a painful year ahead on this, because we'll be looking at the stillbirths and more morbidity over the coming months.

I was very impressed with the commitment of the new staff and the new attitude and the recognition, I think, of the challenges ahead in ensuring that we have the most excellent of maternity services for all the reasons other speakers have mentioned today.

Can I just then raise two points? One is the ongoing support for the families themselves—and I have to say, I've had families contact me who have specifically mentioned your involvement and oversight, and welcomed it particularly, and they see that as reassuring from Welsh Government—but in particular the lessons that are being learnt are not just ones for Cwm Taf, but I suspect they are for maternity services across the health boards across Wales, and I was just wondering what is being done in terms of the communication of that learning process that is going on as we go through the process in Cwm Taf.

In terms of your final point, I was trying to make this point in response to David Melding, and I think Vikki Howells as well, that we are deliberately looking at how we use the maternity network to share learning. This isn't just a learning opportunity for one health board; it's a learning opportunity for the whole service, and to consider and to think about how we make sure that we do deliver a high-quality level of maternity care in every part of Wales. The context may alter slightly, but actually, every health board will have a population that it serves that has higher levels of deprivation. Every health board will have a part of its population that lives in a more rural environment or an urban or town or city environment; well, a town environment at least. So, we have challenges that may vary by degree, but actually, the quality of care should be something that every health board can deliver, a high quality of care, and this is an important opportunity not to be put to one side.

And I do think that it's helpful to finish on a positive note about what needs to be done, but about the commitment that exists there, because when I met staff at the outset of this, there were very unhappy people, people who were worried, and people who recognised that the communities they live in largely had not been well served in every instance, and they were upset about the organisation they worked for as well. Many of them, as I said, didn't feel proud to wear the uniform in public, and a regular point of concern that was made to me was, 'Who will want to work here? We're understaffed, and who will want to work here now?' And yet, actually, Cwm Taf Morgannwg has been successful at recruiting people into its organisation. It is now in a position where it doesn't have failures in Birthrate Plus, and those are being openly communicated. That was one of the challenges about the previous management that I have already indicated in the past that I was particularly unhappy with.

So, we now have a better position on staffing, we have a workforce that I think is committed to continued improvement in the future, and that positive change in the environment and in the culture is what I hope we'll see more of in a continued way that will be embedded, and once again, people who go to Cwm Taf Morgannwg for their maternity care now should have confidence in the quality of care and expect the same high quality of care that each and every one of our constituents should expect and be entitled to.

Thank you very much, Minister.

Item 5 is a statement by the Minister for Finance and Trefnydd on progress on devolved taxes, and I call on the Minister for Finance and Trefnydd, Rebecca Evans.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Introducing the first Welsh taxes in nearly 800 years has been an important milestone in our devolution story. During the past five years, the successful implementation of three Welsh taxes—the land transaction tax and the landfill disposals tax in 2018, and Welsh rates of income tax in 2019—has widened the responsibilities of the Welsh Government and the Senedd, strengthening our accountability for the money raised and spent delivering vital public services for the people of Wales.

We have also established Wales's first non-ministerial department, the Welsh Revenue Authority, on time and on budget. It has now been successfully collecting and administering the fully devolved Welsh taxes for three years. The WRA's distinctive approach to supporting the process for delivering a fair tax system means it works in partnership with taxpayers to ensure that tax is paid on time, and right first time.

We have set out our Welsh approach to tax policy in our tax policy framework, to explain how we will use taxes for the benefit of communities and businesses. The framework includes the principles we are following in developing tax policy, doing so though collaboration, seeking to create clear, stable taxes, which raise revenue fairly, support wider policy objectives, and help to deliver greater equality. And we've put those principles into practice.

We have used our powers to ensure that land transaction tax is significantly more progressive than its predecessor, stamp duty land tax, for residential transactions. We introduced a temporary relief to help the property market recover in the summer, and more recently increased the higher rate to generate additional support for Welsh public services. When the current temporary reduction to the residential LTT rates ends, Wales will once again be the only country in the UK with a starting threshold at around the average price of a home. That starting threshold means the majority of first time homebuyers won't pay any LTT. Wales also has the highest thresholds at which businesses need to pay tax on non-residential property transactions in the UK.

The primary purpose of landfill disposals tax is to support our environmental goals, so revenue should decline as those targeted by the tax respond positively. To date, we have retained consistency in rate setting with the UK Government, ensuring that we do not encourage the transfer of waste across the Wales-England border. However, there has been opportunity to innovate, leading the way by being the first UK country to set a higher tax rate for unauthorised landfill disposals and creating an additional financial deterrent for people disposing of waste illegally.

We have used £2.8 million of landfill disposals tax revenue to fund local projects via the landfill disposals tax communities scheme, maintaining our commitment to communities affected by the disposal of waste to landfill.

Of the three taxes, Welsh rates of income tax impacts on the highest number of Welsh citizens, paid by over half of the adult population. We work closely with HMRC, which retains responsibility for the collection and management of Welsh rates of income tax, to ensure that the processes run smoothly.

Our tax policy framework emphasises the importance of involvement and collaboration. We have encouraged this through the development of advisory and discussion groups to consider proposals under development, working closely with stakeholders. We have published annual work plans, announcing the issues we are exploring, and inviting comments, queries and contributions. Many of these policy areas have been discussed at the annual tax conferences, and progress is published in the tax policy reports. I will be issuing the latest tax policy report alongside the final budget next month.

A key area of tax policy activity has been the exploration of ideas for possible new taxes. We are pursuing competence for a vacant land tax through the inter-governmental process agreed with HM Treasury, whilst also investigating a disposable plastics tax, exploring the case for a tourism tax, and potential options for funding social care. It is regrettable the inter-governmental process for new taxes has failed at its first test. Further progress will be difficult, given the current UK Government's attitude towards devolution, and while it remains the arbiter of its own decisions.

During this Senedd, we have benefited from the support of many people and organisations who have contributed to the process of introducing Welsh taxes. I am grateful to them, and to the Senedd Members and the Finance Committee for the diligent scrutiny of the provisions that we have put forward. There is a continuing responsibility to ensure that our devolved taxes operate fairly and effectively, delivering the revenue required for our public services. And there's further work to be done on the scope for new taxes. That will be the work for the next Welsh Government and Senedd. They will build on the solid foundations of what we have achieved over the past five years. Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. 

Despite, or, some might argue, because of, 22 years of so-called and self-described progressive Labour Welsh Government policies, Wales has retained the highest poverty and lowest pay rates of all the UK nations, and, even before coronavirus, almost a quarter of people in Wales were in poverty, living, quote, 'precarious and insecure lives'. These findings are all taken from independent reports. Does the Minister recognise that Wales needs to attract both inward and internal investment and high-skill, high-added-value jobs in small, medium and large enterprises? If so, does she recognise that there can be an inverse relationship between tax rates and tax revenues, and that using the system to incentivise economic activity can ultimately generate more revenue for public services? How does she respond to the findings of Cardiff University academics during the first year of this Senedd term that cutting the top rate of income tax will ultimately raise tax revenues by encouraging wealth creators to help grow the Welsh economy? 

The Housing (Wales) Act 2014 added discretionary powers for local authorities to apply council tax premiums of up to 100 per cent to second homes. As I warned at the time, this would not generate additional supply for people who need affordable homes in their communities, and enabling local authorities to charge second home owners additional council tax would risk unintended consequences. What evidence does she therefore have to support the Welsh Government's claim that enabling local authorities in Wales to levy council tax premiums on second homes is using taxation to ensure a fair contribution, when the sector has instead made it clear that this simply prompted many who had not known they were already eligible for small business rate relief to switch from council tax to this, and others to start letting out their homes and register for small business rate relief to help with costs, in accordance with Welsh Government criteria last revised and strengthened in 2016, and policed by the independent Valuation Office Agency? 

What evidenced analysis does she have to challenge the evidence showing that the vast majority of properties purchased as second homes in holiday home hotspots were already second homes, and had always been so, built as second homes over more than a century ago, and remaining so ever since? Why does the Minister state that Wales also has the highest threshold on which businesses need to pay tax on residential property transactions in the UK, when the Welsh Government's increased land transaction tax higher rates, which hit large numbers of legitimate small and medium-sized businesses, many of them with properties near the internal UK border with England, are higher than equivalent stamp duty land tax higher rates in England for purchase prices up to just £125,000, and higher for all purchase prices in England above just £180,000, or should I say higher than all purchase prices in England just above £180,000, even after the higher rates holiday introduced by the UK Government in response to the COVID pandemic comes to an end?

And finally, the Minister refers to the potential for a tourism tax. How will she ensure that objective consideration is given to the overwhelming evidence from the sector that this would be damaging to tourism in Wales, this would be damaging to investment, damaging to jobs, and would ultimately reduce the tax take received by the Welsh Government?  

I'm grateful to Mark Isherwood for those questions this afternoon, and I welcome him to his new portfolio. So, Mark Isherwood began by talking about the Welsh Government's general approach to taxation, and we have a very firm foundation for our Welsh tax policy, which is set out on the basis of five principles. That is that taxation should raise revenue to support public services as fairly as possible—I'm not sure that there's much that could be disagreed with there. Taxation should help deliver wider fiscal and policy objectives, including jobs and growth. Taxation should be simple and clear and stable. And taxation should be developed through engagement with taxpayers and stakeholders. Finally, taxation should contribute directly to the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 goal of creating a more equal Wales. And I do think that those are strong foundations upon which to be basing our tax policy.

My statement this afternoon was in relation to the devolved taxes, which are generally known to be landfill disposals tax, land transaction tax and Welsh rates of income tax, but I know that Mark Isherwood was particularly interested in our approach to local taxation, including council tax and non-domestic rates. In terms of council tax, over the course of this Senedd term we have made significant steps forward in terms of making council tax fairer. We've exempted young care leavers from council tax to the age of 25. We've removed the sanction of imprisonment for the non-payment of council tax, because in our party we don't believe that being poor is a crime, and we've improved access to discounts for people with severe mental impairments and implemented a citizen-focused protocol for managing council tax collection and arrears, and also encouraged the take-up of all council tax support, and we've done so providing local authorities with significant financial support in order to enable them to undertake that work.

