National Assembly for Wales

Good afternoon. Welcome to this Plenary meeting. Before we begin, I want to set out a few points. A Plenary meeting held using video-conference, in accordance with the Standing Orders of the Welsh Parliament, constitutes Senedd proceedings for the purposes of the Government of Wales Act 2006. Some of the provisions of Standing Order 34 will apply for today's Plenary meeting, and these are noted on the agenda. I would remind Members that Standing Orders relating to order in Plenary meetings apply to this meeting, and apply equally to Members in the Siambr as to those joining virtually.

The first item on our agenda this afternoon is questions to the Minister for Environment, Energy and Rural Affairs, and the first question is from Siân Gwenllian.

Diolch. As the species champion for raptors, I was extremely saddened to hear of the recent death of the only golden eagle in Wales. Any proposals to reintroduce eagles in Wales will require a licence from Natural Resources Wales. Habitat suitability and the effects on existing wildlife and land use would be part of the decision-making process.

Will you join with me in expressing grave concern about this idea, which apparently is being put forward by one gentleman and doesn't have support from anywhere else within Snowdonia? Farmers are concerned that eagles would attack their stock, and there is concern about the impact on biodiversity as there isn't enough sustenance in the area for eagles. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds said that there would need to be broad support from local communities for such a proposal to succeed, and that support isn't there. Will you therefore state clearly that the Welsh Government is not in favour of this proposal either and that it needs to be put to one side immediately?

I appreciate that proposals to reintroduce certain species can be controversial; sometimes you have very polarised views expressed. So, I think it's really important that all views are taken into account as part of the decision-making process. That should also include a public consultation.

Clearly, there are concerns around this idea, but it is important I think that we consider strategies that protect those species that are under threat in Wales, like the Atlantic puffin, which, of course, I'm proud to be the species champion for. Minister, could you therefore tell us a bit more about how the Welsh Government will address any gaps in the marine protected area network for sea birds, including foraging areas for cliff nesting birds?

It is very important that we consider all our policies against, as you say, the species that we are particularly concerned about, and, of course, the Atlantic puffin is one of those. This is part of our work as we're looking to how we increase our biodiversity and support our marine ecosystems. 

Minister, would you agree with me that reintroductions of species should only take place where there is good ecological evidence and that planning needs to be thorough? There needs to be good engagement with local communities. I'm aware, for example, that Cardiff University has done some research looking at habitats and food availability for eagles in Wales, and they favoured building an evidence case carefully and, obviously, having a full and respectful conversation with farmers and local communities—basically, I think, moving one step at a time. Would you agree with me that we want do see biodiversity but that a proper process has to be followed? 

Yes, absolutely. John Griffiths will have heard my earlier answer to Siân Gwenllian when I said it's really important all views are taken into account but public consultation has to be part of the decision-making process, and when assessing any licence application for introductions of any species, NRW always takes into account the biological and the social feasibility of such a proposal.  

Thank you. I regularly meet with representatives from each of the main supermarkets. I am reassured robust systems are in place to maintain adequate food supplies. The supermarkets have been made very aware of their role in tackling the COVID-19 pandemic through maintaining adequate social distancing measures. Local authority sanctions will be used if necessary.

I'd like to read the Minister a comment on my Facebook page, which I've had, which is reflective of many comments I've had. This is from a constituent: 

'Can anyone answer this question for me please? Just 10 minutes ago I went to Morrison's Caerphilly. Whilst shopping I saw four people all not wearing masks except around their necks. I drew this matter to the attention of the store security, who said, "We have no authority to enforce the issue". I am now very confused in that the Welsh Government and the council have said the wearing of masks in shops is mandatory.'

I've also had similar reflected views from constituents talking about similar situations in Tesco, Asda and Aldi in my e-mail inbox, and it does raise concerns. As the Minister responsible for relations with the major supermarkets during the pandemic, what is the Welsh Government doing to ensure that the major supermarkets enforce COVID safety measures so that people who are contacting me can feel safe when shopping? 

Thank you. You raise a very important point and a point that has filled my inbox with many e-mails from members of the public and from Members of the Senedd certainly over the summer recess. I mentioned that I regularly meet with the main retailers. Probably it was about every two weeks in the beginning; it's now about every four weeks. They assure me that they have social distancing measures in place and, of course, there is a geographical spread here. It's not just Caerphilly; it's right across Wales. I've had complaints as have all the main supermarkets. Officials are also in direct contact with retailers and they've shared guidance and addressed queries. 

I mentioned, again, in my opening answer to you, Hefin David, that enforcement of the coronavirus regulations and guidance is a function for local authorities. I know many local authorities across Wales have done visits to supermarkets to make sure those measures are in place. But I think it's also a good opportunity to remind people of their responsibility as individuals as they too visit supermarkets and make sure that they are wearing face coverings and adhering to the 2m. And I think, again, over the last couple of days, I've had some concerns raised with me that people feel that perhaps wearing a face covering lulls people into a false sense of security, and whilst face coverings are now mandatory in supermarkets, please also remember the 2m social distancing measure. 

Questions now from the party spokespeople. The Conservatives' spokesperson, Janet Finch Saunders. 

Diolch, Llywydd. Minister, you'll be aware of how storm Francis wreaked havoc in north-west Wales. Flooding and landslides saw the A55 and properties submerged in Abergwyngregyn, around 40 individuals rescued from chalets in Bethesda, people from five houses rescued and businesses ruined in Beddgelert, and, of course, the historic grade I listed Gwydir Castle and gardens battered just after their summer reopening. Now, the 2021 Welsh Government flood risk management capital investment scheme actually doesn't include any funding that clearly benefits these areas—Beddgelert, Abergwyngregyn, Bethesda, nor Gwydir—in the short term. Will you increase funding for urgent flood risk schemes in areas that have been affected by storm Francis in north-west Wales, and why have you not already announced any such emergency funding for those affected by these really unexpected storms at a time when we should all be enjoying a summer?

Thank you. I'd like to welcome the Member to her new post in the shadow cabinet. We did see some unprecedented flooding over the summer. It reminded us that the climate emergency is still there alongside the COVID-19 pandemic. I have made 100 per cent repair funding for flooding events available to all local authorities, so it could be that the local authority hasn't applied for that. Certainly, with Rhondda Cynon Taf—and I know I've got a question further on specifically around RCT—we funded 100 per cent of what they've applied for. There are several flood alleviation schemes that we are funding in north Wales, but for the flooding events that we've seen, as I say, there is—. We don't need a special pot of money; that money has been made available to all local authorities and risk management authorities to apply for. 

Thank you. Of course, all this falls on top of what my constituents experienced earlier with storm Ciara. It's well documented here that I put forward a report on the flooding concerns following storm Ciara, and it took until 18 August for you and your department to actually address those concerns raised. Now, you dismissed accountability at the time by stating that the local lead flood authority is responsible for the section 19 flood investigation report. This is a statutory requirement. Now, seven months on, that report has not been published. And I am not laying criticism on our local authority given what they've had to contend with in dealing with COVID-19 over the past six months. But this is not a one-off failure in terms of across Wales, and it took from December 2015 to July 2016 for a report for Betws-y-coed and Dolwyddelan. So, it is taking an unacceptably long period for S19 reports to be delivered. So, will you address this urgently by setting a deadline for these publications, and do you actually have any powers to instruct the publication of these statutory reports within a more realistic and more reasonable time frame, because, without those statutory reports, it's very difficult to actually then get any sort of flood works implemented? Thank you. 

Well, I hope Janet Finch-Saunders will recognise that Welsh Government has been faced with exactly the same, if not more, significant concerns as local authorities. But I will certainly look at those dates, because I think you're right—it is helpful not just for transparency, but also for looking at what flood alleviation schemes we can bring forward. I've put additional significant funding to make sure that those flood alleviation schemes do come forward. Local authorities told me that one of the barriers to bringing the schemes forward was funding, so I've taken that barrier away by saying we'll fund 100 per cent of that initial study to see if a flood alleviation scheme would be suitable for that particular area. 

Thank you. Now, everybody knows that trees play a major part in the mitigation of major flooding incidents. Now, since 17 August 2020, Natural Resources Wales have themselves received applications for licences to fell almost 50,000 trees from Gwynedd to Monmouthshire, and, to my horror, NRW only consider the environmental impact where deforestation will lead to use of the land for a different purpose. This is actually scandalous because, if you imagine taking 100 or 1,000 trees down in a particular area and say that you are going to be planting seedlings, you do not get the actual impact in terms of flooding protection. So, what urgent steps will you take to ensure that NRW themselves consider the impact of any felling on the rate of run-off, and that they do produce environmental and ground impact works? You have set aside £1 million to support slowing the rate of run-off into our rivers and streams. Will you use that funding to review the effectiveness of licences in preventing felling in flooding hotspots? My constituents believe that NRW, whilst they are technically a regulator, are running a really good business of felling many trees, and yet they do impose many regulations on other forestry owners. So, I think there has to be some equilibrium here in the system.

And finally, how is the felling of trees in the Conwy valley in line with the requirement in the UK forestry standard that woodland management be considered as a way of mitigating flood risk, when the concern really is that the amount of deforestation that NRW are doing in my constituency may actually be causing the problems with a lot of the flooding? Thank you.

The Member makes some very wide-reaching claims, and I think it would be best if I discussed them with Natural Resources Wales and then wrote to the Member.FootnoteLink

Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Llyr Gruffydd.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. Minister, your consultation on proposals to continue agricultural support for farmers in a post-Brexit transition period through to whatever point it is that we manage to get a new Wales agriculture Bill passed proposes to close the young farmer scheme for new applications from next year onwards. Can you give us confirmation or clarity as to longer term intentions in terms of providing some form of bespoke support for new entrants into the industry? Clearly, it is causing concern that we may be facing a two or three-year period without any bespoke support of that kind. Why do you think it would be acceptable for us not to support young entrants in the interim period? And what kind of message do you think it might send to the industry if they believe that Government's thinking is that that kind of support is expendable, even if only in the short term?

The Member's probably aware that at the current time, the White Paper that we'll be bringing forward at the end of this calendar year, ahead of introducing an agricultural Bill in the next term of Government, is currently being finalised. I think we've got about another two chapters to write on it before it's able to come to me for the final write-off. As you know, I've always wanted to support our new entrants, but looking at what we've given in the past, looking at the way that funding has been accessed, I want to make sure that we are reaching people who are truly new entrants. That is part of what we'll bring forward in the White Paper.

That's the longer term plan; I was asking you about short-term, interim arrangements, because there will be a two to three-year period, therefore, when there isn't any kind of bespoke support for young entrants. It's needed now particularly, because we continually need new blood, new ideas and new enthusiasm. And with the prospect—the increasing prospect, actually—of a 'no deal' Brexit, then it's those kinds of people that we need, who are there ready to face the new challenges ahead. And with that increasing likelihood of a 'no deal' Brexit before us, I'm wondering whether your department has sufficient resources to be grappling with the COVID pandemic on the one hand and meaningfully and properly preparing for the prospect of a 'no deal' Brexit on the other. Maybe you could tell us whether your department is ready for a 'no deal' Brexit and whether you're confident that the sector will also be ready in what is 15 weeks' time. 

In relation to my department, you're quite right; it's the same officials who are dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic who are also helping prepare for a 'no deal' Brexit. You'll be aware that, obviously, the COVID-19 pandemic is not something that you could have planned for, and clearly, in the beginning, many of my officials were helping with the COVID-19 response right across Welsh Government. Certainly the ones that you referred to—so, the agriculture White Paper, for instance, and the 'no deal' Brexit—they are now working very clearly on those issues.

Is the sector ready? I would say probably not. I think that business preparedness is certainly an area that causes me great concern. On Monday, I chaired the latest Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs inter-ministerial group, where myself and my Scottish counterpart were told—. We were talking about business preparedness and we were talking about the Internal Market Bill that the UK Government have introduced and we were told by the Secretary of State that we were looking at it 'glass half empty'. I don't agree with that at all. I have genuine, real concerns that businesses aren't prepared. We asked them to prepare last year for a 'no deal' Brexit; they were stood down, if you like. We've now had the COVID-19 pandemic and, clearly, now, we're having to gear up again. As you say, I think it was 100 days on Monday, so it's probably 97 days now.

Okay. Well, we will need all sorts of contingencies, of course, and people are looking to the Welsh Government, obviously, to be leading from the front on that, and I would hope that you feel that you do have the resources, or if not, then we'll all need to bang the drum to make sure that they are there. One thinks particularly of the need to handle surplus lamb in a 'no deal' scenario. There isn't enough storage capacity in the UK to store lamb if we were to lose our export market. So, can you update, then, and explain to us where exactly you are in terms of contingency planning and whether you're confident that you will have covered all the bases? Because you can tell us that the work is starting again or gearing up again, but people want to know whether you believe that, actually, it's going to be the car crash that some people are suggesting it might be, or that you are confident that measures will be in place to mitigate the worst of the damage.

The Welsh Government has always led from the front around these issues. Back in November 2016, not long after the EU referendum vote, we started preparing. I've got my round-table of stakeholders and that's been meeting far more frequently this year, in light of COVID-19. It's not about starting again in relation to a 'no deal' Brexit; that work was done last year. It was quite prescient, now, looking at it, as it helped with the COVID-19 pandemic also.

Certainly, in the discussions we had last year around the sheep sector, we made it very clear to the UK Government they would have to provide additional funding, which was accepted last year. Nothing has changed in my view around that. But I think it is hard, because businesses have had to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic, they're now just starting to—not necessarily recover, because I think things have been, obviously, quite slow, as we are very concerned about a second spike, but I certainly think that those twin-track difficulties that all businesses are encountering at the moment are making it very difficult. But, certainly, we are doing all we can to make sure the information is out there and to pressurise UK Government. They will not extend the transition period, even though we've asked many, many times. They tell us that it will all be done by the end of the year and, clearly, the most important thing is that we continue to put pressure on the UK Government. I know myself and all my ministerial colleagues do that at every opportunity.

Question 3, Mick Antoniw.

You need to unmute yourself first, Mick Antoniw. Not quite yet.

My apologies.

Thank you. The Welsh Government has contacted all flood risk management authorities to encourage applications for funding property flood resilience measures, including flood gates, where such measures are considered an appropriate option for reducing flood risk to homes.

Can I say, Minister, firstly, that I welcome that answer? I know how seriously you've taken the issue of flooding when it occurred in Rhondda Cynon Taf and Taff-Ely. I'm very grateful for the swift response that we've had and the collaboration between Rhondda Cynon Taf council and Welsh Government. Of course, at the moment, we are awaiting a series of very important inquiry reports. I think there are eight for Taff-Ely alone that are awaited to deal with various issues arising from flooding. Now, as you know—and I know you fully understand this—of course, as winter approaches, there are very real concerns for those people who were flooded or live in flood risk areas that the same might happen again, having got their houses in order, to be potentially flooded again if we face more serious storms. One of the key areas that has emerged in the various meetings that myself and my colleague Alex Davies-Jones have had with local residents has been the issue of protection specifically for houses. Now, you mentioned the area of flood gates, but there are the issues of vent protections and so on. I'd be grateful, perhaps, if you could just clarify that if there are applications made either by Rhondda Cynon Taf council or by individuals, et cetera, for such flood resilient measures, they will be received and supported by Welsh Government if it can be shown that they would alleviate the flood risk. Because clearly it can't be right that there could be any house that might benefit from such flood resilience measures that can't afford to do them. If we can't stop climate change and the flooding risk, surely we need to do everything we can to ensure we support those communities where they have experienced the consequences of flooding. 

Thank you, Mick Antoniw. Just to pick up the point that you made around investigation reports, as you said, there are several where we're awaiting the statutory flood investigation reports. I'd just like to clarify that these will be published for residents, for elected members and other any other interested parties to view. They may bring forward further recommendations for reducing risk, which we can then look at urgently. Like you, I don't want to see a recurrence of the flooding in those communities that were so badly hit earlier this year, and again, in my earlier answer to Janet Finch-Saunders I was saying we did see flooding, unfortunately, over the summer.

I've provided all the funding requested by local authorities and NRW to make repairs in your constituency area, as in other areas, and I think it's really necessary that we did that so that we can prevent the same area from flooding again this winter. Flood gates, air vents and similar flood resilience measures are eligible for Welsh Government funding through our flood-risk management authorities, so I would encourage the use of property flood resilience measures, in particular for homes in communities that were badly affected earlier this year. My officials have again written out to local authorities to remind them of the availability of that Welsh Government funding, and I'm sure you will ensure any of your constituents do so also.

I recently visited Skenfrith in Monmouthshire with the local MP David Davies to see first-hand the devastating effects that flooding has had on their village. Last winter's flooding had a devastating impact on so many local residents, and worry and anxiety about a repeat of that this winter is giving many residents, obviously, sleepless nights and impacting on their mental health. Could I please ask you, Minister, given that we're now in autumn, will you please encourage NRW to speed up their report on Skenfrith and the costs and benefits of schemes there, as people's safety, homes and livelihoods are at risk? Thank you.

Yes, as I said in my earlier answer, the same applies to Monmouthshire also, so I'll be very happy to remind NRW of that. But also to say to the Member if she wants to contact the local authority to remind them that they can apply for that funding—and it's 100 per cent grant funding.

Minister, I wrote to you earlier this month, and I've raised the issue of flooding in the Rhondda a number of times with you here in the Senedd. Plaid Cymru wants to see an independent inquiry as to why so many communities in the Rhondda have suddenly become prone to flooding, but this inquiry shouldn't stop any preventative measures or remedial works. I wonder if you can tell the Senedd what you as a Government intend to do to promote and support funding for flood doors. Now, I say flood doors and not flood gates, because flood doors are more robust and protective than flood gates. I heard your answer earlier, so I wonder if you can tell us what people need to do if they live in a community that is vulnerable to floods to get the local authority to pay or contribute towards the cost of a flood door for their vulnerable property.

What your constituents should do is ensure that they contact the local authority who can then submit an application for that funding. I'll say it again: it's 100 per cent funding that we are giving to the local authority. I don't know much about flood doors, but I understand they are more robust than flood gates, and I think it's safe to say that flood gates would never be a long-term solution, but certainly in the short term, they can help. So, I would encourage them to contact their local authority, who then in turn can ensure that they apply for that funding. There are lots of flood alleviation measures—I mentioned vents as well—and it could be that on visiting, the most appropriate measure can be put in place. But initially, please contact the local authority.

Thank you. The Welsh Government are funding 10 flood-alleviation projects within Clwyd West. These coastal and fluvial schemes are at various stages of development, from appraisal to construction. Further information on schemes in our flood risk management programme is available via our website.

Thank you very much for that answer, Minister. You'll be aware of the flood risk that still exists in the Towyn and Kinmel Bay area, an area that has had devastating impacts from flooding in the past. I know that the local authority is very keen to progress with some works in that particular area in terms of reinforcement and replenishment of the beach defences, particularly around the Sandy Cove area and throughout Kinmel Bay. Can I ask what progress there has been from a Welsh Government perspective on this, and when local residents will be able to see some construction works under way in order to invest in those defences to bring them up to standard?

I'm not able to give you a date when that will be the case, but at the current time my officials are working with Conwy County Borough Council to develop an outline business case for investment for Kinmel Bay and Llanddulas. The scheme is being developed through our coastal risk management programme, and that will also include the frontage in Towyn. 

Thank you. Last week, I announced over £106 million of investment in our rural economy over the next three years. This will cover a range of schemes, including supporting farm businesses to enhance their technical and environmental performance and improve their sustainability. Welsh Government policies include the recent Welsh dairy support scheme, where over £983,000 has been paid to 160 farmers who were hardest hit by exceptional market conditions due to COVID-19, and my recent announcement of a 2020 BPS payment scheme.

Minister, like other industries, as you've just said, Welsh farming has been hit hard by the COVID-19 pandemic, and so it's crucial that the Welsh Government ensures the sustainability of the farming industry in its post-COVID recovery strategies. You have confirmed that you'll be laying the draft water resources regulations this year, which will simply add more burden and financial costs when the industry is going to need significant time to recover from the impacts of COVID-19. As you already know, there's evidence of some very good voluntary approaches across Wales. For example, the Wales catchment-sensitive farming demonstration project, which is a very successful scheme that was well received by farmers. Given the very serious impact that these regulations will have on farmers, will you now commit to dropping these regulations and instead committing to working with farmers to look at some of the alternative solutions, especially at a time when the industry will have to recover from COVID-19?

No, I won't drop them. I laid the draft regulations, as you know, earlier this year, around Easter time. What I have committed to is not bringing them forward whilst we're in the middle of a COVID-19 pandemic. However, I can inform Members that, up until I think it was something like 27 August, NRW had told me of over 100 substantiated agricultural pollution incidents. So, you can see they're still occurring. I am aware there's a lot of good voluntary work going on, and I continue to receive information about it and officials are working certainly with the farming unions to listen to what they come forward with in relation to voluntary measures. I had a meeting on Monday, I think it was, with the National Farmers Union, and I did express my concern over the continuing number of substantiated cases that we have seen this year of agricultural pollution—and I mention the word 'substantiated' because, of course, during the COVID-19 pandemic, NRW officers weren't able to get out there as much as they would normally. 

Former NFU chief economist, Séan Rickard, estimates that one in three farms could be driven out of business within five years in the event of a 'no deal' Brexit. So, the best way that Paul Davies can support Welsh farming is by steering his party away from that disastrous destination. Another way is by supporting sustainable farming that delivers public good for public money. Minister, in June, I asked you about planning applications for chicken farms, particularly those in Powys, and you said that the town and county planning intensive agricultural working group was looking at considerations for new poultry developments. I'm sure that you're aware that another 120,000 broiler chicken farm near Llangadfan has just been approved, and that of the 96 applications for chicken farms received by Powys County Council between April 2017 and April 2020, 75 have been approved, with only three being refused. So, can I ask for an update on the working group's activities, please? 

Thank you. And just to reiterate what you said about a 'no deal' Brexit, I don't think anybody is under any illusions about how much damage that would inflict on our agricultural sector here in Wales. And in relation to your point about sustainable farming, certainly the steps we're taking to bring forward the White Paper, to which I referred to in an earlier answer to Llyr Huws Gruffydd, absolutely has that at its core.

In relation to your substantive point, we are looking at how local planning authorities plan for new poultry developments, as you know, and we've convened the town and country planning intensive agricultural working group. The group has met three times to date. It was due to meet back in March and, obviously, work has been slightly delayed, but I can assure you that, following the current emergency-related responses, dialogue with advisers on this issue will recommence as a matter of urgency. 

Thank you. Farmers within mid Wales have received basic payment scheme payments totalling over £84.3 million. In addition to this, the Welsh dairy support scheme was also available, which has paid over £900,000 to date. Our Farming Connect service has continued to support farmers, providing advice and online training, whilst also having the ability for support on the phone during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Thank you for your answer, Minister. Many farmers will not ask for help or support with mental health issues, for a number of known reasons, but I was interested in seeing a recent survey by Tir Dewi, the charity, on farming in Powys specifically. As well as identifying the many reasons why farmers would not access that kind of support, for reasons I'm sure you and I would be familiar with, 58 per cent said they didn't know what support was available. So, I do wonder what you are doing in terms of liaising with your colleague the health Minister to ensure that mental health services reach farming communities in rural Wales, such as in my constituency in Montgomeryshire, because, as we know, many in the agricultural sector do work in isolation and this is a significant, significant issue. 

You're absolutely right and you make a very good point about people not asking for help when it's really needed. It's very disappointing to hear a figure of 58 per cent and it's certainly not the sort of figure that I would have thought it would be. I meet regularly with the charities that help with mental health issues and support in relation to agriculture. I'm sure the Member's aware that we gave additional funding to the DPJ Foundation, for instance, to help them train people to assist farmers. So, it is really concerning that that figure is something that you think is apparent because I'm very surprised, because, again, over the COVID-19 pandemic we have seen an increase in the number of people that have accessed the mental health helplines that have been put in place by those charities, including the DPJ Foundation and Tir Dewi. But when I next attend—. There's a group of all the charities that my officials meet with regularly, and one of the benefits of meeting online and virtual meetings is that you can access them much easier, and I certainly attended I think two or three over the past few months, but it is something that I will highlight again. But I do think, through our Gwlad newsletter, through our Farming Connect service, we do make sure that farmers are aware of the help and assistance available, and I would urge them to ask for help when they need it. 

Diolch. Natural Resources Wales are responsible for maintaining and updating Wales's flood maps. No model can be 100 per cent accurate, but the maps are constantly refined as new data and methodology become available. New flood maps will be launched alongside our national flood strategy this autumn, followed by a new flood map for planning in 2021.

Well, thank you for that response, but in dealing with casework recently I came to realise that 90 per cent of Welsh rivers do not have the gauges to measure water flow in those rivers. Now, that's the data that's being used to produce these maps across Wales, and it's those maps, of course, that are the basis for a number of planning decisions in all parts of Wales and a number of decisions as to whether people can access insurance for their homes or their businesses. But if the original data isn't robust or, for many parts of Wales, simply isn't available, then there's a risk that those far-reaching decisions are made on an erroneous basis.

Now, are you confident, therefore—and that's my question—are you confident, with the flow of 90 per cent of Wales's rivers not being monitored, that there is adequate data to create reliable flood maps in Wales? And if you are not, then what are you doing to tackle that situation? Because, with such a lack of data, the risk is that what we see NRW doing, essentially, is to put a finger in the air.

I will certainly go back to ensure that that is not the case. Currently, we've got the development advice map, and that's going to be replaced by the flood map for planning. So, it's really important, as you say, that that new system is based on absolutely the best data that we could possibly have. I've provided full funding support to NRW and to local authorities, along with my colleague Julie James, to create the new national asset database and the Wales flood map product. So, it is absolutely vital that the data is correct. So, I will certainly go back and check that that is the case.

The Welsh Government has committed to a comprehensive evaluation plan for the rural development programme. Work is ongoing to assess the impact and outcomes from individual schemes, and the RDP as a whole will also be evaluated against each of its agreed priorities.

Minister, you'll be very aware that the 'Ensuring Value for Money from Rural Development Grants Made Without Competition' Audit Wales report, published in June, has damningly concluded that the Welsh Government awarded £53 million of rural development funds without ensuring the grants would deliver value for money. Amongst other findings, the report also found that the Welsh Government made individual grant awards without demonstrating enough consideration of value for money and gave additional funds to existing projects without finding out whether or not they were truly successful.

Now, on 8 September, the Welsh Government, very welcomely, made a further slew of RDG funds available. So, Minister, my question is: what faith can we have that the new wave of RDG spending will be effective when it remains clear that requisite checks and balances surrounding accountability do not appear to exist?

Thank you. Officials have acknowledged the approach to testing value for money for a number of historic RDP projects did not represent best practice and, as part of our ongoing review of delivery of the RDP, officials had already identified the issues that were described by the audit office Wales in the report that you spoke about, and had already taken action to remedy them. The report's conclusions provided helpful guidance to ensure that all the necessary actions have been implemented.

As the report made very clear, the issue is that value for money was not properly tested in the appraisal of projects, and all those projects have been reviewed to ensure they do, in practice, deliver value for money. Audit Wales included anonymised case studies, so I don't want to undermine the delivery of these projects by setting out exactly which projects they are. Though, of course I and my officials do recognise the need for appropriate scrutiny of them at the right time and in the right setting, and officials will be giving evidence to the Public Accounts Committee to provide evidence in respect of the approach taken to the assessment of value for money through the RDP. But as I said, that work had already started before the audit office report, which then helped us with the announcement as to what projects we would support in the next tranche of funding with the RDP projects.

Thank you. Since the announcement of the referendum result in June 2016, I've been working with members of my round-table stakeholder group to consider all possible scenarios, including leaving on World Trade Organization terms. We continue to examine the options for supporting these key sectors should we leave the EU without a free trade agreement.

Thank you, Minister. I've got absolutely no doubt that you're working every hour of the day to make sure that we do have, and we do put the pressure on the UK Government to secure, a good trade deal for the benefit of Wales as well as for the rest of the UK, but, during a visit to a farm in mid Wales last week, a UK Government Minister, Mr Jayawardena, was reported as saying he was confident that trade will indeed continue with the EU, we weren't to worry, and optimistically added that good deals—good deals—would be struck worldwide with other countries, including with the USA.

So, bearing in mind that we now know the UK Government is making preparations for an Australian-style trade deal with the EU—in other words a no trade deal on WTO terms—which will utterly devastate our sheep and lamb farmers and other sectors in Ogmore and across Wales, and that the same Government's reckless threat to break international law means that not only smaller countries but the US itself may put the untrustworthy UK Government to the back of the queue in trade deals, was Boris Johnson's Minister talking sense on his day trip to mid Wales or was he talking through his hat?

You will have heard me say in earlier answers that myself and my Scottish counterpart were accused of having a 'glass half empty' attitude towards this, but, clearly, it is a matter of huge concern, as we're now only 15 weeks away from the end of the EU transition period. But, while there's still the chance of a deal with the EU, my officials will continue to work very closely with the UK Government. We made that very clear at the meeting on Monday with the DEFRA Secretary of State and other Ministers. It's really important that they share all the information they can with us so that we know exactly what talks are being undertaken. Obviously, my colleague Eluned Morgan leads on the trade talks for Welsh Government, and I know that, while the negotiations with the rest of the world might offer some opportunities, it's the EU that is still our most significant market by some margin. So, for me and for all my ministerial colleagues, we've made it very clear that that should be the UK Government's immediate focus.

I thank the Minister.

The next item is questions to the Minister for Housing and Local Government, and the first question is to be answered by the Deputy Minister and is to be asked by Jenny Rathbone.

National planning policy states that our carbon targets are material in the planning process. They also apply the town-centre first approach that retail and commercial developments should be located in our town and city centres. Creating greener and cleaner communities is an integral part of our transforming towns work.

I fully support that statement, and thank you for that, but obviously the landscape is changing incredibly quickly. The pandemic has exposed many fissures in the town and city centres that we have designed, which no longer look fit for purpose. It isn't just that office jobs can be done from home as easily as in the town centre—and people like the Principality Building Society have already said they need less office space for their headquarters operations—but it's also that we need to create more space for walking and cycling to enable people to leave the car at home as well as to improve public transport lanes.

