National Assembly for Wales

Welcome, all, to this recall of the Senedd under Standing Order 34.9. Before we begin, I want to make 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. And I would also remind Members that Standing Orders relating to order in Plenary meetings apply to this meeting, as do the time limits on questions that will be applied to the meeting.

So, the first item on our agenda this afternoon is a statement by the First Minister on COVID-19, and I call on the First Minister to make the statement—Mark Drakeford.

Llywydd, thank you very much. This session and this statement were arranged today in order to give Members an opportunity to scrutinise the most recent review of the coronavirus regulations in Wales. Those regulations were amended last Friday, 31 July. Since the Senedd last met, on 15 July, important announcements have been made on our support for the economy and the cultural sector, and on our response to homelessness.

In the field of health and care, we have welcomed encouraging figures on the recruitment of trainee doctors and have announced the most extensive programme offering flu vaccinations ever. The Chief Medical Officer for Wales has written to those people involved in the shielding programme, and the four UK chief medical officers have announced that the self-isolation period following symptoms or a positive COVID test should be extended to 10 days.

In other areas, the Welsh Government has opened a consultation on support for farmers and on plans to limit the use of single-use plastics in Wales. We have published written statements highlighting these changes to Senedd Members.

Llywydd, I will now focus on the three-weekly review. Members will be aware that, over the past three weeks, the outlook for coronavirus has darkened in many parts of the world, from Manila to Bogota, from Australia to the United States. In Europe, the advice of the UK Government has been to re-impose quarantine arrangements for visitors returning from Spain and Luxembourg, and regulations to that effect have been laid before the Senedd. In England, since the Senedd last met, renewed lockdown measures have been introduced in Luton, Blackburn with Darwen, Oldham, and Rochdale, before last Friday's more general re-imposition of restrictions across the north-west of England and west Yorkshire.

Llywydd, I set all this out simply to place the state of the virus in Wales in context. Nobody should be under any illusion that this virus could not return rapidly and adversely here in Wales as well. And, to be clear, local spikes in coronavirus have been experienced, and continue to be experienced, here in Wales. We have ongoing outbreaks in Wrexham. The outbreak at Rowan Foods is, we believe, now fully under control, and the last case associated with this outbreak was identified on 24 July. At the Wrexham Maelor Hospital, actions continue to be taken to address a spike in cases there. Since the outbreak was declared on 25 July, seven cases have been identified at the Maelor as new hospital-acquired infections. No new hospital-acquired infections have been reported on six of the last seven days. The outbreak control team continues to meet daily and is supported by a range of partners, including Public Health Wales and the Health and Safety Executive.

Because of these two site-specific outbreaks, a decision was taken by local public health leaders to offer mass voluntary community testing in parts of Wrexham. Of the 1,418 people tested, only 11 new positive cases were identified, and that's a positivity rate of 0.7 per cent. Given that the Joint Biosecurity Centre cites a positivity rate of 4 per cent as the threshold for any emerging concern, the focus in Wrexham remains on bringing the site-specific outbreaks to an end, and, of course, our test, trace, protect system is at the forefront of this effort.

Llywydd, there's been a great deal of interest in the turnaround times of tests in the TTP system. In the community testing in Wrexham, over 95 per cent of samples were tested within 24 hours of being received, demonstrating that when such a turnaround is required, the system is geared to provide it. Indeed, last week, the highest ever number of tests in Wales were completed within 24 hours.

Now, of course, local flare-ups generate cases that contribute to the overall assessment of the position in Wales. Nevertheless, in the immediate run-up to last week's review, the R number in Wales was estimated to be between 0.6 and 0.9. In the model published on Friday last, the R number for Wales was calculated as being lower than for Scotland and for England, although the lower the circulation of the virus, the more volatile the R number becomes, which is why we rely on a wider basket of indicators, including the results of testing. In that regard, last week, 41,451 tests were carried out in Wales, of which 0.8 per cent were returned as positive cases. Tens of thousands of tests have been carried out on staff and residents in care homes, and, in the past week, the positivity rate for staff and residents there was 0.3 per cent.

The conclusion drawn by the chief medical officer from all of this data, as set out in his assessment published alongside our changes last week, is that the virus has been so effectively suppressed in Wales that further easements were justified on public health grounds. As a result, from Monday of this week indoor hospitality has resumed in pubs, cafés, restaurants and hotels in Wales. On Monday next, indoor gyms, spas, leisure centres and indoor children's play areas will reopen.

Llywydd, the Cabinet decided last week that we would devote much of the headroom available to us to provide new flexibilities for meetings between family and friends, but our discussions have recognised that this is the most risky of any easing of lockdown measures. We have therefore decided to delay any decision on this until later in the cycle. Our aim remains to restore to people some of the freedoms they have had to forgo in this part of their lives, but we will only do so if a public health case can be made for further indoor meetings between family and friends being justified. In the meantime, children under the age of 11 will no longer be subject to the social distancing rules and new flexibilities have been introduced for family and friends meeting in the outdoors.

Llywydd, in Friday's announcement I also set out plans to strengthen enforcement of coronavirus rules in Wales. While the considerable majority of individuals and businesses are working hard to keep us all safe, that is not true of all. Individuals who act as though the crisis were over run the risk of creating harm to others. That is simply not acceptable. It undermines the efforts that everyone else is making. Today I have met separately with the police and with local authorities in Wales to thank them for their vital work and to reaffirm our shared commitment to support those who are doing the right things to protect us all.

As far as businesses are concerned, unlike other parts of the United Kingdom, our regulations place a direct responsibility on the person in charge of premises to take all reasonable measures to minimise the risk of exposure to coronavirus. Guidance has been agreed with the different sectors to clarify what this means in practice, and many businesses have invested time, energy and money to make sure that they can operate in a coronavirus-secure fashion. To support them, we will provide new powers to local authorities to intervene quickly and decisively where this is not the case, and this will include requiring premises to close if necessary. Regulations will be laid on Friday of this week, 7 August, and will come into force on Monday 10 August.

Finally, Llywydd, to look ahead to the end of the cycle that has already begun, the Chief Medical Officer for England, Professor Chris Whitty, has warned there that easing the lockdown may already have reached its limits. Here in Wales, we have taken a different, step-by-step approach, but at the end of this cycle, on 21 August, we will be only two weeks away from the reopening of schools in September. We will need to prioritise any headroom we may have at that point to ensure that this vitally important moment for our children and young people can be accomplished safely and successfully, and there may be little scope to go beyond that in the next review. All of that, Llywydd, will of course depend on the latest evidence of transmission, later in August, and I will report again to Members on all of that in three weeks' time. Diolch yn fawr.

The leader of the Conservatives, Paul Davies.

Diolch, Llywydd. First Minister, whilst rates of COVID-19 remain relatively low across Wales, as you refer in your statement, the number of patients infected with coronavirus while in hospital in north Wales has unfortunately risen. As you said, Wrexham Maelor Hospital has recently seen a spike in cases and has the highest recorded number of cases per 100,000 population in Wales. First Minister, clearly there's an issue with infection control in north Wales, and that is under a health board in your Government's direct control. Can you therefore tell us why the infection rates in Wrexham Maelor Hospital have increased recently? Can you also tell us what immediate actions you are taking to address the increase in infection rates in Wrexham Maelor Hospital, given that you say you are taking some actions? Can you reassure the people of north Wales that these outbreaks will now be contained, given that you are directly responsible for the delivery of health services in that area?