In terms of the specific concerns relating to council tax premiums on long-term empty and second homes, local authorities in Wales do have that discretionary power to apply those premiums of up to 100 per cent on the council tax bills for long-term empty and second homes in their areas. Those powers have been available since 2017. Local authorities asked for those powers, and we were pleased to provide them. Now, it is for each local authority to decide how they will undertake their—what decision they will make as to whether or not they will use that power locally.

In terms of land transaction tax and the impact on business, well, the decision that I announced alongside the draft budget is that businesses now, in the main, will be paying no tax on purchases of non-residential property costing less than up to £225,000. This will provide a small but material amount of additional support to businesses by reducing the capital required to invest in new business property, and those changes will result in fewer non-residential transactions paying tax on the acquisition of a property when entering into a new lease, and it will provide a tax saving to all of those businesses who buy property on which there will still be a tax liability. The largest savings as a proportion of the tax payable will impact most on small and medium-sized business. So, I took this decision being very mindful of the difficult period in which small businesses particularly are finding themselves in, and understanding that we have many entrepreneurs who are keen to set up a small business, and I want to create the right climate for them to be able to do so.

And then finally, on new taxes, you'll see from our tax work plan that we've been exploring very diligently the various types of new taxes that could be introduced in Wales, and the four that we chose to explore in the first instance were those that came through very strongly in the public consultation that we undertook. The First Minister, when he was in this role, led on that consultation, and actually I think around 200 ideas for new taxes came forward from people across Wales. And we undertook to explore the tourism tax, a potential tax on plastics, for example, but, in the first instance, we determined that we would take forward the potential tax and seek to devolve the powers for tax for vacant land, and, as I said in my statement, that really has fallen at the first hurdle. We've had a very difficult time engaging with the UK Government meaningfully on this, and it's a great shame that we haven't managed to make a success of what is a relatively uncontroversial and simple request.

Thank you. I just gently remind Members that this is a 30-minute statement and we're halfway through the time allocated now, and I have a number of speakers who probably will not get called. Rhun ap Iorwerth.

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. Thank you to the Minister for the statement. Thank you to Mark Isherwood on behalf of the Conservatives for emphasising how poorly Wales has been served by the UK over a period of years too. We are talking, in these early years in terms of Welsh taxation, about something that is historic—it's a word that I've used and others have also used. And it's a core principle. We return to the Silk commission stating that important principle of the crucial relationship between taxation and accountability, and that's what we're talking about here. The more taxation powers that this Senedd holds, the more accountable we are to the people of Wales, and that's something to be welcomed. And as we go into an election, we're now in this new landscape where the people of Wales have the ability to look at the various taxation pledges made by the parties, and it's a very important debate to have.

I'm disappointed with the developments there have been in addition to the taxes already introduced. The land transaction tax has worked well, I believe. The Welsh rates of income tax are crucial in generating the accountability that I mentioned earlier, and the landfill disposals tax is also important, but we need to look at how far we can take this.

The Government has referred to four other taxes that they would seek to consider: a social care levy—I look forward to seeing how we can provide social care within general expenditure and I'm sure that that is possible. The Government wants to look at a disposable plastics tax. It’s three years and more since Plaid Cymru forced a vote in this Senedd, stating that we wanted to see that tax, and where are we three years on from there? The tourism tax: I don't think, after the year we've just had, that we should be talking about a tourism tax—that's not what the sector wants to hear now. However, I do feel that there are innovative things that we can do through some sort of levy that will provide improved services to tourists, which would strengthen infrastructure to safeguard our communities where tourism is at its highest, to promote indigenous tourism, but we need to be very careful in talking about a tourism tax at this particular point.

And that fourth tax, the vacant land tax, the Government, to be fair, has been clear in pushing this agenda. I share the Minister's disappointment in the UK Government's response. It is proof of the failure of the inter-governmental process that no ground has been gained in this particular debate. It is a signal, I fear, of the UK Government's attitude towards giving powers to Wales to extend its taxation powers, which will be so important in years to come. However, I do urge the Minister not to give up now. I hope that it's my party that'll be in Government after May, but there's time to go until then, so don't rest on your laurels in pushing this new tax. I would encourage you to push this until the very last moment.

One further point: it is within your gift to change the rules, as Mark Isherwood mentioned, allowing people to opt out of paying tax on second properties in Wales. The Welsh Government has the power to close that loophole in order to ensure that those who own second homes, and at the moment can take advantage of the rules for their own benefit, shouldn't be able to do that. I know that the Government made a statement on this this week and, in that, you're not going far enough or moving quickly enough; we need improvements there, as part of these changes to the taxation landscape in Wales.

Diolch. Rhun ap Iorwerth began by talking about the importance of taxation and accountability and transparency. I'm really proud that the Welsh Government is the only Government across the United Kingdom that will have tabled three supplementary budgets over the course of this financial year. And, of course, our budgets are so closely linked to the revenue that is raised here in Wales. I think that the level of transparency that we have provided across the financial year in this respect has been exceptional, and certainly has been greater than any other part of the United Kingdom. I would be keen—and I'm sure a future finance Minister would be keen—to explore how they could build on the kind of level of transparency that we have been able to deliver on in this year.

Rhun ap Iorwerth mentioned a number of new tax areas that we are looking at, and referred specifically to the case for the vacant land tax. It is the first time that we have navigated the process that has been agreed with the UK Government. Unfortunately, it has been shown wanting. More than two and a half years have gone by since the proposal was first put to the UK Government. In spite of what, at some points, have seemed to be reasonably productive relationships, in August we did receive a very disappointing letter from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and that reopened a whole series of questions that we had thought had been already answered in our previous negotiations. So, it is the case that the process does have some serious flaws to it. I think that this is fundamentally about the UK Government being the judge and jury on all of these things, and there definitely needs to be an independent mechanism for those decisions to be discussed and appealed.

Reference was also made to the potential social care levy, and the work that has been going on in scoping how something like that might work, should a future Government decide to do that. My colleague the Minister for Health and Social Services is intending to provide a fuller update to the Senedd on the work of the inter-ministerial group on paying for social care. But, it is the case that funding has been a really important part of that, and I know that several colleagues will have taken part in the technical briefings that were provided very recently in that respect.

The disposable plastics tax: well, this is something where there has been a serious amount of work undertaken with the UK Government, actually, in this case, exploring the options for tackling unnecessary plastic use and waste, and recognising the advantages in this case that adopting a UK-wide approach would bring. That's included supporting consultations on a UK plastic packaging tax, extended producer responsibility for packaging, and the potential for a deposit-return scheme for drinks containers. The UK Government announced a further consultation on the detailed design of the plastic packaging tax as part of the UK Government's budget last year, and we're working closely with the UK Government on that. As I say, there are some areas where I think that it is reasonable and desirable to work together.

Finally, a tax that Rhun ap Iorwerth didn't mention, but I know that he shares my view on, and that's air passenger duty. Again, this is one of those areas where we certainly won't stop seeking the devolution of it, given the important role that it could play in supporting the Welsh economy. We think that the UK Government has a completely untenable position on this, and I'm grateful for the cross-party support that we have in that respect in the Senedd.

When I think of tax, I think of the children's story where someone is told, 'You have a great power; be careful how you use it.' The Minister refers to the new taxes—the land transaction tax, the landfill disposals tax and the Welsh rates of income tax—which have been added to council tax and business rates. Taxation needs to be progressive, with those with the most money and ability to pay paying the most. So, loopholes need to be removed.

Tax exists to pay for public services—the public services that we all need. I would like to ask the Minister for an update on progress regarding a plastics tax. If we don't have a plastics tax, we will not deal with plastic pollution. Every one of us has seen more and more items that used to come in glass now coming in plastic. The most recent one that surprised me most was vinegar.

Also, a tourism tax. This is common throughout the world. It certainly deserves investigation. As someone who paid £135 per room for a night in a budget hotel chain, I do not see how it would affect affordability. Places like New York have a tourism tax. It's hardly looked at as a Marxist stronghold.

Can I also say that council tax needs more bands? It needs more at the bottom and more at the top. Band B starts far too high, and the top band ends where there is room for at least three, and possibly another four, bands. I keep going on about this, but for it to be fair, somebody in a £5 million house should not be paying the same as somebody in a £0.5 million one.

Thank you. So, building on the comments that I made in response to Rhun ap Iorwerth's questions relating to a plastics tax, I can confirm that the Welsh Government has been facilitating engagement events with key stakeholders in Wales in relation to the work I described that we are undertaking with the UK Government. In May of last year, for example, stakeholders were encouraged to attend an information-sharing event on the plastic packaging tax, led by the UK Government. But, in August, the Welsh Government, alongside WRAP Cymru and the UK Government, led an engagement event specifically for Welsh stakeholders in the plastic packaging industry.

Officials within the Welsh Treasury are continuing to work with the UK Government on the next steps in ensuring that Welsh representations from key stakeholders here are fed into the process and are heard strongly, leading up to the implementation of the tax, potentially I believe, if things go as planned, in 2022. For example, officials are discussing support for businesses, given that this is a complex tax, even for those experienced in this type of legislation, and also the difficulty in reaching small and medium-sized enterprises during the consultation process. There were industry working groups happening every couple of months, and there will now be a technical consultation on the legislation as a further step. So, there is good work going on here, and Welsh interests are very well represented in that work.

Alongside that, though, the Welsh Government is also currently building an evidence base to assess the merits of introducing a Welsh-specific tax or charge on single-use plastic cups. And we're also trying to get a better understanding of the market and the usage of such cups. So, this is a particular area that might be suitable in future.

On the issue of council tax, Mike Hedges and I have discussed this on a number of occasions, and he'll be aware of the suite of research that we've commissioned, and the FM had the opportunity to refer to some of it during First Minister's questions earlier on, which, potentially, sets out a route for fairer local taxation in future. I think that there's great scope, and certainly the research that has been coming in, and which I've made available to colleagues through written statements, will definitely help us to find our way forward on that.