Equally, more people are buying online, which was happening anyway, but now, with the pandemic, people are less likely to actually want to go and buy whatever it is they need in a shop, and the speculative investment in purpose-built student accommodation now looks like a very risky speculative investment. But all these things have already generated carbon emissions in their creation, so I wondered what your view is about the 15-minute concept of planning decisions, which is being applied not just in Paris and Milan, but also in cities like Doncaster and Cambridge, to ensure that all the everyday services that people need are within 15 minutes of where they live. So—

That's—. You're out of time on your question, so you've asked your question now.

Okay. Thank you very much. So, how are the planning regulations keeping pace with the need to repurpose redundant office and shopping spaces, create more dedicated walking and cycling paths, and, specifically, your response to what look like empty purpose-built student accommodation investments?

I thank Jenny Rathbone for that comprehensive question, which covers a range of important issues, many of which perhaps were there in the background prior to the pandemic, but certainly the need to address them has been accelerated as a consequence.

In terms of foreseeing some of the challenges ahead and how we need to do things differently, 'Building Better Places' was published before the summer, and it looks at many of the issues that the Member raises in her question. I think the issue of this 15-minute city concept is certainly a very interesting one, and one that, actually, needs to be explored, not just in terms of our work in terms of planning but across Government in all the levers at our disposal.

So, it's going to take—in terms of the transforming towns work, all the issues that we announced when we announced that work and the town-centre first approach in January, they were there anyway, but I think the need to address them has become all the more important and all the more vital. So, there are things we can do in terms of actually some radical decisions about some empty properties. Do we need to be bold and be brave and think we don't just purchase them to create more property or more building space, but actually we create more green space in our town and community centres to better connect them?

So, it's something that—. Definitely, I think the Member raised a number of issues and things that we're exploring in actually how we look at town-centre approaches now, city centre approaches— that it's not just about the bricks and mortar, it's about the whole experience in terms of actually not just the energy efficiency of buildings, but actually how it applies in what we're finding is the new normal in terms of actually creating those flexible community hubs that can combine a range of public, private and voluntary sector, but also how we link these and then make them more accessible to communities right across Wales. I'm more than happy to have a further conversation with the Member on her ideas in this area.

Minister, Jenny Rathbone makes some good points. The Welsh Government often talks about building back better after the pandemic, and I think that planning reform and changing the way that the planning system is used to encourage sustainability is all key to this. All applications should be carbon proofed.

I previously raised the issue of an application for an electric-car charging station adjacent to the River Wye in Monmouth, the gateway to Wales, an application that was turned down because it was determined to go against technical advice note 15 flooding guidance. The site is not being proposed for housing or industry and it's never actually flooded. That decision that has been taken is in the past, but it strikes me that electric charging, along with other green infrastructure, is something that we should be promoting through the planning system. Can you look at ways that the planning application system—and, indeed, the appeals system—can be reformed, so that green infrastructure is supported, and facilities such as electric-car charging are made far easier than at present, so that we do get that sort of sustainable green infrastructure in the future that towns like Monmouth in my constituency and other towns and areas across Wales badly need?

Can I thank Nick Ramsay for his question? The Member will be aware that I am unable to comment on individual applications but, more broadly, then, support for green infrastructure is included in 'Planning Policy Wales'. My colleague the Minister for Housing and Local Government is nodding along to me how this is something that we are very keen to take forward as a Government, but also, in terms of actually the whole holistic approach to these things, if we're looking in terms of actually how we're going to tackle resource efficiency to reduce our carbon footprint. Because we know, actually, the goods and products we consume make up 45 per cent of emissions, so we're not going to get to where we need to be unless we tackle the way that we use and consume things. So, when we're looking now, working with local authority partners, in terms of the location of further reprocessing centres to enable us to make use of that high-quality recyclate that we already have in Wales, and to reprocess and reuse them again, to ensure that we can look actually at how we can locate them with other energy-efficient things such as increasing electric charging point infrastructure and also things like solar and other things as well. So, the Member raises a number of points that we are keen to explore and looking at, actually, some practical interventions in the short to medium term.

Thank you, Russell George. The group is examining how local planning authorities can plan for new agricultural developments like poultry sheds. It will advise on issues to be considered by development plan policies and the material considerations involved in determining the planning applications. Work has been delayed by the pandemic response but will be recommencing shortly.

Thank you for your answer, Minister. In my view, we are in urgent need of updated guidance in the form a technical advice note, simply to support local authorities in assessing planning applications for intensive poultry units or chicken sheds or IPUs—they've got different names. That's certainly the case in Powys, where I hope you will be aware there's been a significant increase in builds taking place—I was pleased that another Member raised this earlier with your colleague Lesley Griffiths. We do need that updated guidance because there's a very real concern over the effects of high phosphate levels from IPUs, issues around air pollution, water pollution and manure management plans. Now, you did write to me last week and, as you say, it seems to be that there won't be much action before early next year, but that, I would say, Minister, is disappointing. I suggest we do need more urgent action. What assurances can you give me, with timescales, on when we will see the necessary guidance in place?

Russell, I share your concern, and we are working—. It's really disappointing that the group, which was due to hold its fourth meeting in March, just before the lockdown, was not then able to go ahead. They are now going ahead, so obviously we want them to do their work as fast as possible; we want to get all the right information in place. At the moment, where planning permission is required for new poultry sheds, they do have to consider the economic benefits and the environmental impacts of the proposal, including the cumulative effect of the increasing number of developments. So, some of the things you mentioned are already in place, but I am absolutely aware that we need to look again at the issues around pollution of the water courses and so on. I'll be working with my colleague Lesley Griffiths on getting the balance right between farm diversification policies and environmental protection, which are the two competing aspects here. So, that's exactly what the group is looking at, with a view to then us reviewing planning policy in the light of their findings, and I assure you we have encouraged them to go as fast as possible.

We now turn to questions now from the party spokespeople. Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Delyth Jewell.

Diolch, Llywydd. Minister, we are likely to see long-lasting changes to the housing market following COVID-19, not necessarily always for the better. People who can afford it may now want to buy large houses with open space and gardens and one that doesn't have to be as close to the office, and that could cause many people to be priced out of their communities. In our rural communities that's likely to be experienced most, yet we still don't have an action plan to stop the scandal of second home owners exploiting loopholes to avoid paying extra council tax, and we still don't have a planning system that's capable of restricting second home ownership, holiday homes or Airbnb properties. Can I ask you, Minister, when we're going to see action to reform the planning system and give local authorities teeth to ensure the post-COVID housing market works for young people and our rural communities?

Thank you, Delyth. I share your concern about pricing local people out of the market, and it's not just in rural communities, that's actually in communities across Wales, as Wales becomes a very nice place to come and live. But there are three separate issues there that your question raises, it seems to me. The first is actually people who want to come and live and work in Wales, but who can afford better houses because they're perhaps relocating from a more expensive part of the United Kingdom. But those people are coming to Wales to live and become part of our communities, they're not second home owners; they're people coming here to become part of our communities. But, nevertheless, I think it's right to say that there's some evidence at the moment—anecdotal—that they're pushing prices up, and we certainly are aware of that and we are looking at that.

The second one is the issue about people buying a second home that they themselves want to use, and you'll be aware that, during the pandemic response, we reviewed the threshold for grant assisting people, so we are now looking to see whether we can review the threshold for swapping from community tax to business rates. So, we're actively looking at that at the moment. We'll be getting information back in from our local authorities about how many people were affected by the change, and whether that has any material effect on the numbers of people who are making the flip. That's not going to change the way that they use their homes, but it does change the amount of tax that they pay and so on, so we're looking at that. And I know that the First Minister had a meeting with your colleague and mine, Siân Gwenllian, earlier today, in which they had quite a robust discussion, I believe, and we—. I know that discussion centred on a number of things that can be done to allow local people to access affordable housing in their communities. Yesterday, during my statement, I offered Llyr a meeting, and I'm more than happy to take that forward. I know the First Minister met with Siân Gwenllian this morning. So I'm suggesting that we get a small group of us together who have similar concerns, and, as I said yesterday in the statement, we're not the repository of all good ideas, so we're very happy to explore it.

I really welcome that; thank you, Minister. And I'm sure that we will certainly be very keen to work with you and to see what solutions can be found. So, thank you for your answer on that.

Now, to turn to some remarks that you made a while back—I think it was shortly after you came to the portfolio. You'd referred to new estates that had come through the planning system as potentially creating problems for the future. At the time, I know that we as a party had agreed with you, and that there are several examples of how this issue is still a problem: just down the road from where you are now in the Senedd, flats can't be sold by their owners because of a refusal by the people who built the buildings to fix issues with them; the fraud of leasehold homes that only now is being investigated by the Competition and Markets Authority; and the never-ending business sites across Wales, such as that in Coity in Bridgend, where the developer keeps getting permission to build more homes because the authority, as I understand it, is powerless to use their previous poor performance as a reason to refuse future permission.

Now, it would be one thing if the system were capable of delivering affordable homes, but the planning system ensures that, if an authority gets too big for its boots, the inspector can cut the amount of affordable homes to ensure that the guaranteed profits for large developers keep coming, and profits that we believe, in Plaid Cymru, should be subject to a windfall tax. So I'd ask, Minister, when the Government is going to clip the wings of the planning inspector and tell the planning inspector directly that it is Welsh Government policy to increase affordable homes—because I know that you do want to do so—and that they should not be rebuking local authorities who try to ensure that development is in the interests of the community and not the shareholders of the developers.

Thank you, Delyth. Again, you've ranged over a couple of issues there in your questions and comments. So, on the first one, of leaseholds, we've had the Law Commission's report now, and there are a number of things there that the UK Government needs to do, but there are some things that we can do. You'll be aware that we've already moved to stop leasehold sales in anything that the Welsh Government has supported with subsidy—so, in the Help to Buy schemes, for example—and that's been very effective in doing that. We are looking at ways of assisting leaseholders with changes to the rules, and so on, around how you acquire the freehold. But we are working in conjunction with the UK Government over the Law Commission's really comprehensive report, which is being worked through—it hasn't been out that long. So I share your concern about the sale of leasehold properties.

Actually, one of the other issues—and my colleague Ken Skates has had a working group looking into this—is not just where houses are sold as leasehold, but where people buy a freehold house, but then they discover that the management of their estate is part of a company, because actually the roads haven't been adopted. So one of the things we are looking at is an adoptable standard for roads right across Wales—it varies from authority to authority at the moment—and actually increasing the arm of local authorities in being able to negotiate that those roads and sewerage and water and all the rest of it are brought up to standard and adopted as part of the 106 procedure.

Then turning to the issue around affordable homes and what can be negotiated as part of that 106 procedure, I don't quite share your analysis of where the Planning Inspectorate is, but we are very concerned that the local authority is put into a strong position in terms of negotiating what contribution is necessary from the developer, both in terms of affordable homes and actually in terms of necessary infrastructure to support the housing development. Because we also don't want to see housing developments isolated away from facilities, with no active travel, no green infrastructure, and so on. So, there are a number of things in 'Planning Policy Wales' that are advancing that. Shortly, I will be bringing forward the national development framework for Wales—next week I think it is—into the Senedd. And you'll be aware that, as part of the Local Government and Elections (Wales) Bill, we're proposing regional arrangements to bring the strategic regional arrangements into place. All of those things will assist the local authorities in negotiating higher affordable housing targets. And the last thing I want to mention is that you'll know that we're also insisting that, on Welsh Government land—and I'm working with other public landowners to extend this—there is 50 per cent of affordable housing on all Welsh Government land that goes to housing now.

Thank you. And I know that some of this was ground that we covered yesterday, but I do welcome a lot of what you're saying. Now, as we've just seen from that exchange already, there's a lot that I think that our two parties do agree on: we agree that more affordable homes are needed throughout Wales; we agree that more social housing is needed; and that new estates should be supported by properly funded infrastructure, as you were just referring to. And we agree that they should be as estates built around the principles of active travel and the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015—that they shouldn't be promoting car usage or require major changes to road networks.

But my office has seen correspondence from one planning department that ignores the remarks you made a year ago in this Chamber that the well-being of future generations Act should take precedence over local development plans produced prior to that Act. Our planning system in this regard, I'm afraid, just isn't fit for purpose. Isn't it time for the Welsh Government to take action and require planning departments to stop allowing developments devised under the old system to continue, and to ensure instead that any housing estates must be redesigned within the principles of the Welsh Government policy, regardless of when that land was first allocated for housing?

I'd be really grateful if you'd share the correspondence with me, so that I can see which authority we're talking about, because it may be that we can have an individual conversation with that authority.

The problem with the planning system—a plan-led system, which I absolutely believe in because without that you cannot have a local voice in what's allowed to be built in the local community, and I really do think that people should be allowed to have the community that they want locally—but the problem with the planning system is that it has a lag in it, because when you get planning consent you have permission to build whatever it is you've got consented for a long period of time, before it expires. And, actually, it's not possible or it's highly problematic to retrofit those consents, and that's a matter of some frustration to all of us. So, we still have new houses going up in Wales that don't have sprinklers in them because the particular development was started before that legislation.

So, in each of the improvements we've made more recently, we've tried very hard to make sure that, when the new regulation or requirement on planning comes in, it comes in almost immediately that the legislation is passed, but it is not possible to make it go backwards. So, if you've got consent, you've got consent. And that's one of the frustrations, because we do have things still being built to old spec that would not now get planning consent. So, I share your frustration. 

What we've been trying to do there though is to have a conversation with those house builders about not doing that, because they don't have to do that. They can apply to change the planning consent and we've been offering assistance with doing that. And, actually, I'm pleased to say that I met with one of the very biggest house builders most recently and they've changed their attitude completely and have been talking to me about how they might do that on some of their developments. So, it does show that if you show the way then people will come along that path with you because they can see that it's worth doing. There are some rays of light, but I share your frustration with the lag that the planning system necessarily sets up.

Conservative spokesperson, Mark Isherwood.

Diolch, Llywydd. Sorry. The Welsh Government's recently revised household projection figures show, for example, a smaller rise in Flintshire than previously projected and a fall in Wrexham, although the number of single-parent households and single-person households are still projected to increase in both.

When I wrote asking you what effect this will have on the expected future housing build figures and types within local authority local development plans or LDPs, you replied that there's not a simple correlation between the Welsh Government's household projections and local planning authorities' housing requirements as set out in LDPs, and that the projections should be considered alongside an authority's latest assessment of the need for both market and affordable housing in their area. However, councils such as Wrexham and Denbighshire have previously been forced to include higher housing figures in their LDPs based on the Welsh Government's preceding projections. How, therefore, do you expect to see the new projections reflected in developing LDP revisions?

Yes. So, as the letter points out, Mark, it's neither a target nor a guide; it is based on the statistical projections that we have. And the local authorities have a set of guidance that they are supposed to take into account around local arrangements that they should put in place to develop their LDP. You'll know that we suspended the five-year future housing projection some time ago as a result of that, because we thought that for the growing number of planning authorities in Wales who don't have an existing LDP, they were causing serious problems with speculative planning applications around their edges. So, we've assisted local authorities in doing that, and we do expect them to come forward with their own proper projections based on the local information that you've just outlined, for example, for Flintshire, although I'm not going to be making comments on individual authorities here. 

Well, I hope you're therefore confirming that if their figures conflict with yours, and that's evidence based, that that might take priority, unlike their past experience. But letters from you and your department to Flintshire council over years state, quote

'It is extremely disappointing that your authority has submitted a further request to extend the time taken to prepare your Local Development Plan, especially in the light of previous assurances.'  

The Local Authorities (Coronavirus) (Meetings) (Wales) Regulations 2020 make temporary provision for the conduct of local authority meetings safely, effectively and lawfully while retaining the principles of openness and accountability. However, concerns have been expressed to me that Flintshire is, and I quote, 'closing down its plan', and that although arrangements have been made to provide councillors with briefing sessions on the LDP, and members have asked for the conclusion to the consultation on the deposit version, they've been told that the contents and LDP statement are not up for discussion, and it appears that the officers' version will be all that is on the table. What, therefore, is your expectation as the Minister in such circumstances?

So, Mark, I'm not in a position to discuss the ins and outs of the LDP process for a particular council at this point in time, but I'd very much welcome a meeting with you separately if you want to go through specific concerns about one individual council. And you'll know that, mostly, the matters of the LDP are a matter for the council, but until you give me the specifics, I'm not able to really comment at this point on an individual council's process towards its LDP. 

Okay. Well, moving on: letters sent by your chief planner to local authority heads of planning from 27 March provided helpful guidance on how local planning authorities maintain services during the pandemic. These stated, for example, that those breaches of planning control that would merit the use of a stop notice or temporary stop notice require immediate attention from the local planning authority. Site visits in such cases are essential travel, and site visits, either in relation to posting site notices or for the purpose of assessing and analysing site conditions, including enforcement, cannot be undertaken from home, so are a reasonable excuse to travel for the purpose of the coronavirus regulations carried out in compliance with the requirements of the regulations. How, therefore, do you respond to the several constituents in Flintshire, but only in Flintshire, who have reported separate unauthorised developments, and then copied me on council responses stating that, quote,

'Within the planning service, officers were prevented from carrying site visits out to comply with Welsh Government guidance',

or making equivalent statements?

Well, again, Mark, if you want to share with me the specifics of such complaints, then I'll be able to address them, but that's not something I'm able to address here from the despatch box on the floor of the Senedd. So, if you want to raise those individual issues with me outside here, I'm more than happy to look at them for you.

Thank you, David. Providing people with a safe, warm and secure home remains a key priority for this Government. We are making good progress on our commitment to provide 20,000 additional affordable homes. The pandemic has had some impact on house building, but we remain confident that we will meet the ambitious target.

Thank you for that answer, Minister. So, we've got six months to go and, by my calculations, there's a lot of ground to make up. And I think it's very important that, as we are looking at the need for even more social housing, for example, as our experience of how we dealt with the homelessness crisis, and those roofless on the streets—. And I think that we do need candour so that parties preparing for the next election can look at what would be a reasonable target for the next Welsh Government to set. And I say this in the expectation that you probably won't now be able to meet the 20,000 target, and there are reasons for that; it's not a sanction I would apply against you. But we do need candour so that we can plan effectively, because housing at last, right across the UK, and the need for much more house building, seems to climbing up to the top of the agenda.

Actually, I really do think we will meet the 20,000 target. What we won't now do is exceed it, which we were hoping to do before the pandemic. But we are still confident that we will get to the 20,000. Actually, as I say, we had ambitions to go beyond that prior to the pandemic.

I'm quite happy to share some of the figures that I have with you, because they're useful planning tools. So, we would need to build somewhere between 3,000 and 4,000 social homes a year across the whole of the term of the next Welsh Parliament in order to meet the current demand arising from people in emergency or temporary accommodation and what we know of the pipeline of those individuals who might come forward. So, that's a planning tool of somewhere between 3,000 and 4,000. 

A more ambitious one would, of course, do something more—it would start allowing people who want social housing, but who are not currently in that kind of accommodation, to access it, and a more ambitious target again might allow people who would like to access social housing, but have no hope whatsoever of getting to the top of any kind of priority need tree, to get it. But the baseline is somewhere between 3,000 and 4,000 over the next Assembly term. And I share that with you because I very much hope that all parties in the Assembly will have that ambition, because we need it to make sure that people have the warm, safe, comfortable homes that they richly deserve.

Diolch, Llyr. Budget provision for local government has been increased significantly in 2020-21 to support local authorities to respond to the impacts of COVID-19. I announced the extension of the local authority hardship fund to £497 million over the recess. 

Thank you very much for that response. The assurance has been given with regard to the first quarter. I just want clarity that that will follow in the second quarter of this financial year. But, of course, a number of local authorities are planning their budgets for next year and some of them are considering departmental cuts. So, I ask you whether there is any guidance or message that you can give this afternoon to those authorities in planning their budgets to ensure that they won't be cutting a great many of the key services that are currently available and at a time when they will be needed most.

So, on the second quarter point, I can absolutely tell you that we will be paying—the hardship fund runs right through the second quarter, and we've made that clear to local authority treasurers, chief executives and leaders in our weekly contact, which is still going on.

In terms of the planning assumptions, we have started—we're all way behind on where we should be normally in terms of budget planning, which may not be a surprise. We've been a bit distracted by the pandemic, obviously, and just keeping services going. I would just take this opportunity to pay tribute to our local authority partners, who have absolutely pulled out the stops and been quite tremendous in staffing our community hubs, helping with our shielding programme and now our public sector-based TTP programme. We really could not have done this unless they had stepped up to that plate. And so, we wanted to make sure that they didn't have additional money worries while they were doing that and that they could keep carrying on with essential services. So, the homelessness example is a good one there. So, we could have put a lot of money into homelessness, but if we'd cut the housing budget or not kept it where it was, then it would just have been dissipated. But we didn't do that; we kept the funding up and we've given them the additional funding.

So, on the planning assumptions, we've just started to talk to them about what we're expecting by way of a reasonable worst-case scenario, a break-even and so on, and that's tied up, of course, with the UK Government's comprehensive spending review, which they're now talking about.

And so, we hope—and I understand the Llywydd has had some discussion with my colleague, Rebecca Evans, on this—that we'll be able to halt the normal budget timescale for the Senedd, but it does depend on the comprehensive spending review going ahead as planned and us understanding what comes out of that before we can pass it on to our partners. But we will be working with them in a co-production way to understand what the base assumptions look like and what are the various types of planning. So, if we all plan for 1 per cent cut, what would that mean for services, or if we all plan for break even, and so on, as we do? It is, though, more compressed this year than we would normally expect.

Thank you, Minister. I'd just like to start by saying that the latest announcement of money for local government, of course, is very welcome. Credit where credit is due—I think the fact that it's going to be given out on a claims basis is a great idea. I just wanted to know if the Minister can just give us confidence today that claims will be fairly assessed, given that some smaller councils, like Monmouthshire, have been disproportionately hit because of the unfair funding formula, which has, over the years, reduced their reserves to low levels, while other, better-funded councils have built up massive reserves of over £100 million, for example.

So, I don't recognise that description of the funding formula at all. Actually, the treasurer of Monmouth—[Interruption.] I can't hear what the Member on the screen is saying, Llywydd.

Could we have some silence for the Minister to be heard by everybody, please?

I had a very good meeting with the chief executive and the chief treasurer of Monmouth, alongside the leader, very recently to discuss the prospects for Monmouthshire. We are very aware that the pandemic has hit councils in a different way, and, absolutely, we are working with those councils to understand what that looks like. So, in the case of Monmouthshire, for example, it has a much heavier reliance on the collection of council tax than other councils elsewhere, and a heavier reliance on fees and income charges. So, in some ways, they do better out of the hardship fund than other authorities. So, we are very much doing that, and that's why it is a claims basis, so that we can work with individual authorities to understand the impact in that authority.

Obviously, the distribution formula is done via the mechanism that involves all councils, and, actually, the treasurer of Monmouth is a very active member of that group. 

Welsh Government initiatives such as the Warm Homes programme, the Welsh housing quality standard and optimised retrofit programme support our ambition for everyone to have a decent home that is affordable, warm, safe and secure.

Thank you, Minister. Since 2011-12, the Welsh Government has been providing financial assistance for household improvements via Nest. Now, this scheme has been in decline since 2015-16, with fewer households seeing improvements through the scheme each year. The numbers are down from 6,000 in 2015-16 to 3,800 in 2018-19. While the Welsh Government is winding down assistance with property improvements, the UK Government, on the other hand, has launched a green homes grant scheme, which should see over 600,000 homeowners in England supported. Will you commit to working with the Minister for Environment, Energy and Rural Affairs so as to be bold and to create a Welsh green homes grant scheme to support low-income households in Wales so that they can afford improvements here?

Well, Janet, you won't be at all surprised to find that I don't share your analysis at all. You are obviously aware that the Nest scheme is not my portfolio; it is actually in my colleague Lesley Griffiths's portfolio. But, since 2011, more than 61,400 households in Wales have benefited from our Warm Homes programme, which supports people living on lower incomes to improve their home energy efficiency and save money. Between April 2017 and March 2021, we will have invested £104 million in the Warm Homes programme to improve up to another 25,000 homes.

We've also recently launched, through my portfolio, our optimised retrofit programme, which will support the retrofitting of 1,000 existing social homes this financial year. That's not very many, but it's the format of it that matters. The reason that we are doing that is because we disagree with the UK Government around the way that they've done the green homes initiative because one size simply does not fit all. It's quite obvious that the way to retrofit a Victorian stone terrace in the Rhondda is not the way that you would retrofit a 1970s cavity wall-built house in my constituency, for example. So, what we've done with our optimised retrofit programme is we are supporting social landlords who have every single type of house in Wales in their portfolio to come forward with a variety of technologies and schemes that will raise those houses from the Welsh housing quality standard that have already achieved C up to A. We will be able to see what works, and then we will be able to roll those programmes out so that what works for each house is available, rather than just a blanket one-size-fits-all programme that, frankly, will not work.    

Thank you, Caroline. Environmental health officers have the power to issue fixed-penalty notices or recommend prosecution. They can issue premises improvement or closure notices for breaches of the coronavirus regulations and, from 14 September, they can close premises, events or public places on public health grounds. The police also have enforcement powers if people don't respond to the environmental health officers.

Thank you, Minister. The sad truth is that COVID-19 continues to spread, and far too many people are failing to take this disease seriously, leading to unfortunately inevitable local flare-ups of infections. The only way that we can combat this in a fair and balanced way is to impose hyperlocal restrictions. Local government, already stretched thin before this pandemic, are now expected to impose and enforce lockdown measures. Minister, what additional resources are you providing to partners in local authorities to ensure that they can cope with challenges such as ensuring pubs are adhering to social distancing rules and are collecting contact information to aid our track, trace and protect efforts? Thank you.

Again, I want to put on record my thanks to local authorities and their staff who have worked really hard throughout the pandemic to make sure that essential services keep running and to deliver the additional services that they've been delivering for us across Wales in terms of all of the things I mentioned in one of my previous answers.

I just want, Llywydd, to reassure Members as well that the COVID control plan sets out a clear command, co-ordination and communication structure for managing incidents and outbreaks, including the need for any kind of local arrangements. The arrangements are in place and active now and on a daily rhythm for current incidents and include local authorities fully. So, we have had a range of meetings, you won't be surprised to discover, over the last two days, around Caerphilly, Merthyr, Rhondda Cynon Taf, Newport, et cetera. 

The regional local resilience fora provide for further effective communication and co-ordination between all partners, and there are effective mutual aid arrangements between local authorities in place. So, a local authority that finds itself in a position where it's having a spike in coronavirus will be able to get assistance from other local authorities and their environmental health officers, and that's been working really well.

My officials have also asked local authorities to provide information through the regional local resilience fora structures on what more is needed and what can be delivered so that we can provide financial support in the most straightforward way. We have recently agreed with authorities affected by the current spiking that additional money can be made available either through the TTP process or through the hardship fund in order for them to be able to recruit more enforcement officers or to assist other authorities to recruit them. And you will know that there's been much more enforcement activity in my constituency, in part of your region, recently as a result of that, because the local authorities are very aware of that. 

We are assured by local authorities that they are in the game for that and that they're doing that piece of work, and, indeed, I have a meeting with them later on this week and another early next week in order to discuss that.

Yes, thank you, Hefin. We've had all the responses in and we're in the process of preparing a summary of those responses, and I hope to be able to publish it later this autumn.

Can I emphasise the importance of publishing those responses? Throughout lockdown it's been very difficult for residents in Cwm Calon estate in Ystrad Mynach to get any progress with particularly the estate management company Meadfleet, who have effectively cut off residents. They still take their money, they do a bit of work, but they don't want to engage with residents in any meaningful way. Residents are sick of them, to be honest with you. Redrow own part of the estate. It's very difficult to get work done there, although Redrow are engaging better, and Caerphilly council are doing the work as much as they can in the light of the restrictions that we are living under. There is no redress, and there remains no redress for residents who are in freehold to make a complaint on this issue. That remains the case, and we are desperate for action to take place.

I commend you, Minister, in the work that you have done on this and seriously engaging with residents across Wales in similar situations. The sooner we can get the evidence published the better, and the sooner we can make progress on this the better. So, I really wanted to say, Minister, please keep this on the agenda and, as soon as possible, can we make progress on this issue?

Yes, Hefin, I'm very well aware of the difficulties in a number of constituencies. Yours is particularly badly hit, I know, and we've had a number of meetings and a site visit at one point, I remember, and a number of other things on this. There are a few things that are also happening. So, we'll publish the results of our call for evidence shortly, and then we'll be able to look at what the programme going forward might be. I'm very encouraged by the fact that the Competition and Markets Authority investigation is rolling on, and I just said in response to an earlier question that we're very pleased that it's bringing people to the table who otherwise wouldn't have been brought to the table. So, it may be that people are more willing to talk once the investigation proceeds.

Also, we're currently investigating whether Wales should sign up to the new homes ombudsman arrangements, and, subject to a piece of work that my officials are doing, we may be able to recommend that we do that. Through Rebecca Evans, my colleague, I'll be asking the Llywydd to consider whether we can get something onto the floor of the Senedd once we've completed that piece of work. So, there are things going on, Hefin, but I do appreciate the amount of work that it's been for you and your office, and the concerns of your constituents, and we very much hope to be able to do something swiftly once we've got that piece of evidence in place.

Thank you, Mick. Legislation governs the licensing, management, planning and classification of houses of multiple occupation—or HMOs, as they're known—and the registration and licensing of landlords and letting agents. The primary legislation relating to HMOs is the Housing Act 2004, which introduced mandatory and additional licensing, and the Housing (Wales) Act 2014, which introduced landlord and agent registration and licensing.

Minister, you'll be aware that I've raised this issue with you on many occasions. We've had many discussions on this and I know that you share my view that the character and sustainability of communities must not be put at risk by the proliferation of HMOs. Treforest in my constituency is one such community. Local councillor Steve Powderhill and I have opposed many applications, but too often the regulations do not provide any real protection. Recently, we opposed an application for a pub to be converted into an HMO only to discover that converted existing buildings are not covered by the legislation in the way that new-build applications are. I wonder, Minister, if you'd be willing to attend a virtual meeting with myself, local residents and the local councillor to discuss how regulations can and need to be tightened to better protect communities such as Treforest and others in Wales.