Well, Llywydd, I want to be clear that actions have already been taken at the Wrexham Maelor Hospital. The position has stabilised, as I said in my statement. There were 76 cases in the previous seven days, and that had fallen to 27 in the last seven days—a 64 per cent fall. Across Wrexham, the incidence rate, which on 26 July was 61.8 per 100,000, has fallen to 19.9 in the last seven days, and continues to fall. So, the position in Wrexham has been significantly brought under control, and continues to improve, and that is because of the actions that the hospital itself has taken—mandating use of face masks, new physical screening installed, a single point of entry for the public, and testing of all patients on arrival, by whatever route they arrive at the hospital. When those patients are screened, those who are suspected of having coronavirus are transferred to a side room on a COVID-positive ward and are nursed by a separate nursing team. Those with no symptoms are cohorted until swab results are available. Patients with a positive result are placed on a COVID-positive ward, and patients with a negative result are transferred to general bed use. As far as staff are concerned, all staff at the Maelor hospital are being tested. Six hundred of those tests are already booked. Staff are restricted in movements across the hospital, agency staff are restricted to particular wards, and thousands of additional items of PPE have been provided at the hospital—a comprehensive suite of measures, with more measures being added every day, and, Llywydd, as I said, the success of those measures is already evident.

First Minister, as you referred in your statement, in recent weeks we've seen the gradual reopening of businesses and facilities, which means that people are interacting more and more, whether it's at work or in the community. However, many people have been in touch with me, confused about being allowed to eat at a restaurant indoors with people from outside their household or extended household. Now, as you know, the UK Government scheme Eat Out to Help Out is there to encourage people to support the hospitality industry, and many people are keen to support their local restaurants, cafes and pubs. However, given that there have been no changes to the policy on social bubbles, I'm sure you can appreciate that meeting more people outside your household, or extended household, in hospitality settings will then cause that confusion. Can you therefore tell us what the Welsh Government's current position is on support bubbles and when the Welsh Government is intending to allow any specific changes to that policy, given that you say in your statement that you will look at it later in the cycle? And can you tell us how confident the Welsh Government is about any further relaxation of social distancing regulations between people, now that restrictions have been relaxed to allow people to return to work and interact further in the community?

Well, Llywydd, as I said in my statement, there will be no relaxation of social bubbles—the ability of people to meet indoors—until Friday of next week at the earliest. We will review the very latest information on the circulation of the virus on Wednesday and Thursday of next week and then make a decision, which will be announced on Friday. 

Our caution in providing further freedoms for people to meet indoors is based on the evidence that we see elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Seventy per cent of all new infections reported in England Public Health England attribute to household contacts. So, people are not catching the virus in large numbers in the workplace or in restaurants or meeting outdoors, but seven out of 10 new infections are as a result of the way that people interact inside the home. And the more we allow that to happen, the more opportunities we provide for the virus to recirculate, and if you provide this virus with new opportunities, it will recirculate. That is why we have taken the precautionary approach that we have in Wales. 

Now, if the virus remains effectively suppressed in Wales at the end of next week, then I would like to be able to go further than we are at the moment to allow more opportunities for family and friends to meet indoors. But we won't do that if the evidence is that that would add to the risk we face in Wales in a way that would encourage the virus to be back in circulation. The Member, I know, will understand that our precautionary approach is further reinforced by the way in which liberalisation of measures across our border, and today in Scotland, as he will have seen, has had to be reversed because the virus has sprung up again. So it's a very careful and difficult balancing act. We will pursue the data, as ever, and make a decision by Friday of next week. 

Plaid Cymru leader, Adam Price.

Thank you, Llywydd. It's very encouraging that the number of new cases recorded in Wales is low, now consistently in the dozens and not surpassing 100. Isn't this the time, First Minister, for us to adopt a strategy of eradicating the virus—a zero-COVID strategy, as it's called—bringing us in line with the comments of the Scottish First Minister, who said that every nation in the UK must support such a programme? According to Professor Susan Michie, who is a member of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies, an eradication strategy is far more practical in the British isles as compared to the continent of Europe. 

On 1 July, referring to a number of nations across the globe who have embraced this strategy successfully, I asked you to make a request to the technical advisory cell to look at a policy of eradicating the virus in Wales. Can you tell us what came from those discussions with the advisory cell, and do you support the calls made by the Scottish First Minister? Studies in America and Italy show that children not only transfer the virus but are an age group that drive the virus in a significant manner. So, what assessment have you made of the impact of this on your strategy in terms of coronavirus in Wales?

Well, Llywydd, thank you very much to Adam Price. I've already had an opportunity to speak to the Scottish First Minister, and I will be speaking to her again before the end of this afternoon. What I've discussed with her is that I think we are in the same place. Our ambition is to have

the lowest possible level of suppression of the virus, and then to sustain that lowest level possible suppression by the actions that we are taking. And I think that is very consistent with what the First Minister of Scotland has set out as her ambition. And, of course, we continue to discuss this and other actions with her, and with the Prime Minister and First Minister of Northern Ireland as well. 

Adam Price quite rightly points, Llywydd, to the challenge of reopening schools after the holiday period. It remains our firm ambition to do that. He will have seen, I'm sure, the Children's Commissioner for England's statement today about the harms that are done to children from not being able to resume their education—social harms as well as harms to their education. We will continue to follow the evidence over the rest of this month, and as I said in my opening statement, if we have further headroom in Wales when we get to 21 August, for the three weeks beyond that then the reopening of schools safely and successfully will be our very top priority for any room for manoeuvre that we may have.

Data from the Office for National Statistics recently published showed that the mortality rate for Wales was 2.78 per cent higher than the average mortality rate between 2015 and 2019 in the first six months of this year. It's important to acknowledge that that was lower than both England and Scotland, but Wales, nevertheless, was ranked the fifth-highest country for excess deaths in Europe over that period. Why does the First Minister believe we fared badly compared to other European nations?

On 28 March, my colleague Rhun ap Iorwerth wrote to the health Minister, urging the Welsh Government to adopt an earlier intervention strategy for individuals displaying COVID symptoms, similar to that adopted in some European countries. In response, the Minister recognised the emerging evidence that early intervention was proving effective in treating patients.

Why, therefore, did it take until 16 June, more than two months later, for the clinical advice to change, and why has it taken until yesterday, more than four months since the Minister acknowledged the evidence, for a statement to be made confirming that resources will finally be made available to help GPs to make more use of pulse oximetry, as we have consistently urged? Isn't it the case, First Minister, that hundreds of lives could have been saved, potentially, if this had happened sooner? 

Well, Llywydd, neither he nor I know whether that is true, and never will we be able to. It's a very unhelpful speculation, it seems to me. It is true that we have seen excess deaths in Wales over the coronavirus period. I'm very pleased to say that deaths in Wales over recent weeks are below the five-year average, so we're now in much calmer water as far as that is concerned. Why the United Kingdom has experienced higher levels of excess deaths than other European countries will be the matter of research, I'm sure, in the future. The fact that Wales has a lower rate of excess deaths than either England or Scotland also needs to be understood better. On the surface, you would think that was counterfactual. We have an older, sicker, poorer population than across our border, and our excess death figures normally reflect the nature of that population. The fact that the opposite has happened during the coronavirus crisis will need some research to understand how that was achieved, and it's no comfort in any case to those families who have lost loved ones during the pandemic. 