Llyr Gruffydd. No Llyr Gruffydd?

No.

Ah. Llyr Gruffydd?

No. Apologies, Deputy Presiding Officer, there's been a—[Inaudible.]

Thank you. That makes my timing slightly better. Thank you. Alun Davies.

I'm grateful to you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and grateful to the Minister for her statement. There are two issues I want to raise with her this afternoon. First of all is the place of tax, not simply as a means of raising revenue, but also as a tool of policy to deliver and to shape policy. I'm disappointed that the Government does not include sustainability as one of its key principles for taxation. I believe that we should be looking towards using tax to limit, potentially, or to penalise if you like, the use of resources and to shape a response to climate policy, which is more profound than we do at present. Some of the issues we've discussed this afternoon, in terms of plastics and in terms of return charges, do play into that sort of field, but I do think that the Government should use tax as a means of delivering on its sustainability principles as well, and I would like to see that within the overall suite of principles that the Government use.

The second point is on what you call new taxations, and the process that has failed with the United Kingdom Government. Those of us who were victims of the legislative competence Orders never ever want to see one of those come in front of us again. It was a painful process that was well meaning but collapsed under the weight of its own bureaucracy. I think MPs and AMs, as we were at the time, collectively hated the process, and we certainly don't want to go back to those days. But we need a process that works. It's no surprise that the current United Kingdom Government has no interest in working with the devolved administrations on anything realistic at all, but we need a process that works.

Like others this afternoon, I've got no issue with a tourism tax or a tax on vacant land or anything else. You pay a tourism tax in most states in the world, as far as I—

The Member will have to draw his remarks to a conclusion.

I will do so. It seems rather perverse that we have this debate here. So, I would like to hear from the Government how they intend to pursue this matter in the future. Because I think it's an important part of the overall structure of governance that the Government is able to pursue the matter of alternative taxations.

I absolutely agree with Alun Davies that there are two sides to the coin, if you like, in terms of raising taxation here in Wales. One is about raising revenue, but the other, of course, is about behaviour change. Our landfill disposals tax speaks very strongly to that, because we want to see those figures actually going down. I'm keen to explore, in future, what more we can do with landfill disposals tax in terms of supporting that circular economy that we want to see.

Alun Davies referred specifically to our tax policy framework, which is underpinned by those five principles, and, actually, as a result of conversations that I've previously had with Alun Davies on the floor of the Senedd, and also some discussion in the Finance Committee, I have asked officials to start a piece of work that reviews those principles, to explore whether they are still the right principles for us going forward or whether we need to change and adapt them. Certainly, I think that that important role that tax has in terms of delivering that greener Wales that we want to see is up there with those potential principles for the future.

Then there was the important point about whether or not the inter-governmental relationships are working and to what extent the machinery that sits around and supports that is also working. I think that this certainly would be an area where we would want to see improved working with the UK Government, but it is an area that speaks very strongly to one of those areas where we need an independent arbiter now to explore the evidence that we've provided, which we believe fully meets everything that we're required to do under the Act, in terms of providing information and data and views and so forth in order to see the devolution of the power. I think that we need that outside view as to whether or not there is more that is required of us, or whether the stalling is purely political, as I believe it might be, on the part of the UK Government.

Finance Minister, I agree with much of what you said about the Welsh Revenue Authority and how well it's doing as an organisation. I've also enjoyed at least one of the tax conferences you've had. I don't think the success of the WRA is because it's done on a Welsh basis rather than a UK basis, but I do think it goes to show how much more efficiently public services can be delivered when you start with a clean slate and you don't have the legacy IT systems. I think moving all the IT to the cloud and the way they've managed that has been a real success.

You spoke very shortly about Welsh rates of income tax. Clearly, we're unhappy that they've been devolved without the referendum that was previously promised. However, can I ask you to update us about what the revenue loss is because of this devolution of these Welsh rates? Clearly, they haven't been changed yet, so it hasn't had the level of public interest that it would if they were changed, certainly if the taxes went up. But is it not the case that the yield from this 10 per cent of the Welsh rates is less than was expected? And although there's still a degree of protection, do we not know from the Office for Budget Responsibility that we're now having substantially less money because of that level of devolution? Can you confirm how many million that now is?

Finally from me, you say that the process for new taxes has failed in its first test. I would say that it has succeeded in that it's stopped new taxes being devolved. The Welsh Government has looked at this mechanism and seems to have assumed that its intention is for lots more taxes—additional taxes that people might like to have for whatever reason—to be devolved. Actually, the process has stopped that, and that is something that we welcome. The First Minister, in his previous role, said he wants to test the machinery. That's now been done; it isn't leading to the new devolution of taxes, thankfully. Therefore—

Will the Member draw his remarks to a close?

—can we stop wasting people's time in having 200 new ideas and exploring all those very diligently and just accept that we're not going to be having new taxes devolved?

I'll begin by welcoming Mark Reckless's kind words about the Welsh Revenue Authority; I think that is has performed exceptionally well, and it does take a completely different approach to the collection of taxes as compared to HMRC or other revenue authorities. The fact that it has been able to build something completely new and fresh has enabled it to perform very well. Over 98 per cent of returns are filed digitally, 98 per cent filed on time, and 87 per cent of transactions go through without needing any manual intervention at all. And 88 per cent of people who were surveyed about their experiences of using the system found that it was easy to use. So, I think that that's really positive, and I think that the team there have done an absolutely excellent job.

That's probably where Mark Reckless and I depart in terms of our agreement. But he did mention WRIT, and particularly forecasting WRIT. The OBR's latest forecast for WRIT revenues in 2021-22 is £2.064 billion, and that's the figure that we've included in the draft budget. The forecast revenues are, as I know that Mark Reckless is aware, £35 million lower than the associated block grant adjustment, based on the forecast for equivalent revenues in England and Northern Ireland. But the way in which the block grant adjustment is calculated is set out in the fiscal framework agreement, and that agreement also includes the introduction of a needs-based factor in the Barnett formula, which the Welsh Government secured as part of the package. That has delivered nearly £600 million of additional funding for Wales. So, I think that that more than outweighs the £35 million to which Mark Reckless refers. 

On the final point, which was about the vacant land tax and the way in which the system works, of course, the process was agreed jointly by the UK Government and the Welsh Government, so it's in all our interests, I think, that at least the process should work. This is the point about the UK Government taking decisions about the desirability of the tax, about policy behind a tax, when actually it shouldn't be looking at that, it should just be looking at where the competencies lie and exploring devolution on that basis. So, that's where, I think, the system has fallen down on this occasion.

Finally and briefly, John Griffiths.

Minister, would you agree with me that it's been very frustrating over the years of Conservative Governments at Westminster to see the progressive policies of Welsh Government undermined by the measures taken at Westminster, and that the more we can pull down powers to Wales, including taxation powers, the better position the Welsh Government will be in to respond to what the Welsh people want, which is a fairer Wales? That's what they vote for when they elect Labour Governments, and these new taxes—the land transaction tax, for example—offer the ability to do that. To some extent, the Welsh Government has done it. In looking at council tax variations and possible new bands, I'm sure the Welsh Government will do the same. Could you tell us, Minister, in your work in engaging with the Welsh population around new taxes and taxation in Wales, whether that desire for fairness has come through strongly? And if so, will Welsh Government make sure that it responds appropriately? And very quickly on the tourism tax, I wonder if you would agree that it's a small payment for people to make in terms of tourism taxes, but it can have a big impact in improving the tourism product, which will be very beneficial for tourism operators and communities right across Wales.

Thank you very much to John Griffiths for raising that issue. It gives me the chance just to provide examples of how the Welsh Government takes different decisions to the UK Government where we do have the responsibility for taxes.

One is, of course, the land transaction tax. We have the most progressive system here in Wales. Our reliefs aren't just limited to first-time buyers—although the majority of first-time buyers do benefit—actually, we realised that people on relatively modest incomes buying relatively modest properties still need that kind of help, regardless of whether it's the first time that they've bought a home or whether they're moving on to a larger property, or downsizing to something smaller. So, we're keen to see what we can do to use our system to provide help to everybody who needs it. And, again, with the landfill disposals tax, we took a different approach here, and introduced that unauthorised waste level in order to ensure that people who were fly-tipping and so forth paid more as a result of that. Again, I think that that's about fairness. The public awareness of Welsh taxes and public views on Welsh taxes, I think, do support a keenness to have a genuinely progressive system.

And then, just finally, on a potential tourism tax, as I say, it's something that we are just scoping out at the moment in terms of having some discussions with the tourism sector and with local authorities. That work has been paused, if you like, through the pandemic, because clearly there's a time to have those discussions, and with the pressures and stresses felt by the tourism industry, it certainly wasn't the time to have those discussions. But, in future, a tax potentially could be there to support the tourism industry with revenues reinvested in the tourism offer locally. But it could be something, I think, for local authorities to think about on an individual basis. We'll continue to have those discussions to better understand the views of both local authorities and the tourism sector too.

Thank you very much.

The proposal under Standing Order 12.24 is to take items 6, 7 and 8, which are the Landfill Disposals Tax (Tax Rates) (Wales) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2020 and two sets of land transaction tax regulations, as one debate, but with separate votes. So, unless I see any objections, I'm going to assume that that's how we'll move on. I don't see any objections.

Therefore, I'm going to call the Minister for Finance and Trefnydd to move the motions—Rebecca Evans.

In the draft budget, published in December, I set out details of our plans for how Welsh devolved and partially devolved taxes are supporting our spending priorities and delivering a fairer and more progressive tax system in Wales. To bring the changes in the draft budget into permanent effect, Senedd approval is needed for three sets of regulations. Two are subject to the made affirmative procedure, and one to the draft affirmative procedure.

The Land Transaction Tax (Tax Bands and Tax Rates) (Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 came into effect on 22 December. The Landfill Disposals Tax (Tax Rates) (Wales) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2020 will come into force on 1 April 2021. The Land Transaction Tax (Specified Amount of Relevant Rent) (Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2021 are subject to the draft affirmative procedure and will be made if approved. I'm grateful to the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee and the Finance Committee for their reports, and the opportunity to provide evidence to the Finance Committee.