Yes, Mick, I'm more than happy to attend such a meeting. In fact, I've already attended meetings such as that with a number of other authorities that have large concentrations of HMOs. Llywydd, I am wondering whether to get a group of AMs together across the Senedd who are affected by this—Aberystwyth, I know, has some of the issues, certainly my constituents in Swansea do, Pontypridd does and there are a number of towns across Wales that have universities in them that have this particular problem. So, I'm very happy to attend that meeting, Mick, but I think there may be a reason to get a number of AMs who I know have an interest in this area together so that we can discuss some of the solutions. I can see a lot of nodding around the Chamber.

A nodding Llywydd here, as well, as it happens. A nodding Llywydd here as well, representing Aberystwyth.

Town councils have been and continue to be an important part of the COVID-19 response and recovery. The Welsh Government is supporting town councils to exercise their current powers to make a difference for their local communities and is taking through legislation to give the sector a wider range of powers, provided certain conditions are met. We are also seeking to further empower town councils through access to Welsh Government funding schemes and our Transforming Towns work.

Thank you for that answer, Deputy Minister. Town and community councils play a vital role in supporting their communities and the Government should do all it can to empower them. A particularly good example of this great work is the work done by Pen-y-ffordd Community Council in my own constituency. The council are very keen to ensure that their community's voice is heard in the development of Welsh Government planning policy. Deputy Minister, can I invite you and the Minister responsible for planning, Julie James, to come and visit Pen-y-Ffordd and hear first-hand from the community?

[Inaudible.]

We could go on a tour, Julie.

I thank the Member for his question, and as he rightly says, there are a number of very hard-working and very effective town and community councils that not only have gone above and beyond in the past six months, but are very embedded in the communities in terms of the work that they do to make a difference, day in, day out, in those communities.

The first thing to say—and I'm sure the councillors of Pen-y-Ffordd will be well into this already—is that Flintshire County Council are currently going through the LDP process, so it's really important that the community council fully represent the voices of their constituents in their patch during this process. I'm advised also that the community council did input into and comment on the last revision of 'Planning Policy Wales', and whilst that revision has taken place, I'm more than happy to have that conversation, not just around planning, because I think there are other ways in which we can better work with community town councils to empower—for example in line with the Transforming Towns work, in terms of the town centre adaptations. And I know, right across Wales, town councils have come forward with proposals that local authorities have then progressed, because they're there on the ground, understanding, perhaps, what needs to be done on their doorstep.

But also things like the circular economy fund, which, this time, was for public sector bodies—so, not just local authorities. It's been opened to town and community councils as well, and I'm hoping that we'll be able to see some examples of, actually, how they could be shared and spread out in the future too.

Neil McEvoy isn't present to ask his question 10. Question 11—Paul Davies.

Thank you, Paul. I've discussed the future of public services with all local government leaders, formally and informally, throughout the pandemic. I continue to work closely with leaders as we strive to keep citizens safe, protect the vulnerable and learn the lessons to deliver more agile and digitalised services in the future.

Thank you for that response, Minister. Of course, it's absolutely crucial that people across Wales are able to access their local authority when they need to, and that's in a time of national crisis. In order to ensure the efficient delivery of public services, people need to be able to speak and communicate with their local authority. Now, sadly, figures from May 2017 to February 2020 showed that a staggering 220,000 phone calls made to Pembrokeshire council were either abandoned, with the caller ringing off, or, in some cases, not being answered at all. In the circumstances, Minister, do you agree with me that this level of disconnect between people and their local authority is unacceptable? Therefore, what further steps can the Welsh Government take to ensure that local authorities across Wales are accessible and responding to local people's concerns and issues?

I'm not aware of the particular incidence you mention there, Paul, and if you want to tell me about that more specifically, I'm happy to look at it for you. But, in general, we've been working hard with local authorities throughout the pandemic to make sure that their services can continue in a digitalised and remote form. Most local authorities have stepped up to that plate very well. So, the very large numbers of local authority personnel who've been, for example, delivering the community hub service have been doing it largely from their homes with good equipment. We've made sure that local authorities are able to support their IT infrastructures in that way, and we've worked very hard with them to do that. As you know, we also passed regulations, through the Senedd, enabling fully digital meetings to take place, and authorities have stepped up to that as well, and they have been doing their meetings in that remote access, digital way, in a way that the Senedd led the way on.

As far as I'm aware, Pembrokeshire has done all of those things as well; I've not heard any reports otherwise. And, indeed, actually, local authority leaders were telling me only very recently that they think that's been working very well and they're asking us to make those regulations permanent so that they can continue to work in that or, more likely, a hybrid way in the way that we're currently working, going forward. But on the specific point that you mention, if you want to raise that with me, I'm very happy to look at it; I'm not aware of it myself.

Finally, question 12, Mark Isherwood.

Thank you, Mark. In April, emergency regulations were made to give local government the flexibility to continue to conduct business through virtual meetings during this unprecedented situation. Underpinning these regulations is the need to operate legally and safely—safe for members, safe for staff, and safe for individual members of the public.

Thank you. What action have you taken since the Audit Wales article in July on local council democracy coming out of lockdown, which found that since Welsh Government regulations on 22 April enabled councillors to resume their roles in decision making and holding each other to account, the rate at which democratic structures had returned had varied across Wales? By the end of June, several councils were yet to reintroduce cabinet meetings and were still relying on emergency powers to take decisions. In some councils, there was no comprehensive record available online of the decisions taken since lockdown, making it difficult for the public to see and understand the decisions their council had taken during lockdown and who was accountable for them. The formal scrutiny of decisions and services hadn't yet been reinstated in many councils, and only half of councils would have held virtual meetings of their scrutiny committees by the middle of July. They said that

'Effective scrutiny is a key component of good, transparent decision-making, and an essential pillar of the democratic process.'

The emergency regulations have obviously enabled vital business to continue and have supported the really heroic efforts made by most local authorities to combat the pandemic. Obviously, the regulations have made it possible for those who would otherwise not have been able to participate in meetings, due to the need for shielding, for example, to continue to do so. Obviously, most council chambers wouldn't have been able to support any kind of social distancing or COVID-19-secure working. So, as a result of that, it forced us to look really hard at the way we deliver services and the way we communicate with each other, and we've seen a really good effort, I think, from most local authorities to do that.

My officials have been in touch with local authorities across Wales in the last three or four weeks to understand where the challenges are, and there are challenges, of course. In some local authorities, there are specific challenges around broadband and so on, which I don't need to rehearse here in the Chamber, but which Members will be familiar with. There are issues in relation, in some cases, to equipment and levels of familiarity with remote communication, training issues and so on. But my officials are in touch with officials right across local government to understand those challenges and to ensure that all the arrangements are robust and in place.

I absolutely agree with you, Mark, that scrutiny is an absolutely essential part of the role that councillors play in any local democracy, and we've been specifically asking questions right across local government around when the scrutiny committees are able to meet, what the arrangements are to ensure that members have access to all of the right documents so that they can carry out their scrutiny function properly and that they've had access to training to enable them to do that. We've also asked local authorities who wish to go to a hybrid arrangement to conduct a robust risk assessment. We've actually cited the Commission as a good example of that, and we've agreed to assist them with those risk assessments should they wish. So, I seriously hope that that will have enabled all local authorities by the end of September to have conducted at least one round of scrutiny meetings, and we will be following it up with them afterwards.

Thank you, Minister.

The next item is a statement by the Minister for Health and Social Services on the local coronavirus restrictions in Caerphilly borough and Rhondda Cynon Taf. I call on the Minister to make the statement—Vaughan Gething.

Thank you, Llywydd, and thank you for the opportunity to update Members today about the very latest situation affecting parts of south Wales. Over the last few weeks, we have seen a rise in the number of new cases of coronavirus in Wales overall and in four local authority areas in particular: in Caerphilly, in Merthyr Tydfil, in Rhondda Cynon Taf and Newport. This increase is largely being driven by people returning from holidays in continental Europe, where we have also seen higher rates of coronavirus in recent months, becoming infected with coronavirus and, crucially, as people start to socialise more and we see a reduction in adherence to social distancing. Unfortunately, as people have socialised more, they've forgotten to keep their distance from each other, making it easier for coronavirus to spread from one person to another. We've also seen an increase in house parties and at-home gatherings over the summer.

I published the Welsh Government coronavirus control plan last month. That sets out the range of actions that we would take to respond to local outbreaks and hotspots of coronavirus, should they arise. I'm pleased to report again that our contact tracing teams have worked exceptionally well over recent weeks to trace the contacts of more than 90 per cent of people who have tested positive and their close contacts. From this information, we've been able to identify clusters in these four local authority areas of concern, and with the addition of extra community testing, pinpoint the moment where we have seen community transmission begin in two of those authorities.

We reached that point in the Caerphilly County Borough Council area last week, and unfortunately, I have today had to announce we have also reached that point where we need to introduce local restrictions across Rhondda Cynon Taf. Llywydd, I'll focus the remainder of my statement on the reasons why we're taking action in Rhondda Cynon Taf, but I want to make it clear that we are working closely with local authorities in all areas where we see increased cases, and we review the situation daily about the need for additional measures.

The very latest figures, published this afternoon, show the rolling seven-day average of new cases rate is 82.1 per 100,000 people in Rhondda Cynon Taf. The seven-day rolling average for Rhondda Cynon Taf yesterday was 68.4. Yesterday's published positivity testing rate was 4.3 per cent; that has increased to 5.1 per cent in the data published today. That is the highest positivity rate in Wales.

Our contact tracing teams have been able to trace about half of the cases we are seeing back to a series of clusters in the borough. The rest are not linked to those clusters and suggest that we are now seeing evidence of community transmission. There are a number of clusters in Rhondda Cynon Taf, two of which are significant. One is associated with a rugby club and pub in the lower Rhondda and the other with a club outing to the Doncaster races, which stopped off at a series of pubs on the way. Just as in Caerphilly borough, we have seen a rapid increase in cases over a short period. These are mainly linked to people socialising without social distancing and meeting in each other's homes. We have also seen some cases linked, as I say, to people returning from overseas holiday.

The local authority in Rhondda Cynon Taf has been proactive in visiting premises throughout the borough over the last week in particular to check compliance with the law and the measures we all need to be taking to protect each other from coronavirus. These checks have resulted in improvement notices being served on seven supermarkets, which have now been complied with. A bar has been closed in Pontypridd after a series of breaches were captured on CCTV, a licensed premises was closed in Tonypandy and improvement notices served on another bar in Pontypridd and a barbers in Tonypandy. A further 50 licensed premises were visited by council officers over the weekend and more enforcement action, either in the form of improvement notices or closure orders, is likely to follow. 

Taken together, this rapid rise in cases, with evidence of community transmission throughout Rhondda Cynon Taf and the evidence of non-compliance in many licensed premises across the borough, means that we need to introduce local restrictions in the area to control and, ultimately, reduce the spread of the virus and to protect people's health. As the cause of transmission is similar to what we have seen in Caerphilly, the restrictions will be similar. But action will also be taken to end the late-night opening of all licensed premises in Rhondda Cynon Taf. I want to be clear that we are seeing cases throughout the borough, meaning the restrictions must apply to the whole area.

From 6 o'clock on Thursday, tomorrow, people living in Rhondda Cynon Taf will not be allowed to enter or leave the Rhondda Cynon Taf Council area without a reasonable excuse, such as travel for work or education. People will only be able to meet outdoors for the time being. People will not be able to meet members of their extended household indoors or to form an extended household for the time being. All licensed premises will have to close by 11 o'clock in the evening, and everyone over 11 must, as in the rest of the country, wear face coverings in indoor places. We will keep these measures under constant review and they will be formally reviewed in two weeks' time.

In the week since local restrictions were introduced in the Caerphilly County Borough Council area, there are some grounds for cautious optimism. We have seen a small fall in both the seven-day rate of new cases and the positivity rate, although these do remain high. The police have reported very high levels of compliance with the restrictions, and I want to thank everyone living in the area for their help over the last week and for the support we've seen from public services right across the Caerphilly borough. It is only by working together that we will be able to reduce coronavirus, protect ourselves and our loved ones and to keep Wales safe.

Thank you, Minister, for your statement this afternoon. I think it is a slight variation on the statement that was issued earlier in the day, and so I look forward to reading the detailed statement that you've just given to Plenary this afternoon. I do notice that, in the remarks in the statement that was issued earlier and the one that you addressed to the Chamber, the word 'lockdown' was not used at all, yet if you go on to any social media platform or mainstream media, the word screaming out at you is that RCT has gone into 'lockdown'. I presume this is a deliberate change of language from the Minister and his officials, because most people associate the word 'lockdown' with, obviously, the national lockdown that happened in March, and obviously these new controls are nowhere near as severe as those introduced at the national lockdown. But I'd be grateful if you could clarify exactly why the word 'lockdown' hasn't been used by you, and if it is a word that the Welsh Government are trying to avoid, then what liaisons have you had with the media and other outlets to try and phrase the language so that people who are affected by these new restrictions can get first-class information and can adhere to the requests that you are making of them. Because, as you said in your statement, it's quite clearly down to personal responsibility and people responding to the requests—the virus has not gone away and there are actions that they need to take.

And with that first-class information that needs to be conveyed, I do regret that local Members were not taken into confidence about this announcement today. As I understand it, obviously Welsh Government chose to put itself up to the press conference last night, so I assume this announcement was, well in advance, considered by Welsh Government, and I think it would have been most helpful if local Members could have been taken into confidence or, if some local Members were taken into confidence, why not all local Members? Could you confirm who exactly did have a briefing prior to this announcement in the press conference at 12.30 p.m.? Two simple requests that have come into my office since this announcement: a lady who is enjoying a holiday in Tenby, for example, with her family now wonders whether she needs to be back in Aberdare before 6 o'clock tomorrow night. Well, clearly, I don't think that's the case because these are local restrictions. Another request that came in was about driving lessons and driving tests, because they're using the Merthyr test centre—would they be able to undertake the test now in Merthyr because they live in Aberdare. Those are just two very simple things for which, as a local Member, I certainly would have benefited from some form of briefing from officials so that I could have requested a more detailed briefing and understand it so that I could convey proper, sound information back to constituents, so that people don't end up falling foul through misinformation. I wonder whether such a briefing could be furnished in the coming days to local Members so that they can obviously assist their constituents. 

I'd also like to try to understand—in your statement, you say that, in the next two weeks, the new restrictions will be reviewed. What will be the threshold that you will be looking for that would lighten the load on some of these restrictions and start a rollback from the RCT area to get back to, maybe, what other parts of Wales comply with at the moment? I think it's important that people understand, whilst these restrictions come in at 6 o'clock tomorrow night, what we are aiming for in the next two weeks and what the numbers are that you as a Minister and your officials will be looking at to make sure that that is the case. 

My final request to you is: in England information obviously is power in making these decisions and, in England, it is published on a local authority basis on a weekly level and, especially by ward level, that information is made available in council areas. You go out here today into the Bay area and you see people enjoying the late-summer sun that we're enjoying at the moment, and you wouldn't say there was a care in the world, yet just a couple of miles from here, two areas are under severe restrictions because of the coronavirus outbreak. Wouldn't it be a good use of information to make that available, as England do, on a ward-by-ward basis so people can understand the level of infection that is circulating in their community and can make sure that they are doing all they can to support their community in bearing down on this virus? If it can be done in England, why can't it be done in Wales? I hope you will give us a positive response in your answer. 

Thank you for the questions. On the starting point about the terminology used, we're using the terminology that's set out in our coronavirus control plan. I accept completely that it's being reported as a local lockdown, just as Caerphilly was, and I actually don't think it makes a lot of sense for the Government to try to fight a battle to persuade the public or the media not to describe this in the way that they are already—in the way they've been described in Scotland and in England. These restrictions are all referred to by the public at large as 'local lockdowns'. I'm using the language that we've used in our coronavirus control plan, and it's not the same as the national lockdown we went into, but that is because we are trying to address the challenges that we see and that we face. Further measures are, of course, possible, and different measures are possible in different parts of the country. If the pattern of infection and the reason why cases are rising in different parts of Wales differ to those in Caerphilly or RCT, then we may well have different measures, should we need—and it's a 'should'—to introduce local restrictions in other parts of Wales. 

The information is pretty clear, I think, on the restrictions. These are essentially the same measures as have been introduced in Caerphilly, together with a restriction on the opening hours of licensed premises. And that comes because there's evidence in RCT of pubs being a particular centre in the way that infections have been spread, but also more significant evidence of a range of licensed premises that have not been following the rules. It's a deliberate choice not to close every single licensed premises and prevent them all from opening at all, and that is because there is a range of premises that are following the rules, and we know that if people are drinking in a licensed premises, they're more likely to be monitored and behave differently, whereas if we encourage people to displace that activity outside pubs, then people are likely to carry on drinking at home and more likely to have people around into their homes, not just in breach of the new restrictions we've put in place, but we know consistently that it's contact in private dwellings that has led to the largest amount of coronavirus re-spreading. 

In terms of the decision, there's been very little time in terms of the decision. The decision wasn't finally made and concluded until about 12.20 p.m. today, and I was then in the press conference at 12.30 p.m. I was expecting to send a slightly different message in the press conference on perhaps discussing some of the challenges we spent lots of time yesterday going through in this Chamber on testing. In the end, we've had to make a choice on local restrictions, and I do not think it would have been appropriate to have made that decision 10 minutes before the press conference, give an entirely different press conference, and then made a different statement shortly afterwards. And I did ensure that a statement was circulated to Members before, albeit literally a minute or two before I was on my feet in the press conference, and we made clear we had contact with the Presiding Officer's office to make sure I could attend today to give this oral statement and answer questions directly. 

In terms of the guidance, you'll see, as I say, because the guidance relating to Caerphilly—it's very similar guidance for RCT, as I say, with the additional point about licensed premises. In the coronavirus control plan, we have a two-week review commitment, so we have to review the measures we've introduced today within two weeks, but there is a daily review of the position in each local authority. So, again, if we have intelligence of a need to introduce different measures, we may do that before the two-week review, but I expect it'll take a slightly longer period of time to see a sustained fall in numbers of new cases and, indeed, of the positivity rate in terms of those measures we'll be looking for before we look to reduce or remove the measures in place.

But, crucially, there's the local intelligence we'll also get from our test, trace, protect system on community transmission. Because, as the First Minister said yesterday, and as we've said on a number of occasions in the past, when we previously saw significant outbreaks in both Anglesey and in Wrexham, and a significant incident at the Kepak plant in Merthyr Tydfil, we understood who that cluster was. We could trace people back and we had confidence we weren't seeing community transmission, so we didn't need to take whole-community measures. What we understand here is we are seeing community transmission, and we can't have the smarter lockdown that TTP allows us to introduce. 

Those are the reasons that underpin the choices we've made today, and I'll of course look at the Member's final point about whether ward-by-ward information is available to publish on a more regular basis. But we do, as every Member knows, publish daily figures and daily updates on the position across each local authority area. 

I'm disappointed but I'm not surprised that Rhondda Cynon Taf is to be placed in lockdown. We were warned that this would happen if transmission rates increased, and they have, and a number of events and locations have been pinpointed in the statement. But I want to focus on the testing capacity here in the Rhondda. For coronavirus tests to be limited to just 60 a day by the UK Government at the testing facility that was set up in the Rhondda was an absolute outrage. The rationing of testing when the virus is spreading makes no sense to me. We know from countries that have coped better during this pandemic that tracking, tracing and isolating is key in stopping the spread. So, I want to know what additional testing capacity we can expect to see in the Rhondda this week, because we need it now. We can't wait a couple of weeks for the UK Government to sort their act out. I also want to know why this Labour Government is putting so much faith in the Tory Government to do the right thing. We all know that that is risky. People's freedoms are going to be restricted now, and I want to know how we can make it as easy as possible for people to be able to isolate if that is what they need to do. A lot of people are still reeling from the financial hit of the first lockdown, and now they have to face this as well. So, how can it be made easier for people to be able to isolate without losing income, and will you be able to make some financial support available to those whose income and businesses will be affected? 

And my final question is this reasoning about keeping pubs and clubs open. If you know that the spread has occurred because of transmission in pubs and clubs—yes, it's great that Rhondda Cynon Taf council are inspecting pubs and clubs and other establishments and making sure that they comply with the rules, but, surely, keeping pubs and clubs open when the spread is happening in pubs and clubs doesn't make a lot of sense to many people. So, can you further outline your reasoning for keeping pubs and clubs open, because I can't see that many people purchasing alcohol after 11 o'clock? So, that seems like a limited measure in terms of dealing with that particular point.

Thank you for the series of questions. I've set out in some detail over the weekend and yesterday the very real challenges and frustrations that came from a decision at official level within the UK Government to restrict lighthouse lab testing to centres to 60 per day in Wales, in Northern Ireland, and similar restrictions in Scotland too. That's why I had rapid conversations with other health Minister colleagues in other nations, and why, at 11:30 on Saturday morning, I was talking to Matt Hancock. We've seen an improvement in that, but there is definite learning to take from that, and there's learning to be taken within the UK programme about making choices that affect every UK nation. But they did it on the basis of only looking at English data, and that's why they had to recover the position and reintroduce testing facilities that should not have been removed. That's plainly unacceptable—I've made that very clear in conversations with the UK Government, as indeed have other health Ministers for Scotland and Northern Ireland.

We need to be in a position where, if the UK programme can't carry on delivering the number of samples each day, each of the respective nations makes choices about how to deploy those resources. Because we do see higher incidence areas, where it's more important in those areas for people to have access to a test. We also know that it'll take a number of weeks for those challenges to be resolved at a UK level. That's why—. And I'll deal with your point about further testing as well. But, in terms of the UK programme, of course, Scotland and Northern Ireland take part, and they have significant reliance on the UK programme. It's not something we'll receive a consequential for if we withdraw from that programme; it's a programme that I take part in and have access to the tests that it provides. And, up until about three weeks ago, it was a pretty decent turnaround in performance. We need to see it return to that level with the new equipment that I understand is due to be invested. But it puts all of us in a very difficult position in looking to run an effective testing programme together with the very high performing test, trace and protect service we have here in Wales.

In Rhondda Cynon Taf, we'll be maintaining the mobile site in Clydach Vale—that's now going to be extended to Monday at least. We're also looking to have another mobile test unit in the Abercynon area; hopefully, that'll be available tomorrow. I've announced today that we'll have five additional mobile testing units. We'll be running their tests through Public Health Wales, not lighthouse labs, and they're going to be split in the first instance between the Aneurin Bevan health board area and Cwm Taf Morgannwg, where we see the highest levels of need and demand. And we're also looking, over the next—. By the end of next week, I expect us to be in a position where we'll have additional lanes through all of the drive-in centres. Again, those additional lanes will offer opportunities for people to be tested and then to have those results analysed in our Public Health Wales laboratories. So, that's the proactive action we're already taking to fill some of the gap being created until the lighthouse lab programme recovers from the current position, where it's not able to turnaround its lab capacity.

In terms of support for self-isolation, this is a matter I've raised several times, not just in public, but in conversation with the UK Government, with the support of other health Ministers too. If we don't support people to do the right thing, then making a choice between staying at home on statutory sick pay, potentially, and not being able to afford to pay your bills, or risking your own health and that of others but being able to pay your bills is an invidious position to place people in. I know that there are trials of supporting people in self-isolation in England, and I've again made the case and pressed the case for those trials to be rapidly concluded, and for a full UK programme to be provided. There isn't the budgetary space for individual nations to do that themselves—it needs to be a consistent, UK-wide programme, in my view. And if the UK Government did choose to do that, then I would welcome that as a positive step forward in enabling people practically to comply with the advice they are being given by our test, trace, protect service.

In terms of pub opening, I've answered, in response to Andrew R.T. Davies, some of the challenges of displacing activity and actually having a line of sight on how and where people are drinking, as opposed to driving that into people's homes. We've seen recent evidence of alcohol sales going up significantly during national lockdown, and we need to recognise, in each of the choices we make, there is a balance of harm. But we do think that this measure will allow us to maintain licensed premises so that businesses don't lose their opportunity to turn a business, people don't lose their jobs and we'll have a line of sight on behaviour. And we'll then want to be able to understand how people are mixing, rather than not wanting to tell us that they've been seeing other people in contravention of the rules—there's a real risk we'll drive this underground.

The other point, though, and it's important to make, is it's not just a proportionate response of the law that requires us to consider this, but it allows us to take further measures. So, if we don't see the improvement in the way that both those businesses behave, but equally the way that customers go in and behave, then we do have opportunity to take further steps and measures. And this is not so dissimilar from measures that were taken in Aberdeen in Scotland and measures that we understand are being contemplated, if not implemented, across England as well. Every judgment is a balance, but I believe these are the right set of measures to introduce now. I look forward to the public responding positively to them. 

Thank you, Minister, for your statement today and for all the actions that are being taken to try and safeguard the well-being of the residents of Rhondda Cynon Taf. As you can imagine, questions are coming in to me thick and fast already from residents of the Cynon Valley, so I welcome this opportunity to ask you some of those directly. 

Firstly, with regard to booked holidays, I know that the residents of RCT will not now be able to travel for these purposes, and that, in the case of the Caerphilly residents previously, Welsh Government wrote to the main tour operators setting out the expectation that they would refund customers or allow them to amend their booking to a later date. Will you commit to resending this letter with reference to the residents of Rhondda Cynon Taf and sharing this correspondence with representatives of the area so that we can, in turn, share it with our constituents, who may require such proof in order to press their case, if necessary? In addition, what support can you offer to those who have booked holidays in the UK and to local tour operators, such as Edwards Coaches, whose businesses may be badly affected?

Secondly, with regard to those who have previously been shielding, I'm aware that the previous Caerphilly guidelines have not recommended any changes for this specific group over and above the advice or the regulations that have been imposed on other residents. Yet, in recent days, Cwm Taf Morgannwg University Health Board and Councillor Andrew Morgan, leader of Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council, have—quite sensibly, in my opinion—advised people in RCT who have previously been shielding to work from home wherever possible, due to the rise in the coronavirus cases here. Can you confirm, then, the evidence that you will offer to previously shielded people in this regard? 

And thirdly and finally, I'd like to ask about support for local businesses. These new restrictions are, of course, very, very different from the national lockdown that we saw in the spring. How can Welsh Government encourage local residents to continue to shop locally safely and to support home-grown local businesses, while also safeguarding their own health?  

Thank you for the series of questions from the Member. In terms of your first point, about holidays, I recognise that Hefin David has been making the case in particular yesterday, but in correspondence and conversation with me as well, about his residents in the Caerphilly constituency, and I'm happy to take up the Member's suggestion to write again to parts of the holiday industry. We've been in contact with them, their insurers, to again confirm the restrictions that are now in place and the fact that residents from RCT will not be able to go on holiday—it will be a breach of the law to do so—and to chase a response on this issue and indeed the outstanding response on Caerphilly. And I'm happy to take up the Member's suggestion to share that correspondence with constituency and regional Members so that you can see the letter we have written and any response we then receive. 

I think there's a broader point about the travel industry and reputational damage that they'll need to consider. There's a point not just about those foreign holiday operators but within the UK as well. This isn't just about having sympathy for people who have found their ability to go on holiday restricted. If people did breach the law and nevertheless go on holiday, they are at a higher risk of having coronavirus because community transmission is taking place, and I do not think that holiday operators would welcome a position where someone has broken the law to go on holiday and potentially introduced coronavirus to part of their holiday operation. There is a point of self-interest here for holiday operators to do the right thing, and that must mean making sure that refunds are available and people are not put in an invidious position and, equally, that other holidaymakers don't feel at risk from people that they're sitting next to in terms of transport. 

There is a point about how we support people, and there's a really difficult point here, because, in the English restrictions that have been introduced locally, we haven't seen an additional flow of resource going in to support businesses. Now, we've seen that in Leicester and other areas too, and, again, I think this would benefit from a joined-up UK response, where we can sit down and understand the budgetary response that is available, and whether there is a, potentially, UK-wide scheme for businesses where we're placing new restrictions upon them. Our budgetary position in Wales is not that we're in a position where we have lots of spare cash to be able to put into businesses to support them when we're needing to take public health measures to protect the health of the wider public. That's why myself and the First Minister have been very clear that we want to see the COBRA process restart in earnest, to have regular conversations, and, hopefully, shared decisions, but, equally, within our own individual responsibilities, a better way of communicating, in every part of Wales and the UK, the choices that are being made and what underpins them. 

In terms of shielding, the whole country is being advised to work from home wherever possible, and that is something that certainly applies to people who are being shielded, not just people who live in Rhondda Cynon Taf and Caerphilly. The advice from our chief medical officer—we had a deliberate discussion about the shielded population, and, whilst the advice at present isn't to reintroduce the full shielding arrangements, we are considering direct contact with people who were previously shielded to remind them of the position that they were in, the current position, and to remind them in particular that they should follow these rules to the letter to make sure they're minimising their risk of exposure, because they're at much greater risk of harm. 

And when it comes to staying local, we both have a local travel restriction, but it is also an opportunity for people to support their local businesses. And that's both about how we comply with the rules ourselves as customers, but also how businesses themselves make it clear that they are providing as safe an environment as possible for their customers to continue coming back, whether online or in person. And I hope that people do take seriously the message that exists here, not just from an enforcement point of view, but actually look after our staff and look after the public that they serve. 

Thank you for the statement. I just want to add to some of the points that have already been made and ask for assurances on a number of different fronts. Firstly, on communication, could you explain how Government, working with the local authority, will increase the level of communication locally in Rhondda Cynon Taf, in this instance, and in other areas affected, because it's clear that the messages are still getting lost? Even six months into the pandemic, there are some basic messages still being lost. 

Another element of communication that I'd be keen to see is on informing people when exactly they should be seeking a test, because people are erring on the side of caution. And that's a good thing; we want people who perhaps need a test to make sure that they get one. But, if there's a better way of communicating, in order to remove those people who perhaps have some symptoms but they're not really COVID symptoms, to not get involved in the wait for testing and so on, that would be very, very useful at this time. I've found it myself difficult sometimes to pin down the definition of new, persistent coughs and so on. So, communication on that would be good. 

Enforcement—I'd like assurances on enforcement. How do you make sure that those pubs where people are still allowed to congregate are properly policed, that local authorities have the powers and the resources to police them in order to make sure that people are having to stick the rules?

Limiting contact is another thing that I'd like assurances on. When do you make the call that keeping a pub open until 11.00 p.m. isn't acceptable, that you have to take away more opportunities for people to mix? Because it's been shown, hasn't it, that those places can be risky. And, of course, if you do have to close places down, we need those assurances about assistance for those businesses.