The Member asks why things were not done in March and April in the way advocated by his health spokesperson. Well, the truth is that the health service was flat out dealing with the peak of the coronavirus crisis, with many hundreds of people coming through hospital doors requiring—already requiring—critical care beds and provisions. And while there were steps being taken to improve prevention—and certainly in the autumn we will know more about the way in which early intervention can have a positive impact on the progress of this disease—at that point in the curve of the pandemic, the focus of our system was on not being overwhelmed by the demand that was already generated by the circulation of the disease.

We've now been able to confirm funding for a whole range of things that we will be able to do during the rest of this year following confirmation from the UK Treasury of the money that will be available to Wales. As soon as we were able to confirm those figures, we published detail of how that money will be used. And, as the Member says, we will be able to do more in providing primary care with the pulse devices that they will need to measure oxygen in people's blood—an early and sometimes not-easy-to-detect indication that coronavirus is taking place.

Leader of the Brexit Party, Mark Reckless.

First Minister, may I thank you for your statement and also thank you for the continuing extraordinary hard work that you've been putting in? We've been on recess—I suspect you're not going to have the chance to get away on holiday like, perhaps, some others may—and I know your workload has been extraordinary. So, thank you for that.

You were speaking about the aim of the regulations. At the beginning, I thought we were told that it was to protect the NHS and for the capacity of the NHS not to be overcome. It seems, relatively early in the process, that that was achieved. When Adam Price invites you to say if you intend to eradicate—'Is that the aim?'—you don't say 'yes' to that. I had thought not allowing R to go above 1 was a clear aim. I've questioned that before. It seems to me that prevalence is at least as important as R. I think, in your remarks just now, you did give more focus to that than, perhaps, we've had before. But the ambition of the lowest possible level—I don't see how, practically, that assists in making decisions, particularly when R is low and volatile. You mentioned prevalence rates of 0.7 per cent and 0.8 per cent compared to 4 per cent as the emerging concern standard—at least from the biosecurity centre—and you talk a lot about headroom, but how do you make these determinations?

Surely there must be some degree of cost-benefit analysis involved when you look at the, thankfully, far lower level of deaths and serious hospitalisations we now have, but there's still pretty severe restrictions that people and their well-being and the economy operate under. When people think about whether they're going to interact, the chance of getting the virus is generally very low, yet the cost of not having those interactions—socially as well as economically—can still be high, and I'm not clear how you're determining what is eased and what is not. And you talk about headroom, but that ambition of the lowest possible level doesn't give a quantitative standard against which you can make judgements.

We also still have a huge amount of detail and complexity and micromanagement of what people should or shouldn't do, and whether it's in law and whether it's in regulations, and a bit different in Wales than in England, and when you complain about people not following the precise instructions, many people find it very difficult to keep up with what they are. If they perceive the risk is very low, yet the cost to them of not doing something or not having an interaction—then many people will do that. Do you not understand that?

We had £59 million for the arts. You mentioned that that was passed on, yet only £53 million of that has been distributed in Wales. What are you doing with the other £6 million?

One area that I've had complaints in my constituency—the David Broome equestrian centre in Chepstow is saying that competitors across the border, they're fine, but because of the law and what you're doing in Wales, they can't have show-jumping events, and the 30 limit on anything outdoors, even if people aren't very connected, applies. Is there anything that you could do to assist them? My colleague David Rowlands wrote to you 10 days ago, but has not yet heard back.

Finally, I think people's confidence and assessment of risk matters at least as much as what the law or the precise guidance is. Can you be clear to people: do you want people to go back to work when they can, or are you still saying people must stay home when they can? We have only around a third of office workers back at work. That compares to about three quarters in most European countries. Aren't we going to see absolute economic devastation while that remains the case? 

Well, Llywydd, I thank the Member for what he said in introducing his question. He asks how we make the calculations that we do, and I can explain the process that we go through very briefly. This is the first week of this count—three-week review. What will happen across the Welsh Government is that we will compile the longest list we can of all the different things we might yet do to lift restrictions both on businesses and on individuals, and equestrian centres, as it happens, are on that list. We will then take advice from the chief medical officer by the end of this week, and at the start of next week we will begin to narrow that list down to those things that we think have the most pressing cases for being ameliorated. And then we judge that in the third week against the latest information we have across a whole range of indicators about the current prevalence of the disease in Wales, and it is that that gives us the sense of how much headroom we may have and which measures we're able to take. We're guided by the advice of the SAGE and the World Health Organization in only taking one step at a time, so there is a chance of connecting the action you take and the impact that it has on the circulation of the virus.

The difficulty, I think, in the Member's view of things is this: that this is a virus where you can go from effective suppression to widespread circulation in a matter of just a few weeks. So, in Melbourne in Australia, four weeks before 5 million people have gone back into lockdown, there were days when not a single new case was being reported amongst those 5 million people—not a single new case—and four weeks later, the virus is in such violent circulation that all of those 5 million people had to go back into a more stringent lockdown than at any time previously, and those measures have had to be further increased as the state of Victoria declares a state of disaster. Now, if you are separated from where we are today from a state of disaster by only a few weeks, you cannot afford to take a sunny and optimistic view of how the virus will operate in Wales, and that's not the way that we do it here in the Welsh Government. 

On two specific questions, Llywydd, that the Member mentioned: as far as the arts are concerned, he didn't refer to the £16 million we had previously provided to the arts in Wales from within our own resources. So, the accumulative investment in the arts well exceeds the consequential that we received for that purpose: it's not £6 million less, it's about £10 million more than we received.

And our advice to people in Wales is that if you can effectively work from home, it's still preferable that you do that. Now, 'work effectively' is the right phrase. If you can't effectively work from home, then the case for returning to work is stronger. But here in the Welsh Government, for example, where we have been operating with almost everybody working from home, we have found we are able to do that very effectively indeed and I do not want to see people in large numbers return to workplaces where that is not necessary for the efficient operation of this organisation. Far better, from an environmental point of view and from a public health point of view, that we build on that success and allow more people to work from home for longer. 

First Minister, I've noticed over the past few weeks that where restrictions are eased, in many places such as shops, restaurants and pubs, that, in fact, people are still reluctant to go out and spend money in those businesses. I was in Cardiff last week, for example, and shops were open but the city centre was pretty empty. I have just outside my constituency the McArthurGlen shopping village. Again, shops close early there in the evening because the footfall isn't what it should be. The concern I have is that restrictions are eased but it takes some time for the public to actually move back to a state of near normality when it comes to spending money in those businesses. Do you share my concern, then, that if furlough comes to an end in October we will then see a real spike in jobs being lost because there will be a gap between furlough ending and something close to normal commerce resuming. If you share that view, what discussions do you intend to have with the UK Government about what support might be put in place for businesses post furlough?

Llywydd, can I thank Carwyn Jones for those points? He's absolutely right: right across the world we have seen that to reopen a setting is one thing, to persuade people to return to it is another. That is why in Wales we've put such a lot of emphasis on building up the experience of doing things successfully, because where people can see that their well-being is being properly thought of and mitigation measures are properly in place, then I believe we will see a build-up of return in the economy, and we certainly want to see that here in Wales, but it does depend upon the confidence of individuals growing as businesses demonstrate a success.