The land transaction tax rates and bands regulations came into effect from 22 December. They made changes to the rates that apply to the higher residential rates that are payable by people who already own an interest in another residential property. They also apply to companies that buy residential property. The rates payable were increased by 1 percentage point for each band, creating an effective 4 percentage point surcharge over the rates payable broadly by home buyers. The additional revenues will fund Welsh Government policy initiatives in 2021, 2022 and beyond, in particular investment in social housing.

I understand the concern expressed over the speed with which these changes were made, especially given that the changes increase the tax liability. However, it was not uncommon for changes to stamp duty land tax to be announced on budget day to come into effect the following day, and there are good reasons for these changes. Firstly, if the tax payable is to increase, a delay in bringing the charge into effect can result in transactions being brought forward in order to make a tax saving. Secondly, if the tax payable is to decrease, then transactions may be delayed to benefit from that tax reduction. Importantly, for transactions liable to the higher residential rates, the regulations contain protections for those taxpayers who have exchanged contracts and where the changes would result in an increased liability. Those taxpayers will be able, in the main, to pay tax based on the rates in force when they exchanged contracts. 

Changes to the tax bands for non-residential transactions were also made. The zero-rate bands for both consideration other than rent and consideration consisting of rent were increased by 50 per cent and mean that transactions with consideration of £225,000 or less will not pay tax. This modest reduction for business demonstrates this Government's support for businesses as they seek to recover from the pandemic, as well as encourage the start-up of smaller enterprises in Wales. 

I recognise the points raised in the committee reports in relation to the absence of one of the relevant powers in the preamble to the regulations. The Welsh Government's response to the committee sets out clearly why we consider the regulations as made to be valid. Case law is supportive of that position, and the primary regulations that are amended include all of the relevant powers in the preamble, and the regulations clearly indicate the changes to be made. 

The second set of land transaction tax regulations relate only to non-residential transactions and amend the amount of relevant rent. The relevant rent amount is an annual rental figure, and if it is paid together with consideration other than rents, an anti-avoidance rule is applied. These regulations increase the amount by 50 per cent, from £9,000 to £13,500. This maintains the relationship between the zero-rate thresholds and the relevant rent amount, ensuring the rule continues to operate as before. 

On landfill disposals tax, the Landfill Disposals Tax (Tax Rates) (Wales) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2020 relate to setting the 2021-22 tax rates for landfill disposals tax. These regulations set the standard, lower and unauthorised disposal rates for landfill disposals tax, which, subject to the outcome of today's debate, will apply to taxable disposals made on or after 1 April 2021. In accordance with my announcement at the draft budget in December, the standard and lower rates for landfill disposals tax will increase in line with the retail price index. This approach ensures that rates remain consistent with the UK for the next financial year, providing the stability that businesses have told us they need.

This year, by setting the same tax rates as the UK Government, public services in Wales will continue to benefit from tax revenue, while ensuring the risk of movement of waste across the border is reduced. The standard rate will be increased to £96.70, and the lower rate will be £3.10 per tonne. The unauthorised rate, set at 150 per cent of the standard rate to discourage illegal waste activity, will be £145.05 per tonne. I ask Members to approve these regulations. 

Thank you. I call on the Chair of the Finance Committee, Llyr Gruffydd. 

Thank you very much, Llywydd. The committee took evidence from the Minister on these regulations as part of our scrutiny of the draft budget. I will be focusing on LTT tax bands and tax rates regulations.

We heard from the Minister that there were two major decisions for making these regulations: firstly, to increase the rates of tax paid on the higher residential rates in order to generate additional funding to allow further Welsh Government spending, particularly on housing; and secondly, to reduce the amount of tax payable on non-residential transactions, which will provide some support to businesses as they emerge from the pandemic. The Minister told us that these rates were still progressive in terms of the Welsh Government's tax principles. She said that, where possible, announcements relating to tax should be made as part of the draft budget, given that they are linked to the spending commitments in the budget.

This Chamber will recall that the Welsh Government's time frame for making changes to LTT in summer 2020 was dictated by changes made in Westminster, following the UK Government's temporary stamp duty holiday rather than by the budget cycle. The committee therefore welcomes the approach, namely that these regulations have been made as part of the draft budget, given that tax changes are linked to spending commitments. 

The regulations were laid on 21 December and they came into effect the following day. We heard from the Minister that this was perfectly legitimate to limit the opportunities of taxpayers bringing forward transactions to avoid the increase in rates. However, she did recognise the implications of this for solicitors and others involved in property transactions. Whilst we acknowledge that LTT changes may need to be implemented immediately to avoid distorting behaviours, this could be viewed as contrary to the Welsh Government's tax principle, namely enabling stakeholders to plan with certainty.

Finally, we asked the Minister about the power for Welsh Ministers to specify the tax bands and percentage rates in the case of chargeable consideration, which consists of rent for non-residential or mixed leases, as this was not cited in the preamble, as the Minister mentioned, and whether that would have any impact on the validity of the regulations. We note the Minister's words earlier, the Welsh Government's response, which acknowledges that this power is not cited, but does not believe that this alters the effect of the regulations. The Welsh Government has confirmed, however, that for legal clarity, they will make the necessary amendments at the next available opportunity and we urge them to do that as soon as possible. To close, Llywydd, the Finance Committee notes the three sets of regulations.

Thank you. Can I call on the Chair of the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee, Mick Antoniw?

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd. In respect of items 6, 7 and 8, we considered these three sets of regulations at our meeting of 11 January and we laid our report on the same day. Our report on the Land Transaction Tax (Specified Amount of Relevant Rent) (Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2021 raised no issues of note, so I'll therefore focus on the remaining two instruments for the purpose of this debate.

Our report on the Land Transaction Tax (Tax Bands and Tax Rates) (Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 raised a number of technical points. Our first point noted that the Welsh Government had failed to cite one of the enabling powers used to make these regulations, and whilst we agree with Welsh Government's position that this does not alter the effect of the regulations, we welcome its commitment to make the necessary amendments at the next available opportunity, just for the sake of legal clarity.

The additional technical points we raised related to minor inconsistencies and drafting issues in the regulations, and again, we welcome the Welsh Government's confirmation that it will seek to correct these errors.

Our first merits point in relation to these regulations highlighted the short notice of the changes made by these regulations, and we are aware that the Minister has received correspondence from the sector on this very point. In this response to our reporting point, the Welsh Government stated that the changes came into effect shortly after they were announced to limit the opportunities of taxpayers to bring forward transactions to avoid the increase in the rates as set out by the regulations.

Our second merits point noted these regulations revised tax bands and percentage tax rates for certain transactions subject to land transaction tax collected by the Welsh Revenue Authority. Amounts collected by the Welsh Revenue Authority must be paid into the Welsh consolidated fund. A similar merits point was raised in our report on the Landfill Disposals Tax (Tax Rates) (Wales) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2020, and as the Minister has said, these regulations prescribed the three rates of landfill disposals tax in Wales collected by the Welsh Revenue Authority in exercise of its functions and paid into the Welsh consolidated fund. Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd.

We will be supporting the first and final of these amendment regulations. We also recognise the beneficial impact for most small businesses of the intervening proposed amendment regulation. However, we also recognise that its broader proposals to increase land transaction tax for second homes applies to a lot more than just holiday homes in a small number of high-demand areas and risk serious consequences for both housing provision more widely and legitimate self-catering businesses across Wales already hit hard by coronavirus restrictions. This is detrimental to thousands of residents in the private rented sector and contradicts the Welsh Government's own budget-setting objectives. This is not a public health measure, and therefore has no such justification on these grounds. This also fails to recognise the financial impact for households and businesses already having to contend with the rapidly changing impact of coronavirus response restrictions. Not only is this an unwelcome burden to those private landlords providing housing for those who cannot afford or choose not to buy at such an uncertain time, it makes it harder for second-step owner-occupiers to move to a new home and thus free up stock for first-time buyers. This amendment once again ignores the reality that most private landlords are decent landlords with few properties, and reliant on them for their own living costs, who provide valuable housing for those who cannot buy or don't need to, and use up valuable social resources that, of course, are scarce. It would hamper the ability of good landlords to expand and diversify their portfolio to meet that need.

Buy-to-let properties should not be treated the same as second homes, as they provide, amongst others, for low earners who can't buy, and local people. Given the current economic situation, people will also be less able to buy, and private rented sector housing is therefore now an even more valuable service. As some decent landlords in Flintshire told me last week, 'The restrictions imposed by Government are rapidly reducing the stock of decent, affordable rental properties. We've learned a hard lesson this year, so we'll begin the process of relocating our rental portfolio to England. It's a sad decision, because we both come from a Welsh background.'

This amendment also raises questions about the impact on, for example, members of the clergy and armed forces personnel whose employment requires them to live elsewhere, but who seek to purchase homes in their own home communities. We will abstain accordingly.

Thank you. I call on the Minister for Finance and Trefnydd to reply, Rebecca Evans.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Thank you to all colleagues for their contributions, and particularly to the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee and Finance Committee for the work that they've done in terms of scrutinising the regulations. I'll just respond to what I think are the two most substantial points raised during the debate, the first being the timing of the announcement. We do recognise that the changes were brought in in very short effect after they were announced, and that would have some implications for the work of solicitors and others involved in conveying property. I do think, though, that it does remain the case that it is appropriate for us to announce these decisions alongside the draft budget when our spending plans are so interlinked with the contribution that devolved taxes make to funding that spend, and the changes were introduced in this manner for good reason—to limit the opportunities for taxpayers to bring forward transactions so as to avoid the increase in the rates, and to pay the four lower rates. But it's also important, I think, to recognise that transitional rules were also included, so that those who had exchanged contracts could pay the tax based on the rates at the date that they were exchanged so that they would not be disadvantaged as a result of that. So, I think that that was an important safeguard that we put in place.