And, finally, on testing, can we have more assurances on how we will know that we need—the capacity that we must have within our communities from lighthouse labs and the UK-run systems? Because Independent SAGE said months ago:

'There is an urgent need to plan for migration of testing back from the...Lighthouse laboratories into a more integrated..."normalisation" of such increased capacity across our existing PHE/NHS laboratories'.

You as a Government did the opposite. I feel we're paying the price for that now. We need assurances that we will have the tests that we need over the winter period.

Thank you. Perhaps I'll deal with that final point first. You'll recall that we had real difficulty and challenges at the start of the pandemic in significantly increasing our own testing resources. We had equipment on order that was held up and not able to be delivered into Wales. That was because of restrictions provided in other countries. And we then also had some challenges when equipment arrived—one piece in particular that took several weeks to settle down and function properly. So, it's why there is some difficulty both in increasing our own testing resources and the people who are needed to make sure those tests are processed properly, together with some concern over the difficulties that lighthouse labs currently face. Because whilst Matt Hancock has indicated it'll be a number of weeks—up to around three weeks, he hopes—before lighthouse labs are back on an even keel with much more capacity, able to meet the demand that they face, we know it's possible for other events to intervene, and that's why we're already switching our capacity.

We're not waiting three weeks and saying, 'We just need to tough it out'; we're actually increasing our own capacity available to the public through NHS Wales laboratories. And that's partly the reason why we've increased our own capacity to make sure that there is an alternative to publicly available testing. It's also, though, that we increased that capacity ready for the autumn and winter period, when we expect we'll have more people coming into our hospitals, more people seeking healthcare, and we'll need to have testing facilities available, and it will allow us, as we are doing, to deploy testing in hotspot areas. So, we're doing exactly what we thought we would need to do, but it's earlier and in a different way because of the challenges that the UK programme is facing.

It's not a simple matter of blind faith; it's actually a matter of the practical reality of where resources are. It's a UK programme and, actually, a few months ago, the unified criticism of me was that we weren't taking part when other nations were taking part. We resolved the data issues and the lighthouse lab programme actually worked pretty well for the last few months. We now need to deal with the challenge that we all recognise is taking place and the anxiety that is causing constituents.

On enforcement, I'd like to praise environmental health officers in every local authority, regardless of the leadership of that council. Environmental health officers have been a huge part of what we are doing and I really do want to pay tribute to them. They are all going above and beyond the normal call of duty to check on premises, to enforce and to keep the public safe. We're not looking to introduce COVID marshals as the UK Government suggested they were going to do. We're looking to see more recruitment of people to assist environmental health officers through proper recruitment processes and local authorities are already looking at how they're going to do that. My colleague Julie James, the Minister for Housing and Local Government, is working with local authorities and being clear that we want to see them co-operate with each other. Because, actually, given the sustained increase in cases in Caerphilly, they have needed support from others, and it's about how councils work together, crucially to make sure that 22 authorities aren't competing against each other for the same limited resource.

I do, though, want to pay tribute, not just to environmental health officers, but the leaderships of the particular local authorities that we've been working with. I can say that, at the start of this, with the first incident in Ynys Môn, the Plaid Cymru leader there was very responsible and I thought did a very good job in leading her council through that first significant incident. And we're seeing that now with Philippa Marsden in Caerphilly and Andrew Morgan in Rhondda Cynon Taf. And that relationship, where we're talking regularly with them, is really important. They're getting unified communication as well, so that people on the ground, with their local responsibilities in local government, are discharging those with the support of and in a consistent way with Welsh Government. And that is also about the simplicity of our message.

We've actually had a pretty consistent message here in Wales. We have challenges with different messages and the way the media communicate those, and different messages in particular across our border, where lots of people get their media from. So, we have been republishing messages, through not just social media, but using the Welsh media too, and Ministers have had a very high profile in not just Welsh media, but across UK stations as well. We'll continue to do so to try to deal with people's anxiety about not just the message, but about how to get a test and when to get a test.

The symptoms are a high temperature, a new continuous cough or a loss of a sense of taste or smell. That's when you should be going to get a test, and if you do need a test, don't go to a healthcare facility. Don't go to a hospital, don't visit your GP, don't go to a pharmacy—that's exactly where we don't want you to be. Please, if you can, book your test from home, or if you need to go to a walk-in centre, make sure that you're not breaching social distancing rules in place with other members of the public.

Minister, can I first of all put on record, I think, the importance of the work that RCT council have been doing in terms of the monitoring and enforcement in supermarkets and in pubs and so on? It's been important. But I think, also, there's a realisation that exists in the community I live in and represent that cases have been increasing and that further action was going to need to be taken.

A number of questions have been answered, but I've had, through social media already, hundreds of postings for information and so on, and that is understandable in the way in which communication has been developing in our constituencies. Just two points there. One point that has been raised is in respect of the elderly who, obviously, we have great concerns about, and who will not be able to meet up in their support bubbles in the same way. I'm just wondering what consideration has been given to the sort of support and advice that needs to be given to the elderly in that situation. We know also, with schools going back—and we want our schools to stay open—that there are many grandparents who take their grandchildren to school, and there may be issues there in terms of whether that can continue or not. That would be helpful if you could clarify that particular question.

And then one final point. You've referred to community transmission. Of course, there's a lot of posting on social media saying, 'Well, we have clusters here and there, why don't we just close down the areas where those clusters exist?' I think it would be helpful, Minister, if you could explain and clarify today what the issue is with community transmission, why it is not realistic or feasible in controlling this current spread to be just closing down small areas or confined areas, and why it is important that we have to look at this at a broader area in terms of the speed and expansion of transmission.

And then one very final point. The University of South Wales have been doing a lot of work in developing technology for rapid testing. I'm wondering if you have any information or an update as to how that is progressing, because if it does progress, it obviously offers tremendous opportunities.

Thank you for the questions. On the final point first, the University of South Wales's potential development is still in trials. We understand that it looks positive. It's one of a number of potential point-of-care tests where you can test people rapidly. We already have one such device that ourselves and Scotland in particular have been interested in, and that should again provide a test in under 20 minutes. So, crucially, that test should also allow us to deal with some of the strains of the flu as well, which is particularly useful when it comes to flu season even if people don't have COVID. If they have flu, it is an infectious disease and we should remember that in an average flu season, 8,000 to 10,000 people across the UK lose their lives. So, there are real threats, and if you need to have a NHS flu jab, you are in a vulnerable group when it comes to harm from COVID too. So, we'll continue, as we get more information, to make that available, not just to the constituency Member, but to Members across the Chamber as well.

On your point about enforcement, again, the point about our environmental health officers and the work they've done and the way they've worked together across boundaries—there are some partnerships across different local authorities—their commitment is really significant and has made a really big difference in the join-up between the responsibilities of local authorities and the health service as well. There has been a genuine team approach between local government and our health services. So, that enforcement activity—the checking—will continue, but the starting point is businesses themselves following the rules and customers following the rules too.

The rules come into place from 6 o'clock tomorrow, but as we saw in Caerphilly, behaviour starts to change as soon as the announcement is made, and we're looking for people to behave in this way to protect themselves, their families and their community. That's the point and the purpose of this: to try to save lives. The Caerphilly guidance that exists is a useful touch point for people in RCT because we've answered a range of questions. There will be very similar questions as the ones asked in Caerphilly. It's Caerphilly plus the issues about restricting the hours of sales within licensed premises.

On schools and individuals with caring responsibilities, even in the national lockdown, it was a reasonable excuse to visit another person in their home if you have caring responsibilities with and for them. That still is the case now. But we're not seeing the extended household arrangements surviving from tomorrow in RCT because of the evidence about community transmission and the challenges of people mixing indoors without social distancing.

And that comes back to the final point that I need to deal with, your point about community transmission or clusters. If you consider the issues we've seen, for example, in a range of areas, whether it's the current issue in General Dynamics, where there's a workforce, many of whom are in Merthyr Tydfil, but workers who travel from further afield, or the previous issue we saw—seeing the Member for Blaenau Gwent in the room—in Zorba, where there was a large workforce, but we understood who they were and where they lived. The employer and the trade unions—where they were there—were really co-operative and encouraged people to get tested and tested quickly, so that when we saw lots of tests being undertaken very quickly, it meant that the case rates in some of those authority areas rose up significantly, but we understood what that was. That was effectively a self-contained cluster of people who all had predictable links with each other.

What we find in RCT is that about half of the cases are in those areas we can predict and understand how the virus is transmitted. We're seeing about half the cases, though, in areas where we don't understand where the index case is and how they link with each other, and that's when we see community transmission in the normal contact of people with people who are following the rules as opposed to the individual events, for example, in the club that went to the Doncaster races all on a bus in the day, going in and out of pubs and then coming back as well. That individual event is also going alongside wider community spread and that's the real danger point that could see us back to where we were in March this year, just before going into national lockdown, and that is what we're desperate to avoid and why we appeal to people to follow the rules, not just in RCT and Caerphilly, but the rules that apply in the rest of the country too.

Finally, Huw Irranca-Davies.

Diolch, Llywydd. Can I just begin by joining the Minister and others who have praised the work of front-line officers on the ground in different departments in RCT, under the leadership of Andrew Morgan, but also other agencies? They've put sterling work in not just now in recent hours and days, but actually weeks and months as well. But also his call on the UK Government to extend support to not only employees, importantly, but also businesses that are affected by localised constraints and localised lockdowns as well, otherwise the economic and financial pressures are there to actually bend the rules, go back; we don't want that to happen, but there's a reality on the ground. I also have had several questions coming in to me live since the announcement has been made, and I wonder if I can run these past the Minister.

First of all, in areas like Gilfach Goch and Llanharan and others, which are on the border of RCT but within the Ogmore constituency, where we haven't had pubs and clubs shut down, where we don't have the data yet that is showing that there are intense localised outbreaks of the virus there, people are asking whether there can be a more hyperlocalised approach to this as we go on in the next few days and weeks or does it have to be on a county borough area. Are there reasons why a county borough wide approach is the preferred approach? Is it simplicity for enforcement, for monitoring? I don't know, but people there are saying, 'Well, why are we being penalised when we don't have these outbreaks, when our pubs and clubs are behaving well?' and so on.

Secondly, bordering areas just outside, such as Evanstown and Gilfach Goch, which are literally on each other's sides of the street, with family and neighbours who commute across for child minding purposes and have extended households between two county boroughs on opposing sides of a street, what advice should we be giving to those in Evanstown who are not affected directly by these constraints, but will be when they realise that tomorrow morning their child minding or their grandparents or whatever, well, they cannot actually go and visit? What advice should we be giving?

And finally, I've already had an approach from many people, but one is from a couple who had actually reorganised their wedding from the height of the initial period of the lockdown earlier on in the year from May to October to a different venue in Cowbridge. They've booked it, they've got a limited number of guests coming, they live in Llanharan, and they're now asking does this mean that their wedding cannot go ahead for a second time. I suspect the news is not good, but in which case could the Welsh Government, in light of what Vikki was just saying, extend that letter that could go out not just to holidaymakers and tourism operators, but also to wedding venues and others to make sure that they show the greatest sympathy possible for people who have been affected by this?

Thank you for the series of questions. I go back to there's some consistency in what Members have said and also contrary points. So, thinking about what Leanne Wood said about, 'Why aren't we closing all the pubs now?', there's a counterpoint that pubs that are being responsible, who don't want to see any restrictions, and where we are is a measure of restriction for all licensed premises because of the evidence we have. We've chosen not to close all premises because we recognise that some are behaving responsibly, and as I say, we don't want to displace all of that activity into people's homes where there are even greater risks of transmission.

So, as I say, it's a balance, and the challenge about taking hyperlocal choices is how many different messages people can have communicated and still follow because many people say, 'Give us simple rules and simple guidance for us to follow and to understand.' It lies behind some of the frustrations members of the public have about different messages between different Governments. We are trying to do the right thing for Wales and to take national choices and to understand local choices, and in any area where you have a border around the choices you're making, there's going to be transference across and a need to understand. Now, those rough edges in choices we make are inevitable, but there isn't a perfect choice, as you will know, being a former Minister; you never get to make a perfect choice in Government. But within this, we have to make choices that are, on balance, going to keep people safe, and avoid as much harm as possible.

So, on that challenge about the border, there's a difference between visiting for social purposes and if people have genuine caring responsibilities. For some people, they're genuine caring responsibilities and for others, they're not so. Now, that's a significant interruption in how people live their lives, and I recognise that, but if we don't do this, then we're likely to see coronavirus spread further, not just within RCT, but across that pretty porous border in the way people live their normal lives. We all recognise the harm that took place ahead of and then during the first lockdown.

And then, on your point about the impact of lockdown, I guess there's a challenge here for the UK Treasury to think about the impact of local lockdowns, where you end lots of activity and you end up almost certainly seeing a reduction in the tax take and economic activity, and at the same time, the cost you need to put in to sustain that activity, and what will happen if we don't support businesses and the challenges of those businesses going under if they're not supported, and equally, the much wider challenges if people aren't supported to isolate as they should do. If people go out, it makes more local lockdowns and a national lockdown—not just in Wales, but across UK—more likely, with a much higher financial price to pay, as well as a price we'll all see being paid in terms of people's health and well-being.

On your point around wedding venues, I think the point is well made. I'm afraid the news isn't good for your constituents, but I will take on board the point about how we within the Government write to those venues and those operators, because I recognise it's a significant life event, there'll be people who are really anxious about it, and this does have meaning. So, I'll certainly take that up and take on board your comments. 

Thank you, Minister. 

The next item is the topical questions, but none have been accepted for today. 

Therefore, our next item is the 90-second statements. The first statement is from Jack Sargeant.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. Last Thursday, 10 September, was World Suicide Prevention Day. Suicide has a deep detrimental impact on families and on communities that last a lifetime. The facts about suicide are stark: in 2018, 6,507 people died in the UK from suicide, with men being three times more likely to die by suicide than women. This year, to mark World Suicide Prevention Day, I worked with Connah's Quay Nomads to get the message out. This year's theme was working together to prevent suicide, and I am incredibly proud of the Nomads, and I'm incredibly proud, for the record, Llywydd, of becoming club ambassador very recently. I hope that the video we made together will reach someone out there who needs to hear that it's okay to not be okay, and help is out there. Now, Llywydd and Members, the video is pinned to the top of my social media feeds, so please consider helping others by sharing. Llywydd, there is more to do and there is no doubt that Governments need to do more. But we all have a role to play in preventing suicide. So, as I said at the start, World Suicide Prevention Day is held annually on 10 September, but let's make a commitment today here in this Welsh Parliament, in this Senedd, that World Suicide Prevention Day is 365 days a year, and we all work together to prevent suicide.

It was my privilege last week to visit, with my colleague Adam Price, a wonderful Llanelli-based organisation, CYCA—formerly the Carmarthenshire Youth and Children's Association, now Connecting Youth, Children and Adults. I have known of and supported CYCA's work for almost 20 years, and it was really inspiring to see how they've gone from strength to strength supporting children, young people and families in these challenging times, and this year, they celebrate their fortieth birthday. It would be easier to list what CYCA doesn't do in the field than what they do, such is the breadth of their work. They run nurseries and youth groups, education and training courses, they provide counselling and individual support, and support for families. We were particularly impressed with the stories of two young mothers who, through CYCA, had not only received support with the challenges of isolation and family life, but had also been able to get back into education; one starts her training as a midwife this week. And we were struck, too, by an innovative social prescribing scheme where GPs refer children and young people experiencing distress to CYCA. The team then work with the whole family, identifying support needs and providing whatever is needed—counselling, parenting support, support at school—and this support lasts as long as the children and family need it. It's already proving very successful, with young people's well-being greatly enhanced. One service user said to me many years ago, 'The thing about CYCA is that they never give up on you'. And they don't. CYCA never gives up on a child, a young person, a vulnerable adult or a family. We are lucky to have them in our town, our county and our community. Pen-blwydd hapus iawn, CYCA. I'm looking forward to seeing what you get up to in the next 40 years.

This week we commemorate the eightieth anniversary of the Battle of Britain, a week in which the Royal Air Force fought against the odds for the very survival of our country and our way of life. Outnumbered by four to one by the Luftwaffe, the bravery and the skill of our airmen demonstrated that it was possible to defeat a Nazi invasion. Their success in sending the Nazis packing was an important moment in the war, both strategically and psychologically. Had the battle been lost, Britain would have fallen and the counteroffensive, which started on these shores and turned the tide of the war, would not have been possible. So, 80 years on, we remember Churchill's few, the almost 3,000 airmen from Britain, the Commonwealth and across the world who fought in the skies with courage and determination during what was a long, hot summer. Wales played an important role in the Battle of Britain: at RAF Hawarden pilots were trained to fly spitfires; RAF Pembrey operated as a fighter command station from which Spitfires and Hurricanes flew; and of the 67 Welsh airmen that fought, 17 paid the ultimate sacrifice. So, 80 years on, we salute these heroes and thank God for their incredible achievements. 

Thank you for those statements. We will now take a short break.

We reconvene and we go to item 6 on the agenda this afternoon, which is a motion under Standing Order 10.5 to appoint the chair of the Wales Audit Office. I call on the Chair of the Finance Committee to move the motion—Llyr Gruffydd.

Thank you very much, Dirprwy Lywydd. I am very pleased to be able to move this motion today on behalf of the Finance Committee, and ask the Senedd to agree to appoint Lindsay Foyster as chair of the Wales Audit Office board, of course, in accordance with the Public Audit (Wales) Act 2013.

Lindsay Foyster has vast experience of operating at board level within both the third and public sectors, including over five years as a non-executive member of the Wales Audit Office board and over 25 years of senior executive experience at board level in the third sector. Lindsay is also an accomplished chair, with extensive experience of chairing across many organisations and settings in both the third and public sectors.

Now, Members may also wish to note that the committee's report on the appointment of the non-executive members and chair of the WAO provides further details on the recruitment process, including the new appointments of Ian Rees and Elinor Gwynn as non-executive members, and the appointment of Alison Gerrard on her second term as non-executive member.

I would also like to place on record the committee's thanks to the outgoing chair, Isobel Everett, and recognise her invaluable contribution since the Wales Audit Office was established in 2013. Isobel's stewardship of the board has been characterised by innovation, collaboration and increasing the credibility and visibility of the Wales Audit Office, and she leaves it on a strong footing for those who follow.

I would also like to take this opportunity to acknowledge Bill Richardson's valuable contribution to the Wales Audit Office over the past three years, as he stands down from his role as non-executive member.

And with those few words, I ask the Senedd to agree the motion. Thank you.

Thank you. There are no speakers, therefore the proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? No. Therefore, the motion is agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Item 7 on our agenda—the item has been withdrawn.

We move to item 8, which is a debate on the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee report, 'Benefits in Wales: options for better delivery', and I call on the Chair of the committee to move the motion—John Griffiths.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I'm pleased to open today's debate on the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee report on benefits in Wales. We published a report in October 2019, when the world was a very different place. While the pandemic has played a significant role in delaying this debate, it is not the only reason for that delay. Initially, the Welsh Government did not respond to seven of our recommendations, as it was awaiting analysis from the Wales Centre for Public Policy. When this work was completed in January 2020, the Government committed to responding to our outstanding recommendations by Easter. The pandemic then delayed the final response, which we received in May.

Having waited so long for a substantive response to the recommendations, it was therefore disappointing that the Welsh Government did not provide the detailed response we expected. They stated that, against the background of COVID and the uncertainty around the emergency changes to the benefits system, now is not the time to consider long-term changes to social security. Yet, the pandemic has laid bare the precarious nature of too many people's finances—a precariousness that is not through any fault of their own but because they simply do not earn enough money to cover basic outgoings. The traditional route out of poverty—work—has stalled. Before the pandemic, over half the people living in poverty were in households where at least one person was in work. So, I ask the Welsh Government: if not today, when will they take a comprehensive look and consider seeking the necessary powers so that Wales has control over those benefits that are best delivered and set here?

We can already learn much from the Scottish experience. Clearly, it would not be easy and would come with risks, but as some of the stakeholders told us, sticking with the current status quo is also a considerable risk. We believe that the advantages of devolving some benefits are potentially so significant and could do so much to help support people in Wales out of poverty that it is worth being bold and seeking the relevant powers. It is also worth highlighting that devolution will take time and we should avoid any further delays in starting this journey.

Moving on to the impact of the pandemic, there has been a significant increase in the numbers of people claiming benefits in Wales since the start of the lockdown. Between March and July, there was a 71 per cent increase in people in Wales receiving universal credit, and the Welsh Government's discretionary assistance fund has paid out over 52,000 coronavirus emergency payments since March. I am pleased that the Welsh Government has taken a more flexible approach to DAF applications, which have enabled more people to access those emergency funds.

During our work looking at the impact of the pandemic, we've heard about the need for further changes that better support the most affected people in Wales. The recommendations we made in this report nearly a year ago have become even more important now. Our recommendations looked at both those changes that could be made within the current settlement as well as where further devolution may be required. As I have mentioned, it is disappointing that the Welsh Government has never really fully engaged with those later recommendations in our report.

But I will now move on to changes that could be made within the current settlement. In relation to recommendations 1 through to 9, there has been more positive progress. However, there are some areas that I would like to seek further clarity on, and I will focus on those areas now. In recommendation 1, we call for the establishment of a coherent and integrated Welsh benefits system that encompasses all the means-tested benefits the Welsh Government is responsible for. I am pleased this recommendation was accepted. In their response, the Welsh Government highlighted their cross-Government review of programmes and services for children, young people and families living in poverty. In the Government's latest response, they state the review is nearly complete. Can the Deputy Minister outline when she expects this review to be published, and can she also give us a flavour of how this will help improve the coherence and integration of Welsh Government benefits?

Recommendation 3—call for the discretionary assistance fund to be available during the five-week wait for a universal credit payment and call for the criteria and application process to make this explicit. I am pleased that this recommendation has been implemented, but, as we noted in our report on COVID and equalities, published over the summer, we remain concerned that not everybody who may be eligible for that is aware they can apply. Concerns about awareness have been raised since 2015. In our COVID report, we recommended a rebranding of the discretionary assistance fund, and I look forward to the Government's response to that report in the coming week.

In the Government's response to this report, the Deputy Minister highlights that, along with the First Minister, she has written to the UK Government about the universal credit five-week wait, calling for advances that are currently available as repayable loans to be made into non-repayable grants. Can the Deputy Minister update us on whether there has been any response from the UK Government on what further actions may be taken?

One of the key themes we heard, both in this work and our subsequent work on COVID-19, was that there are too many people who are not claiming support they are eligible for. We therefore recommended action to improve take-up of all benefits, both devolved and non-devolved. We call for, at the very least, a wide-ranging and extensive public awareness campaign.

The Welsh Government has emphasised the importance of the single advice fund in providing benefits advice and increasing take-up. They also highlight the work they've been doing with the Department for Work and Pensions on the underclaiming of benefits for older people. We welcome this, but we still believe that more action is essential. The need for such a campaign has actually increased since we first reported. We repeated this recommendation in our COVID report. The Bevan Foundation also called for such a campaign in their recent report on COVID and poverty. Does the Deputy Minister now accept these calls and will she commit to such an awareness-raising campaign?

Before I close, I would also ask for an update from the Deputy Minister on the discussions with the UK Government to strengthen the Welsh voice in decisions on non-devolved benefits. Dirprwy Lywydd, I now look forward to hearing contributions from across the Senedd and the Deputy Minister's response. Diolch yn fawr.

Well, throughout our inquiry, I emphasised that our consideration of options for better delivery of benefits in Wales must focus on whether this would intrinsically benefit people in Wales, rather than on opinions of the transient policies of changing Governments. Governments in London and Cardiff come and go, and the policy agenda both between and within parties in both will change over time. As such, our focus must be on whether delivering things at a devolved level in perpetuity would, by itself, better meet Welsh needs and address the impact on devolved policy areas, rather than reflect the politics around current UK and Welsh Government policies.

As our report states,

'devolution does not improve things automatically, a point raised by most stakeholders including Oxfam Cymru, the Bevan Foundation, academics from Bangor University and the Deputy Minister.'

As we also noted, 

'the potential prize of delivering services that better suit Welsh specific needs'

must be balanced against the possibility of breaking the social union across the UK that underpins the principle that all UK citizens have an equal claim to the welfare state and that benefits and burdens depend on need and not geography.

As the Chartered Institute of Housing told us, the current model

'which spreads social security spending over a larger demographic base is one that at present is advantageous to Wales, 

where, quote,

'Due to a higher level of dependency on benefits in Wales, there is "effectively" a transfer of income from England to Wales.'

As they also said, just assuming that it's going to be better just because you're closer to it—I don't think that necessarily follows.

The Bevan Foundation highlighted the need for distinction between those benefits that are arguably part of the social contract, e.g. benefits that are based on national insurance contributions, and those that are variable top-up payments designed to support people in specific circumstances, e.g. to manage higher housing costs. They state that poverty could be reduced if the existing devolved schemes, including the discretionary assistance fund and council tax reduction scheme, were pulled together into a coherent, effective and fair Welsh benefits system.

In Scotland, the importance of involving people with lived experience in the design of the new social security system was emphasised to us, as was the need to counterbalance the savings generated by reduced appeals against the cost of increased take-up. In terms of UK benefit administration, we heard that there were fewer universal credit sanctions than ever before. We heard that although Scottish Conservative colleagues have supported the devolution of some social security powers, accounting for around 16 per cent of welfare spending in Scotland, there's still an anticipated £1 billion funding black hole despite the Scottish Government having more financial headroom, and the decision makers still need to make hard decisions at a devolved level. We're also told that the scale of the DWP meant that Scottish devolution will not work without its effective input.

As our report states, we're concerned that the current assessment processes do not always take best account of the specific needs or challenges faced by people with some conditions, an issue I've been raising repeatedly with the DWP and Capita on constituent cases. Hence the need to embed the lived experience of people into the design, implementation and evaluation of the benefits system. Contrary to the report's statement that the Scottish approach, where the private sector has been removed from the assessment process, requires further exploration, the focus should therefore be on the assessment process rather than who delivers it. Whether assessments are conducted by public, private or third sector, they will fail unless people with lived experience are involved in their design, delivery and monitoring.

I welcome the Welsh Government's acceptance of our recommendations that it establish a coherent and integrated Welsh benefits system for all the means-tested benefits for which it is responsible, co-produced with people who claim these benefits and the wider Welsh public, and that it use the Oxfam sustainable livelihoods approach toolkit, recognising that all people have abilities and assets that can be developed to help them improve their lives. We now need words turned into real action so that at last things are done with people rather than to them.

The Welsh Government states that it is finalising actions to take forward following its review of its existing programmes and services, and building on action already undertaken in response to the current crisis. However, developing a set of principles and values on which a Welsh benefits system will be based and tackling poverty more widely will only succeed with citizen involvement at its core. Diolch.

I want to begin by commending this report to the Senedd and congratulating the committee. I would argue that this is an example of our Senedd, our Parliament, at its best: detailed evidence collected, carefully considered, and strong, well thought through, detailed recommendations. As a Parliament and as a nation, we should be grateful to the committee for its work.

Unfortunately, the Government response is less inspiring—too much 'we're doing it already', too much 'accept in principle', which we all know basically means 'we know that you're right but we're not going to do it', and, for recommendations 10 to 17, no response at all pending research, despite the research that the committee had already done. As John Griffiths has already said, I hope the Minister will be able to give a more positive response in her contribution to this debate, particularly in the light of what we've learnt about poverty through the COVID crisis.

I will address my remarks to these recommendations. The committee has carefully looked at and made a very powerful case for the devolution of various aspects of the benefits system, and there's no need for me to rehearse those; I want to speak to the overall principle. Dirprwy Lywydd, I'm sure that we can all agree that poverty is a scourge on our nation. Personally, I am deeply saddened and angered by the fact that I live in a nation where a third of our children are poor. It's a national disgrace. And I hope we can all agree that the long-term solution is for us to build an economy where work pays, where good-quality employment is available to all, and where prosperity is shared across Wales. But, in the short term, there will be many individuals and families who will need benefits to get by, and this position will only worsen in the aftermath of the COVID crisis, as we've already heard. 

The current benefits system—and I'm focusing here on those benefits that are not devolved, but it's arguably true of the Welsh benefits system too—is complex, it's stigmatising, and it does not provide individuals and families with sufficient income for a decent life. If we are serious about lifting people out of poverty, we need to use the benefits system to help us do it. And I don't believe for one minute, and I suspect Members on the Government benches here don't either, that the current Conservative Government in Westminster, albeit that they come and go, can be trusted to do that. My constituents are certainly not experiencing the kind of social solidarity and redistribution of which Mark Isherwood speaks. 

So, I remain at a loss as to why the Government is not seeking powers over these benefits as a matter of urgency. I can understand some fiscal concerns, that's only responsible, but Ministers will be aware, for example, of the research done by the Wales Governance Centre that found no evidence that devolving some power over benefits to Wales, as has already been done to Scotland, would be fiscally unsustainable. Indeed, it showed that, depending on the model used, the Welsh Treasury could stand to benefit considerably from the devolution of welfare powers.

Dirprwy Lywydd, partly as a response to COVID, new and innovative ideas are circulating in Wales about how we might lift people out of poverty. There are, for example, many in this Chamber who would advocate trialling a universal basic income. My party is advocating a Welsh child payment to end absolute poverty for children in Wales. But these ideas can only work properly, they can only go beyond trial, if the power over the benefits system lies here. The committee has made a powerful, well-evidenced as well as passionate case, and we've heard this again in John Griffiths's speech today. I urge the Government to act on that now. As John Griffiths has said, it will take time. If we began the process to seek the devolution of these benefits, it would take time for them to come. Our poorest fellow citizens need our Government, as John said, to be bold. 

It's a pleasure to follow on from the last speaker and also from my Chair of the committee, John Griffiths. I stand simply to support all the points that have been made in terms of the report that we brought forward and the recommendations, because I think the report is actually very balanced. It isn't strident or ideological or fixated on a certain end point. It listened very carefully to the evidence that came in front of us. It very much reflects the cross-party nature of that committee and different political and personal perspectives of those who sat on that committee—I have to say, very different personal and political perspectives of those who sat on the committee. It doesn't, actually, seek wholesale devolution of all benefits, and certainly not in one fell swoop, either. It actually looks for practical ways in which significant but targeted elements of benefits could be devolved, as well as significantly greater administrative devolution of benefits. And why? With the sole purpose of improving the lot of people in Wales.