Carwyn Jones is right as well, Llywydd, to point to the fact that, for many sectors, by October, coronavirus will not be over, as far as an economic crisis is concerned. I fully understand why the Chancellor cannot go on providing a furlough scheme where businesses are able to get back to what was previously normal, but what we have put consistently to the UK Government is that they shouldn't regard the end of furlough as a blunt instrument—that it should be a tailored scheme, in which those sectors that will need some continued support design that support with the UK Government to allow those businesses to emerge from coronavirus and to be successful businesses again in the future. I think that's in the interest of the economy. I think that it's an investment that the Chancellor should be prepared to make, not simply to regard it as a further expenditure, because those businesses are the taxpaying businesses of the future, and some help for them beyond October will put them into that position later next year.

We make those points whenever we can, in conversations with the Prime Minister, in the finance quadrilaterals that my colleague Rebecca Evans attends, in the meetings that Ken Skates, as the Minister for the economy, has with his counterparts—a tailored approach to the scheme, rather than what is currently planned: a blunt and rapid end to it, in a way that will damage businesses that are just beginning to get back on their feet.

First Minister, thank you for all you're doing in the current crisis, and in particular the time that you have to spend at your desk in the office making key decisions for the benefit of Wales. In your statement, you touch on the point about Wrexham Maelor, and the outbreak in Wrexham Maelor, and that has been a focus of considerable energy. Why hasn't the Government assisted the health board and Public Health Wales in making it mandatory for people to wear face masks in settings such as hospitals and care homes, where the evidence clearly shows that that will be of assistance? Public Health Wales and the health board have made that request, but the Government does not seem to have backed that request with firm action. Can you explain why is that the case, please?

And, secondly, in your statement, you touch on testing, and whilst it's pleasing to see that testing results in some areas have been positive—you talk about talking about a 95 per cent return rate in 24 hours, but, regrettably, we know nationally that some of the figures have been as low as a 26, 27 per cent return rate in 24 hours. That clearly is not acceptable and will not achieve an acceptable return rate in the testing regime. What actions are the Government doing to nationally increase the return rates closer to the 90 per cent so that we have an effective testing regime here in Wales?

Llywydd, I thank Andrew R.T. Davies for those questions. Well, to be clear, face masks are compulsory in the Wrexham Maelor, and have been since the outbreak was declared, and the view of the Welsh Government is that face masks should be used where there is a clinical case for doing so. There isn't a clinical case for wearing them in places where the virus is in such suppressed circulation that they do not add anything material to people's protection, but where there is a case, a clinical case, for them being used, of course they should be used, and they are in the Maelor because of the situation there.

As far as test turnaround is concerned, Llywydd, as I said in my statement, 13,330 tests were returned last week within 24 hours—the highest number ever. But I wanted to make this one other point to Andrew and for others: at the moment, the way we record these things in Wales is we record every test as though it needed to be back within 24 hours, and that simply isn't sensible. Anybody who is symptomatic, anybody who is going to a hospital, anybody who is being tested in the community in Wrexham—those needed to be back as rapidly as possible. But we carry out thousands of tests in care homes every week of people who aren't symptomatic at all on a surveillance basis. The case for turning those around in 24 hours really is very week indeed, and it would be very difficult for care homes to do that because they rely on shift patterns and running the home in the way that they do, and it takes them longer than a day to return the tests that they receive to the lab. And the clock starts ticking the moment they receive the test, not the moment that the lab receives the test.

Now, we record all of these as though every test were equally urgent. That is not a sensible way to do it and it puts perverse pressures into the system. So, what I want to do is to be able to report to people in Wales, of all the tests that we carry out, the ones where a 24-hour turnaround is clinically important and the ones that are being done for surveillance purposes, where if it takes 48 hours for the results to come back, it really doesn't matter from a clinical point of view.

Last week, the prevalence rates for staff in care homes, of all the people we test every week, was 0.1 per cent, and some of those will turn out to be false positives as well on retesting. The case for pressurising the system to get them back in 24 hours isn't good, and we must make sure that those tests don't get in front of the ones where the clinical case for a quick turnaround is genuine. 

Two things—I'll try and go through them quickly. Adam Price has already mentioned the slowness in Government in responding and having earlier intervention in terms of oxygen treatment. I'll remind the First Minister the reason we were calling for that was to take the pressure of the health service and trying to save lives.

Another thing that's likely to cost lives or is at risk of costing lives is the slowness in terms of reintroducing services in the NHS. Now, I've written to the chair of the Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board today sharing the frustrations of orthopaedic doctors at Ysbyty Gwynedd who truly do want to recommence their elective work. There are almost 3,000 patients waiting over 36 weeks, so I would like the First Minister's response to that.

But also, as we discuss the relaxation of restrictions today, I want to know more about the willingness of Government to make those regulations stricter where necessary. I also want to see stricter rules on face coverings. But also, many areas of high risk have now been identified—the Wrexham area, parts of the north-west of England. Many people from those areas do come to areas such as my constituency on holiday, and if the Government isn't willing to tell people not to travel, will you, as a bare minimum, be willing to enhance the communication as to how they should conduct themselves once they arrive, because there are risks, of course, that people go into pubs and restaurants or gather in large numbers?

Well, Llywydd, to respond to the last point first, of course we do recognise that people are travelling to Wales from England, and we have seen what's happened in England. I don't think there's any point in just telling people not to come to Wales unless we have things in place to control that, and I don't think that that is practical. So, in terms of strengthening the messaging, I would agree with that, and we always tell people, 'If you do come to Wales, then help us all to keep Wales safe.' Most people who do visit Wales—I'm sure that they do want to do that.

As I said in my statement, when we do identify people who aren't willing to comply with the regulations in Wales, we have strengthened the powers that the local authorities have in working with the police to be clear with them that if people aren't willing to comply with the regulations here in Wales, then we are willing to take steps so that we can be clear with people on their responsibilities. I've spoken this morning to the leader of Gwynedd Council, and I do know that they are eager to do everything that they can do in this fight.

As far as returning to normal activities in the health service, we have used part of the headroom that we have had over the last four cycles to begin to return the health service to its more usual activities—it's why we've been able to reopen services in the community; it's why we've been able to reopen screening services. The very hard end will be operations of the sort that Rhun ap Iorwerth referred to. Productivity in an orthopaedic theatre in pre-COVID times was up to eight operations in a day. Under COVID conditions, that will fall to three operations a day. That is a real challenge, and it's a real challenge to every health service that, with all the protections we will have to put in place in future to prevent additional risks to patients and to staff, even if our theatres are working flat out, they will not be able to carry out the number of operations that were previously planned and expected.

That will be a challenge for the health service going into the winter particularly, and will require conversations between patients and their clinicians, but there is no easy answer to it and it is not for lack of effort on the part of clinicians or health boards to resume those activities. It's just that, in a coronavirus context, it simply isn't possible to return to the sort of working practices that were safe back in January and February of this year.

First Minister, I was very encouraged by your answer earlier to Adam Price, as I'm personally very keen to see the Welsh Government commit to a zero-COVID strategy for Wales. I was also very heartened by your restatement of your commitment to prioritise the reopening of schools. Of course, the other point that the Children's Commissioner for England made was that schools should be the first to open and the last to close, and that is also something that features in the scientific advice that the Welsh Government has received on the reopening of schools.

Now, I am very uneasy about the decision to reopen pubs indoors and the impact that that will have on our plans to reopen schools, so can I ask you how you will take forward that prioritisation of children and schools, especially in light of what's happened today in Aberdeen, where, I understand, the outbreak has been linked to a pub?