Then, in respect of the impact on second-home purchases, I think that the measures that we undertook to bring in additional revenue for Welsh Government were proportionate to the challenges. As a result of the changes, the tax paid on higher residential rates transactions will increase by an average of £1,600 and there are around 14,000 such transactions every year. As a result, we expect this measure to provide an increase in revenues of £14 million in 2021-22, and as a result, you'll see that we've been able in our draft budget to increase the amount of funding that we're putting into our housing agenda, so I think that there is a close and clear link between the decisions that we've taken in this regard and our efforts to actually increase the supply of affordable housing for individuals across Wales. So, the decisions that we took in this budget I do think were modest and proportionate.

I think, Llywydd, I've responded to the main substantial points. Diolch.

Thank you very much. The proposal is to agree the motion under item 6. Does any Member object? No, therefore in accordance with Standing Order 12.36, the motion is agreed. 

The proposal is to agree the motion under item 7. Does any Member object? No, so therefore, again, in accordance with Standing Order 12.36, the motion under item 7 is agreed. 

The proposal is to agree the motion under item 8. Does any Member object? I don't see any objections, therefore the motion is agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Item 9 on our agenda is the Health Protection (Coronavirus, International Travel and Restrictions) (Amendment) (No. 3) (Wales) Regulations 2021, and I call on the Minister for Health and Social Services to move the motion—Vaughan Gething.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I move the motion before us. There's only set of amending regulations to be considered today—the Health Protection (Coronavirus, International Travel and Restrictions) (Amendment) (No. 3) (Wales) Regulations 2021. Members will be aware that, in response to the emergence of several variances of COVID-19, we have temporarily suspended all travel corridors. Countries with strong travel connections to areas where the new strains have been detected are considered a high risk of transmission. Enhanced isolation requirements have also been introduced in relation to travellers arriving into Wales from these countries. 

On review of the latest assessments, I have decided that the enhanced isolation requirements should continue to apply to the current list of countries. As a result of these regulations, the Democratic Republic of Congo and the United Republic of Tanzania have also been added to this list. These restrictions will be reviewed again in three weeks. All travellers arriving into Wales who have been in these high-risk countries in the previous 10 days will be required to isolate for 10 days. They will only be able to leave isolation in very limited circumstances. These tighter isolation requirements will also apply to all members of their household.

The regulations have also been amended to only allow aircraft and vessels travelling directly from a country or a territory subject to enhanced isolation requirements to arrive in Wales in exceptional circumstances. Although not provided for by these regulations, Members will no doubt be aware that discussions are ongoing with the UK Government and other Governments within the UK to strengthen border measures. A number of options are being considered, including managed quarantine and enhanced enforcement of at-home isolation, and additional testing for all travellers.

There remains a great deal of detail to work through after the headline announcements that were made last week. The Welsh Government will continue to work closely with other UK administrations to carefully consider the necessary arrangements to keep people safe. I ask Members to support these regulations, which we believe continue to be an essential part of keeping Wales safe. 

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

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. We considered these regulations at our meeting yesterday morning, and our report has been laid in time for this afternoon’s Plenary session. My contribution to this debate will be brief.

Our report contains two merits points. The first point notes the Welsh Government’s justification for any interference with human rights. Our report draws particular attention to a passage in the explanatory memorandum that confirms that the amendments made by these regulations do not change the engagement under the international travel regulations of individual rights under the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European convention on human rights. The second merits point is a familiar reporting point—we've noted that there has been no formal consultation on the regulations, for reasons Members will be aware of. Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. 

Thank you. Rhun ap Iorwerth. 

I have no comments to make on these regulations.

Thank you very much. I call on the Minister for Health and Social Services to reply. 

Thank you for the constructive comments once again from the legislation and justice committee, and I hope that Members will now support the regulations before us. 

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

I do also want to put on the record that there was an objection raised to one of the items in the last set of three that I couldn't see. And I think sometimes it is quite difficult to actually see you all trying to wave at me, and, if you're sitting in a semi-dark room as well, it's even harder to catch you, so I do apologise. I believe Gareth Bennett was raising an objection, so that is corrected and it will go in the voting script. So, I apologise for that.

So, we move on, then, to item 10, which is the Government of Wales Act 2006 (Amendment) Order 2021, and I call on the Counsel General and the Minister for European Transition to move the motion—Jeremy Miles.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Today's debate marks one of the final steps towards the culmination of two years of discussion with the UK Government on preparing this draft Order.

In November 2018, the then First Minister wrote to the Secretary of State raising issues of concurrent functions related to statutory instruments made under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. The restrictions in the Government of Wales Act 2006 prevent the Senedd from deleting or revoking such provisions without the consent of the UK Government. Since then, a number of other pieces of legislation have led to similar situations.

Both Governments agreed the resulting increase in current functions, and the consequent increase in restrictions on the Senedd's competence, was unintended and should be corrected. The removal of these restrictions has been our priority and we are confident the draft Order delivers on the UK Government's commitment, together with ours, to make the correction. Additionally, the Order makes a number of amendments to Schedule 7A and 7B of the Government of Wales Act to remove now-redundant references to EU obligations and European parliamentary elections, following our withdrawal from the European Union. Finally, the Order also corrects some errors inserted into the Government of Wales Act by the Wales Act 2017. The details on this and the other provisions within the draft Order are set out in the explanatory memorandum that I have laid before the Senedd.

I'm grateful to the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee for their consideration of the draft Order and their support for the removal of the restrictions on the Senedd's legislative competence. I have responded to the recommendations and I am pleased to place them on the record again today. When I met the committee, I mentioned the need for a further Order in Council under section 109 of GOWA. The European Union (Future Relationship) Act 2020 has created further concurrent functions to which we believe a similar carve-out should also apply. We are in discussions with the UK Government seeking such a provision. I've also undertaken to keep the committee informed of developments related to concurrent and concurrent plus functions that have arisen, or arise in the future, as a result of UK Government legislation. 

Provision for making Orders under section 109 of the Government of Wales Act was made to enable the modification of the Senedd's competence without the need for further primary legislation. However, we need to be clear about what the draft Order does and does not do. This Order does not extend the Senedd's competence. Rather, it protects the competence of the institution from the unintended effects of the European Union exit legislation, as well as making some necessary corrections.

If the Senedd approves this draft Order today, and, as the House of Commons today passed this, and the House of Lords did so last week, we expect the draft Order to be presented to Her Majesty in the meeting of the Privy Council next month. I'm pleased therefore to move the motion, and I seek Members' support.

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

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. As has been mentioned, we took evidence from the Counsel General on the proposed Order on 14 December 2020, and we published our report on 14 January 2021. By way of background to this draft Order, and providing some context, which has been partly outlined by the Counsel General, Members will know that the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 provided UK Ministers and Welsh Ministers with regulation-making powers to amend retained EU law, whether derived from domestic primary or secondary legislation, or, in fact, from direct EU legislation, in order to correct deficiencies in retained EU law that may arise following the UK's departure from the EU. So, ahead of the EU withdrawal Bill becoming an Act, in the inter-governmental agreement between the UK and Welsh Governments, the UK Government committed not to act in devolved areas without agreement of the Welsh Ministers. 

Standing Order 30C put in place a notification process, whereby the Welsh Ministers would alert the Senedd to regulations made by UK Ministers in devolved areas under the 2018 Act. In the course of work scrutinising these statements, we became aware that a consequence of the UK Government legislating in devolved areas was the creation of concurrent and concurrent plus functions, which had the effect that we were concerned about of reducing the Senedd’s legislative competence, albeit often in very narrow fields. Now, the Counsel General has dealt with the issue of concurrent functions, but just to outline that these are functions that can be exercised in relation to Wales by both the Welsh Ministers and a Minister of the Crown acting independently of each other—that is, they're both given the same power. So, in the case of a concurrent plus power, before the Minister of the Crown can exercise the power, the consent of the Welsh Ministers is required.

Under the Government of Wales Act 2006, the Senedd cannot remove or modify the UK Ministers' side of a concurrent function without Minister of the Crown consent. Therefore, the more concurrent functions that are created, the more things that become outside the legislative competence of the Senedd, because the Senedd cannot modify or remove the Minister of the Crown's side of those concurrent functions.

So, the Order before the Senedd today, as well as correcting errors in the 2006 Act, which has been described by the Counsel General, removes these new restrictions on the Senedd's legislative competence. So, we therefore very much welcome the Order. Our report did, however, express hope that any future corrections to the statute book in the sixth Senedd as result of EU exit should be made by Welsh Government legislation.

We made two recommendations in our report and we welcome the response of the Counsel General in his letter to us of 20 January 2021, which he's referred to. We therefore acknowledge that a further section 109 Order will be required as a consequence of the European Union (Future Relationship) Act 2020, and we're grateful that the Counsel General has indicated that he will keep us updated with those developments. Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd.

Thank you. I have no Members who want to make an intervention, therefore, I call on the Counsel General and Minister for European Transition to reply—Jeremy Miles.

Dirprwy Lywydd, I'll just, in brief, thank the committee for its diligent work in scrutinising the preparation of this Order and for its support in the course of action. Diolch yn fawr.

Thank you. The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I can see an objection. Thank you. Therefore we'll move on to defer the voting under this item until voting time.

The proposal is, under Standing Order 12.24, to debate items 11 and 12 together, but with separate votes. Do I see any objections to that proposal? No. 

Therefore, I call on the Minister for Housing and Local Government to move the motions—Julie James.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. The pandemic has had a dramatic effect upon our lives, bringing with it restrictions on many of the rights and freedoms we cherish. In May, the people of Wales will be exercising their right to voice their opinions on their elected representatives when they head to the polls in the Senedd election. It is the Government's firm view that the election should take place as planned on 6 May. We believe that we need a Senedd and a Welsh Government with a fresh mandate. However, it would be irresponsible of us not to prepare for a scenario where it is unsafe for the election to run as planned due to the impact of the pandemic. This Bill enables contingency plans to be agreed for the postponement of the election only as a last resort, should the pandemic pose a serious threat to the safe and fair running of the election.