And, do you know, from a personal perspective, I've said repeatedly in this Chamber, from my brand of socialism, I want to see the benefits system supporting people in Swansea and Southport and Stockport and everywhere else equally, and we have to recognise—and I depart from the committee in a sense, here; my perspective is that, for the last 10 years, we've had a punitive regime. I've seen the evidence of it in my own constituency. For me, that is unarguable. But we couldn't equally say that some future Government in Wales, heaven help us, Mary, and John on the monitor there, would not have a benign approach to the benefits system and social security—a future Government in Wales might do it, but at least we'd have the mechanisms here and closer to the people that we could argue, 'Why are you doing what you're doing?' as opposed to some distant Whitehall Ministers and Whitehall mandarins who say, 'This is the way it's going to be, and you can tinker around the edges but that's your lot.' So, I would argue to the Minister that it's a practical approach that is set out within this, recognising the evidence we consistently heard time after time. People came in front of us as a committee and didn't argue, actually, for wholesale devolution, didn't argue from an ideological base; they were people who were confronted with the hard reality of the people that they try to support, who were in work as well as out of work receiving benefits, and how we could better put a system in place in Wales that would actually be to their good.

In May 2020, the Deputy Minister for Housing and Local Government in front of us here, Hannah, told the committee that, 'Because of the uncertain times of the pandemic, now does not appear to be the best time, both in terms of available resource and availability of evidence, to consider fully long-term changes to social security.' I have some sympathy with that on the pandemic in front of us and the resources, I do; I don't have sympathy with the element that talks about the evidence, because we did a lot of work on that committee that I think would help the Government do whatever they need to finesse the evidence, and actually just go on with it. I don't, by the way, underestimate what we'll get back from the UK Government on this, but we should ask. We should get a position and then put it there, and in the next Senedd come back and put that position again until we get a Government in London that will listen.

The Minister also said that she would revisit this important issue again when the Welsh Government has been able to fully reconsider any changes that have been made to the UK social security system and how the UK Government social security system has been able to meet the challenges in Wales of the global crisis, and had the opportunity to review any evidence for how the crisis has been met by the different models operating for devolved social security arrangements in other devolved nations. I recognise the grass was growing longer and longer as I went through that, and that would be my ask of the Minister in support of the Chair and other members of the committee who came to very clear recommendations and conclusions on this. There are resource constraints at the moment without a doubt, and it wasn't simply COVID, but what the EU withdrawal process has been doing to our civil service, and so on; I get that. But we really need to move ahead with this now, and as I say once again in closing, not for ideological reasons but purely for practical measures that will improve the lot of my constituents and people across Wales, we should be making these decisions closer to home, closer to home in Wales. 

I'm glad we're having this debate today and I would like to offer my own congratulations to the Chair, to the committee and clerking team for the work they did in undertaking this inquiry; it was before I was a member of the committee.

A civilised society should be judged by the way it treats its most vulnerable citizens. There shouldn't be a stigma around receiving benefits and no-one should be made to feel lacking for needing a helping hand. Compassion should be built into the system. Sadly, that is often so far from the truth. For a number of years, I worked for Citizens Advice Cymru and I'm grateful to them for the notes that they sent to a number of us in anticipation of today's debate, as well as the Bevan Foundation.

When I worked for Citizens Advice, I saw first-hand how badly needed a Welsh benefits system is. Universal credit is a system that is, well, at least it seems at times designed to push people into further debt. Delays in receiving the benefit mean too many people have to take out emergency expensive loans to get by that they're forever afterwards trying to pay back. The system we have is overly complicated, the eligibility for benefits isn't consistent, and people are expected to find out for themselves what they're eligible for, rather than getting those benefits automatically. 

There are gaps in provision and, as the Bevan Foundation has pointed out, discretionary schemes that were meant to be a last resort are often relied on in the longer term to keep families going. If we were talking about businesses, we wouldn't think that sounded sustainable, so why should families or individuals be expected to live in that perilous state?

As a minimum, we need the administration of welfare to be devolved, I think, to the Senedd so that we can create a system that works for Wales, that meets the challenges of our society and mitigates the worst effects of cuts when they come from Westminster. We could ensure that benefits reach the people who need them, that they use consistent criteria for eligibility, that they're easy to access and that they help to improve people's lives. Benefits shouldn't trap people in further debt or in poverty. They shouldn't just be enough to scrape by. I’ll say it again: there should be no stigma in claiming benefits. All of us should be guided by the ambition to improve the lives of the people we represent, of all those who call Wales their home.

And finally, Dirprwy Lywydd, I'd argue that devolving the benefit system would allow us to help close some loopholes that currently allow certain people to fall between stools, if I can mix my metaphors. Over lockdown I was contacted by a young constituent who had to foot the costs of a close family member's funeral. Because she was a student, she wasn't able to access the hardship funds that are meant to help people with these costs. Computer said 'no'. My constituent has mounted a campaign, she's launched a petition, she's had coverage in national newspapers, and I really commend her for that, all to try to ensure that no-one else has to face financial hardship as well as crippling grief in this deeply unfair situation. Her determination is to help other people and I hope we can learn a lesson from her experience and that we can use this as a further reason to demand the devolution of the benefits system. Only when we have a system that is controlled by our own Government, designed for the needs of our citizens, will we have the levers to ensure that no-one else has to go through what she went through.

I commend the report and I look forward to when the recommendations become a reality.

Thank you. Can I now call on the Deputy Minister for Housing and Local Government, Hannah Blythyn?

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I'd like to start by thanking Members, both of the committee and of the wider Senedd, for their contributions, and I do welcome the opportunity to finally be able to respond to this debate and to the committee inquiry report today.

As you've heard here today during the debate, each of us here knows all too well how the COVID-19 pandemic has led to difficult times for our communities and for our country. We've worked hard as a Government to step in and provide support where we can, particularly to the most vulnerable individuals and families.

We saw early on in the pandemic the UK Government's Department for Work and Pensions making some changes to the financial support on offer and the way in which it was delivered. Although these changes were welcome, other potentially more critical interventions were met with what I can say is intransigence. And this is despite the repeated representations, not just of politicians and of this Welsh Government and the First Minister, but non-governmental organisations, citizens and stakeholders from across the country. The reintroduction of the sanction system and the utter refusal to waive the five-week wait for the first payment of universal credit are examples of decisions that have pushed vulnerable people further into financial hardship. Between mid March and mid July there were 120,000 new claimants of universal credit in Wales. These are people who need urgent support and a social security safety net to be there, not red tape.

Here in Wales, we acted quickly to ensure that support was in place. From 1 May we implemented significant changes to the discretionary assistance fund, which provides emergency payments to those facing the most extreme financial hardship. An additional £8.9 million was added to the fund to support an increase in applications from people affected, and the eligibility criteria was overhauled to include those most severely affected by COVID-19. This included people waiting for their first universal credit payment and those who were finding it difficult to make ends meet because of the financial pressure brought about by the pandemic. The number of payments made is now running at three time the levels pre lockdown. Since the beginning of the pandemic, this fund has supported over 64,000 awards and seen £3.9 million of emergency assistance payments made to people who were identified in the most dire situations because of COVID-19. On 4 August I announced an extension of the DAF rule relaxation up until 31 March 2021. This will mean that people facing hardship can continue to make five rather than three claims in a 12-month period, and the removal of the 28-day limit between claims will continue.

Throughout this pandemic, we've continued to build on the cross-Government support for vulnerable individuals and families through the delivery of a more generous social wage. This includes cash-equivalent services that enable Welsh citizens to keep much needed money in their pockets. An additional £40 million-worth of funding for free school meals was made available to help families feed their children while schools were closed, and we've allocated an additional £2.85 million for local authorities in Wales to meet increases in applications for the council tax reduction scheme.

We've also supported food charities and community food organisations to meet the unprecedented demand for access to emergency food from the people affected by the crisis. Funding of more than £1 million has been approved from our voluntary services emergency fund grant scheme to support food distribution, and in May I agreed funding in excess of £98,000 to be allocated to FareShare Cymru to develop a suitable mechanism for addressing food insecurity in north Wales through the redistribution of surplus food. More people than ever have had to turn to food banks and we've done a great deal to ensure those food banks themselves do not go without.

When we look at the impact of the pandemic on levels of poverty, including child poverty, we know it is likely to be substantial. It is against this backdrop that we have taken steps forward to maximise incomes and help reduce essential living costs for low-income households. Much of these actions have been informed by the committee's inquiry, and I would like to thank the committee for not just their considerable work in this area, but their considered work.

We've already started to work on improving the take-up of benefits and we're working with Oxfam Cymru to embed their sustainable livelihood approach into our DAF programme initially before we look to progress it into other Welsh benefit support programmes. I myself was hoping to participate in person in a practical workshop session, but that shifted online and I was pleased to take part in it with Oxfam Cymru on the sustainable livelihood approach to see the range of tools available first-hand. Oxfam Cymru have now kindly agreed to deliver more of these awareness sessions to our DAF approved partners during this month.

All of this work is based on the clear understanding that it's critical that all those eligible for support are aware of and are accessing the full range of entitlements available to them. The Chair of the committee, in his opening, talked about the need for awareness raising as one of the recommendations and to reinforce this approach we are investing £800,000 in the provision of income maximisation initiatives. We will carry out a communications campaign to coincide with changes to the job retention scheme in October, working with the third sector and local authorities to raise public awareness of existing benefits, services and programmes that mitigate or alleviate income poverty, and I'm sure that Members of this Senedd will be keen to help promote awareness of that alongside us.

Online training for front-line workers to enable them to provide income maximisation support to families living in poverty will be carried out between November 2020 and April 2021. Alongside this, we will work extensively with a range of partners to ensure advice services reach deep into communities and are delivered from places where people most in need go to.

Deputy Llywydd, our local authorities have responded exceptionally during this crisis to ensure support is provided for low-income families. We will continue to support them to provide local solutions, reviewing together how we can streamline the way that Welsh benefits are administered and make them more accessible.

Dirprwy Lywydd, I'd like to touch on some of the comments from the Chair in expressing his disappointment in terms of the response to recommendations 10 to 17. Whilst I can understand that he may feel that—[Inaudible.]—I really do want to reiterate the way in which many within Welsh Government, not myself, not Ministers, have gone above and beyond during this crisis to make sure we are able to respond and support effectively people who need the help right there. I would like to make clear that we wholeheartedly recognise as a Government that devolving certain powers relating to elements of social security could provide us with a wider range of tools to tackle poverty, which is why we asked the Wales Centre for Public Policy to undertake the work in this area in the first place and we will continue to look at evidence and also include the evidence of this committee in our work.

I hope Members will appreciate that, in the short term, our focus must be on using our existing powers to our best—and yes, in some cases, better—ability to ensure we support those people most in need in the here and now. That is what we'll continue to do and that's what we will keep demanding from others. Diolch yn fawr.

Thank you very much. Can I now call on John Griffiths to reply to the debate?

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I'd like to thank everybody for their contributions. I think there was a great deal of common ground in what we heard in the Chamber and remotely today. Mark Isherwood mentioned the importance of lived experience and I don't think there's any Member who would not agree with that. It is absolutely crucial; it's becoming increasingly common as a feature in the way that we develop and shape services, and that certainly should be applied more to the benefits system. Mark also mentioned the importance of the assessment process, whoever's doing it, as I think Mark put it, but I think surely the point is that in terms of the ability of Welsh Government and the Senedd to shape what happens in Wales, it would be very good for us to be able to shape that assessment process and make sure that it really did reflect the lived experience of people here in Wales. If we have little control over it, then obviously there's not a lot we can do apart from writing to UK Government and making recommendations that Welsh Government seeks to pressurise UK Government in terms of what isn't currently devolved, and I'm sure many of us would like to do a lot more than that.

I very much welcome what Helen Mary said, particularly in terms of the strong and principled position behind devolution of benefits, and the ability it would give us to look at some innovative ways forward, such as the universal basic income, which I know is very interesting to very many people, and offers all sorts of possibilities.

Huw Irranca-Davies, I think, was very strongly saying that we need the power here in Wales to get the system that would really deliver for our communities, and the closer it is—the benefits system—to Wales, then obviously, the more ability we have to do that, and obviously, that's the essential case, and I think Huw put it very forcibly and effectively.

Delyth Jewell mentioned stigma, which is such an issue, isn't it? And we know from Citizens Advice—that I know Delyth mentioned her previous involvement with—that with recent work that they've done, it shows that that is a continuing problem, it's one of the real barriers in terms of getting people to claim what they're entitled to, and there's also a lack of awareness in terms of what people may be eligible for. So, we really do need that campaign to raise awareness and to increase take-up, and that's been a strong call from so many people for so long. We have seen developments that have helped raise awareness and increase take-up, but obviously, there is still much to do, and the organisations working on the ground continue to highlight that.

In terms of what the Minister had to say, I think we do all recognise, of course, that a great deal of hard work has gone on through the pandemic, and that's been so crucial and so welcome, and none of us would not want to fully recognise that. I think one thing it does show—and I think the Bevan Foundation has been keen again to highlight this—is that there is a lot that Welsh Government and local authorities already do in terms of what we would broadly call benefits—some of them cash, and some of them in lieu of cash—in Wales. We've shown that through the pandemic, Welsh Government and local authorities can deliver effectively, and I think that should really give us greater confidence that we could do likewise with more devolution and more power over benefits here in Wales.

There are some problems, and I know that the Bevan Foundation, for example, feels that more could be done in Wales to have a coherent, comprehensive approach, so that there were common eligibility requirements for different benefits. You could have one form for a number, rather than separate forms, and they feel that some of this work could be done between Welsh Government and local authorities now to help over the course of what's likely to be a very difficult winter, and that would be very important work, paving the way for a more devolved benefits system in the longer run.

But I very much welcome what the Minister had to say about continuing to look at this further devolution and recognising the case, because I think in a nutshell, many of us as Members of the Senedd would know from our week in, week out constituency surgeries just how pernicious many of the effects of the UK benefits system are and just how much improvement is necessary and could quite easily in some cases be achieved through better administration and more unified administration, leaving aside the matter of greater funding.

So, I think in closing, Dirprwy Llywydd, there's much work yet to be done on this, but there's a great deal of common ground in terms of the views across the Chamber, and I think that should be very encouraging for Welsh Government, together with the work that they've effectively done along with local authorities through the summer in delivering important benefits. We can and should do more, and I hope very much Welsh Government moves forward on that basis. Diolch yn fawr.

Thank you. The proposal is to note the committee's report. Does any Member object? No. Therefore in accordance with Standing Order 12.36, the committee report is noted.

Item 9 on the agenda, then, is the Welsh Conservative debate on COVID-19 prevention measures. I call on Paul Davies to move the motion. Paul Davies.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I move the motion tabled in the name of my colleague Darren Millar on behalf of the Welsh Conservatives. Now, the motion before us calls for three simple things: for the Welsh Government to reconsider the position on face coverings, to ensure that localised lockdowns are proportionate to the threat of the virus in those specific communities, and to require all travellers entering Wales from overseas to undertake a COVID-19 test on arrival at Cardiff Airport.

Now, the first of those issues has now been addressed, and, as of Monday, people in Wales in shops and other indoor public spaces have now had to wear a face covering. This policy change is very welcome, and I'm pleased to see the Welsh Government finally accepting the merits of face coverings and supporting the calls of opposition parties on this matter. Of course, Ministers could and should have acted sooner, particularly as evidence continued to grow regarding their potential benefits. For example, the Welsh Government's own technical advisory group updated its advice on face coverings on 11 August this year, noting that face coverings will reduce the dispersion of respiratory droplets and small aerosols that carry the virus into the air from an infected person, whilst providing some protection to the wearer. Indeed, both the SAGE Environmental and Modelling Group and the World Health Organization have also made it clear that face coverings have an important role as part of a package of prevention and control measures that can help limit the spread of the virus.

It, therefore, begs the question why didn't the Welsh Government act sooner? And I know that Members across this Chamber were calling on the Government to do so. The mandatory use of face coverings in shops and other indoor public spaces could have had a significant impact on communities had the policy been announced a few months ago. The Welsh Government continue to tell the people of Wales that's it's taking a cautious approach to tackling the virus, and so it really made no sense not to use all the tools at its disposal to limit the virus as much as possible. Whatever the reason is behind the Welsh Government's delay in bringing forward a mandatory face covering policy, the important thing now will be ensuring that the changes to the rules are properly enforced to help reduce transmission of the virus. According to recent polling by YouGov, people in Wales are less likely to wear face masks than people in England or Scotland, which really highlights the need for consistent advice from the Welsh Government in order to reduce community transmission.

Now, whilst the Welsh Government has made it clear that the use of face coverings in shops and other indoor public spaces is mandatory, that same leadership has not been shown in relation to schools. Instead, the Welsh Government's current guidance recommends face coverings for all members of the public over 11 years in indoor settings in which social distancing cannot be maintained, including schools and school transport. So, that begs the question, if the use of face coverings is mandatory for shops, why isn't it mandatory for schools? If the science has led the Welsh Government to introduce face coverings in shops, why not schools and colleges? Why does the Welsh Government feel the need to make the decision for shops and some indoor spaces, but in the case of schools and education providers, the responsibility was put on local authorities and individual providers? Therefore, I hope, in responding to today's debate, the Minister will be frank and upfront about why the Welsh Government has delayed in making the use of face coverings mandatory in some public areas. And I hope the Minister will also tell us why the Government chose to make the decision in relation to shops, but not schools and colleges. 

The second point of our motion calls on the Welsh Government to use local lockdown measures in response to significant increases in COVID-19 infection rates, and to ensure that those lockdowns are proportionate to the threat level posed in those communities in order to avoid a full Wales-wide lockdown. We know that in May, the Welsh Government made it abundantly clear that it wouldn't consider localised lockdowns, because, at the time, it argued that different rules could cause a great deal of confusion for people across the country. Indeed, the finance Minister actually went on to say that one of the strengths of the Welsh Government's message was that it was a very clear message applying equally across Wales. Clearly, the Welsh Government has changed its position on localised lockdowns and, as a result, Caerphilly has been locked down to help stem the spread of the virus in that community, and we hear today, of course, that that has also happened in Rhondda Cynon Taf.

Of course, Members will remember that local restrictions were not considered in Wrexham following a spike in cases in July, despite the area seeing the second largest increase in cases in the UK. Now, we have made it clear on this side of the Chamber that we support the introduction of local restrictions to help stem significant increases in local community transmission and to help reduce the risk of any outbreaks becoming a national issue. However, it is absolutely crucial that the Welsh Government monitors any localised lockdown to ensure that it's effective and proportionate to the threat that the virus poses in that area. Therefore, perhaps in responding to this debate, the Minister will provide some further information regarding localised lockdowns—what discussions he's having with local authorities about the transmission of the virus in their areas—and perhaps he will also tell us a bit more about how the Welsh Government is monitoring the effectiveness of local lockdowns as things progress.

Dirprwy Lywydd, that brings me to the final part of our debate, which calls on the Welsh Government to require all travellers entering Wales from overseas to undertake a COVID-19 test on arrival at Cardiff Airport. When Caerphilly was put into a localised lockdown, the health Minister made it very clear that the rise in cases was partly linked to people in the area returning from holiday, which has resulted in the virus recirculating within the local community. Therefore, at that point, surely it was critical that the Welsh Government ensured that passengers were tested once they arrived in Cardiff Airport.

Indeed, in the health Minister's statement today on Rhondda Cynon Taf going into lockdown tomorrow, he makes reference to the fact that this has been necessary because of increases in new cases that have been driven by people returning from summer holidays in continental Europe. As Members are aware, airport testing is taking place across the world, and so, airport testing here is entirely feasible. Indeed, across the border, Labour MPs have actually campaigned for airport testing to take place in England. And yet, the airport in Britain that the Labour Party actually have control over has yet to actually test a single person. The shadow Home Secretary, Nick Thomas-Symonds, is right to say that a robust testing regime in airports could minimise the need for those returning from countries with high coronavirus prevalence to quarantine for two weeks.

As Members are aware, I raised this issue with the First Minister yesterday afternoon, and he made it clear that practical issues have to be addressed, and that discussions are continuing with the management at Cardiff Airport. Therefore, perhaps the Minister can pass that information on to his party colleagues in Westminster, since they are so keen to push ahead with a testing regime in airports quickly. And, perhaps the Minister can tell us what exactly are the practical issues that need to be ironed out at Cardiff Airport, and when we are likely to see any progress on this issue.

Dirprwy Lywydd, if I can briefly turn to some of the amendments tabled to this motion. Of course, with regard to amendment 1, since the debate was tabled, the Welsh Government has changed its position on the use of face coverings, and I am pleased that the Government has finally listened to our calls on this issue. We will, of course, be supporting amendments 6, 7 and 8, which seek to strengthen the motion and call on the Welsh Government to provide a COVID-19 plan for the coming period, explore the use of smart lockdowns in response to localised clusters, and urgently address issues within the current testing regime.

Therefore, in closing, Dirprwy Lywydd, at the heart of this debate is a desire to forensically examine Wales's COVID-19 prevention and control measures, and to consider what more needs to be done to protect the people of Wales and limit the spread of the virus. I believe that Members are all pretty much on the same page here, and I know that we all share the aim of eradicating this awful virus from our communities and minimising its impact on our constituents. But, it's clear that more can and needs to be done.

Dirprwy Lywydd, I hope that the Welsh Government will consider the proposals in our motion today and bring about testing at Cardiff Airport as a matter of urgency. No stone should be left unturned in protecting our communities and minimising the impact of COVID-19 in our communities. Therefore, I urge Members to support our motion.    

Thank you. I have selected the eight amendments to the motion. If amendment 2 is agreed, amendment 3 will be deselected. So, can I ask the Minister for Health and Social Services to move formally amendments 1 and 3, tabled in the name of Rebecca Evans?

Formally.

Thank you. I call on Rhun ap Iorwerth to move amendments 2, 5, 6, 7 and 8, tabled in the name of Siân Gwenllian—Rhun.

Thank you very much, Deputy Llywydd. It's great to take part in this debate, and I move that list of amendments. I think it's good at the beginning of a term that we have an opportunity to draw attention to some of the things that I think are working, and some of the major elements of concern with regard to the pandemic and the steps that are being taken to keep people safe. 

At the beginning, I would like to thank all of those people who are working tirelessly in so many sectors to keep us safe. The very public thanks at the beginning of the pandemic was a clear characteristic of that time, and we need to sincerely thank those people again. 

So, turning to the motion, it is a sensible motion on the whole, I have to say. I don't agree with everything in it, but it is a sensible motion. I can't help but draw attention to the irony of who put forward the motion and some of the comments that we've heard from the Conservatives. It's fair to say that the Welsh Government has been at its best in this pandemic when it has not been tied to the activity and attitude of the Conservative Government in Westminster.

I hope that the Conservative Members in Senedd Cymru agree with me that mistakes or confusion in the messages from Boris Johnson and his Government have been very damaging in the battle to keep deaths down. From rushing back to normality when that wasn't possible to, of course, one prominent figure ignoring the restrictions. There's been an opinion poll that suggested that Dominic Cummings's behaviour had been a turning point in public attitudes. It was seen as a licence for people to do whatever they wanted to do, and I'm sure that has cost lives. 

Also, if I may say, we have a motion here, a sensible one, that is encouraging the Government to be sensible, but the materials that have been published by the Conservatives on social media, the tweets and the memes and so on, suggest a kind of bravado that is contrary to this sensible and responsible approach that's being encouraged.

I'll turn to the amendments. We reject amendment 1 because we believe that the international evidence has shown for a long time that face coverings can be a very important tool in the battle against the virus. They're not enough in and of themselves, of course, but we don't understand why the Welsh Government has been so slow in compelling the use of face coverings in shops and so on. But better late than never in that regard. We know that there is room to extend this further, but once again the Government has rejected this, and we are not entirely sure why. 

Turning to amendment 2, our first amendment—I think it's self-explanatory. Let us learn lessons about international travel and its impact on the spread of the virus, because it's obvious that there is a problem here, and that we do need to understand that better. 

Now, amendment 3, the Government's amendment—we won't be supporting that. I think that, in reality, there has been a practical problem, yes, in testing every traveller, but as technology develops, as capacity is increased, and in being aware of the problems with travellers returning from abroad, there is genuine value in the principle of testing every traveller.

Amendment 4—we agree with that. We have been calling for accommodation to be provided for those who are quarantining and self-isolating to safeguard families. It's important for those families and those extended families, of course. We've seen wide-ranging use of this kind of facility in places such as Italy and China. 

And the other four amendments are from Plaid Cymru. Amendment 5, as I've noted—we support the wearing of face coverings. We can't understand why we wouldn't do that.

Amendment 6 calls for a new COVID plan. We're constantly learning. We need a plan that reflects the change in our understanding of the disease and what activities and locations are dangerous. I haven't been convinced that the plan for the winter that was published yesterday reflects the latest science. 

Amendment 7—again, it's self-explanatory, and is something that Labour in Westminster hasn't had any problem in calling for. So, hopefully Labour will support it here in Wales as well. We need greater testing capacity. We've seen this over the past few weeks. We need greater capacity in Wales so that the Welsh Government has control over the ability to provide for the population here. 

Amendment 8—at a time when an entire council area, Rhondda Cynon Taf in this instance, has been placed under new restrictions, we do believe that looking at smart local lockdowns is something that genuinely needs to be considered. A general lockdown is certainly damaging, and by now I think we do have the ability to target these restrictions. So, there we are.

So, a few comments on where we are at the moment—

No. Can you wind up, please?

[Inaudible.]—is changing constantly, and I will close there. I do think it's important that the Government reflects the changes—[Inaudible.]

Thank you. Can I call on Caroline Jones to move amendment 4, tabled in her own name?

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I formally move the amendment tabled in my name. I'd like to thank the Welsh Conservatives for bringing forward this very important debate, which I will be supporting, along with the Plaid Cymru amendments that I feel seek to strengthen the debate.

I've been calling for the wearing of face coverings to be mandatory on public transport particularly from the early days of the pandemic, following calls from my constituents who were key workers but not able to get on buses because public transport was running at only 25 per cent capacity, which was unsustainable. I did put this forward as a question to the First Minister, and I was pleased to see this suggestion adopted a day later.

We know for a fact that SARS-CoV-2 virus is spread by microdroplets making it effectively airborne. We also know that the disease can be spread by those not displaying any symptoms at all, and face masks can and do prevent the spread of COVID-19. We must heighten people's awareness and be consistent in our message and emphasise the importance of wearing a mask. Had the guidelines been adhered to, we may not be seeing local lockdowns as we are seeing now, and the only way we can ensure that people wear a mask is to mandate it.

There is evidence that the outbreaks we are seeing are caused by people returning from overseas and not self-isolating. And an entire county and beyond, as we've learnt today, of people have had their freedoms curtailed because of the actions of a few. Anyone travelling from overseas should have to quarantine in isolation for 14 days. It makes no sense that people can travel from COVID hotspots, told to isolate, but can, if they so wish, ignore the instructions, safe in the knowledge that nobody is checking. They are allowed to leave their homes to shop. It is also nonsensical that everyone in the household can carry on as normal—going to work, the supermarket or the pub. I believe that the Welsh Government needs to secure accommodation to enable travellers to quarantine in complete isolation, where food and medication is delivered to them and they are tested for COVID-19 at day 2 and day 9, regardless of whether they are displaying symptoms. And those returning to the UK who have the facilities to completely isolate from the remainder of their households can do so in their own homes, but would be subject to testing and regular random checks to ensure compliance. This is how it is done in countries that have successfully suppressed COVID—countries that haven't had any cases in over three months. And if we are to have any chance of suppressing a second wave, then we need to be tough.

Locking everyone down is unfair and is unnecessary. We need to isolate carriers and possible carriers and test them all, regardless of whether they are displaying symptoms. If we don't, this outbreak will continue to smoulder unchecked, flaring up when we least expect it. Lockdowns may well be necessary in future, but they need to be hyperlocal and strictly enforced. Caerphilly county is in lockdown, but its residents can still travel to work or go to the pub, so it is more of a partial lockdown.

If we are to get a handle on this, measures may need to be tougher, but they also don't need to be applied across the board. Our focus must be on identifying and isolating those infected with the virus, not locking everybody away—that's akin to chopping down the forest to prevent a fire. I urge Members to support my amendment and the motion. Diolch yn fawr.

Thank you. Suzy Davies.

Diolch yn fawr, Dirprwy Lywydd. Obviously, things have moved on since this debate was tabled, but I think the original motion and the amendments are pointing now to something quite interesting as we look forward. I think it was yesterday that Mark Reckless mentioned COVID fatigue, and I think that does raise a couple of questions about how we proceed from here, and the first one from me is: do people find it easier to stick to rules when they're asked to do something rather than not to do something? And then, the second question for me is: do they experience more buy-in to a national message than to a local one? For me, these are questions of agency: how can I make a meaningful contribution to making all this better? And responsibility: why should I bother following these rules?

So, on the first of those questions, of doing something rather than not doing something, I think Paul Davies has explained this pretty well. We know that face coverings aren't force fields, but they are a visible statement of intent to the world around you. 'I'm wearing this thing, in my own way, to try not to infect you with a disease that I might not know that I have.' I did a quick experiment on this in Mumbles, in my region, just before summer recess, where shopkeepers weren't particularly keen on seeing people with masks, but when I explained that they were less about self-protection but more about protecting others nearby, they were more than happy to think twice about their original position. And I think in wearing a mask, if I were wearing one, it might make you think twice about standing too close to me, or too close to the person in the queue in front of you who's not wearing a mask. And I suppose while that might make some people a bit judgmental, I think this is why I just wanted to say that I agree with the sentiment behind Plaid's amendment 5. I just wish they'd been a bit more specific on where masks should be mandatory, because I'm not big on subjecting our school leaders to lots of formal regulation, but I am quite keen to avoid them being left open to complaints or even legal action about discrimination in any made-in-school policies on face coverings. As I said yesterday, sometimes you do need the force of law behind you to avoid it being invoked against you.