I'd also like to ask you about supermarkets. As you know, I'm really worried that many supermarkets now have abandoned one-way systems, restrictions on numbers, et cetera, and many of my constituents tell me that they don't feel safe going to the shops. What will you do, First Minister, to ensure that essential shops understand the need to maintain social distancing in Wales? Thank you.

Llywydd, I thank Lynne Neagle for that. I'm happy to repeat the Welsh Government's position that the reopening of schools will have the top priority in whatever capacity we have to go on lifting lockdown measures in the second half of this month and into September. Our approach to dealing with any flare-ups we see as a result of other measures we have already taken will be similar to that that you have seen in Scotland today and in England already—that we will introduce local lockdown measures effectively to suppress the circulation of the virus in those localities, as I think we have demonstrated we were able to do in Ynys Môn, in Merthyr Tydfil, during the earlier part of last month.

The range of measures that we will take on a local basis will depend upon the nature of the outbreak. There will be a menu of actions that local outbreak-control teams will be able to draw on. My colleague, Vaughan Gething, will be publishing further information for Members, I think next week, hopefully, which will set out our approach to how a local lockdown might be triggered, who will have the powers to take actions, what the menu of actions might be, and what the process will be for withdrawing from a local lockdown as its effectiveness takes hold. In that way, we hope that we will able to avoid the need to take nationwide measures, particularly measures that would have an impact on children.

As far as supermarkets are concerned, my colleague Lesley Griffiths met with the supermarkets in Wales this morning. She emphasised to them that the law is different in Wales, that they have a legal obligation—not simply advice—that requires them to take all reasonable measures to make sure that their premises are safe for staff and for people who shop in them. She received a series of assurances from the sector, and an undertaking that they would go away and look at some of the complaints that have come into my office and to other Members here—their offices—as well, about the way in which some supermarkets are operating locally.

They are very, very important sectors, and they have managed fantastically, during the coronavirus crisis, to keep open and to go on feeding people in Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom. But they have responsibility as well and, here in Wales, we are very determined that we will make that responsibility clear to them, and that they must live up to it.

Thank you for your statement, First Minister. A couple of questions from me. Firstly—and this was covered in an answer that you gave to a question, partially covered in an answer you gave to a question, a few minutes ago—with regard to the health service and operations, a number of constituents have contacted me who have had operations deferred due to the COVID-19 situation. I appreciate what you're saying about how it's difficult for things to return to normal in the near future and the capacity isn't there, but I need to give some kind of guidance to my constituents. So, I wonder if the Welsh Government can be quite clear, can provide clarification on, when operations that have been deferred can resume and when we can expect some sort of normality.

Secondly, sport. Covered riding arenas have been allowed to reopen both in Scotland and England—I think in Scotland on 29 June and England on 4 July. I don't believe that this is the case yet in Wales. So, could you provide some clarification, or could you raise this with the Minister responsible, so that we know when we can expect covered arenas to at least partially reopen in Wales?

And finally—  

No, there's no chance for a 'finally'.

No? Okay.

I'm sorry. Thank you, Nick. First Minister.

Well, I thank Nick Ramsay for that. Operations have resumed in Wales. Operations are happening every day. It's a matter of clinical prioritisation. The rule in Wales will always be that those with the greatest need will get the first service, and that's a matter for clinicians to discuss with their patients. I don't think that there will be a more precise rule than that, and the advice will generally be that people will have to discuss it with their consultant and get advice in that way.

On covered riding arenas, I have already discussed this earlier this week with the chief medical officer and others; it's part of the current three-week review. If we are in a position at the end of it to make further liberalisations, those organisations in Wales that operate in the equestrian field can know that we are actively looking at what we can do for them.

Many parents have contacted me with concerns about the restricted bus places for schools. There are problems on all buses affecting key workers too, but the school bus places shortage is causing particular stress to those parents with children in different schools, to some parents with children in Welsh-medium schools, to those people who've previously paid for a place and no longer can. So, what do you say to those parents, including the mother of an autistic child who is unable to get a bus seat for her son to get to school on his first day of secondary school? And how are you taking into account the two studies published by the JAMA Pediatrics network that suggest that young children spread COVID-19 more efficiently than adults, presenting a clear risk to those vulnerable relatives? It seems to me that it contradicts your announcement to end social distancing for the under-11s. So, will you publish the advice that led to that decision, and will you undertake to consider this new research and its impact, particularly on the most vulnerable of our citizens?

Llywydd, we publish the advice on a weekly basis, so the Member will see all of that, as she will already have been able to see all the evidence we have published on childhood transmission and childhood vulnerability. These two studies will be looked at by our technical advisory group, and, if it changes their minds, then they will tell us that. But the preponderance of evidence has been on the opposite side of that divide, including in places like Denmark, where they have longer experience already of children returning to school. So, there's more than one study here and the weight of evidence is not on the side that the Member has identified so far. 

On bus places, we continue to work with local authorities and with bus providers to make sure that, to the maximum extent possible, we are able to provide effective school transport for children returning to school in the autumn.

I fully support the Government's position of prioritising the return to school of all, hopefully, pupils for the start of the school year next month. Linked to the important change to the regulations last Friday that children up to the age of 11 no longer need to observe social distancing, either with each other or with adults, I'm keen to understand how that will facilitate the reopening of all primary schools for all pupils full time, and also whether that will then enable breakfast clubs and after school wraparound services to operate normally as well, because I'm sure that parents who will otherwise need to make other arrangements for childcare will find that very helpful.

Assuming that the information from Denmark and elsewhere stands up to scrutiny and that primary school children are not a source of spreading the coronavirus, that obviously enables us to focus more on the secondary schools, where social distancing is required, and I wondered how the Government is supporting secondary schools to ensure the maximum number of pupils can attend most of the time.

And lastly, I just—

No. No chance for a 'lastly' for you either, sorry, Jenny. The First Minister. 

Well, Llywydd, I thank Jenny Rathbone for her very solid support throughout this for children and the need for those children to be back in school. The science does change in relation to coronavirus. Members of Plaid Cymru have pointed to further studies today, which need to be taken into account, but the bulk of evidence that we have seen is that children don't spread the disease and that they don't suffer from the disease to the extent of others.

Children suffer in other ways. Children under the age of 11 told that they've got to keep a social distance from people who they love and other children who they know suffer through that as well. So, I was very glad on Friday that we were able to say that the evidence tells us that we can lift that restriction on their lives, and it ought to mean that the reopening of schools in September will be easier in that way.

It's not the only part of the picture, as I know Jenny Rathbone knows. There are adults in school we have to think about. Lots of the risks of school are not posed in the classroom; they're posed in the way that people arrive at school and leave school, and all the things that happen around a school. So, headteachers will still be thinking carefully about the fullest extent to which they are able to reopen, including breakfast clubs and after-school clubs and so on. 

And in secondary schools we, uniquely in Wales, have the advantage of the fact that children were back in secondary school at the end of June and into July and headteachers have learnt a great deal from that. We're doing a lot with the sector to make sure that that experience is shared and that teachers are able to return to the classroom with children of secondary school age to the fullest possible extent.

We're offering some extra flexibility at the start of the school term to allow people to make adjustments in those first couple of weeks, and then our aim is to have as many children back for as long as possible, because that is in their interest, as our own children's commissioner, as well as the children's commissioner in England, have so very powerfully articulated.

Neil Hamilton. Not hearing you at the moment, Neil Hamilton. Yes.