The Bill we are debating today seeks to protect one of our most fundamental rights—the right to vote—by enabling the people of Wales to participate in the Senedd election. If the election does indeed take place on 6 May as planned, then it will be safe to vote at polling stations, with all the measures you would expect around hygiene and physical distancing. If the election can't take place, then we need this Bill. This Bill's provisions are prudent contingency measures to ensure that the election can be delivered by returning officers in the context of the unfolding pandemic. There is a risk that voters may be prevented from voting, not only for reasons of ill health or the need to comply with requirements to self-isolate, but also due to fears that they may have about the safety of voting in person at a polling station. Equally, high levels of sickness also bring the risk of not having enough staff available to administer the poll, with a consequential risk to the integrity of the election itself.

Firstly, section 3 of the Bill shortens the dissolution period from 21 working days to seven calendar days. This will allow additional time for the Senedd to consider vital coronavirus legislation in the lead-up to the election. Were dissolution to take place as set out in legislation, Members would cease to be Members from 7 April, and our Senedd would be dissolved. It would be irresponsible to dissolve this Senedd for a whole month during a period of national crisis, when its scrutiny has been a crucial element of the response to the pandemic. It is at times of national crisis when the scrutiny of the work of the Government by the legislature is most vital.

The shortening of the dissolution period also provides that this Senedd is available to take a decision on any postponement of the election. It would be wrong to legislate on changes to the date of the election without guaranteeing that the Senedd itself would be able to make the final decision. Consequently, section 10 also modifies the time at which a person becomes a candidate in the election. This is currently tied to the dissolution period. The Bill decouples the two, so that a person will become a candidate at the Senedd election at the same time as they would have done had the Bill not proposed to shorten the dissolution period to seven calendar days. To mitigate for any delays to the count itself, section 4 makes changes to the post-election timetable, allowing an extra day for the first meeting to take place if there is any delay because of coronavirus.

The elections planning group made a number of recommendations to increase flexibility in the conduct of the election, and we have included these in section 10. Emergency proxy votes will be available to voters for a reason relating to coronavirus, meaning that voters will have additional options in the event that self-isolation prevents them from attending a polling station in person. The Bill also introduces more flexibility with regard to the delivery of nomination papers, and how a candidate can consent to nomination.

The most talked-about provision in this Bill is also the provision that we hope never to have to use. That is the new power for the Llywydd to postpone the date of the poll to a date no later than 5 November 2021, for a reason relating to coronavirus, as set out in section 5. In section 6, the Bill also prefers the Llywydd's existing power to postpone the election for up to a month for reasons not relating to coronavirus. Again, I would like to emphasise that it is our firm intention that the election should go ahead as planned on 6 May, and this provision is included only as a contingency option in the event that it is not safe to hold the election on the grounds of the risk to public health.

The Bill does not, in itself, make any changes to the date of the election. It only provides the ability to do so should it be needed. A postponement would be initiated by a proposal made by the First Minister to the Llywydd, who in turn proposes a new date to be put before the Senedd. A motion to postpone the election must have the agreement of the Senedd by a majority of two thirds of the total number of Senedd seats.

As a further safeguard, the Bill proposes a role for the Electoral Commission in relation to postponement. If the Llywydd or the First Minister requests, the Electoral Commission must provide them with advice on the matter of postponement. Similarly, sections 7 and 8 also address the issue of by-elections for the Senedd and for local government. They provide a power for the Llywydd to postpone Senedd by-elections, and a regulation-making power for Welsh Ministers to postpone local government by-elections.

Finally, section 12 confers a regulation-making power on the Welsh Ministers to make any incidental, supplementary, consequential, transitional, transitory, or saving provisions that they consider appropriate for the purposes of, or in connection with, giving full effect to the Act. This is necessary to ensure that, in the event of a postponement of the election, Welsh Ministers have the capability to make necessary arrangements for impacts that could not have been foreseen during the Bill's development. This power will also provide for practical arrangements such as dealing with candidates' deposits, the destruction of postal votes, and so forth, which can be dealt with by way of secondary legislation.

I was pleased to give evidence yesterday to the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee about the Bill, and I'm extremely grateful to the Members and officials, who managed to produce a report by lunch time today. I have considered the recommendations of the committee this afternoon, and I am pleased to accept the majority of them.

In particular, I can accept recommendations 8 and 9 on using the made alternative procedure, rather than the negative procedure, in respect of the regulations; and part of recommendation 4, which would place a requirement on the First Minister to consult the chief medical officer before making a recommendation for postponement. We believe that the provision with regard to the Electoral Commission is already sufficient.

Recommendation 6, which requires the Llywydd to make a statement explaining her decision in the event that she uses her existing power to vary the poll by up to a month, we accept this in the interests of transparency, even though there is not an equivalent duty on the Llywydd in a normal election. We will bring forward amendments to deal with these issues.

I'm sorry to say that there are a few recommendations that we are not in a position to accept at this time. In relation to recommendation 1, the Welsh Government does not publish its assessments of compatibility with human rights legislation, but we are satisfied that the Bill is within competence and does not breach the Human Rights Act 1998. I do not believe the sunset clause, as suggested in recommendation 2 is necessary. To the extent that the Bill requires time limits, they are already built into the text of the Bill.

And in terms of recommendation 3, the term 'appropriate' adds flexibility, and removing it would reduce flexibility. It is worth noting that the term 'appropriate' is also used in the Scottish Act. I consider that we should retain that flexibility in the Bill, given the unpredictable nature of the pandemic and its impacts.

In respect of recommendation 5, the committee's understanding, as set out in paragraph 65 of the report, is broadly correct. The Llywydd does have discretion to propose a date. However, it is the Llywydd who fixes the date, but only if the date is agreed by a supermajority.

In response to the committee's specific questions, the Bill does not make provision for whether or not a motion can be amended. Such provisions could be made in Standing Orders, and we have initiated a discussion with Business Committee about the procedures that may be appropriate. In the absence of specific provision in Standing Orders, the tabling and selection of amendments would be a matter for the Llywydd. If the Senedd does not vote in favour of a date proposed by the Llywydd, the Llywydd can, in principle, propose an alternative date. Again, provision about this can be made in Standing Orders. Proposing a new date would not require a fresh proposal by the First Minister. The First Minister's power relates to proposing that the election be postponed, not to the date. The Llywydd cannot fix a date for a postponed election under section 5, other than one expressly approved by a supermajority of the Senedd.

In response to recommendation 7, a section 116 Order has been prepared—the Senedd Cymru (Letters Patent and Proclamations) Order 2021—which is due to be made by Her Majesty in Council on 10 February. The Order includes a form of wording for a proclamation under section 4(2) and section 5(4) of the Government of Wales Act 2006. We propose that the form of wording can be used as a precedent or template for a proclamation under section 6 of the Bill. We would arrange for the proclamation to be published in the gazettes, and we would, of course, work with the Llywydd to draw the attention of everyone involved in the election to a change in the date immediately. My officials are in touch with the palace about this.

On recommendation 10, I cannot confirm the precise details at present, but the type of amendments I'm exploring relate to adjustments to how postal-vote applications are processed to minimise the rejection of such applications.

And finally, in response to recommendation 11, I can confirm that I intend to table an amendment at Stage 2 that would confer power on the Welsh Ministers to provide for additional voting days in the week before polling of the Senedd election, if the poll is postponed, and as long as the poll is not combined with the police and crime commissioner elections.

Also under consideration today is the financial resolution motion that has been tabled. The main costs in this Bill would arise in the event that the election is postponed. Our estimation of the costs are set out within the regulatory impact assessment, which is being laid before the Senedd alongside the text of the Bill. These estimations are sourced from figures for the election in 2016, published by the Welsh Government, and have been updated to current prices using the gross domestic product deflator series to arrive at the cost of 2021. The assumption in the estimate of these costs is a worst-case scenario.

Deputy Presiding Officer, I urge Members to vote in favour of both the Bill and the financial resolution to ensure that we all have options available to us in responding to the pandemic. Diolch.

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

Diolch, Llywydd. We took evidence on the Bill yesterday from the Minister, as has been mentioned. I'm very grateful to the staff of the Commission and the committee for the work they have undertaken to prepare what I think is a very thorough and detailed report on what is a very important piece of electoral, and therefore constitutional, legislation. So, we've paid very close attention to it in a very, very short space of time, and we're grateful very much to the Minister for giving evidence yesterday, but also for the detailed comments you've made today in respect of the various recommendations.

I will run through some of the key recommendations. Of course, we raised the issue again of human rights, and the lack of reference to it in the explanatory memorandum. The Minister will be aware that this is a matter that we significantly focus on. I note the Minister's comments, and I just refer Members to the recommendation in the report. The issue of convention rights equally applies.

Moving on to section 1. The Minister told us that the Bill can only relate to the 2021 election. It is effectively spent after 5 November 2021. We weren't able to come to agreement in that way. For example, the power in section 12 could potentially allow the Welsh Ministers to amend the date of 5 November 2021, set out in section 5, by regulations, and that is why we made the recommendation 2, which was with regard to sunset clause.

Referring to section 5, this enables the First Minister to propose to the Llywydd that the 2021 election is postponed for a reason relating to coronavirus, if the First Minister considers it necessary or appropriate. Members will be well aware of the concerns the committee has about the use of the term 'appropriate', whether it is included in Welsh legislation, Scottish legislation or any other legislation. So, our position remains on that, that we do not think it is something that should be in legislation, although we do recognise the detailed explanation for it that the Minister gave to the committee.

In respect of the exercise of the power in section 5(1), our fourth recommendation is that the Bill is amended to require the First Minister to consult the Electoral Commission, the chief medical officer and other appropriate persons. And I'm grateful for the comments from the Minister on that.

Moving on to the other provisions in section 5, overall, we do not consider the wording of sections 5(2), 5(3) or 5(4) to be as clear as could be. The precise sequence of events involved in the postponement of an election is not easily discernible, particularly because of the use of 'may' in section 5(2). Our understanding is that, under section 5, the Llywydd essentially has discretion to propose a date for a postponed poll, but that such date only became fixed once a supermajority of the Senedd votes in favour of it. I think that's what the Minister confirmed. But predicated on that basis, recommendation 5 asked the Minister to confirm that understanding. I think that confirmation has been given, and I'm grateful for that. 