And although, more generally, and except for those who would need to be exempt, I think maybe there's something for being a little bit judgy—those mass demonstrations, the disregard of simple social distancing requirements in supermarkets, those big boozathons we've seen down in the Bay, the house parties. I mean, just on social media yesterday, I saw, and I'm quoting, 'I'm the only one in this carriage wearing a face mask and there's a group of young adults in the seat next to me, all bunched up, looking at each other's phones.'

So, my second question on that—I think it may well be easier to understand the national message, even a national law than a local one, but it's much easier to ignore it when there's no sense of public disapprobation for breach. It's less forgivable, I think, to break rules that obviously affect those around you when your personal behaviour has more traceable impact. A national message also ceases to have effect when its consequences are so utterly disproportionate as to kill credibility. The five-mile rule was a classic case of misdirection of both epidemiological and behavioural science. The number of contacts, not the number of miles, is what matters. And I think I might be entitled to be just a bit judgy on this, where the Government has been willing to shilly-shally on masks and willing to refuse to test asymptomatic staff in hospitals and care homes, let alone more widely, when university labs in Wales were offering to help, but was willing to effectively imprison people like my father for almost four months, regardless of the prevalence of COVID where he or his loved ones lived, and he was someone living well with dementia. He now needs the supervision of a care home because being unable to see his family for so long cut those last few strings tying him to his own identity and sense of place in the world. When I voted for the Coronavirus Act, I told you, health Minister, that you'd better have a very good reason to stop me seeing my elderly father, and a national approach meant that you didn't. And that's why any future management has to be localised, as both we and Plaid seem to suggest here. A holistic framework for next steps must have this at its heart, together with a better understanding of what makes people follow rules and what we now know about unintended consequences.

And just finally, Dirprwy Lywydd, on Cardiff Airport testing, the website doesn't even mention basic temperature testing, and I can tell you it's in place, with no invasion of privacy, at Manchester and Catania airports. The press had money on Cardiff probably leading the way on testing just a few weeks ago, but it just looks like it's turned out to be another case of 'catch up, Cymru', I'm afraid. Diolch.

Thank you. Rhianon Passmore.

Thank you, Deputy Llywydd. I wish to thank the Welsh Conservatives for bringing today's debate to the Senedd, and, if I may, I will take this opportunity to express my heartfelt thanks to the residents of Islwyn within Caerphilly County Borough Council for their compliance and the very real sacrifices being made. I also wish to thank and pay tribute to Councillor Philippa Marsden and her leadership team during this ongoing crisis.

Deputy Llywydd, answering the leader of Plaid Cymru yesterday, the First Minister expressed the Welsh Government's willingness to listen to any constructive comments on how we can best prevent the spread of the C-19 virus, and I would like to strongly welcome these comments. This pandemic is undoubtedly, notwithstanding impacts of a 'no deal' exit, the greatest threat we have collectively faced in generations, and constructive contributions around how we can respond best should be listened to.

However, it has been obvious since the start of this crisis that the Welsh Conservative policy is simply a carbon copy of their Conservative bosses' in Westminster, and, while the shambles caused by Boris Johnson and Dominic Cummings is plain for most of us to see, the leader of the opposition has called for Wales to have 'a dose of Dom'. I'm not sure what our Tories opposite have been watching, but perhaps an eye test at Barnard Castle is in order.

I would like to strongly welcome these comments from the Welsh Government, and I, for one, am glad that this Welsh Labour Government does believe in devolution and has been unafraid to take a different path. Indeed, just a matter of days ago, despite all their resources, the Tory UK Government was calling for people to return to their offices and go back to normal. Indeed, the Prime Minister also promised us a world-beating test and trace system, but figures from earlier this month show that our system here in Wales is reaching more people and working significantly better than England's. Indeed, when Wales added Portugal and several Greek islands to the quarantine list, the Tories were quick to criticise this, and I've heard no outcry when the UK Government made a similar decision a few days later.

At every moment when policy here in Wales has diverged from England, this has drawn criticism from the Welsh Conservatives. After 21 years, now, of devolution, you would have thought they'd be used to that by now, but we know from the very recent comments of Alun Cairns that devolution and the attempted withdrawal of the Senedd jurisdiction as proposed in the internal markets Bill is their true belief, mindset and agenda.

We must continue with the agile, as-needed local interventions, and we must do everything possible to avoid a second national lockdown. And as we continue to learn more about this virus, we must continue to adapt flexibly in preventing its spread. Deputy Llywydd, it is right that the Welsh Government uses all its devolved functionality to meet the needs of its people, do what is best for Wales and not Whitehall, and what is best for the Welsh people, not Westminster. Welsh Government and the Welsh people should be praised, not persecuted, by Boris and Dominic for the very sensible, pragmatic, evidence-based approach that we as a proud devolved nation have chosen to take. Thank you.

Well, I was going to start this contribution by welcoming the consensus that was breaking out across the Chamber, but I'm not sure that's appropriate now. But, as Paul Davies said in his comments earlier—his opening comments—we're all like-minded here in wanting to see this pandemic dealt with as swiftly and as safely as possible, and the lockdowns eased as swiftly as is safely possible.

Many of the points I was going to make have been made, and I'm reminded of that old adage that the horse has already bolted, and, clearly, events have overtaken the first part, at least, of this motion. However, the sentiments behind the motion remain, and I'm pleased that there has, until hitherto—. A consensus has been developed in terms of the new requirement to wear face coverings in indoor public places and, indeed, to do all we can to take precautions to restrict the spread of COVID-19.

Our motion is split into three parts, each designed to deal with the problem before us and to provide positive action to deal with this pandemic. I don't think there's any doubt now that there will be a second spike in cases. It's already happening sporadically across Wales. We've already had a local lockdown in Caerphilly, and today we have the news of the lockdown in Rhondda Cynon Taf. The question is, and always has been: how great will that second spike be, and will the number of cases translate into hospital admissions and mortality? The jury is, clearly, still out on this. Anyway, whilst I think that there were some arguments in the very early days—the very early days—for not bringing in face coverings too soon—i.e., as has been mentioned, the need to weigh up the benefits of masks against the possible problems, such as people being lulled into a false sense of security—the pendulum has now clearly swung in favour of face coverings some time ago, and we on these benches are delighted that the Welsh Government have now taken this action. They aren't the whole answer, but they are part of it, and this is progress.

The fact is we are in a public health emergency, and this has ongoing implications for our economy and people's livelihoods. I've always recognised along the way that the Welsh Government doesn't just have a responsibility to release the lockdown as quickly as it can, but also to put people's health first, and it seems to me that, through this debate and actions being taken, that is being honoured.

The second part of our motion recognises that a national lockdown has massive implications for the economy and businesses, so, if we can avoid that and instead have local lockdowns, then that's clearly a good thing. Of course, in an ideal world, we wouldn't have to have any lockdowns at all, but we're not living there at the moment, and haven't been for some time. The Welsh Conservatives welcome efforts to reopen the economy, though in some cases there have been inconsistencies. The tourism sector could have been opened quicker with more support earlier on. In my area, there are numerous businesses alongside the Monmouthshire and Brecon canal and related businesses who are still fearing for their livelihoods because of the seasonal element of their businesses, but we are where we are.

The third part of our motion calls on the Welsh Government to introduce COVID testing for all travellers entering Wales from overseas. We think this is eminently sensible. The health Minister has himself said that the recent rise in cases in Caerphilly is partly linked to people returning from holiday, which has seen the virus recirculating in the community. We know that some of the passengers who'd been on board the flight from Zante had socialised with others. A recent study by Oxford and Edinburgh Universities showed that a substantial number of cases were being brought into the UK from Europe. This may well be something that the Welsh Government will want to look into further; we think that that would be a good idea. We need a robust testing mechanism to deal with all of this, so why doesn't the Government's coronavirus control plan include a strategy for airport testing? Many Members have already made the case for that today, and I reinforce the case for that. We need to get our testing capacity up.

This is, basically, a motion calling on the Welsh Government to provide confidence to the people of Wales, to protect lives and livelihoods by taking urgent steps to reduce the scale of any second peak, and to implement measures that will allow the economy to be opened up safely.

Thank you. Mandy Jones.

Diolch, Llywydd—Deputy Llywydd, sorry. I'd like to thank—well, I think I'd like to thank—the Conservative group for tabling this debate, and for the opportunity to speak. I will keep it short. I say 'I think' because, finally, any pretence at the Conservative Party being the party of personal responsibility and pro business has been stripped away. I've watched with dismay over the summer as they heralded their petition to call for compulsory masks, so, clearly, they support the mask shaming that is now a thing, the potential for the loss of inhibition as people think that they are invincible if they are wearing a mask, the increase in skin conditions due to mask wearing and the potential for respiratory issues due to breathing your own stale air. To them, and the Welsh Government, I ask: if our own chief medical officer thought that the evidence for mandatory mask wearing was weak and that hand hygiene was more important, when did the science or that evidence change? When was that exact moment, and where is the evidence?

Two other points: I saw an epic mask fail over the weekend when a very, very senior politician removed his mask to cough into his hand and then put it back on again. So, will the Welsh Government please commit to a public information drive to show people what they should be doing? Lastly, I'm informed that it came as a surprise to the hospitality industry on Monday that masks were not actually required. So, as a matter of basic courtesy, can the Welsh Government please make sure that businesses are aware of changed requirements in good time?

I take no issue with any other elements of the motion today, but I do express my concern that people on flights, as has been said before, into Cardiff Airport, have never been tested or checked in any way, especially since that airport is, obviously, owned by Welsh Government. Thank you. 

Obviously, things have moved on since this was tabled, but it's clear in the events of the last few days that Wales continues to face an unprecedented health crisis. And I, of course, welcome this debate coming about, because it is—it might be a bit behind now, but it is important that we have this opportunity to raise our questions and our concerns on what is a worldwide health crisis. 

Many aspects of our economy have opened up, and we need to ensure that we do everything we can so that businesses can continue to trade safely so as many workers as possible can provide for their families. It is vital that businesses and others adapt to the new normal to minimise risk to as safe a level as possible in order to eliminate risk—it's impossible to eliminate risk, sorry—otherwise we'll never leave our homes, never drive anywhere, but risks need to be managed effectively. 

The local lockdown in Caerphilly, in my electoral region, with another now being imposed in Rhondda Cynon Taf, clearly demonstrates that the threat still remains, and I'm sure the situation in Merthyr Tydfil and Newport is being monitored closely by Ministers' officials. In fact, the rate of positive cases in Caerphilly per 100,000 is now higher than it was in the first wave, back in the spring. Our local authorities across my region in south-east Wales that I know of have done such great work in adapting and reacting to this crisis, and they deserve our credit and thanks for all that they've done, but maybe now, Minister, we need to work closely with our local authorities—more closely with our local authorities—and police to make sure that they are able to enforce these Government rules in a better way and prevent further lockdowns.

We all accept that local lockdowns may be necessary to deal with spikes of COVID-19, but measures should be proportionate. Preservation of life has to be the No. 1 priority, but we can't neglect the impact that prolonged periods of lockdown has on people's mental health, children's well-being and people's livelihoods. I do, therefore, welcome the education Minister, in her statement yesterday, being so determined that our schools will keep open throughout these localised lockdowns.

My concern is that Welsh Government's approach has been confused by mixed messages and a lack of clarity. As our leader, Paul Davies, earlier pointed out, in May, the finance Minister stated that the Welsh Government was not considering local lockdowns, as differing rules could cause a great deal of confusion, and then went on to claim that one of the strengths of the Welsh Government message, as was said, was that a very clear message applies equally across Wales. Indeed, when Wrexham saw a spike in coronavirus cases in July—incidentally, the second-largest increase in the UK at that time—a local lockdown was not even considered. This, I believe, is indicative of the Welsh Government's inconsistency of approach in controlling the virus. 

The confusion over wearing face coverings has exemplified the Welsh Government's approach. I, of course, welcome now the change in policy. It's very important that we wear face coverings, and I approve that the Government now has extended the mandatory wearing of them. Face coverings have been mandatory in England for months and, given that the Ministers have access to the same expert scientific and medical advice as Ministers in other parts of the UK, I don't understand why a different decision was arrived at. Was this just another example of Welsh Government trying to be different from England for the sake of it? Surely this crisis demands that party politics be put to one side.

The Welsh Government has a duty to improve its communications of local restrictions. Following the lack of clarity and some confusion over the rules recently imposed in Caerphilly and now pending in RCT, local residents and businesses have sought clarity on the new rules. Exactly what constitutes a 'reasonable excuse' to leave and enter the county? It is confusing. Even Caerphilly council had to wait for more detailed guidance from the Welsh Labour-led Government, implying a need for better communication between central and local government. Concerns were raised that some people in Caerphilly were unable to access COVID-19 tests, with the queues at the pop-up centre described by the chairman of the British Medical Association as 'horrific'. In his statement earlier today—. I do commend the health Minister for the positive steps that he is taking, but please can he keep us updated on any progress that he is making in increasing the testing capacity in Wales, because it's so important, with cases still rising across my region and across Wales?

The fact that we're now seeing more localised lockdowns begs the question as to whether there was a failure to properly communicate and enforce the previous iteration of COVID measures and precautions. What lessons has the Welsh Government learnt, and how would you act differently in the future to prevent more localised lockdowns? Some businesses in my area have complained that some businesses are not bothered with track and trace. It is clear that local authorities and police forces need more support and guidance to better enforce current rules to prevent the need for more local restrictions. 

I welcome the steps the Minister is now taking after his statement today, but perhaps the Minister in his reply can explain what actions the Government will be taking to improve messaging, and the speeding up of guidance that follows and consequently public compliance. I very much welcome Andrew R.T. Davies's suggestion earlier today that we break down the information given out into wards. I think that's a really good idea and it will make sure that we get the right information to the right people more quickly.

Are you winding up, please?

Yes, I am. Lastly, could he tell us on our airport, our one and only airport in Wales, Minister, please can you after—? We've had case after case of people coming back from abroad bringing coronavirus. Can you please tell us what action you're actually taking? Thank you. [Interruption.] Commercial, sorry.

As communicated to Members, I will now call those Members who've requested to make an intervention of up to one minute. Jenny Rathbone. 

Thank you. I think it's perfectly clear from listening to the debate that nobody's actually grasped the nettle, which is the role of the airlines in spreading disease. Why is it that we have not expected airline travel to be subject to the same restrictions as bus and train travel, not only to wear masks when they're travelling but also to maintain 2m distance? Therefore, I'd like to ask the proposer of the motion what conversations, if any, he has had with the UK Government about imposing the same restrictions on the airlines as we expect of the trains and the buses, as it is a far more dangerous form of travel than travelling on a bus.

Thank you. And Andrew R.T. Davies for one minute.

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I just wanted to ask the Minister if he could reply in his summing up to this particular point, because the second point is about local lockdowns and this afternoon we've had the RCT lockdown announced, or restrictions, should I say, announced. Are there any implications for the University of South Wales because, obviously, in the next two weeks there will be a huge number of students entering the RCT area if, as under normal circumstances, the start of the academic year at university was to be allowed? I'd just like to understand clearly: are there any implications for students given that, as I understand it, the University of South Wales has 22,000 students and, obviously, the main campus is in the RCT area?

Thank you. Can I now call on the Minister for Health and Social Services, Vaughan Gething? 

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I'd like to thank all Members who've taken part in the debate. Given the significant number of questions and the time I have to respond, I won't be able to deal with each and every single point. I'll start, though, with just addressing Andrew R.T. Davies's final point, and that is about travel in and out of areas. So, for the University of South Wales, people would be able to attend their university with the restrictions in place. They need to observe those restrictions once they're there. And as I say, some university students commute from a home address to go to university—they stay local—and others, of course, are used to moving away. So, it would be permissible for people to move into that area and to stay there for their study, but, as I say, the restrictions will change the way many of us will have to behave in both RCT and Caerphilly, and it's a warning about the potential for that to need to take place right across the country. 

This debate shows the fast-moving nature of the COVID threat and how a week really is a long time in politics at this particular point in time with a global public health emergency. Now, on face masks, previous Welsh Government advice, supported by the chief medical officer, was for members of the public to wear face coverings indoors wherever it was not possible to observe social distancing. Since Monday last week, it has been compulsory for people over 11 to wear a face covering in indoor public spaces, so that part of the motion has already been addressed. While face coverings make a small contribution, the use of a face covering is not a substitute for observing effective infection control measures, such as observing self-isolation, hand washing and social distancing. 

It's also worth reminding ourselves that significant reductions in coronavirus in Wales took place throughout this summer without mandatory face coverings, where we had high adherence to the basic challenges of social distancing and, indeed, following the rules on hand hygiene.

Safe mask wearing is an important factor. That includes the taking on and taking off of masks as well, and there is a real challenge, not just in what sort of covering to wear, but to remind ourselves that when you take off the face covering, if you have COVID, you're likely to shed it around you. When you put it on, there's also a potential for that to take place as well. This is difficult, but it's really important for all of us, and I think elected Members will need to set the sort of example we want the public to follow.

In schools, we've published clear advice from our technical advisory group, and that has allowed local authorities and schools to already make decisions about face coverings in areas of their schools where it is not possible for social distancing to be enforced. We know different school estates have different challenges.

Our approach to the use of local coronavirus restrictions to contain the spread of COVID-19 is set out in the 'Coronavirus Control Plan for Wales'. And I would gently say to Welsh Conservative Members that they risk making themselves look rather foolish in going back to comments made by the finance Minister at the end of May, when we were exiting lockdown, as opposed to the fact that more than three months later we've published a coronavirus control plan, setting out clear criteria for us to take local action, exactly as we have done already in two local authority areas.

In Wales, we have a well-established system for bringing together all relevant local agencies through our incident management teams and outbreak control teams. We also have a high-performing test, trace, protect service to support that process. That has enabled us to identify and understand clusters of cases quickly and to take targeted and specific action, for example, around a particular workplace or setting. So, that acts as a smart lockdown process, and I remind Members again that when we saw significant increases in Anglesey, in Wrexham, in Merthyr, significant testing in areas of Blaenau Gwent and around the country, that was because of the intelligence we had and our ability to rapidly deploy testing resources where they were needed to understand the coronavirus spread that was taking place, and not to then have to take more significant community-wide action. That is still the way that we want to act. But where we're seeing wider community transmission within areas, we've introduced measures to address areas specific.

None of us want to see a return to the lockdown position that we faced in March. We're all doing all we can to avoid more extreme actions across the whole of Wales, but we do need to understand the context. Other UK nations are seeing a rise again in coronavirus, and similarly other nations across Europe. The reality is it may not be possible to avoid national measures. That is why I say again, the Government and our health service will do our part; it is important the public all recognise that we each have a contribution to make.

On Friday last week, the technical advisory group provided advice on the testing of travellers and it was published. That recommends that we work across the UK between all four nations to enable access to testing for people travelling from countries with a higher prevalence of COVID-19. It of course recognises that most people travelling internationally from Wales will do so through routes other than Cardiff. As the First Minister said yesterday, and I've said previously before, there are practical questions to resolve about testing in Cardiff Airport. It's my clear preference to be able to do so. However, we need to make sure that we don't bunch passengers together and that we have clear expectations about how long people may need to stay within the airport setting; that we don't mix passenger groups from different flights—many of us are used to being in the same area to collect baggage as people from different flights—and that we have clear segregation of flights that we may want to test; and that there is space within the airport estate for testing itself.

In practice, we have already regularly tested people once they are at home from flights from Zante, with very high levels of compliance, and that has enabled us to understand the spread of coronavirus on those flights and in those locations. Even when foreign travel does bring cases into Wales, it is largely the behaviour of people whilst they've been on holiday that has put others at risk, including fellow passengers on aeroplanes. Testing at day 1 and day 8 is not an alternative to quarantine. We will continue to review and refine our approach to reflect the changes in the way the virus spreads in Wales; our understanding of which interventions work best; how we as individuals, families and communities respond; and any developments in scientific evidence. So, we must be prepared to shift our position if the evidence suggests there are different courses of action that we should take.

We're acutely aware of the challenges posed by delays in testing from lighthouse labs. We've been pressing the UK Government to resolve the issues as soon as possible. I've written to and spoken with the UK health Secretary on this directly, and it's also clear to me that challenges and questions about prioritising capacity for Wales should be made with us, not to us. Welsh laboratory capacity is already being used for rapid deployment to outbreaks and incidents and for NHS Wales. We're working urgently with Public Health Wales and our NHS on using and prioritising the use of Welsh lab capacity as we see pressure and demand rising both here and across the UK.

I recently announced added funding of £32 million to speed up turnaround times for Public Health Wales laboratories and to provide extra capacity. This will pay for extra staff and equipment and for Public Health Wales to run regional laboratories at the University Hospital of Wales, Singleton and Ysbyty Glan Clwyd. They will then operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and those operations are expected from October. It will also enable the creation of six hot labs at acute hospital sites across Wales with under-four-hour testing equipment. They will operate seven days a week from November.

In concluding, Deputy Presiding Officer, we will continue to take the advice of our scientists and play an active part in discussions with colleagues across the UK to implement solutions that provide the best opportunity to suppress the virus across Wales and to save as many lives as possible. All of us have a role and it's up to all of us to work together to keep Wales safe.

Thank you. Can I call on Andrew R.T. Davies to reply to the debate?

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I thank everyone who's contributed to the debate this afternoon and in particular that last point that the Minister touched on. This is about saving lives, because ultimately, in the worst-case scenario, from this virus, you will lose your life, regrettably, and it is the most vulnerable in society who will suffer those consequences, those with underlying health concerns, and if we all play our part we can make a difference in suppressing this virus until we get into that territory where we either have a vaccine or we have wider based solutions that will allow us as a society to deal with it. I echo those comments that the Minister touched on in his closing remarks.

I'd also like to thank everyone who's contributed to what has been an informative debate, to say the least. Although a debate that, on paper, looks relatively simple and I'd hope would find agreement with virtually every section of the Chamber, it has elicited some eight amendments, I think it has. As the leader of the Conservatives in the Assembly here touched on when he opened his opening remarks, obviously time has moved on and it is welcoming to see that the Welsh Government has now moved on face coverings. I myself was a little cautious, to be honest with you, at the start of the pandemic when people were talking about face coverings, but it has become clearer to me and to many others that they do have a role to play in settings where obviously people find themselves vulnerable to infection and it is welcome to see that the Welsh Government have moved on that, as the leader of the opposition touched on in his remarks.

But he did press the case about schools and colleges and in particular the deployment of face coverings in those settings, and I don't think the Minister fully addressed that point in his remarks. I think this will be a point that will have to be revisited because as we now get universities back into the academic cycle, as well as obviously colleges and schools, they are going to be huge centres of congregations of people, and ultimately, if we're trying to suppress the spread of the virus, then obviously educational settings will become more of an important area of concern, shall we say, and I do think that the Welsh Government will end up having to readdress that.

Rhun ap Iorwerth obviously touched on welcoming the motion this afternoon and welcoming the opportunity to debate it and then launched into a tirade against the UK Government and the actions of the UK Government. I get the political knock-around, but let's face it, if it wasn't for the union of the United Kingdom, then frankly I would suggest to you that Wales would be in a far worse place when you look at the whole overall package that's been put in place to support the economy, support the health measures that are being taken, and basically all parts of the United Kingdom doing their bit in the fight against the coronavirus. Because, actually, if you look at the whole of the United Kingdom, indeed, if you look at Europe, virtually every country is in virtually the same place give or take a week or two, to be honest with you, with a second wave imminently either in the process of unfolding before us or ultimately, with many countries in southern Europe in particular, and I would suggest that it is the strength of the union that has made sure that Wales has been able to put many of the measures in place that have stood us in good stead in the first six months of the pandemic, and hopefully will carry on putting us to the right side of this virus and making sure that we come out the other side of it. But I appreciate that from the nationalist point of view you would want to make that argument of separation, and that is an argument and debate that I'm sure will gain traction and ultimately more debating points in this Chamber, but I certainly will fight the cause of the union because I do believe passionately that we're in a stronger, better place when all four parts of this country pull together in the face of such adversity. I can hear the First Minister talking about Europe—I'll gladly have a debate with him on Europe as well. I'll certainly have a debate with him on that.

But the one thing I think also came out loud and clear was the point that Suzy Davies referred to in her contribution, from Mark Reckless yesterday—I appreciate Mark wasn't contributing in the debate—about virus fatigue, or COVID fatigue she touched on. We can talk all we want in this Chamber, but the fact of the matter is there's a lot of people who really do need to be able to hang onto something and have some good news, and some news that there is some light at the end of the tunnel. Sadly, the last 10 days certainly have closed a lot of options down for people and I think we're all aware through our postbags and our e-mails that there are a lot of people in difficult places, and we do need to measure what we are saying about the restrictions, about what personal responsibilities people need to take, with some good and positive news that people can hang onto to take us through this winter, which will be a challenge for all of us. I think that was a very salient point to make in this debate, about COVID fatigue. It might only be that we're six months into it, and there are deaths at the end of this, as I said in my opening remarks, but we have to be realistic about what holds the human spirit together and carries the human spirit forward.

And then, obviously, we had Rhianon Passmore, which started off so well, thanking the Welsh Conservatives for putting the debate down, but it wouldn't be a debate without Rhianon then having a good old ding-dong about Conservative policies and Conservative measures, and touching on the testing regime at the moment, as the First Minister touched on yesterday. Three weeks ago, the testing regime was in full flight and, whilst there were glitches in the system, ultimately it was delivering for people who were going into that regime. Now regrettably, obviously, it is under pressure because we are testing more people than any other country in Europe, and then she went on to praise the Welsh Government. Well, you know, the Welsh Government, at the end of the day, ditched its own targets for testing capacity early on in the pandemic and ultimately signed up to the UK lighthouse lab service. But it also has its own capacity, and its capacity of the last recorded week, which was the information that came out today, was capacity of 106,000 tests, but only 58,000 of those tests were used, so 50,000 tests went unused. So, start facing the fact that all areas of the United Kingdom are facing pressure on testing. It does no-one to try and start an arms race of who's better than who in this. It's about rectifying the problem so we can ultimately get on top of it.

I am pointing out exactly the point that we're at at the moment and pointing out exactly where we're at of the moment, and, ultimately, when Rhianon Passmore says that the UK system is failing Wales, actually, standing and working with the UK system, we're delivering a safety net that ultimately will succeed in getting on top of the pandemic. And so I would suggest that a week where 18,000 people's personal data has been released into the public domain and the First Minister saying he didn't know anything about it till 2 o'clock isn't a good time to start having a knockabout politically about who's better than who in this whole debate.

So, I thank everybody who contributed. Certainly from these benches, we want to welcome the Welsh Government's agreement and success in adopting the policy about face coverings here in Wales, but it is about local lockdowns and managing local lockdowns—the second point—and I've pressed the Minister on this this afternoon, and I'll continue to press him about that data and the ability to identify on a ward-level basis, which happens in the other parts of the United Kingdom at the moment, the prevalence of the virus on a ward-by-ward, local-authority-by-local-authority basis across Wales. That will inform people of how severe it is in their local community, rather than think on a glorious sunny day here in Cardiff, 'We ain't got a problem; it's just RCT and Caerphilly.' It won't take long to jump those borders and it won't take long to come into a community near you unless you bear in mind the advice that's put on the table and you adhere to that advice.

So, I'd like to think this motion would pass unamended, but I've been here 13 years—I fully expect some of the amendments to pass, and there will be some changes. In particular, when it comes to Cardiff Airport I do think that the Minister could have been far more open-minded in his response to the request about testing at Cardiff Airport. Instead of playing catch-up Cymru, we could be leading the field. So, Minister, start the rethink when it comes to Cardiff Airport, and adopt this motion this afternoon and we can move forward on one agenda, and that's suppressing the virus in our communities here in Wales.

The proposal is to agree the motion without amendment. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Objection. Therefore, we defer voting under this item until voting time.

We're now going to have a short break to allow for change of personnel and for cleaning. So, if you don't need to leave the Chamber, please don't, and then we can move on much quicker. So, there's now a break. Thank you.

That brings us to item 10, the Brexit Party debate on the UK Internal Market Bill, and I call on Mark Reckless to move the motion—Mark Reckless.

Diolch, Llywydd. I move the Brexit Party group's motion to welcome the UK Internal Market Bill, the second reading of which passed the House of Commons on Monday night with a majority of 77. I congratulate Members on the Conservative benches for their Government bringing this Bill forward and belatedly addressing some of the shortcomings in the withdrawal agreement of which my party has complained. I identify two broad impacts of the Bill, to which I will address my remarks in turn: first, what it does as regards the European Union, and second, what it does as regards devolution.

I am delighted that we are no longer a member of the European Union, a development for which I have campaigned all my adult life. I prefer being outwith this withdrawal agreement to not being out at all. However, there are aspects of that agreement that are deeply unsatisfactory. We are encouraged, if surprised, that by seeking to legislate in the manner of this Bill, the Prime Minister seeks to address this, at least to some extent.

The reason that the withdrawal agreement is so unsatisfactory for the UK yet so satisfactory for the European Union is the sequencing of negotiations—that is, the willingness of the UK Government to agree to give the EU what it wanted in the withdrawal agreement before the EU agreed to give us what we want in a trade agreement. The reason why the UK Government agreed to that is because it did not have a majority. The Conservatives have Theresa May to thank for that, but Labour played its part too by pledging in 2017 to respect the result of the EU referendum but then doing the reverse. It voted down a withdrawal agreement that would have kept the whole UK closely tied to the EU, including within its customs union, and later legislated to prevent 'no deal' so as to try to force the UK to stay in the EU in complete contravention of the referendum result.

So, Nigel Farage founded the Brexit Party, won the European election and drove Theresa May from office. To break the parliamentary impasse, the new Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, agreed the current withdrawal agreement. To argue that withdrawal agreement is sacrosanct, as opponents of this Bill do, facilitates the interests of the EU and the sequencing it sought to impose to promote its interests at the expense of ours. It suited the EU to try to lock down a so-called divorce payment and its preferred model for Northern Ireland first. It did not suit the UK.

By mid 2017, UK and Irish tax and customs authorities had largely worked out how to avoid any border infrastructure or material hardening of the Northern Ireland border. Those discussions were broken off by the EU following the June 2017 election, which empowered its allies in the Labour Party to work with it, in effect against their own country's negotiators.

Oh, come off it, that's ridiculous. That's a ridiculous allegation.

I look forward to hearing the contribution from the ex-First Minister later. Is he allowed to intervene, Llywydd, or is that not parliamentary at the moment? Okay. 