Diolch, Llywydd. In the course of his statement, the First Minister said that the outlook for coronavirus

'has darkened in many parts of the world',

but one country where that is not the case is Sweden. Sweden's had 81,000 cases altogether since the start of the pandemic, but as of yesterday, only 41 people were registered as being in a serious or critical condition, and the seven-day moving average of deaths has now been reduced to between one or two per day.

At the start of the lockdown in Britain, Sweden took a radically different course. They didn't have a compulsory lockdown at all, and Professor Tegnell, who is the chief adviser to the Swedish Government, said that the lockdown would merely postpone infections and deaths and wouldn't prevent them from happening. That seems to be borne out by experience in England, to which the First Minister referred.

On that basis, therefore, would the First Minister agree with me that whilst people must continue to take sensible precautions on their own responsibility in social distancing and avoiding creating risks for those who are vulnerable—the elderly and those with underlying medical conditions—it is now vitally important that we get the economy as up and running as much as we possibly can? Because not only is there an economic cost to the lockdown, but also, of course, there's a cost in people with cases of serious diseases that go undiagnosed or untreated, and, therefore, we should be measured in our response and not panicked by these recent outbreaks in other parts of England.

Well, Llywydd, the Member's conversion to the cause of Scandinavian social democracy has been one of the phenomenons of the whole coronavirus experience. And the position in Sweden is a great deal more mixed than I think he wishes to imply: more deaths in Sweden than the whole of Denmark and Norway combined, and with their care home sector particularly badly affected. So, nobody should believe that there is a single shining example to be found even in Sweden.

But, on a general point, I don't disagree with what the Member has said: we want the economy in Wales to reopen, we want people to have livelihoods in front of them and businesses to succeed. But it's why we have gone about it in the way that we have, because I think nothing is more difficult for a business than to find itself opening and then shutting, and then reopening and the risk of reshutting. Because that erodes the confidence that Carwyn Jones referred to earlier in the session of the people on whom those businesses rely: their customers. And the way we have tried to do it in Wales, in a step-by-step way without, at the moment, having to reverse the measures that we have introduced, I think, is good for business, and businesses need to succeed in what is an economic as well as a health emergency.

But my argument would be that our approach to it has been good, not simply for public health, but what's good for public health is good for business, and that's the way that we've tried to approach it.

Finally, Jack Sargeant.

Diolch, Llywydd. First Minister, I've been contacted by residents with family members who have contracted coronavirus whilst in hospital. As you can imagine, they are quite rightly scared and angry. Now, First Minister, this has happened more in north Wales than anywhere else, and people need to know that they are safe when they do go to hospital. Can you ask your officials to speak to the health board to ask them to review the procedures in north Wales, with an aim to making sure that this never happens in the future?

Llywydd, I thank Jack for that, and of course I understand and sympathise with those people who have relatives in hospital and who are afraid of contracting coronavirus when they are there. The facts of the matter are, actually, that that has been more a feature of south Wales, and south-east Wales in particular, than any other part of Wales, including the north.

But I give Jack Sargeant an absolute assurance that my officials are in daily contact with the outbreak control team at the Wrexham Maelor. I have met them myself twice with the health Minister in the last five days, to hear of the work that they are doing to make sure they've got all the help and advice that they need. And, as I say, I think the encouraging news is that the position at the hospital has stabilised, that the number of new infections has been low in recent days, and with all the actions that have already been taken, I think that patients can have growing confidence that the events at the Maelor are now well under control.

I thank the First Minister.

The next item is motions to elect Members to committees, and I call on a member of the Business Committee to formally move the motions. Darren Millar.

I move.

The proposal is to agree the motions. Does any Member object? No. Therefore, the motions are agreed.

The next items are items 3, 4 and 5, and in accordance with Standing Order 12.24, unless a Member objects, the three motions under these items, namely 3, 4 and 5, will be grouped for debate with votes taken separately. Does any Member object? No, there are no objections.

I therefore call on the Minister for Health and Social Services to move the motions on the regulations. Vaughan Gething.

Thank you, Llywydd, and I formally move the three sets of regulations before us today, and I ask Members to support all three sets of regulations. As with the regulations that preceded them, the three sets of regulations being debated today were introduced under the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 through emergency procedures to support our national approach to tackling coronavirus here in Wales.

As the coronavirus pandemic has continued, we have continually reviewed the restrictions that it has been necessary to impose on individuals, businesses and other organisations to manage this truly extraordinary public health crisis. The continual review of the regulations is in addition to the 21-day review cycle that requires Welsh Ministers to review the need for restrictions and requirements every 21 days. Over recent weeks, Members will be aware that we have sought to gradually ease a range of restrictions that apply to Wales as circumstances have allowed. The regulations before the Senedd today continue that process. All of the changes introduced by these regulations are, once again, based on the most up-to-date scientific evidence and public health advice as to what restrictions it is safest to remove or alter whilst guarding against any resurgence in the spread of the virus here in Wales.

The No. 2 regulations revoked and replaced the previous provisions set out in the Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (Wales) Regulations 2020 and their subsequent amendments. These regulations came into force on 11 July in relation to the opening of self-contained holiday accommodation, and in full from Monday 13 July this year. Although the regulations revoke the original regulations, they also reinstated, with some easing, requirements for the closure of businesses selling food or drink, holiday accommodation and other businesses to protect against the risk to public health arising from coronavirus. They also delivered the duty on local authorities, national park authorities, Natural Resources Wales and the National Trust to close footpaths or access to land to prevent large numbers of people congregating or being in close proximity to each other and to publish a list of the closures on their websites.

These regulations provided for a significant number of easements in the restrictions previously in force. So, it's through them that we've removed the requirement to close the following categories of businesses: hair salons and barbers, self-contained accommodation and outdoor hospitality. We've allowed for places of worship to restart outdoor services and indoor congregational services in some areas. We've allowed for outdoor cinema to open and allowed for organised outdoor activities, up to a maximum of 30 attendees, subject to organisers meeting COVID-secure requirements. We've amended the 2m requirement to replace it with a requirement to take reasonable measures to reduce the risk of exposure to coronavirus. That includes 2m distancing, limiting face-to-face interaction, maintaining hygiene and providing information on how to minimise the risks of exposure.

The No. 2 amendment regulations came into force on 20 July. They allowed for still further relaxation of coronavirus restrictions by reopening playgrounds and outdoor gyms, funfairs, and clarifying that people can gather at places of worship.

Finally, the second set of amendment regulations came into force on 3 August. These regulations provide for yet greater freedom of association and a return to something closer to what normal life was for many people, by allowing outdoor gatherings of up to 30 people, permitting indoor hospitality in pubs, bars, cafes and restaurants to reopen, and permitting bowling alleys, bingo halls and auction houses to reopen.

The restrictions put in place to protect people's health and control the spread of the virus have been and continue to be unprecedented. The law is clear, however, that those restrictions can only be kept in place for as long as they're necessary and proportionate. The road map the Welsh Government published on 15 May promised a cautious and coherent approach to the easing of restrictions through gradual regulatory change. The regulations on which Members will vote today help to make good that promise, and I ask the Senedd to support them.

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

Thank you, Llywydd. The Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (No. 2) (Wales) Regulations 2020 were made, as has been said, on 10 July under the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 in response to COVID-19 or coronavirus. The regulations revoke the original coronavirus regulations made on 26 March. As has been said, all the amendments made to those original restrictions regulations are also revoked. The No. 2 regulations are now the principal regulations on coronavirus in Wales. In brief, and as Members will be aware, the No. 2 regulations restate certain provisions of the original regulations, require certain steps to be taken by those businesses permitted to be open, including taking all reasonable measures to ensure social distancing at their premises and with regard to the restriction of gatherings. The regulations will expire on 8 January 2021. 