Turning now to section 6, which gives the Llywydd the power to vary the date of an election postponed under section 5 by one month before or after the newly fixed date, given that this power is not directly linked to the pandemic and would override the date of the poll, as agreed by at least 40 Members, recommendation 6 says that the Llywydd should have to issue a statement on the reasons, and I'm grateful the Minister has confirmed that that is the case. We did think that that was a reasonable step.

If the Llywydd proposes to further vary the election date under section 6(2) of the Bill, section 6(4) provides for Her Majesty, by royal proclamation, to dissolve the Senedd and require the poll to be held on the day proposed by the Llywydd. The Bill didn't set out how this would work in practice, but I'm grateful for the additional comments the Minister has made to clarify that situation. Recommendation 7, therefore, said the Minister should explain to Members those measures, with regard to the proclamation, so we're grateful for that.

Turning now to the regulation-making powers in sections 8 and 12 of the Bill. Both sections contain Henry VIII powers, enabling regulations to be made by Welsh Ministers that modify, repeal or revoke any enactment. Such regulation will be subject to the negative procedure. Further, the regulation-making power in section 8 is not directly linked to coronavirus. So, as a general principle, we don't consider it appropriate to amend primary legislation by means of the negative procedure, and we were not persuaded by the Minister's reason for departing from this principle. We do recognise, however, that it may be necessary to act quickly. However, regulations already made in response to coronavirus have been made quickly, but that has not necessitated the use of the negative procedure. My apologies if I've missed the Minister's comments on that. Recommendations 8 and 9 state that the Bill should be amended so that regulations made under sections 8 and 12 that amend primary legislation are subject to the made affirmative procedure, and I'm grateful for the comments from the Minister in acceptance of that point.

Turning finally to postal and early voting. We asked the Minister to provide Members with further clarity on the Welsh Government's intentions regarding postal and early voting. Dealing with the Bill as an emergency Bill limits the time available to fully understand its provisions. We have however concluded that making legislative provision that will enable the 2021 election, and Senedd and local government by-elections, to be postponed for a short period represents a pragmatic solution, given the ongoing coronavirus public health emergency.

Should the general principles be agreed today, our report aims to provide Members with further information that may inform scrutiny and debates during the subsequent stages. Diolch, Llywydd.

Well, in seeking this Senedd's agreement to the General Principles of the Welsh Elections (Coronavirus) Bill, the Welsh Government is essentially asking us to recycle the points and arguments made when we debated and agreed for the introduction of this Government emergency Bill just one week ago. As I then stated, an emergency Bill,

'streamlines the Senedd's law-making and accountability processes'—

and should, therefore,

'only be used when there's a real and unforeseen emergency.'

As I also noted then,

'The Scottish General Election (Coronavirus) Bill, enabling Scottish Government Ministers to delay the Scottish general election beyond 6 May, subject to a vote of the whole Scottish Parliament, was first introduced in the Scottish Parliament'—

last November, and

'although it passed through an accelerated timescale, Members of the Scottish Parliament still had over five weeks to consider the Bill.'

The proposed Welsh Government timetable for this Bill, in contrast, gives us just two weeks' scrutiny until Stage 3 next week. Although the pandemic crisis has been here since March 2020 and we've known the date for the next Welsh Parliament election for five years, the First Minister didn't suggest a change in regulations until last November. We must therefore again ask: why the Welsh Government has put itself in a situation where it needs to be using such emergency procedures, when it was evident that the pandemic would still be dominating the agenda? Understandably, there is concern about creation of a conflict of interest where the First Minister, empowered by this legislation to formally request an election delay will be the same person leading the election campaign for one of the parties in these elections—Welsh Labour. 

We voted last week to agree that the Welsh Government can introduce this Bill as an emergency Bill in the Senedd, recognising the potential need for a delay based on the badly deteriorating public health situation. However, as I then stated, 'We are only lending you our vote.' The Welsh Government has not said what situation the pandemic needs to be in to require an election delay, and our continued support would require the Welsh Government to specify what the bar will need to be before the First Minister formally requests the delay. We're concerned that they're still finding reasons not to do this, and therefore urge them to note the seriousness of our position on this.

We do recognise that much of the Bill's content has merit. However, we remain concerned that some proposed content may only be introduced as Welsh Government amendments at a later date. We took part in the Welsh Government's election planning group, and there are a number of concerns that we still have from the planning group, including extending voting over multiple days, where, for example, voters would be disenfranchised if they thought that voting on another day for the Welsh Parliament would still allow them to vote for their police and crime commissioner. Excepting absentee voting, we'll therefore be seeking the Senedd support to stop the multiple days in-person voting. We will also be seeking the Senedd's support to ensure that Members are prevented from using their office allowance or their communication allowance to promote themselves in what would have been the dissolution period; to reduce from 21 the period of days the next Senedd needs before having it's first meeting where swearing in can be done online, and photo days can be put in place for new Members to have their photo taken in the Chamber if permissible under the COVID rules then applying; to reduce the period to which the power to delay the election applies from six to four months, when we need to have the election done before any potential rise in COVID-19 cases during the colder months; and to stop the situation in which the election could be delayed more than once. Clarity is also needed over what would happen to postal votes cast prior to an election delay being agreed. The pandemic has shone a bright light on devolved Government in Wales, and delaying the Welsh general election due to take place on 6 May should only be considered in exceptional emergency circumstances. Diolch.

I will emphasise the obvious first of all: the timetable for this Bill is very tight indeed. This should have happened sooner, and there is concern that there is a lack of opportunity now to give proper consideration to the issues arising from the explanatory memorandum and the legislation committee's report too—and I congratulate them for turning that report around over night, as I understand it. But we will be supporting the Bill in Stage 1 today to allow it to progress to the next stage, where we're able to table our own amendments to strengthen the Bill and to insist on some assurances on certain aspects, and I'll mention some of those and ask the Minister whether she could provide a full response to the points, either in her response to the debate today or in writing as soon as possible after today's debate so that we can table meaningful amendments at Stage 2 within a very tight timetable.

A few comments on dissolution, first of all, which is intended to give fairness to all candidates to ensure that public resources can't be abused. It's a mechanism too to ensure fairness and balance between the Government of the day and the opposition parties through the purdah convention, and the aim, of course, is to ensure the integrity of the election. It has to be there. The risk of losing it because of the pandemic was a cause for concern, I have to say. I do understand that the Business Committee has agreed in principle that there will be a pre-dissolution period that will be similar to a conventional dissolution but which will also provide flexibility to recall the Senedd for reasons related to the pandemic. That goes some of the way in allaying fears. I understand that  the Government has proposed how activity could be reduced—stopping written questions, for example, and thereby not favouring current Members—but we haven't seen the guidance on the implications of that pre-dissolution period on Government activity. I understand that such guidance was published as early as December 2015 for the 2016 election under normal arrangements. We need that clarity on the guidance that will relate to the Senedd and the Government in order to deal with this Bill appropriately.

I'm going to make a few comments on the need to ensure that public health and democratic health are part of the equation in the decisions facing us. As I said last week, the challenge we face is looking at that big picture and balancing the various risks. The process of allowing an individual to cast a vote safely and the process of counting those votes safely are crucially important, but just as important is the need to allow meaningful debate with the people of Wales as they elect a government for the next five years. The risk to the integrity of the election of holding that election without having had that meaningful engagement and debate for me is still missing in looking at the explanatory memorandum.

We are hardly any the wiser in terms of distributing leaflets and other campaign materials. Is it only through the Royal Mail that one can distribute leaflets at present? Will it be possible to pay other individuals or agencies to do that? We need to look at how distributing leaflets for profit is acceptable but voluntary distribution is not allowed. There is some information for political parties on campaign methods in the Government's alert level 4 FAQs section. We encourage political parties, candidates and campaigners to consider the full range of campaigning methods, including social media, to provide information to voters. I'm afraid that this is entirely inadequate and misses the fundamental point that I and others have raised, which is that not everyone uses social media and not every candidate will be wealthy enough to pay to distribute that information. So, when will there be comprehensive guidance available to political parties showing clearly what they can do under each of the alert levels in the Welsh Government's COVID plan?

Finally, Llywydd, I turn to the need for clarity on the timetable for decision making and the need for regular updates on the status of the election. In terms of the timetable for decisions, should we need to postpone the election, then I do think that the suggestion of seven days before polling day is very tight indeed. It's not clear that the Government's powers could be used as late as 3 May, the week of the election itself. Many people would have already cast their vote through the post, so what would happen to their vote? As it's not clear what the conditions or the public health threshold used in deciding whether it is safe to hold an election or not is and that the Bill as it's currently drafted provides for postponement very late in the day, we will consider an amendment at Stage 2, to make it a requirement for Welsh Ministers to provide regular updates to us on the status of the preparations for the elections and the ability to hold that election safely to run along with the three-weekly reviews of the COVID regulations. I think that's a minimum requirement. I wonder what the scientific advice on allowing the election to proceed would be if it were to be held tomorrow, for example. Many questions to be asked and the timetable is very tight, and we do need clarity as a matter of urgency from the Government on many of these issues.  

I'm grateful to the Minister for the way in which she introduced this legislation this afternoon. I would say very gently to the Conservatives they need to learn not to oppose absolutely everything that the Government is seeking to do in dealing with this pandemic. These are very, very difficult days, and I do sympathise greatly with the Minister in taking the decisions that she has outlined to us, and I think it's incumbent on all of us who are sitting here, whatever part of the Chamber we represent, that we actually do seek to put our democracy ahead of any other consideration. 

I said last week in my contribution that I supported the introduction of this Bill, that I supported the process of an emergency Bill and that I thought that was a fair and good exercise of these powers, and I also support the exercising of the powers that it provides for Ministers. But I do believe that, in exercising these powers and seeking these powers, Ministers should also outline to us the circumstances in which they foresee these powers being exercised. I'm happy with the processes and the safeguards that are built into the Bill. I think it provides for good democratic scrutiny and a broad democratic agreement on these matters, which goes beyond an individual political party. I think that's important, and I think it's important to have that sense of joint venture across the Chamber. But it is important, in seeking powers, that whoever that happens to be, whether it's the First Minister, the Minister or even the Llywydd, that those people do outline the circumstances in which those powers would be exercised. I'm interested in understanding what the timescale is for such decisions. We have an election some weeks away, potentially. At what point is that not sustainable? At what point does the Minister foresee her coming to this place with a proposal or seeking the authority to make such a proposal? At what point does an election on 6 May not become a sustainable option? 