Why should we split—[Interruption.] Wait till you hear this one. Why should we split the UK single market and customs union along the Irish sea when a Northern Ireland border could instead be avoided by the EU making checks across the Celtic sea between Ireland and the rest of the EU? Of course, in such a scenario, the EU and Ireland would quickly come to see merit in the many sensible alternative arrangements we have put forward to avoid any visible border. The United Kingdom Internal Market Bill gives us the opportunity to reopen these issues and ensure that any settlement is equitable and in the interests of the UK as well as the EU.

There has been a lot of sound and fury in recent days. Many have leapt to the conclusion that 'no deal' is now much more likely, supposedly because of a breakdown of trust. The reality, I suspect, is that a deal has become significantly more likely. That is because the cost to the EU of not doing a deal has just gone up. If they refuse to grant us—[Interruption.] I suggest the ex-First Minister watches what they do rather than listens to what they say at this particular juncture. If they refuse to grant us satisfactory terms on the trade deal, which we want, then we will now take away what they wanted, and wrongly thought they already had, on the Northern Ireland protocol. 

Critics are right when they observe there is no provision in international law for a state unilaterally to alter just one part of a treaty it has agreed, although there are of course provisions for states to repudiate a withdrawal from whole treaties. I hope therefore that, absent to satisfactory agreement with the EU, the UK will withdraw from the whole treaty, including its financial arrangements and those trade matters that were wrongly predetermined to favour the EU, for example on geographical indicators. It is, however, I think, now more likely than before that a trade agreement will be reached with the EU and on terms more favourable to the UK than would have been attainable without the Prime Minister having strengthened his negotiating hand through this Bill. If so, we will judge its merits later in the year. 

I turn now to the impact on devolution. Old hands tell me that I need to understand that devolution is a process, not an event, but that is precisely the problem. A process that only ever leads in one direction risks Wales sleepwalking towards independence. Westminster's new attitude to the Sewel convention is a useful corrective to this. It was, I think, just three years ago that the Counsel General justified intervening before the Supreme Court because he hoped it might be persuaded to give the Sewel convention the force of law. It did not, and Westminster legislated for the withdrawal agreement notwithstanding a lack of agreed legislative consent motions. Perhaps it was just testing the machinery, because once again, while the majority in this Chamber and elsewhere will presumably withhold consent on this Bill, the Westminster Parliament is sovereign and can proceed regardless. 

A sure-fire way to break up the UK. 

We shall see. I look forward to listening to Members from across the Chamber and beyond debate the merits or otherwise of the devolution consequences of this Bill, and I hope to respond to them in appropriate detail when concluding the debate. However, I would not be surprised if I hear some Members contend that this Bill represents a power grab against devolution while others maintain it is a power surge for devolution. The truth is, I think, less extreme.

For many years, and increasingly, power in Wales has been exercised by the European Union. Wales and the UK as a whole voted to end that. As a consequence, power will flow from the European Union both to Westminster and the devolved institutions. The UK Internal Market Bill influences this to a degree, constrains us here in the exercise of some powers, but affirms and facilities our use of new powers in others. I strongly support the principle of mutual recognition and non-discrimination and, broadly, the way in which the Bill develops these. The Minister argued yesterday that they will constrain his Government and this Parliament. I agree. I welcome it. He fears a race to the bottom in regulatory standards. I look forward to greater competition—consumers empowered to decide for themselves rather than do as we tell them. To do that, they need to know what they're buying. On this issue, the Minister makes some compelling points. I would encourage the Conservatives to engage constructively with the Welsh Government on how best to ensure appropriate regulation of labelling to empower consumers.

This Chamber and the Commons become more powerful because we are leaving the European Union, so do both the Welsh Government and the United Kingdom Government. We believe that that is to be welcomed. For decades, the traditional model of parliamentary sovereignty at Westminster has been under threat from the European Union, which only ever aggregates more powers, and from the devolution process that only ever moves one way—towards independence. The Westminster Parliament is fighting back. We should welcome it.

I have selected the eight amendments to the motion. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendments 2 and 3 will be deselected. If amendment 2 is agreed, amendment 3 will be deselected. I call on Neil Hamilton to move amendments 1, 4 and 5 tabled in his name—Neil Hamilton.

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Llywydd. Like Mark Reckless, I welcome those parts of the internal market Bill that repatriate powers from the EU to Westminster and to the devolved Parliaments. Like him, I've been fighting all my political life to see this objective achieved, ever since I first became a parliamentary candidate back in 1973. But I do oppose those parts of the Bill that grant further powers to this institution and to the other devolved institutions in the United Kingdom. As Darren Millar said in his speech yesterday, this Bill grants scores of new powers to the Senedd, to the Scottish Parliament and to Northern Ireland as well. And, as Mark Reckless said, devolution is described as a process, not an event, and I see, therefore, the Conservative Government as being complicit in that process, which, as Mark Reckless said, threatens to break up, ultimately, the United Kingdom. Because there can be little doubt, certainly as far as Scotland is concerned, that the devolution process has done nothing to assuage the desire for independence—actually, it's fed the beast. And it may well be that, in due course, Scotland detaches itself from the rest of the United Kingdom, which I think would be a shame. Welsh nationalists have not been anything like as successful as the Scottish nationalists, but nevertheless, the same prospect would threaten Wales very much indeed.

I believe that Wales does very badly out of devolution and that's why I've modified my view of the value of this place in the four and a half years that I've been here. In the 20 years of devolution, Wales has gone backwards relative to the rest of the United Kingdom. The average income in Wales, as we know, is only 75 per cent of the UK average. So, whatever hopes people had at the time that the devolution settlement was agreed, they've certainly not been fulfilled.

I find it remarkable that the Welsh Government is so opposed to the devolution of powers from Brussels to Westminster, Cardiff, Edinburgh and Belfast. They seem now to be terribly exercised by the prospect of the United Kingdom exercising powers in relation to the matters that are going to be repatriated, whereas they weren't bothered at all about those powers being exercised by people who we can hardly name, let alone control, in Brussels. After all, under qualified majority voting, the UK only has 8 per cent of the votes in the Council of Ministers, one commissioner out of 27 and 10 per cent of the votes in the European Parliament. Whatever view you take of that arithmetic, it's bound to lead to a massive increase in democracy and accountability in relation to a substantial area of laws that are made by which we are all governed.

But, of course, the United Kingdom single market is vastly more important to Wales than the EU single market ever was. After all, 60 per cent of Welsh exports go to England and England constitutes 84 per cent of the population of the United Kingdom. If there were any prospect of Balkanisation of the United Kingdom market, the big loser out of this would be Wales and certainly not England. That's why it's so important that the principles of mutual recognition and non-discrimination, which this Bill contains, should pass, because they actually guarantee the access of Wales to the United Kingdom market, which, if it were denied, would be an absolute disaster for the Welsh economy.

Now, Jeremy Miles took a rather jaundiced view of this and has described it as the starting gun for a race to the bottom, undermining high standards that we currently enjoy in terms of food standards, animal welfare and environment. But, like Mark Reckless, I don't see why the Government should deprive consumers of the right to choose. Let them decide what standards they want to observe. After all, there are a lot of people who think that organic food is best for us, and they're entitled to their opinion, but there shouldn't be a governmental decision as to whether that should be imposed upon everybody else. And so, therefore, I think it's up to us as individuals to decide for ourselves what we think is best and not have the Government do it for us. But, of course, the first instinct of the Welsh Government is to regulate, restrict and to nanny.

The state aid provisions have also been controversial in this Bill, but, of course, England subsidises Wales to a massive extent. In fact, it's the three regions of London, the south-east and eastern England that subsidise every other region and nation in the United Kingdom. The Welsh Government spends £18 billion a year, £14.7 billion of that comes from Westminster, or Whitehall, because we raise only just over £2 billion a year in income tax revenue in Wales and just over £1 billion on the other devolved taxes. That amounts to £4,500 per head of population in Wales. It's not surprising, therefore, that the UK Government has come to the conclusion that he who pays the piper should call the tune. And it would be, I think, very, very damaging to the future of the union if there were any other system than that which is proposed as a result of this Bill. It's just inconceivable that when so much English taxpayer subsidy flows to Wales, the English taxpayer would be prepared to put up with a system whereby their money could be used by the Welsh Government to undercut English companies and operate on what might be described as unfair competition. I remember when this happened in 2014—

You're now out of time, Neil Hamilton. Bring your contribution to a close.

Then that certainly would imperil the union. For 27 years, I've campaigned, UKIP has campaigned, for the repatriation of powers from the EU to the UK, so we welcome that part of the Bill, but the lasting threat to the unity and integrity of the UK is devolution itself. The Welsh Government and Senedd have paraded their contempt for the Welsh people—

I've given you 30 extra seconds there. I'll have to move on now. Thank you. 

The Counsel General and Minister for European Transition to move the amendment in the name of Rebecca Evans.

Formally.

I call on Dai Lloyd to move amendments 3 and 8, tabled in the name of Siân Gwenllian. Dai Lloyd.

Diolch, Llywydd. I move the Plaid amendments. Plaid Cymru cannot welcome the UK Internal Market Bill. Indeed, we see it as a direct assault on Welsh nationhood and democracy. This Bill is the single biggest assault on devolution since its creation. The internal market Bill is not simply a power grab but the destruction of two decades of devolution. Two referendums will be ignored and the will of the Welsh people overturned if this law is passed. This is why we are calling on the Welsh Government to explore independence in order to protect Welsh democracy in light of this Bill being proposed at Westminster.

Now, this is a matter of trust, Llywydd. The White Paper for this Bill, released earlier this summer, outlined two design rules to support these overarching objectives. Those were: (1) foster collaboration and dialogue, and (2) build trust and ensure openness. On both these issues, the Bill breaks its own rules. For collaboration and dialogue, in front of the Commons select committee on the future relationship to the EU, Jeremy Miles said the UK Government had not engaged a lot with the Welsh Government on this since the start of the year, and he didn't know what the Bill would include in detail either. This, clearly, is not a sign of constructive collaboration and dialogue. And as regards openness, the UK Government opened a consultation on the White Paper, but despite this, at no point since the closing of the consultation and publication of the Bill have the UK Government released even a summary of the said consultation. What other reason is there that would explain this other than the vast majority of respondents to the consultation expressing negative views?

How can we trust Westminster to look out for Wales's interests when it's clear from this Bill, and their actions, that they are intent on wrecking two decades of established devolution across the nations of the United Kingdom? Westminster's reckless handling of the pandemic has already shown how, in Wales, we can do better for ourselves. We need to strengthen, not weaken our own powers. The question that has to be asked and answered by Members today and people across Wales is this: who do you trust more, Wales or Westminster?

As regards mutual recognition, the scope of mutual recognition is far-reaching, limiting the ability of the Welsh Government to effectively legislate, and also confers on the UK Government powers to change the rules unilaterally. This means that it'll be very difficult for the devolved Governments to deviate from English standards, and it will be unable to enforce those standards against imports from England. For the past 20 years, we have had the flexibility to introduce different rules and regulations that we believe would protect and benefit the citizens of Wales. Wales will now be powerless to stop low-quality produce like chlorinated chicken from flooding our supermarkets, undercutting Welsh farmers. It could force Wales to turn a blind eye to animal cruelty and could lead to the return of battery eggs and other food produced with different practices.

There is no trust or respect, and far from taking back control, this Bill would put us in a far worse place than where we are as members of the EU. We are losing control—we are losing the limited control we have now.

The international repercussions of this Bill are also clear to see. In no circumstances should we welcome a Bill that, by the Government's own admission, breaks international law.

Monitoring of the internal market Bill is also important. There are serious problems with the proposed regulatory provision of the Competition and Markets Authority that oversees this UK internal market. An unelected body set up by Westminster cannot be trusted to be impartial, opening the door for huge corporations to challenge Welsh laws in court, trampling on our democracy in the process. Llywydd, it's very much like a Wales versus England match, where England are allowed to not only pick the referee, but then decide which rules the referee should follow and what the penalties should be.

The way forward, as I wrap up—I can see the time—the Westminster Government have been targeting Welsh powers since Brexit, emboldened by the Brexit vote, in fact. Independence is the only sustainable solution to blocking Westminster's attacks on Welsh nationhood and institutions. The Welsh Government must by now, at least, explore independence in order to protect our democracy. We need more than words. We need a pro-independence Government in Wales that will empower us to resist Westminster's attacks on our democracy.

Dai Lloyd has a mysterious influence on the clock, obviously. [Laughter.]

I call on Gareth Bennett to move amendments 6 and 7, tabled in his name. Gareth Bennett.

Diolch, Llywydd. I am moving my amendments today for the Abolish the Welsh Assembly Party. These are amendments 6 and 7, just to clarify for the benefit of the, doubtless, many Members who may want to vote for them at the end of this debate.

Now, I broadly support the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill in that it does represent another step towards carrying out what the Welsh people actually voted for in 2016, which was for the UK to leave the European Union. We've had a lot of debates, of course, about Brexit over the past four years. This debate we are having today, though, touches on other important matters, such as what kind of UK emerges after Brexit. If I can presume to summarise the arguments of the main parties as I see them, Labour and Plaid Cymru seem fixated on the constitutional powers of the Welsh Government and this Parliament. They appear to be obsessed with any perceived attempt by the UK Government to undermine the devolution settlement—obsessed, I would say, almost to the point of paranoia—while the Conservatives appear to be more interested in ensuring smooth, unhindered trade for Welsh businesses across the UK after Brexit.

Now, I wonder which of those positions would the majority of ordinary people in Wales be more likely to sympathise with. We have heard some anguished speeches about this Bill from the left, and, of course, they are entitled to their opinions. But can we have an injection of reality here? The vast majority of people in Wales are not interested in the constitutional niceties of the devolution settlement, they just want a better quality of life. They don't care if disputes are settled by an office of the internal market or some other body. They don't care if clause 46 of some agreement or other is in danger of being breached, because, to be honest, they don't even know what clause 46 is. Apart from David Melding, who does? But people in Wales will care if Welsh jobs are lost because trade is disrupted because, for instance, the Welsh Government wants to veto an international trade treaty that the UK Prime Minister wants to sign.

People in Wales will care if business is lost by Welsh companies because they can't trade unhindered across the border with English companies. Can I point out, backing that point that was just made by Neil Hamilton—[Inaudible.]. This is the economic reality? If Jenny Rathbone, as we heard yesterday, wants to have tougher regulations in Wales on plastics than they have in England, then that is up to her, but is she willing to sacrifice Welsh business and Welsh jobs and the quality of life of people in Wales for that principle? Obviously, plastic is a problem, but it's not just a problem in Wales, is it? How different does she think regulations are going to be in England in any case? Most sensible people who do not have a constitutional fetish about these things would probably agree that the most sensible way forward after Brexit would be one common set of regulations throughout the UK, not four different ones. So, a message to Welsh Labour: stop being a bunch of political anoraks and wake up to the reality of what will affect normal people.

Welsh Labour and Plaid are also incensed that the UK Government may interfere in areas like health and education. This is rather laughable, since we have a health service that is shot to pieces and an education system that is plummeting downwards through the world rankings. This is hardly a sound basis for clamouring for more powers to come to this place. The reality is that more and more people see that devolution is failing Wales. More and more want an end to the real constitutional catastrophe, which is devolution itself. More and more people are expressing their desire to abolish the Welsh Parliament. My party wants to do that, too, although of course we want the democratic consent of the people of Wales in order to do so. In short, we want a referendum on whether or not devolution is still wanted by the people of Wales in a post-Brexit world, which is why I'm moving today's amendments. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Can I applaud the Brexit Party for bringing forward this important debate today in the face of continued denial that we are leaving the beloved EU that people on the Government benches and in Plaid Cymru feel so passionately about? Labour, Plaid Cymru and others in this country have done everything they can to prevent us from delivering on the democratic mandate of the people of Wales. Firstly, they tried to stop us leaving the European Union. Then they tried to delay us leaving the European Union by extending the transition period, and now you're trying to scupper plans that will ensure that Welsh businesses have unfettered access to our biggest market—the rest of the United Kingdom. Seventy-five per cent of Welsh trade is with the rest of the UK. The UK Internal Market Bill will ensure that, when the transition period ends, on 31 December 2020, businesses in Wales will continue to be able to benefit from seamless trade with other parts of the UK. And as we begin the slow economic recovery from the coronavirus, protecting jobs and avoiding additional cost on businesses or consumers are vitally important, and that's why we support this Bill.

The Bill reaffirms that the United Kingdom is made up of four partners, and under these plans, companies will have equal opportunity to trade, regardless of where in the United Kingdom they are based. The Bill also, of course, maintains the high standards that we enjoy right across the UK in areas such as food hygiene, animal welfare standards and other regulations, ensuring co-operation with devolved Governments. And I'm pleased that yesterday the Counsel General and Minister for the Brexit transition acknowledged that there's been some good work on a cross-UK basis on common frameworks.

The Bill also, of course, delivers on Boris Johnson's pledge to the people of Northern Ireland that we will leave the EU as one United Kingdom and that there will be no customs border in the Irish sea, something that the European Union subscribed to in article 4 of the Northern Ireland protocol. The Bill also guarantees the devolution of further powers to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland once the transition period ends later in the year. At least 65 new policy powers that previously resided at an EU level will be passed directly to this Welsh Parliament. And crucially, none of this Welsh Parliament's current powers will be removed—not one of them. It makes last week's rhetoric from the Labour Party and from Plaid Cymru all the more extraordinary, with all of this talk of an assault on devolution and stealing powers and a power grab, because it's crystal clear: not one single power of this Senedd will be taken away as a result of this Bill.

The Counsel General has said that the Bill is not necessary, and we accept on these benches that it's something of a backstop, but it gives business in Wales what they need above all else, and that is certainty—certainty that will enable them to continue to trade in the future and keep those jobs in the economy that we need them to protect, particularly at this difficult time. And it guarantees access to that entire UK market, avoiding the risk that politicians could fail to secure the framework agreements and with an increasingly agitated separatist Government in Scotland, and I think it's just too great a risk for Welsh jobs. Currently, many UK investment decisions are taken by unelected EU bodies and, quite rightly, this Bill will end that when we leave the transition period. It will then be, of course, for politicians elected in the UK by the people of the UK to use spending powers to support our communities and businesses, including any direct replacements for EU schemes, including exchange opportunities. 

Now, in economic development and infrastructure, this Bill will enable greater partnership working between the UK and Welsh Governments, because the powers that the UK Government will inherit from the EU will be shared with the Welsh Government. Many countries with devolved governments have shared powers, including in Germany and in the United States, and this, of course, is a double opportunity to get much more investment into Wales, and both Governments, of course, have a responsibility to act to secure economic growth, especially at such a volatile time. That's why I find it absolutely astonishing, frankly, that we have a Welsh Government that's complaining that the UK Government wants powers to be able to invest in Wales. Why on earth would you complain about that? You've had assurances that these additional investments will be in excess of the Barnett block grant that we receive at the moment, so I've no idea why you would want to object to investment in our infrastructure in this country.

The UK Government has been absolutely clear that the level of funding for Wales, as a result of the EU schemes that will end, will be matched and replicated and that Wales will not lose a single penny. And that's what the people of Wales voted for. That's why your party lost so many seats in those elections last year, including here in Wales. So, for a strong internal market and to protect the interests of businesses the length and breadth of this country and the length and breadth of Wales, I urge people to support the motion.  

I thank Andrew R.T. Davies for his greeting there, welcoming me up to speak. Well, we heard from Neil Hamilton we should respect our financial masters, we heard from Gareth Bennett 'for Wales, see England', but I'd like to take Members back to 1998, when the Good Friday agreement was drawn up and signed. That was done as a result of a huge amount of work by John Major, a Conservative Prime Minister, Tony Blair, a Labour Prime Minister, Bertie Ahern in Ireland—many, many politicians who brought to an end a conflict that had bedeviled Northern Ireland since 1969 and had its roots back to 1689 and beyond. The conflict that many people thought could not be resolved because of the lack of a common identity that still exists in Northern Ireland, and yet, cross party, we saw politicians come together and negotiate in a mature way an end to a conflict. And look at us now. Look at us now—a laughing stock. A country that not just is proud of breaking international law, but admits it. States have broken international law for years—the US did it, the Soviet Union did it in the cold war, states still do it now, but I don't think anyone actually was dull enough to actually admit it. 

And here we have ourselves as a country. For years, we have said to others, 'Look at us, we're a beacon of freedom, of democracy, of liberty, because we are a rules-based country, we respect international rules', and here we are, a lawbreaker. How can we possibly preach to others in the future if we are self-confessed lawbreakers ourselves? That is something that has come not just in Parliament from Brandon Lewis as a Minister, but something he has reiterated and has today caused the resignation of Lord Keen, the Advocate General in Scotland, because he respects his professional reputation. That is how bad a situation we are in. 

Let's just remind ourselves: the Prime Minister agreed this withdrawal agreement, Parliament approved it on 23 January 2020—Boris Johnson was the Prime Minister. He said it was an oven-ready deal, an oven-ready deal. Well, the baked Alaska's an Eton mess now, isn't it, because now there is no deal. He has gone back on a deal he himself agreed with, and do you know why? He didn't read it. He didn't read it. I said at the time that this would put a border down the middle of the Irish Sea. The Democratic Unionist Party said it at the time—not my bedfellows, I have to say. The Prime Minister disagreed. And now, nine months later, oh dear, the chickens are coming home to roost. He didn't read the thing at the time, and here is the situation that we find ourselves in. 

He trumpeted it. He advocated it. He supported it. He said this was a deal that would be the withdrawal agreement that would get the UK out of the EU, and now he's going back on it. How stupid does that make us look as a country, and how does that reflect on the Prime Minister? Why would any country trust the UK in a trade negotiation? Why? Because here we have the UK agreeing something then un-agreeing it. Why on earth would anyone trust us? That's the problem. No country with that kind of reputation—. And we see, of course, that Dominic Raab has scuttled off to America, because he can see the effect this is having on American politics and what that will mean for a UK-US trade deal, and here we have a Foreign Secretary who's in that position. 

And let me be quite clear: I agree there have to be rules within the UK single market. I absolutely agree. We cannot have a scenario where Welsh goods cannot go into England—clearly not, and for reasons well made by Darren Millar and others. We clearly cannot have a situation where it is more difficult to invest in one part of the UK because of barriers. We can't have a situation where there are no rules at all—advocated, actually, by the DUP—because in a no-rules internal market the biggest wins, and the biggest is England. We can't win that battle, and we should welcome a rules-based internal market. I welcome that; I think that's absolutely right. My difficulty is this: the UK Government has a direct conflict of interest—it's also the Government of England. It isn't in a situation where it is an overarching federal Government that only represents the entire country—it's also the Government of England. How can we be confident that a UK Government that is the Government of England as well as the Government of the UK will be fair to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland? That's the problem I have. It's the equivalent of the German Government dictating to the rest of the EU exactly what the terms of trade within the EU should be. 

It would have been far better if this could have been agreed, and I think it could have been agreed—it could have been agreed. We could have had the four Governments of the UK agreeing on a common set of rules. It's in everybody's interest, even the Scottish National Party, for that to happen, because it's not in the SNP's interest for Scotland to lose access to the UK's internal single market. How much better it would have been if this had been done on the basis of agreement, of consensus, rather than imposition. And I say to the Conservatives opposite: I understand their passion for the union. I understand their need to defend what their Government is doing. I understand that. But surely you can see that by appearing to impose on Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland for that matter, that weakens the union. It doesn't strengthen the union—it weakens it.

The days of the nineteenth century and parliamentary sovereignty to my mind are gone. We need a better constitution, a better UK, and, in that way, we can prosper. I don't buy that independence is the only answer, but I believe this is an equal partnership of nations; Darren Millar is right about that. Let's make it so, let's have a constitution fit for the twenty-first century, and let's move away from this situation where it's simply a matter of Westminster imposes and the rest of us have to accept. 

Well, déjà vu, here we are again. It feels like 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019—hysteria, portents of doom and hyperbole. I've read through some of the comments that hit the headlines in the last few weeks. Jeremy Miles:

'This Bill is an attack on democracy and an affront to the people of Wales'.

Well, I'm sorry, Jeremy, but the people of Wales voted to leave the European Union and possibly shouted the loudest last December when the so-called red wall was breached spectacularly, even in Wales, on the promise of getting Brexit done.

We've also got Plaid Cymru: it's the

'destruction of two decades of devolution.'

And the next one is:

'Two referendums will be ignored and the will of the Welsh people overturned if this law is passed.'

That one is my particular favourite, and I beg to differ. If anything will destroy devolution, it's the call from Plaid and Labour for more of it when, in my view, it's been a spectacular missed opportunity on many, many levels. And you mention referenda, which is so deliciously rich. When democracy gives you the right result, it's okay, but, when it doesn't, you'll kick and scream all the way to the general election in 2019, and still you will ignore the clear message you have been given by the electorate. The confected political outrage is predictable, and I've been very, very disappointed not to see the words 'cliff edge' or 'hammer blow' in the mix as well. But now this. You are really shouting, as usual, inside your own echo chamber. Households in Wales are not discussing this—they are struggling to make ends meet, they're trying to get GP appointments, and they're washing their hands. Yes, I've had a couple of e-mails about it, but it's clear that north Wales constituents are more troubled by the persecution of hen harriers than what's in this Bill. 

I do accept that the timing of the Bill has not been great with regard to the consultation periods. However, we are in unprecedented times on more than one level. And we all know how the process works, because it's our process too: sensible amendments may be made, and are in the gift of the Government if they have the majority. Here, the Welsh Government uses its slim majority to pass any law it wants, whether or not it appeared in a manifesto. And, as we all know, primary legislation is given its detail with supplementary regulations. The Conservative UK Government was gifted its majority party, I would say, as a direct result of much of the shenanigans here in this Chamber. I'm not going to repeat here the arguments, well worn, about Brexit, standards, sovereignty, but I do find phrases such as 'power grab' and 'race to the bottom' very unnecessary and very childish. The Prime Minister's European chief Brexit negotiator, David Frost, gave good reason for this Bill in a detailed thread on Twitter a few days ago. It appears that the EU is putting food supplies to Northern Ireland at risk. I'm sure that reason alone would be enough to convince any unionist who believes in the integrity of the union to support this motion today. 

The Brexit Party was very vocal last year on how bad the withdrawal agreement was. No-one wanted to know about it then, and, if the lack of good faith of the EU means we have to walk away in the clear interests of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland, I'm very comfortable with that. This Bill is another step on our journey—our long and arduous journey—to national sovereignty, and, for that reason, I wish to put on record that I will be supporting this motion unamended today. Thank you very much. 

Yesterday, Darren Millar asked why we put up with the European Parliament holding so much power over our destiny, yet we are objecting to the UK Government capturing those policy responsibilities and powers to exercise on our behalf. The reason we are doing that is that the powers held by the European Parliament, and, in turn, by the European Commission, were negotiated and agreed. Patently, that is not the case with the internal market Bill, which is a land grab by the English Parliament, and it's really distressing that they have completely forgotten the whole concept of subsidiarity, which was a core principle of the European Union. We have left now, we absolutely accept that, but we have to understand that this Bill is, quite simply, going to prevent us doing our duty to protect and enhance the lives of Welsh citizens, who have consented to us doing so on their behalf in both a referendum and subsequent parliamentary elections. And if they don't like what we're doing, they can vote for the fringe parties like UKIP, who want to turn back the tide of history and hand the keys of responsibility for the destiny of Wales back to the UK Parliament. 

So, I am concerned that the areas where we would be prevented from acting in the interests of our people, our land and our environment, include our inability to ban adulterated food, whether its genetically modified, it's grown with hormone-fed beef, chlorinated chicken, or it's been reared off the back of the tearing down of the Amazon, which is required in order to feed them with constant supplies of soya, instead of the way in which we produce our meat, which is grass-fed. So, if we have no trade deal with the European Union, we will be operating under WTO rules, and that means we will be absolutely unable to stop the tide of these sorts of poor environmental standards of agriculture, poor animal welfare standards, which are just designed to maximise profits. It's not only David Attenborough who is pointing out that this spells environmental, climate and species disaster. There are many, many people saying that this is absolutely no way to continue to abuse the resources of this planet.

So, we would presumably, for example, be prevented from strengthening Part L of our housing regulations so that, in future, only decent, quality homes to zero-carbon standards could be built, and that we could prevent anything else being built. And, finally, it would force our Welsh water companies to adhere to the much lower environmental and economic standards of the English water companies, who last year polluted, discharged raw sewage into, English rivers 200,000 times because of poor regulation by the Environment Agency.

We do not need a race to the bottom. This is not about making businesses impossible to operate. We need to ensure that, collectively, we are able to put forward constant improvements to tackle the pollution of our rivers and seas. And we should be able to encourage other Governments of the United Kingdom to follow our lead, as they have done on things like plastic bags. People didn't vote for having their children swimming in sewage, and they do not want to be eating fish polluted with plastic. I agree with Darren Millar that most of Welsh trade is with the rest of the UK. But that's lucky, because it does look increasingly likely that there will be no deal with the European Union, and therefore we will have to fall back on our own resources within the United Kingdom to maintain the living standards and the well-being of our society.

Frankly, I don't believe that Boris Johnson didn't read what he was signing. Or, if he did, he just assumed that this so-called oven-ready deal he was promising everybody—that he'd be able to wriggle out of it afterwards and he'd come up with some other solution along the way, and somebody said, 'Don't worry, just sign it, sort it out.' That is no way to deal with—for getting people to trust you. And I don't trust him with managing the shared prosperity fund for Wales, and I'm not bought off by the crumbs on table that Darren Millar says they're offering.

Llywydd, when I listen to the movers of the main motion, I actually do wonder how many of them have actually read the Bill and the supporting documentation. I've gone through it, and these are my views as to what are the key points, the key things that are wrong.