On 3 August, the committee reported on the No. 2 regulations and two sets of amending regulations made respectively on 17 and 24 July. Our report on the No. 2 regulations identified three technical reporting points and six merits reporting points. We raised concerns about the commencement provisions in the regulations; in particular, when exactly do the regulations come into force? I'd welcome clarification on this point in the Minister's closing remarks and hope they will confirm the position regarding anyone who may have breached the restrictions over the weekend of 11 and 12 July. In addition, we highlight some inconsistencies between the meaning of the English and Welsh texts.

Now, turning to the merits reporting points, we note the explanation as to the impact of the No. 2 regulations on human rights, and how interference is justified in respect of articles 5, 8, 9 and 11. However, we have requested further information in order to provide a fuller understanding of their impact on human rights. We have also sought clarity on two issues: first, about how the regulations apply in relation to the concept of extended households where one of the households is not in Wales, given that the 1984 Act states that the Wales restrictions apply 'as respects Wales'. Secondly, we've asked for an explanation about the application of regulation 8. This permits self-contained accommodation to open as long as, amongst other requirements, it is only let to members of the same household. Specifically, we have asked for clarification of what the owner of any self-contained accommodation must do in order to satisfy themselves that they are actually letting the property to members of the same household, whether extended or not. We also requested that the Welsh Government address specific issues we highlighted in our report, which Members have, about the powers of entry and fixed-penalty notices.

The Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (No. 2) (Wales) (Amendment) Regulations of 2020 also amend the No. 2 regulations to allow the reopening of funfairs, playgrounds and outdoor gyms, as has been mentioned by the Minister, and clarify that persons who attend a place of worship have a reasonable excuse to gather. These regulations came into force on 20 July. We reported three merits points concerning drafting issues that are relevant to the accessibility of law, and we draw them to the attention of the Senedd as they're identified in the report. 

Finally, we come to the third set of regulations being debated today. The second set of amending regulations lifted some of the restrictions imposed by the No. 2 regulations from 25 July, and others from 27 July. These are listed in our report. In addition, and from 27 July, the regulations require passengers travelling on public transport services to wear a face covering, subject to certain exceptions.

There are two merits points identified in the report, relating to a minor drafting issue and the lack of time to carry out a consultation or regulatory impact assessment, and I draw these to the attention of the Senedd. Diolch, Llywydd. 

Thank you, Minister, for introducing these regulations. If I could just seek two assurances from you, Minister. The Welsh Conservatives will be voting for the regulations as tabled this afternoon, but in relation to the use of face masks in vulnerable settings, such as hospitals and care homes, I would be grateful to try to understand why the Minister has not chosen to use these regulation updates to make that a mandatory obligation across Wales, in particular with what we've seen at Wrexham Maelor, with requests from Public Health Wales and the health board in that area. I heard what the First Minister said in his response to me, that they were mandatory on the Wrexham Maelor site, but actually this is not backed up by regulations laid by Government or the legislation that's available to Government to take that confrontational aspect out of it and make it, across Wales, a demand that would be placed on people visiting hospitals and care homes in particular. So, I'd be grateful to understand why the Government haven't chosen to use this opportunity to do that. 

Secondly, we've all seen the scenes across Wales as some of the unlocking measures have come into force—in Roald Dahl Plass, right next door to the Assembly building itself, and in other locations in my own electoral region. In Barry, for example, there were crowds of 25,000-30,000 attending Barry Island on a given day. How confident are you, Minister, that the regulations that you have put before the Senedd for approval today can manage and assist the enforcement agencies in managing the situations that they are faced with on a day-to-day basis now of such gatherings that turn into unruly behaviour, and unlawful behaviour, I would suggest, in some instances, because obviously the First Minister in his statement did allude to the fact that he had met with the enforcement agencies this morning, but we are voting on regulations today for the next three weeks? So, would it be your opinion that the regulations we are voting on do assist the enforcement agencies in confronting such situations?

Thank you very much, Llywydd. Thank you to the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee for scrutinising these regulations. My fellow Members and I will be voting in favour of these regulations. We support a move towards relaxing restrictions—that’s what everyone wants—as long as the evidence demonstrates to us that that can be done safely. We are, however, emphasising the need to communicate as clearly as possible and as much in advance as possible where there is the possibility of further relaxation and where that can have an impact on families and individuals, and on businesses, because there are businesses that still want to prepare for an enhancement in their activities. That, of course, is with the caveat that things could change, because that will be inevitable, given this pandemic.

Also, where it is impossible to allow businesses to operate in a way that would allow them to start to regain some of their losses, we also appeal to the Government to enhance the packages of support available to those businesses. There are still businesses slipping through the net in terms of the support available, given the impact that the pandemic and the restrictions in place are having on them.

We also support the principle in these regulations of keeping the 2m distance regulation in Wales. One thing that I would request, however, is I wonder whether any consideration has been given to putting a system in place to assess whether that directive could be reduced to 1m safely in certain circumstances by putting in place mitigation steps, such as the wearing of face coverings, for example. I have examples in my own constituency, and other Members will have examples in theirs too, where the 2m distance is having a detrimental impact. For example, as regards businesses running boat trips or fishing trips in Anglesey, in the open air, the 2m restriction between paying guests does make that difficult. So, I wonder whether that could be done safely.

May I also just expand on some of the points that I raised with the First Minister? These regulations do lead towards, and have led towards, a relaxation of restrictions, but I wonder whether the Minister can tell us what preparations are being made through regulation to tighten restrictions again where necessary. We heard the First Minister warning us quite rightly earlier on that these dangers are not over. We have seen quite serious clusters of cases arising, for example, in the north-east of Wales, where local regulations could be tightened in order to, hopefully, avoid another lockdown. For example, surely the use of face coverings should be mandatory in more places in areas such as Wrexham. I would remind you that what I have argued, and what Plaid Cymru has argued, is that we need far stronger guidance and enforcement in terms of face coverings throughout Wales in those places where it’s difficult to distance from others.

But we also have the cases in the north-west of England—not in Wales, but having a direct impact on Wales. There are thousands of people still travelling from those areas to areas such as Anglesey, Gwynedd and along the north Wales coast. The question has been posed, and it’s a valid question: should we be asking people to travel only where truly necessary? But if the Government isn’t willing to place a restriction on people’s right to travel, then I am quite sure that we do need guidance and far stricter enforcement in relation to how people should behave once they have travelled into those communities. There are people who can’t travel or can’t visit pubs in the north-west of England with multiple different families, but they can do so on Anglesey, and I think that the Government needs to take account of that and to respond to that by increasing the level of direction in terms of people’s behaviour. I do think we need to consider how we can strengthen the regulations again in the next weeks and months to respond to such circumstances.

I thank the Minister for his statement and the Chair of the committee for the procedural background I might have expected to have had from the Minister. We haven't had an explanation as to why having, since the original set on 26 March, had a series of amendments to those regulations—. Now that approach has been changed and the initial overall set of regulations and all the amendments are then revoked and then largely reinstated before a new set of amendments. What's the purpose of that procedural approach? 

I'm disappointed that, again, it's over three weeks since these amendments were made, on 10 July, before we debate them. We're therefore debating and voting on something when it's already been amended twice. We were told by the First Minister there are going to be further amendments that are going to be made on 7 August. It's 5 August today. Why couldn't that be done two days earlier so we could have proper scrutiny by the Senedd? 