And then, as well as understanding the timescale, what are the criteria, the processes and the circumstances that would drive a decision? The rate of coronavirus in Blaenau Gwent has fallen more greatly than in almost any other part of Wales, and is now one of the lowest parts of Wales. It would be interesting, I think, for us to understand how the different numbers that we see reported every day would influence and shape a decision. Is it the case rate per 100,000? Is that what's going to drive a decision? It is a national figure, or one that takes account of locality? So, for example, if there is a really serious problem in one part of Wales, would that mean that the election for the whole of Wales needs to be postponed for a period of time? We need to understand what these criteria are.

And, finally, I thought the points made by Rhun ap Iorwerth were very powerful and very well made. This needs to be a safe election, certainly, but it also needs to be a fair election, and it needs to be seen to be fair as well, and that means particularly fair to those organisations, political parties an candidates who will not have the resources that most of the parties represented here this afternoon will have. For many of us, we have structured constituency parties, we have structured national parties able to run a campaign, but we must not abuse the privilege of incumbency, and that means enabling and allowing and creating the space to be challenged and to be challenged fairly for our seats. So, I hope that, in May or whenever it happens to be, we will have not only a safe election but a fair election. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. 

Thanks to the Minister for bringing today's debate. I do take on board her assurance that this is a contingency measure, however, we in the Abolish the Welsh Assembly Party do not see the need to enact legislation to delay the election and we think we should focus on ensuring that the election does go ahead as planned on Thursday 6 May. I note again that the Llywydd does have the authority to delay an election by up to a month if the public health situation truly warrants that. But we do need to be careful here. The voters only elected us for five years and they may not be too delighted with Members of this place—including myself, of course—carrying on beyond their mandated term. Labour Members have been vociferous in making this point in the recent past, notably Alun Davies, who we just heard from. I know he is saying something slightly different now, but not so long ago, he was telling us that this Assembly term—the fifth Assembly—had already outstayed its welcome.

Delaying an election beyond 6 May would effectively be suspending democracy. So, we do have to be careful about going down this line. I think, although Alun supported the legislation today, he did actually just did raise some very pertinent questions, which the Minister still has to answer; for instance on what particular grounds the election may be delayed if we do get this legislation through. Because clearly, as the Minister was clear about when she opened the debate, this legislation does not itself delay an election; it on only gives contingency for doing so. So, she does need to explain to us on what particular and specific grounds the election might be delayed. I think we do need to know that.

There are other issues. This matter isn't completely within the control of the Welsh Government, because of the issue of the PCC elections going on at presumably the same time. The date for these is set by the UK Government, so we could be heading for a situation where the UK Government decide that we're going to have an election in Wales on 6 May, namely the PCC election. If that were the case, it would be ludicrous in my opinion if the Welsh Government then said we couldn't have the Senedd election on the same day, because to do that would be to have two different elections instead of one. It would also raise the cost of holding these elections, thereby wasting taxpayers' money. I know the Welsh Government is very good at doing that, but I don't think they should be doing it habitually. So, I think we have to take any decision in the context of what is happening with the PCC election, and that is a matter for the UK Government.

To make a more positive case, vaccination rates are improving in Wales, so it does look as though the worst of the pandemic may well be behind us by the time we get to May. So, to go down the route of deciding to delay may be interpreted as an admission of failure over the public health situation, which in reality is actually getting better. Can I also point out, adding to points Mark Isherwood made, that we have had this pandemic and various lockdown restrictions for many months now? So, the relevant authorities in Wales have had plenty of time to plan for this election. To conclude, we need to have this election on 6 May, and so, with respect, Abolish the Welsh Assembly will not be supporting this legislation. Diolch yn fawr.

I again say that an election on 6 May must happen if at all possible, as my friend Alun Davies has said on several occasions. What I would say is, for those who oppose the possible extension, how would you deal with postal votes that cannot be collected, large-scale breakout of COVID-19 where people were told to stay at home, or where it's not possible to staff polling stations? For those who say that's not possible, can I take you back to 2001, when we postponed the general election and postponed council elections because of foot and mouth? So, it can happen.

I have one concern about the legislation. As anyone who's been an election agent will tell you, a large number of postal votes are disqualified because the date of return, not the date of birth, is entered, or the signature doesn't match. That is often due to a stroke or Parkinson's disease that has occurred since the person applied for a postal vote and their signature has changed, and changed dramatically. I understand that our partners in the UK have either written to the Minister or are intending to write to the Minister to raise exactly that point. Can I ask that we follow America, and allow people to correct the form by sending their date of birth, and also allowing them to explain why the signature does not match?

On leafleting, I've got leaflets at the printers waiting to go out, I've got leaflets ready to go to the printers ready to go out, but I think public safety must come first. As much as I would like to be wandering around the streets delivering leaflets—if only to help me lose some weight—I think it really is important that we look after the health of our constituents and our campaigners, and engage only when it's safe.

The Minister for Housing and Local Government to reply to the debate—Julie James.

As I've previously stated, it is not the Welsh Government's intention to delay the Senedd election. This is a fail-safe to be used only where it is deemed absolutely necessary to protect public health from the risks posed by the coronavirus—a fail-safe we hope never to have to use. However, as a responsible Government we have to make preparations that allow us to respond to the risks posed by the pandemic to the safety and fairness of the election. I thank Members for their contributions in this debate and I will try and address as many of them as I can.

Starting with Mark Isherwood, I'm afraid I think it's a bit rich to be saying, 'Why are we in this position?' given the previous opposition of his party, before Christmas, to any suggestion whatsoever of a postponement. I also would like to point out that the UK pushes through legislation to postpone elections in England in a day if necessary. They did exactly that with the future relationship Act, which dealt with the little matter of the most important international treaty the UK has ever signed in nearly 50 years—in a single day. So, I will not be taking any lessons from him about the need to be respectful of the need for scrutiny in a legislature. The issue he raised about a potential conflict of interest from the First Minister is of course addressed by the primacy of the Llywydd and the role of the Senedd in this Bill, which is what I pointed out in my opening remarks. We need the regulation-making powers to deal with the postal votes already cast and other matters of that sort, which a number of Members have raised.

In response to a number of people, including Rhun ap Iorwerth, who asked, we will of course lay our formal response to the committee's report tomorrow, but I was pleased to be able to address some of the issues in my opening remarks. Also, on the pre-election guidance, we appreciate that this is a very different situation to usual, but we will be publishing it as soon as possible for Members to be able to see that. We are working very closely with the Business Committee, because we will want to make sure that the Senedd Commission side and the Government side rules match up and are as clear and as user-friendly as possible. I'm also very happy to accede to Rhun's suggestion that we give regular updates on the progression of our work on this matter.

This Bill acts as a vital contingency measure in our preparation for May's elections. It's our sincere hope and aim that the election goes ahead as planned, and that the people of Wales are able to vote freely and safely on 6 May. We're preparing on that basis and our partners are, too. But of course we would be remiss not to recognise that the course of this pandemic has not been smooth, and it is right that we, as a responsible Government, should put in place a contingency plan, even if it is one that we hope never to use.

In terms of the number of people who asked me what circumstances we would expect to weigh up in terms of making that decision, there are an enormous range of factors to be taken into account. A number of Members have mentioned them, in fact—the public health situation, the confidence of the administration of the election, its effect on voters. We're not specifying those metrics, because the situation continues to be as fast-moving as it ever has been in this pandemic. Clearly, the closer we get to the election, the greater the risks in terms of costs, practical implications, voter confusion and so on, and so ideally we would want to make a timely decision.

It is important that the Senedd can respond close to the date of the poll too, if necessary, given how quickly the pandemic situation can change. All of us here have lived through rapid changes over a number of days, sometimes, in the course of the pandemic. A number of Members have mentioned, for example, that the figures are dropping all over Wales, and that we're very grateful to see that, but Members will have remembered other times in the pandemic where figures appeared to be dropping, and then suddenly reverse overnight because a new variant arises or some other factor that we have yet to think of. So, I think it would be very remiss to try and hedge that in. Llywydd, if I could quote it, and unfortunately I can't, I would pray in aid a certain Donald Rumsfeld, and talk about the unknown unknowns that we would have to deal with in this pandemic going forward.

I'm very grateful to Members for their contributions today. I do urge them to vote in favour of this Bill and, of course, of the financial resolution. Diolch yn fawr.

The question is that the motion under item 11 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I see there is objection. As the vote on item 11 is deferred until voting time, the vote on the financial resolution will also be deferred until voting time.

Nawr dyma ni'n cyrraedd y cyfnod pleidleisio, ac felly fe fyddaf i'n atal y cyfarfod am gyfnod byr er mwyn paratoi ar gyfer y bleidlais.

That brings us to voting time, and the first vote today is on item 7, the Land Transaction Tax (Tax Bands and Tax Rates) (Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2020. I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Rebecca Evans. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 39, 11 abstentions and three against, and therefore the motion is agreed.

The next vote is on item 10, the Government of Wales Act 2006 (Amendment) Order 2021. I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Jeremy Miles. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 49, no abstentions and four against. Therefore, the motion is agreed.

Our next vote is on item 11, on the general principles of the Welsh Elections (Coronavirus) Bill. I call for a vote on the motion, tabled in the name of Julie James. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 48, no abstentions, five against. Therefore, the motion is agreed.

Our next vote and final vote is on item 12, on the financial resolution in respect of the Welsh Elections (Coronavirus) Bill. I call for a vote on the motion, tabled in the name of Rebecca Evans. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 48, no abstentions, five against. Therefore, the motion is agreed.

That concludes voting time and brings today's procedures to a close. Good afternoon.