The first thing is it legislates to legalise illegality. That's unacceptable. It specifically restricts and undermines the judiciary. That is unacceptable. It gives powers to Ministers with no proper scrutiny, either for Parliament or the Welsh Government. That is unacceptable. It undermines devolution. It doesn't take away specific powers, but what it does do is give Government Ministers, without any significant scrutiny, the powers to take over devolved functions. In my view, that undermines devolution. It opens the door for lower food standards—chlorinated chicken has been mentioned, but there are many, many other examples that there could be. It opens the door to reduced environmental standards. The Tories have opposed non-regression of clauses. It restricts the ability of the Senedd to legislate in devolved areas in accordance with election manifesto commitments in respect of devolved powers. It clearly undermines democracy; it undermines the outcome of two referenda. It opens the door to the privatisation of the NHS—that is indisputable. And more than anything, this Bill is completely unnecessary, because it was always agreed and intended that there would be common frameworks and that there would be a common framework for the internal market and state aid. The Government has chosen unilaterally to breach that understanding and to impose unilateral legislation to override all those agreements and understandings. This Bill, not only is it unnecessary, it is, as was described yesterday in the Senedd discussion, repugnant, and that is why we on the Labour side are opposed to it.

The Minister to contribute to the debate, Jeremy Miles.

Thank you, Llywydd. As I explained yesterday in my statement on the Bill, there are a number of fundamental reasons for objecting to the Bill and for voting against this motion today. May I just highlight four of those main reasons? First of all—although, unlike much of the Bill, it is not a direct assault on devolution—the invitation to the UK Parliament to break international law. Now, that would be enough in and of itself to refuse legislative consent when the time comes. This Senedd cannot break international law and that is a strong argument for not working with the UK Government in doing so.

Secondly, Part 6 of the Bill, for the first time since devolution, would provide very broad-ranging powers to UK Government Ministers to use taxpayers' money to invest in Wales in devolved areas. Specifically, UK Ministers are talking about making decisions that are claimed to have been taken by bureaucrats in Brussels in the past, but that simply isn't the case. The powers proposed would allow them to fund hospitals and housing developments directly, although housing and health are excluded from European funding generally speaking. I've heard some say, including today, in a manner that is quite unbelievable, that any investment by the UK Government is in addition to the funding that would otherwise be within the Welsh budget. I assume, therefore, that the leader of the opposition and the Conservatives in the Senedd will commit to opposing these new powers unless the UK Government gives a guarantee that any proposed expenditure will be additional to what is owed to Wales under the Barnett formula or the guarantee made by the 'leave' campaigners that we would not receive a penny less than had we remained in the European Union.

Thirdly, turning to the proposed reason for the Bill: the aspiration, it is said, to safeguard the internal market. As I explained yesterday and today, and I echo Carwyn Jones's comments here, we support the objective of an internal market for the UK, but the efforts to jointly develop a series of general frameworks, which is the best way of securing that, are not strengthened but rather are undermined by the imposition of reciprocal recognition requirements without differentiation across all parts of the economy, without any of the safeguards that such principles depend on in order to function in a way that is acceptable.

A process that is built on collaboration and co-ordination between Governments must be at the heart of any internal market. Let me just give one example, leaving aside the question of imports from the United States for a moment. Let's assume that Ministers in the UK decide that the only way to enable the beef sector in England to remain competitive on an international stage is to allow farmers to use hormones and antibiotics in beef cattle. This Parliament could refuse to give the same freedom to Welsh farmers, but, Llywydd, it could not prevent that hormone-injected beef from England from being sold on supermarket shelves in Neath or in Aberystwyth. And it couldn't even insist that there would be labelling to inform Welsh consumers that that beef had been treated in that way.

So, far from safeguarding the internal market, the Bill is a firing pistol for the race to the bottom— and I defend the use of that phrase—with the least regulated part of the UK triumphant and making the rest of the UK subject to those lowest standards. And if UK Government Ministers want us to believe that they are serious in their protestations that they would maintain, or even improve, standards in terms of food safety or environmental safeguards, let them put that assurance on the face of the Bill.

And, finally, Llywydd, may I draw Members' attention to a part of the Bill where the UK Government admits that it is trying to undo devolution, namely the efforts to add state aid to the list of reserved matters in the Government of Wales Act 2006? Our legal advice has been clear from the outset: this is not a reserved matter. And it appears now that lawyers within the UK Government also agree on that and that is why the UK Government wishes to add it, so that they can have their own way and draw up the rules or the lack of rules, perhaps, that would apply after the last day of December of this year.

Once again, let me be clear. We are in favour of a clear and robust state-aid regime that all parts of the UK are signed up to and agreed and is subject to enforcement by a truly independent regulator. But we are not willing to agree that the UK Government, which has a duty to safeguard the interests of England in devolved areas, such as economic development and on, should plan and oversee a system that could be used to favour businesses in England over those in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

There are just four of the numerous reasons for opposing the internal market Bill and I would encourage every Member here to support the Government amendment to the motion today. 

Mark Reckless to reply to the debate. Mark Reckless. 

Diolch, Llywydd. And may I thank everyone very much indeed for their contributions, which I thought were largely temperate in tone? I think the debate, both here and in Westminster, is perhaps better today than it was a few days ago.

Neil Hamilton opened the debate, not to universal acclaim, I have to say, in the Chamber, but thank you, Neil. You referred to your campaigning also all your adult life against the European Union, and certainly your early membership of the Anti-Common Market League, and I think a very recent final ascension to lead UKIP may be in those categories, but I do also recall your vote on the paving motion in support of Maastricht, which I did feel was regrettable. 

Dai Lloyd spoke next, and he gave no welcome to this motion or the internal market Bill, which I don't think was a surprise to anyone. He spoke very strongly I felt. He said it would destroy two decades of devolution; it would trample on democracy. And he then said, 'Should people trust Wales or Westminster?' in an effort to 'other' Westminster as if there weren't Welsh MPs at Westminster. He then referred to it being unfair to England to pick the referee despite it being the UK Government, and then he himself managed to reset the clock. 

Gareth Bennett spoke next. He told us that he was representing the Abolish the Assembly Party. I think he then said he would vote for all his amendments. I didn't quite hear because of the ex-First Minister in his new role heckling from the backbench, along with the heckler in chief from across the aisle, so I didn't catch everything that Gareth said, but I thank him for his contribution. 

Darren Millar I certainly did hear, and he started his speech in very good manner, I thought, by applauding the Brexit Party. And, indeed, I see David Melding has recently joined, but we did have three out of three leavers on the Conservative benches in our physical session also to welcome the debate, which I appreciate. He reminded us that Boris Johnson said that Northern Ireland would leave the European Union with the UK as a whole. There would be no border along the Irish sea. There definitely wouldn't be any export declarations from Northern Ireland to Britain. And, I'm afraid, sir, I didn't believe him, because I consulted the withdrawal agreement and it appeared, to me, to provide for all those things. I underestimated his ability and willingness to rip it up after winning this great majority at the election. I, for my part, applaud what he is doing. I didn't think it was going to happen, but he's doing it, and I think it will greatly strengthen his negotiating position by increasing the cost to the EU of not doing a free-trade deal, because they will lose the Northern Ireland protocol.

I think that he said that there was going to be a lot more spending from the UK Government in Wales, which, of course, I would welcome. They seem to be printing an awful lot of money—hopefully they can use it to get on with building the M4 relief road, amongst other things.

We then had Carwyn Jones, the ex-First Minister, reminding us again of the 1988 Good Friday Agreement, which he's spoken of, I recall, a number of times in this Chamber. I was a little surprised by his comments immediately after that, because he explained that it was widespread practice of states to break international law, but what he objected to was the honesty of Brandon Lewis in admitting to it, which his students will be interested to engage with in future at Aberystwyth I'm sure.

He also mentioned Dominic Raab and his role now in the US explaining the situation and how actually it will support peace in Northern Ireland. And I recall working with Dominic Raab on a key matter that's now come to the fore. I was quite surprised in 2012 when the Abu Qatada extradition—. Theresa May was trying in various ways and she was insisting on applying a European Court of Human Rights judgment rather than our own Supreme Court judgment, in a way that was making it harder her to deport Qatada, at least on her initial way of trying to do it. And in the end, she told myself and Dominic Raab that she was doing this because of the ministerial code. I looked at this and it referred to the over-arching duty on Ministers to comply with the law, including international law and treaty obligations, which struck me as an extraordinary fetter on the sovereignty of Parliament and what I had thought was the duty of Ministers to act according to the law as determined by Parliament. And it was with Dominic Raab that I saw David Cameron, then Prime Minister, and actually made the case on this, and I believe persuaded, or at least he came back to us and said that he did think the ministerial code needed to be revised. Ultimately, Nick Clegg stopped him doing so at that point, but he said that if he ever got a majority, he would change it and take those six words out. And in 2015 he was as good as his word. And it is because of that that Brandon Lewis could say what he said in the Commons and remain as a Minister.

We then had Mandy Jones remind us that Wales voted to leave the European Union, indeed in 2016—quite a long time ago now. Rather more recently, she reminded us about developments in the red wall in north Wales. She struck the Bill as part of the normal legislative process that some things are left to Ministers by regulation. She chided some Ministers here about their language and then she reminded us all—I think, very importantly—that the Brexit Party was saying last year what Boris is saying now, and we therefore welcome that.

Jenny Rathbone referred to children swimming in sewage and some other developments that might be very bad that she said would come from this Bill. She said it was increasingly likely to lead to 'no deal'. Again, I strongly disagree with this, because it increases the cost to the EU of not doing a deal.

We then had Mick Antoniw who gave a short contribution. He asked the main movers of the motion—which I assume he means me—have I read the Bill, to which the answer is 'yes'. I've also found this 'United Kingdom Internal Market Bill 2019-21' document from the House of Commons Library quite useful. I understand that our Library hasn't quite had time to do one for what is, after all, a Westminster document. But I look forward to his committee—reading what they have to say upon the matter. He talked about legislating to legalise illegality, but, of course, the legislation does that. I'm not sure if he's aware of the developments with Bob Neill and Damian Green and what's now being announced. I would welcome the changes in the Bill that are proposed. I think if it's Parliament that is saying it's going to do this rather than just Ministers, then it will be all the stronger. I've no doubt that Ministers will get a majority in Parliament if they need to. It's less likely judges will interfere with what the Bill says if it's Parliament rather than Ministers, and I think it will help persuade the European Union to change its position and to give us a better deal than we would otherwise get.

We finally had the Minister who had four broad arguments against the Bill. Firstly about breaking international law. I think I've already referenced that. He was also, I think, very against the UK Government spending money in Wales, particularly in the areas of hospitals and housing, because the EU haven't spent money in those areas. I don't really understand that objection. I'd also just alert him to the fact that at least the House of Commons Library takes the position that,

'The Bill (clauses 46-47) includes a power "to provide financial assistance" but this does not appear to alter the devolution settlements. The UK Government can already spend in devolved areas.'

It's something I welcome. I hope there's going to be more of it—the M4 relief road would be a good start. But there should be more co-operation with Welsh Government and there should be common frameworks in appropriate areas, but I support having the mutual recognition, having this non-discrimination, having an internal market that works for the whole UK and having a position that allows us to get a better deal with the European Union than might otherwise be possible. I commend our motion to colleagues. Thank you.

The proposal is to agree the motion without amendment. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I defer voting until voting time.

That brings us to voting time, but in accordance with Standing Order 34.14D, there will be a break of five minutes before voting takes place. So, a break of five minutes.

That brings us to voting time, and the first vote is on the Welsh Conservatives' debate on COVID-19 prevention measures. I call for a vote on the motion, tabled in the name of Darren Millar. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 13, no abstentions, 40 against. Therefore, the motion is not agreed.

The next vote is on amendment 1. I call for a vote on amendment 1, tabled in the name of Rebecca Evans. Open the vote. Close the vote.

Presiding Officer, you can't close the vote. You haven't asked me to vote, and I can't vote via the app.

Okay. Let me just check on that. Can you confirm how you were intending to vote, Kirsty Williams?

On amendment 1, in the name of Rebecca Evans, I vote 'yes'.

Okay.

The result of that vote, therefore, was that there were 32 in favour, 11 abstentions and 11 against, and therefore amendment 1 is agreed.

The next vote will be on amendment 2. If amendment 2 is agreed, amendment 3 will be deselected. I call for a vote on amendment 2, tabled in the name of Siân Gwenllian. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 10, two abstentions, and 42 against. Therefore, the amendment is not agreed.

Amendment 3 is our next amendment, tabled in the name of Rebecca Evans. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 31, one abstention, 22 against. Therefore, amendment 3 is agreed.

Amendment 4, in the name of Caroline Jones. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 13, no abstentions, 41 against. Therefore, the amendment is not agreed.

Amendment 5 next, in the name of Siân Gwenllian. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 10, 10 abstentions, 34 against. Therefore, amendment 5 is not agreed.

Amendment 6 is our next amendment, in the name of Siân Gwenllian. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 23, no abstentions, 31 against. Therefore, amendment 6 is not agreed.

Amendment 7, in the name of Siân Gwenllian. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 21, no abstentions, 33 against. Therefore, the amendment is not agreed.

Amendment 8, in the name of Siân Gwenllian. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 21, no abstentions, 33 against. Therefore, the amendment is not agreed.

That brings us to the motion as amended. 

Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 31, nine abstentions, 14 against. Therefore, the motion as amended is agreed.

The next vote is on the Brexit Party debate on the UK Internal Market Bill. I call for a vote on the motion, tabled in the name of Mark Reckless. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 12, two abstentions, 40 against. Therefore, the motion is not agreed.

The next vote is on amendment 1, and if amendment 1 is agreed amendments 2 and 3 will be de-selected. I call for a vote on amendment 1, tabled in the name of Neil Hamilton. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour two, no abstentions, against 52. Therefore, amendment 1 is not agreed.

Amendment 2 is our next amendment. If amendment 2 is agreed, amendment 3 will be deselected. I call for a vote on amendment 2, tabled in the name of Rebecca Evans. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 29, two abstentions, 22 against. Therefore, amendment 2 is agreed. Amendment 3, therefore, is deselected. 

I now call for a vote on amendment 4, tabled in the name of Neil Hamilton. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour two, two abstentions, 50 against. And therefore, amendment 4 is not agreed.

Amendment 5, tabled in the name of Neil Hamilton. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour two, two abstentions, 50 against. Therefore, amendment 5 is not agreed. 

Amendment 6, tabled in the name of Gareth Bennett. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour two, two abstentions, 50 against. And therefore, amendment 7 is not agreed. The next vote is on amendment 8 in the name of—.

The last vote was gwelliant 6—amendment 6. That was the last result that I announced. 

Therefore, gwelliant 7, amendment 7 is the next vote and that's in the name of Gareth Bennett. 

Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour two, two abstentions and 50 against. And therefore, amendment 7 is not agreed.

I call for a vote on amendment 8. Open the vote on amendment 8, tabled in the name of Siân Gwenllian. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 10, no abstentions, 44 against. And therefore, amendment 8 is not agreed.

That brings us to our final vote on the motion as amended.

Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 39, two abstentions, 13 against. And therefore, the motion as amended is agreed.

That concludes voting time, but our agenda goes on with the short debate. For those of you leaving before the short debate, then please do so quietly. I now call the mover of the short debate, David Melding, to speak to the topic he's chosen.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. It's been a long day, I think it's fair to say, but we do end on a very important subject and I introduce this discussion on the need for a fire safety fund in Wales. I would like to give some of my time to Mike Hedges and Jenny Rathbone.

Llywydd, since the appalling tragedy of Grenfell Tower, we've become more aware of the failure of external cladding systems—aluminium composite material and other systems. Also, issues relating to the very integrity of the internal fire safety schemes in some high-rise buildings have also become starkly apparent. This has meant that those living in multistorey apartment buildings are at a much higher risk than was previously realised by many policy makers and I think this is a key point. Many policy makers and those who were scrutinising policy did not pick this up.

Before I set out the need for a fire safety fund, I want to quote the concerns of some of my constituents who are leaseholders facing the prospect of massive capital cost to make safe buildings that had recently been passed as safe by the building regulatory system. And these quotes—there are five—come from residents of the Celestia development and Victoria Wharf. We can practically see those developments—well, in fact, we can if we look carefully—from this Senedd building.

My first quote: 'As an NHS employee under substantial stress in the current climate, the long, ongoing issues with fire safety and accountability are causing a great deal of extra stress at home'.

Second: 'I am curious why she'—meaning the Minister—'doesn't appear to be interested in the 450 households in the neighbourhood of the Senedd'.

I understand that. It is a little harsh, but I do understand that sentiment.

Third quote: 'It is almost certain that all leaseholders will not be able to afford to pay for the necessary repairs, especially as the apartments are unmortgageable'.

My fourth resident and constituent: 'We really need to see the Government step in and help out. The situation is dire'.

And haven't we been seeing, during the COVID crisis, the need for bigger government, when it is needed, and effectively delivered?

And my final quote: 'It is only a matter of time until someone gets seriously injured or, God forbid, something worse'.

Well, as we have just heard from some of my constituents who are leaseholders directly affected, they now face potentially massive costs, and they face those costs as people who bought their houses, or homes, rather, with due diligence, bought from long-established builders and developers, bought homes in buildings that met building regulations and passed the necessary inspections, and finally now face the likelihood of enforcement orders.

Now, it is true that some builders and developers have acted responsibly and entered into a partnership with leaseholders and Government to rectify the faults that made buildings unsafe. Others, however, are avoiding their obligations, at least their moral ones, or awaiting the outcome of legal proceedings; and some are playing the game of drawing out legal proceedings, knowing how vulnerable the leaseholders in these apartments are. And all this at a time when COVID has meant that most of us have had to spend much, much more time at home. So, leaseholders face the ongoing anxiety of living in buildings that we now realise have not been as safe as was designated.

And there are further consequences. Homes cannot be sold, so people are trapped in apartments that no longer meet their needs, especially if they are young families. They're in accommodation that is too cramped and does not give that space that young children, for instance, need. Tragically, really, certain leaseholders now cannot start families, despite yearning to do so.

Insurance costs have increased substantially, and this is something that is often overlooked, and it's an ongoing cost whilst these problems are not rectified. Redress from obdurate builders or developers, who have been responsible for poor installation—and that's a key factor in this whole question, when safe systems were not installed properly—that action requires expensive litigation.

And then, finally, on these points, the inability to access funds when all else fails. The Minister, I think yesterday or the day before, indicated a scheme to help those who have fallen into rent arrears through no fault of their own and are in social homes, and talked about the provision of a very low loan—in fact, as low as legally can be permitted, it seemed to me—available from credit unions. And that sort of intelligent offer from Government is something I welcome, but we've not seen similar innovation when it comes to leaseholders in apartments.

I now turn to the situation in England, where there has been a significant development. The building safety fund was announced for England by the Chancellor, Rishi Sunak, in his March budget. Additional funding of £1 billion has been committed, and this is additional to the fund to tackle ACM cladding in England that was earlier announced. It's intended to make sure that all unsafe combustible cladding will be removed from every private and social residential building above 18m, and I do welcome that policy.

Now we turn to Wales. The Chancellor's announcement for England created a consequential for Wales of around about £58 million. However, the Welsh Government has decided, as is its right, to use this consequential funding for other purposes. Replying to my written question of 12 August, the Minister said this:

'The Welsh Government has made a clear commitment to delivering reforms to protect people living in high rise buildings. The reforms are substantial and complex. There are no quick fixes.'

Well, I have to say, Minister, when it comes to the fire safety fund for leaseholders, there is certainly no quick fix, because the problem is still massive and unresolved, and you've not made any attempts so far to emulate the system in England. Instead, leaseholders must make do with the Minister's sympathy, and I quote: I have made clear that

'leaseholders...should not be expected to pay to rectify issues that constitute a failure to build to appropriate quality standards or where matters are in breach of building regulations.'

End quote. And I agree with that, but we need to face the fact that whilst these matters are going through courts or being strung out, these leaseholders are facing enforcement orders and have to pay up or try to sell their property, which is near impossible given current market requirements and the situation in terms of getting a mortgage. So, I really do think that you need to look at this issue again.

Now, I do accept that £58 million as a consequential may be more than the problem needs in Wales to rectify. I accept that you can use that money as you see fit, and you may not want to construct or open a fund that is to the full value pro rata, as it were, to what is being introduced in England. That I could accept, if you gave evidence, and no doubt you'd be capable of getting the evidence if it is there to demonstrate that the need in Wales, though, is very significant, and as I've just referred to the residents in two developments very close to us, it may not be on the scale that it is in England. But I really do believe that you need to do something. These people have been left, really, to deal with a problem that is a matter of public policy failure, and it's a public policy failure that goes back a long time, at least 20 years, and both the party I represent and the party you represent, unfortunately, have been responsible for this policy failure.

I'll just finish on this point: these people did everything right. They applied all due diligence, they sought the advice of solicitors, they had appraisals, inspections, reports of surveys and the like done on the properties they were purchasing, and they could see that the buildings had passed all the regulations, they'd been inspected, and yet they then find out that either the regulations were inadequate or the inspections were inadequate and didn't pick up the improper installation of these systems, which basically makes them null and void and highly dangerous. I do think that we have to come up with a solution. It may be an interim solution to ease the financial pressure on the leaseholders, whilst we do investigate whether there is a legal obligation amongst the builders and developers. But, you know, it's only an organisation as big as Government that can run that course and stay around and deal with legal proceedings. These leaseholders are facing imminent enforcement orders and estimated costs that run from £10,000 to £40,000 in our own neighbourhood here in the Senedd.

So, Minister, can I say, I greatly enjoyed when I shadowed you until very recently? I respect you, I think you've been an innovative Minister, you are on top of your brief, and you've shown real leadership. But in this area, we've not been able to get a consensus, and so far I've been very disappointed with your response. I do urge you to bring that imagination, which you are famous for, to this particular, particularly acute problem.

First of all, can I thank David Melding for not only giving me a minute in this debate, but for actually raising this very important issue? I would like to raise two very quick points. Firstly, is there any reason why transaction capital cannot be used for funding the necessary work, with a claim made against the value of the property on sale? This is money going to the private sector that I believe meets the rules for the use of transaction capital. If that's not possible, can the Minister explain why it does not meet the rules? I won't go through all the rest of the rules, but if it doesn't meet them, can the Minister explain why it doesn't meet them, because it would be a good use of transaction capital and it's going into the private sector?

The second is: this wouldn't happen in most of the rest of the world because they have co-operative ownership of flats. Now, I'm highly enthusiastic about co-operative ownership as opposed to leasehold, which I think is a feudal system that we should do away with at the first possible opportunity. This co-operative ownership and co-operative payments don't just work in what we might think of as socialist, left-wing parts of the world; it works in places like New York, it works in Vancouver, it works in Scandinavia. Really, we need, one, to find the money, but secondly to change the system.

Thank you, David Melding, for raising this important issue. You make a very cogent argument for the justice of doing something to help these people who did all the right things in terms of the conveyancing operations before they bought the lease on their flat, and it's indisputable that there has been a failure of policy makers, as well as a failure of building regulations. I was particularly shocked to read that, in the House of Commons on Monday last week, they defeated a proposal to force Government to implement the results of the recommendations of the first part of the Grenfell inquiry. How shocking is that, given the costs of setting up that inquiry, to then not implement its recommendations? It's really quite shocking.

So, I do hope that we will hear from the Minister that we will be able to set up a fund, which may be an interim fund whereby, in due course, we can get the money back from these errant builders and errant regulators, because there's no doubt that somebody must pay, but it shouldn't be the poor leaseholders who are trapped in their flat and need to be able to get out of this situation.

Thank you. Could I call on the Minister for Housing and Local Government to reply to the debate? Julie James.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I'm unfortunately placed with my back to the person I'm responding to, which I always find a bit difficult, so apologies, David.

I'm very pleased that David has provided us with an opportunity to have this debate, this discussion, and me with the opportunity to update everyone on the Welsh Government's plans for building safety in Wales. As David rightly said, phase 2 of the Grenfell inquiry is resuming now, and we are all reminded of the importance of ensuring residents remain safe and secure in their homes as a result of the appalling tragedy that we're all too well aware of. I'm also well aware of the difficulties faced by residents and leaseholders due to the ongoing building safety issues at a number of high-rise buildings in Wales, and indeed I have an enormous amount of sympathy for the plight that they find themselves in, and I agree entirely with David that it's largely through no fault of their own. These things are opaque and difficult to understand even if you're an experienced conveyancing lawyer, so it's not surprising that people have found themselves in a very difficult position.

It is still worth making the point—I know that I've made it repeatedly—that obviously the building owners and developers are the people who have the actual responsibility for this having happened, and they ought to put their faults right at their own cost. I accept that they aren't, and that they don't care about the professional reputation in the way that we feel they ought, but of course it's worth saying that they ought to feel that way, and I do think that's worth reiterating.

I'm also pleased to see that the Competition and Markets Authority has now taken an interest in the sale of leaseholds inappropriately, and has started to take action against some of the worst offenders for having sold leasehold properties. I do think the two things are interlinked, although it is of course more appropriate to have a leasehold as long as leasehold exists—and I'll address Mike's point in a minute—in a high-rise than it is in a house. Nevertheless, the way the leasehold is sold and the way that the freehold is managed afterwards is an important point of that, and I'm not sure that everyone who buys leaseholds in high-rise buildings entirely understands the management structure that they're buying into, and there have been a number of problems as a result of that.

So, it's a difficult, but sadly unavoidable, reality that our role as Welsh Government is limited with regard to what we can do about forcing the people who are responsible for having produced these buildings to step up to the plate. It's also true that the UK Government has announced funding for the removal of unsafe cladding from residential buildings taller than 18m—actually, it's all unsafe cladding, not just ACM. There was an earlier ACM fund, as you rightly pointed out, David. It's also true that we got consequential funding for some of that that we have not yet targeted at that.

I also want to say at this point that, at the point in time that we received that consequential funding, we were right in the middle of the COVID pandemic, and so all consequential funding was pushed towards that immediately. But I am committed to exploring ways forward, including the scope for innovative financial support to help fund remediation in some way that allows leaseholders to at least sleep safe in their beds, even if it affects their equity.

The difficulty, Mike, with financial transaction capital and the suggestion that you made—there is probably a way that we can do that, I'm pretty sure, but only by affecting the equity of the leaseholder, and that's one of the difficulties in trying to find a scheme that takes it forward that means that the leaseholder ends up with something at the end of it. So, we can do works in default, councils can do works in default, they can do all sorts of things, they can land charge the properties of the people living there, but those people end up with no equity. That solves the immediate fire-safety problem, which is worth doing, but it doesn't solve the problem that they've often invested all of their savings and some substantial effort and they end up with nothing. So, that doesn't seem to me to be a decent way forward. So, we need to look at something that allows them also to pursue claims against insurers and building companies and our intervention doesn't intervene in that. So, I'm very interested to see, and the officials will be following closely, what happens with the UK fund, just to make sure that we don't get into those difficulties. And I haven't been absolutely satisfied that that is going to happen, actually. 

So, it's important to understand that we're trying to do three things at once: we're trying to get the building to be fire safe, which is one thing; we're trying to sort out the difficulties of the leasehold itself and the way that the management company runs it, that's the other thing; and the third thing is we are trying to preserve some equity for the people who are in this situation through no fault of their own. That third thing is actually the most difficult of the things, though. I could fund the local authorities to do the works in default, but they would land charge the buildings and that would be the end of the equity. So, it's quite a difficult thing, and that works for the FTC as well. So, we've looked at quite a lot of these things. 

At this point, I'd just like to offer the thing I always say: I don't have all the ideas here. I'm very happy to work in conjunction with any other Member in the Chamber who's got any idea at all of what we could do. We're carefully watching the UK fund. They haven't spent very much of it yet, so it'll be interesting to see what happens. I fear that it's going to take the equity away from the leaseholders, that's the truth. So, we'll see, but I have a lot of sympathy for the people. So, we are very much looking at it. We haven't stepped over it yet because I haven't got a solution that I personally think does the thing that people want. 

The other thing to say is that we need to change the system that produced this system. As David said, shamefully, Governments of all colours have failed to step up to this plate, so now we need to do that. We need a new regime to focus on areas we know need to improve, to establish clear lines of accountability, to create new roles and responsibilities for those that own and manage the relevant buildings, meaning there can be no doubt in the future where the buck stops. I also want to say at this point that although we're looking at the building safety regime from the point of view of who enforces it—so, the whole role of the building inspector and so on, which, Deputy Presiding Officer, I just don't have time to go into now; it's an hour's conversation, and we've had some presentations in the Senedd already on that—there is a big issue as well about making sure that people don't buy housing off single-purpose-vehicle companies. David, you said in your presentation that people bought them off trusted builders, people they knew, but actually they were often off single-purpose vehicles that bore the name of a big company but were shielded away from them by a legal mechanism. So, actually, going against the holding company for action has been problematic. So, we need a regime that prevents that from happening as well, so you don't form 'Melding and James building company inc.' just to build one building, and then collapse a single purpose vehicle and leave.

So, there are other issues at play here that are really complex. And your heart goes out to the leaseholders trying to navigate their way through who exactly it is that they're trying to sue, who exactly it is that holds the responsibility. In addition, many of those companies have either gone out of business, or they've gone bankrupt, or they've gone into administration, and there's a chain of passing on of the responsibility. It's one of the most complex things I've seen in quite a long legal career, so—you know, I've a lot of sympathy for it, but we do need to navigate our way through quite complex straits in trying to sort out what happens. 

The fire regime we've talked about a lot of times. We need to drive up the standards, improve industry competence, empower residents with enhanced rights and a stronger voice so that, as soon as they notice the defects, they have a way to bring that forward and that feeds into the system correctly. It's tempting to say: 'Look, just do it: just bring it forward, just sort it out', but, actually, we absolutely have to make sure that it's a stronger, more coherent regulatory system, with enforcement bodies able to take serious action knowing that that will happen.

It's about a cultural change as well. So, we all, I think, now accept that we need to move away from a culture that prioritises getting the building up at the cheapest possible cost, to getting the building up in a way that ensures the safety and quality of the way of life that people have in those buildings. So, I think that's a real big cultural shift. The changes—we cannot bring them forward overnight; this is not a superficial quick fix, as I've said many times, but a wholesale reform that brings about meaningful change and reassures residents that their homes are safe.

Because of COVID-19, I'm sorry to say that we now have lost our legislative programme, the beginnings of the legislative programme, for building safety that we would have had and that I introduced in the Senedd approximately a year ago now, I think, in response to a debate that David brought forward at that time. So, instead, we'll be putting a White Paper out. I think that White Paper will have cross-party support across the piece, and I would very much like to see it the manifestos of all the parties here in the Senedd so we knew it would be taken forward by whoever forms the Government next time. And we will certainly, Deputy Presiding Officer, be working to ensure that that happens. Diolch. 

Thank you very much, and that brings today's proceedings to a close. Thank you.