The original set of regulations, while we would have been happy to support a degree of restriction in order to protect NHS capacity from being overwhelmed, by the time we even got to vote on the first set of regulations, that issue was, we felt, under control. We've opposed all the regulations to date. Because these No. 2 regulations reinstate that panoply of regulations, we also propose to vote against these. Again, we think it's wrong, the scale of the restrictions and closures, and the putting in law the huge inflexibility of that, the 2m distancing, we think is wrong.

I also consider that these regulations are unnecessary and disproportionate, and that applies even more strongly given how low the level of prevalence of COVID-19 now is—this level of extraordinary restrictions and state power, and the impact that this has on the economy, but also on people's well-being and also, frankly, health and, I fear, death rates for other diseases in the NHS. It is wholly disproportionate. We oppose it.

The two sets of amending regulations strike me as being entirely liberalising, albeit in a small way, and therefore we see no need to oppose the amendment regulations, should there be a vote. Thank you.

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

Thank you, Llywydd. I thank Members for contributing to the debate. I'll try to respond to the variety of points. I might not get through all of them, given the number of specific points made. Just in terms of dealing with the points raised by the committee, I have written to the committee. I don't know if the letter's got to the Chair yet, but I think that will cover the points that have been raised in the reporting points, both about the technical issues and the merits issues as well. So, they'll be all available and on the record.

I think I'll just deal with the first point that Mark Reckless made about why we've revoked the original regulations to have a new set of regulations to be amended. That is simply because we think they will be a more coherent scheme of regulations available, making it clearer and more distinct for both Members and the public and people trying to follow the regulations, rather than to continue re-amending the original regulations.

When it comes to the points that both Rhun ap Iorwerth and Andrew R.T. Davies made on face coverings, it is a fact that this is a live matter of not just public debate, but these are regular conversations we have with our scientific advisers and with the chief medical officer, about the current state of the evidence, and the evidence being reviewed, and then practice as well. So, in Wrexham Maelor there's a specific situation, and that's why face coverings are now required of people accessing that site. There isn't a need to have Government regulations for that requirement to be real. But we'll continue to review what would happen generally, with the current circulation of coronavirus, but, if there were to be local action, then the potential for further use of face coverings is a matter that could be further reviewed, just as we have done in terms of public transport, where we recognise that not only is there a cross-border issue, but, of course, there is a challenge where, as more people use public transport, social distancing is much more likely to be difficult, and the current advice of the chief medical officer has been to recommend the use of face coverings where social distancing isn't possible. We recognise, actually, that, for simplicity purposes as well, it was the right thing to do to actually make that mandatory on public transport. So, we are continuing to consider evidence of the practical realities of where we are on face coverings, as indeed on a wide range of areas.

I do want to address some of the points that Andrew R.T. Davies made about Roald Dahl Plass and other venues. Of course, Roald Dahl Plass, I should say, Presiding Officer, is in my constituency, and I recognise the concern of a range of people who come to Cardiff Bay for leisure and other purposes, and there are challenges in some of the behaviour. That's partly about engagement, but also enforcement. And it's the point about public behaviour, because it's public behaviour that has allowed us to get to the point where we've made further easements, and we may yet get to make more. But it's also public behaviour that provides the greatest risk to continuing to ease the measures that we're still taking to restrict individual and community choices. It’s public behaviour that will be the best guard against a further rise in coronavirus through the autumn and the winter. We actually need to not just deal with enforcement where people appear to be breaking the regulations, but also to remind people of the risks of those choices to individuals and people, not just the issues about the litter and anti-social behaviour but, as we go through the autumn and the winter, what that could mean as regards a rise in coronavirus, as we've seen in other countries with low prevalence. That is the reason why, for example, Aberdeen is now in a localised lockdown in Scotland. So, it's a matter for all of us in the choices we make as community leaders. It's a matter for us as individuals within our communities to try to make sure that coronavirus is kept at bay. And, within that, I do think very clearly about the impact on businesses as well as individuals.

I would like to see more easements as quickly as possible, as safely as possible, and that's still what the Government is aiming to do. But that is going to be within the context of taking a deliberately cautious approach to keep Wales safe. That requires clarity in our communications, and I do think that whilst the Brexit Party simply oppose the approach we're taking—and they've been consistent in that—even people who disagree with the approach of this Government, I think, would acknowledge that there's been a clear and consistent level of communication in areas where people disagree with us. I think that clarity is really important, and I think that helps the public to understand the rules and make choices about them.

In terms of our plan for the future, not only do I have regular meetings with the First Minister, the chief medical officer and our chief scientific advisers, but I've indicated we will be publishing a plan at the start of the autumn, in the early part of the autumn, for preparing for autumn and winter. It was welcome news we'll have more money available. That's been announced today following a statement by myself and the finance Minister. Within that, I'll also be setting out, as the First Minister indicated—ahead of that, rather—the balance between local and national action and what those things will look like.

Now, these regulations are, of course, just part of our response to managing the coronavirus pandemic here in Wales and we'll continue to take action to manage the pandemic and protect the public. Taken as a package of measures, these regulations, I believe, are sensible and proportionate. The changes have gone a significant way towards returning to a more normal social and economic life in Wales. It still carries with it an element of risk, but we do not believe that risk is excessive.

All of us need to remember that the virus has not gone away and we need to maintain vigilance in following the messages, in particular about social distancing and good hand hygiene, to keep all of us in our families and our communities safe. I look forward to further easing in the time available to us, but I'll also, as will the Government, continue to take every measure possible and necessary to keep the people of Wales safe. And that may yet require us to amend these regulations further to move easements in the opposite direction. But, as I say, I hope we can take further steps to have further easements for every community across the country. I thank Members for contributing to the debate and ask Members to support the regulations before us today.

The proposal is to agree the motion under item 3. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes. I see that there is an objection, therefore we will defer voting until voting time.

The next proposal is to agree the motion under item 4. Any objections? Are there any objections to the motion under item 4? Yes. I see that there is an objection, therefore I will defer the voting until voting time. 

The proposal now is to agree the motion under item 5. Are there any objections? [Objection.] Yes. I see that there are objections, therefore that too will be deferred until voting time.

Which brings us to voting time, but in accordance with Standing Order 34.14D, there will be a break of at least five minutes before we take those votes. We will now move into that brief break.

That brings us to voting time. The first vote is on the Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (No. 2) (Wales) Regulations 2020. I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Rebecca Evans. Open the vote.

Neil Hamilton, how are you voting?

I vote against.

Paul Davies, how are you voting?

In favour.

Close the vote. In favour 41, no abstentions, four against. And therefore the motion is agreed.

The next vote is on the Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (No. 2) (Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2020. I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Rebecca Evans. Open the vote. Neil Hamilton, how do you cast your vote?

Vote against.

Paul Davies, how do you cast your vote?

In favour.

Close the vote. In favour 43, no abstentions, two against. And therefore that motion is agreed.
 

The final vote, therefore, is on the Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (No. 2) (Wales) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2020. I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Rebecca Evans. Open the vote. Neil Hamilton, how do you cast your vote?
 

Against.

Paul Davies, how do you cast your vote?

In favour.

Close the vote. In favour 43, no abstentions, two against. And therefore those regulations are agreed.

That brings today's business to a conclusion. Thank you very much for participating, and I wish you all well. Thank you.